Wanted: Freedom From Nizam Then; Freedom From Hypocrisy Now!

September 17 this year will be remembered as the red-letter day in the Constitutional history of India in general and erstwhile State of Nizam ruled

Hyderabad State in particular. The reason: while the Union of India with its capital at New Delhi called this day as the Hyderabad State Liberation Day and celebrated with much fanfare ensuring the VVIP presence of the Union Home Minister along with the chief ministers of neighboring States; the Telangana State celebrated the same as the Hyderabad State Integration Day! Indeed, the different ways in which the day ending Nizam's rule has been celebrated has led to a storm in the teacup.

About history it is said that it is nothing but the historian's perspective. It is reflected in the narrative of its author. But, when it comes to the recent times or contemporary period when many a player and witnesses of the chain of events are still alive with their memory pack intact, it is not easy to pass on the real and factual events in one's chosen coloured glass as true history.

Considering the eye-witness accounts of some players or victims of nepotic rule of VII Nizam and chronicles of events published in newspapers and books, it is crystal clear that VII Nizam had not offered the Hyderabad State on a platter to the Union of India with the good gesture of integration or to ensure the welfare of the people of Hyderabad State. On the other hand, going by the historical narratives, the Nizam was not only hobnobbing with foreign powers either to remain a sovereign state from the rest of India or if that does not materialise, then he was all ready to join Pakistan! Further, he had patronised and financed Qasim Rizvi's communal outfit of Razakars, then named as Majlis-e-Ittahadul Musalmin or (MIM) to ensure the supremacy of his rule. This MIM has a history of Hindu genocide.

After the so-called integration of Nizam State, the very communal outfit came up in its new avatar as AIMIM, the first two prefixed letters being All India. It is indeed, intriguing that the fanatic organisation which had indulged in heinous crimes such as rape, loot, arson, murder etc; was given a clean chit by the first generation political leadership after Independence for whatever reasons. Not satisfied with the pampering of the criminals, the leadership of the yester years, made the VII Nizam as Rastrapramukh for six long years! Had it been in some other country, Nizam who had waged war against India as a result of which the Indian army had to launch the code named, Operation Polo or Operation Caterpillar to defeat the Qasim Rizvi led MIM forces along with a miniscule 'army' of Nizam, could have been tried by a specially constituted war crime tribunal along with all his henchmen and awarded the most severe punishment.

Well, now it is a history which despite a thousand explanations by the AIMIM or its ally, Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) cannot be changed. At the same time, playing to the popular Hindu sentiment the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) can never be expected to score over its political adversaries so long it pursues the policy of duplicacy. Later, if it is serious to defeat the divisive, communal and extremist forces, should not hesitate to strike upon them with full force, both on the screen as well as off the screen irrespective of the consequences! If the Constitution which assures the Rule of Law is to be saved, the people who have given the Constitution will have to be saved at any cost. And the people would lean towards the party who assures them of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity in letter and action.

AMARAVATI CAPITAL: AP GOVT MOVES SC

Aggrieved by the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court which declared Amaravati to be the only capital of the State, an appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court.

A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in its judgment delivered in March this year had observed, " ..State Legislature lacks competence to make any legislation for shifting, bifurcating or trifurcating the capital and Heads of Departments of the three wings of the government including the High Court to any are other than the Capital city notified under Section 3 of the A.P Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and the land pooled under the A.P Capital City Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015." Around 33,000 families of Amaravati hand given up their land for capital region development programme.

SC NOT FOR REGIONAL BENCHES

Since the issue of accessibility has now been addressed by the Video Conferencing mechanism wherein a lawyer from anywhere in the country can address the apex court, the bench of Dr Justice Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli expressed reluctance to proceed with the petition filed by an NGO, Lok Prahari seeking operationalisation of Article 130 of the Constitution.

Stating that the setting up of regional benches of the Supreme Court is the discretion of the Chief Justice of India, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the court added that there are already two full court decisions of the apex court on the issue.

Paradoxically, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has opposed a plea before the apex court that sought to declare virtual hearing as a fundamental right.

The bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia while hearing a petition filed by All India Association of Jurists Vs. Uttarakhand High Court & Ora, was told by the Madhya Pradesh high Court, which is arrayed as a Respondent, that mere existence of infrastructure does not vest an automatic right on the advocates to claim that they are entitled to appear through virtual mode.

The petitioner association with a membership of about 5,000 advocates from all parts of the country contended that the High Courts of Uttarakhand, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala were not providing links for attending cases through virtual mode. The petitioner argued that the denial of access to the facility of hearing cases through virtual mode is akin to denial of fundamental Rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.