Imran Khan Is Hiding Behind the Constitution As Calls Asking For His Resignation Get Louder.

Gravitas: Imran Khan Adamant At Staying In Power

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-mediation-panel-submits-report-to-supreme-court-240004">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case</a> would require deliberation and institutional decision making.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case.

Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered.

Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The live streaming of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-mediation-failed-to-yield-results-daily-hearing-from-august-6-240161">the Ayodhya case</a> is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated.

"This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated.

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making. A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The live streaming of the Ayodhya case is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated. "This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated. The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya case: Live streaming of proceeding will require deliberation and institutional decision making, says Supreme Court

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-democratic-congresswoman-should-apologize-to-america-237518&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi2z5WmuMjjAhXN63MBHTx7BTE4ChAWMAN6BAgOEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw0hPftQsY_ekxSVDPZWQJZy">Donald Trump</a> for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve.

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be&nbsp;removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.

Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings.

The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed.

Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting."

Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed.

The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president.

About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April.

WATCH:&nbsp;Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back'

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/somalis-on-trump-telling-congresswomen-go-back-237454/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Here is how the impeachment process works.

Why impeachment? 
The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution.

They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings.

How does it work? 
Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members.

If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened.

Can the Supreme Court overturn? 
No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary.

Party breakdown in Congress? 
The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

Who becomes President if Trump is removed? 
In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed. In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve. No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller. On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings. The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed. Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting." Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed. The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president. About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April. WATCH: Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back' × Here is how the impeachment process works. Why impeachment? The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution. They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings. How does it work? Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members. If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened. Can the Supreme Court overturn? No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary. Party breakdown in Congress? The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. Who becomes President if Trump is removed? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

What it would take for US Congress to impeach Trump?

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-stakes-claim-to-form-the-government-swearing-in-likely-on-may-30-221611">Prime Minister Narendra Modi </a>bowed and respectfully touched the Constitution of India with his forehead, as he walked towards the podium after being elected as the leader of the NDA and BJP parliamentary party on Saturday.

Wearing a white kurta and churidar with a brown checkered half-jacket, Prime Minister Modi humbly greeted the newly elected MPs with folded hands in the Central Hall of the Parliament before walking towards the Constitution, which was placed atop a risen platform with a white cloth.

The gesture reminisced of his action in 2014.&nbsp;

As he stepped into the Parliament for the first time after storming the BJP into power, PM Modi bent down with his forehead touching the stairs, to register his high respect for the "temple of democracy."

In the summer of 2014, soon after arriving for the BJP parliamentary party at the main gate of the Parliament building, Modi was greeted with bouquets by his party leaders, following which he touched the ground of the entrance with folded hands.

Prime Minister Modi, who steered the NDA coalition to a massive victory in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, was on Saturday unanimously elected as the leader of the BJP parliamentary party and the NDA parliament party to head the government once again.

He was elected at a combined meeting of the newly elected MPs of BJP and the NDA coalition by 353 MPs, who raised their hands with slogans of Modi and `Bharat Mata Ki Jai` echoing in the Central Hall of Parliament. 
&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowed and respectfully touched the Constitution of India with his forehead, as he walked towards the podium after being elected as the leader of the NDA and BJP parliamentary party on Saturday.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi bowed and respectfully touched the Constitution of India with his forehead, as he walked towards the podium after being elected as the leader of the NDA and BJP parliamentary party on Saturday. Wearing a white kurta and churidar with a brown checkered half-jacket, Prime Minister Modi humbly greeted the newly elected MPs with folded hands in the Central Hall of the Parliament before walking towards the Constitution, which was placed atop a risen platform with a white cloth. The gesture reminisced of his action in 2014. As he stepped into the Parliament for the first time after storming the BJP into power, PM Modi bent down with his forehead touching the stairs, to register his high respect for the "temple of democracy." In the summer of 2014, soon after arriving for the BJP parliamentary party at the main gate of the Parliament building, Modi was greeted with bouquets by his party leaders, following which he touched the ground of the entrance with folded hands. Prime Minister Modi, who steered the NDA coalition to a massive victory in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, was on Saturday unanimously elected as the leader of the BJP parliamentary party and the NDA parliament party to head the government once again. He was elected at a combined meeting of the newly elected MPs of BJP and the NDA coalition by 353 MPs, who raised their hands with slogans of Modi and `Bharat Mata Ki Jai` echoing in the Central Hall of Parliament.

PM Modi bows down, this time before Constitution

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar - father of Indian Constitution: Celebrating his 128th birth anniversary

The Centre on Tuesday submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court to defend its decision to give 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for the economically weaker section (EWS) of the general category.

In the affidavit, the Centre said that the Constitution Amendment that gives 10% reservation has not violated the basic structure of the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling of 1992 which had put 50 per cent cap on the reservation.

The top court will hear on March 28 whether pleas challenging the Constitution Amendment giving 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education to the economically weak should be referred to a Constitution bench.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the petitioners, had told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Monday that the issue involves the basic structure of the Constitution and should be heard by the five-judge Constitution bench.

The bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, said it would hear arguments on March 28 whether the matter should be referred to a Constitution bench.

Earlier, the apex court had refused to stay the implementation of 10 per cent reservation given to the EWS in the general category in jobs and education.

The court was hearing pleas by NGOs and others.

One of the petitions, filed by Tehseen Poonawala, has challenged the 103rd Constitution amendment saying it was against the basic structure of Constitution, which does not allow for any reservation based on economic criteria.

The 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached, the plea said.

Youth for Equality has also sought the quashing of the Bill, stating that it violated the "equality code of the Constitution" as a reservation on economic grounds cannot be restricted to the general category.

By way of the present amendment, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those who are poor from the general category would avail the benefits of the quotas, the organisation has contended.&nbsp;

The Centre on Tuesday submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court to defend its decision to give 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for the economically weaker section (EWS) of the general category.

The Centre on Tuesday submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court to defend its decision to give 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for the economically weaker section (EWS) of the general category. In the affidavit, the Centre said that the Constitution Amendment that gives 10% reservation has not violated the basic structure of the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling of 1992 which had put 50 per cent cap on the reservation. The top court will hear on March 28 whether pleas challenging the Constitution Amendment giving 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education to the economically weak should be referred to a Constitution bench. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the petitioners, had told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Monday that the issue involves the basic structure of the Constitution and should be heard by the five-judge Constitution bench. The bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, said it would hear arguments on March 28 whether the matter should be referred to a Constitution bench. Earlier, the apex court had refused to stay the implementation of 10 per cent reservation given to the EWS in the general category in jobs and education. The court was hearing pleas by NGOs and others. One of the petitions, filed by Tehseen Poonawala, has challenged the 103rd Constitution amendment saying it was against the basic structure of Constitution, which does not allow for any reservation based on economic criteria. The 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached, the plea said. Youth for Equality has also sought the quashing of the Bill, stating that it violated the "equality code of the Constitution" as a reservation on economic grounds cannot be restricted to the general category. By way of the present amendment, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those who are poor from the general category would avail the benefits of the quotas, the organisation has contended.

10% quota to economically weak does not violate basic Constitution structure: Centre to Supreme Court

Thousands of people rallied in Myanmar`s commercial capital on Wednesday in support of constitutional reform, amid mounting tension between the ruling party and the military over changes to the charter that enshrines the army’s role in politics.

Protesters gathered in the center of Yangon to hear speeches by veteran democracy activists while singers led the crowd in chants of “take a rest, military dictatorship”, in the second demonstration in the city in a week.

Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party launched a surprise bid in January to change the charter, pushing through parliament a proposal to form a committee to devise amendments despite objections from military-aligned lawmakers.&nbsp;

The proposal was Suu Kyi’s biggest challenge to the army’s power in nearly three years, and sparked a protest in the legislature from green-clad military appointees, who stood in silence for several minutes to show their opposition.

It was later approved by parliament, where the ruling NLD commands a large majority.

“We are demonstrating to support the constitutional amendments committee,” Yin Htwe, one of the organizers of Wednesday’s protest, told Reuters. “We are on the side of the people.”

In a press conference on Saturday, a spokesman for the army accused the NLD of using the “wrong procedure” to amend the 2008 charter, which it drafted during military rule.

“Forming the joint committee to amend the constitution is not in line with the constitution,” said Major-General Tun Tun Nyi.

He added, however, that army lawmakers would participate in the exercise.

Under the charter, the military is guaranteed a quarter of seats in parliament and any change requires a vote of more than 75 percent of members, giving the army an effective veto.

It also blocks Suu Kyi from becoming president, with a prohibition on presidential candidates with foreign spouses or children. Suu Kyi had two sons with her late husband Michael Aris, a British academic.

For nearly three years, she has ruled from “above the president” by creating a new position of state counselor.&nbsp;

The charter also gives the military control of ministries responsible for security, including defense and home affairs.

The NLD has not said what provisions of the constitution it might seek to reform. In the past, some members of the party have called for change to Article 436, which gives the military an effective veto over constitutional reform.

“I want to change all the sections which disturb the current government`s work,” said Thein Tun, a 73-year-old man who stood among the crowd on Wednesday hand-in-hand with his wife, Khin Khin Win.&nbsp;

“It is important for the good of the country,” Khin Khin Win added.

Thousands of people rallied in Myanmar`s commercial capital on Wednesday in support of constitutional reform, amid mounting tension between the ruling party and the military over changes to the charter that enshrines the army’s role in politics.

Thousands of people rallied in Myanmar`s commercial capital on Wednesday in support of constitutional reform, amid mounting tension between the ruling party and the military over changes to the charter that enshrines the army’s role in politics. Protesters gathered in the center of Yangon to hear speeches by veteran democracy activists while singers led the crowd in chants of “take a rest, military dictatorship”, in the second demonstration in the city in a week. Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party launched a surprise bid in January to change the charter, pushing through parliament a proposal to form a committee to devise amendments despite objections from military-aligned lawmakers. The proposal was Suu Kyi’s biggest challenge to the army’s power in nearly three years, and sparked a protest in the legislature from green-clad military appointees, who stood in silence for several minutes to show their opposition. It was later approved by parliament, where the ruling NLD commands a large majority. “We are demonstrating to support the constitutional amendments committee,” Yin Htwe, one of the organizers of Wednesday’s protest, told Reuters. “We are on the side of the people.” In a press conference on Saturday, a spokesman for the army accused the NLD of using the “wrong procedure” to amend the 2008 charter, which it drafted during military rule. “Forming the joint committee to amend the constitution is not in line with the constitution,” said Major-General Tun Tun Nyi. He added, however, that army lawmakers would participate in the exercise. Under the charter, the military is guaranteed a quarter of seats in parliament and any change requires a vote of more than 75 percent of members, giving the army an effective veto. It also blocks Suu Kyi from becoming president, with a prohibition on presidential candidates with foreign spouses or children. Suu Kyi had two sons with her late husband Michael Aris, a British academic. For nearly three years, she has ruled from “above the president” by creating a new position of state counselor. The charter also gives the military control of ministries responsible for security, including defense and home affairs. The NLD has not said what provisions of the constitution it might seek to reform. In the past, some members of the party have called for change to Article 436, which gives the military an effective veto over constitutional reform. “I want to change all the sections which disturb the current government`s work,” said Thein Tun, a 73-year-old man who stood among the crowd on Wednesday hand-in-hand with his wife, Khin Khin Win. “It is important for the good of the country,” Khin Khin Win added.

Thousands rally in Myanmar's biggest city to change army-drafted constitution

*By Richard Shaw

The nation whose anthem lauds “the land of the free and the home of the brave” and whose constitution was drafted “in order to form a more perfect union … and secure the blessings of liberty” continues to flirt with the prospect of authoritarian rule.&nbsp;

In the aftermath of his decision to temporarily reopen the federal government, President Trump is once again threatening to declare a state of emergency to allow him to spend public money on the construction of a wall on the United States-Mexico border without congressional approval.&nbsp;

The weakened position Trump finds himself in now makes such drastic action unlikely. But one of the lessons to be taken from Trump’s presidency is to expect the unexpected.&nbsp;

Should he do so, it would not, of course, be the first time an American president has asserted this prerogative.&nbsp;

Current crisis not about policy

Generally, there can be compelling reasons for declaring a state of emergency, but Trump would have been perhaps the first to invoke this prerogative in order to fulfil a (subtly altered) campaign promise.

While there is a legitimate debate about whether or not there actually is an emergency at the border, the crisis that would be created should Trump declare an emergency in order to secure public funding for his “big, beautiful wall” would not primarily be about policy. It would concern more fundamental matters, such as the efficacy of America’s much-vaunted constitutional system of checks and balances.

The US constitution established three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. It apportions power to each branch so none can dominate the others. But the American constitution pays relatively little attention to the presidency. There are only four short sections concerning the office, only one of which contains much detail about presidential powers.

This means the powers of the president remain under-articulated. The constitution is also silent on how states of emergency should be managed. Taken together, this means it’s not entirely clear that legislative and judicial institutions can rein in a president who declares a state of emergency on spurious grounds.

In effect, by declaring a state of emergency a president assumes additional powers by essentially creating exceptions to rules and laws that normally constrain them. The courts can and likely would review the legality of any such action. But rulings against presidents are the exception.

Battle for the GOP&nbsp;

More prosaically, if the “Trump shutdown” strained relations within the Republican Party imagine what a “Trump state of national emergency” might do. The party’s establishment has proved willing to accept various affronts to presidential conventions of conduct.

This includes Trump’s propensity to play fast and loose with the truth, his lack of appetite for work and limited grasp of policy detail as well as his inability to serve as a president for all Americans.

But it is clear the partial shutdown has significantly ratcheted up tensions within the party and added to speculation Trump will face a primary challenge sometime before the 2020 presidential election.

In that context, it is conceivable that a presidential declaration of a state of emergency for wall funding might at last be the moment when Republicans – or at least enough of them to give Trump pause for thought – act in the long-term interests of the country.

More likely, there will be a point at which political self-interest trumps Trump. Republicans seeking to hold onto seats in 2020 in districts won by Hilary Clinton in 2016, or in which the Democratic Party was resurgent in last year’s midterms, may well peel away from Trump if his already soft approval rating continues to slide. There are already signs that some establishment figures are putting daylight between themselves and the president, and as the Republican convention and the 2020 presidential election move into view, more may choose to follow suit.&nbsp;

Road to tyranny 

Under these scenarios, Republicans may take a closer interest in restraining Trump than they have done so far. Seriously spooked Republicans may prove more amenable to the notion of impeaching the president. And because a president cannot dissolve Congress, Trump would be unable to get in a preemptive strike should the House move to impeach him.

None of this may come to pass. Trump may well be on the defensive right now but his chances of being re-elected in 2020 will be seriously (and perhaps fatally) compromised if he backs down on the wall issue again when congressional negotiations on immigration and border security wrap up on February 15. During the two years of his administration, he has proved perfectly happy to plough on regardless of public or political sentiment for far less significant issues. It is conceivable that he will do so again.

He has also demonstrated that he chafes against constraints on presidential agency, wishes to expand the reach of the executive branch and responds badly to criticism. In short, he is a poor fit for a liberal democracy but potentially a rather good one for an autocracy.

*(Richard Shaw is Professor of Politics at Massey University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-wall-rhetoric-is-about-power-rather-than-policy-110499">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

*By Richard Shaw The nation whose anthem lauds “the land of the free and the home of the brave” and whose constitution was drafted “in order to form a more perfect union … and secure the blessings of liberty” continues to flirt with the prospect of authoritarian rule.

*By Richard Shaw The nation whose anthem lauds “the land of the free and the home of the brave” and whose constitution was drafted “in order to form a more perfect union … and secure the blessings of liberty” continues to flirt with the prospect of authoritarian rule. In the aftermath of his decision to temporarily reopen the federal government, President Trump is once again threatening to declare a state of emergency to allow him to spend public money on the construction of a wall on the United States-Mexico border without congressional approval. The weakened position Trump finds himself in now makes such drastic action unlikely. But one of the lessons to be taken from Trump’s presidency is to expect the unexpected. Should he do so, it would not, of course, be the first time an American president has asserted this prerogative. Current crisis not about policy Generally, there can be compelling reasons for declaring a state of emergency, but Trump would have been perhaps the first to invoke this prerogative in order to fulfil a (subtly altered) campaign promise. While there is a legitimate debate about whether or not there actually is an emergency at the border, the crisis that would be created should Trump declare an emergency in order to secure public funding for his “big, beautiful wall” would not primarily be about policy. It would concern more fundamental matters, such as the efficacy of America’s much-vaunted constitutional system of checks and balances. The US constitution established three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. It apportions power to each branch so none can dominate the others. But the American constitution pays relatively little attention to the presidency. There are only four short sections concerning the office, only one of which contains much detail about presidential powers. This means the powers of the president remain under-articulated. The constitution is also silent on how states of emergency should be managed. Taken together, this means it’s not entirely clear that legislative and judicial institutions can rein in a president who declares a state of emergency on spurious grounds. In effect, by declaring a state of emergency a president assumes additional powers by essentially creating exceptions to rules and laws that normally constrain them. The courts can and likely would review the legality of any such action. But rulings against presidents are the exception. Battle for the GOP More prosaically, if the “Trump shutdown” strained relations within the Republican Party imagine what a “Trump state of national emergency” might do. The party’s establishment has proved willing to accept various affronts to presidential conventions of conduct. This includes Trump’s propensity to play fast and loose with the truth, his lack of appetite for work and limited grasp of policy detail as well as his inability to serve as a president for all Americans. But it is clear the partial shutdown has significantly ratcheted up tensions within the party and added to speculation Trump will face a primary challenge sometime before the 2020 presidential election. In that context, it is conceivable that a presidential declaration of a state of emergency for wall funding might at last be the moment when Republicans – or at least enough of them to give Trump pause for thought – act in the long-term interests of the country. More likely, there will be a point at which political self-interest trumps Trump. Republicans seeking to hold onto seats in 2020 in districts won by Hilary Clinton in 2016, or in which the Democratic Party was resurgent in last year’s midterms, may well peel away from Trump if his already soft approval rating continues to slide. There are already signs that some establishment figures are putting daylight between themselves and the president, and as the Republican convention and the 2020 presidential election move into view, more may choose to follow suit. Road to tyranny Under these scenarios, Republicans may take a closer interest in restraining Trump than they have done so far. Seriously spooked Republicans may prove more amenable to the notion of impeaching the president. And because a president cannot dissolve Congress, Trump would be unable to get in a preemptive strike should the House move to impeach him. None of this may come to pass. Trump may well be on the defensive right now but his chances of being re-elected in 2020 will be seriously (and perhaps fatally) compromised if he backs down on the wall issue again when congressional negotiations on immigration and border security wrap up on February 15. During the two years of his administration, he has proved perfectly happy to plough on regardless of public or political sentiment for far less significant issues. It is conceivable that he will do so again. He has also demonstrated that he chafes against constraints on presidential agency, wishes to expand the reach of the executive branch and responds badly to criticism. In short, he is a poor fit for a liberal democracy but potentially a rather good one for an autocracy. *(Richard Shaw is Professor of Politics at Massey University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why Trump's wall rhetoric is about power rather than policy

How an amendment bill become a law in India?

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”.&nbsp;

The Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority and continues to be a guide in moments of crisis and uncertainty, the CJI said at the inaugural function of Constitution Day Celebrations here.

“It is in our best interest to heed the advice of the constitution. If we do not, our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos,” he said. 
Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is celebrated on November 26 to commemorate the Constitution being adopted.

The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. “The constitution has become an integral part of the lives of the Indian people. This is not an exaggeration, one need only to look at the astounding variety of issues that the courts hear daily,” Gogoi said.

“Our Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in the moment of crisis and uncertainty,” he said.

When the Constitution was brought into force, it was “widely criticised”, the CJI noted. But time has weakened the criticism and it is a matter of great pride that it has been referred to with great vigour in the last several decades, he stated. He said the Constitution is “not a document frozen in time” and today is not an occasion to celebrate but to test constitutional promises.

“Are we Indians existing in conditions of freedom, equality and dignity? These are questions that I ask myself. Undoubtedly, great advances have been made but there is a lot left to be done. Today, we need just not a celebration but also to chalk out a roadmap for the future,” Justice Gogoi said.

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”.

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”. The Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority and continues to be a guide in moments of crisis and uncertainty, the CJI said at the inaugural function of Constitution Day Celebrations here. “It is in our best interest to heed the advice of the constitution. If we do not, our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos,” he said. Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is celebrated on November 26 to commemorate the Constitution being adopted. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. “The constitution has become an integral part of the lives of the Indian people. This is not an exaggeration, one need only to look at the astounding variety of issues that the courts hear daily,” Gogoi said. “Our Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in the moment of crisis and uncertainty,” he said. When the Constitution was brought into force, it was “widely criticised”, the CJI noted. But time has weakened the criticism and it is a matter of great pride that it has been referred to with great vigour in the last several decades, he stated. He said the Constitution is “not a document frozen in time” and today is not an occasion to celebrate but to test constitutional promises. “Are we Indians existing in conditions of freedom, equality and dignity? These are questions that I ask myself. Undoubtedly, great advances have been made but there is a lot left to be done. Today, we need just not a celebration but also to chalk out a roadmap for the future,” Justice Gogoi said.

Constitution Day: It’s in our best interest to heed advice under Constitution, says CJI Ranjan Gogoi 

A political crisis in Sri Lanka took a deadly turn on Sunday, with one person killed when a sacked cabinet minister tried to re-enter his office, days after the president removed the prime minister and installed a powerful ally of China in his place.

Sri Lanka has been plunged into crisis since Friday, when President Maithripala Sirisena abruptly sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and swore in ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new prime minister to replace him.

Sirisena said the move was motivated by a plot to kill him, and by economic collapse. Wickremesinghe says it was illegal and he is still prime minister.

Rajapaksa ruled as president from 2005-2015. In a statement released late on Sunday, he pledged to "eschew the politics of hate and set up an interim government that will protect the human rights of all citizens, that will protect the independence of the judiciary and establish law and order."

He called on lawmakers to support his new government.

On Saturday, Sirisena suspended parliament until November&nbsp;16, a move the ousted prime minister's supporters say was intended to prevent lawmakers from showing support for Wickremesinghe.

The standoff has important geopolitical implications in a country long influenced by its neighbour India, and which became massively indebted to China to finance huge infrastructure projects during Rajapaksa's decade as president.

Most of Sri Lanka's foreign allies including India, the European Union and the United States, have urged Sirisena to abide by the constitution. But China, long seen as a supporter of Rajapaksa, congratulated him on becoming prime minister, drawing accusations from Wickremesinghe's supporters that Beijing was behind the attempt to change the government. Chinese officials deny interfering in Sri Lanka's affairs.

The US&nbsp;State Department on Sunday urged all sides to refrain from violence and called on Sirisena to immediately reconvene parliament and "allow the democratically elected representatives of the Sri Lankan people to fulfill their responsibility to affirm who will lead their government."

Since Rajapaksa was sworn in, trade unions allied to him have blocked government buildings to prevent members of the former cabinet from reaching their offices.

Sunday's violence took place at the headquarters of state oil company Ceylon Petroleum Corp, where Arjuna Ranatunga, petroleum minister in the ousted cabinet, tried to re-enter his office. Police said one of Ranatunga's security guards opened fire. One person was killed and two wounded.

The guard had been arrested and an investigation launched, police spokesman Ruwan Gunasekera said. Ranatunga was safe and the security guard's motive was not immediately clear, he added.

Local media said Ranatunga had briefly been held hostage in the office. Reuters was not immediately able to confirm details of the incident.

UN&nbsp;Secretary-General António Guterres called on the Sri Lankan government to respect democratic values and constitutional provisions and process, uphold the rule of law and ensure the safety and security of all Sri Lankans.

INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY

So far, a majority of lawmakers has not endorsed Rajapaksa. In a letter sent on Sunday, parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya urged the president to protect Wickremesinghe's rights and privileges "until any other person emerges from within the Parliament as having secure confidence of the Parliament".

In an address to the nation, Sirisena said his action to change the government was "totally in accordance with the constitution and on the advice of legal experts".

The Rajapaksa faction has sought to win over lawmakers to back it in parliament. Two Wickremesinghe loyalists have pledged support to Rajapaksa and sources close to Rajapaksa have said there will be more cross-overs.

Ranjan Ramanayake, a legislator from Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP), said some lawmakers had been offered up to 800 million rupees ($4.6 million) each to switch sides and support Rajapaksa. Reuters was unable to confirm this.

"This is an international conspiracy," Ramanayake told reporters at Wickremesinghe's official residence, accusing China of "spending money to buy over members".

A Chinese embassy official in Colombo denied the allegation and said Beijing maintained good relations with all Sri Lankan parties, including the UNP.

"China never interferes in other countries' internal affairs," the official told Reuters. "We're against all this interference from any foreign country."

Cheng Xueyuan, China's envoy to Sri Lanka, met Rajapaksa with a congratulatory message on Saturday. The embassy official said the ambassador had also met Wickremesinghe and speaker Jayasuriya.

India and Western countries have concerns about Rajapaksa's ties to China, after he ushered in billions of dollars of investment from Beijing to rebuild the country following the end of a 26-year war against Tamil separatists in 2009.

That investment has since put the tiny nation deep in debt and forced it to hand over control of a strategic port to China.

"As a democracy and a close friendly neighbour, we hope that democratic values and the constitutional process will be respected," said Raveesh Kumar, spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs. "We will continue to extend our developmental assistance to the friendly people of Sri Lanka."

A political crisis in Sri Lanka took a deadly turn on Sunday, with one person killed when a sacked cabinet minister tried to re-enter his office, days after the president removed the prime minister and installed a powerful ally of China in his place.

A political crisis in Sri Lanka took a deadly turn on Sunday, with one person killed when a sacked cabinet minister tried to re-enter his office, days after the president removed the prime minister and installed a powerful ally of China in his place. Sri Lanka has been plunged into crisis since Friday, when President Maithripala Sirisena abruptly sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and swore in ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new prime minister to replace him. Sirisena said the move was motivated by a plot to kill him, and by economic collapse. Wickremesinghe says it was illegal and he is still prime minister. Rajapaksa ruled as president from 2005-2015. In a statement released late on Sunday, he pledged to "eschew the politics of hate and set up an interim government that will protect the human rights of all citizens, that will protect the independence of the judiciary and establish law and order." He called on lawmakers to support his new government. On Saturday, Sirisena suspended parliament until November 16, a move the ousted prime minister's supporters say was intended to prevent lawmakers from showing support for Wickremesinghe. The standoff has important geopolitical implications in a country long influenced by its neighbour India, and which became massively indebted to China to finance huge infrastructure projects during Rajapaksa's decade as president. Most of Sri Lanka's foreign allies including India, the European Union and the United States, have urged Sirisena to abide by the constitution. But China, long seen as a supporter of Rajapaksa, congratulated him on becoming prime minister, drawing accusations from Wickremesinghe's supporters that Beijing was behind the attempt to change the government. Chinese officials deny interfering in Sri Lanka's affairs. The US State Department on Sunday urged all sides to refrain from violence and called on Sirisena to immediately reconvene parliament and "allow the democratically elected representatives of the Sri Lankan people to fulfill their responsibility to affirm who will lead their government." Since Rajapaksa was sworn in, trade unions allied to him have blocked government buildings to prevent members of the former cabinet from reaching their offices. Sunday's violence took place at the headquarters of state oil company Ceylon Petroleum Corp, where Arjuna Ranatunga, petroleum minister in the ousted cabinet, tried to re-enter his office. Police said one of Ranatunga's security guards opened fire. One person was killed and two wounded. The guard had been arrested and an investigation launched, police spokesman Ruwan Gunasekera said. Ranatunga was safe and the security guard's motive was not immediately clear, he added. Local media said Ranatunga had briefly been held hostage in the office. Reuters was not immediately able to confirm details of the incident. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on the Sri Lankan government to respect democratic values and constitutional provisions and process, uphold the rule of law and ensure the safety and security of all Sri Lankans. INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY So far, a majority of lawmakers has not endorsed Rajapaksa. In a letter sent on Sunday, parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya urged the president to protect Wickremesinghe's rights and privileges "until any other person emerges from within the Parliament as having secure confidence of the Parliament". In an address to the nation, Sirisena said his action to change the government was "totally in accordance with the constitution and on the advice of legal experts". The Rajapaksa faction has sought to win over lawmakers to back it in parliament. Two Wickremesinghe loyalists have pledged support to Rajapaksa and sources close to Rajapaksa have said there will be more cross-overs. Ranjan Ramanayake, a legislator from Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP), said some lawmakers had been offered up to 800 million rupees ($4.6 million) each to switch sides and support Rajapaksa. Reuters was unable to confirm this. "This is an international conspiracy," Ramanayake told reporters at Wickremesinghe's official residence, accusing China of "spending money to buy over members". A Chinese embassy official in Colombo denied the allegation and said Beijing maintained good relations with all Sri Lankan parties, including the UNP. "China never interferes in other countries' internal affairs," the official told Reuters. "We're against all this interference from any foreign country." Cheng Xueyuan, China's envoy to Sri Lanka, met Rajapaksa with a congratulatory message on Saturday. The embassy official said the ambassador had also met Wickremesinghe and speaker Jayasuriya. India and Western countries have concerns about Rajapaksa's ties to China, after he ushered in billions of dollars of investment from Beijing to rebuild the country following the end of a 26-year war against Tamil separatists in 2009. That investment has since put the tiny nation deep in debt and forced it to hand over control of a strategic port to China. "As a democracy and a close friendly neighbour, we hope that democratic values and the constitutional process will be respected," said Raveesh Kumar, spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs. "We will continue to extend our developmental assistance to the friendly people of Sri Lanka."

Sri Lanka crisis turns violent as 1 killed at ex-minister's office

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena on Sunday defending his sudden political move said the main elective he was left with to set up another government was to name Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.&nbsp;

Addressing the nation, President categorically stated that the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister was totally in accordance with the Constitution and on the advice of legal experts. He totally rejected that charge that his action was a violation of the Constitution.&nbsp;

Full text of the President Maithripala Sirisena's address to the nation:&nbsp;

I have decided to address the nation today in the context of the recent political developments in the country, I thought it was essential to clarify the path we have to take in the future and to describe the reasons and the background, why the current political change was necessary.&nbsp;

Today, we are at the dawn of another year. On January 08, 2015, it was with so many expectations what nearly six million and two hundred thousand (6.25 million) people of my country chose me as your first servant and the leader of this nation. I wish to pledge that I will always fulfil the expectations and honour the trust and faith you have placed on me, even at the cost of my life.

Politicians like us who are committed to serve the people, should always look at what is right for the people and will usher prosperity to the nation, instead of one's political affiliations. I believe that you remember the circumstances under which I became the common candidate in 2014 and the dangers I had to face in consequence. It was a risk and a challenge that no politician in the history of the country wanted to accept. I faced this challenge despite the dangers to me and my family. I hope you will believe that the decision I took on 26th of October 2018, is a decision that is far more challenging and risky than the decision I took in November 21, 2014. I must state with respect, honour, and humility that I took both those decisions for the sake of the people and the country.&nbsp;

However, Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe's political conduct was unbecoming of civilized politics and belittled the victory achieved risking my life in 2015. I believe that Mr Wickremesinghe and his group of closest friends, who belonged to a privileged class and did not understand the pulse of the people conducted themselves as if shaping the future of the country was a fun game they played. I feel that Hon Wickremesinghe grossly violated the very principles of good governance we pledged to uphold.

I am sure you remember that on the evening of January 09th, 2015, moments after taking oaths as President, I appointed Mr Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka although he had only 47 members in the Parliament. However, I am sure you know that Mr Wickremesinghe destroyed the concept and the noble expectations of good governance by his actions during the last few years. Corruption and fraud spread widely in the country. Thereby, he destroyed the pure and noble expectations of the 49 political parties, organisations, trade unions, and civil society groups including the UNP, who signed an agreement in support of the common candidate. I hope you remember a statement I made recently at a Senanayake commemoration event. The political visions of great leaders such as D.S. Senanayake, Dudley Senanayake, J.R. Jayewardene, and Ranasinghe Premadasa made the UNP a mighty political party, enriched with indigenous thinking, our cultural heritage. They stood for the national identity and territorial integrity of the country. They were committed to protect everything what could be called 'ours'. It is my sincere hope that the present leadership of the UNP be blessed with the wisdom of those great leaders to embrace a vision with noble objectives that can take our country to the new world.

Once in the government, Mr Wickremesinghe arrogantly and stubbornly avoided collective decisions, and tended to take individual decisions. This behaviour led to many conflicts. Due to his lack of collective decision making through discussion, our country had to face harsh consequences when he used to take decisions with a group of his very close associates. I must state that, there was also a policy conflict between Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe and me, during the last three and half years. Apart from a policy differences, I noted that there were also differences of culture between Mr Wickremesinghe and me. I believe that all those differences in policy, culture, personality and conduct aggravated this political and economic crisis.

When many senior leaders were around, I have suggested to him to work together and work collectively. I suggested to him that we should take our decisions after proper discussion to achieve the goals of good governance. However, he ignored the aspirations of over six million and two hundred thousand people. I am very worried about that. I accepted the leadership of this country to ensure creative governance upholding the principles of good governance and that is free of corruption or fraud. I always tried to bring in past experiences to understand present challenges and build a better tomorrow that in terms of our noble expectations. I committed myself to them fully. However, I had to take a few steps back many times. As you have seen, I had to speak somewhat aggressively from time to time during the last three years. On such occasions, you may have blamed me, called me immature, or getting too aggressive. However, it is my conscience that best knows how much patience and tolerance I have practiced in the internal discussions and at Cabinet meetings.

I made all those sacrifices for the sake of the people of Sri Lanka. However, you know how those noble expectations of the people who espoused the concept of good governance were betrayed even before three months elapsed since we were elected. The robbery of the Central Bank dragged our country into a deep crisis. As you know, we had not heard about such a big fraud of public finances in the history of Sri Lanka. The Central Bank robbery was an abortion of the pledge of good governance we had given to the people to eliminate corruption and fraud. I remember that there came a lot of resistance and protests from people, opposition parties, political groups, civil society and responsible people in the society, when the Central Bank robbery was committed. That led to a lot of tensions within the government. At that time, Mr Wickremesinghe behaved very impatiently and restlessly. When I decided to visit the Central Bank and meet the staff of the Bank, I remember, he suddenly came to my residence and asked me "the Central Bank belongs to me, why do you want to go there?" At that moment, I told him, "It is true that it has been gazetted under your purview, but as the President of the country, I have the right to visit that place." And I told him that I was planning to go to the Bank in a while anyway. Mr. Wirckremesinghe left immediately. When I got there, Mr. Arjun Mahendran, who has been sent on leave pending investigation, came to welcome me with a bunch of beetle leaves. I was surprised to see how he had got there all of a sudden. I saw how disturbed, restless and panicking they were. This shameless robbery led to a serious economic crisis and a political crisis. Then, I appointed a commission to investigate into the Central Bank issue in response to people's demand. When the Commission was carrying on the investigations independently, leaders of the UNP started pointing fingers at me. They asked why I appointed this commission. They considered this move was a disgrace to the UNP. But I assured them that the appointment of the Commission was necessary to clear those who are not involved and to bring to book those who were culprits. As you know, this robbery has dragged our country into deep economic crisis, from which it is difficult come out.

I believe that the result of the Local Government elections that was held last February was a warning by the people to correct the course of this government. At that moment, I called the Mr Wickremesinghe and other leaders of UNP and explained "People have taught us a lesson about the way we have governed, and we must correct ourselves now". And I told Mr Wickremesinghe "You have acquired my powers to do what you did, and I silently gave you that power in gratitude as you took leadership to bring me to power." As a result of my gratefulness, which is a noble human quality, the country had to suffer very bad consequences. That was because I allowed him to conduct freely, sometime even acquiring my powers. I do not wish to go into a detailed account of the negative consequences of his tenure. I wish to explain those consequences to you from time to time. I would now like to explain the most proximate and powerful reason that made me appoint the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and remove Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister.

My political life is now spans over 51 years. Recently, a person called Namal kumara came before the media and disclosed about a plot to assassinate me and Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. I handed over the task of investigations to Criminal Investigations Department. However, Inspector General of Police did not assign the investigations to CID. Instead it was given to another division. Then I realized that there was an issue of trust about the investigations. Within 48 hours of the disclosure made to the media by the person called Namal Kumara and investigations could be commenced on the plot, Inspector General of Police made a statement stating that there was a doubt about the voices in the tape recording provided by that person. I would like to raise the question, with respect, is it suitable for a Police chief to behave in such a shameless manner and express doubts about the recording, without seeking any technical expert advice on the tape recording, when there was a revelation that a plot was hatched to assassinate the President of the country?

The reports provided by the CID and other investigating authorities including the Intelligence Bureau showed that this is a very serious matter. In this plot, there is a wide range of information which has not been disclosed to the public.

There is also an involvement of a Cabinet Minister in this plot to assassinate me. Furthermore, there have been tremendous pressure on investigations. There were instances of some responsible officers of the Attorney General’s Department evading the investigation duties. Under these political problems, economic troubles and the strong plot to assassinate me, the only alternative open to me was to invite former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and appoint him as prime Minister to form a new government. I extend an open invitation to all 225 honourable Members of parliament to join the new government. I do this with the pure intention of taking the country out of the present political crisis and economic problems. Now, the political crisis has been somewhat declined. I appeal to everybody to extend fullest cooperation to the new government formed by me with Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime minister to strengthen democratic governance, freedom of the people, human rights and fundamental rights and media freedom and take our Motherland towards prosperity and make a better and decent society.

While referring to past bitter experiences, I wish to reiterate here that Mr Ranil wickremesinghe must take the responsibility to bring Mr Arjuna Mahendran to Sri Lanka and produce him before courts. That is because, as everybody knows, Mr Arjuna Mahendran is a very close friend of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe. Local industries of the country were weakened in the last few years and for them to recover, the blessings from the government alone are not enough.

In the last few years, the economic policy kept the trust merely on foreign investments and that weakened our local industries. On one side, the there were these weaknesses of the economic policy. At the same time, I ask you to examine what has happened to the amendments presented last week to the Commission I appointed to probe Bribery or corruption to bring to book those who are guilty of Central Bank Bond robbery. All those legal experts, Attorney-General’s Department, the members of the Commission on Bribery or Corruption and those who made investigations informed me earlier this year that it would take at least 15 years to punish the perpetrators of Central Bank Bond robbery under the existing laws in the country. Legal experts explained that more than 15 years will take to prosecute and punish the guilty and recover the money stolen by them. The Commission on Bribery or Corruption and Attorney-General’s Department recommended to make some amendments to the Commission Act, so that the guilty persons could be sentenced within one year and recover the huge amount of money they had stolen. Accordingly, we have drafted the amendments to the Act at the Presidential Secretariat and sent to the Parliament six months ago.

However, the amendment was not submitted for five months. It got buried in the Office of the Leader of House. I made serious inquiries into this. I asked the officials of the Commission on Bribery or Corruption. I asked the officers in the Attorney-General’s Department. Finally, the Amendment Bill to Act on Commission on Bribery or Corruption was presented to Parliament. I am sad to say that the Parliament postponed the approval of the Amendments Act indefinitely. Why was it deferred? For whose benefit? Due to pressure from whom? This will result in the country losing a large sum of money that belongs to the people.

It would take 15 to 20 years to mete out punishment to the guilty persons. That is why the Amendments Act was postponed indefinitely. You must have seen in media about the monetary deal of EAP company. That company was given to a foreigner. That deal was done fraudulently without calling for tenders. There will be a thorough investigation on this in near future. Many valuable assets were given to foreigners without tenders. Construction awards were also given without tenders. The emergency cabinet papers were presented to award such tenders and massive construction awards were given despite objections at the cabinet. One such example is the Kandy Highway project. Another is the Land Ordinance Special Act, which was presented to Cabinet last week. Then there was the paper on establishing a Land Bank. I lodged strong protests and postponed those cabinet papers. Majority of Cabinet Ministers were against these proposals.

If the last week’s Land Ordinance Special Act was passed by the Cabinet and then by the Parliament, all the lands of our Motherland could be bought outright by foreigners without any difficulty. All the agricultural settlements established by honourable leaders like D S Senanayake, Bandaranaike and Gamini Dissanayake will be destroyed. This bill presented under the political and economic vision of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe to adversely affect the land rights of the country must be totally blocked by us.

I must also tell you that the committee set up by Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe to manage economy was totally fraudulent. The decisions taken by that committee were fraudulent. It was a major challenge to abolish it. As an alternative to that committee, I have established the National Economic Council. Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe has taken everything possible to weaken that Commission. The monthly emoluments for the economic expert, who was appointed the head the Commission was paid by an international monetary institution respected by all of us. On Mr Wickremesinghe’s advise, that payment was stopped. Mr Wickremesinghe took steps to prevent the Commission from functioning. I clearly state that this crisis situation has emerged due to Mr Wickremesinghe’s stubborn decisions. 
Because of all these issues, the only alternative I was left with was to establish a new government with Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Mr Ranil wickremesinghe and the UNP complain that the establishment of a new government and appointment of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister was contradictory to the provisions of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. I categorically state that the appointments were made totally in accordance with the Constitution and the on advice of legal experts. No constitutional violation was done when appointments were made and removal was enacted. With all respect, I completely reject the charge that what was done was a violation of the Constitution.

I wish to thank the people of the country, public officials, Police, security forces, Army, Navy and Air Force and others for the support extended to me by strengthening law and order, strengthening democratic structure and facilitating the day-to-day needs of the people. While concluding the speech, I appeal to UNPers who made a broad commitment to make me President to jointly commit ourselves to achieve that beautiful vision for our Motherland. I am confident that if a leader with a vision, who values what is local, who understands the common man’s feelings, values the vision and policies of Senanayakes, Jayewardene and Premadasa becomes the leader of your UNP in the future, we will be able to achieve those noble objectives. Finally, I appeal to the Mahasangha, other religious leaders, politicians, all the publc servants, and all the citizens to give your blessings and support to the political decision I have taken on behalf of the country and the people to end the economic crisis and political turbulence and build a prosperous economy and a decent, spiritual, enlightened society.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena on Sunday defending his sudden political move said the main elective he was left with to set up another government was to name Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena on Sunday defending his sudden political move said the main elective he was left with to set up another government was to name Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Addressing the nation, President categorically stated that the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister was totally in accordance with the Constitution and on the advice of legal experts. He totally rejected that charge that his action was a violation of the Constitution. Full text of the President Maithripala Sirisena's address to the nation: I have decided to address the nation today in the context of the recent political developments in the country, I thought it was essential to clarify the path we have to take in the future and to describe the reasons and the background, why the current political change was necessary. Today, we are at the dawn of another year. On January 08, 2015, it was with so many expectations what nearly six million and two hundred thousand (6.25 million) people of my country chose me as your first servant and the leader of this nation. I wish to pledge that I will always fulfil the expectations and honour the trust and faith you have placed on me, even at the cost of my life. Politicians like us who are committed to serve the people, should always look at what is right for the people and will usher prosperity to the nation, instead of one's political affiliations. I believe that you remember the circumstances under which I became the common candidate in 2014 and the dangers I had to face in consequence. It was a risk and a challenge that no politician in the history of the country wanted to accept. I faced this challenge despite the dangers to me and my family. I hope you will believe that the decision I took on 26th of October 2018, is a decision that is far more challenging and risky than the decision I took in November 21, 2014. I must state with respect, honour, and humility that I took both those decisions for the sake of the people and the country. However, Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe's political conduct was unbecoming of civilized politics and belittled the victory achieved risking my life in 2015. I believe that Mr Wickremesinghe and his group of closest friends, who belonged to a privileged class and did not understand the pulse of the people conducted themselves as if shaping the future of the country was a fun game they played. I feel that Hon Wickremesinghe grossly violated the very principles of good governance we pledged to uphold. I am sure you remember that on the evening of January 09th, 2015, moments after taking oaths as President, I appointed Mr Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka although he had only 47 members in the Parliament. However, I am sure you know that Mr Wickremesinghe destroyed the concept and the noble expectations of good governance by his actions during the last few years. Corruption and fraud spread widely in the country. Thereby, he destroyed the pure and noble expectations of the 49 political parties, organisations, trade unions, and civil society groups including the UNP, who signed an agreement in support of the common candidate. I hope you remember a statement I made recently at a Senanayake commemoration event. The political visions of great leaders such as D.S. Senanayake, Dudley Senanayake, J.R. Jayewardene, and Ranasinghe Premadasa made the UNP a mighty political party, enriched with indigenous thinking, our cultural heritage. They stood for the national identity and territorial integrity of the country. They were committed to protect everything what could be called 'ours'. It is my sincere hope that the present leadership of the UNP be blessed with the wisdom of those great leaders to embrace a vision with noble objectives that can take our country to the new world. Once in the government, Mr Wickremesinghe arrogantly and stubbornly avoided collective decisions, and tended to take individual decisions. This behaviour led to many conflicts. Due to his lack of collective decision making through discussion, our country had to face harsh consequences when he used to take decisions with a group of his very close associates. I must state that, there was also a policy conflict between Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe and me, during the last three and half years. Apart from a policy differences, I noted that there were also differences of culture between Mr Wickremesinghe and me. I believe that all those differences in policy, culture, personality and conduct aggravated this political and economic crisis. When many senior leaders were around, I have suggested to him to work together and work collectively. I suggested to him that we should take our decisions after proper discussion to achieve the goals of good governance. However, he ignored the aspirations of over six million and two hundred thousand people. I am very worried about that. I accepted the leadership of this country to ensure creative governance upholding the principles of good governance and that is free of corruption or fraud. I always tried to bring in past experiences to understand present challenges and build a better tomorrow that in terms of our noble expectations. I committed myself to them fully. However, I had to take a few steps back many times. As you have seen, I had to speak somewhat aggressively from time to time during the last three years. On such occasions, you may have blamed me, called me immature, or getting too aggressive. However, it is my conscience that best knows how much patience and tolerance I have practiced in the internal discussions and at Cabinet meetings. I made all those sacrifices for the sake of the people of Sri Lanka. However, you know how those noble expectations of the people who espoused the concept of good governance were betrayed even before three months elapsed since we were elected. The robbery of the Central Bank dragged our country into a deep crisis. As you know, we had not heard about such a big fraud of public finances in the history of Sri Lanka. The Central Bank robbery was an abortion of the pledge of good governance we had given to the people to eliminate corruption and fraud. I remember that there came a lot of resistance and protests from people, opposition parties, political groups, civil society and responsible people in the society, when the Central Bank robbery was committed. That led to a lot of tensions within the government. At that time, Mr Wickremesinghe behaved very impatiently and restlessly. When I decided to visit the Central Bank and meet the staff of the Bank, I remember, he suddenly came to my residence and asked me "the Central Bank belongs to me, why do you want to go there?" At that moment, I told him, "It is true that it has been gazetted under your purview, but as the President of the country, I have the right to visit that place." And I told him that I was planning to go to the Bank in a while anyway. Mr. Wirckremesinghe left immediately. When I got there, Mr. Arjun Mahendran, who has been sent on leave pending investigation, came to welcome me with a bunch of beetle leaves. I was surprised to see how he had got there all of a sudden. I saw how disturbed, restless and panicking they were. This shameless robbery led to a serious economic crisis and a political crisis. Then, I appointed a commission to investigate into the Central Bank issue in response to people's demand. When the Commission was carrying on the investigations independently, leaders of the UNP started pointing fingers at me. They asked why I appointed this commission. They considered this move was a disgrace to the UNP. But I assured them that the appointment of the Commission was necessary to clear those who are not involved and to bring to book those who were culprits. As you know, this robbery has dragged our country into deep economic crisis, from which it is difficult come out. I believe that the result of the Local Government elections that was held last February was a warning by the people to correct the course of this government. At that moment, I called the Mr Wickremesinghe and other leaders of UNP and explained "People have taught us a lesson about the way we have governed, and we must correct ourselves now". And I told Mr Wickremesinghe "You have acquired my powers to do what you did, and I silently gave you that power in gratitude as you took leadership to bring me to power." As a result of my gratefulness, which is a noble human quality, the country had to suffer very bad consequences. That was because I allowed him to conduct freely, sometime even acquiring my powers. I do not wish to go into a detailed account of the negative consequences of his tenure. I wish to explain those consequences to you from time to time. I would now like to explain the most proximate and powerful reason that made me appoint the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and remove Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister. My political life is now spans over 51 years. Recently, a person called Namal kumara came before the media and disclosed about a plot to assassinate me and Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. I handed over the task of investigations to Criminal Investigations Department. However, Inspector General of Police did not assign the investigations to CID. Instead it was given to another division. Then I realized that there was an issue of trust about the investigations. Within 48 hours of the disclosure made to the media by the person called Namal Kumara and investigations could be commenced on the plot, Inspector General of Police made a statement stating that there was a doubt about the voices in the tape recording provided by that person. I would like to raise the question, with respect, is it suitable for a Police chief to behave in such a shameless manner and express doubts about the recording, without seeking any technical expert advice on the tape recording, when there was a revelation that a plot was hatched to assassinate the President of the country? The reports provided by the CID and other investigating authorities including the Intelligence Bureau showed that this is a very serious matter. In this plot, there is a wide range of information which has not been disclosed to the public. There is also an involvement of a Cabinet Minister in this plot to assassinate me. Furthermore, there have been tremendous pressure on investigations. There were instances of some responsible officers of the Attorney General’s Department evading the investigation duties. Under these political problems, economic troubles and the strong plot to assassinate me, the only alternative open to me was to invite former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and appoint him as prime Minister to form a new government. I extend an open invitation to all 225 honourable Members of parliament to join the new government. I do this with the pure intention of taking the country out of the present political crisis and economic problems. Now, the political crisis has been somewhat declined. I appeal to everybody to extend fullest cooperation to the new government formed by me with Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime minister to strengthen democratic governance, freedom of the people, human rights and fundamental rights and media freedom and take our Motherland towards prosperity and make a better and decent society. While referring to past bitter experiences, I wish to reiterate here that Mr Ranil wickremesinghe must take the responsibility to bring Mr Arjuna Mahendran to Sri Lanka and produce him before courts. That is because, as everybody knows, Mr Arjuna Mahendran is a very close friend of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe. Local industries of the country were weakened in the last few years and for them to recover, the blessings from the government alone are not enough. In the last few years, the economic policy kept the trust merely on foreign investments and that weakened our local industries. On one side, the there were these weaknesses of the economic policy. At the same time, I ask you to examine what has happened to the amendments presented last week to the Commission I appointed to probe Bribery or corruption to bring to book those who are guilty of Central Bank Bond robbery. All those legal experts, Attorney-General’s Department, the members of the Commission on Bribery or Corruption and those who made investigations informed me earlier this year that it would take at least 15 years to punish the perpetrators of Central Bank Bond robbery under the existing laws in the country. Legal experts explained that more than 15 years will take to prosecute and punish the guilty and recover the money stolen by them. The Commission on Bribery or Corruption and Attorney-General’s Department recommended to make some amendments to the Commission Act, so that the guilty persons could be sentenced within one year and recover the huge amount of money they had stolen. Accordingly, we have drafted the amendments to the Act at the Presidential Secretariat and sent to the Parliament six months ago. However, the amendment was not submitted for five months. It got buried in the Office of the Leader of House. I made serious inquiries into this. I asked the officials of the Commission on Bribery or Corruption. I asked the officers in the Attorney-General’s Department. Finally, the Amendment Bill to Act on Commission on Bribery or Corruption was presented to Parliament. I am sad to say that the Parliament postponed the approval of the Amendments Act indefinitely. Why was it deferred? For whose benefit? Due to pressure from whom? This will result in the country losing a large sum of money that belongs to the people. It would take 15 to 20 years to mete out punishment to the guilty persons. That is why the Amendments Act was postponed indefinitely. You must have seen in media about the monetary deal of EAP company. That company was given to a foreigner. That deal was done fraudulently without calling for tenders. There will be a thorough investigation on this in near future. Many valuable assets were given to foreigners without tenders. Construction awards were also given without tenders. The emergency cabinet papers were presented to award such tenders and massive construction awards were given despite objections at the cabinet. One such example is the Kandy Highway project. Another is the Land Ordinance Special Act, which was presented to Cabinet last week. Then there was the paper on establishing a Land Bank. I lodged strong protests and postponed those cabinet papers. Majority of Cabinet Ministers were against these proposals. If the last week’s Land Ordinance Special Act was passed by the Cabinet and then by the Parliament, all the lands of our Motherland could be bought outright by foreigners without any difficulty. All the agricultural settlements established by honourable leaders like D S Senanayake, Bandaranaike and Gamini Dissanayake will be destroyed. This bill presented under the political and economic vision of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe to adversely affect the land rights of the country must be totally blocked by us. I must also tell you that the committee set up by Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe to manage economy was totally fraudulent. The decisions taken by that committee were fraudulent. It was a major challenge to abolish it. As an alternative to that committee, I have established the National Economic Council. Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe has taken everything possible to weaken that Commission. The monthly emoluments for the economic expert, who was appointed the head the Commission was paid by an international monetary institution respected by all of us. On Mr Wickremesinghe’s advise, that payment was stopped. Mr Wickremesinghe took steps to prevent the Commission from functioning. I clearly state that this crisis situation has emerged due to Mr Wickremesinghe’s stubborn decisions. Because of all these issues, the only alternative I was left with was to establish a new government with Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Mr Ranil wickremesinghe and the UNP complain that the establishment of a new government and appointment of Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister was contradictory to the provisions of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. I categorically state that the appointments were made totally in accordance with the Constitution and the on advice of legal experts. No constitutional violation was done when appointments were made and removal was enacted. With all respect, I completely reject the charge that what was done was a violation of the Constitution. I wish to thank the people of the country, public officials, Police, security forces, Army, Navy and Air Force and others for the support extended to me by strengthening law and order, strengthening democratic structure and facilitating the day-to-day needs of the people. While concluding the speech, I appeal to UNPers who made a broad commitment to make me President to jointly commit ourselves to achieve that beautiful vision for our Motherland. I am confident that if a leader with a vision, who values what is local, who understands the common man’s feelings, values the vision and policies of Senanayakes, Jayewardene and Premadasa becomes the leader of your UNP in the future, we will be able to achieve those noble objectives. Finally, I appeal to the Mahasangha, other religious leaders, politicians, all the publc servants, and all the citizens to give your blessings and support to the political decision I have taken on behalf of the country and the people to end the economic crisis and political turbulence and build a prosperous economy and a decent, spiritual, enlightened society.

Mahinda Rajapaksa as PM totally in accordance with constitution: Sri Lanka President

The United States urged political parties in Sri Lanka on Friday to abide by the Constitution and refrain from violence, as the latter country faces a constitutional crisis after its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lanka-crisis-deepens-as-ranil-wickremesinghe-resists-sacking-173745">president ousted the prime minister</a>.

Controversial Sri Lankan strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa staged a dramatic political comeback on Friday, becoming the new prime minister after President Maithripala Sirisena sacked premier Ranil Wickremesinghe who termed the move as "unconstitutional" and vowed to prove his majority in Parliament.

In its first reaction to the unfolding situation in Sri Lanka, the US State Department said it is following the development in the island nation.

"We call on all parties to act in accordance with SL's Constitution, refrain from violence, and follow due process," the State Department said in a tweet.

"We expect gov of SL to uphold its Geneva commitments to human rights, reform, accountability, justice, and reconciliation," the South and Central Asia Bureau of the State Department said.

The move that took the island nation by surprise came amid growing tensions between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe on several policy matters even as the President remained critical of the Prime Minister and his policies, especially on economy and security.

Reacting sharply to his sacking, Wickremesinghe asserted that the swearing-in of Rajapaksa is "illegal and unconstitutional" and he will prove his majority in Parliament.&nbsp;

The United States urged political parties in Sri Lanka on Friday to abide by the Constitution and refrain from violence, as the latter country faces a constitutional crisis after its president ousted the prime minister.

The United States urged political parties in Sri Lanka on Friday to abide by the Constitution and refrain from violence, as the latter country faces a constitutional crisis after its president ousted the prime minister. Controversial Sri Lankan strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa staged a dramatic political comeback on Friday, becoming the new prime minister after President Maithripala Sirisena sacked premier Ranil Wickremesinghe who termed the move as "unconstitutional" and vowed to prove his majority in Parliament. In its first reaction to the unfolding situation in Sri Lanka, the US State Department said it is following the development in the island nation. "We call on all parties to act in accordance with SL's Constitution, refrain from violence, and follow due process," the State Department said in a tweet. "We expect gov of SL to uphold its Geneva commitments to human rights, reform, accountability, justice, and reconciliation," the South and Central Asia Bureau of the State Department said. The move that took the island nation by surprise came amid growing tensions between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe on several policy matters even as the President remained critical of the Prime Minister and his policies, especially on economy and security. Reacting sharply to his sacking, Wickremesinghe asserted that the swearing-in of Rajapaksa is "illegal and unconstitutional" and he will prove his majority in Parliament.

Follow Constitution, US tells Sri Lanka after PM Ranil Wickremesinghe is sacked

Former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as prime minister on Friday (October 26) after President Maithripala Sirisena <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/after-sacking-pm-sri-lanka-president-sirisena-suspends-parliament-173796">sacked</a>&nbsp;Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in a shock move that threatens political turmoil in the country.&nbsp;

Wickremesinghe said the move was "unconstitutional" and vowed to prove his majority in Parliament. On Saturday, he demanded an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ousted-sri-lanka-pm-seeks-emergency-parliament-session-173772">emergency session</a> of parliament, so as to be able to prove his majority on the floor of the house.

Sirisena however responded by suspending parliament till November 16.&nbsp;

Here is a timeline of the events leading up to the constitutional crisis:&nbsp;

- Presidential elections were held in Sri Lanka on 8 January 2015, two years ahead of schedule.

- Then incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa was the United People's Freedom Alliance's candidate, seeking a third term in office.

- The United National Party (UNP)-led opposition coalition chose to field Maithripala Sirisena, the former Minister of Health in Rajapaksa's government and general secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) – the main constituent party of the UPFA – as its common candidate.

- Sirisena was declared the winner after receiving 51.28% of all votes cast (6,217,162 votes) compared to Rajapaksa's 47.58% (5,768,090 votes).

- On 9th January, Rajapaksa concedes defeat ahead of the final result and the Sirsena was sworn in as Sri Lanka's sixth executive president, before Supreme Court judge K. Sripavan in Independence Square, Colombo.

- The 2015 Sri Lankan parliamentary election was held on 17 August 2015, ten months ahead of schedule, to elect 225 members to Sri Lanka's 15th Parliament.

- The incumbent United National Party (UNP) led United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) won 106 seats, an increase of 46 since the 2010 election, but failed to secure a majority in Parliament.

- The main opposition United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won 95 seats, a decline of 49.

- The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the largest party representing Sri Lankan Tamils, won 16 seats, an increase of two from 2010.

- The remaining eight seats were won by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (6), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (1) and Eelam People's Democratic Party (1).

- Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the UNFGG and UNP, was able to form a national government with the support of UPFA MPs loyal to President Maithripala Sirisena.

- The rift between the President and the Prime Minister started with treasury bond scandal in 2015.

- Faced with repayments on the massive loans inherited from the previous government, the Central Bank decided to raise Rs. 1 billion through an auction on February 27, 2015.

- The bank received just over Rs. 20 billion in bids and former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran instructed the Public Debt Department to accept Rs. 10 billion.

- Due to a communication gap, the Perpetual Treasuries Limited, a Primary Dealer owned by the son in law of the Central Bank Governor have had undue advantage to make profits. This was the starting of the rift between the President and the Prime Minister Wickeremesinghe.

- The last tipping point of the relation ship between the two leaders was the alleged conspiracy to assassinate President Srisena and former defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, which is now under investigation&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as prime minister on Friday (October 26) after President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in a shock move that threatens political turmoil in the country.

Former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as prime minister on Friday (October 26) after President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in a shock move that threatens political turmoil in the country. Wickremesinghe said the move was "unconstitutional" and vowed to prove his majority in Parliament. On Saturday, he demanded an emergency session of parliament, so as to be able to prove his majority on the floor of the house. Sirisena however responded by suspending parliament till November 16. Here is a timeline of the events leading up to the constitutional crisis: - Presidential elections were held in Sri Lanka on 8 January 2015, two years ahead of schedule. - Then incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa was the United People's Freedom Alliance's candidate, seeking a third term in office. - The United National Party (UNP)-led opposition coalition chose to field Maithripala Sirisena, the former Minister of Health in Rajapaksa's government and general secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) – the main constituent party of the UPFA – as its common candidate. - Sirisena was declared the winner after receiving 51.28% of all votes cast (6,217,162 votes) compared to Rajapaksa's 47.58% (5,768,090 votes). - On 9th January, Rajapaksa concedes defeat ahead of the final result and the Sirsena was sworn in as Sri Lanka's sixth executive president, before Supreme Court judge K. Sripavan in Independence Square, Colombo. - The 2015 Sri Lankan parliamentary election was held on 17 August 2015, ten months ahead of schedule, to elect 225 members to Sri Lanka's 15th Parliament. - The incumbent United National Party (UNP) led United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) won 106 seats, an increase of 46 since the 2010 election, but failed to secure a majority in Parliament. - The main opposition United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won 95 seats, a decline of 49. - The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the largest party representing Sri Lankan Tamils, won 16 seats, an increase of two from 2010. - The remaining eight seats were won by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (6), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (1) and Eelam People's Democratic Party (1). - Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the UNFGG and UNP, was able to form a national government with the support of UPFA MPs loyal to President Maithripala Sirisena. - The rift between the President and the Prime Minister started with treasury bond scandal in 2015. - Faced with repayments on the massive loans inherited from the previous government, the Central Bank decided to raise Rs. 1 billion through an auction on February 27, 2015. - The bank received just over Rs. 20 billion in bids and former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran instructed the Public Debt Department to accept Rs. 10 billion. - Due to a communication gap, the Perpetual Treasuries Limited, a Primary Dealer owned by the son in law of the Central Bank Governor have had undue advantage to make profits. This was the starting of the rift between the President and the Prime Minister Wickeremesinghe. - The last tipping point of the relation ship between the two leaders was the alleged conspiracy to assassinate President Srisena and former defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, which is now under investigation

Sri Lanka's constitutional crisis: A timeline of events

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Thursday hit out at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after the party formed a government in Karnataka and termed the entire episode as a conspiracy to destroy the Constitution, according to news agency ANI.

Addressing the media here, Mayawati accused the BJP of misusing the government ever since they came to power at the Centre.

"It is a conspiracy to destroy the constitution made by Baba Saheb Ambedkar, since they (BJP) came to power they have been misusing government machinery, thereby attacking democracy," ANI reported quoting Mayawati.&nbsp;

Earlier in the day, Yeddyurappa took oath as the 23rd chief minister of Karnataka after the Supreme Court early today morning decided not to put a stay on the swearing-in, while conducting a post-midnight hearing, wherein Congress and JD(S) pleaded for the same citing BJP`s inadequate strength in the assembly to stake claim at forming the state government.

Late last night, Congress and JD(S) challenged Karnataka Governor Vajubhai R. Vala`s decision in the top court to invite BJP to form the government even when the saffron party, with 105 MLAs, including one Independent MLA, is seven short of the halfway mark of 112.

They contended that they, with a total strength of 115 MLAs, are in a better position to form the government. Though Vala invited the BJP to form the government, he has given 15 days to the saffron party to prove its majority in the state assembly.&nbsp;

Mayawati accused the BJP of misusing the government ever since they came to power at the Centre.

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Thursday hit out at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after the party formed a government in Karnataka and termed the entire episode as a conspiracy to destroy the Constitution, according to news agency ANI. Addressing the media here, Mayawati accused the BJP of misusing the government ever since they came to power at the Centre. "It is a conspiracy to destroy the constitution made by Baba Saheb Ambedkar, since they (BJP) came to power they have been misusing government machinery, thereby attacking democracy," ANI reported quoting Mayawati. Earlier in the day, Yeddyurappa took oath as the 23rd chief minister of Karnataka after the Supreme Court early today morning decided not to put a stay on the swearing-in, while conducting a post-midnight hearing, wherein Congress and JD(S) pleaded for the same citing BJP`s inadequate strength in the assembly to stake claim at forming the state government. Late last night, Congress and JD(S) challenged Karnataka Governor Vajubhai R. Vala`s decision in the top court to invite BJP to form the government even when the saffron party, with 105 MLAs, including one Independent MLA, is seven short of the halfway mark of 112. They contended that they, with a total strength of 115 MLAs, are in a better position to form the government. Though Vala invited the BJP to form the government, he has given 15 days to the saffron party to prove its majority in the state assembly.

Mayawati accuses BJP of conspiring to destroy Constitution

Myanmar's new president promised to amend the country's army-written constitution in an inaugural speech Friday, challenging a charter that bans Aung San Suu Kyi from top office and gives the military major powers.

Win Myint, a 66-year-old former political prisoner and staunch ally of Suu Kyi, was elected president on Wednesday after his predecessor suddenly resigned.

Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who championed Myanmar's emergence from junta rule by sweeping 2015 elections, is constitutionally barred from the presidency because she was married to a foreigner.

To circumvent that snag, her party created a new position for her called state counsellor - allowing Suu Kyi to rule "above" the president.

That makes it vital for her to have a reliable proxy in office, especially as she manages the delicate power-sharing arrangement with the military, which ruled the country for almost half a century and remains enormously influential.

In his first address to parliament, the famously straight-talking Win Myint said he would focus on the rule of law, national reconciliation and "amending the constitution to build a democratic federal union".

The three issues are touchstones of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party.

But talk of amendments to Myanmar's 2008 constitution is likely to raise hackles among Myanmar's still-powerful generals.

The army has ceded some power to the civilian administration but retains 25 per cent of parliamentary seats and total control of security affairs under the charter.

Win Myint also said he would work to "protect human rights", a thorny subject in a country accused of ethnic cleansing by the UN against its Rohingya Muslim population.

A violent military crackdown has forced some 700,000 Rohingya - a long-persecuted stateless minority - over the border into Bangladesh since August.

The army insists the campaign was a legitimate response to Rohingya militant attacks against border-guard police posts.

Win Myint is part of Suu Kyi's inner circle - the pair campaigned together during the 1988 democracy protests against the then-junta, a movement that was violently suppressed.

For his role Win Myint, alongside many others, was taken, political prisoner.

Suu Kyi is still widely regarded as a pro-democracy heroine in Myanmar even though her reputation lies in tatters globally for failing to speak up on behalf of the country's Rohingya Muslims.

Win Myint, a 66-year-old former political prisoner, was elected president on Wednesday after his predecessor suddenly resigned

Myanmar's new president promised to amend the country's army-written constitution in an inaugural speech Friday, challenging a charter that bans Aung San Suu Kyi from top office and gives the military major powers. Win Myint, a 66-year-old former political prisoner and staunch ally of Suu Kyi, was elected president on Wednesday after his predecessor suddenly resigned. Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who championed Myanmar's emergence from junta rule by sweeping 2015 elections, is constitutionally barred from the presidency because she was married to a foreigner. To circumvent that snag, her party created a new position for her called state counsellor - allowing Suu Kyi to rule "above" the president. That makes it vital for her to have a reliable proxy in office, especially as she manages the delicate power-sharing arrangement with the military, which ruled the country for almost half a century and remains enormously influential. In his first address to parliament, the famously straight-talking Win Myint said he would focus on the rule of law, national reconciliation and "amending the constitution to build a democratic federal union". The three issues are touchstones of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party. But talk of amendments to Myanmar's 2008 constitution is likely to raise hackles among Myanmar's still-powerful generals. The army has ceded some power to the civilian administration but retains 25 per cent of parliamentary seats and total control of security affairs under the charter. Win Myint also said he would work to "protect human rights", a thorny subject in a country accused of ethnic cleansing by the UN against its Rohingya Muslim population. A violent military crackdown has forced some 700,000 Rohingya - a long-persecuted stateless minority - over the border into Bangladesh since August. The army insists the campaign was a legitimate response to Rohingya militant attacks against border-guard police posts. Win Myint is part of Suu Kyi's inner circle - the pair campaigned together during the 1988 democracy protests against the then-junta, a movement that was violently suppressed. For his role Win Myint, alongside many others, was taken, political prisoner. Suu Kyi is still widely regarded as a pro-democracy heroine in Myanmar even though her reputation lies in tatters globally for failing to speak up on behalf of the country's Rohingya Muslims.

Myanmar president pledges to amend army-scripted constitution

Congress president Rahul Gandhi slammed the BJP government for &quot;attacking&quot;&nbsp;the constitution&nbsp;while he was addressing a rally in Karnataka on Saturday.

As part of the fourth leg of his campaign tour in Karnataka, the Gandhi scion visited Chamundheshwari temple in Mysuru.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-trolled-for-not-knowing-about-ncc-36915">Rahul Gandhi trolled for not knowing about NCC</a>

Rahul Gandhi addressed a rally after his temple visit during which he accused the BJP of snatching away people&#39;s money through note ban and GST, &nbsp;adding that &quot;there is new fashion now, they (BJP) are attacking the constitution.&quot; 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The news agency, PTI further quoted Rahul Gandhi saying that &quot;we will not allow the BJP to change the Constitution. How much ever BJP forces its way to change the Constitution, we will make sure that the Congress will protect the work of Ambedkarji.&quot;

During the day Rahul Gandhi also held a roadshow and inaugurated the Indira Canteen in Kollegala of Chamarajnagar district.&nbsp;

Earlier he visited the northern, coastal and Malnad regions of the state. Rahul Gandhi is currently on a two-day visit to Mandya, Mysuru and Chamarajnagar district.

Ahead of the election in the 224-member assembly in Karnataka, the state has witnessed frequent visits by national leaders, from both the Congress and the BJP. While the ruling Congress is trying to retain power in Karnataka, the BJP is eyeing to seize the southern state from it.

(With inputs from ANI)

Congress president Rahul Gandhi slammed BJP government for 'attacking' the constitution while he was addressing a rally in Karnataka on Saturday

Congress president Rahul Gandhi slammed the BJP government for "attacking" the constitution while he was addressing a rally in Karnataka on Saturday. As part of the fourth leg of his campaign tour in Karnataka, the Gandhi scion visited Chamundheshwari temple in Mysuru. Also read: Rahul Gandhi trolled for not knowing about NCC Rahul Gandhi addressed a rally after his temple visit during which he accused the BJP of snatching away people's money through note ban and GST, adding that "there is new fashion now, they (BJP) are attacking the constitution." The news agency, PTI further quoted Rahul Gandhi saying that "we will not allow the BJP to change the Constitution. How much ever BJP forces its way to change the Constitution, we will make sure that the Congress will protect the work of Ambedkarji." During the day Rahul Gandhi also held a roadshow and inaugurated the Indira Canteen in Kollegala of Chamarajnagar district. Earlier he visited the northern, coastal and Malnad regions of the state. Rahul Gandhi is currently on a two-day visit to Mandya, Mysuru and Chamarajnagar district. Ahead of the election in the 224-member assembly in Karnataka, the state has witnessed frequent visits by national leaders, from both the Congress and the BJP. While the ruling Congress is trying to retain power in Karnataka, the BJP is eyeing to seize the southern state from it. (With inputs from ANI)

Karnataka: BJP 'attacking' the constitution says Rahul Gandhi

China`s plan for President Xi Jinping to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-proposes-removal-of-two-term-limit-for-president-reports-34002" target="_blank">remain in office indefinitely</a> has sparked social media opposition, drawing comparisons to North Korea`s ruling dynasty and charges of creating a dictator by a Hong Kong pro-democracy activist.

The social media reaction late on Sunday quickly saw China swing into a concerted propaganda push by Monday, blocking some articles and publishing pieces praising the party.

The ruling Communist Party on Sunday proposed to remove a constitutional clause limiting presidential service to just two terms in office, meaning Xi, who also heads the party and the military, might never have to retire.

The proposal, which will be passed by delegates loyal to the party at next month`s annual meeting of China`s largely rubber stamp parliament, is part of a package of amendments to the country`s constitution.

It will also add Xi`s political thought to the constitution, already added to the party constitution last year, and set a legal framework for a super anti-corruption superbody, as well as more broadly strengthen the party`s tight grip on power.

But it seems the party will have its work cut out trying to convince some in China, where Xi is actually very popular thanks in part to his war on graft, that the move will not end up giving Xi too much power.

&quot;Argh, we`re going to become North Korea,&quot; wrote one Weibo user, where the Kim dynasty has ruled since the late 1940s. Kim Il Sung founded North Korea in 1948 and his family has ruled it ever since.

&quot;We`re following the example of our neighbour,` wrote another user.

The comments were removed late on Sunday after Weibo, China`s answer to Twitter, began blocking the search term &quot;two term limit&quot;.

Widely read state-run newspaper the Global Times said in an editorial the change did not mean the president will stay in office for ever, though it did not offer much explanation.

&quot;Since reform and opening up, China, led by the Communist Party, has successfully resolved and will continue to effectively resolve the issue of party and national leadership replacement in a law-abiding and orderly manner,&quot; it said, referring to landmark economic reforms that began four decades ago.

The party`s official People`s Daily reprinted a long article by Xinhua news agency saying most people supported the constitutional amendments, quoting a variety of people proffering support.

&quot;The broad part of officials and the masses say that they hoped this constitutional reform is passed,&quot; it wrote.

The WeChat account of the People`s Daily, after initially posting a flurry of positive comments under its article, then disabled the comments section completely late on Sunday. It was back again by Monday, complete with remarks lauding the party.

The overseas edition of the same paper`s WeChat account removed entirely an article focusing on the term limits, replacing it with the lengthy Xinhua report summing up all the amendment proposals.

In one confusing moment for many Chinese, Xinhua initially only reported the news in English.

Jokes have also circulated on social media. One shows a picture of a condom in its wrapper under the words &quot;doing it twice is not enough&quot;.

Others shared pictures of Winnie the Pooh, an internet meme that plays on Xi`s supposed likeness to the rotund cartoon bear, an image censors have repeatedly tried to remove.&nbsp;

Parts of the stock market took heart from the news. Chinese speculators pounced on stocks with &quot;emperor&quot; in their name on Monday.

The decision has also unsettled some in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong, where authorities have been trying to rein in a pro-democracy movement.

&quot;This move, which would allow for a single individual to amass and accumulate political power, means that China would again have a dictator as her head of state - Xi Jinping,&quot; said Joshua Wong, one of the movement`s leaders.

&quot;The law may exist in China in form, but this just proves that the Chinese law exists to serve the individual and the party`s purposes.&quot;

China is likely though to see any such criticism as a plot against the party.

&quot;Every time China deliberates on reforms and key decisions, effect on public opinion is worth pondering,&quot; the Global Times wrote. &quot;Misinformation and external forces` meddling will affect public opinion in China.&quot;

The social media reaction late on Sunday quickly saw China swing into a concerted propaganda push by Monday, blocking some articles and publishing pieces praising the party

China`s plan for President Xi Jinping to remain in office indefinitely has sparked social media opposition, drawing comparisons to North Korea`s ruling dynasty and charges of creating a dictator by a Hong Kong pro-democracy activist. The social media reaction late on Sunday quickly saw China swing into a concerted propaganda push by Monday, blocking some articles and publishing pieces praising the party. The ruling Communist Party on Sunday proposed to remove a constitutional clause limiting presidential service to just two terms in office, meaning Xi, who also heads the party and the military, might never have to retire. The proposal, which will be passed by delegates loyal to the party at next month`s annual meeting of China`s largely rubber stamp parliament, is part of a package of amendments to the country`s constitution. It will also add Xi`s political thought to the constitution, already added to the party constitution last year, and set a legal framework for a super anti-corruption superbody, as well as more broadly strengthen the party`s tight grip on power. But it seems the party will have its work cut out trying to convince some in China, where Xi is actually very popular thanks in part to his war on graft, that the move will not end up giving Xi too much power. "Argh, we`re going to become North Korea," wrote one Weibo user, where the Kim dynasty has ruled since the late 1940s. Kim Il Sung founded North Korea in 1948 and his family has ruled it ever since. "We`re following the example of our neighbour,` wrote another user. The comments were removed late on Sunday after Weibo, China`s answer to Twitter, began blocking the search term "two term limit". Widely read state-run newspaper the Global Times said in an editorial the change did not mean the president will stay in office for ever, though it did not offer much explanation. "Since reform and opening up, China, led by the Communist Party, has successfully resolved and will continue to effectively resolve the issue of party and national leadership replacement in a law-abiding and orderly manner," it said, referring to landmark economic reforms that began four decades ago. The party`s official People`s Daily reprinted a long article by Xinhua news agency saying most people supported the constitutional amendments, quoting a variety of people proffering support. "The broad part of officials and the masses say that they hoped this constitutional reform is passed," it wrote. The WeChat account of the People`s Daily, after initially posting a flurry of positive comments under its article, then disabled the comments section completely late on Sunday. It was back again by Monday, complete with remarks lauding the party. The overseas edition of the same paper`s WeChat account removed entirely an article focusing on the term limits, replacing it with the lengthy Xinhua report summing up all the amendment proposals. In one confusing moment for many Chinese, Xinhua initially only reported the news in English. Jokes have also circulated on social media. One shows a picture of a condom in its wrapper under the words "doing it twice is not enough". Others shared pictures of Winnie the Pooh, an internet meme that plays on Xi`s supposed likeness to the rotund cartoon bear, an image censors have repeatedly tried to remove. Parts of the stock market took heart from the news. Chinese speculators pounced on stocks with "emperor" in their name on Monday. The decision has also unsettled some in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong, where authorities have been trying to rein in a pro-democracy movement. "This move, which would allow for a single individual to amass and accumulate political power, means that China would again have a dictator as her head of state - Xi Jinping," said Joshua Wong, one of the movement`s leaders. "The law may exist in China in form, but this just proves that the Chinese law exists to serve the individual and the party`s purposes." China is likely though to see any such criticism as a plot against the party. "Every time China deliberates on reforms and key decisions, effect on public opinion is worth pondering," the Global Times wrote. "Misinformation and external forces` meddling will affect public opinion in China."

China pushes back against criticism of plan for Xi to stay in power

Congress President Rahul Gandhi said Thursday that the &quot;constitution, the foundation of our country, is under threat&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;The Constitution, the foundation of our country is under threat, it is under attack directly, statements are being made by senior members of BJP and it is under attack surreptitiously from the back and it&#39;s our duty, duty of Congress party and every single Indian to defend it,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

Gandhi was speaking at the 133rd anniversary of the founding of the Congress party.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress President Rahul Gandhi distributes sweets among children at AICC headquarters on party&#39;s 133rd foundation day <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> <a href="https://t.co/dlh520yP9r">pic.twitter.com/dlh520yP9r</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/946238242461966336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;What is happening today in our country is a web of deceit,&quot; Rahul added.&nbsp;

&quot;The BJP operates on the basic idea that lies can be used for political benefit and it is the difference between us and them, we might not do well, we might even lose but we will not give up the truth,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

Gandhi was speaking at the 133rd anniversary of the founding of the Congress party

Congress President Rahul Gandhi said Thursday that the "constitution, the foundation of our country, is under threat". "The Constitution, the foundation of our country is under threat, it is under attack directly, statements are being made by senior members of BJP and it is under attack surreptitiously from the back and it's our duty, duty of Congress party and every single Indian to defend it," he said. Gandhi was speaking at the 133rd anniversary of the founding of the Congress party. Congress President Rahul Gandhi distributes sweets among children at AICC headquarters on party's 133rd foundation day #Delhi pic.twitter.com/dlh520yP9r — ANI (@ANI) December 28, 2017 × "What is happening today in our country is a web of deceit," Rahul added. "The BJP operates on the basic idea that lies can be used for political benefit and it is the difference between us and them, we might not do well, we might even lose but we will not give up the truth," he said.

Constitution, the country's foundation, is under threat: Rahul Gandhi

The &quot;constitution is supreme to me, Parliament is supreme to me,&quot; Karnataka MP Ananth Kumar Hegde said Thursday in the Lok Sabha.

Hegde was apologising for his <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/those-who-call-themselves-secular-dont-know-about-their-parentage-mp-ananth-kumar-hegde-27714" target="_blank">remarks</a> that &quot;people who call themselves secular... are like people without parentage&quot;&nbsp;and that the BJP has come to power to &quot;change the Constitution&quot;.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Congress&#39; Mallikarjun Kharge objected to Ananth Kumar Hegde&#39;s clarification, following which Hegde said, &#39;If anyone was hurt by my statements I tender an apology.&#39; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LokSabha?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LokSabha</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/946253674971406336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-not-on-same-page-with-hedge-bjp-leaders-on-hedges-remarks-27859">Government doesn&#39;t agree with Hedge&#39;s remarks, ministers say in Parliament </a>

&quot;I deeply respect the Constitution, the Parliament and Baba Saheb Ambedkar. The Constitution is supreme for me, there can be no question on it, as a citizen I can never go against it,&quot; Hegde said.&nbsp;

&quot;Regarding the deadlock in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha due to my statement, I want to assure my friends that Constitution is supreme to me, Parliament is supreme to me,&quot;&nbsp;he added.&nbsp;

Both houses of Parliament had been adjourned Wednesday over Hegde&#39;s remarks.&nbsp;

&quot;If a person has no belief in the Constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament,&quot; the Congress&#39;s Ghulam Nabi Azad had said in the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

The government had since distanced itself from Hegde&#39;s remarks. The opposition had called for him to apologise or to quit.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/constitution-the-foundation-of-our-country-is-under-threat-rahul-gandhi-27928" target="_blank">Constitution, the country&#39;s foundation, is under threat: Rahul Gandhi </a>

'The Constitution is supreme for me, there can be no question on it, as a citizen I can never go against it,' he said

The "constitution is supreme to me, Parliament is supreme to me," Karnataka MP Ananth Kumar Hegde said Thursday in the Lok Sabha. Hegde was apologising for his remarks that "people who call themselves secular... are like people without parentage" and that the BJP has come to power to "change the Constitution". Congress' Mallikarjun Kharge objected to Ananth Kumar Hegde's clarification, following which Hegde said, 'If anyone was hurt by my statements I tender an apology.' #LokSabha — ANI (@ANI) December 28, 2017 × Also read: Government doesn't agree with Hedge's remarks, ministers say in Parliament "I deeply respect the Constitution, the Parliament and Baba Saheb Ambedkar. The Constitution is supreme for me, there can be no question on it, as a citizen I can never go against it," Hegde said. "Regarding the deadlock in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha due to my statement, I want to assure my friends that Constitution is supreme to me, Parliament is supreme to me," he added. Both houses of Parliament had been adjourned Wednesday over Hegde's remarks. "If a person has no belief in the Constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament," the Congress's Ghulam Nabi Azad had said in the Rajya Sabha. The government had since distanced itself from Hegde's remarks. The opposition had called for him to apologise or to quit. Also read: Constitution, the country's foundation, is under threat: Rahul Gandhi

Constitution is supreme: Ananth Kumar Hegde apologises in Lok Sabha

Both houses of Parliament were adjourned Wednesday after the Opposition raised an uproar over Union Minister Ananth Kumar Hegde&#39;s statements on secularism and changing the constitution.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/those-who-call-themselves-secular-dont-know-about-their-parentage-mp-ananth-kumar-hegde-27714" target="_blank">&#39;Those who call themselves secular don&#39;t know about their parentage,&#39; says Karnataka MP</a>

There had been pandemonium in the Rajya Sabha after the Leader of the Opposition in the house, the Congress&#39;s Ghulam Nabi Azad, brought up the issue.&nbsp;

&quot;If a person has no belief in the constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament,&quot; Azad had said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress&#39; Ghulam Nabi Azad raises the issue of remarks made by Union Minister Ananth Kumar Hegde about the constitution, in Rajya Sabha; says &quot;if a person has no belief in the constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament&quot; <a href="https://t.co/UDaMge4yOd">pic.twitter.com/UDaMge4yOd</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/945893770981130240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 27, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were adjourned till noon.&nbsp;

The Congress had in the morning given an adjournment motion notice in the Lok Sabha over Hegde&#39;s remarks.&nbsp;

The Congress had also given a&nbsp;suspension of business notice in the Rajya Sabha under over PM Modi&rsquo;s remarks about former PM Manmohan Singh.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/modi-claims-pakistan-trying-to-influence-gujarat-elections-26391" target="_blank">Modi claims Pakistan trying to influence Gujarat elections</a>

The Congress has demanded an apology from the prime minister on the floor of the house.&nbsp;

The BJP has so far said there will be no apology coming.&nbsp;

The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were both adjourned till 12 pm

Both houses of Parliament were adjourned Wednesday after the Opposition raised an uproar over Union Minister Ananth Kumar Hegde's statements on secularism and changing the constitution. Also read: 'Those who call themselves secular don't know about their parentage,' says Karnataka MP There had been pandemonium in the Rajya Sabha after the Leader of the Opposition in the house, the Congress's Ghulam Nabi Azad, brought up the issue. "If a person has no belief in the constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament," Azad had said. Congress' Ghulam Nabi Azad raises the issue of remarks made by Union Minister Ananth Kumar Hegde about the constitution, in Rajya Sabha; says "if a person has no belief in the constitution, he has no right to be a member of Parliament" pic.twitter.com/UDaMge4yOd — ANI (@ANI) December 27, 2017 × Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were adjourned till noon. The Congress had in the morning given an adjournment motion notice in the Lok Sabha over Hegde's remarks. The Congress had also given a suspension of business notice in the Rajya Sabha under over PM Modi’s remarks about former PM Manmohan Singh. Also read: Modi claims Pakistan trying to influence Gujarat elections The Congress has demanded an apology from the prime minister on the floor of the house. The BJP has so far said there will be no apology coming.

Both houses of Parliament adjourned over MP's statement on secularism, changing constitution

Union minister Ananth Kumar Hegde has kicked up another controversy, mocking secularists with his remark that they are unaware of their parentage.

The remark by the five-time Lok Sabha MP from Karnataka comes months ahead of the Assembly elections in the southern state and sparked condemnation from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who said the BJP leader does not know the parliamentary or political language.

Hegde, 49, said a new tradition was in vogue, where people project themselves as secular, but asserted he would feel &quot;happy&quot; if someone claims with pride that he is a Muslim, Christian, or a Lingayat, or a Brahmin, or a Hindu.

&quot;I feel happy because he (the person) knows about his blood, but I don&#39;t know what to call those who claim themselves secular,&quot; said the minister for skill development and entrepreneurship. &quot;Those who, without knowing about their parental blood, call themselves secular, they don&#39;t have their own identity. They don&#39;t know about their parentage, but they are intellectuals,&quot; he said at an event organised by the Brahman Yuva Parishad in Kukanur town of Koppal district on Monday.

He launched the Parishad&#39;s website and women&#39;s wing. Urging people to identify with their religion or caste, Hegde said, &quot;I will bow to you, you are aware of your blood. But if you claim to be secular, there arises a doubt about who you are.&quot;

He said he respects the Constitution but it &quot;will be changed&quot; in the days to come. &quot;We are here for that and that is why we have come,&quot; he said.

Hitting out at Hegde, Siddaramaiah said the minister has not studied the Constitution, does not know the parliamentary or political language. He said Hegde has not learnt the social system and added that people belonging to various religions live in India.

&quot;Each and every individual in this country is an Indian, and every religion has equal right and opportunity. He does not have this basic knowledge,&quot; Siddaramaiah told reporters in Hubballi.

Hegde is no stranger to controversies. A case was recently registered against him for allegedly using derogatory language against Siddaramaiah at Kittur in Belagavi district. He had been slapped with cases for his &quot;hate speeches&quot;, including one where he allegedly equated Islam with terrorism.

Commenting on the Tipu Sultan Jayanti controversy in Karnataka, Hegde was also quoted as having said at a public meeting that it is a matter of time before Chief Minister Siddaramaiah starts making people celebrate &quot;Kasab Jayanti&quot;, referring to Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai&nbsp;terrorist attacks.

Hegde was criticising Siddaramaiah for state-wide celebrations to mark Tipu Sultan&#39;s birth anniversary on 10 November. The union minister was known to be vehemently opposed to the state celebrations of Tipu Jayanti since it was started in 2015 and had called the festival a &quot;shameful event glorifying a brutal killer.&quot;

Ananth Kumar Hegde added that he respects the Constitution but that it 'will be changed' in the days to come

Union minister Ananth Kumar Hegde has kicked up another controversy, mocking secularists with his remark that they are unaware of their parentage. The remark by the five-time Lok Sabha MP from Karnataka comes months ahead of the Assembly elections in the southern state and sparked condemnation from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who said the BJP leader does not know the parliamentary or political language. Hegde, 49, said a new tradition was in vogue, where people project themselves as secular, but asserted he would feel "happy" if someone claims with pride that he is a Muslim, Christian, or a Lingayat, or a Brahmin, or a Hindu. "I feel happy because he (the person) knows about his blood, but I don't know what to call those who claim themselves secular," said the minister for skill development and entrepreneurship. "Those who, without knowing about their parental blood, call themselves secular, they don't have their own identity. They don't know about their parentage, but they are intellectuals," he said at an event organised by the Brahman Yuva Parishad in Kukanur town of Koppal district on Monday. He launched the Parishad's website and women's wing. Urging people to identify with their religion or caste, Hegde said, "I will bow to you, you are aware of your blood. But if you claim to be secular, there arises a doubt about who you are." He said he respects the Constitution but it "will be changed" in the days to come. "We are here for that and that is why we have come," he said. Hitting out at Hegde, Siddaramaiah said the minister has not studied the Constitution, does not know the parliamentary or political language. He said Hegde has not learnt the social system and added that people belonging to various religions live in India. "Each and every individual in this country is an Indian, and every religion has equal right and opportunity. He does not have this basic knowledge," Siddaramaiah told reporters in Hubballi. Hegde is no stranger to controversies. A case was recently registered against him for allegedly using derogatory language against Siddaramaiah at Kittur in Belagavi district. He had been slapped with cases for his "hate speeches", including one where he allegedly equated Islam with terrorism. Commenting on the Tipu Sultan Jayanti controversy in Karnataka, Hegde was also quoted as having said at a public meeting that it is a matter of time before Chief Minister Siddaramaiah starts making people celebrate "Kasab Jayanti", referring to Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Hegde was criticising Siddaramaiah for state-wide celebrations to mark Tipu Sultan's birth anniversary on 10 November. The union minister was known to be vehemently opposed to the state celebrations of Tipu Jayanti since it was started in 2015 and had called the festival a "shameful event glorifying a brutal killer."

'Those who call themselves secular don't know about their parentage,' says Karnataka MP

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards.

The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years.

Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone.

&quot;In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 &amp; 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble,&quot; said the petition.

The petition further asked the Centre to establish a &quot;One Nation One Education Board&quot; system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.&nbsp;

The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking common syllabus and curriculum across all education boards. The petition filed by Neeta Upadhyay, who is an assistant teacher at a Primary School in Ghaziabad, sought a common education system, meaning common syllabus and common curriculum for all children aged 6 to 14 years. Her petition alleged that the education system does not provide equal opportunities to everyone. "In expounding the Constitution to meet the requirements of Articles 21A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2), 39(f), 46 & 51A, measures such as a common education system viz. common syllabus and a common curriculum is a necessity. It would enable every child to be placed on a level playing field for the challenges of the future and meaningfully contribute in achieving the great golden goals as set out in the Preamble," said the petition. The petition further asked the Centre to establish a "One Nation One Education Board" system, in substitution of the existing multi-board system.

SC rejects petition seeking common syllabus for all boards

President Ram Nath Kovind, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi today paid tributes to the architect of the Constitution, B R Ambedkar, on his death anniversary.

The leaders paid floral tributes to Ambedkar, hailed for his contribution towards uplift of Dalits, at Parliament House Lawns here.

Union Ministers Rajnath Singh and Thawar Chand Gehlot and senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge also paid respects to Ambedkar there.

Ambedkar passed away on this day in 1956 at the age of 65.

&quot;I bow to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on his Mahaparinirvan Diwas,&quot; the prime minister said on Twitter.&nbsp;

Rahul pays tribute to Ambedkar

Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi today paid tribute to the architect of the Constitution, B R Ambedkar, on his death anniversary and said men might be mortal but their ideas need to be propagated.

Gandhi, poised to take over as Congress president, took to Twitter to remember Ambedkar, hailed for his contribution towards the upliftment of Dalits.

&quot;Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Otherwise, both will wither and die. My tributes to #BabasahebAmbedkar on #MahaParinirvana Diwas,&quot; Gandhi said.

Ambedkar passed away on this day in 1956. He was 65 then.&nbsp;

The leaders paid floral tributes to Ambedkar, hailed for his contribution towards uplift of Dalits, at Parliament House Lawns here

President Ram Nath Kovind, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi today paid tributes to the architect of the Constitution, B R Ambedkar, on his death anniversary. The leaders paid floral tributes to Ambedkar, hailed for his contribution towards uplift of Dalits, at Parliament House Lawns here. Union Ministers Rajnath Singh and Thawar Chand Gehlot and senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge also paid respects to Ambedkar there. Ambedkar passed away on this day in 1956 at the age of 65. "I bow to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on his Mahaparinirvan Diwas," the prime minister said on Twitter. Rahul pays tribute to Ambedkar Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi today paid tribute to the architect of the Constitution, B R Ambedkar, on his death anniversary and said men might be mortal but their ideas need to be propagated. Gandhi, poised to take over as Congress president, took to Twitter to remember Ambedkar, hailed for his contribution towards the upliftment of Dalits. "Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Otherwise, both will wither and die. My tributes to #BabasahebAmbedkar on #MahaParinirvana Diwas," Gandhi said. Ambedkar passed away on this day in 1956. He was 65 then.

Ambedkar death anniversary: PM Modi, President Kovind, Rahul Gandhi pay tributes

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a &#39;New India&#39;, and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature.

He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is &lsquo;important&rsquo; but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government.

The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court.

President Thomas Jefferson&rsquo;s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson&rsquo;s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall&rsquo;s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When the nation?s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: &ldquo;If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.&rdquo;

The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case.

When the nation&rsquo;s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install &lsquo;committed&rsquo; judges in the Supreme Court.

These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the &lsquo;basic structure doctrine&rsquo; by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed.

Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for &lsquo;commitment&rsquo; by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory.

They are required to &lsquo;uphold the constitution and the laws&rsquo;, &lsquo;without fear&rsquo; and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the &lsquo;independence of judiciary&rsquo; and the &lsquo;system of checks and balances&rsquo; which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority.

It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power.

But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the Constitution Day celebration, emphasised the need for the government and judiciary to be on the same page for realising the dream of a 'New India', and doubted whether they are working in unison. Though Modi spoke in a placid manner, his Minister of Law and Justice Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad was harsher while reminding the judiciary that law-making must be left in the realm of those elected to make the law and judiciary should not behave like a super-legislature. He also mockingly reminded that independence of the judiciary is ‘important’ but judicial accountability probity and propriety are too indispensable. The message was a patent that this government like any other authoritative government wants a committed judiciary i.e. a judiciary committed to the policies of the government. The idea and substance of a committed judiciary were practised in the United States. It is well known that Chief Justice John Marshall imposed upon his colleagues the practice of delivering only unanimous opinions in order to secure the fledgling authority of the Supreme Court. President Thomas Jefferson’s objections to this development and his initiatives against this practice, including the appointments of justices of his own choice are equally well documented. Jefferson’s appointment of William Johnson as Associate Justice and his subsequent stream of advice to him on breaking Chief Justice Marshall’s hold on the court displays his aspiration of having committed judges. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of constitution and justice, they were superseded. × The Indian Supreme Court could not remain aloof to this idea of the committed judiciary. Since inception, the government attempted to confine the role of judges. Once Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru while discussing the role of judges expressed his view in following words: “If we go wrong here and there, it can be pointed out but in the ultimate analysis no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the entire community. A judge can correct the wrong here and there; they cannot arrogate to themselves the position of the super house of a parliament.” The craving of having a committed judiciary got more prominence with Indira Gandhi when her election was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and some of her political decisions were challenged in cases like Privy Purse case and Bank Nationalisation Case. When the nation’s senior-most judges questioned the government in the name of Constitution and justice, they were superseded. Many judges of the High Court who did not toe the line with the government were transferred. Attempts were made to install ‘committed’ judges in the Supreme Court. These installed committed judges tried to protect the interest of the government and when they could not, they penned down dissenting opinions to prove his loyalty. An attempt was also made by the committed Chief Justice of India to overrule the ‘basic structure doctrine’ by creating a bunch of committed and like-minded judges but fortunately could not succeed. Mrs Gandhi vindicated her claim for ‘commitment’ by referring President Roosevelt of the United States of America has appointed judges who were committed to his programmes. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. × The behaviour of the Judge is the fortress for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law. The judges must function without fear and favour otherwise the question of their being impartial or independent will be rendered nugatory. They are required to ‘uphold the constitution and the laws’, ‘without fear’ and favour. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government, the ‘independence of judiciary’ and the ‘system of checks and balances’ which are essential features of the constitution will be in peril and constitutional democracy will be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority. It will also destroy the federal fabric, another basic structure of the constitution. It will create distrust among the federal Union. There are so many disputes between the States and they would not have trust in the Central Government because they might sense that the Centre would favour those States where their own political party is in power. But they would have faith in the judiciary which is equipped with jurisdiction to solve these disputes and preserve the federal identity of the constitution. The idea of the committed judiciary will spoil this federal trust and confidence. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why judiciary can't be committed to the government

President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a &quot;delicate balance&quot; while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said.

However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers &quot;by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches&quot;, the president said.

&quot;It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal,&quot; Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day.

He said the Constitution is &quot;not static but is a living document&quot; and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable.

&quot;This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands,&quot; the president said.

He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages.

&quot;Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster,&quot; he said.

The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary.

He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster.

&quot;I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases,&quot; he said.

He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years.

&quot;The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service,&quot; Kovind said.

He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every &#39;mohalla&#39; of the country.

Delivering a lecture on &#39;constitutional value&#39; at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution.

He said that the Constitution is the &quot;religion of all the religions&quot;.

Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot &quot;afford to fail&quot;.

However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a &quot;judge is always on trial&quot;.

President Ram Nath Kovind said that the Constitution was the 'religion of all religions', while inaugurating the function organized by the Supreme Court

President Ram Nath Kovind said today that it was critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers and maintain a "delicate balance" while exploring the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature as they are all equal. The three organs of the state should be conscious of their liberty and strive to protect their autonomy, he said. However, they should be careful about not disturbing the fraternity of separation of powers "by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches", the president said. "It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance in mind when exploring the relationship between the three branches of the state - that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. They are all equal," Kovind said while inaugurating the function organised by the Supreme Court here to celebrate the Constitution Day. He said the Constitution is "not static but is a living document" and the sobriety and discretion in communication between these three branches of the state is extremely advisable. "This will promote and enhance fraternity between three equal branches of the state, all of which have a certain responsibility to the Constitution. It will also reassure the ordinary citizen that the Constitution is safe - and in mature hands," the president said. He also emphasised that high courts across the country need to take up the task of quickly providing certified translated copies of judgements to the litigants in local and regional languages. "Even the hearings in court, if possible, have to be in a language that is understandable to the ordinary litigant. The process of case disposal too has to be made faster," he said. The president also said that it was upon the higher judiciary to mentor and encourage the lower judiciary and in this process, the cooperation of state governments was very much necessary. He said it was for the state governments to ensure that the judges of the district and subordinate courts were not denied their due perquisites and facilities and high courts should urge the subordinate courts to be more efficient and conclude cases faster. "I am glad to note, some high courts are taking steps in these directions. As of June 30, 2017, there were about 76,000 old cases, pending for five years or more, in sessions and district courts under the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court has set a target of March 31, 2018, to dispose off almost half these cases," he said. He also referred to the initiative of the Chhattisgarh High Court in setting a deadline of April 30, 2018, for the subordinate courts to dispose off cases pending for over 10 years and September 30 next year deadline for disposing cases pending for between five and 10 years. "The High Court of Chhattisgarh has also started to make provision for availability of Hindi versions of judgements and orders. I commend these initiatives. I am sure other high courts are also moving ahead with a similar sense of public service," Kovind said. He said that Constitution is not just an abstract ideal and it has to be made meaningful to the lives of ordinary people in every street, every village and every 'mohalla' of the country. Delivering a lecture on 'constitutional value' at the function, former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti referred to the historical events related to framing of the Constitution. He said that the Constitution is the "religion of all the religions". Referring to the judiciary, the ex-CJI said that while other organs of the state may afford to fail and falter, the judiciary cannot "afford to fail". However, he also had a word of caution for the judiciary and said that it should not take upon the role of the executive and the legislature while discharging judicial functions as a "judge is always on trial".

Critical not to disturb the fraternity of separation of powers: Ram Nath Kovind on Constitution Day

With his career on the line, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi made a final appeal to Italians on Friday to support a crucial referendum to change the constitution, saying Italy could become Europe&#39;s strongest nation if it wins.

&quot;(This Sunday) could change the lives of our children,&quot; he told a large rally in his home city of Florence.

&quot;It is not for us, it is not for a political party, it is for them,&quot; he said at the end of a frenetic day of campaigning that included numerous media events and public rallies.

Financial markets and European political leaders fear victory for the opposition &quot;No&quot; camp in Sunday&#39;s vote could trigger political instability and renewed turmoil for Italy&#39;s battered banks, pushing the euro zone towards a fresh crisis.

Renzi has promised to resign if Italians reject his plan to drastically reduce the role of the upper house Senate and claw back powers from regional authorities.&nbsp;

The opposition says the reform will reduce vital democratic checks and balances.

Renzi, who has been trying to turn around a plethora of opinion polls showing a lead for &quot;No&quot;, said voting &quot;Yes&quot; would &quot;give Italians the possibility to write a page of history&quot;.

&quot;If &#39;Yes&#39; wins, Italy will become the leader of Europe,&quot; said Renzi, who has pledged to immediately veto the European Union&#39;s budget to force Italy&#39;s partners to give it more help in handling an influx of migrants arriving on its shores.

If Renzi is defeated, he is expected to go to President Sergio Mattarella at the Quirinale Palace, a ritual for a prime minister about to resign.

Mattarella might try to convince him to stay in office to guarantee political stability, officials have said.

Hours before Renzi spoke in Florence, Beppe Grillo, founder of the anti-euro 5-star Movement which backs a &quot;No&quot; vote, thundered against the political establishment at a rally in the northern industrial city of Turin.

&quot;We are a country that is stuck in the mud,&quot; the former comedian told thousands of people.

MOST BETS ON &quot;NO&quot;

A blackout on the publication of surveys was imposed on Nov. 18, but private polls are still being carried out and bookmakers say the &quot;No&quot; camp remains the clear favourite to win.

Economy Minister Pier Carlo Padoan sought to calm nervous markets, saying in a newspaper interview that there was &quot;no risk of a financial earthquake&quot; if &quot;No&quot; wins, though there may be &quot;48 hours of turbulence&quot;.

European shares fell to a three-week low on Friday as investors stayed cautious ahead of Italy&#39;s vote, with Milan&#39;s blue chip index off 0.75 per cent.

The bond market was more sanguine, with the gap between Italian and German 10-year bond yields, a key bellwether of investor sentiment, dipping to 165 basis points against a 2-1/2 year high of 190 points registered last week.

Market jitters have concentrated on Italy&#39;s banks, saddled with 360 billion euros ($380 billion) of bad loans, and most specifically on Monte Dei Paschi di Siena , its oldest and third largest lender.

The bank needs to raise 5 billion euros ($5.3 billion) by the end of the year to plug a capital shortfall or risk being wound down.&nbsp;

Government officials say potential investors may be deterred by political instability if &#39;No&#39; wins on Sunday.

With bookmakers odds suggesting a roughly 75 per cent chance of a win for &quot;No&quot;, speculation is rife on what Renzi will do in the event of defeat.

Renzi has said he will play no role in any unelected, so-called &quot;technical&quot; government, which Mattarella may try to put in place. Some of his allies have urged him to stay in power regardless of the result.

&nbsp;

(Reuters)

Markets and European political leaders fear victory of opposition 'No' camp in Sunday's crucial referendum to change Italy's constitution

With his career on the line, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi made a final appeal to Italians on Friday to support a crucial referendum to change the constitution, saying Italy could become Europe's strongest nation if it wins. "(This Sunday) could change the lives of our children," he told a large rally in his home city of Florence. "It is not for us, it is not for a political party, it is for them," he said at the end of a frenetic day of campaigning that included numerous media events and public rallies. Financial markets and European political leaders fear victory for the opposition "No" camp in Sunday's vote could trigger political instability and renewed turmoil for Italy's battered banks, pushing the euro zone towards a fresh crisis. Renzi has promised to resign if Italians reject his plan to drastically reduce the role of the upper house Senate and claw back powers from regional authorities. The opposition says the reform will reduce vital democratic checks and balances. Renzi, who has been trying to turn around a plethora of opinion polls showing a lead for "No", said voting "Yes" would "give Italians the possibility to write a page of history". "If 'Yes' wins, Italy will become the leader of Europe," said Renzi, who has pledged to immediately veto the European Union's budget to force Italy's partners to give it more help in handling an influx of migrants arriving on its shores. If Renzi is defeated, he is expected to go to President Sergio Mattarella at the Quirinale Palace, a ritual for a prime minister about to resign. Mattarella might try to convince him to stay in office to guarantee political stability, officials have said. Hours before Renzi spoke in Florence, Beppe Grillo, founder of the anti-euro 5-star Movement which backs a "No" vote, thundered against the political establishment at a rally in the northern industrial city of Turin. "We are a country that is stuck in the mud," the former comedian told thousands of people. MOST BETS ON "NO" A blackout on the publication of surveys was imposed on Nov. 18, but private polls are still being carried out and bookmakers say the "No" camp remains the clear favourite to win. Economy Minister Pier Carlo Padoan sought to calm nervous markets, saying in a newspaper interview that there was "no risk of a financial earthquake" if "No" wins, though there may be "48 hours of turbulence". European shares fell to a three-week low on Friday as investors stayed cautious ahead of Italy's vote, with Milan's blue chip index off 0.75 per cent. The bond market was more sanguine, with the gap between Italian and German 10-year bond yields, a key bellwether of investor sentiment, dipping to 165 basis points against a 2-1/2 year high of 190 points registered last week. Market jitters have concentrated on Italy's banks, saddled with 360 billion euros ($380 billion) of bad loans, and most specifically on Monte Dei Paschi di Siena , its oldest and third largest lender. The bank needs to raise 5 billion euros ($5.3 billion) by the end of the year to plug a capital shortfall or risk being wound down. Government officials say potential investors may be deterred by political instability if 'No' wins on Sunday. With bookmakers odds suggesting a roughly 75 per cent chance of a win for "No", speculation is rife on what Renzi will do in the event of defeat. Renzi has said he will play no role in any unelected, so-called "technical" government, which Mattarella may try to put in place. Some of his allies have urged him to stay in power regardless of the result. (Reuters)

Italy's last day of frantic referendum campaign, Renzi makes final appeal

Thailand&#39;s military government has set up security centres around the country ahead of an August referendum on a new constitution, a spokesman for the government said on Monday. 
 
The centres are the latest measure rolled out by the government as Thailand prepares to vote on a new constitution that critics fear will entrench the military&#39;s influence. 
 
The draft of Thailand&#39;s 20th constitution is to replace one scrapped after a 2014 coup by generals who promised stability in Southeast Asia&#39;s second-biggest economy. 
 
The August&nbsp;7 referendum will be the first real rest of the junta&#39;s popularity since it took power. 
 
A &quot;Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order&quot; has been set up in every one of Thailand&#39;s 76 provinces, said Major General Sansern Kaewkamnerd, spokesman for the Thai prime minister&#39;s office, in order to ensure &quot;no cheating, no lobbying and no persuading people to vote one way or another.&quot; 
 
Provincial governors will be responsible for assembling teams to join the centre including police, troops and civilian volunteers. 
 
&quot;We need to ensure peace during the referendum so that people can decide how our country will move forward,&quot; Sansern told Reuters.&nbsp; 
 
Last month,&nbsp;junta chief Prayuth Chan-ocha and opposition supporters of ousted populist premier Thaksin Shinawatra both contacted the United Nations after an upsurge in political tension, just a day after police shut down an electoral monitoring centre of the &quot;red shirt&quot; anti-government movement.&nbsp; 
 
The red shirts say the centres are needed to prevent fraud.&nbsp; 
 
Thanawut Wichaidit, a spokesman for the red shirt movement, accused the government of double standards. 
 
 
&quot;We weren&#39;t able to set up our monitoring centres so why should the military government be allowed to set up their centres?&quot; Thanawut told Reuters. 
 
&quot;The military government is blindfolding the electorate and leading their hand to vote in the manner they want.&quot; 
 
Under the proposed charter, a junta-appointed Senate with seats reserved for military commanders would check the powers of elected lawmakers for a five-year transitional period.

(Reuters)

The August?7 referendum will be the first real rest of the junta's popularity since it took power

Thailand's military government has set up security centres around the country ahead of an August referendum on a new constitution, a spokesman for the government said on Monday. The centres are the latest measure rolled out by the government as Thailand prepares to vote on a new constitution that critics fear will entrench the military's influence. The draft of Thailand's 20th constitution is to replace one scrapped after a 2014 coup by generals who promised stability in Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy. The August 7 referendum will be the first real rest of the junta's popularity since it took power. A "Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order" has been set up in every one of Thailand's 76 provinces, said Major General Sansern Kaewkamnerd, spokesman for the Thai prime minister's office, in order to ensure "no cheating, no lobbying and no persuading people to vote one way or another." Provincial governors will be responsible for assembling teams to join the centre including police, troops and civilian volunteers. "We need to ensure peace during the referendum so that people can decide how our country will move forward," Sansern told Reuters. Last month, junta chief Prayuth Chan-ocha and opposition supporters of ousted populist premier Thaksin Shinawatra both contacted the United Nations after an upsurge in political tension, just a day after police shut down an electoral monitoring centre of the "red shirt" anti-government movement. The red shirts say the centres are needed to prevent fraud. Thanawut Wichaidit, a spokesman for the red shirt movement, accused the government of double standards. "We weren't able to set up our monitoring centres so why should the military government be allowed to set up their centres?" Thanawut told Reuters. "The military government is blindfolding the electorate and leading their hand to vote in the manner they want." Under the proposed charter, a junta-appointed Senate with seats reserved for military commanders would check the powers of elected lawmakers for a five-year transitional period. (Reuters)

Thailand sets up security centres ahead of August referendum

constitution

Constitution, News on Constitution, stories on Constitution, articles on Constitution, Constitution stories at Wion, Constitution news, Constitution latest news