Bengaluru: A Congress MP arguing on behalf of a BJP MP, in a case against a Congress-ruled government, will probably be something that’s quite rare.
Yet that’s exactly what has happened in a trial in the Supreme Court – a trial that has embarrassed the Congress government in Karnataka, the largest state where it is in power. (Of course, it may reinforce our collective belief that all is well with Indian politics!)
On a serious note, the case is a rather sensitive one – one related to the ‘akrama-sakrama’ scheme of the government, a scheme that allows regularisation of construction violations and building bye-laws to a particular extent by paying a penalty.
It’s also a scheme that the High Court has given a go-ahead to, and which was earlier proposed and supposed by Opposition parties in the State like the BJP and the JDS.
The case has been taken to the Supreme Court by Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekar, whose organisation the ‘Namma Bengaluru Foundation’ filed a special leave petition in the SC. Chandrashekar is also vice-chairman of the BJP-led NDA in Kerala.
The legal eagle representing him in the apex court was AICC spokesperson and Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Singhvi’s pleadings ensured the case was converted to a civil appeal. “The SC also granted interim protection that no applications made under ‘Sakrama’ shall be processed, in effect granting a stay on the operation of the scheme until the appeal is heard by the court,” says a message from Chandrashekar’s office.
The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike and the Karnataka government requested that hearings be expedited, but that was not allowed. What has taken aback the Congressmen in the State is that their own MP represented against them.
AICC spokesperson and working president in the Karnataka Congress Dinesh Gundu Rao, who says he wasn’t aware Singhvi was representing the opposite party until Sunday, is on the defensive:
“As a lawyer, a professional, they can take up issues, it’s between him and the client. And it is not against the party or any political leader here. It’s about a scheme. But we didn’t know he was representing in this case until we read about it in the papers. We will discuss with him now,” says Rao.
Calling it ‘not a serious offence,’ Rao says the petition coming from Chandrashekar is more confusing as the BJP had supported this scheme all along. “We don’t know whether this is his personal stand or that of his party,” he says.
Some background: In 2010, Singhvi had faced flak for appearing in a case related to a lottery scam that the Kerala Congress had taken up a campaign against. He had been reprimanded by the party high-command at the time, even barred by being spokesperson briefly. He later withdrew from the case.
Congressman Brijesh Kalappa, who used to be legal advisor to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah until last week, also says the party never realised they were up against their own MP in the Supreme Court.
“He is not barred from taking up cases, but he perhaps didn’t know it is such a sensitive case. If we had known earlier, we would have requested him to not appear,” says Kalappa.
The damage though, is already done, with an order that’s not favourable to the State. And this is just one of a long series of legal setbacks -- it has not got favourable verdicts in the Cauvery and Mahadayi river water-sharing issues in different courts, it's steel flyover project has suffered a stay these past two months, and this one on 'Sakrama' looks to be another long-haul legal battle.
Comments
0 comment