Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday attended the Ganpati Puja ceremony at the residence of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in New Delhi. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has given information about this on social site X. During this, PM Narendra Modi was seen performing aarti and worshiping Lord Ganesha along with CJI DY Chandrachud and his wife. The Prime Minister was wearing a traditional Maharashtrian cap while worshiping. Actually, Ganesh Puja is most popular in Maharashtra. Therefore, it is natural that PM Modi would have preferred the Maharashtrian cap. Some people in the corridors of power are feeling irritated about this simple matter. Some people are continuously calling the meeting of the two a threat to Indian democracy.
1- Why is there so much commotion?
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, a staunch opponent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, tweeted that violation of the judge’s code of conduct refers to a situation in which the judge has failed to maintain adequate distance in accordance with the dignity of his office. This means that any act or omission of the judge has affected the dignity and public recognition of his high office. Bhushan has a record of never liking PM Modi’s work. Now that Modi has reached the CJI’s house, the CJI is also respectful to him. The meaning is clear that he has to oppose for the sake of opposition. Prashant Bhushan was with Arvind Kejriwal in the Anna movement. Later Arvind Kejriwal got rid of him.
Once Prashant was held guilty of contempt by the court for two of his tweets against the judiciary. Later, the Supreme Court imposed a monetary fine of Rs 1 on Prashant Bhushan. The question may also arise as to why the Supreme Court imposed a fine of only Rs 1 on him. Is this the way a common man is treated? The Supreme Court had then said that failure to deposit the fine of Rs 1 by September 15 could result in a jail term of three months and a ban from practising law for three years.
Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) leader Sanjay Raut is also upset with Modi’s meeting with Chandrachud. Raut’s point is understandable because assembly elections are to be held in Maharashtra. BJP is the main contender against Raut’s party. Raut must also be troubled because Modi has killed many birds with one stone. Modi has honoured Maratha pride by wearing a Marathi cap. Obviously, the opposition will be troubled.
Sanjay Raut writes on the meeting between Modi and CJI
The house of the constitution caught fire
From the light of the house…
1- Clean cheat to EVM
2- The hearing on the anti-constitutional government running in Maharashtra has been postponed for the last 3 years
3- Suemoto intervened in West Bengal rape case but
No mention of Maharashtra rape case.
4- Date after date on bail of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal.
Why is all this happening?
Understand the chronology…
Long live Mother India!!!
A handle on social media writes that look at the double standards of these people. Congress leader and Supreme Court lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi says that the CJI is my old friend. He has no problem with this. Even if Kapil Sibal and the CJI participate together in a ribbon cutting ceremony at an inauguration ceremony, he does not see any problem.
2-Is it written anywhere in the constitution that the heads of the executive and the judiciary cannot meet?
Those who see the meeting of Modi and Chandrachud as a threat to Indian democracy do not know what is written in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is it said that the executive and the judiciary cannot meet each other. In fact, for any healthy democracy, both separation of power and cooperation of power need to be seen from different perspectives. There should not be so much distance between these two pillars of democracy that a wall is built between them. The Indian people will get justice in the true sense only when both work together for the welfare of the country.
There is one more thing. If both of them had met secretly, had hidden their meeting, then the issue of threat to democracy would have been understandable. But here PM Modi himself gives information by tweeting. He also tweets photos and videos. The thing to understand is that if both of them wanted, then a secret meeting could have taken place and no one would have even known about it.
3- Whenever the CJI has shown his anger towards the government, he should also be seen
CJI Chandrachud has given several important judgments against the Modi government which reflect his views on judicial independence and government policies.
– Gay marriage case: CJI Chandrachud made important observations in the gay marriage case, in which he clarified that the right to individual adoption is not affected by marital status. He also remarked that homosexual relationships and queer rights are not urban-elitist concepts, which was different from the central government’s view.
– Maharashtra Governor case: CJI Chandrachud disagreed with the Maharashtra Governor’s comment on the formation of government in the state. He termed the decision of former Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to call a floor test as wrong, however, refused to reinstate Uddhav Thackeray as the Chief Minister.
– Submissions in sealed covers: The CJI criticised the practice of submissions in sealed covers and emphasised on transparency. He rejected the suggestion of the Central government to submit submissions in sealed covers, saying it lacks transparency and leaves the other side in the dark.
– Judicial appointments: CJI Chandrachud criticised the practice of the government rejecting names for appointments to the higher judiciary. He ensured that the Collegium’s recommendations were not indefinitely withheld by the government and the names of selected judges were approved promptly. A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud rejected the suggestion given in a sealed cover by the Central Government regarding the Hindenburg Research Report on the Adani Group.
– The Supreme Court’s decision in the electoral bonds case had brought a lot of embarrassment to the government. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had unanimously held that the Central Government’s 2018 electoral bond scheme was unconstitutional. They found that the scheme violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Apart from this, they held that the scheme violates the principles of free and fair elections under Article 14.
Follow us On Social Media Google News and Twitter/X