Dialogue with central government successful: Truckers call off strike
Bengaluru, July 27: The lorry owners who were on indefinite strike for the last one week seeking fulfillment of their demands including toll-free traffic, bringing diesel under GST and other demands, called of their strike on Friday following the central government’s intervention in the strike.
For the last one week, total 90 lakh lorries including 6.5 lakh lorries in the state were off the roads. Because of the strike, the goods lorries were standing in queues on the national highways. This has affected the export and created scarcity of essential commodities. The prices of vegetables, fruits and other provisions were increased due to shortage.
Along with the essential commodities, the industries were also affected as the raw materials like chemicals, paper, cloths, and others were not supplied. Those, who dependent on goods vehicles for their livelihood across the country suffered a lot. Both lorry owners and the government have incurred a loss worth crores as the strike has affected both export and import.
As the government has agreed to fulfill some of the demands in the meeting held on Friday, the lorry owners called of their strike and the goods vehicles would run from Friday night.
“Lakhs of lorries stayed off the roads seeking fulfillment of their demands for the last one week. All goods vehicles owners have extended their support to our strike. Now, the government has agreed to fulfill some of our demands. In view of this, we have decided to call off the strike temporarily”.
- GR Shanmugappa, State Lorry Owners Association president
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.
Judiciary not here to perform Opposition’s role: Former CJI DY Chandrachud
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in an exclusive interview with ANI, addressed recent remarks made by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who stated that the Opposition has taken it upon themselves to "do the task of the judiciary." Responding to this, Chandrachud clarified that the judiciary's role is to scrutinise laws and ensure they are consistent with the Constitution, not to serve as an opposition force.
"People should not presume that the judiciary should perform the role of the opposition in Parliament or state legislatures. Too often, there's a misconception that the judiciary must act as an opposition. We are here to scrutinise laws and assess executive action for its consistency with the law and the Constitution," said the former CJI.
He further emphasised that in a democracy, there is a distinct space for political opposition and that using the judiciary to fulfil such a role undermines its primary function. "What people try to do is use the judiciary to shoot from its shoulders and convert the Court into a space for political opposition," Chandrachud remarked.
Rahul Gandhi had earlier commented, "We are alone working on behalf of the media, investigative agencies, and judiciary also. This is the reality of India."
When questioned about interactions with leaders from both the Opposition and the ruling party, Chandrachud explained that social interactions are natural during official meetings, such as those required for appointments. "After official discussions, spending a few minutes socialising over tea is normal. We are human beings after all," he said, adding that such moments do not compromise judicial independence.
Regarding the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence during Ganpati Puja, Chandrachud called it a social courtesy. "Such visits are not unique. Prime Ministers have visited judges’ homes on social occasions or even during times of personal loss. These courtesies do not affect the independence of our work," he said.
In September, PM Modi’s visit to Chandrachud’s residence for Ganpati Puja drew criticism from Opposition parties, including Congress and Trinamool Congress, over potential conflict of interest. However, Chandrachud maintained that these interactions are part of elementary social courtesy and do not impact the judiciary's independence.
