[The BJP has, yet again, opted to show its middle finger to any, whatever, notion of decency in public life by nominating an undertrial "terror" accused for a parliamentary seat, that too of Bhopal - the capital of the second largest state at the very heart of the country.
Making her attend the court hearings, going on a day-to-day basis and which she's till now skipping on no longer tenable health grounds, is the most doable part. In such an event, her campaign would be largely crippled. Both physically and, also, politically. <<In his application, Bilal points out that Pragya was granted conditional bail on medical grounds by the Bombay High Court in 2017. One of the conditions imposed was that Pragya would have to be present for hearings of the case. However, he claims that she has not been attending court hearings on the pretext of ill health. “…was enlarged on Conditional bail and she is not attending hearing of this court on the pretext that she is unwell and she is “Breast Cancer Patient” but on the contrary she has been seen participating in various programs and giving objectionable & instigating speeches since her release from Jail.” ... ... On these grounds, the intervener has sought a direction (from the NIA court) to ... her (Pragya Singh Thakur) to attend the court hearings which are being conducted on a day-to-day basis.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. I below.) <<The BJP’s fielding of Pragya Singh Thakur, Malegaon blasts case accused out on bail, as a Lok Sabha candidate, is contrary to a Constitution Bench recommendation to Parliament to bring a “strong law” banning political parties from nominating candidates against whom “heinous and grievous” charges have been framed. A Special NIA Court framed charges against Pragya and six others under Sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA, and under the IPC for murder, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between communities in October last year.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. II below.)] I/II. https://barandbench.com/application-filed-to-restrain-sadhvi-pragya-from-contesting-lok-sabha-elections-court-asks-for-nia-reply/?fbclid=IwAR0-UKZ1QNWGlRFw-r7XhKJc0f8gaOOF0PAdReUSYKn78fgtQnLtahNtp-A Application filed to restrain Sadhvi Pragya from contesting Lok Sabha elections, Court asks for NIA reply Aditya AK April 18 2019 In a significant development, the NIA Court at Mumbai has sought the reply of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in an application filed to restrain Sadhvi Pragya from contesting the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal, the father of one of the victims of the 2008 Malegaon blasts, has filed an application in the NIA Court, where the case against Sadhvi Pragya and other accused is being heard. Sadhvi Pragya was recently given a ticket by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to contest the Lok Sabha elections from the Bhopal constituency. In his application, Bilal points out that Pragya was granted conditional bail on medical grounds by the Bombay High Court in 2017. One of the conditions imposed was that Pragya would have to be present for hearings of the case. However, he claims that she has not been attending court hearings on the pretext of ill health. “…was enlarged on Conditional bail and she is not attending hearing of this court on the pretext that she is unwell and she is “Breast Cancer Patient” but on the contrary she has been seen participating in various programs and giving objectionable & instigating speeches since her release from Jail.” Read Also: Malegaon Blast: Sadhvi Pragya’s bail challenged in the Supreme Court It is further stated, “That intervener would further submits that, A-1 got bail on health ground but clearly healthy enough to fight elections in the crippling summer heat which means she has misguided the Hon’ble Court.” Moreover, it is stated that though the NIA gave a clean chit to Pragya, the Court has not exonerated her in the matter; it had framed charges against her in October 2018. The application further points out that an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s grant of bail to Pragya. The same was filed by Bilal himself, and is still pending in the Apex Court. On these grounds, the intervener has sought a direction to restrain Sadhvi Pragya from contesting the Lok Sabha elections, and to direct her to attend the court hearings which are being conducted on a day-to-day basis. Sadhvi Pragya is one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts that claimed the lives of ten people and injured over 80 others II. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fielding-pragya-contrary-to-sc-view/article26879937.ece?fbclid=IwAR3y_fqJn_IQsGBvCzvxyRn-UGy_eRoqsUasdOmAxk0xgYtuk_fTmvIyvtU Fielding Pragya contrary to Supreme Court view Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI APRIL 18, 2019 23:38 IST UPDATED: APRIL 18, 2019 23:39 IST Pragya Singh Thakur Court had opposed parties naming candidates charged with heinous crimes The BJP’s fielding of Pragya Singh Thakur, Malegaon blasts case accused out on bail, as a Lok Sabha candidate, is contrary to a Constitution Bench recommendation to Parliament to bring a “strong law” banning political parties from nominating candidates against whom “heinous and grievous” charges have been framed. A Special NIA Court framed charges against Pragya and six others under Sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA, and under the IPC for murder, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between communities in October last year. The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra in its judgment in the Public Interest Foundation case on September 25, 2018 said decriminalisation of Indian politics starts with political parties. “In a multi-party democracy, where members are elected on party lines and are subject to party discipline, we recommend to Parliament to bring out a strong law whereby it is mandatory for the political parties to revoke membership of persons against whom charges are framed in heinous and grievous offences and not to set up such persons in elections, both for the Parliament and the State Assemblies,” the 100-page judgment observed. Such a law, the Supreme Court said, would go a long way in achieving decriminalisation of politics and usher in an era of “immaculate, spotless, unsullied and virtuous constitutional democracy.” If democracy is to survive, the court warned, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as the people’s representatives for the proper governance of the country. “The best available people, as is expected by the democratic system, should not have criminal antecedents...” the Supreme Court weighed in. Citizens in a democracy cannot be compelled to stand as silent, deaf and mute spectators to corruption by projecting themselves as helpless. “The voters cannot be allowed to resign to their fate,” the judgment observed. Rapid criminalisation of politics cannot be arrested by merely disqualifying tainted legislators but should begin by “cleansing” political parties. “The nation eagerly awaits for such a legislation,” the Supreme Court said seven months before the BJP has set up Pragya to contest. The Chief Justice (retired) Misra, who authored the judgment, said criminals in power are nothing but a liability to this country. Their presence in power strikes at the roots of democracy. The judgment refers to the 244th report of the Law Commission of India which said that in the 10 years since 2004, 18% of the candidates contesting either National or State elections have criminal cases pending against them (11,063 out of 62,847). It said criminal backgrounds were not limited to contesting candidates, but are found among winners as well, for, of the 5,253 candidates with serious criminal charges against them, 1,187 went on to winning the elections they contested. The Bench had said that its hands are tied as it cannot legislate for the Parliament by introducing a ban on the candidates facing trial for heinous crimes from contesting elections. That was squarely the turf of the legislators and not the judges. However, the court went on to issue a slew of directions, including that candidates should divulge their criminal past to the Election Commission in “block letters”. Candidates should first make a full disclosure of the criminal cases pending against them to the political parties under whose banner they intend to contest the polls. The parties, in turn, should put up the complete details of their candidates on their websites for public consumption, the Supreme Court had ordered. With this judgment, the Supreme Court meant to take the process of breaking crime-politics nexus beyond the purity of legislators to encompass purity of political parties as well. The petitioners, Public Interest Foundation and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, had argued that lawbreakers have become lawmakers. Parliament and State legislatures cannot be a paradise for criminals. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
