Relevance Of Titular Heads In 'Amritkaal' Of Bharat !

Relevance Of Titular Heads In Amritkaal Of Bharat !

In a hurriedly crafted Constitution of India soon after achieving Independence from the British, there was hardly any time to ponder over the future needs of the people.

In a hurriedly crafted Constitution of India soon after achieving Independence from the British, there was hardly any time to ponder over the future needs of the people. The political freedom benefitted a few while rest of the population was left in the lurch. Leave alone their dreams and aspirations were given a jolt , they were as they were before departure of foreign rulers. True, there was no misery in dishing out big hopes for their all round prosperity by the political leadership of that time and the hapless masses had no option but to wait for turning the promises into reality.

The makers of the Constitution were in such a hurry that they did not think even for a while when they just copied the Westminster model of

governance from Britain including the system of monarchy ! Albeit, they packaged it as Rashtrapati or the President at the Centre and Rajyapal or the Governor at the newly created States. But they conveniently forgot that these so–called 'new' creations were just the old wine in new bottles. The Ironman, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who after assiduous efforts had successfully brought about 564 princely States under the umbrella of free India had to bite dust when their new avatar as the Rashtrapati and several Rajyapals were created under the Constitution. May be, he and many others like him were consoled by the goody-goody explanation that these new 'heads' would be like a toothless lion and therefore, there is nothing to worry about them.

Then, what is the necessity to have these His or Her excellencies when they do not wield any real power ! To this, supporters of such decorative posts argue that the Rajyapals or Governors will act as a bridge between the Centre and the States which would promote the spirit of federalism. Fine, but leaving the academic rhetoric aside when we examine the ground realities, the Rajyapals have not contributed towards strengthening the Centre-State relations. On the other hand, due to their political lineage most of the incumbents have become an eye-sore for the elected Chief Ministers. The tug of war between the Rajyapals and the chief ministers is of not recent origin. The history is replete with a lot of 'Tu-Tu, Mein-Mein' between the occupants of the august posts. Indeed, the roots of such acrimony are in politics. While, most of the Governors are the people who are considered as the spent force by the ruling party at New Delhi or some retired bureaucrat or Judge in the good books of the ruling party, the elected Chief Ministers obviously see red in such appointments, more so,when they belong to the opposition parties having no truck with the ruling party at the Centre.

The Constitution, however, does not envisage such a lamentable situation. It speaks of lofty ideals while putting the Rashtrapati and Rajyapal on the highest pedestal; viz. the former as the first citizen of the country and latter as the first citizen of the concerned State. Theoretically, both the occupants are non-aligned to any political party and they are supposed to foster the atmosphere of friendship and cooperation between the Centre and the States. Alas ! in practice, this is not happening and with the Centre-State relations reaching the ebb there is hardly any hope left to salvage the damage.

Therefore, without going into the pros and cons of the hostile attitude of the opposition ruled state governments towards the occupants of gubernatorial posts, the need of the hour is to discard these ornamental posts which are nothing but the relics of the erstwhile Raja-Rajwada system which put extra burden on the public exchequer without having any good use except as the decorated white elephants! And for doing so, there could not be better'Kaal' (Time) in Hindu Panchang , than the Amritkaal!


Answering the question whether a defendant who did not avail the remedy under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC, whether it is open for him to agitate in the regular appeal against the decree, the Supreme Court has recently held that such a defendant can always argue on the basis of the record of the suit on the ground of non-service of summons upon him, though the appellant would not be entitled to lead evidence in appeal for making out a sufficient cause for his absence before the trial court.

The bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka in its order dated September 6 passed in a case titled, G.N.R [email protected] Babu Vs. B.C Muthappa held that under Section 105 of CPC when a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of

the case can be set forth as a ground of objection in the Memorandum of Appeal.


The bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan of the Sikkim High Court has reiterated that the trial court can frame issues with regard to only those pleadings which are asserted by one party and denied by another and added that the suit proceedings cannot travel beyong the pleadings placed on record by the parties.

In a case titled, Shri Kharka Singh Chettri Vs. Shri Mangal Chandra Rai and connected matters, the High Court placed reliance on Ponnayal alias

Lakshmi Vs. Kruppannan (2019) 11 SCC 800 , where the Supreme Court had held that Civil Suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and issues framed and the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings.


In a decision which is likely to generate more dust and storm in the country, the High Court for Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that public

offering funeral prayers to a killed militant, cannot be considered as an anti-national activity of a magnitude so as to deprive them of their personal liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Md. Akram Chowdha dealing with a case titled, Union Territory of J&K Vs. Javid Ahmad Shah also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India.

In the instant case, a local militant of the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) operative was killed during an encounter with the security forces. A person

purportedly provoked the villagers to perform funeral prayers in absentia of the deceased militant. The FIR alleged that the Imam of Masjid Sharief offered the Janaza, and during the funeral , the sentiments of the people participating in the prayer were incited by urging them to continue struggle till freedom. However, the High Court did not find any valid ground in the matter and dismissed the State's Appeal.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories