Whenever we stand up to speak, we are stopped: Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha
New Delhi (PTI): Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday interjected a Lok Sabha debate on the resolution to remove Om Birla as Speaker, saying that he was stopped from speaking in the House on multiple occasions.
Responding to BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad, who cited parliamentary procedures to say that the leader of the opposition should measure his words carefully, especially on issues of national security, Gandhi said the House does not belong to any party but the entire country.
"Whenever we get up to speak, we are stopped. Lok Sabha does not belong to one party but to the entire country," he said.
ALSO READ: Air India Express plane suffers nose-wheel problem at Phuket airport
Earlier, participating in the debate on the resolution against Birla, Ravi Shankar Prasad had said that the motion to remove the Speaker from his post should not be weaponised to "satisfy" the ego of a leader.
He said it was painful that the House is discussing the resolution as it is the result of the ego of a leader.
Quoting Practice and Procedures of Parliament, Prasad said the leader of the opposition should measure his words carefully, especially on issues of national security, and that he should eschew partisan politics.
This led to an uproar from the opposition.
Later, Dilip Saikia, who was chairing the proceedings, allowed Gandhi to respond to the allegations.
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.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
