Wed, 13 Feb 2008 Smt Pratibha Patil, Hon'ble President of India, New Delhi
Respected Madam, I wish to bring to your kind attention reportedly the second case that revolves around an individual. Earlier one was aimed at punishing an individual. The proposed one appears to be aimed at protecting an individual with doubtful integrity. These measures cannot be said to be in larger public interest. Further, the proposed one has the potential to weaken the autonomy of the Election Commission of India. Such measures would not either strengthen the democracy of India. I, therefore, once again urge and appeal Hon'ble President of India not to approve such an amendment. Hon'ble President of India may like to consider the request. With warm regards, -- Babubhai Vaghela 202, Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014 M - 94276 08632 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=surya%2Fsurya50.txt&writer=surya Law Minister HR Bhardwaj's assertion that the Government will amend the Constitution to protect Mr Navin Chawla, the Election Commissioner whose democratic credentials and impartiality are in serious doubt, is indicative of the extent to which the Congress will go to wreck the independent character of a constitutional body like the Election Commission. Article 324(5) of the Constitution empowers the Chief Election Commissioner to recommend the removal of an Election Commissioner who, in his view, is unfit for that office. The Congress wants to quickly push through an amendment to strip the CEC of this power lest he exercise it in the public interest, especially since Mr Chawla's report card during the dreaded Emergency is now in the public domain. Ever since the imposition of Emergency by Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1975, resulting in 19 months of tyranny, there has always been a question mark on the Congress's commitment to democracy. During Emergency, the party bared its fangs when it used its brute majority in Parliament to make horrendous changes in the Constitution -- the kind of changes that are introduced only by fascist dictators. Since the party now wants to amend the Constitution for the sake of an individual, every democrat must remain on full alert because the Congress has destroyed the core of our Constitution in the past and has done so just to put an individual above the Constitution and the law. A quick recap would be in order in the larger interests of democracy. The vandalising of our Constitution began with the 38th Amendment, which barred judicial review of the Emergency proclamation and the Ordinances promulgated by the President or Governors. Then came the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, the sole purpose of which was to pre-empt the Supreme Court, which was hearing Mrs Gandhi's election case. It prohibited the court from hearing election petitions against the Prime Minister and placed all laws pertaining to elections in the Ninth Schedule (to bar judicial review). But these amendments were just for starters. In the days and months that followed, Parliament was consumed by just one activity -- making laws to save Mrs Gandhi, who had been found guilty of corrupt electoral practice by the Allahabad High Court. The 40th Amendment placed an anti-media law also in the Ninth Schedule to bar judicial review. The Constitution (41st Amendment) Bill sought to amend Article 361 to say that no criminal or civil proceedings "whatsoever" could lie in court against a person who is or has been the Prime Minister. This Bill was based on the premise that the Prime Minister was above the Constitution and the law. Then came the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, which, among other things, clipped the wings of the judiciary and robbed Parliament of its authority and sanctity. It declared that henceforth any amendment to the Constitution cannot be questioned "in any court on any ground" and that amendments to the Fundamental Rights Chapter were beyond judicial review. It said that courts could not disqualify MPs who were found guilty of corrupt electoral practices. As if all this were not enough, the 42nd Amendment abolished the need for quorum in Parliament and State legislatures. Once this was done away with, it became technically possible for a single MP to frame laws for the entire country! Finally, the most shocking and reprehensible provision in the 42nd Amendment was the power it vested in the President to amend the Constitution through an executive order. It said if there were any difficulties in giving effect to the Constitution as amended, the President might, by order, for up to two years, "adapt or modify the provision to remove the difficulty". Through this provision, Parliament had voluntarily passed on its exclusive power to amend the Constitution to the executive. Working under the shadow of a dictatorship, Parliament adopted break-neck speed to amend the Constitution, especially when the amendment was meant to bail out the Prime Minister from the election malpractices case. The 39th Amendment will go down in history as the fastest constitutional amendment. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1975, and passed that very day after a two hour "debate". It was passed in the Rajya Sabha the next day. On August 9, a Saturday, all State legislatures were summoned to ratify this amendment and on August 10, 1975, it received the President's assent. The reason for this over-speeding was the Congress's desire to pre-empt the Supreme Court, which was to begin hearing Mrs Gandhi's appeal against the Allahabad High Court judgement on August 11, 1975. Taken together, these amendments robbed the Constitution of its soul and turned India into a dictatorship. Mr Chawla was one of the villains in this black chapter in our democratic history. Any one who reads the report of the Shah Commission that probed excesses during Emergency will wonder how a person like him could have remained in service in a democratic nation after what he did during that period of dictatorship. Referring to his conduct, the commission said, "Tyrants sprouted at all levels overnight -- tyrants whose claim to authority was largely based on their proximity to power." Based on the evidence that came before it, the commission noted that it was clear that Mr Chawla had, along with two other officials, exercised enormous powers during Emergency because they had easy access to the then Prime Minister's house. These officials used their powers "without considering whether the exercise was moral or immoral, legal or illegal". It said that their approach was authoritarian and callous. "They grossly misused their position and abused their powers in cynical disregard of the welfare of citizens and in the process rendered themselves unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others," the commission noted. Such an individual, who is "unfit for any public office", has been appointed by the Congress as an Election Commissioner. Now, this party even wants to amend the Constitution to protect his job! We need to remember that among all political parties in India, the Congress is the only one which has used its parliamentary majority to mutilate the Constitution and implement a fascist agenda in the past. We must, therefore, draw the attention of the Chief Election Commissioner to these facts and appeal to him to pre-empt Mr Bhardwaj and take a decision that will protect the independence of the Election Commission and our democratic system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/President_signs_controversial_AIIMS_Bill/articleshow/2585494.cms President signs controversial AIIMS Bill 30 Nov 2007, 1730 hrs IST ,PTI Print Save EMail Write to Editor NEW DELHI: The controversial Bill fixing the age limit of 65 years for the AIIMS Director, seen as a move to ease out incumbent P Venugopal, on Friday received Presidential assent. President Pratibha Patil signed the AIIMS (Amendment) Bill, 2007, two days after Parliament passed the measure amidst stiff opposition from BJP and AIADMK. The Bill was opposed by these parties on the ground that the government was targeting the 66-year-old eminent cardiac surgeon, who has a running battle with Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss. Earlier, the Supreme Court agreed to take up for hearing on Monday the petition of AIIMS chief P Venugopal challenging Parliament's decision to fix 65 years as the superannuation age for the post of institute's director. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishna agreed to hear the matter on an urgent basis after senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi mentioned it. Venugopal has alleged that the recent Act passed by Parliament with retrospective effect was aimed deliberately to remove him from service. Seeking quashing of the Act, the director has alleged that the Act was unconstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory. On Thursday, controversy raged over passage of the AIIMS Bill with the BJP boycotting Rajya Sabha in protest against, what it called, bulldozing of the legislation by the government and taking up the issue with the Chairman. The party shot off a protest letter to Chairman Hamid Ansari, saying the Government's "unprecedented" step to bring the AIIMS Bill, which was not included in the original list of business on Wednesday, was in "utter distortion of all the norms, rules and conventions." The main Opposition party said the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) had in its meetings on November 15 and 22 not allotted any time for the bill and instead authorised the Chairman to resolve the matter in consultation with Lok Sabha Speaker.
