‘We respect the PM, but differences will arise if laws are steamrolled’
The newly appointed Leader of Opposition (LOP) in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress, brings nearly half a century of legislative experience to the post. He spoke to
on a range of issues. Edited excerpts: polls. At that time, the Congress did not insult a great leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee. My party’s frugal strength never weighed me down. The Rajya Sabha position is no elevation. I’m only a recognised LOP. When Ghulam Nabi Azad took over, we had over 70 members. Today our army is reduced; we have to fight with a bench strength of 36 but there will be no let-up in our battle for the people’s welfare.
They’re experienced, intelligent people constituting the cream of our party. I’ve known them for long, as I joined the Congress after the 1969 split. I’ll seek their advice. My worry is the allocation of time for important debates the ruling side tends to curtail.
Such decisions get driven by situations in the Houses. Divergence could be as much on account of government’s divergent approach in the Lok Sabha [where it has a big majority], and the Upper House where the numbers are relatively balanced. Our legislative wings were working together and will continue to do so. state but we’ve ideological differences. We’ll cooperate, but it’s the government’s responsibility to take all Opposition parties along — convincingly and not through bulldozer tactics — for the smooth conduct of Parliament.
Naidu is from Andhra but has been a Rajya Sabha member from Karnataka. I’ve known him well. Now he’s the vice-president and chairperson of our House. We respect the position he holds, and assure him of our support...we expect him to recognise the Opposition’s right to raise and debate issues. As for the PM, he’s de jure the leader of the Lok Sabha but de facto the leader of both houses. We respect the PM, but differences will arise if laws are steamrolled — as was the case with labour reforms and the farm legislation. We won’t accept that the party that has the majority can do anything.
The majority view prevailed. I gave dissenting notes (as was the case when an interim CBI director was appointed). They called me a dissenting leader. But reasoned dissent is the Opposition’s prerogative. The problem arose because the PM didn’t consider the other view. Democracy provides for differing perceptions without prejudice or vengeance.
Our job is to scrutinise the bills passed by the Lower House. That ensures robust law-making and safeguards against judicial intervention. We’ll discuss the matter in our party and take a stand. The government’s policy to dismantle and not repair public sector undertakings will impact the common man and the job quotas for the SCS/STS/OBCS. Even profitable PSUS are being shut. That will kill reserved employment, while the private sector which gets lakhs of crores of rupees written off as NPAS is loath to offer opportunities to the weaker sections. That’s why the Rajya Sabha must scrutinise such laws.
Modi conspired to destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses. “Now since the magistrate’s court has recommended Nirav Modi’s extradition to the UK home secretary, the government of India would liaise with the UK authorities for his early extradition to India.”
Modi attended Thursday’s hearing virtually from Wandsworth prison, where he has been held since he was arrested by UK authorities on March 19, 2019 in response to an extradition request from India.
Last year, India won extradition proceedings against former liquor baron Vijay Mallya in UK courts, but his extradition has been held up due to secret legal proceedings, as claimed by the British government. Mallya is learnt to have applied for asylum in the UK.
Delivering his judgement on Thursday, district judge Goozee said “the circulation of pearls, diamonds and gold between the Nirav Modi firms and the Dubai and Hong Kong based dummy companies was not genuine business and the companies were being used for transferring funds generated in the guise of sale-purchase/export-import of goods colloquially referred to as round tripping transactions”.
The court rejected Modi’s lawyers’ argument and the testimony of experts including retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju’s contention that he won’t get a fair trial in India and that he was being targeted due to political reasons.
“India is governed by its written constitution which has at its core the fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary by virtue of the separation of powers between judiciary, the executive and the legislature. There is no cogent or reliable evidence that the judiciary in India is no longer independent, or capable of managing a fair trial even where it is a highprofile fraud with significant media interest. There is no evidence which allows me to find that if extradited Nirav Modi is at real risk of suffering a flagrant denial of justice,” Goozee said in the judgement.
Describing Katju’s testimony as not reliable, the court said it had the “hallmarks of an outspoken critic with his own personal agenda”.
Nirav Modi’s lawyer Zulfiquar Memon said – “Nirav Modi was not being allowed to present evidence; he didn’t get any relief from the trial court (during the trial). Our hope is now high court only”.