POLL BATTLE HEATS UP...

and south Gujarat regions, dominated by Patidars and other farming communities, will go to the polls in the first phase on December 1 and are considered the key to grabbing power in the state. The battle is particularly fierce in the 48 constituencies of the Saurashtra region, where the Congress flipped several seats in the 2017 election, riding a wave of discontent among farmers and traders and the agitation for quotas by Patidars. This time, the BJP is looking to take back many of the 28 seats the Congress won five years ago, while the AAP is hoping its promise of better governance delivery will help it win support, especially in the peri-urban and rural seats.

Unlike the 2017 elections, reservation for Patidars is not a poll issue this time. However, inflation and rising debt of farmers are some of the pre-dominant issues of the agrarian region of Saurashtra. Focus will be on the industrial powerhouse town of Surat, which the BJP has traditionally swept but saw a resurgent AAP break through the bipolar polity in last year’s municipal elections. The triangular fight in Gujarat — the first in the state since 1990 — will largely hinge on the AAP’S ability to hive off votes from the BJP and Congress, and Surat will be a bellwether for this phenomenon.

In Surat, slowing down of economy and its impact on small scale textile and diamond industries are some of the issues, other than inflation and unemployment.

The first phase is especially important given that the second round of elections in 93 constituencies on December 5 will be held across the BJP strongholds of central and north Gujarat. Results will be announced on December 8, along with Himachal Pradesh. The BJP, which is looking for its seventh straight assembly election victory, changed its chief minister and virtually the entire state cabinet last year in a bid to curb antiincumbency. The Congress has run a relatively quiet campaign focussed on grassroots workers, and the AAP is looking to make inroads in BJP and Congress vote bases. In his three rallies, Modi kept up his attack on the Congress and accused the Opposition party of repeatedly insulting him in the past. “Your (Congress) padyatra is to grab power and nothing else,” Modi said in Surendranagar. “Now you are walking hand-inhand in your yatra with those (reference to Medha Patkar) who opposed the Narmada Scheme. The voters will punish you in the coming elections,” he added.

On the third day of his election tour in Gujarat — he addressed four rallies on Sunday and one on Saturday — Modi accused the Congress of calling him names. “You have called me ‘maut ka saudagar‘(merchant of death). They talked about showing me my aukat (class) and said I have no aukat,” he said, referring to past criticisms of him by Congress leaders. Modi, who criss-crossed the state from Saurashtra to Bharuch, termed the Congress as a party of “princely family” and contrasted himself as hailing from an “ordinary family”.

Meanwhile, in Saurashtra’s coastal region, Shah congratulated the BJP government for removing encroachments and ensuring peace. In Dwarka, he referred to the communal violence in the state during the Congress’s reign, said there was now peace in the entire coastal belt, and asked people to choose between peace and violence.

“Gujarat became the number one state because people voted for BJP in the past 27 years and they do not want to change their political affiliations,” he said at Mangrol in Junagadh.

Later in the day, Gandhi hit back from his rally in Rajkot. He accused the BJP of trying to protect the “real culprits” behind the Morbi tragedy. He also accused the BJP of taking away rights of tribespeople. Gandhi said he did not intend to politicise the October 30 tragedy. “But the question arises that no action was taken against those responsible for the tragedy. Security guards were arrested but those responsible were not arrested,” he told the gathering in Rajkot.

The contract for operating the bridge was with the Oreva Group, which was not named by the police in the first information report. The company’s managing director, Jaysukhbhai Patel, who inaugurated the bridge on October 26, is yet to be questioned. The civic body’s chief has been suspended and the government has faced sharp questions from the Gujarat high court. Gandhi also said public sector enterprises were being privatised and given to rich industrialists. “When industrialists don’t pay, it is called a non-performing asset, when a farmer does not pay, they are called defaulters…i feel sad listening to all this,” he said. “They (BJP) call you ‘vanvasi’ (forest dwellers). They do not say you are the first owners of India, but that you live in the jungles... It means they do not want you to live in cities, see your children becoming engineers, doctors, learn to fly planes, speak English,” he said in tribaldominated Mahuva in Surat.

At his rally in Amreli, Kejriwal promised a million jobs if his party came to power, while reiterating the promise of providing 300 units of electricity free every month. “Gujarat too will get splendid education, free of charge... In Delhi sons and daughters of auto drivers are becoming engineers, labourers are becoming doctors,” Kejriwal said.

“Surat and Saurashtra are crucial as they have the crucial Patidar votes and how they vote in the first phase might impact the second phase,” said Ghanshyam Shah, a Gujarat-based political expert.

SC ON MORBI TRAGEDY

the status of investigation, the manner in which the contract was awarded, attribution of responsibility and the award of contract to the company concerned, the grant of compensation and the need for an independent investigation. But for the fact that the high court has already taken charge, we would have taken it ourselves and looked into this,” remarked the bench, which also included justice Hima Kohli. The bench said that a periodic intervention by a judicial forum is warranted in the facts of the case to ascertain whether the investigation requires to be conducted by a team independent of state police officials, besides scrutinising the action taken or being contemplated against the officials of the Morbi municipality and Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd, which was awarded the contract to maintain and operate the British-era suspension bridge.

“This is a matter that requires weekly intervention which we are not sure the Supreme Court should do at the first instance when the HC has already been looking into this and it has also passed three orders... Why we should distrust the HC, especially when the chief justice has moved with an alacrity,” observed the court. In its order, the court took note of the concerns raised by the petitioners, one of whom is a person who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the tragic incident.

These included the need for an independent probe on acts or omissions which would amount to criminal wrongdoing; the need to fix responsibility against officials of Morbi municipality; the need to ensure that the agency which was entrusted with the task of maintaining the bridge and its management are held accountable, including but not confined to making arrests in the course of the investigation; reasonable compensation to the heirs of those who have lost lives in the tragedy.

“We are of the view that the HC would also bring to bear its time and attention on other aspects of the matter which have been highlighted above while recording the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner,” the bench said, suggesting the HC to pay due attention to these concerns.

The order added: “Several aspects of the matter will require obtaining periodical reports from the state and nagar palika (municipality) on incidents leading up to the collapse of the bridge and subsequent events of relief, rehabilitation and compensation. The court will also need to examine the aspect of a regulatory mechanism so that such incidents don’t recur.” The court requested the HC to take up the suo motu issue on a periodical basis “so that the purpose underlined in the order are duly fulfilled”, as it gave the petitioners the liberty to approach the HC to get an audience.

On November 7, the Gujarat HC took suo motu cognisance of the matter, and heard it on November 15 and 16, when the Morbi municipality was pulled up for permitting Ajanta to keep the bridge open for the public between December 29, 2021 and March 7, 2022, despite knowing that it was in a critical condition. Adjourning the matter to November 24, the HC directed the municipality to bring on record all documents relating to the award of contract and approval to Ajanta.

The SC was on Monday hearing two petitions. The first was filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari as a PIL, seeking a judicial commission under the supervision of a retired SC judge to initiate a probe into the bridge collapse. Tiwari also sought directions to all states for setting up committees to conduct assessment of the risk of old monuments and bridges to ensure environmental viability and safety. The second petition was filed by Chavada Dilipbhai, who lost his brother and sister-in-law in the bridge collapse incident, asking for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and enhanced compensation for the next of kin of the deceased.

On Monday, the bench took up both the petitions together. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Dilipbhai, argued that much was lacking in the matter as he pressed the need for an independent probe and arrest of the officials of Morbi municipality and Ajanta Manurashtra facturing Ltd — operating under the banner of Oreva group. “And then, there is the looming shadow of election in the state which is due in the first week of December. It’s ideal to have an independent investigation; since if you are not able to catch the big fish, there would be no trust in the probe,” he said. However, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Gujarat government, said required steps are being taken and that any word from the SC when the HC is already monitoring the matter could be misinterpreted.

“The additional issues being flagged by the petitioner here can very well be raised before the high court...anything said here may create a sense of doubt...any order being passed by this court may have its own repercussions,” said the SG. At this, the bench proceeded to highlight the concerns raised by Sankaranarayanan in its order, requesting the HC to examine them. Tiwari submitted that he has sought a judicial commission to supervise the probe, besides demanding a directive to all states to set up a mechanism for auditing old and dangerous public structures. The SC responded: “We have also said in our order that there should be a regulatory mechanism to see such incidents do not recur. Sometimes, it’s good for the judges to hear them. Commission may not be proper in all case. Let the HC evolve a mechanism. Someday, we may have to issue instructions for the whole country.”