Congress MLA Umesh Jadhav who skipped CLP meet surfaces, says he is with party
Bengaluru, Jan 24: Amid reports that he was being wooed by BJP, Congress MLA Umesh Jadhav who skipped the recent CLP meeting and remained incommunicado surfaced in his native Kalburgi Thursday and said he was still with the party, but dropped hints he was keeping his options open.
“I haven't even thought about it. I'm in Congress," he told reporters when asked whether he would remain in Congress in view of the reported offer by BJP to give him ticket for the coming Lok Sabha elections.
However, the MLA, who was upset at not being made a minister, said he will go by the instructions of his voters and supporters on accepting the saffron party’s offer.
I cannot decide it; I will have to discuss with my voters, people and supporters about it... will take decision in the interest of people," he added.
Jadhav along with Ramesh Jarkiholi, B Nagendra and Mahesh Kumatahalli had skipped the January 18 Congress Legislature Party meeting, following which notice were issued to them asking why action should not be taken against them under the anti-defection law.
Jadhav, however, had written to CLP leader Siddaramaiah stating that since he was "unwell and not able to travel" he would not attend the meet. He had also requested that his absence may be "excused."
Asked as to why he was not reachable by the Congress leadership all these days, the MLA said he was bit upset for some reasons and had given his phone to his brother and gone outside the state.
Denying reports that he was staying in a resort or hotel, he said, he was on a personal visit outside the state.
On a photograph showing him with BJP MLA Ashwath Narayan, Jadhav said it was not taken in Mumbai recently. It must have been taken some other time, he said adding the BJP MLA was his "close friend" and they knew each other for 15 years.
He claimed work in his constituency was happening at a slow phase under the coalition government." I don't know why work is getting delayed those in positions have to answer."
Stating that he had expected Minister post "for the sake of development work", Jadhav said he would not take it even if offered now.
Asked about reported comments by Kalburgi district in-charge minister Priyank Kharge that he can leave the party if he wanted, Jadhav said such attitude was the reason for Congress' present state.
In the Lok Sabha, Congress used to have 300-400 seats.
"by making such statements we now have around 45-50 you understand," he said adding it damaged the party.
Jadhav took exception to a protest against him in front of his house a few days ago that he had sold himself.
They should be ashamed, let them show the proof, I will work at their house, he added.
According to reports, there is rift between Jadhav and Priyank Kharge and former union minister Mallikarjun Kharge in Kalburgi and BJP was trying to take advantage of it by wooing him with the Kalaburgi Lok Sabha seat offer.
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.
