Internal Rift in BJD over U-turn on Waqf bill persists
Bhubaneswar: The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) continues to witness internal unrest following its sudden change in stance on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The party, which had earlier announced its opposition to the Bill, allowed its MPs to vote according to their conscience in the Rajya Sabha, a move that has led to sharp criticism from within.
On Monday, BJD Rajya Sabha MP Debasish Samantaray openly blamed former bureaucrat and ex-Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik's aide, VK Pandian, for influencing the party's reversal. Samantaray, who was absent during the voting, claimed there was confusion over the party’s position and accused Pandian of still making decisions on behalf of the BJD despite his formal retirement from politics 10 months ago. He further alleged that Pandian had "single-handedly destroyed" the regional party.
In response, several BJD MPs came out in defence of Pandian. Rajya Sabha MP Manas Mangaraj expressed disappointment over Samantaray’s remarks and reminded that Naveen Patnaik remains the final authority on party decisions. He urged that internal concerns be raised through party forums rather than the media.
Sulata Deo, another BJD MP, accused Samantaray of using Pandian as a scapegoat to deflect attention from his own absence during the vote. She claimed that Samantaray had created a scene at Naveen Niwas and was targeting Pandian due to personal grudges.
Meanwhile, BJD MP Muzibulla Khan, who had vocally opposed the Bill in Parliament, criticised senior leader Sasmit Patra for supporting it. He, along with his supporters—mostly from the minority community—met Patnaik and demanded accountability for the party’s shift. Slogans were also raised against Pandian outside Naveen Niwas.
The controversy surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, now an Act following Presidential assent, has evidently deepened the divide within the BJD, with several leaders taking opposing sides and questioning the decision-making process.
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.
Panchayat election candidates obligated to disclose info on pending cases: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which said the candidates contesting panchayat elections were obligated to disclose information about the pending cases against them.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the remarks while affirming the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to uphold the dismissal of the 'pradhan' (head) of the Pangna village panchayat in Mandi district.
The high court on October 16, 2024, held that the concealment of material facts by the petitioner amounted to "corrupt practice" under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and was another valid ground to declare his election null and void.
The top court said, "We fail to find any merit as far as the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order(s) and judgment(s) of the high court are concerned. We say so for the reason that the regulations framed by the State Election Commission have rightly been held by the high court to be a piece of subordinate legislation and, thus, the candidates contesting the panchayat election were obligated to comply with the provisions of the same."
The bench said that, in any case, the misconduct attributed to the petitioner, Basant Lal, did not require reference to any provision of the act, rules or regulations.
"It is a case where he deliberately filed a false affidavit/undertaking concealing the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. The concealment of that material fact per se was a valid ground to annul his election," the bench noted.
Lal had pointed out before the court that on February 2, 2025, he was disqualified from contesting elections for a period of six years due to the previous non-disclosure of a criminal case.
The bench, however, noted that Lal has been thereafter acquitted in the criminal case, the details of which he allegedly concealed and suffered disqualification.
Dealing with the issue of disqualification of the petition for six years, the bench said the punishment was harsh, as he has been acquitted in the criminal case in question.
"Turning lastly to the order dated February 2, 2025, by way of which the petitioner has been precluded from contesting elections for the next six years, we do not want to express any opinion on this order's merits as it is a subsequent event which was not subject matter of the challenge before the high court," the bench said.
The top court also said that in light of the fact that the petitioner is stated to have been acquitted in the criminal case, it seems that barring him for six years from contesting elections is "prima facie harsh and disproportionate punishment to the nature of allegations attributed to him".
The bench said, "We hasten to clarify that these are only prima facie observations at this stage. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge that order before the high court in the appropriate proceedings."
It added that since this court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of that order, it is the high court's discretion to take an appropriate view of the matter.
"Consequently, with a view to avoid irreversible hardship to the petitioner, operation of the order dated February 2, 2025, is hereby stayed for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to contest the election of pradhan of the gram panchayat, if it is held in the near future.
"This stay shall operate for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the petitioner to approach the high court meanwhile by way of appropriate proceedings," the bench said in its April 17 order.
Lal approached the top court after being aggrieved by a judgment dated November 7, 2024, passed by a division bench of the high court, affirming the view taken by a single-judge bench with respect to his disqualification from holding the post of pradhan of the gram panchayat.
Lal was declared as pradhan on January 17, 2021. Jitender Mahajan, who finished third in the polls, challenged the petitioner's selection through an election petition filed before the sub-divisional authorised officer.
Mahajan's plea contented that Lal deliberately did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case registered against him.
The sub-divisional magistrate-cum-authorised officer (election tribunal) found that a criminal case was pending trial against Lal where a punishment of up to two years could be awarded, and declared the petitioner's election as null and void.
Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, Lal filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner-cum-appellant authority, which was dismissed on May 1, 2023.
Thereafter, he approached the high court against the order of the deputy commissioner.
