#Prashant Bhushan

[rightnewshindi]

वकील प्रशांत भूषण को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दिया तीखा जवाब, पूछा, तो क्या हम रूस से तेल न खरीदें?

वकील प्रशांत भूषण को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दिया तीखा जवाब, पूछा, तो क्या हम रूस से तेल न खरीदें? #justice #law #BreakingNews #News #Journalism #Press #Crime #Politics #News #RightNewsIndia #RightNews

Supreme Court: देश की सबसे बड़ी अदालत ने इजराइल को हथियारों के निर्यात को रोक लगाने के लिए केंद्र सरकार को निर्देश देने की मांग करने वाली याचिका ठुकरा दी है। ये याचिका प्रशांत भूषण, ज्यां द्रेज़ सहित 11 कांग्रेस-वामपंथ समर्थक वकीलों ने लगाई थी। आज सोमवार को इस पर सुनवाई करते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि अदालत देश की विदेश नीति के क्षेत्र में हस्तक्षेप नहीं कर सकती है। अदालत ने स्पष्ट कहा कि ऐसी…

[smhoaxslayer]

The viral video of empty chairs from PM Modi's Modhera event is misleading.

The viral video of empty chairs from PM Modi’s Modhera event is misleading.

A video showing empty chairs placed for an event with just a handful people around is viral. It’s been tweeted by prominent people making fun of PM Modi that he is so popular that people are not coming to listen to his speech.   Supreme court lawyer Prashant Bhushan tweeted – “प्रधानमंत्री की गुजरात में विशाल चुनावी रैली। उनकी बढ़ती लोकप्रियता का प्रतीक!“ Translation: “Prime Minister’s Grand…

[akultalkies]

Ritvik Sahore, Avneet Kaur, Rajeshwari Sachdev, Prashant Narayanan, Govind Namdeo, Ravi Kishan, Jayesh Kardak, Annjjan Shrivastva, Arbaaz, Nagesh Bhonsle, Laril Ganjoo, Swati Seth, Yogesh, Sargun, Shashi Bhushan, Sanjay Bhatia, Madhavi

[sivavakkiyar]

Acclaimed author Arundhati Roy urged the Indian government to stop selling weapons to Israel, which she called the south Asian country’s “complicit” in Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Palestine.

Speaking on Thursday at an event at the Press Club of India, she said that Indians must “at least show that we do not support the genocide in Gaza, we do not support our government’s support of that.”

Speakers at the event included CPIM Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat, senior editor Siddharth Varadarajan, rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan, economist Jean Drèze, and retired IFS officer Ashok Sharma.

The speakers condemned the assistance provided by the Indian government to Israel in violation of the ruling of the International Court of Justice and called for solidarity with the people of Palestine.

“India used to be a country that supported the people of Palestine in their struggle for freedom,” Roy said. “Everywhere, even in the United States… people are standing up against their government’s support for [Israel]. But we are not standing up… and that is such a shame.”

“We must stand up. We must refuse. We will not support the export of weapons of any kind,” she said.

[kathor]

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan on SC's Verdict Over Judge Loya's Death...

[sa7abnews]

India assisting genocide with Israel arms exports: lawyer

New Post has been published on Sa7ab News

India assisting genocide with Israel arms exports: lawyer

Prashant Bhushan, who had been engaging with students after giving a speech, also said the arms exports to Israel breach the Indian constitution.

... read more !

[bhaskarlive]

SC rejects plea seeking SIT probe into electoral bond ‘scam’

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigative Team (SIT) probe under the supervision of a retired apex court judge into an alleged scam in poll financing using electoral bonds.

During the hearing, the bench presided over by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud observed that the ordinary course of law may remedy the allegations raised in the petition, and asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to explain as to why the top court should interfere in the matter.

Source: bhaskarlive.in

[9327005315]

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Exposed In Supreme Court After Verdict | Rajee...

[hinahasan]

modi wants to win the race

How Modi wants to win 2024 pic.twitter.com/9baS6hU0p5— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) March 24, 2024

[newz-archive]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme as Unconstitutional: A Blow to Anonymous Political Funding

In a significant verdict delivered recently, the Supreme Court of India declared the electoral bonds scheme as “unconstitutional.” This ruling marks a watershed moment in the country’s electoral landscape, with far-reaching implications for political funding and transparency.

A unanimous decision by a five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, held that the anonymous nature of the electoral bonds scheme violates the fundamental right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The verdict comes after a series of legal challenges to the central government’s scheme, which allowed for undisclosed funding to political parties.

The court emphasized the critical role of political parties in the electoral process and underscored the importance of transparency in funding for making informed electoral choices. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to cease issuing any further electoral bonds, signaling an end to the controversial system.

The ruling is a setback for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has been the primary beneficiary of the electoral bond scheme since its introduction in 2017. Additionally, the court mandated the SBI to furnish details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, onwards to the Election Commission, further enhancing transparency in political funding.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan hailed the verdict as a significant step towards safeguarding electoral democracy, emphasizing that it upholds citizens’ right to information regarding political contributions. The court’s decision nullifies the provisions introduced in various laws, including the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act, pertaining to the implementation of the electoral bonds scheme.

Initially pitched as an alternative to cash donations, the electoral bonds scheme allowed individuals and entities incorporated in India to purchase bonds, which could then be donated to eligible political parties. However, only parties meeting specific criteria, such as securing at least 1% of votes in previous elections, were eligible to receive these bonds.

Despite initial legal challenges, the apex court had declined to stay the scheme in April 2019, opting instead to delve deeper into the issues raised by the Centre and the Election Commission. The Constitution bench, during hearings, stressed the need to reduce the reliance on cash in the electoral process, highlighting the broader implications for the sanctity of elections in the country.

The verdict represents a significant victory for transparency and accountability in political funding. It underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic principles and ensuring that electoral processes remain fair and equitable. With the electoral bonds scheme now deemed unconstitutional, the focus shifts towards exploring alternative mechanisms that promote transparency and public trust in India’s democratic institutions.

[college-buz]

Electoral Bonds Struck Down Ahead Of Polls In Big Supreme Court Order

In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court today struck down the electoral bonds scheme for political funding, holding that it violates the citizens' right to information. The electoral bonds scheme, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, was unconstitutional and arbitrary and may lead to a quid pro quo arrangement between political parties and donors.

The Constitution bench of five judges held that the stated objective of fighting black money and maintaining the confidentiality of donors cannot defend the scheme. Electoral bonds, the court said, are not the only way to curb black money.

The Chief Justice of India said State Bank of India shall stop issue of these bonds at once and provide details of donations made through this mode to the Election Commission of India. The poll body was asked to publish this information on its website by March 13.

The five-judge bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, came up with a unanimous decision. "We have arrived at a unanimous decision. There are two opinions, one by myself and another by Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Both arrive at the same conclusion. There is a slight variance in the reasoning," the Chief Justice of India said.

The electoral bonds scheme was introduced in 2018 with the stated objective of blocking black money from entering the political system. Then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had then said the conventional practice of political funding in India was cash donations. "The sources are anonymous or pseudonymous. The quantum of money was never disclosed. The present system ensures unclean money coming from unidentifiable sources. It is a wholly non-transparent system," he had then said. On the confidentiality clause, he had said the disclosure of the donors' identity would make them go back to the cash option.

Soon after the scheme was implemented, multiple parties challenged it in court. These included CPM, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and non-profit Association for Democratic Reforms. They argued that the confidentiality clause came in the way of the citizen's right to information.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, said the bonds promote corruption as they are opaque and anonymous. "The bonds do not allow a level-playing field between political parties which are ruling versus political parties which are in the Opposition or between political parties and independent candidates." He also said ever since this scheme was introduced, contributions made through this donation method had exceeded all other modes.

In fact, the Election Commission, too, had opposed the scheme when it was brought, calling it a "retrograde step" with regard to transparency in political funding. Later

The government had gone all out to defend the scheme in the Supreme Court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had said it was a deliberate attempt to ensure that funding received by political parties was clean money. He had said disclosing the donor's identity could disincentivise the whole process. "Suppose, as a contractor, I donate to the Congress Party. I do not want the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to know because it might form a government," he had said. When the court asked how this confidentiality can be reconciled with the voters' right to information, Mr Mehta had replied that voters do not vote on the basis of who is funding which party but on ideology, principles, leadership and efficiency of a party.

Countering the right to information argument, Attorney General of India R Ventakaramani had said there "can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions". "Secondly, the right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise," he had said.

The Supreme Court also struck down the amendments to company and tax laws. Earlier, companies needed to be at least three years old to donate and had to disclose the amount and name of the party to which it was donating. These conditions that ensured transparency in corporate donations were done away with under the new law.

"A company has graver influence on the political process than contributions by individuals. Contributions by companies are purely business transactions. Amendment to Section 182 Companies Act is manifestly arbitrary for treating companies and individuals alike," the court said.

"Before the amendment, loss making companies were not able to contribute. The amendment does not recognise the harm of allowing loss-making companies to contribute due to quid pro quo. The amendment to Section 182 Companies Act is manifestly arbitrary for not making a distinction between loss making and profit making companies," the court added.

[badassdaddy]

I am not surprised that RPN Singh, Jitin Prasad, Scindia and now Milind Deora are leaving Congress. This was bound to happen because these were extreme opportunistic capitalist Sanghis hiding under the guise of friendship with Rahul who only knew how to stay with power. Be it the British or their supporters.

My friend told me that you should meet Rahul Gandhi. I said that I do not want to meet Rahul Gandhi but Rahul should definitely meet those people who have been writing continuously since 2014 in his support and his union on every front without any attachment. They are trying to compete but unfortunately Rahul Gandhi is not meeting them.

Rahul Gandhi is still with people like Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan who have toppled the Congress government. Rahul Gandhi is giving interviews to such people who used to criticize Congress before opening their YouTube shop, whom Rahul Gandhi will not tolerate. There is hesitation even in writing "Congress" leader who all the time puts the Congress state governments in the dock and who all the time runs anti-Congress agenda for branding themselves.

During Rahul Gandhi Yatra, he is giving interviews to such YouTube idiots who do not even have the civility to talk. The leaders, journalists, activists and writers who are openly making fun of Rahul Gandhi can meet him but he is not meeting those activists, journalists and writers, who dedicated thier life with their pen by writing for him and the party.

Today, when Congress is going through a period of renewal, Rahul should form a team which does not compromise even one percent on ideology. The success of BJP and Sangh is an example of this by standing with them regardless of victory or defeat in elections.

Remember Rahul.. A leader and a party becomes great when he supports those people who were supporting you when no one was supporting you. I have written from the heart, you should understand from the mind.

[adanicase]

The Adani Group has referred to them as “recycled allegations” and another coordinated attempt to bring the “meritless Adani Hindenburg report“ back to life by Soros-funded interests backed by some foreign media.

[himhks91]

जज लिखता रहा फैसला अपने ख़ास के लिए : Prashant Bhushan । THE FIELD

[kathor]

Prashant Bhushan | This House Believes That Modi’s India is on the Right...