Upanishad of Constitution Bench | leader

Everyone thought that the Constitution Bench would deliver a severing verdict on Maharashtra’s power struggle. The actual result was divided into two parts and the Shinde government that came to power from the breakup of Shiv Sena was riding on one meaning
is sustained

The Constitution Bench assigned the responsibility of completing the formalities of disqualifying sixteen MLAs including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the government breathed a sigh of relief. The confusion continues here. Judiciary understands that Speaker of Vidhan Sabha is a constitutional post, he represents the Legislature, Legislature i.e. one of the four pillars. That is why the Constitution Bench entrusted the decision of disqualification of the MLA to the Speaker of the Legislature, despite the jurisdiction of the Legislature. In fact, the Constitution Bench respected Rahul Narvekar, who was sitting on this post, by giving him an opportunity to correct a mistake he had made. The Norwegians seem determined to bide their time to save themselves and the government from this crisis. Even if he gave the decision of MLA disqualification in three months, it will be given in such a way that Uddhav Thackeray will have to knock on the door of the Supreme Court again. In this cycle of re-dates, re-hearings and if ever the result, perhaps the career of the Shinde-Fadnavis government is on the edge; Whatever the result may be, it will not apply with retroactive effect to the congregations that have erred in power. Having presented all such calculations, Rahul Narvekar is sitting comfortably on the verdict of the Constitution Bench. Now he has given notices to 54 MLAs. Thackeray’s Shiv Sena party was called by the Constitution Commission. All the fun is afoot. Seeing this state of the judgment of the Constitutional Court in reality, one noticed. Eggplant in Purana In Purana, it is not like that. These brinjals are also cooked in every present.

The government says that this verdict is a seal that our government is valid, the opposition points to one conclusion of the constitution bench and says that sixteen MLAs including Chief Minister Shinde have been disqualified. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly only has to announce it. Which interpretation of the result should be considered true? The government has not shown the courage to go before the people with this result. Thackeray’s Shiv Sena is reading the verdict and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) has been protesting the verdict. ‘Sarkar Apna Dari’ and ‘Nikal Apna Dari’ are facing each other. Seeing the conflicting meaning of a verdict, if someone prophesies that the goddess of justice should come forward and compose an Upanishad explaining the exact meaning of the verdict, will the goddess of justice listen to her?

In making a mess of meaning, man also defied God; So what is the constitution? Parameshwari interpreted the Vedas according to the convenience he wanted, broke the Vedas so that they could be applied like that, inserted some verses, omitted some. So that our Dharmasatta remains intact, we created the stoma of rituals. Uphrata managed that religion is not for man but man is for religion. In the end, Mahadeva had to come forward to overthrow the wicked kingdom based on the wrong interpretations of the Vedas. It is said that Mahadeva composed the Upanishads so that the basic meaning of all the four Vedas, their basic principle should reach the common man, to free the Vedas from the shackles of Dharmamartanda. The judgment of the Constitution Bench is no less noble than the Vedas today. If Maharashtra and the nation today feel that Nyayadevata should compose the Upanishad to establish the original meaning of this verdict, then how can it be said that it is absolutely wrong? Mahadeva composed 108 Upanishads to convey the true meaning of the four Vedas. The overall situation is that the Constitution Bench must spend a few more pages to establish the real meaning of its 141-page judgment and free the hijacked meaning of the judgment from the clutches of power.

Currently, the constitution bench is in the hands of Rahul Narvekar. There is no hope that they will interpret these Vedas differently from the one given by the government. Although the Constitution Bench considers the Legislative Assembly Speaker to be constitutional, this post is a party bench. The government appoints its own person on this post only to protect the interests of the ruling party. From the same party bench, Narvekar issued a decree on 3 July 2022 approving Bharat Gogawle as party representative of Shiv Sena and Eknath Shinde as group leader. Uddhav Thackeray has canceled the appointment of Sunil Prabhu and Ajay Choudhary respectively as party chief of Shiv Sena. The Constitutional Court declared that this decision of Norwegians was not up to the law.

Will Narvekar take the same decision which was declared illegal by the Constitution Bench? Shinde Sena is now saying that we as a party will start the process of Pratod and group leader appointment again. It does not fit the judgment of the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench says that Pratod and the group leaders in the House are appointed not by the Legislature Party, but by the parent political party… That is why the Constitution Bench declared illegal the appointment of Shinde and Gogawle by the Legislature Party, which Shinde had run away from. Now on July 3, 2022, the appointment made by the same party and party chief as the Shiv Sena party and the head of this party is considered a law. Although the Election Commission restored the party to Shinde, the latter’s decision was also deemed by the Constitution Bench to be hasty and based on insufficient information. The next and important part of the judgment is that the Tenth Schedule – Prohibition of Defection Act does not recognize party divisions. Those who are divided should dissolve happily in some party; But this splinter group cannot claim the original party, said the Constitution Bench. Still, the results are still being debated in Maharashtra. Who has the power to stop it?

-Vivek Girdhari