HW News Editorial with Sujit Nair

HW News Network

HW News Editorial With Sujit Nair: From Politics to International Affairs, to Social Issues, Editorial led by our Managing Editor Mr Sujit Nair deep dives into various topics and discusses various perspectives. Sujit Nair also presents his stance on the matter. Listen to Editorial with Sujit Nair daily.

read less
NewsNews

Episodes

Editorial With Sujit Nair | Has SBI Disclosed Complete Electoral Bond Data?
02-04-2024
Editorial With Sujit Nair | Has SBI Disclosed Complete Electoral Bond Data?
In a recent episode of 'Editorial', Mr. Sujit Nair raised concerns regarding the transparency of data related to Electoral Bonds sold by the State Bank of India (SBI). Following a Supreme Court ruling on February 15, which deemed the electoral bond scheme unconstitutional, the SBI was instructed to provide detailed information on the bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The SBI had been selling these bonds in 30 phases since March 1, 2018. However, in a plea submitted to the court on March 4 seeking an extension, they only accounted for bonds sold in 22 phases from April 2019 onwards. Initially, they stated that 22,217 electoral bonds were used for political donations between April 12, 2019, and February 15, 2024. Later, they admitted to an error, clarifying that only 18,871 bonds were sold during that period. An additional 3,346 bonds were sold between April 1 and April 11, 2019, as indicated in a table within the compliance affidavit submitted on March 12. The SBI referenced the Supreme Court's February 2024 judgement, which instructed them to disclose details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019. However, it seems there was a misunderstanding, as the court likely intended to request data beyond what had already been submitted in a sealed cover. This confusion resulted in a gap in the data, with some information disclosed but other parts remaining undisclosed. The sealed cover data includes information on bonds issued in ten phases between March 1, 2018, and May 15, 2019, totaling 11,681 bonds. Of these, data for 2,522 bonds issued between April 12 and May 15, 2019, has been revealed. However, information for the remaining 9,159 bonds issued between March 1, 2018, and April 12, 2019, totaling Rs 4,002 crore, is still missing. Despite a Supreme Court order on March 11 instructing the Election Commission to publish the details of the information supplied to the court, including the sealed cover data, on its official website, this information has yet to be released.
Editorial With Sujit Nair | Are Indian Voters Pessimistic About 2024 Elections?
01-04-2024
Editorial With Sujit Nair | Are Indian Voters Pessimistic About 2024 Elections?
In this edition of 'Editorial,' Mr. Sujit Nair delves into the mood of Indian voters leading up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Urban Indians exhibit a keen interest in participating in the imminent Lok Sabha polls but harbor pessimism regarding critical issues, notably citing unemployment as their primary concern. The government's Covid-19 vaccination drive is perceived as a significant accomplishment. According to the latest YouGov-Mint-CPR Millennial Survey conducted in December, a noteworthy 79% of urban Indians express their intention to vote in the upcoming elections. However, the survey findings reveal subdued expectations among respondents. Only 31% anticipate an improvement in communal relations over the next five years, while merely 38% foresee a reduction in poverty levels. Additionally, 43% express optimism about improved job prospects for young Indians by 2029. Notably, respondents who identified as Muslim (constituting 12% of the sample) were more inclined to predict enhanced communal relations within five years (42%) compared to Hindu respondents (31%). The survey also sought opinions on the current government's accomplishments, with India's Covid-19 vaccination drive emerging as the most recognized achievement. Among the respondents, 43% ranked the vaccination drive among the top three achievements from a list that could be perceived positively by supporters of the ruling party.
Editorial With Sujit Nair | “No Immunity For Legislators Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech”: SC
28-03-2024
Editorial With Sujit Nair | “No Immunity For Legislators Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech”: SC
In this Editorial episode, Mr. Sujit Nair discusses a significant ruling by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court, overturning the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment. The previous verdict allowed Members of Parliament and legislative assemblies to claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving bribes in anticipation of a vote or speech in the legislature. The latest decision, delivered by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra, sets aside the earlier ruling. In the 1998 case, a five-judge bench had ruled, with a 3:2 majority, that legislators were immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their parliamentary duties. This decision was challenged in an appeal by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren, accused of accepting a bribe for a 2012 Rajya Sabha vote. The Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea, leading to the Supreme Court challenge. After a two-day hearing, the seven-judge bench reserved its verdict in October of the previous year. Today, the constitution bench held that a member of parliament or the state legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution on charge of bribery in a criminal court by virtue of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, observing - ""We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect. We have concluded that first, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated by this court. The judgment in PV Narasihma Rao which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of a legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or making a speech has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this court allowing the error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered.