BREAKING News

4 ਜੂਨ 1984 ਦਾ ਹਮਲਾ- ਕੀ ਸੀ ‘ਸਾਕਾ ਨੀਲਾ ਤਾਰਾ’ ? (ਭਾਗ ਤੀਜਾ) – ਦਲਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰ
ਪਰਵਾਰ ਦੇ 8 ਜੀਅ ‘ਸਾਕਾ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ’ ਵਿਖੇ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਕਰਵਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਮਾਤਾ ਹਰਬੰਸ ਕੌਰ ਦੀ ਹੱਡੀਂ ਹੰਡਾਈ ਦਾਸਤਾਂ – ਜਗਸੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੰਧੂ
ਘੱਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਸਮਾਗਮ: ਗਿਆਨੀ ਗੁਰਬਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਲੋਂ ਸੰਦੇਸ਼ ਪੜ੍ਹਨ ਦਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਸੰਗਤ ਵਲੋਂ ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤ ਵਿਰੋਧ
33ਵਾਂ ਵਰਾਂ ਵੀ ਲੰਘਿਆ… ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਹੇਰਾਂ
ਸੰਤ ਭਿੰਡਰਾਂਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਯਾਦ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ… ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਹੇਰਾਂ
4 ਜੂਨ 1984 ਦਾ ਹਮਲਾ- ਕੀ ਸੀ ‘ਸਾਕਾ ਨੀਲਾ ਤਾਰਾ’? (ਭਾਗ ਦੂਜਾ) – ਦਲਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰ
ਸ਼ਹੀਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਯਾਦ ‘ਚ ਲੱਗੀ ਛਬੀਲ ਦਾ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਜਥੇਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਵਲੋਂ ਵਿਰੋਧ, ਫਗਵਾੜਾ ‘ਚ ਤਣਾਅ
ਦਰਬਾਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵੱਲ ਗੋਲੀ ਨਾ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਜਨਰਲ ਬਰਾੜ ਦਾ ਬਿਆਨ ਕਿੰਨਾ ਕੁ ਸੱਚਾ..? – ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਮੰਡਿਆਣੀ
ਬਾਦਲ ਪਰਿਵਾਰ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੌਮ ਦੇ ਨਾਂ ’ਤੇ ਰਾਜਨੀਤੀ ਬੰਦ ਕਰੇ: ਝੀਂਡਾ
4 ਜੂਨ 1984 ਦਾ ਹਮਲਾ- ਕੀ ਸੀ ‘ਸਾਕਾ ਨੀਲਾ ਤਾਰਾ’? – ਦਲਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਪੱਤਰਕਾਰ
Pranab Mukharjee
News

PRESIDENT OF INDIA IS SURE TO MAKE HISTORY BEFORE HIS TERM EXPIRES IN JULY-2017

0

President Pranab Mukherjee commuted the sentences of convicts on January 1, 2017 Credit: Reuters/Files

https://thewire.in/102078/pranab-mukherjee-death-row/

A. History in the Making? Pranab Mukherjee Rejects Government Advice on Death-Row Convicts.

B. President Pranab Mukherjee is sure to make history Before his term expires in the middle of this year-2017.

C. President Pranab Mukherjee, whose term expires in the middle of this year, is sure to make history as the first-ever president to assert his powers vis-a-vis the government, by rejecting its recommendations while considering mercy petitions of death-row convicts.

D. According to sources, the president did so because the home ministry’s recommendation went against the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India, delivered on January 21, 2014. The Supreme Court had held that undue and inexplicable delay in disposing the mercy petitions of the convicts by the president could be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

E. Official sources confirmed to The Wire that the president’s decision in this case is the second such instance when he set aside the government’s advice to reject the mercy petitions.

F. Whatever the government’s political compulsions in making its recommendations to the president to reject the mercy petitions of death-row convicts, without application of mind, Pranab Mukherjee’s quiet rejection of the government’s advice and the government’s tacit acquiescence-consent, compliance, acceptance, assent, submission to it have shown that it is indeed a proud moment in India’s presidency.

BY THE WIRE ANALYSIS ON 23/01/2017

1. The president commuted the death sentences of four convicts, rejecting the government’s advice because it went against a precedent.

2. President Pranab Mukherjee, whose term expires in the middle of this year, is sure to make history as the first-ever president to assert his powers vis-a-vis the government, by rejecting its recommendations while considering mercy petitions of death-row convicts.

3. The president has, on January 1, 2017 commuted the death sentences of four convicts, to life imprisonment, in the Bara massacre case. They are Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal Mochi, Bir Kuer Paswan and Dharmendra Singh, also known as Dharu Singh.

4. In the Bara massacre, which took place in 1992, 34 upper-caste Bhumihars were killed allegedly by the activists of the Maoist Communist Centre, now CPI-Maoist, to avenge an earlier massacre of Dalits by the Bhumihars. Three of the four convicts who were sentenced to death in the case are Dalits.

5. While the Dalits were charged and tried under the draconian powers of TADA, the Bhumihars were not – they were only tried under the Indian Penal Code. Without the aid of the TADA confessions to the police, (on the strength of which the Dalits were convicted), the Bhumihars had no difficulty in securing en masse acquittals.

6. Official sources confirmed to The Wire that the president’s decision in this case is the second such instance when he set aside the government’s advice to reject the mercy petitions.

7. As the list of commutations shown in the official website of president’s secretariat shows, the previous commutation was in the case of Jeetendra, also kown as Jitu Nainsingh Gehlot, on September 18, 2016 (last year). Since the commutation prior to this was in March 2015, one could infer that Gehlot’s commutation too was against the recommendation of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

8. According to sources, the president did so because the home ministry’s recommendation went against the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India, delivered on January 21, 2014. The Supreme Court had held that undue and inexplicable delay in disposing the mercy petitions of the convicts by the president could be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

Constitutional dilemma:

9. However, the president’s exercise of his discretion in the matter, first reported by the Indian Express on Sunday, has raised an interesting and unprecedented constitutional issue.

10. Article 74 (1) of the constitution says there shall be a council of ministers with the prime minister at the head to aid and advise the president who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.

11. A proviso to this sub-clause says that the president may require the council of ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise and the president shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.

12. In the two commutations of death sentences, once in September last year and now, the president appears to have thought it unnecessary to use this proviso and found that he was legally bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court, rather than the recommendation of the union council of ministers.

13. This is because, as Yug Mohit Chaudhry, who appeared as the counsel for the death row convicts in the Shatrughan Chauhan case says, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on everybody within the territory of India, under Article 141. Equally, it is binding on the government as well as the president. Therefore, if a recommendation of the government is inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court, the president is bound to follow the latter, Chaudhry says.

14. The two commutations on which the president decided – against the home ministry’s advice – are clear. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence of Gehlot on September 5, 2000, while in the case of four convicts in the Bara massacre case, on April 15, 2002.

15. The long delay in disposing the mercy petitions of these convicts would have clearly been a factor for commuting their death sentences, if the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan, is a guide.

The Maru Ram precedent:

16. Critics of the president may point out that the Supreme Court had in Maru Ram v Union of India, in 1980, had held that in deciding mercy petitions, the president is bound by the advice of the council of ministers under Article 74. While the judgment in Maru Ram was delivered by a five-judge bench, Shatrughan Chauhan was delivered by a three-judge bench.

17. But the president would be right, if he believed that the Maru Ram precedent is not relevant now because the question of advice tendered by the council of ministers being inconsistent with a law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 was not before the bench in Maru Ram.

A proud moment?

18. Why did the government not follow the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan while recommending that the president reject the mercy petitions? Perhaps because it would then have to commute the death sentences of those convicted of massacring Bhumihars, a strong vote bank in the upcoming UP elections.

19. Whatever the government’s political compulsions in making its recommendations to the president to reject the mercy petitions of death-row convicts, without application of mind, Pranab Mukherjee’s quiet rejection of the government’s advice and the government’s tacit acquiescence-consent, compliance, acceptance, assent, submission to it have shown that it is indeed a proud moment in India’s presidency.

…………………………………………………………………..

Comment from the article referred as a link below to read all: Thanks

http://gursikhnews.org/2016/10/article/2484

OPERATIVE PART OF THE NOTE AS A COMMENT:

The author of this note, bow his head before the Hon’ble Judges of ‘THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, P. SATHASIVAM, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, RANJAN GOGOI, JUSTICE, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JUSTICE who decided ‘WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013 at NEW DELHI; on JANUARY 21, 2014 and daringly pointed out the functions and duties of ‘THE HIGH STATUS OF OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES’ AS HOW TO FUNCTION WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

“The Apex court of India, while deciding number of mercy petitions recently held without going into detail of the Judgment that ‘Mercy jurisprudence is a part of evolving standard of decency, which is the hallmark of the society; Certainly, a series of Constitution Benches of this Court have upheld the Constitutional validity of the death sentence in India over the span of decades but these judgments in no way take away the duty to follow the due procedure established by law in the execution of sentence.

Like, when the death sentence is passed lawfully, the execution of the sentence must also be in consonance with the Constitutional mandate, go-ahead, reign and order, and not in violation of the constitutional principles’ committing delay at Will, motivation, motive and for some purpose and incentive -revengefully.

The execution of the sentence must also be in consonance with the Constitutional mandate; go-ahead, order, command, reign and not in violation of the constitutional principles” as explained above.

In the Judgment, in a very decent manner, the Hon’ble Apex court of India tried to realize the elected representatives (tyrants- Actively taking as active part in State Terrorism) involved in violation of the constitutional principles, and seems clearly said to be including all law-makers, the executive along with complete States machinery and such guilty in India and outside.

When, the Hon’ble Apex court of India directs and mentions, ‘Mercy jurisprudence is a part of evolving standard of decency, which is the hallmark of the society’, what does it mean for the elected representatives (tyrants)?

To my mind, the Hon’ble Apex court of India does it mean that the elected representatives (tyrants) involved in violation of the constitutional principles are, ruling, acting and working in violation of politeness, decorum, civility, morality, modesty, respectability, uprightness, integrity and honesty, but following incivility as a whole throughout in India and outside.

What else can be said to the elected representatives (tyrants as stated above), though exceptions cannot be ruled out therein also, who matter by the Hon’ble Apex court of India?

“The Hon’ble Apex court of India did not wish to stop, further here only to educate the elected representatives (tyrants as stated above) and reminded them for refreshing their memory that ‘It is well established that exercising of power under Article 72/161 by the President or the Governor is a constitutional obligation and not a mere prerogative.

Considering the high status of office, the Constitutional framers did not stipulate any outer time limit for disposing the mercy petitions under the said Articles, which means it should be decided within reasonable time. (Considering the high status of office, the Constitutional framers did not stipulate any outer time limit for disposing the mercy petitions under the said Articles, the Hon’ble Apex court of India meant to say that you the elected representatives (tyrants as stated above) undermined the high status of office contrary to the presumption of the Constitutional framers.)

However, when the delay caused in disposing the mercy petitions is seen to be unreasonable, unexplained and exorbitant, it is the duty of this Court to step in and consider this aspect. Right to seek for mercy under Article 72/161 of the Constitution is a constitutional right and not at the discretion or whims of the executive.

“AN IMPORTANT SUBMISSION: It should not be considered out of the context, the submission of mine-author of this note before the Hon’ble Apex court of India, to ask detail of such all cases irrespective of the cases whether the mercy petitions filed or not?

Here not means may be for untold and unseen reasons like undue pressure and influence by way of tutoring by the hidden secret agencies in violation of the constitutional principles and also committing delay at Will, motivation, for some motive and for some purpose and incentive-revengefully etc

Because the monthly visits of District and Sessions, Judges to their respective District Jails to meet the victims among the convicts and under- trials, do not serve much purpose satisfactorily for number of reasons as the author of this note personally noticed and experienced as it shall not be proper to elaborate now as personally experienced in Jail.

Like, ‘The Truth finding Committee of Victims in Indian Jails’ comprising some upright personalities (not at all related directly or indirectly also with victims concerned) could be set up to ascertain the truth about the mind of victims.

It must be considered as an important submission in the interest of fair play and justice for safeguarding the victims of adverse circumstances from the present system prevailing in India,” SUBMISSION BY BALBIR SINGH SOOCH.”

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wpc552013.pdf

“Every Constitutional duty must be fulfilled with due care and diligence; otherwise judicial interference is the command of the Constitution for upholding its values,” the Hon’ble Apex court of India specifically pointed out and tried to taught as what ought to be the pious functions and duties of ‘THE HIGH STATUS OF OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES’ IN INDIA?

Remember, retribution-revenge, reprisal and vengeance has no Constitutional value in our largest democratic country. In India, even an accused has a de facto protection under the Constitution and it is the Court’s duty to shield and protect the same. Therefore, we make it clear that when the judiciary interferes in such matters, it does not really interfere with the power exercised under Article 72/161 but only to uphold the de facto protection provided by the Constitution to every convict including death convicts, the Hon’ble Apex court of India clarified”.

Here, ‘The Hon’ble Apex court of India’ did mean clearly that ‘THE HIGH STATUS OFFICE’ is not functioning ‘UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES’ IN INDIA. But proving all in vain due to the inaction of the elected representatives (tyrants) involved in violation of the constitutional principles by all means.

Clarified to whom! To ‘THE HIGH STATUS OF OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES’ IN INDIA and to States machinery, who is holding and conducting the Elections in connivance with ‘The tyranny of the unelected tyrants and the tyranny of the elected tyrants faced by people in India’ and with their help by patronizing them so far as the Sikh Vichar Manch experienced and observed.

The author of this note, bow his head before the Hon’ble Judges of ‘THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, P. SATHASIVAM, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, RANJAN GOGOI, JUSTICE, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JUSTICE who decided ‘WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013 at NEW DELHI; on JANUARY 21, 2014 and daringly pointed out the functions and duties of ‘THE HIGH STATUS OF OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES’ AS HOW TO FUNCTION WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA”.
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wpc552013.pdf

Comment from the article referred as a link below to read all: Thanks

http://gursikhnews.org/2016/10/article/2484

THE NOTE AND COMMENT BY:

BALBIR SINGH SOOCH-SIKH VICHAR MANCH

http://www.sikhvicharmanch.com/

https://www.facebook.com/balbir.singh.355

https://thewire.in/102078/pranab-mukherjee-death-row/

President Pranab Mukherjee commuted the sentences of convicts on January 1, 2017 Credit: Reuters/Files
https://thewire.in/102078/pranab-mukherjee-death-row/

Videos

June 1984 Ghallughara Samagam (6 June 2017) | Sikh Sangat protest against Giani Gurbachan Singh"


Shaheed Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra Speech


1. ਡਾ. ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਾਇਸ ਚਾਂਸਲਰ (ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀ) 100% ਆਰ.ਐਸ.ਐਸ. ਦੇ ਆਦਮੀ । 2. ਜੇ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀਆਂ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਪੈਸਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਚਲਦੇ ਹੋਇ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਹੀ ਖਿਲਾਫ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਣ ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਬਹੁੱਤ ਮੰਦਭਾਗੀ ਗੱਲ ਹੈ - ਡਾ. ਗੁਰਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਢਿੱਲੋਂ


1 ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦਾ ਹੋਂਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਉਣ ਦਾ ਮੂਲ ਕਾਰਣ ਹੀ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਿਖ ਨੂੰ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਤੋੜਿਆ ਜਾਏ । 2 ਜਦੋਂ ਜਸਬਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਲਿਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਸਿਸਟਮ ਨੂੰ ਚੁਨੋਤੀ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਮੈਂ ਸੱਚ ਦੀ ਆਵਾਜ਼ ਬੁਲੰਦ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਜੋ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਕਰ ਲਉ - ਸ੍ਰ. ਰਾਜਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ?


ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਪੁਰਬ ਤੇ ਸੰਗਤਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਇ ਮਨਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ, ਮੌਹਾਲੀ।

Enter your email address to subscribe to this website and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Calendar

January 2017
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031