An outgoing government’s mandate expires on the day when the House of the People completes five years from the first day of its first sitting. Article 83 makes it clear that the expiration of the five-year period will operate as a dissolution of the House. Once the House is dissolved, there shall be no responsible government in office. Therefore such a government cannot present the estimate of receipts and expenditure for ‘that year’.
Roughly ten weeks before the crucial Lok Sabha poll begins, the Prime Minister, through his interim budget has stolen some of the thunder posed by the Congress president through his declaration of a minimum income support programme for the rural and urban poor if the Congress is elected to power.
The leaked NSSO report has shown that the unemployment rate is now at its highest level since 1972-73, and that in 2017-18, the joblessness rate among youth was at a significantly higher level compared to the previous years, and much higher compared to that in the overall population. It has exploded the myth of high job generation being claimed by the Centre and the leading members of the BJP in the recent days to mislead the people on the eve of the coming Lok Sabha elections.
“We have no other economic demands on the table. The 4 lakh workers from 42 state-owned ordnance factories, DRDO units, all the Military Engineering Service (MES) centres and Army Station Workshops are challenging the government at the policy level. Put an end to privatising defence production. In a sense, the strike is historic. This is for the first time that all the civilian employees under the Department of Defence have come together for a strike action. Earlier workers of only some ordnance production units used to come together.”
The challenge in these petitions is mainly based on the ground that economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservations under the Constitution. To buttress this argument, petitioners have relied upon the Constitution bench judgment in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. In addition, petitioners have asserted that 50 percent ceiling limit for reservation which has been laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India & Ors., cannot be violated as the same has been culminated as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution i.e. equality, in the present case.
And the leftward shift in Europe is no electoral capriciousness or mere fickle-minded mood swing of the electorate. Rather, they are firmly rooted in the material conditions of austerity, not only in Europe but even to some extent in America. Ten years of austerity as a result of the Eurozone crisis has left the population reeling. Japan has been sinking under the weight of austerity for more than a decade.
The purchase of the 36 aircraft was a unilateral decision of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and that the decision was taken without even consulting with the then Defence Minister of the country — Manohar Parrikar. That exactly is the violation. Did the Court forget to ask the Government to submit the process followed for the procurement of 36 aircraft? If so, on what confidence and based on what evidence did the Court stat in Para 22 that “Broadly, the processes have been followed”?
Unlike what the Central Government hopes to secure with its application, the Rafale judgment now stands vitiated by reason of what is said in para 25; it is one of the critical pillars supporting the judgment. Therefore, the outcome of the judgment can no longer be the same should para 25 lose those critical conclusions of “facts” that never took place. Hence, the Court will have to summarily remove its own judgment and rehear the issue.
The way the Supreme Court bench endorsed the decision making process involving the Prime Minister is astonishing. This is the only area gone into by the three judges and the judgment clearly shows that they have ignored some of the major stages of the process involving serious violations on the part of the Indian Government. The apex Court has failed to perform its supreme duty as the custodian of the nation.
This is a joint statement by Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan in response to the Supreme Court's December 14, 2018 verdict on the Rafale deal. All three were petitioners, along with a few others, in a batch of public interest litigation demanding a probe by a joint parliamentary committee into the Rafale deal, wherein 36 Rafale fighter jets were bought instead of 126 aircrafts as per the earlier deal, a decision taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself, much like his choice of offset partner in Anil Ambani's brand new defence company.
Urjit Patel’s term as the head of the Reserve Bank of India would surely be reckoned as one of the most tumultuous time. Demonetisation was thrust upon him almost immediately after he took over the reins, while, some of the worst board members of the Reserve Bank were foisted upon to breathe down his neck. Without them around, the governor might not have left peremptorily.