Akhilesh tie-up

dispassionately appreciate the political situation.

But 16 of the 20 UP Congress MLAS had a different take on the alliance issue. As many as ten MLAS said the party should enter into an alliance with Akhilesh. Here’s what the Congress MLAS told The Indian Express:

Kaushal Kishore Singh Munna (Nautanwa): “Both should do it — Congress and Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav. Because the target of both is the same. Have you seen the movie Batwara? Vinod Khanna and Dharmendra were the heroes. When they came together, only then could kill the target.”

Vivek Kumar Singh (Banda): “If Akhilesh, Congress and RLD come together to fight the elections, you will see that the BJP will be a flop. Congress has 10-11 per cent of the votes. Plus the SP and RLD. Samajwadi Party means Akhilesh now. He has become the face of SP.”

Gajraj Singh (Hapur): “When casteist forces are on an upsurge and when you look at the atmosphere in the country, I think if all secular forces come together, then we can give a befitting reply to those who want to take the country to the pits. In my view, there should be an alliance with Akhilesh.”

Lalitesh Pati Tripathi (Marihan): “If the Congress could come to power, it will be best. But the second best alternative is Akhilesh... because he listens to MLAS and has done some work in our constituencies. He is approachable and has a good image.”

Ajay Kapoor (Kidwai Nagar): “Party should 100 per cent enter into an alliance because the government will be formed by Akhilesh as he is the biggest face in UP. He has a clean image. Like Nitish Kumar formed the government in Bihar, he will form the government. Nobody can stop that.”

Radhey Shyam Kannaujia (Jagdishpur): “My personal view is that now there is no way other than entering into an alliance. I think Congress should enter into an alliance with Akhilesh. We have to keep in mind 2019 as well.”

Umakanti Singh (Kalpi): “There should be alliance... it will be beneficial to both parties... to fight communal parties... in Bihar, it was successful and if an alliance takes shape here, it will be successful.”

Pankaj Kumar Malik (Shamli): “All secular forces should come together to defeat communal forces. It will be beneficial. It was beneficial in Bihar.”

Ajay Rai (Pindra): “The Congress should fight the elections alone. Because this is the time for the Congress to show its strength. It (the bickering in SP) will be beneficial for Congress because SP’S votes will break and will come to the Congress. Especially the minority votes.”

Aradhana Mishra (Rampur Khas): “State Congress president Raj Babbar has already made it clear that we are not going for any kind of alliance with anybody. This is a decision taken by our senior leadership. We have been working on our own for the past three months.”

Akhilesh Pratap Singh (Rudrapur): “I don’t know. The higher-ups will know. I have no view. I know about myself. I will win whether there is alliance or not. It does not matter to me.”

CLP leader Pradeep Mathur (Mathura): “Party is closely watching the situation and is fingers crossed. So far, the party has decided to go alone. There is still lot of time left for elections and it is not in a hurry. Our party will be deciding accordingly on this issue.”

Gayadeen Anuragi (Rath), Ajay Kumar (Tamkuhi) and Anugrah Narayan Singh (Allahabad North) said they will abide by whatever decision the party takes.

■ Two MLAS favoured an alliance but refused to speak on record. One of them said “everybody, from the grassroots worker to the top leadership, wants an alliance with Akhilesh Yadav.” sustains constitutional democracy” and “a sense of inclusion can only be fostered by protecting the right of citizens freely to engage in a dialogue in public spaces”.

Deliberation on religion, caste, etc. is the affirmation of “constitutionally protected values and...an intrinsic part of the freedom of speech and expression”, held the minority view, and warned that imposing a prohibition on electoral discourse on issues pertaining to caste, race, community, religion or language might reduce democracy to “an abstraction” apart from restricting the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of candidates.

Describing caste, race, religion and language as “matters of constitutional importance,” the minority judgment, authored by Justice D Y Chandrachud on behalf of himself and Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit, said that discussion of matters relating to these identities which are of concern to the voters is not an appeal on those grounds.

“The Constitution deals with them and contains provisions for the amelioration of disabilities and discrimination which was practised on the basis of those features. These are matters of concern to voters especially where large segments of the population were deprived of basic human rights as a result of prejudice and discrimination which they have suffered on the basis of caste and race,” it underscored.

“To hold that a person who seeks to contest an election is prohibited from speaking of the legitimate concerns of citizens that the injustices faced by them on the basis of traits having an origin in religion, race, caste, community or language would be remedied is to