"If you don't like a statement by a Minister will you file a plea and ask him to be removed?": Supreme Court Dismissed Plea Against Union Minister General VK Singh

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Union Minister VK Singh over alleged anti-army statements he made on February 7 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The statements referenced the border stand-off with China along the LAC.

While speaking to the media on February 7, a news publication quoted Mr. VK Singh as saying, "None of you come to know how many times we have transgressed as per our perception. We don’t announce it. Chinese media does not cover it… Let me assure you, if China has transgressed 10 times, we must have done it at least 50 times, as per our perception". In response, China declared that "India's transgressions" were to blame for tensions at the Line of Actual Control which is the de facto border between the two countries.

In addition to violating his ministerial oath by Mr. VK Singh, petitioner Chandrasekaran Ramaswamy claimed that his comment offered China justification for its transgressions. His statement stated that ordinary citizens are not spared for comments of such nature, which makes it unjust to accord special treatment to the former Indian Army chief.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. In the court's view, it is up to the Prime Minister to remove a minister, and asked the petitioner to focus on helping the country instead of filing such petitions.

It is noteworthy that according to the Ministry of State Road Transport and Highways, the statement of Mr. VK Singh was distorted. There are still differences in perceptions about the borders along the LAC, according to Mr. VK Singh. China's refusal to settle the border dispute is a bullying tactic, he said, stating any aggression by the People's Liberation Army would be met with "an equal or greater response" similar to the Galwan clashe. His remarks had been distorted "maliciously," he said, giving China a platform to shift the blame for its aggression to India.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog