Tejashwi slams state govt over ‘nepotism' in key appointments

1
2
Patna: Leader of the opposition in Bihar assembly,
Tejashwi Prasad Yadav
, on Sunday accused the state govt of "gross nepotism" in recent appointments to various commissions.
Addressing a press conference, Tejashwi released the names of people recently appointed to the Bihar State Women Commission and as Group A panel counsel for central govt litigation in the Supreme Court for a three-year term.
According to him, one appointee is the wife of a retired bureaucrat with close ties to those in power while two others are daughters of a ruling party leader similarly connected.
Citing these appointments, Tejashwi criticised PM Narendra Modi as well. "The PM lectures us on parivarvaad (nepotism), but just look at what is happening in Bihar under his ally's rule," he said.
He went on to mock the govt's approach. "The sons-in-law of three top leaders in Bihar were appointed as the chairman, vice-chairman and member of various commissions recently formed.
If the appointments are being made in this manner, the govt should promptly establish a dedicated 'Sons-in-law Commission' so that the remaining sons-in-law can also be included in positions of benefit by the ruling party," he said.
Tejashwi also demanded transparency regarding state-facilitated opportunities for relatives of officials. He asked the govt to disclose how many wives of government officials were given government jobs, how many children of officials were sent abroad using public funds, how many have launched consultancy firms, and how many have invested in land and assets overseas.
Follow more information on
Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here
. Get
real-time live updates
on rescue operations and check
full list of passengers onboard AI 171
.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling

Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.

NDTV

4 hours ago

• NDTV

Supreme Court's Emergency-Era Verdict "Darkest" In Judicial History: Vice President

New Delhi: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday slammed the Supreme Court for its verdict delivered during the Emergency, dubbing it the "darkest" in the judicial history of the world. According to an official statement, he said the judgment of the Supreme Court overruling that of nine high courts legitimised dictatorship and authoritarianism. Mr Dhankhar also questioned the then president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed for signing the proclamation of Emergency on the "instance" of then prime minister Indira Gandhi and not the entire council of ministers. Addressing a group of Rajya Sabha interns here, the vice president said, "A president cannot act on the advice of an individual, the prime minister. The Constitution is very categorical. "There is a council of ministers headed by the PM to aid and advise the president. This was one violation, but what was the result? More than 1,00,000 citizens of this country were put behind bars in hours," he said. Referring to the role of the judiciary during the Emergency, Mr Dhankhar said, "That was a time when the fundamental essence of democracy capsized in times of distress. People look up to the judiciary. "Nine high courts in the country have gloriously defined that emergency or no emergency, people have fundamental rights and there is access to the justice system. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overturned all nine high courts and gave a judgment which will be the darkest in the history of any judicial institution in the world that believes in the rule of law," he further said. Mr Dhankhar pointed out that the decision was that "it is the will of the executive to have Emergency for as much time as it thinks fit". In the 1976 ADM Jabalpur case, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a majority of 4-1, upheld the suspension of fundamental rights during the national emergency. The majority verdict of the then Chief Justice of India A N Ray and Justices M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati held that the right to seek legal remedy for violations of Article 21 was suspended during the Emergency. Justice H R Khanna dissented and held that the right to life and liberty is inherent and not merely a gift from the Constitution. The top court also ruled that during an Emergency, there are no fundamental rights. "So the judgment of the Supreme Court legitimised dictatorship, authoritarianism and despotism in this land," Mr Dhankhar said. The vice president said the present government has "wisely" decided to observe June 25 every year as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'. Emergency remained in force between June 25, 1975 and March 21, 1977.

Scroll.in

4 hours ago

• Scroll.in

Bhima Koregaon case: Court rejects activist Gautam Navlakha's plea to live in Delhi

A Mumbai court on Thursday rejected human rights activist Gautam Navlakha's petition seeking permission to live in Delhi during the pendency of his trial in the Bhima Koregaon case, reported Live Law. The trial in the case is yet to begin. Navlakha, 72, is among 16 academicians, activists and lawyers who have been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for their alleged role in instigating caste violence at Bhima Koregaon near Pune in January 2018. He was arrested in August 2018 and placed under house arrest in November 2022 after the Supreme Court granted his request to be shifted from jail on the grounds of ill health and poor facilities in prison. In December 2023, the Bombay High Court granted him bail, which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in May 2024, following which he was released. However, one of the bail conditions prohibits him from leaving Mumbai without the permission of the special court, where the trial of the case will be held. On Thursday, Navlakha was directed by the special National Investigation Agency court not to leave the jurisdiction of the Mumbai court, PTI reported. The court reportedly told the activist that 'allowing him to reside permanently beyond the jurisdiction of the court is an entirely different thing'. 'This unnecessary application deserves to be rejected,' special judge CS Baviskar was quoted as saying by PTI. Navlakha, a Delhi resident, had approached the court in April seeking permission to move as it had become 'extremely difficult for him to sustain a stable lifestyle' in Mumbai. He told the court that he had been unemployed and thus had to financially depend on friends and family since he was released in May 2024. The activist pointed out that the trial in the case will take a long time to conclude and hence it is 'crucial for him to be employed and financially stable' to be able to meet legal expenses.