Sunday, March 22, 2009

Congress party gives loksabha ticket to disqualified M.P.

Vidarbha JanAndolan Samiti

Regd. Office: 11, Trisaran Society, In Front of Somalwar School, Khamla, Nagpur – 440 025.

Contact Office at Post Pandharkawada – 445 302. Dist. Yavatmal (M.S.)

Ph : 07235 – 227564 / 227387 Mobile – 9371137653/ 9422108846

President –

Kishore Tiwari,

B.E. (Mech.Engg.), M.B.A., LL.B., M.A. (Pub. & Admn.), M.A. Sociology,

M.I.S. (USA), Fellow - I.E.H., Fellow – Institution of Engineers (India)-

Chartered Engineer


Congress party gives loksabha ticket to disqualified M.P.

Nagpur-21st march-2009

Indian congress party has once again made mockery of Indian parliamentary system when Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, MP who has been already disqualified under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985. by speaker somnath chaterjee in his order of 5th December,2008 ,here is order of speaker and the official list of congress candidates

I Quote

No. 6285 Table Office
(Anti-Defection Unit)
Decision of Speaker, Lok Sabha, on the petition given by Shri Santosh Gangwar, MP against Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, MP under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985.
The decision of the Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha dated 5 December, 2008 under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985 is given as under :-
Shri Santosh Gangwar, Chief Whip,
Bharatiya Janata Party,
2, Parliament House, New Delhi Petitioner
Shri Chandrabhan Bhaiya Singh,
Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha)
Delhi Address: 201, North Avenue, New Delhi – 10001.
Permanent Address: 249, Hansraj House, Wright Town,
District - Damoh (Madhya Pradesh) Respondent
1. This is an application filed by Shri Santosh Gangwar, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha and Chief Whip, Bharatiya Janata Party against the Respondent Shri Chandrabhan Bhaiya Singh, Member of Lok Sabha, praying for the disqualification of the Respondent for being and continuing as a Member of the present Lok Sabha under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
2. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as BJP) was elected from Damoh parliamentary constituency of Madhya Pradesh in the election held in May 2004 on the BJP ticket and his name is entered in the list of BJP Members of Lok Sabha.
3. In the Petition, the Petitioner has stated that for two days’ Special Session of Lok Sabha, which was summoned for 21 and 22 July, 2008 to enable the Prime
Minister of India to seek the Vote of Confidence, the BJP on 18 July, 2008 had issued a Three Line Whip to all its Members in Lok Sabha, including the Respondent, to be present in the House on 21 and 22 July, 2008 and vote against the Motion of Confidence in the Union Council of Ministers.
4. It is contended by the Petitioner that in spite of the Whip having been issued to him by the BJP, on whose ticket the Respondent was elected to Lok Sabha, the Respondent abstained from voting in gross violation of the Party Whip and direction and as such he has incurred disqualification for being a Member of the Lok Sabha, and that this abstention from voting against the Party’s direction has not been condoned by the Party.
5. The Respondent filed a Reply on 5 September, 2008 in which he admitted the service of the Whip on him. He further stated that he was conscious about the various responsibilities of a Member of Parliament and that he understood the importance of voting on a particular occasion, particularly when Confidence Motion was the issue.
6. In his Reply, the Respondent further stated that he had reached Delhi on 20 July, 2008 and he had participated at a meeting of the BJP Parliamentary Party on the same date, and on 21 July, had attended the proceedings of the Parliament and that on 22 July, he had proceeded to attend the meeting of the Parliament, along with his wife, who did not want to leave him because of the bad condition of his health and that at about 3.45 p.m. on 22 July he “became unconscious while going to Parliament.”
7. In his Reply, the Respondent has further stated that due to his unconscious condition, he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital but as there was no proper response, he was taken to the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, but “due to the lethargic attitude of the officials, I was taken for medical facility to Aashlok Nursing Home.” He further stated that in Aashlok Nursing Home at about 4.45 p.m. he was admitted and he underwent several tests and that ultimately on 23 July, he was released from the Hospital.
8. He has further stated in his Reply that he came to know of the events of 22 July from his wife and he came to now that he was unconscious, was vomiting blood and
having high fever. He has stated that his wife asked his P.A. to inform the BJP leadership and Lok Sabha about his condition, but no evidence has been led to substantiate the same.
9. Therefore, according to the Respondent, because of the condition of his health, he could not attend the proceedings of Parliament on 22 July, 2008 and as such the provisions of the Tenth Schedule cannot be attracted in his case. He has further alleged that the BJP leadership has personal and political grudge against him and wanted to ruin his political career wholly on baseless grounds, which would be proved by the fact that he was expelled from the party on 23 July, 2008, on which date also the present petition has been filed.
10. Along with his reply, the Respondent has filed a copy of the letter alleged to have been sent by Shri Arun Jaitley to the Respondent, and copies of some medical papers and bills regarding his treatment at Aashlok Nursing Home, New Delhi.
11. I gave a personal hearing in the matter on 24 September, 2008 and again on 18 October, 2008. On the first day of hearing on 24 September, the Petitioner appeared in person and the Respondent by his lawyer, Shri Varun Thakur, who asked for adjournment on the ground that his Senior Counsel was not available. The Petitioner made certain submissions in which he mentioned about the receipt of the Whip by the Respondent and his abstention from voting and made comments on the reply filed by the Respondent. The learned lawyer of the Respondent repeated his prayer for adjournment stating his client was in a meeting of the District Vigilance and Evaluation Committee and his learned senior was busy elsewhere. However, at the end of the hearing, I directed that written arguments or submissions might be filed on behalf of the Respondent on or before 29 September, 2008 with a copy to the Petitioner.

12. On 29 September, 2008, written arguments were filed on behalf of the Respondent in which he mainly reiterated what is contained in his Reply and stated, inter alia, that “it is humbly submitted that no order can be passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the Respondent as it would be against the concept of natural justice and also because, the hon. Speaker, would not be able to do justice to the Respondent.” The Respondent further submitted in his written arguments
that there are no grounds on the basis of which any relief could be given to the “BJP Chief Whip.”
13. I held the next personal hearing on 18 October, 2008 in which the Petitioner was present and the Respondent was also present along with his lawyer, Shri Varun Thakur. The Petitioner made submissions at the said hearing as would appear from the minutes of the meeting of that date. The learned lawyer of the Respondent then made his submissions. He referred to the discharge summary issued by the Aashlok Hospital regarding the condition of his client’s health. The Respondent himself also made some submissions. In the course of the hearing, the Respondent’s lawyer again asked for an opportunity to file a supplementary affidavit regarding some incidents which had taken place on 23, 24 and 25 July (dates subsequent to the date of voting) and to submit some papers to the Lok Sabha Office, requesting, “give me a last opportunity.” When almost the hearing was concluded, the lawyer again asked for adjournment on the ground that the Senior Counsel was out of station. I suggested that he could complete his submission and that if he wanted to file any written submissions, I was prepared to give him time. The Petitioner opposed the grant of any further time.
14. At the hearing on 18 October, 2008, I passed the following order:
“In today’s hearing, Hon. Shri Santosh Gangwar, the Petitioner as well as Hon. Shri Chandrabhan Singh, MP with his lawyer, Shri Varun Thakur, were present. After the submissions of Shri Santosh Gangwar, Shri Varun Thakur made some submissions and then asked for time on the ground that his senior lawyer is out of Delhi and that he wanted to file a further affidavit/petition. As a last opportunity, I permit the respondent to file a further affidavit/petition on or before 24th October, 2008 with a copy to the petitioner.
By way of last opportunity, I fix a hearing of the matter on 3rd November, 2008 at 5 p.m. for personal hearing. If any senior lawyer is not available on that date, the respondent will please communicate the said fact to the Office so that no further personal hearing will be given.
If any further affidavit/petition is filed by the respondent and a copy is given to the petitioner, the petitioner may file a further rejoinder or reply if he is so advised on or before 31st October, 2008.
If no request for personal hearing is made then no further hearing will be given. This may be noted that this will be the last opportunity.”
15. However, no written arguments were filed pursuant to the leave granted on 18 October, 2008. On 20 November, 2008, a further personal hearing was given, at which the Petitioner was present and Shri Ajit S. Bhasme, Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. By way of preliminary observation, Shri Ajit S. Bhasme asked for adjournment on the ground that “the client is in his constituency on account of Assembly elections. He is a political personality and he cannot stay away from there during the elections.” He wanted to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record certain documents, including his client’s medical history from 2007, indicating the ailments from which the Respondent has suffered. The Petitioner strongly objected to the prayer for adjournment made by the Respondent’s lawyer. Ultimately to give a final opportunity to the Respondent, I allowed the Respondent’s lawyer time to file a written submission within a week as requested by him and I made the following order:
“I have not fixed the date of hearing. The written submission, if any, by the Respondent and hon. Member Shri Chandrabhan Singh may be filed on or before 27th of November with a copy to Mr. Gangwar. If any reply is there, they can give it with copies to each other and no more hearings in this regard.”
16. Pursuant to the leave granted, the Respondent filed his written submissions through his learned advocate Shri Varun Thakur on 27 November, 2008 in which the Respondent reiterated the submissions made by his lawyer on his behalf and also annexed a copy of the written opinion of Dr. Ashwani Chopra of Aashlok Nursing Home and a copy of the Discharge Report dated 17 March, 2007 issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The petitioner filed a replication on 1 December 2008, in answer thereto.
17. Paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a Member of the House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a Member of the House, if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs, without obtaining the prior permission of such political party or without obtaining the condonation of the political party for such voting or abstention within 15 days from the date of such voting or abstention. In the present case, the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 have no application.
18. In the decision of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Versus Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others (2004) 8 SCC 747, the hon. Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that under the Tenth Schedule, “the final authority to take a decision on the question of disqualification of a Member of the House vests with the Chairman or the Speaker of the House. It is to be noted that the Tenth Schedule does not confer any discretion on the Chairman or Speaker of the House. Their role is only in the domain of ascertaining the relevant facts. Once the facts gathered or placed show that a Member of the House has done any such act which comes within the purview of sub-paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule, the disqualification will apply and the Chairman or the Speaker of the House will have to make a decision to that effect.”
19. As stated before, I gave ample opportunity to the parties to present their respective cases at the personal hearing given to them. From the pleadings and the records of the personal hearing, it is clear that the Respondent had abstained from voting in the House on 22 July, 2008 contrary to the direction issued by his political party, the BJP, to which he belongs without obtaining the prior permission of his party or without obtaining the condonation of his party for such absention.
20. In my opinion, no reliable evidence has been placed before me to establish that the Respondent was, in fact, ill or that he was so ill that he could not attend the House on 22 July, 2008 to cast his vote. No attempt has been made to prove the documents of Aashok Hospital or any other Hospital nor any doctor has been called to prove that the Respondent was so ill that he could not attend the House. The discharge summary of Aashlok Hospital, even if it is taken into consideration, does not disclose any such illness which could prevent the Respondent from attending the House at
least at the time of voting. Further, the explanation given for not getting treatment at RML Hospital or at AIIMS, does not appear to be convincing. Significantly, neither the Respondent nor his wife who had supposedly accompanied him from hospital to hospital gave evidence in the matter.
21. After giving my anxious consideration to the materials before me, and considering the fact that the Respondent has admitted that he was served with the Party’s Whip and that he was fully aware of the direction given by the Party, it seems to me that he did abstain from voting against the Motion as directed by his Party. I regret that I am unable to accept the contention of the Respondent that he was not well enough to attend the proceedings of the House for the purpose of voting.
22. As Speaker, my primary obligation is to ascertain the relevant facts as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having come to the conclusion that the Respondent abstained from voting contrary to the direction of his Party on 22 July, 2008, the act of the Respondent comes within the purview of paragraph 2 (1) (b) of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and I decide accordingly.
23. Thus, I hold that the Respondent, Shri Chandrabhan Bhaiya Singh, an elected Member of the Lok Sabha from Damoh constituency of Madhya Pradesh has incurred disqualification under paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, by his abstention from casting his vote against the Confidence Motion moved by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India at the voting held on 22 July, 2008.
24. Thus, the Respondent stands disqualified for continuing as a Member of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha and it is declared that his seat has fallen vacant.
Dated the 5 December, 2008 SPEAKER, LOK SABHA”


To get this list

Madhya Pradesh Lok Sabha Election 2009

List of Candidates







































25 DHAR (ST)









VJAS earlier urged congress president smt.sonia Gandhi not to give tainted M.P. of yavtmal whose disqualification is pending after speaker committee recommendation to disqualify him but it was shocling to know that smt.sonia Gandhi has keeping her promise and giving congress tickets to the tainted M.P. who betrayed their party whip to save UPA Govt.on 28th July 2008 even though they are disqualified for life to hold office of public profit.

Hence VJAS has now urged election commission to send list of disqualified candidates under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985 as congress has planed to give around 8 tainted M.P. as per media report.

“it’s unfortunate as corruption and malpractices of M.P.s are being given legitimate honor, we will take this issue at all the forum to stop it” kishore tiwari of VJAS informed in press note today.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Nice blog. It is due to people like you that the spirit of democracy and freedom of expression is alive. Keep up the good work. Hey, by the way, do you mind taking a look at our new website It has various interesting sections. Who knows, it might just have the right kind of stuff that you are looking for.

Also, if you like this website, can you please recommend it to your friends. Your little help would help us in a big way.

Thank you,

The Future Mantra