Badal vs Badal‎

Mubarak, This is Sukhbir Badal's Akali Dal

Manpreet Badal walks out of Akali-Bjp Govt

PARTING SHOT Accuses Sukhbir of misleading people, says Dy CM should resign

The ruling Shiromani Akali Dal was plunged into a fresh political crisis on Wednesday with Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal dropping his nephew and Finance Minister Manpreet Badal from the cabinet and the latter severing his ties with the party. “It is no longer the Shiromani Akali Dal I have known,” said a bitter Manpreet Badal at a press conference. “It is now Sukhbir’s Akali Dal,” he said while referring to his cousin and Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal.
While senior leaders of SAD tried everything to put up a ‘business as usual’ facade, and the state government announced a financial bonanza for the employees to gloss over the crisis, the presence of as many as three ruling party MLAs by the side of Manpreet would cause concern to the leadership.
While only time will tell if other SAD MLAs join the rank of the rebels, the presence of Charanjit Singh Channi (independent), Sant Ajit Singh, Jagbir Brar and Manjinder Kang (all SAD) at the residence of the ‘sacked’ finance minister sent ripples through the party and the leaders lost little time in launching a rearguard action to win them back. Also conspicuous by his presence was the sacked minister’s father, Gurdass Singh Badal, who happens to be the Chief Minister’s younger brother.
The Chief Minister’s office said in a cryptic note on Wednesday morning that in deference to the unanimous recommendation of the SAD disciplinary committee, the CM had recommended to the Governor that Manpreet Badal be dropped from the ministry. In view of his suspension from the party, the statement added, the continuance of Manpreet Badal had become untenable.
The Chief Minister has retained departments of Finance, Planning and Programme Implementation, held by the dropped minister.
Manpreet Badal, who returned from New Delhi this morning, also claimed to have forwarded his resignation to the Chief Minister and the Governor. While Governor Shivraj Patil was away to Tirupati on a pilgrimage, he had spoken to the Governor on phone and informed him of his resignation, added the former finance minister.
He could barely hide his bitterness while alleging that his telephones are tapped and his house is bugged. It, however, no longer mattered what came first, his resignation or his dismissal because he was finished with Akali Dal, he declared.
His residence, which looked desolate in the morning, filled up on his return with mediamen jostling with his supporters from his constituency and a few former MLAs.
Rubbishing charges of indiscipline and anti-party activities, for which he had been suspended yesterday from the party, Manpreet Badal declared that he was guilty of no such thing. He produced a sheaf of documents in support of his contention that talks were indeed being held with the Centre on the possibility of waiving a substantial part of Punjab’s growing debt.
The defiant former minister declared that he would not be responding to the show cause notice issued to him by the party, as he had decided to part ways with the SAD. “My expulsion form the party was expected and a logical fallout of the events over the past fortnight,” said an emotional Manpreet.
“I was born an Akali, my conscience and soul are Akali. The SAD was my religion till it remained under the command of my uncle Parkash Singh Badal, but under Sukhbir the party atmosphere has become stifling. Believe me, I am finished with SAD, the party I left today is not the Akali Dal I grew up in, this is Sukhbir’s Akali Dal”, he added.
Demanding Sukhbir’s resignation for “misleading the people and the party on the debt-waiver issue” he added, “I will now go to the people; knock at every home, if need be and seek their support to take Punjab out of the present financial debt”.
As finance minister, he had raised his concerns over the rising debt Punjab faced. “As finance minister if I don’t talk about finance then what do I talk about ?” he wondered aloud, adding, “Even though I have left the job, I would appeal to the Chief Minister to take an approval in the next cabinet to continue the dialogue with the Centre to get Punjab’s debt waived. It is in the interest of Punjab to rid its future generations of debt”.
Manpreet’s ouster from the government has caused a vertical split in the Badal family, which has remained at the helm of SAD affairs ever since chief minister Parkash Singh Badal took over its command. Manpreet’s departure from the party at this juncture, which started as a war of succession within the Badal clan, is unlikely to bring curtains down on the war of succession though. It may have just begun.

Cousin conflict
Manpreet Singh Badal is the son of Gurdas Singh Badal, Punjab CM Parkash's brother and a former MP and MLA. The brothers together worked out a strategy for the functioning of the Shiromani Akali Dal.
Manpreet, an honours graduate from Delhi's St Stephen's College and barrister at law from London, was given a party ticket by Parkash in 1995 for contesting the Gidderbaha bypoll. He retained the seat in 1997, 2002 and in February 2007.
Gidderbaha has been a pocket borough of the Badals since the 1960s, except on two occasions. Parkash's son Sukhbir returned from the US and joined politics.
He was defeated in the 1999 Lok Sabha polls and he was given a Rajya Sabha seat. Ever since the cousins joined politics, there were reports of tension between them. Parkash and Gurdas stepped in to defuse tension.

Badal, family acquitted in corruption case

Mohali (Punjab) : The district court in this Punjab town Friday acquitted Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, his wife Surinder Kaur Badal and their son Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal in a disproportionate assets case against them.
The acquittal by the court in Mohali, 10 km from Chandigarh, is likely to come as a big relief to the Badal family and six of their close associates.
The chief minister and his son, Sukhbir Singh, were present in the court complex when the judge announced their acquittal.
'I am happy at this judgment. No politician wants a taint of false cases against him,' a relieved chief minister said after the verdict. 'It was political vendetta against us. That is why the case has fallen,' the deputy chief minister said.
The case was being heard in the court, initially at Ropar town, 45 km from Chandigarh, since 2003 after the state vigilance bureau, during the regime of the Congress government led by then chief minister Amarinder Singh, registered cases of disproportionate assets against the Badal family and others.
The vigilance probe initially accused the Badal family of amassing assets worth over Rs.30 billion (Rs.3,000 crore). However, in the charge sheet presented before the court, the Badal family's assets were valued at over Rs.780 million (Rs.78 crore). IANS

The Ayodhya Verdict

Disputed site ia Ram birthplace, said High Court
One part to Sunni board, one to Ram Lalla custodian and one to Nirmohi Akhara Legal experts frown but Centre gains political breather
SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY
Lucknow : The high court’s answer to the religious dispute has an old flavour, that of partition but with a potential to promote peace.
The disputed area in Ayodhya will be divided equally among the Sunni Central Wakf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman (treated as a legal person), the court ruled today.
The Ram idol will stay put where once the Babri Masjid stood and a permanent temple may replace the makeshift one — but the wakf board may build a mosque on land it will get adjacent to it.
Many legal experts were disappointed by the judgment, which to them appeared to expose fissures among the judges.
However, the verdict will not be implemented immediately. The bench of Justice D.V. Sharma, Justice S.U. Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal ordered status quo for three months to allow all sides to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The wakf board and the Hindu Mahasabha have already declared they will appeal. The verdict may thus mark the beginning of the next round of litigation and give the Centre, which has the thankless task of implementing the order, much-needed time.
All the three parties were declared joint owners of the land today, while another party, Rajendra Singh Visharad (son of late petitioner Gopal Singh Visharad), was allowed the right to worship the Ram idol but not given a share of the property.
The court declared the “area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e. the disputed structure, being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Ram Lalla) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants”.
This area, therefore, goes to representatives of Ram Lalla Virajman. The rest of the inner courtyard will belong to both the wakf board and Ram Lalla’s representatives. The Nirmohi Akhara, the owner of the deities, would get the Ram Chabutra, where Ram was originally worshipped before his idol was surreptitiously placed in the mosque in December 1949. The Akhara will also get the Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, and will share these with the worshippers of Ram.
The rest of the outer courtyard will be shared by the Akhara and Ram Lalla, since this area has generally been used by Hindus for worship.
However, the court made it clear that the wakf board’s share must not be less than one-third of the total disputed premises and, if necessary, it will be given a portion of the outer courtyard.
If minor adjustments are to be made later — after the three parties submit their suggestions within three months — the affected party may be compensated with land from the area acquired by the Centre. This government land will be made available in such a way that all three parties can have separate entry and exit points, so they do not disturb one another’s rights.
The court directed the parties to approach the Centre — the statutory receiver of 71 acres of land in Ayodhya, including the 2.77-acre disputed area — to work out these schemes.
Disquiet
Almost all the parties were left bemused by the verdict. Wakf board counsel Zafrab Jilani said his client would appeal against the decision to declare its suit time-barred, that is, not filed within the period mandated by law. The Hindu Mahasabha will appeal against the “partitioning”.
“The judgment is a panchayati judgment,” constitutional expert Rajeev Dhavan said. “It has converted a title (ownership) suit into a partition suit. It seems to have denuded the Muslims of their legal rights and converted the moral sentiments of the Hindus into legal entitlements.”
He added: “As a basis for the future, the judgment is infirm. The better way would have been to uphold Muslim entitlement and appeal to them for the rights of Hindu worship.”
Two of the high court judges have declared Ram a legal person who can hold property in his own name and said, citing Archaeological Survey of India evidence, that the mosque had been built by destroying a Hindu temple.
Justice Khan, however, said the mosque was probably built on the ruins of a temple, with a major part of the debris used in the construction.
When the case was being heard, some Supreme Court lawyers had expressed disquiet over the composition of the bench. They had faulted the high court for not appointing Parsi, Sikh and Christian judges to eliminate allegations of bias.
“After all, justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done,” one of the critics had said.
Former law minister Shanti Bhushan welcomed today’s verdict, though.
“It strengthens secularism and paves the way for amity between communities,” he said.
“For centuries, both sides have been worshipping jointly; the site has been in joint use. This used to be the old tradition in India.”
The high court has, therefore, ruled that the area was jointly held land in which all had equal shares, so that a Ram temple and a mosque could be built side by side, Bhushan said. “What could be more beautiful?”

Judge refers 274 books, 798 judgements in 5,238 pages
NEW DELHI: Hymns of vedic age, 798 judgements and textbooks from all eras of history were referred by Justice of the Lucknow bench of the while deciding the ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya. Justice Agarwal, who gave the majority verdict along with Justice S U Khan, prepared his separate judgement in 21 volumes in which he gave reference of 274 books and 798 judgements in 5,238 pages. The books consulted by him belonged to ancient, medieval and modern history along with the judgements of the recent times by the Supreme Court and various High Courts along with the law settled by the Privy Council. The judgements referred from the privy council dates back to early 19th century and included Tracy Perrage Case of 1843 for Forensic Science and Expert Evidence to Williams Vs Lourdusamy & another case of 2008. References have been taken from the books written by Muslim travellers including Ibn Batuta, who visited India during the Tughlaq period. The judge also took into accounts of cultural history of India from the book authored by Australian historian A L Basham. Justice Agarwal also made reference of Bhagwat Gita and other religious texts of both Hindus and Muslims in his judgement.