London: British lawmakers are returning to the House of Commons on Wednesday following the bombshell Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted illegally by suspending Parliament. The historic move backed Parliament’s sovereignty and slapped down what justices viewed as an effort by Johnson to squelch debate on Brexit. The prime minister is hurrying back to London after cutting short a trip to the UN General Assembly amid demands for his resignation from furious opposition parties. Also Read – Saudi Crown Prince Salman ‘snubbed’ Pak PM Imran, recalled his private jet from US: Report In New York, Johnson brushed aside questions about whether he would resign, said he “strongly” disagreed with the court decision and suggested he might try to suspend Parliament for a second time. Cabinet minister Michael Gove says the government “respected” the court decision but refused to apologize for breaking the law. “I think it’s important to stress that while the Supreme Court was clear, there is a respectable legal opinion that disagrees with that view,” Gove told the BBC. “It’s perfectly possible in a democracy to say you respect a judgment and will comply with the judgment, but you also note that there are a range of views about the appropriateness of a particular course of action.” Also Read – Iraq military admits ‘excessive force’ used in deadly protests Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn countered that Johnson should say he was sorry to the public and to Queen Elizabeth II for telling her that Parliament should be suspended. The suspension would have limited debate before Britain’s scheduled October 31 departure from the European Union. “I think he should apologize to her (the Queen) for the advice he gave her but, more importantly, apologize to the British people for what he’s done in trying to shut down our democracy at a very crucial time when people are very, very worried about what will happen on Oct. 31,” Corbyn told the BBC. Johnson remains on a collision course with Parliament over his determination to extract Britain from the EU on October 31, even if no divorce deal is reached. Parliament has passed a law requiring him to seek an extension if there is no deal, but Johnson says he won’t do that under any circumstances. Johnson is likely to address Parliament on Wednesday afternoon but has begun to position himself as the champion of the people facing a recalcitrant establishment bent on frustrating the 2016 Brexit vote. In his speech in New York, Johnson mentioned Brexit only once as a pointed aside while recalling the myth of Prometheus, who was chained to a rock by Zeus and sentenced to have his liver eaten out by an eagle for eternity. “And this went on forever,” he quipped, “a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.”
New Delhi: Mere registration of FIR is not a ground for disqualification for appointment to a public post, theDelhi High Court has held while restoring a person’s candidature to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force. The observation by a bench of Justices S Muralidhar and Talwant Singh came while reinstating Vineet Kumar Sharma to the post of SI saying his candidature cannot be cancelled only on the ground that an FIR has been lodged against him. Also Read – More good air days in Delhi due to Centre’s steps: Javadekar”The proviso to the guideline contained in Ministry of Home Affairs’s notification dated February 1, 2012 makes it clear that the mere pendency of an FIR which is still at the stage of investigation, with no charge sheet having been filed and no charges having been framed by the court, will not be a bar to the candidature of an applicant. “That being the case, the respondents cannot possibly cancel the petitioner’s candidature only on the ground that an FIR is still at the stage of investigation, and the matter is pending,” the bench said. Also Read – Union min Hardeep Singh Puri, Delhi L-G lay foundation stones for various projects in DwarkaThe high court sets aside the order issued by CRPF cancelling Sharma’s candidature and the subsequent order of the DIG rejecting his representation and affirming his termination. “The respondents (CRPF) will now issue the consequential orders within four weeks restoring the petitioner as SI in the CRPF with effect from April 18, 2019 with all consequential benefits. However, it will be open to the respondents to clarify in such order that the appointment would be subject to the ultimate decision in FIR that has been registered against the petitioner,” the bench said. According to the plea, a notice was issued on April 22, 2017 by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of SIs in the Delhi Police, Central Armed Police Forces etc. The petitioner applied for the post of SI (General Duty) in the CRPF. He participated in the competitive examination held on July 5, 2017 and was declared successful in the examination. Sharma also successfully completed the Physical Endurance Test and Physical Standard Test and he was declared qualified on October 21, 2017. He also qualified in the online examination of Paper-II for which results were published on January 29, 2018. The petitioner successfully completed the medical examination for which the result was declared on April 6, 2018. He was issued a call letter by the SSC on October 5, 2018 and his name appeared in the final list of selected candidates published on October 1, 2018. Sharma was issued an appointment letter to the post of SI, CRPF on February 12, 2019 and was informed that in case he accepted the offer of appointment he should report to the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF in Pune on or before March 13, 2019. He joined the training for the post at Pune and submitted the documents and declaration in the prescribed format/attestation form. In this attestation form he specifically mentioned that his wife had lodged FIR against him and his whole family under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Later, the CRPF Commandant at Pune issued a letter that he could not be appointed in the CRPF on account of the pendency of the above FIR. The petitioner then preferred representations against the said order which were rejected by the DIG (Recruitment).