Congress has criticised Amitabh Bachchan for being brand ambassador of Gujarat because of Narendra Modi’s role in 2002 Gujarat riots.
Congress has to examine its track record. People involved in 1984 anti-Sikh riots continue to be Congress members. Congress has not done anything to bring the guilty to justice. Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler continue to be Congress members. HKL Bhagat remained a Congress member till his death. When a big tree falls the earth shakes was a statement made by Rajiv Gandhi. At that time Amitabh Bachchan was a friend of Rajiv Gandhi.
Many riots have taken place in Congress ruled states. The guilty remain unpunished.
If Congress is serious about its opposition to riots it should expel Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler.
When Amitabh Bachchan faced problems from MNS the law did not take its course in Maharashtra which had a Congress chief minister.
Ashok Chavan faced criticism from some Congress members for sharing the dais with Amitabh Bachchan at the inauguration of second Bandra-Worli Sea Link. After that Congress members avoided Amitabh Bachchan at Marathi literary festival, Poona. Narendra Modi called Congress members talibans of untouchability.
There were riots in Gujarat in 1969, 1981 and 1985 and Congress was in power at that time.
NCP has no problem with Amitabh Bachchan. BJP sided with Amitabh Bachchan and a member even said Amitabh Bachchan should be made brand ambassador for Commonwealth Games.
When Amitabh Bachchan agreed to become brand ambassador for Gujarat it came as a surprise. At that time he was associated with Amar Singh and Samajwadi Party. Later Amar Singh was expelled from Samajwadi Party. Jaya Bachchan continues in Samajwadi Party.
The Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan shared the dais with Narendra Modi on 28/3/2010. Will Congress criticise him?
Link to e-book King – a novel: http://go4quiz.com/vincent/king
Link to e-book Pope – a novel: http://go4quiz.com/vincent/pope
Tag: chief justice of india
Bangalore lawyers and law
Bangalore lawyers had called for a day-long boycott of courts on 9/11/2009 in protest against Karnataka Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran and disrupted court proceedings on that day. In Court Hall No. 1 of the High Court Justice Dinakaran and other Justices were hearing cases. Over 200 advocated barged in and ordered all lawyers to leave the hall. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow him to do his work but was shouted down. The advocates attacked media persons who were present. Most of the judges quickly agreed to the demands of the lawyers. In Court Hall No. 2 Justice V. Gopal Gowda and Justice B. V. Nagarathna refused to leave. The lawyers shouted slogans, threw pens and paper, banged bookcases and raised chairs. They locked all four doors of the room. Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna were not allowed to leave for lunch. At 2.15 p.m. Dinakaran pleaded with the lawyers to allow the two judges to go. The judges were allowed to go. Some months back lawyers of Madras High Court had created a similar situation. The police went to restore order. The High Court delivered a judgment punishing the police. Lawyers have no right to disrupt court proceedings. Dinakaran should have been ordering them instead of pleading with them. Too bad most of the judges stopped hearings. If ordinary people had done this they would have been punished for contempt of law. Law must take its courts and lawyers who disrupted the proceedings must be punished. Those who locked Gopal Gowda and Nagarathna must be punished for illegal confinement. Corruption cases against Dinakaran have led to this stage. He would have been promoted to Supreme Court. Supreme Court should quickly decide on accusations against him. Article 124 of the constitution of India say that every judge of the Supreme Court, other than the Chief Justice, shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Supreme Court judges through their judgment turned consultation into consent and talked of a collegium of five judges to appoint judges. This was an amendment of constitution through interpretation. Even when the President found a judge recommended by the collegium unsuitable the judges insisted on the appointment. Lawyers many times go on strike for days. That causes delays and inconvenience. Misbehaviour with judges should not be tolerated. The country should think of judicial system without lawyers. Judges can hear two sides and deliver judgments