Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, April 29, 2024

Insult Of Vice-President By Mimicry Is Just Not Acceptable

Posted in: Civil Laws
Tue, Dec 26, 23, 13:31, 4 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 10093
The moot question here is pertaining to the impeccable reputation of Mr Jagdeep Dhankhar which is non-negotiable.

Let me state first and foremost very clearly: Question is not of Jat or Rajput or Muslim or Sikh or Jain or Buddhist or Christian! The moot question here is pertaining to the impeccable reputation of Mr Jagdeep Dhankhar which is non-negotiable. He has an unblemished reputation of being most correct, courageous and composed in his talks and in his conduct which I truly applaud always from the bottom of my heart as an Indian!

Adding more to it, we also cannot be oblivious of the glaring fact that he is the Vice President of India which is the second highest Constitutional post and sacrilege of it in any manner cannot be justified under any circumstances. There has to be complete zero tolerance for any such acts which denigrates the reputation of the person holding the most of President or Vice President of India.

I am most agitated not as a Jat but as an Indian just like I felt agitated whenever any person speaks ill against any President or Vice President earlier also. But this time all limits have been crossed as it has happened in the corridors of Parliament itself! In private space, no one can question nor will anyone bother but in the public realm and that too as we saw in the premises of Parliament itself to mimicry none other than the Vice President of India is just not acceptable.

In his tweet, VP Dhankhar also said that these insults would not change his path. Reacting to the mimicry incident in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday by the TMC MP – Mr Kalyan Banerjee and then Congress leader Mr Rahul Gandhi making a video of it in presence of so many Opposition MPs was definitely in most bad taste, the Vice President Mr Jagdeep Dhankar said most emotionally, I don’t care about how much you insult Jagdeep Dhankhar. But I can't tolerate (insult of) Vice President of India, farmers community, my community.

I deeply respect what the Vice President has said but what I rank topmost is that he is the Vice President of India and is so learned that just cannot be described in words. If one has just one cursory glimpse into his educational life and his professional life, we will come to know how tall he stands. He had cleared very easily so many prestigious competitive exams yet did not join and was a High Court lawyer and so also a Supreme Court lawyer with impeccable credentials. He is a man who is par excellence and I have always noticed that he speaks with everyone in the most polite and graceful manner.

We must note here that even the Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi also expressed his deepest anguish and condemned the disrespectful behavior during a phone call that he made with the Vice President. While referring to the PM Modi’s phone call, we noticed how Dhankhar had posted on X said that:
He expressed great pain over the abject theatrics of some Honourable MPs and that too in the sacred Parliament complex yesterday. If the Opposition MPs had conducted themselves with dignity, there can be no gainsaying that public sympathy would have been hugely with them but this mimicry has been their biggest undoing!

We have seen how in the midst of the escalating controversy engulfing the controversial mimicry episode that is just refusing to die down, even the President Droupadi Murmu expressed her deepest anguish pertaining to the perceived public humiliation of the Vice President by Opposition Leaders right inside the Parliament complex. While strongly underscoring the vital importance of elected representatives having the freedom to express themselves, she rightly emphasized that such expression should always adhere to the norms of dignity and courtesy. She very rightly said that:
I was dismayed to see the manner in which our respected Vice President was humiliated in the Parliament complex. Elected representatives must be free to express themselves, but their expression should be within the norms of dignity and courtesy. That has been the Parliamentary tradition we are proud of, and the People of India expect them to uphold it.

If this is how our lawmakers will behave then who will respect them? Why Opposition Leaders are oblivious of the ostensible truth that there is an aura around the office of the President and Vice President which has to be always maintained as insult of it is an insult of our nation itself whom they represent on the highest and second highest constitutional post? A line has to be drawn for elected MPs and MLAs and if they dare to cross that line then they must be debarred from contesting elections.

It just merits no reiteration that the standard bar of politicians to get elected must be raised and criminals must be totally barred from contesting elections. Why should those who have criminal cases pending against them be allowed to enter Parliament? Why should the mimicry of President or Vice President or of PM or of Leader of Opposition be allowed to go unpunished?

Needless to say, the President and the Vice President are most top Constitutional posts which cannot be compared with anyone else and any insult to their dignity under any circumstances cannot be treated as a routine matter. It has to be treated most seriously. Even if I at any point of time insult the President or Vice President of India then I too must be punished most strictly and there is no question of allowing me to escape lightly under any circumstances! There can be no two opinions about it.

There can be no quibbling what the Vice President Mr Jagdeep Dhankhar while slamming the mimicry called the act shameful, ridiculous and unacceptable. While putting a very brave front, the Vice President said most eloquently that, This won’t prevent him from performing his duty. I told him-Mr. Prime Minister, the antics of a few won’t prevent me from performing my duty and upholding the principles enshrined in our Constitution. I am committed to those values from the bottom of my heart. None of the insults will make me change my path. Very rightly so!

We must definitely also acknowledge now most candidly in all fairness that as compared to the other fields, it is only for MPs who are the Members of Parliament either in the Lok Sabha or in the Rajya Sabha and so also the MLAs who are the Members of State Assembly as Members of Legislative Assemblies where we see the maximum display of leniency in tolerating the worst kind of indiscipline which we often many times see live in news channels even though they are the law makers and still are rarely punished and it is they who rule over us in deciding what is in store for us even on many small petty issues! Of course, it is a no-brainer that this is what has culminated in further compounding of the problem with MPs and MLAs indulging in gross misconduct at the drop of a hat. This has been tolerated for far too long.

It is certainly a matter of deep regret that the security of Parliament was breached which agitated the MPs but that definitely does not confer an unfettered license to any MP to indulge in gross misconduct in House and misbehave with the Presiding Officer or with anyone else. Why should we have such MPs and MLAs who don’t know how to behave in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies? When our country had got independence more than 77 years ago perhaps our Constitution makers had never thought that our MPs and MLAs would misbehave with so much of brashness that even a street goonda would be left far behind!

I have definitely just no hesitation of any kind to say that those who indulge in wanton acts of shouting, screaming and throwing papers at the Speaker or any other Presiding Chairman have no right to continue as an MP or MLA. Right from my childhood days, I have noticed people lamenting that a single day in Parliament costs many crores of rupees and yet our MPs and MLAs make the session a scene of political one upmanship and indulge in most brazen actions which are totally unwarranted, undemocratic and so also are politically motivated and yet we see no that strict rules are made for them. It is high time and now is the ripe moment to make strictest rules for MPs and MLAs so that no one can dare to misbehave in Parliament with impunity!

The billion dollar question is: Why under any circumstances should MPs and MLAs be spared by giving them a long rope as we have witnessed so many times if they misconduct in the worst manner and thus lower the dignity of the elected representatives making a complete mockery of our democratic system in the eyes of the whole world? It is high time and those MPs and MLAs who have criminal cases pending against them must be banned permanently from politics just like we see in case of government services. If this is done promptly, half of the problems will be solved automatically. Why should they always be given a long rope to misbehave again and again?

There can thus be no gainsaying that those who misbehave in Parliament in any manner and disrupt the proceedings of the House must be dealt with most strictly and expelled for at least 10 years so that no one can dare afford to take the decorum and dignity of both Houses of Parliament for granted just like we witness in Supreme Court and High Courts and so also in other prestigious institutions. It is a very serious crime at least morally to tolerate indiscipline among MPs and MLAs in Parliament as it further encourages them to indulge in more indiscipline and so also others who come fresh which cannot be considered to be a healthy precedent and only serves to aggravate the problem further. What is worst is that it corrodes the faith of the people in elected representatives which no true democratic country can ever allow under any circumstances!

It must also be asked: How long will politicians be given long rope and allowed to contest elections from jail itself? How long will MP and MLAs be allowed to misbehave in Parliament and state Assemblies and still be given long rope by not taking any action against them? How long will politicians be allowed to become MPs and MLAs even after having not dozens but hundred to two hundred criminal cases pending against them and still allowing them to continue as MPs and MLAs on one pretext or the other even when for other services like becoming a judge or an IAS or even a police constable there is strict police verification and one case alone even if it turns out to be fake is sufficient to ruin the career of the concerned aspirant?

The most troubling question is: How long will this worst discrimination between politicians and others be justified and tolerated on one pretext or the other? How long will the tearing of rule books shamelessly be dismissed off very lightly and those indulging in it not be punished? How long will tearing of any law like the Farm Law be allowed to be torn of and that too right inside Parliament or State Assembly and that too by prominent members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha just like we saw in Delhi and other States?

It must be definitely asked: How long will they be even allowed to indulge in physical violence and still spared from being permanently debarred? Why are they let off by just a reprimand or suspension for a short period of a few days or sometimes even for just a day? Why are they not seriously taken to task ever?

What message is being sent by all this? Does this not send a message that if one is a politician and an MP or MLA, he can hold the law to ransom? For how long will this pathetic state of affairs be allowed to continue? How long will the Sab Chalta Hain approach be allowed to carry on for MPs and MLAs?

But definitely I am now certainly most happy to see that finally our Speaker of Lok Sabha – Mr Om Birla and so also the Chairman of Rajya Sabha - Mr Jagdeep Dhankhar both of whom have also truly risen up to the occasion by displaying true statesmanship and holding the bull by the horns cracked the whip and have also sent a very strong and unequivocal message to all the bigwig political leaders of different parties who in past have occupied very high posts and some are still occupying that those who misbehave severely will be expelled and this will not be tolerated any longer in Parliament neither in the Lok Sabha nor in the Rajya Sabha! It has also most commendably very rightly reinforced what our Apex Court keeps reiterating that:
Be you ever so high, the law is above you. There could definitely be no better manner of sending a strong message to everyone that no one can dare afford ever to take the dignity and decorum of Vice President or Speaker for granted any longer!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top