Cong-JDS will decide on LS seat-sharing in 3 days: Siddaramaiah
Bengaluru, Jan 24: The ruling Congress-JD(S) coalition in Karnataka will take a decision on seat sharing for the coming Lok Sabha elections in three or four days, coalition coordination committee chairman Siddaramaiah said Thursday.
Ruling out any threat to the H D Kumaraswamy-led government amid alleged attempts by the BJP to topple it, the former Chief Minister said both parties will face the polls together.
Preliminary discussions have been held on Lok Sabha elections and a meeting will be held in three or four days to decide on the constituencies, he said.
"keeping in mind the situation in the constituencies, we will decide," Siddaramaiah told reporters after the coordination committee meeting here.
Former Prime Minister and JD(S) supremo H D Deve Gowda will also be part of that meeting, and it has been decided both parties will go together for the polls, he said.
On seats demanded by JD(S), Siddaramaiah said it has not been discussed.
"we will decide on seats and other things in the next meeting," he said.
Responding to a question about opinion within the Congress not to give up seats where the party has sitting MPs, he said "We have not discussed it."
JD(S) secretary general Danish Ali said "We only started a preliminary discussion on seat sharing, the process will continue and it will take many rounds to have a pre-poll alliance for Lok Sabha seats. It will take some time.
There is no demand, our common motive is to get the maximum seats to the coalition in Karnataka and reduce the BJP to minimum. We will put winning candidate and make him contest," he said.
Their expectation is JD(S)-Congress would win 25 plus out of 28 seats in Karnataka, he said.
JD(S) has already expressed its desire to contest in 12 seats, on which the Congress party has some reservations.
The Congress has said seat sharing will be on 'candidate-merit' basis.
Also, several senior Congress leaders and MPs, including Veerappa Moily, have reportedly asked the leadership not to cede nine seats where the party has its sitting MPs, to JD(S).
There are also voices with in the party not to field sitting MPs in certain constituencies.
In the 2014 polls, the BJP had won 17 seats in the state, the Congress nine and JD(S) two seats.
Siddaramaiah said the meeting also discussed recent political developments in the state,.
"There is no situation that will cause any threat to the government," he asserted.
Pointing out that as CLP leader he had called a legislature party meeting and four MLAs Ramesh Jarkiholi, B Nagendra, Umesh Jadhav and Mahesh Kumatahalli, had skipped the meeting to whom notices were issued, he said, "out of them three have responded."
"Nagendra has sent his response yesterday, today Ramesh and Mahesh have responded, one more Umesh Jadhav is yet to respond..
Nagendra's response I have seen, he has said he is loyal to the party and because of some case hearing in court, he could not respond. He has not met BJP leaders among other things."
"Other two responses Im yet to see.. after seeing the other replies, we will decide on what action to be taken," Siddaramaiah added.
Terming the alleged brawl between two MLAs Ganesh and Anand Singh at a resort here as "unwanted incident", Siddaramaiah said it will not reflect on the whole government.
"I'm not defending this quarrel between two MLAs, I have said let law take its course. Our party has also taken action already. An inquiry committee has also been formed under the Chairmanship of Deputy Chief Minister.
Both disciplinary and criminal action have also been initiated," he said.
Ruling out any 'operation lotus', the former Chief Minister said it was only a creation of the BJP "because of their illusion, by offering power and money."
On reports about BJP planning to bring no-trust motion against the coalition government during the coming assembly session, he said, "let them do whatever they want, we are ready to face. They have already failed miserably once."
Noting that the meeting also discussed the budget that is slated to be presented on February 8, Siddaramaiah said, "there is common minimum programme, keeping it as the base budget will be prepared."
On appointment of Chairmans to few boards and corporations that has been held back like Venkataramanaiah to KRDCL, Sudhakar for Pollution Control Board and Gopala Swamy as parliamentary Secretary, Siddaramaiah said "We have asked the Chief Minister to issue the orders, he will consider it."
"There are few more MLAs whom we will recommend to boards and corporations, we have requested the Chief Minister to issue the orders to them at the earliest, he said, adding that issues of some MLAs on constituency and development related works have also been discussed.
The coordination committee discussed the drought situation in the state and steps being taken by the government to manage the situation, Siddaramaiah said.
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.
Excise policy case: HC gives more time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to respond to ED plea to expunge remarks
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time till April 2 to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others to respond to a plea by the Enforcement Directorate to expunge "unwarranted" remarks made against it by the trial court while discharging them in the liquor policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed displeasure over the request for more time by the lawyers appearing for Kejriwal and other accused, and said it would fix a date for final hearing in the matter during the next hearing on April 2.
"I don't know why you are not filing a reply. You should have filed a reply if you think you really needed to file a reply. They are only saying judge should not have written something that he has written."
"By second (of April), you file your reply. Then we will fix a date for final hearing," the judge said.
The Enforcement Directorate's counsel said there was no need to file replies to its petition and that this was an attempt to delay the case.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, contended that the agency's petition has no impact on the accused, as the challenge was limited to the trial court judge's observations against the agency when it discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the CBI case.
The counsel for one of the accused said a brief reply was necessary and time was needed for it as the discharge order was 600 pages long.
Justice Sharma remarked that the ED's case has nothing to do with all 600 pages.
"Here is a prosecuting agency which has stated that the judge exceeded jurisdiction. I told them even I make such observations. I need to deicide it but you said I need to file a reply. Now you say 600 pages have to be read," the judge observed.
Raju also urged the court to direct that the observations of the trial court would not be relied upon by the accused in related proceedings. "It is a short date. Let them reply," the court responded.
On March 10, the court had asked Kejriwal and others to respond to the ED's plea.
In the petition, ED said the trial court's remarks were wholly extraneous to the CBI's case. It said the ED was neither a party in those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity to be heard.
"If such sweeping, unguided, bald observations are permitted to stand ... grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the public at large as well as the petitioner," the ED plea said.
"Therefore, the aforesaid paragraphs which concern the investigation independently conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) deserve to be expunged as it amounts to a clear case of judicial overreach...," it added.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
The trial court ruled that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.
To compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material did not serve the ends of justice, it said.
In its order, the trial court highlighted that a procedure permitting prolonged or indefinite incarceration based on a provisional and untested allegation risked "degenerating into a punitive process" and raised a "concern of considerable constitutional significance" where individual liberty was "imperilled" by invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
It said the issue assumed heightened significance where an accused was arrested for the offence of money laundering and thereafter required to surmount the stringent twin conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration even at the pre-trial stage.
It further said that despite the settled legal position that the offence of money laundering cannot independently subsist and requires the foundational edifice of a legally sustainable predicate offence, the prevailing practice revealed a disturbing inversion.
Underlining that the objective of PMLA was undoubtedly legitimate and compelling, the trial judge mentioned that statutory power, however wide, could not eclipse constitutional safeguards.
