Mamata disagrees with prediction of India becoming world's largest economy by 2060, draws BJP's ire
Kolkata/London (PTI): West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, during her official visit to the United Kingdom, disagreed with a prediction that India would become the world's largest economy by 2060, drawing flak from the BJP, which accused her of tarnishing the nation's image on foreign soil.
Banerjee made the remarks during a conversation at Kellogg College, Oxford University, late on Thursday.
The interviewer mentioned that India had already overtaken the UK to become the fifth-largest economy and was projected to become the third-largest soon, with predictions indicating that the south Asian nation would top the global economic rankings by 2060.
In response, Banerjee said, "I will differ from that. There are so many things about which I should not speak here... internal and external affairs matters... I cannot disclose. I have some other opinions."
She went on to explain, "Because every country is facing trouble after COVID-19, and with the turmoil going on in the world... if an economic war-like situation is underway in the world, how do we expect that we will gain? Let us hope for the gain, we can only hope. It is our dream to see my country our best. But it depends..."
BJP leaders criticised the Trinmool Congress supremo's remarks, accusing her of tarnishing India's reputation on foreign soil.
Union minister and BJP's state unit president Sukanta Majumdar expressed his disapproval, calling her response an "insult" to the office she holds.
"India has surpassed the UK to become the world's fifth-largest economy, a moment of pride for every Indian! Yet, Mamata Banerjee is tarnishing India's reputation on foreign soil.
"Her anti-India rhetoric is not only shameful for every Indian but also an insult to the constitutional office she holds. It is evident that you have failed as a chief minister, but do you even hesitate to call yourself an Indian? Are you truly an Indian? @MamataOfficial. Disrespecting the nation on foreign soil is equivalent to openly opposing India," Majumdar wrote on X.
The BJP's IT Cell head, Amit Malviya, also criticised Banerjee's stance, sharing a video clip of her comments on X.
"West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has a problem with India becoming the world's largest economy. This is truly shameful. She is a disgrace to the constitutional office she holds. Who behaves like this on foreign soil?" Malviya wrote.
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 adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
