Oppn to take joint call on impeachment motion against CEC, says Congress; Akhilesh voices support
New Delhi (PTI): The entire Opposition will take a collective call on moving an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Congress leader K C Venugopal said on Wednesday, a day after West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee called for such a move.
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also extended support to Banerjee in her fight against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, however, refused to comment on the matter.
Talking to mediapersons in the Parliament House complex, Venugopal said they are “positively” looking at the suggestion.
Banerjee, who was in the national capital as part of her campaign against the SIR exercise in West Bengal, on Tuesday called for the impeachment of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and sought to rally support from the other opposition parties on the issue.
Banerjee also appeared in the Supreme Court on Wednesday and argued her petition against the SIR exercise, alleging unfair targeting of West Bengal by the poll panel and bulldozing of its citizens.
Asked about Banerjee's call to move an impeachment motion against CEC Kumar, Venugopal, the Congress general secretary in charge of communications, said, “The Trinamool Congress has already contacted the Congress... I think the entire Opposition will take a call on the matter, which is one of the most relevant issues raised by the Trinamool. We are positively looking at it.”
Akhilesh Yadav, whose Samajwadi Party is the second largest party in the Lok Sabha with 37 MPs, came out in support of the Trinamool supremo, and said, “Mamata Banerjee has donned a black coat against the black deeds of the BJP.”
“People must come forward. Losing your vote is losing your right. Everything will be lost one by one... Your citizenship would be questioned. We are with honourable Mamata Banerjee,” he added.
Asked about Banerjee's remarks, Rahul Gandhi, however, said, “I am not commenting on that.”
In the meantime, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi stressed that transparency should be maintained by the Election Commission.
“The way the BJP is misusing the SIR and using the Election Commission to violate voters’ rights by deleting their names on a large scale is deeply concerning. Mamata Ji is fighting this battle because, in West Bengal, a large number of votes belonging to people who traditionally vote for her party have reportedly been removed,” she said.
“She has taken this matter to the Supreme Court, and I welcome the step. On the impeachment motion she is talking about, if the Election Commission, an institution expected to uphold institutional morality, sets that aside and follows someone’s agenda, it is completely wrong,” Chaturvedi said.
“I hope that the Supreme Court, which is a constitutional provision and part of the legal process available to political parties, takes cognisance of this matter so that the credibility of the Election Commission does not collapse. The transparency of the poll panel must be maintained, and voters’ rights must be protected. I believe she will achieve victory in this fight,” she added.
The Trinamool supremo’s remarks came a day after she, along with her delegation, walked out of a meeting with CEC Kumar and other election commissioners on the issue of SIR, alleging that the poll panel chief showed arrogance and humiliated them.
Flanked by people from her state allegedly affected by the SIR exercise, Banerjee claimed at a presser that the electors whose names were being deleted were Trinamool supporters.
The process for impeaching the CEC is similar to that for a Supreme Court judge. The removal can take place only on the grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
A motion for removal may be introduced in either House of Parliament and must be passed by a special majority – a majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.
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.
Teacher gets 3-yr imprisonment for slapping student, causing hearing loss
Gandhinagar (PTI): A court here has sentenced a school teacher to more than three years in prison for slapping a Class 9 student for unfinished homework, an act that ruptured her left eardrum and caused hearing impairment.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Choudhary, in the judgment on January 30, held the offence involved abuse of authority by a teacher, which caused a serious injury to the 14-year-old girl, and resulted in "longstanding hearing impairment" as well as resultant long-term medical consequences.
Even after four-and-a-half years of the incident, the victim was still undergoing medication for the injury suffered, the court noted.
It convicted the teacher, Parulben Patel, under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, for assaulting the child and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and sentenced her to three years and three months in prison.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on her and directed that the amount be paid as compensation to the victim.
As per the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 1, 2020, at Baa Shri Vasantkuvarba School, a private institution, in Gandhinagar.
The accused, enraged over the student not doing her homework, slapped her thrice on her left ear. As a result, the student suffered a perforation of the left eardrum, causing her grievous hurt.
Based on a complaint by the girl's family, the Sector-21 police registered an FIR against the teacher two days after the incident.
In her defence, the teacher had submitted before the court that the student was not doing her homework and acting on her whims. When her parents were told about the same, they filed a false case against her, she claimed.
The court took into account the testimony of the medical witnesses and the history narrated before the treating doctor, corroborating the charges levelled against the accused.
The teacher's lawyer sought leniency in the sentence, given the fact that she was suffering from cancer.
The court observed that the offence involved abuse of authority by a teacher, serious physical injury to a minor child, and long-term medical consequences.
"Such factors outweigh mitigating circumstances. Grant of probation would defeat the object of deterrence and child protection. Moreover, no documentary evidence in support of the cancer ailment has been brought on record," it stated.
