India Thinkers Net Archives Index | Subscribe | RSS
<< December20, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Nepal,WTO,Pastor in Hyderabad,Counter currents etc January01, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Happy New year >>

Subject: [India Thinkers Net]Parliament news,orphanages,nuke news - December25, 2005



MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL THINKERS

the.moderator
India Thinkers Net

---------------------------------------

[1]

From: "P. Joseph Raju" <aa5756@wayne.edu>
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2005

Subject: RE: [indiathinkersnet] Orphanage in Delhi  


Dear ones:

Most of the orphanages in India are operated by Christians.

P. Joseph Raju

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Sanjeev Sharma
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005
Subject: Re: [indiathinkersnet] Orphanage in Delhi

----------------------

[2]

From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2005  
Subject: India's Nuclear Dreams and The Hurdles to Cross

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2011743.htm

U.S. congressmen seek to oppose India nuclear deal
21 Dec 2005

------------------------

[3]

From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2005
Subject: Cash for Question: Indian Parliament Acts Tough amidst Procedural Controversy


http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=84620

We protest too much, expelling MPs is valid
By acting on the Special Committee??™s report, Lok Sabha
has observed the Constitution
FALI S NARIMAN

Posted online: Saturday, December 24, 2005 at 0215
hours IST

FALI S NARIMAN When Parliament does nothing, we
complain. When Parliament does something, some of us
also complain: but that is the cross that all
political institutions are destined to bear.

It was in 1993 that corruption got institutionalised
in India. The JMM bribery scandal involved the
corruption of 10 Members of Parliament, who cast their
votes to defeat a no-confidence motion moved in the
Lok Sabha against the minority Government of P V
Narasimha Rao. The CBI filed criminal cases against
them saying they received bribes to do so. Article
105(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no
Member of Parliament can be made liable to any
proceeding in any Court in respect of any vote given
in Parliament: and for this reason alone the Supreme
Court dismissed the cases against the bribe-takers,
hoping that Parliament would do something in respect
of such transgression.

Seven long years after the Supreme Court decision,
Parliament did nothing.

Now with the cash-for-question scandal surfacing
visually (???seeing is believing???) Parliament has done
something, and the question is whether its decision to
expel the errant members involved is valid and
constitutional.

I believe it is.

Article 105(2) prohibits Courts from inquiring into
what goes on in Parliament: Whether when votes are
cast or when questions are asked. The next
sub-clause??”Article 105(3)??”says that the powers,
privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament
and of its Members are the same as those of the House
of Commons in England??”???until otherwise defined by
law???: after 55 years they have not been so defined by
law.

What then would the British House of Commons do in
such a situation?

Speaker Mavlankar??”the first Speaker of the Lok
Sabha??”answered this in 1951 in connection with the
case of an errant Member belong to the ruling Congress
Party.

He said that ???a member may behave in a manner in which
the House would not like him to behave and yet it may
be argued that it is not a breach of privilege in all
such circumstances the practice in the House of
Commons has been to constitute a Special Committee???,
and then he went on to say it was for the House to
take suitable action to maintain the dignity and
credibility of Parliament and its Members.

As simple as that. The Special Committee appointed in
the cash-for-questions case has inquired into the
matter, and has given its recommendation after asking
the errant MPs to have their say. And the Lok Sabha
has acted on the recommendations. The Constitution has
been observed. In the hey-day of the Roman Empire,
after the Emperor issued his edict on any controversy
there was no further argument. Roma locuta est: cause
finita est. (???Rome hath spoken, the cause is ended???).
It was only after the Emperor??™s edicts began to be
questioned that the rot started: providing material
for Edward Gibbon??™s ???Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire???!







 





<< December20, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Nepal,WTO,Pastor in Hyderabad,Counter currents etc January01, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Happy New year >>
India Thinkers Net Archives Index | Subscribe | RSS
Google
 
Web http://archives.zinester.com
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management