CJI Will Consider The Demand To Sack Nawab Malik And Jain
CJI will consider the demand to sack Nawab Malik and Satyendra Jain, know what the Supreme Court said.
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Maharashtra and Delhi governments respectively to sack the jailed ministers Nawab Malik and Satyendar Jain.
On Thursday, seeking an early hearing on the matter, the top court said it would first be placed before the Chief Justice (CJI) and he would decide on listing it for hearing.
Not leaving the post.
Usually, ministers leave their posts after going to jail, but perhaps this is the first time that the issue of sacking ministers in such a case has reached the top court.
Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay has filed this public interest litigation seeking the removal of ministers from the post after going to jail.
CJI will consider the demand to sack Nawab Malik: Ministers should also be removed from office.
It states that just as IAS, judges and other public servants are suspended from office after two days in jail.
In the same way, ministers should also be removed from office after jail because they too are public servants and take an oath of the constitution. take.
Both ministers are in jail.
Referring to the petition before a vacation bench of Justices CT Ravi Kumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, Upadhyay, Maharashtra cabinet minister Nawab Malik, been in jail for the last four months, and Delhi’s health minister in judicial custody (jail).
Seeking an early hearing on the petition, he said that both the ministers who are in jail should be sacked.
be sacked from the post of minister
Upadhyay said that under Section 21 of the IPC, ministers are public servants and at the same time they are lawmakers and they take the oath of the constitution under Schedule III.
So they were temporarily removed from the post of the minister only after being in jail for two days.
Should be dismissed as it happens with IAS, Judge, or other public servants. His continuance in office is a violation of equality before the law (Article 14).
The petition will go before the Chief Justice first.
The bench, on their plea for an early hearing, said the matter would first come up before the Chief Justice and he would decide to list it for hearing.
The bench asked Upadhyay to mention the matter before the registrar. It also expressed the possibility that a hearing could be held next week.
Demand to direct the Law Commission also.
An alternative demand has also been made in the petition, which states that being the custodian of the Constitution.
The Law Commission should be directed to examine the election laws of developed countries to maintain the honor and dignity of the office of ministers, lawmakers, and public servants.
To prepare a comprehensive report in accordance with the spirit of Article 14.
Apart from the Delhi and Maharashtra governments, the Central Government, the Law Commission, and the Election Commission have been made parties in the petition.
