Baijayant Panda quits BJD
Bhubaneswar, May 28: Baijayant Jay Panda, who was suspended from primary membership of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in January, quit the party on Monday.
"It's with deep anguish, hurt and sorrow that I have decided to quit the politics into which our BJD has descended," said Panda in a letter to Odisha Chief Minister and BJD president Naveen Patnaik, adding that he would convey his decision to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
"With the BJD and you yourself having made it abundantly clear that I am unwanted, it is only right to disassociate from it," he said in the letter.
The Kendrapada MP said: "It has plumbed the absolute depths of inhumanity when neither you nor anyone from the BJD turned up to pay their last respects to my father Bansidhar Panda, who as everyone knows was a very close friend, supporter and associate of Biju uncle (Biju Patnaik) for decades."
Senior Panda, a noted Odia industrialist, passed away on May 22 at the age of 87.
Panda said that he was heartbroken when several BJD leaders conveyed that they had been restrained from coming by to pay their last respects to the departed soul.
He also said he will convey his decision to Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan to accept his resignation upon completion of his religious obligations of bereavement.
"I've been viciously targeted, including being physically assaulted with stones, bricks and eggs last May in Mahanga. I was extremely saddened that even then you (Naveen Patnaik) did not bother to call to inquire about my health and safety," said Baijayant.
Patnaik had suspended Panda from the party for his anti-party activities on January 24.
He was elected to the Lok Sabha in 2009 and 2014 from Kendrapara Lok Sabha constituency. Earlier, he was elected to Rajya Sabha twice on BJD ticket.
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 to entertain PIL for action against inflammatory speeches
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a PIL that sought urgent intervention against inflammatory speeches by public figures, alleging these statements endanger national unity, security and promote divisive ideologies.
Observing that there was a difference between hate speeches and wrong assertions, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the counsel for PIL petitioner ‘Hindu Sena Samiti’ that it was not inclined to issue notice on the petition.
"We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references. Further, there is a difference between hate speech and wrong assertions…In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law,” the bench said.
The bench said it was not making observations on the merits of the case.
The PIL had urged the court to direct the formulation of guidelines to prevent provocative rhetoric and to mandate penal action against individuals making statements that could jeopardise public order and the nation’s sovereignty.
Advocates Kunwar Aditya Singh and Swatantra Rai, appearing for the petitioner, said the political leaders’ remarks often veer towards incitement, potentially sparking public unrest.
They cited recent comments by the political figures, including former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, as instances where rhetoric had allegedly threatened public order.
In his remarks, Verma had allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising, drawing comparisons to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Tikait allegedly referenced the farmers' protests in a manner that suggested the possibility of violent insurrection.
The petition said the government has been inconsistent in enforcing legal restrictions on inflammatory speech.
It said the court, in its directions, had mandated prompt action against speech inciting unrest under some of the provisions of the IPC.
The 'Hindu Sena Samiti' had sought multiple reliefs, including the formulation of guidelines to regulate provocative speeches, penal action against violators and a directive for mandatory training programmes for politicians.
It also emphasised the importance of equal legal treatment, arguing that similar offences by civilians and journalists often see stringent actions from the state, while statements by political figures inciting unrest go largely unchecked.
