businessline’s Post

Relations between Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal and her Aam Aadmi Party have reached a very delicate point. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s PA Bibhav Kumar is accused of assaulting Maliwal. Bibhav Kumar has been arrested. After this whole matter, the atmosphere regarding Maliwal is very heated. Various types of questions are being raised in the media. BJP has come out in his favor. He is constantly attacking you on this pretext. In such Swati Maliwal Speculations are being made about the next step. Why has Maliwal’s relationship with AAP, who was elected to Rajya Sabha in January this year, suddenly deteriorated? Will she leave you and join any other party? Can Swati’s Rajya Sabha membership end now? In fact, there is a detailed discussion about elected public representatives in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of the country. According to this, a public representative can be disqualified only under two circumstances. First- If he voluntarily leaves his post or resigns. Second- He votes against the instructions of the party in the House or remains absent from voting. Then his membership can be lost. important lordThis means that if you Swati Maliwal Even if she is suspended from the party, she will remain the party’s MP in the Rajya Sabha and will have to continue following the party’s instructions in the House. But, if AAP dismisses her from the party, she will automatically become an independent MP in the House and she will not be bound to follow any instructions of AAP in the House. Regarding disqualification on the ground of defection, the 10th Schedule states that a member of the House will be disqualified if he resigns on his own or if he violates any direction issued by the party and goes beyond the party line. against in the house Voting If he does so or remains absent from voting… then his membership can be terminated. For this, the party needs to lodge a complaint against its member within 15 days. What is the alternative to going to another party?As of now it does not seem that you Swati Maliwal Will neither suspend nor dismiss. There is also a provision in this law that even if you dismiss her, Swati Maliwal cannot join any party as long as she is an MP. There is a clear provision in this law that if a member has been elected on behalf of any party, he will lose his membership if he joins any other party. A similar case was seen recently. CPI(M)’s Rajya Sabha member Ritabrata Banerjee was recently expelled from the party but is still an independent member. Tags: Loksabha Election 2024, Loksabha Elections FIRST PUBLISHED: <!-- -->May 19, 2024, 12:43 IST

📜The Seventeenth Amendment 📜 Changes the election of U.S. Senators to direct popular vote by the people of each state, instead of being chosen by state legislatures. It also provides a process for filling Senate vacancies, allowing state governors to make temporary appointments until an election is held. 🔗 Learn More: https://lnkd.in/erCVmMKe #law #legal #legalnews #legalresources #attorney #lawyer

Whatever the outcome of the case, the fact that Raesah Khan’s seat has been left vacant for nearly three years, and possibly four by the time the election is finally called, illustrates how, far from ensuring minority representation, the GRC system actually does the opposite. After Halimah Yaacob resigned in 2017 to become the selected President, her seat in the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC was left vacant until the 2020 GE. Currently the seats of Raesah Khan, Tharman, Leon Perera and Iswaran remain vacant till the next election because they are in GRCs. How then can the GRC system be about ensuring minority representation when so many minority seats in GRCs remain unfilled? Why should the minority constituents in that GRC be treated as second class and denied representation for potentially up to five years? How can that be called by any stretch of the imagination democratic? The GRC system illustrates the PAP’s utter contempt for Singaporeans and is a prime example of the way, aided by an Elections Department that is under the control of the PM, it has perverted the electoral system to entrench themselves in power. It’s time to end it now and return to the system of only having Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). The second best solution would be to carve out the seat of any member who resigns or dies from the GRC so that a by-election can be held. Neither is likely to happen as long as the PAP remain in power.

The latest order in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) reflects critical procedural and substantive issues, raising valid concerns about fairness and constitutional adherence. The bedrock of justice, audi alteram partem—the right to be heard—was not respected in this case. Neither of the parties was given the opportunity to present their arguments before the order was passed. Issuing a decision without hearing even one party fundamentally undermines the principles of due process and natural justice. This breach is particularly alarming, given the significant constitutional questions involved. The case’s absence from the cause list on the day the order was issued further deepens concerns. The cause list ensures transparency and allows parties to be aware of and prepare for their hearings. The omission deprived the parties of this opportunity, leading to an order issued without due consideration of arguments, compromising the fairness of the process. Moreover, there remains uncertainty regarding the presence of all eight judges when the order was passed. In constitutional matters of this importance, it is essential that the full bench be present to ensure a collective judicial mind. Any ambiguity in this regard calls into question the procedural integrity of the decision. In this case, the Supreme Court was exercising its appellate jurisdiction, not acting as a trial court. Its role is to review decisions, not to authenticate documents independently of the parties’ arguments. By accepting documents without allowing the other party to challenge them, the court overstepped its appellate function. The credibility of evidence can only be determined through the adversarial process, where both sides test the documents' validity. To do so unilaterally compromises the fairness of the judicial process. Additionally, attaching a presumption of truth to documents submitted by one party, without the other party being heard, is a dangerous precedent. No law allows such a presumption without scrutiny and argument. Judicial credibility demands that evidence be challenged and tested by both sides before acceptance, and the failure to do so risks unjust outcomes.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court accepted the Election Commission’s petition to dissolve the country’s largest opposition party, the Move Forward Party (MFP), citing its anti-establishment stance advocating for institutional reform. Despite winning the election last May and promising to reform business monopolies and Thailand’s royal defamation laws, the MFP has faced prosecution, including being barred from forming a government. The Election Commission’s request for the party’s dissolution follows a January court ruling declaring the MFP’s attempt to change the royal defamation law illegal. If the court rules against the MFP this time, it will lead to the party’s dissolution and political bans for its leadership. HRF strongly denounces the use of judicial processes to block political parties advocating for reform and urges Thai authorities to uphold political freedoms and freedom of expression. https://buff.ly/4cJbEc8

Most of the people are rendering their analysis that SC’s decision of nullifying its earlier verdict on 63-A is jurisprudentially correct but its timing makes its flawed. Though malafide intent behind yesterday’s order is manifested in the fact that SC decided this appeal at a time when govt needs votes to pass a proposed unconstitutional constitutional amendment but reversing earlier decision on 63-A is jurisprudencially flawed as well in my opnion. According to legal experts, SC’s 2022 decision is akin to rewriting constitution to which I disagree. 2022’s judgement of not counting defectors’ vote was not to rewrite the constitution but to fulfill the actual constitutional objectives in the insertion of 63-A. The guarantee provided in 63-A against horse trading or floor crossing is redundant if the vote of defective elements is counted against their party policy because that vote actually fulfills all purposes which were apparently blocked by the 63-A. Defectors of a party are of no use for an opposing party ( either government or opposition) if their vote is not counted against party guideline. In an already fragile parliamentary political structure, decision by recent bench is likely to further weaken the parliamentary system by making possible for any government in future to pass any legislation regardless of having no clear mandate or majority in parliament and by making possible for any opposition in future to oust very easily any elected government through horse trading with the help of agencies. Finally, yesterday’s judgement could overturn or change the dynamics of Public Will in parliament manifested through general elections. Opinion of M. U. AADIL on the latest SC decision w.r.t Article 63-A of Constitution

#Publicpolicy attorney Robert Highsmith spoke to Law360 about the top court cases to watch in #Georgia this year. He commented on a case before the Eleventh Circuit that could have significant implications for citizens' ability to use referendums to challenge #government policy. Read his insights to learn more.

With President Biden off the ballot, we’re resharing the article that Steve Roberts and Nicole Kelly wrote on the legal process to replace him under #DNC delegate rules and state ballot access laws. Our team was the first to share the legal ways the #Democrats could oust and swap out their nominee. #Election2024 #PoliticalLaw #ElectionLaw https://lnkd.in/eiYe3mzU

The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions Of Service And Term Of Office) Bill, 2023 was passed on 21 December in the Lok Sabha. This bill aims to establish a new mechanism for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other officials and will replace the Election Commission Act, 1991, after the latter was called a “half-baked attempt” by Law Minister Arjun Meghwal. Earlier in December, it was approved by the Rajya Sabha, even as the opposition staged a walkout. According to this Bill, a Search Committee headed by the Minister of Law and Justice shall prepare a panel of five persons for consideration of the Selection Committee, which will be constituted of 3 members: - The Prime Minister—Chairperson - ⁠The leader of the Opposition in the House of the People—Member - ⁠A Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister—Member The President shall appoint the CEC and the other ECs on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. How was this process conducted before the passing of this bill? In March 2023, the SC, through a 5-judge Constitution Bench, ruled that the CEC and ECs would be appointed by the President of India on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the head of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India until any laws enacted by the Parliament. This was the result of a PIL filed in 2015 by Anoop Baranwal, challenging the appointment process. The passing of this bill was not without controversy, as 97 Opposition members were suspended and absent during the vote. They were suspended for disrupting Parliamentary proceedings while protesting the Parliament security breach which took place on Dec 13. The Opposition claims that the amended bill would lead to the appointment of a ‘Yes Man’ as CEC and would give the government a monopoly in selecting candidates, as two of the three members of the Selection Committee are part of the Union Government. Another important amendment is that the bill includes a clause making the CEC and ECs immune from any legal proceedings for their actions and words spoken in the discharge of official duty. What do you think of this new bill? Do you think it will lead to better appointments or give the government too much power? Comment below and let us know your thoughts. ~By Anushka Sarkar #legal #amendment #law #lawyer #advocate #lawstudent #frontiers #electioncommission #election

https://lnkd.in/gj65Qsuk Explore the recent Supreme Court ruling and its implications on the upcoming elections in our latest blog post '9 - 0! The Constitution WINS!' Dive into the significance of this decision for the rule of law and democratic principles. #SupremeCourt #USConstitution #RuleOfLaw #Election2024