Congress leader Siddaramaiah says he will contest assembly polls from one constituency
Bagalkote (Karnataka), Jan 18: Senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Wednesday clarified that he will contest the upcoming Karnataka assembly polls from one constituency.
The former chief minister, who has openly announced that he is willing to contest from Kolar if the party leadership agrees, had in 2018 assembly polls contested from two seats - Chamundeshwari and Badami.
"Have I said I will contest from two constituencies? Who said that? I will be contesting from one constituency... I have made it very clear, I'm contesting from one constituency," Siddaramaiah said in response to a question by mediapersons.
There has been intense speculation for the last few days, whether the Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka assembly, would contest from two seats this time too, like he did in the previous assembly election.
The speculation had gained momentum following the incident where a purported "divine wish" for Siddaramaiah to contest from two seats was supposedly expressed by a priest, who is said to have been possessed by Congress leader's family deity, during his MLA son Yathindra's temple visit to a temple in Mandya district recently.
Stating that the propaganda about him searching for a constituency like a "nomad" was media creation, Siddaramaiah said, "I have contested eight times from Chamundeshwari constituency and twice from neighbouring Varuna, after delimitation, as my native village had gone to Varuna. I again came back to Chamundeshwari in 2018 thinking that it will be my last election, but was defeated."
"As I had contested from Badami too (second seat) in 2018, I won from there. As Badami is far and won't be able to meet people of the constituency every day, I thought of contesting from the constituency nearer (to Bengaluru) this time. People of Kolar have invited me, I have said I will contest if the high command agrees," he added.
Ending all speculations, Siddaramaiah on January 9 announced that he will be contesting the assembly polls from Kolar constituency, if the party agrees.
Further hitting out at the BJP for its comments regarding his constituency shift and claims about his looking for a second seat, the Congress legislature party leader said, "If a candidate contests from one constituency only, is he or she a leader? If Narendra Modi contests from two seats he is a big leader, but Siddaramaiah cannot contest from two, such attitude shouldn't be there."
Meanwhile, state Congress president D K Shivakumar said Siddaramamaiah has clearly stated that he will contest from one constituency and has submitted one application, and the party will decide.
Regarding the candidates list announcement, he said already the process is on to shortlist the probable candidates. On February 2, the state election committee will meet in Bengaluru, Shivakumar added.
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.
Constitution bench verdict binding on benches of lesser strength, says SC
New Delhi (PTI): A judgement of a Constitution bench would be "binding" on benches of lesser strength, the Supreme Court has said while recalling an April 2022 verdict delivered by it.
In its order dated April 7, 2022, the apex court had held that a panchayat cannot claim ownership of the land which has been taken from the real owners from their permissible ceiling limits under the land law in Haryana.
The apex court had consequently said panchayats can only manage and control the land which has been taken from the owners and cannot claim title.
"It is pertinent to note here that for the land taken from the proprietors by applying pro-rata cut from the permissible ceiling limits of the proprietors, management and control alone vests with the panchayat but such vesting of management and control is irreversible and the land would not revert to the proprietors for redistribution as the common purposes for which land has been carved out not only include the present requirements but the future requirements as well," it had said.
The top court had delivered the verdict on a batch of appeals against a full bench verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had examined the legality of sub-section 6 of Section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
In a judgement delivered on Thursday, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said that when the high court verdict rested on the law laid down by the apex court's Constitution bench in 1966, "the least that was expected" of the court in the judgement under review was to explain as to why the high court was wrong in relying on the 1966 verdict.
"No law is required to state that a judgement of the Constitution bench would be binding on the benches of a lesser strength. Bhagat Ram (1966 verdict) has been decided by a strength of five judges, this court having a bench strength of two judges could not have ignored the law laid down by the Constitution bench in paragraph 5 in Bhagat Ram," the bench said.
The top court delivered its verdict on a plea seeking review of the April 2022 judgement.
It said that "ignoring" the law laid down by the Constitution bench and taking a view totally contrary to the same would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
"Ignoring the judgement of the Constitution bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness. The review could have been allowed on this short ground alone," it said.
While allowing the review petition, the bench said, "The judgement and order of this court dated April 7, 2022... is recalled and the appeal is restored to file."
The bench directed that the appeal be listed for hearing on August 7.
The top court observed it was settled that the review would be permissible only if there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason was made out.
"The review of the judgement would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are also aware that such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched," it noted.
