BJP not behind Congress MLAs' resignation: Yeddyurappa
Bengaluru, July 2: Rejecting Congress's charge that the BJP was behind the resignation of its two MLAs, saffron party's Karnataka unit chief B S Yeddyurappa Tuesday said it was a ploy to hide "differences" within the ruling party.
A day after the two MLAs sent in their resignations, giving a jolt to the wobbly JD(S)-Congress government, Yeddyurappa also said the BJP have no plans yet to move a no-confidence motion in the Monsoon Session of the state assembly commencing July 12.
"We never said we will carry out any 'operation' against the Congress or the JD(S). We had said some disgruntled (MLAs) may come out," he told reporters here.
He accused state Congress chief Dinesh Gundu Rao of trying to divert attention from the differences among his party leaders by seeking to blame the BJP for the resignations.
On Congress leaders threatening a "reverse operation" against the BJP, he said they had been saying this for the last three months and dared them to carry it out.
"Let them do it...have we said don't do it? They have been saying this for the last three months, none of us will move. We are all together, 105 BJP MLAs are united," Yeddyurappa said.
Congress MLAs Anand Singh and Ramesh Jarkiholi sent their resignations to the assembly speaker Monday, dealing a blow to the 13-month old H D Kumaraswamy government, which has been battling dissidence.
Rao had accused the BJP of misusing power and using central agencies to "pressure and blackmail" MLAs in a bid to destabilise the government.
He had said Congress too had the ability to conduct a "reverse operation" but had not done it.
"We will not sit silently. If they are involved in such a thing, we also have the opportunity to hit back. We are quite because we don't want that kind of politics. If they continue, we will respond in the way we want," Rao had said.
Replying to a question, Yeddyurappa denied being in contact with any disgruntled legislators of the Congress or the JD(S).
There is apprehension in the ruling coalition that a few more MLAs, suspected to be in touch with the BJP, may resign.
Asked whether the BJP had a plan to move a no confidence motion against the government in the state assembly, Yeddyurappa there was no such plan yet.
"There is no question of it. Our legislature party is yet to meet. Based on the political situation we will take a decision," he said.
Reacting to the developments, Yeddyurappa had Monday said they only proved there was "large scale unease" in the ruling coalition and the government would collapse under its own weight.
He had also said the BJP would explore constitutional provisions to form a new government in case the Kumaraswamy dispensation falls.
The resignations of the MLAs came at a time when Kumaraswamy was away in the US on a private visit, shocking the Congress whose leaders held a meeting Monday to take stock of the situation.
Anand Singh, a former BJP member who joined the Congress ahead of the assembly elections last year, said he decided to resign over his demands, including creation of a separate Vijayanagar district and cancellation of the nod for sale of 3,667 acres of land to JSW Steel in mine-rich Ballari district.
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.
Justice Nagarathna calls for creation of judicial reforms commission to reduce pendency in courts
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
