With the cyclonic storm ‘Mandous’ brewing over the Bay of Bengal likely to hit north Tamil Nadu and Puducherry coasts around December 10, intense rain lashed many districts of Tamil Nadu.
According to the prediction of the India Meteorological Department as of 3 pm, Cyclonic Storm Mandous lay centered at over Southwest Bay of Bengal off north Tamil Nadu and Puducherry coasts, about 280 km north of Trincomalee (Sri Lanka), 230 km northeast of Jaffna (Sri Lanka), 180 km east-northeast of Karaikal and about 260 km south-southeast of Chennai.
It is very likely to move nearly northwestwards and cross north Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and adjoining south Andhra Pradesh coasts between Puducherry and Sriharikota around Mamallapuram as a Cyclonic Storm with a maximum sustained wind speed of 65-75 kmph gusting to 85 kmph between December 9 midnight and early hours of tomorrow, December 10.
Storm surge reaching a height of about 0.5 m above the astronomical tide is likely to inundate low-level areas in north coastal Tamil Nadu and Puducherry during the time of landfall.
Four places have been issued red-colour coded warning for torrential rain, the north coastline from Tiruvallur to Nagapattinam have been warned of strong winds on Friday.
The weather system has increased hopes of bridging the rain deficit over the State this monsoon season.
Teams of National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) have been deployed in the South Coastal Andhra Pradesh in view of rain forecast under the influence of cyclonic storm ‘Mandous’. The district administrations are bracing for any possible eventuality.
During landfall, the storm is likely to cause damages in the six alerted districts of Chittoor, Tirupati, Prakasam, Kadapa, Nellore, and Annamayya in Andhra Pradesh. Communication and power lines, thatched huts and trees are likely to be damaged.
Only final decisions of the Collegium need to be put in the public domain: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on December 9, 2022 held that only the final decisions of the apex court Collegium need to be published in the public domain.
A “final decision” of the Supreme Court Collegium would mean a resolution drawn and signed by all the collegium members of the court after due deliberations, discussions among them and post consultations conducted among the other Supreme Court judges, a Bench led by Justice M.R. Shah laid down in a judgment.
The Collegium is composed of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most judges. The Collegium unanimously recommends names for Supreme Court and High Court judgeships to the government, which appoints them through the President under Article 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution.
“Tentative” decisions of the multi-member Collegium, while the required deliberative and consultative processes remain unconcluded, need not be put in the public domain via publication on the Supreme Court website nor do they come under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Whatever was discussed behind the closed doors of the Collegium would remain confidential. Justice Shah said this was envisaged in a resolution published by the Collegium in October 2017 when the judicial appointments’ body had decided to publish its resolutions in the court website.
“After due deliberations and discussions and after completing the consultative process, a final decision is taken. When a final decision is taken, the resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium. Only then can it be said to be a final decision,” Justice Shah pronounced the judgment.
The judgment came in a petition filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, who had applied under the RTI Act to the Supreme Court for a copy of the agenda, decision and resolution of a Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.
The Supreme Court Public Information Officer (PIO) had said the information was confidential and disclosure would amount to contempt of court. The First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission found that though “certain decisions” were taken on December 12, the “required consultation” did not take place and hence there was no resolution. In appeal, the Delhi High Court had concluded that the Collegium decision was probably “verbal” and did not “crystallise” into a written record to be termed ‘information’ under the RTI Act.
The petitioner had in turn referred to a news article which quoted Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, affirming there was an agenda of the Collegium meeting held on December 12 and “certain decisions” had indeed been taken then.
Bhardwaj, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, further contended that a Collegium resolution published of a subsequent January 10, 2019 meeting had also recorded that “some decisions” were taken in the previous meeting of December 12, 2018 but intervening winter holidays of the court and the reconstitution of the Collegium had interrupted consultations.
Bhushan had also pointed to excerpts in the autobiography of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi about the December 12 meeting to buttress his case for information under the RTI Act.
The January 10, 2019 Collegium resolution had recommended Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna as Supreme Court judges. But a public debate in the media had ensued at the time on why the Collegium had “dropped” its December 12, 2018 “proposal” to recommend Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog (both are now retired) and, within days, pick then Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, a Delhi High Court judge.
Both Justices Maheshwari and Khanna are now serving apex court judges. Justice Khanna is in line to be the next Chief Justice of India according to the seniority norm.
Bhushan had argued that a “general impression” may arise that the Supreme Court, which had once upheld the right to information as a fundamental right in several of its judgments, was now “backtracking”.
Justice Shah, during the hearing, had said the Supreme Court was the “most transparent institution in the country”. In its judgment on Friday, the court said the January 2019 Collegium resolution had specifically mentioned that consultations were not completed in the December 12, 2018 meeting.
“Therefore, no final decision was taken. No final resolution was drawn or signed by the Collegium members. Hence, the same was not required to be put in the public domain under the RTI Act,” the judgment reasoned.
Congress observers meet Himachal Pradesh Governor ahead of MLAs’ meeting to choose Chief Minister
Congress observers sent to Himachal Pradesh after the party wrested power from the BJP met Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar on December 9, ahead of a meeting of the newly elected MLAs.
The MLAs are expected to pass a resolution authorising the party president to choose the legislature party leader who will be the next Chief Minister. Earlier, the Congress observers — Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and former Chief Minister of Haryana Bhupinder Singh Hooda — and AICC in-charge for Himachal Pradesh Rajeev Shukla met State Congress chief Pratibha Singh at a hotel.
Pratibha Singh, Congress MP and the wife of former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh, has indicated that she is in the running for the Chief Minister’s post, a point also made by her son.
“I am not in the race for the top post but my mother is one of the contenders for the post of Chief Minister,” her son and Congress MLA from Shimla Rural Vikramaditya Singh told PTI.
“A meeting of all winning MLAs has been convened and the final decision would be taken by the high command which would be acceptable to all,” he added. The Congress on December 8 won 40 seats in the 68-member Assembly in the hill State which maintained its tradition of not voting any incumbent government to power since 1985. Hooda, who arrived in Shimla on Friday, met the Governor along with Baghel and Shukla.
Hooda later said they have informed the Governor that the party has the majority and will seek a formal meeting with him later to stake claim to form the government. Deciding on the Chief Minister who can bind the party going forward is the immediate challenge for the Congress.
Pratibha Singh is considered a key frontrunner for the Chief Minister’s post, closely followed by former party chief Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu and outgoing legislature party leader Mukesh Agnihotri.
Congress leader Vikramaditya Singh told reporters here that “collective will of MLAs will be kept in mind and then observers will convey the same to the high command”.
Replying to a question, Singh said, “Whatever the high command decides will be acceptable to all of us. Post is not important for us. What is important is the promises we made to people we have to fulfill them and we are committed to that,” he said. He said the government will be formed in two-three days.
Shukla had on Thursday said the Congress was happy that it is getting an opportunity to form the government in the State and asserted that the party will do everything to fulfill the 10 guarantees made to the people of the State and would provide better governance to people.
“The newly elected Congress MLAs would meet in Shimla on Friday post-election results and decide on electing the new legislature party leader,” Shukla had told PTI on Thursday.
Sources said the MLAs are likely to pass a one-line resolution authorising Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to decide the CLP leader. “This has been the tradition in the Congress party,” they said.
Private member’s bill on Uniform Civil Code introduced in Rajya Sabha; faces stiff opposition
The introduction of a private member bill by a BJP member on implementation of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across the country witnessed vociferous protest from the Opposition members in Rajya Sabha on December 9, 2022. The Opposition members requested the BJP member Kirodi Lal Meena to withdraw the Bill and also asked Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar to not accept the legislation as it will destroy the secular fabric of the country.
The Bill seeks constitution of the National Inspection and Investigation Committee for preparation of UCC and its implementation throughout India.
Union minister Piyush Goyal defended the introduction of the bill. “Am pained to see the comments made by members quoting (B.R) Ambedkar. It is the legitimate right of a member to raise an issue which is under the directive principles of the constitution, let this subject be debated in the House. My colleague Prakash Javadekar will elaborate on this later but at this stage to cast aspersions on the government, to try to criticise the bill at introduction stage is uncalled for, I would like that the bill be introduced,” Goyal said.
Private members’ bill needs the backing of the government to get passed in the Parliament.
The introduction of the bill was put for voting and was passed through a voice vote, of 63 votes in favour and 23 against. Many Opposition members from Congress, Trinamool Congress and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) were not present during the discussion and at the time of voting.
Opposing the bill, MDMK’s Vaiko charged at the treasury benches saying “patriotism is not the monopoly of you people.”
“You may have majority, they are implementing the agenda of RSS. They have finished Kashmir...we are leading towards disaster and disintegration of the country, minorities are terribly hurt, kindly see that the bill is not introduced today. It is a day of shame and sorrow that we have to go through this,” Vaiko said.
IUML’s Abdul Wahab said this was a deliberate provocation and it cannot be implemented in India. “This is not a criminal code, everywhere intolerance is there...this is not in benefit of nation, take back this bill,” he said.
Elamaram Kareem from CPI said that India is a secular country and when there are so many other principles such as fixing wages for labourers why was the government not implementing them. “This bill will burn the country,” Kareem said.
Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya (CPI-M) asked whether the BJP member wants unity of the country and diversity to be destroyed. “Country is facing crisis, let us restore unity, the division among the people will not help you to grow economically or socially, let society mature and discuss among themselves,” the CPI-M member from West Bengal said.
V Sivadasan, CPI-M member from Kerala said, “The aim of this kind of bills is to ruin the unity of India. We should protect unity in diversity….India is not built by bricks and stones, it was built by the spirit of freedom fighters.”
John Brittas (CPI-M) said the the 21st Law Commission concluded that UCC is neither necessary nor desirable. “Law minister should be aware of this, if he takes some time away from attacking the Supreme Court, it is against spirit of the constitution....this is supposed to be an uncivil code, we should not use a piece of legislation for polarisation in society and it is detrimental for the country, please withdraw the bill immediately,” he urged the BJP member and the Chair.
AA Rahim (CPI-M) said that India is a land of pluralism and the RSS and Sangh Parivar have been using this issue as a political tool.
Samajwadi Party’s Ram Gopal Yadav said the bill was against the principles of Constitution. “Muslims marry first cousins, is it possible in Hindus? Will you apply the code from this side or the other end? This will lead to disillusionment among the people,” Yadav said.
Sandosh Kumar P (CPI) said, “this will endanger the secular credentials of country, they have divided villages on the lines of India Pakistan, ….this is detrimental to national interest.”
Tiruchi Siva (DMK) said the same bill was listed many times earlier but was not introduced on being requested by members. “This country’s base is secularism and federalism, both are at stake now. We foresee what may happen if this private members bill is passed. When it is taken up for consideration, they have majority, it will be passed. What will be the mindset of minorities? We should not create apprehension in their minds. During partition Jinnah asked Muslims to come to Pakistan, but they stayed back, they contributed to the economy and fought for the country, we are really agonised. We are termbling, the whole country will be watching this, consider the future of this country,” the DMK member said.
Trinamool Congress’ Jawahar Sircar said the bill is unconstitutional and unethical and was being introduced by an indulgent government to test the waters.
Rashtriya Janta Dal’s Manoj Jha said the bill was not introduced earlier on six occasions. “Families are divided, villages are divided. This is not in country’s interest,” Jha said.
Nationalist Congress Party’s Fauzia Khan said the bill is not in consonance with democracy and was not a question of only Hindu-Muslims.
In Brief:
Brittney Griner returned to the United States early on December 9, nearly 10 months after the basketball star’s detention in Russia made her the most high-profile American jailed abroad and set off a political firestorm. Griner’s status as an openly-gay Black woman, her prominence in women’s basketball and her imprisonment in a country where authorities have been hostile to the LBGTQ community heightened concerns for her and brought tremendous attention to the case. The deal announced Thursday that saw Griner exchanged for notorious arms dealer Viktor Bout achieved a top goal for President Joe Biden. But the U.S. failed to win freedom for another American, Paul Whelan, who has been jailed for nearly four years.
Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.
