Conspiracy of Sangh Parivar against democracy
The secret agenda of BJP is not so secret anymore. Having successfully split people in the name of caste, and faith, BJP aka Sangh Parivar has started with its objections against the constitution that has been accepted by all. The intolerance of brahminical mindset against the constitution written by a Dalit scholar is out in the open. The conspiracy against the constitution written by Baba Saheb Ambedkar that considered the welfare of all communities, has been on since long.
RSS Secretary Suresh Joshi has recently voiced his opinion against the constitution in Gwalior on Sunday at the All India RSS Representatives Meeting stating the constitution alone cannot take the country further since it cannot protect the tenets of Hindu dharma and traditions. Hence the RSS would be getting to the task of fixing it. RSS has started working on its hidden agenda of working up public opinion against Supreme Court ruling against traditional Hindu celebrations such as Jallikattu, bursting of crackers, women entering Sabarimala temple and other related issues.
This is not the first time that the Sangh Parivar has launched an attack on constitution. This has been on since the time this country got the independence. Constitution was accepted after long drawn discussion and debating by the designated committee on the draft submitted by Dr Ambedkar. By then itself the second Sarsanghchalak Madhava Sadashiva Golwalkar had already sounded dissidence. “This constitution drafted by Ambedkar does not embody the values of the heritage of this land. This does not reflect the Hindu Sanskriti that the country stands for,” he had said. But since the then Home Minister Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel had already banned RSS, Sangh Parivar was mute till late.
The ban was lifted only after Golwalkar gave an undertaking. The organization lie mute till the recent days when Modi became the PM and people began speaking against the constitution and their desire to change it. BJP leader with Sangh roots Ram Madhav and RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat among others have been speaking about this quite openly. Now since Suresh Joshi has said this in the meeting, the agenda has become even clear.
The Hindu culture and beliefs that Suresh Joshi subscribes to, are no secret anyway. His Hindu culture will denial of women entering into the temples much like Brahminism and that should not be questioned ever by constitution or court. Supreme Court has banned crackers saying this contributes to environmental pollution, and is dangerous to humans and animals as well. But the Sangh won’t accept it. Constitution has lifted the ban on entry of Dalits into temples. As per RSS and Hindu faith system, they may not only oppose to Dalits entering the temple, but also their migrating to urban areas on the whole. And as far as the reservation to SC/ST and other categories are concerned, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat has already opposed it many a times.
This proves one thing beyond doubt. Any agenda of Sangh Parivar is not a secret anymore. Constitution and reservation would be under threat if BJP government comes to power again in the centre. Hence people should strive to retain the rights given to them by the constitution irrespective of caste, creed, faith or gender. If they do not wake up now, the constitution would be under threat. All the facilities communities have been getting so far would disappear. Corporate and communal fascist combination would destroy this country forever.
The construction of Ram Mandir, Gau Raksha Abhiyana and others are all Sangh Parivar agendas. Their sole aim is to polarize the society and clinch power, then eradicate the reservation given to underprivileged communities. Take out the protection given to women and backward communities given by the constitution and then impose class based system on the society in the direction of Manu’s ideology. BJP ministers like Anant Kumar Hegde have been speaking about changing the constitution since the beginning. This is not a standalone opinion, but the sole purpose of the RSS. This is more than clear now, with Joshi’s statement.
The upcoming election is a battle between those who want to destroy the constitution and those who want to keep it. People have to choose between these two.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses review of decision against confiscating funds received via electoral bonds
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking the review of its decision rejecting the petitions for confiscating Rs 16,518 crore received by political parties under the 2018 electoral bond scheme.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review plea filed by one Khem Singh Bhati against the top court's decision of August 2, 2024.
The apex court had then rejected the petition seeking confiscation of money received under the scheme.
The bench on March 26 held, "The review petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
The top court's order, made available recently, also refused to accept Bhati's prayer for an open-court hearing in the matter.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by former CJI D Y Chandrachud on February 15 last year scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government.
Following the top court's judgement, the State Bank of India, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, shared the data with the election commission which made it public.
The electoral bonds scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of its efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.
The top court, on August 2 last year, rejected a batch of pleas including the one filed by Bhati for a court-monitored probe into the electoral bonds scheme and observed it couldn't order a roving inquiry.
The review plea, filed through advocate Jayesh K Unnikrishnan and settled by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, said on February 15, 2024 the apex court in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India held the scheme unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"The effect of declaring the electoral bond scheme and the various statutory provisions as unconstitutional is that the said scheme never existed and is void ab-initio and it is a settled position of law that the court only finds law and it does not make law," it argued.
The verdict in the ADR case, the plea said, rendered the EBS void since inception, and therefore, the subsequent pleas seeking confiscation of the amount collected by political parties could not have been dismissed.
"In the absence of any declaration by this court in the ADR case that the judgement would apply prospectively, the existence of the electoral bond scheme on the date of purchase could not have been the basis for dismissal of the present writ petition. The scheme stood wiped out for all purposes from the date of inception and the necessary consequences must follow,” it added.
The plea said the previous bench's reliance on the existence of parliamentary legislation permitting electoral bonds to dismiss the writ petition constituted an "apparent error on the face of the record".
The ADR judgment did not declare its findings to be prospective, which means the statutory framework supporting electoral bonds should have been treated as invalid from the outset, it contended.
The applicant claimed the verdict had a retrospective effect, rendering the scheme null and void since its inception.
The review plea claimed the August 2, 2024 verdict "indirectly modified the ADR judgment".
The plea said evidence disclosed under court directions indicated a quid pro quo between donations made through the scheme and the benefits received by corporate donors, contradicting the bench's conclusion on the claims being speculative.
"Disclosure of information regarding electoral bonds in terms of the direction of this court clearly establish that there was quid pro quo between the donations made to the political parties and benefits received by the corporate houses and the observation...that the writ petition is based on assumption about quid pro quo between the donor and donee and the petitioner is seeking a roving inquiry, suffers from apparent error," it added.
