SC order indirectly curtailing my right under Constitution: Siddaramaiah tells Speaker
Bengaluru: Congress Legislature Party (CLP) leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday added that he was concerned about his right to issue whip to his party’s MLAs in view of the Cupreme Court’s interim order.
He added that neither he nor his party were party to the petition in the top court and hence he reserves the right to issue whip to the rebel MLAs.
“The Supreme Court order is indirectly curtailing my right under tenth schedule of Constitution, when we are not even a party to the petition” he said in assembly.
The former CM further said defection is a big blow to the foundations of Constitution, and a menace that corrupts politics. He added anti-defection law has not been struck down either by the Supreme Court or Parliament.
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.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
