Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians?

Posted in: Supreme Court
Fri, Jul 19, 19, 13:44, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 7332
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?

Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians?
Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Why Centre does not care even for the views of Election Commission of India which has opposed the Centre's decision to introduce electoral bonds for funding of political parties?

Why Centre does not care that the Election Commission of India had told the Supreme Court that electoral bonds for funding of political parties will have serious repercussions for transparency of political funding and had termed it as a retrograde step? Why Centre ignores that in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India had said that the scheme to allow the parties to accept funds from companies and foreign sources is in violation of law? Why one set of rules for senior lawyers like Ananad Grover and former Additional Solicitor General of India Indira Jaising who faced CBI raids at their office and residence and another set of rules for politicians who have the liberty to accept any amount from foreign funding in the form of electoral bonds?

Why politicians of all parties want that donations made in the form of electoral bond to political parties should be kept out of the ambit of mandatory reporting to poll panel? Why are the views of the Election Commission of India openly disregarded which had categorically said in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that it would allow the parties to accept funds from government companies and foreign sources in violation of law? Are politicians and political parties above the law and above our Constitution and above our country and above our national interests who can do anything whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want like they did in 1947 by accepting the partition of India which under no circumstances should have been accepted and not allowing the full merger of Jammu and Kashmir into India and imposing absurd conditions like not allowing any Indian to either settle there or purchase any inch of land there or apply for any government job there and what not thus making a total mockery of our nation and a laughing stock in front of the whole world?

Why Centre cares a damn that the Election Commission of India had way back in 2017 expressed concern and had asked the Centre to re-examine it saying that, This is a retrograde step as far as transparency of donations is concerned and this proviso need to be withdrawn? Why Centre overlooks that the affidavit of the Election Commission of India had categorically said that, The respondent informed the Ministry of Law and Justice that in a situation where contributions received through electoral bonds are not reported, on perusal of the contribution report of the political parties, it cannot be ascertained whether the political party has taken any donation in violation of provisions under Section 29B of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits the political parties from taking donations from government companies and foreign sources? Why can't politicians and political parties be more transparent just like they expect lawyers to be more transparent and disclose the source of donation and the total amount of donation? Have they got to hide anything? If not, then why are they afraid to make everything public just like they expect lawyers to make everything public?

Why Centre decided that the system of corporate donations be made correspondingly secretive by removing the requirement of disclosure of the names of political parties to whom contributions have been made by amendment to the Company Act, 2013 which culminated in it being challenged and a batch of petitions were filed in the Apex Court? Why Centre ignores that the petition had said that, In effect, at both ends of the transaction, neither the contributor nor the recipient of the funds is required to disclose the identity of the other. The inevitable consequence of these amendments is the destruction of the principle underlying Article 19(1)(a) and the concept of democratic institutions?

Why Centre also ignores that while referring to amendment in Foreign Regulation Contribution Act by which political parties were allowed to receive donation from foreign companies which are having majority stake in Indian companies, the Election Commission of India had said that, This would allow unchecked foreign funding of political parties in India which could lead to Indian policies being influenced by foreign companies? Can anyone of us ever imagine how dangerous this is? Will it not be correct to say that this would again allow foreign companies to indirectly first start controlling India just like East India Company started doing in Mughals rule in India? How can Centre allow all this under its very nose?

Why Centre ignores that the affidavit by Election Commission of India had said that, The respondent had informed the Ministry of Law and Justice that certain provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 and the corresponding amendments carried out in the Income Tax Act, the Representation of the People Act and the Companies Act will have serious repercussions/impact on the transparency aspect of political funding of political parties? Why can't Centre be more transparent on this? Why only senior lawyers like Indira Jaising and Anand Grover expected to display total transparency in all their dealings? Should we be proud of it?

Not surprising that apart from Opposition MPs condemning the raid on the offices and residence of most respected and senior Supreme Court lawyers of India – Anand Grover and Indira Jaising even the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) have also condemned the raid on the two lawyers and Sam Zarifi who is Secretary General of ICJ said that, This raid seems designed to harass and intimidate two tireless advocates of Constitutional and international rights in India. The Indian government must immediately cease harassment of the Lawyers Collective and its founders Anand Grover and Indira Jaising.

It is this same Indira Jaising who ensured that a brave retired soldier of Indian Army like Kargil war veteran Honorary Captain Mohammad Sanaullah who after more than 30 years of distinguished service and winning President's certificate also and even after retirement joined the Border wing of the Assam State Police yet was thrown most shamelessly in 'Detention Centre' could come out in the open once again and it is because of this that I hold her in highest esteem. Why is accountability demanded only from lawyers alone and not from politicians? Why politicians even after beating someone are debarred permanently from becoming an PM or MLA like we see in the case of other services?

Why politicians and in particular Centre does not listen to what the former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi had said that, The electoral bonds scheme of Narendra Modi government has legalised and legitimised crony capitalism and taken away transparency from political funding? He had warend of the perils of corporate donating money to political parties without any cap on the amount as a percentage of its profits. He also had rightly said that, Earlier no company could donate more than 7.5% of their last three years profit, that limit has been taken away altogether. The provisions of Electoral Bonds scheme allows the companies to donate '100 percent' of their profits. Obviously there is no free lunch...if they give money they want something back...they will be running the country. Is this the main reason that foreign investment is being ushered in all the fields on the ground that we will get more profit?

Is it because of this relentless foreign funding that Centre is taking some most absurd decisions like earlier it took of withdrawing stone pelting cases against about 10,000 Kashmiri stone pelters, declaring Ramzan ka ceasefire for terrorists and Pakistan which allowed them to kill our soldiers with impunity and behead them and take away their head to be used as football to play match between terrorists and soldiers of Pakistani Army? Is it because of this foreign funding that interlocutors are appointed for holding talks and dialogues with representatives of various terror groups in North east and other parts of the country? Is it because of this foreign funding that India repeatedly keeps engaging Pakistan and keeps trusting Pakistan inspite of its soldiers losing their lives while fighting Paksitani soldiers or terrorists trained and sent by Pakistan to India?

Is it because of this foreign funding that Centre is proceeding ahead with Kartarpur Corridor knowing it fully well that it would be used for carrying out anti-India agenda as many senior former Army Generals like Maj Gen (retd) SP Sinha have pointed out openly in many news channels with full fury and asked that, How can religion be above nation? How can we compromise so easily with our national security? When we know that Pakistan is fully backing Khalistani movement then why Centre is allowing them to further foment trouble in India by allowing Sikhs to travel there and get radicalized which will only foment more terror in India?

How can Centre ignore that Khalistani terror leaders like Gopal Chawla were included in the Pakistani panel formed to interact with India and when he was removed he was replaced with another person who too had links with Khalistani terrorists? When Centre has closed all trade with Pakistan then why is it opening Kartarpur Corridor with Pakistan thus directly playing in the hands of foreign powers like UK, Canada and US in whose soil we regularly see anti-India propaganda being carried out openly like Khalistan Referendum 2020 etc over which many Army Generals like Maj Gen (retd) GD Bakshi have expressed their strongest displeasure?

This is why I very strongly believe that politicians too must be held fully accountable and should account for every pie which they get from different sources. If the income of any politician suddenly rises so much which he/she can't explain then CBI must raid them also and they too should be sent to jail. Why only senior and most distinguished lawyers of India like Indira Jaising and Anand Grover are alone targeted? Centre must come clean on this.

Let us be very clear: Centre did not get such a huge mandate from people to grant more and more dangerous concessions to Pakistan in the form of Kartarpur Corridor very conveniently ignoring what most Army Generals say openly that, Trust a snake but never trust Pakistan as it has already bitten you more than thousand times but the standard reply of our politicians is that let us give 'Pakistan' and 'Peace' one more chance very conveniently ignoring the blind hatred which Pakistan nurtures for our nation and our soldiers like Kulbhushan Jadhav whom it is not ready to leave under any circumstances. If Centre does not mend its ways soon then people will say more vociferously that, Politicians are more dangerous than Pakistan itself who stay in India and get everything from India yet bat for Pakistan on one specious ground or the other.

There can be no two opinions that politicians too like lawyers must also be held fully liable for all the money they get and for all the acts which they do. Only then can we call ourselves a true democracy in the real sense.

Why should politicians be always exempted fully from all sorts of liability? Are we not making a mockery of our law and Constitution which treats everyone as equal as envisaged under Article 14? Why should they not be held accountable for all the donation that they get?

Why should the CBI always function under politicians only? It is high time now and CBI must be freed completely from all political control of any kind. No doubt that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkehra, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top