Comments on Powers of President to impose President Rule

Displaying 1 - 10 of 19 in 2 pages

dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 January 2017  

Oral evidence is a basic thing per sec 3 r/w 59 r/w 65 of evidence Act - so the police could take the FIR or suo motu instead of some victim complaining in mass molestation cases in bangalore on the new year eve. when police saying if FIR is made by victims is a ludicrous act of bangalore police. Police obviously failed in its duties to citizens but it seems they are just subservient servants of the government or the so called home minister - that itself can be termed as constitutional failure.



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 January 2017  

Public roads means 'safety and security is assured to citizens, no miscreants can in any forms like 'moral brigade' can attack any one on public roads or any where is is absolute perception of 'Law and Order concept that way the citizens permit the functioning of home ministry it ought to be secular in handling public issues as such, if it fails it can be a constitutional breakdown is obvious, so I recommend to the Hon Karnataka High court need to interfere in the matter of this mass molestation - as local police really failed due to the home ministry directives, even though the police force is headed by IPS police officers they on their own 'disobeyed legally the local home ministry biased approaches, as there is obvious separation of powers is in place that way the home secretary or the cabinet secretary ought to have bypassed the ruling government, as such the government cannot say the home secy or the cabinet secretary acted illegally, that way Art 311 protects the services; so the legislature majority govt obviously failed, as it was elected by a manifesto of the party concerned - manifesto never stated 'it would order mass molestation if new year bash' if done, as such multicultural society has its own fundamental rights with equal obligation of fundamental duties under Art 51A of the PART IVA of the Constitution of india, is again my considered opinion. if any disagrees can counter by his opinion duly supported by Articles of the constitution of India which is the Mother Act for the people of the state. No point talking hindutva, or islamic philosophy and the like.



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 January 2017  

the Art 356(1) can be summoned by the very state governor either himself or at the advice of the state high court by its intervention 'suo motu' - taking cognizance, as the victims failed to file FIRs due to their own view the state promotes 'molestation' so FIRs may not be registered by the police of the state; or the victims may be afraid that their FIRs might revisit them with similar molestation as the State sponsored molestation by using miscreants in the forms molestation miscreants or monsters ,may be as amoral brigade of politicians in power. when we look into the reports, and the comments from ministers, besides the politicians of several parties say 'this could happen fir any of their so called 'reasons' means the there is clear politics against women who are celebrating 'the New Year bash' which is not any molestation scheme but a cultural integration in any multi cultural Society is bound to happen, that needs to be protected by any Secular Constitution, recently the hon SC made it clear India is a Secular country by its majority opinion obviously strengthens the view 'Secular country cannot have any religion based concepts as also caste based concepts' if any promotes that party people cannot obviously fight election, if they are elected the court can or the very Election commission 'veto' the election process; so elected members even if majority cannot form governments is clear. In the circumstance Art 356(1) the Governor might resort by recommending to the president to invoke 356(1) to cause a Governor's rule in Karnataka, as public roads are no longer safe for Women in the state of Karnataka , obviously because the government there is place is obviously not fit to hold 'Law and Order' in right balances, so the president even without the union government cabinet recommending to him , he can promulgate governor's rule if the state do not mend its ways, is very clear, is my considered opinion.



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 January 2017  

Agreed. For example, in Karnataka after S R Bommai verdict by 9 member bench, it is a settled law, that invoking 356(1) by the Governor of State, the president can suspend the legislature if not declaring dissolution of the legislature is an obvious route still available to the president, when say like 'New year eve mass molestation of women by molestation monsters in the state of karnataka proves positively the rule of law as assured by the Constitution of india has failed, due to the failure of the state home ministry in solving the issue, its dispensations by the state home minister obviously 'encouraged' this molestation menace. how it could be addressed?...



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

when we comment on an article we need in case of law based articles have to open ourselves for comments by any commentator in anyway, as every comment indeed has an angle to arrive at. Being one trained in the west, my attitude is open and open thinking process.



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

I am testing with the article with facts prevalent on the anvil of the constitution of india, that is all, i am just a neutral person as an advocate of some standing.



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

In Karnataka issue is not any way comparable to Arunachal Pradesh or Uttaranchal, but here river water crisis, it might cause some troubles to Karnataka when the matter if moved by AG today, in any direction, just because Karnataka citing its MLAs MLCs protagonists against releasing water to TN, while govt trying to play a little safe not realizing, if the L.Assembly n L.Council faces axe by Art 365 recommended by Governor and Union govt or the Court for failure of release of 6000 cusecs from Oct 1 - 6th (today 4th - not released 6000 cusecs since Oct 1 as on 4th, the day the union govt appeal against CMB creation (earlier agreed to form, but not formed by union, while TN and Pondicherry are ready with their members, while Karnataka nominated , being addament against the Bd formation) has created a peculiar situation ,not easy to be settled, while court can have a clear ire against Karnataka, as its previous counsel Nariman so far not consented to argue the issue on behalf of Karnataka (might Kapil sibal may as he had consented to argue - a state of flux - Nariman obviously not likely as he is straight lawyer in her perceptions and he will not bend for his client aganst the court as he always honestly professes as 'court officer first unlike so many others though they may in talking terms say as 'court officer' but in action they just behave as their own clients...in the circumstances, one needs to see the result today, where these governments stand at the Apex court, where TN will move for CMB. New picture emerges to be..



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

In Karnataka issue is not any way comparable to Arunachal Pradesh or Uttaranchal, but here river water crisis, it might cause some troubles to Karnataka when the matter if moved by AG today, in any direction, just because Karnataka citing its MLAs MLCs protagonists against releasing water to TN, while govt trying to play a little safe not realizing, if the L.Assembly n L.Council faces axe by Art 365 recommended by Governor and Union govt or the Court



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

Again see another similar situation in very Krnataka, a state of so many controversies pregnant, now it opposing CMB moved SC (to be heard today), actually moved by union govt represented by AG - in the meantime, TN -AIADMK MPs moving PM to withdraw the Case as they are OK with CMB idea and had nominated their member, so too Pondicherry state to be followed by Kerala, obviously a constitutional crisis is in the brink for Karnataka so also to the union government, for union is a federating authority, as units like Karnataka and TN looking East and West...



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 04 October 2016  

In fact Rule of law = Constitution of India, itself , is going beyond a mere 'division of functions' in modes of governance - see you saw what Karnata govt did in Cavery river dispute - it tried to involve Assembly and Council, lest it loses their confidence - if that were to happen , a constitutional breakdown might surface forcing the position to Art 356 invoked by Governor a third power that might move 4th power (President) and 5th power (union cabinet); ..


You need to be logged in to post comment






×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics