La décision du Congrès de nommer des législateurs pour des postes constitutionnels suscite des critiques

Congress has faced criticism for its decision to publicly announce the names of its legislators for key constitutional posts in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, drawing backlash from opposition parties and legal experts. The move, which includes naming Saleem Ahmed as the candidate for Chairman of the Legislative Council, has sparked controversy because the current chairman, Basavaraj Horatti, elected on the BJP ticket, has not been officially notified of the decision. According to sources, the notice required under Rule 165 of the House, based on Article 183 of the Constitution, has not been issued, raising concerns about procedural fairness and the erosion of democratic norms. The controversy intensified as the Upper House prepares for the Monsoon Session starting on August 13. With the disqualification of M.K. Pranesh, the position of Deputy Chairman remains vacant, further complicating the proceedings. Sources close to the situation emphasized that the Congress has bypassed established procedures by making the appointment public without consulting the House or informing the incumbent chairman. They argued that this approach undermines the constitutional process, as the Chairman is elected by the House, not unilaterally decided by the ruling party. “This is a new precedent,” one source noted, “and it is wrong.” The BJP has responded swiftly, demanding an apology from the Congress for what it calls an “insulting” act toward constitutional institutions. Karnataka BJP leader R. Ashok accused the Congress of disregarding the spirit of the Constitution by pre-selecting candidates for positions that should be determined through internal deliberation. At a press conference in Bengaluru, he criticized the party for failing to uphold democratic principles and instead prioritizing internal politics. “The Congress leaders claim to respect the Constitution, but their actions contradict that,” Ashok stated. His remarks were echoed by other BJP officials, who viewed the move as an attempt to consolidate power and undermine institutional integrity. In addition to the constitutional dispute, the BJP raised broader concerns about the composition of the cabinet led by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Ashok pointed to the inclusion of B. Nagendra, a former minister implicated in corruption allegations involving welfare funds for Scheduled Tribes. Despite his legal troubles, Nagendra has returned to the Cabinet, prompting questions about accountability and transparency. “Who gave him a clean chit?” Ashok asked, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the administration. The BJP also criticized the lack of gender representation in the cabinet, accusing the Congress of betraying its own rhetoric on women’s empowerment. Citing remarks by Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi that she is “a girl and can fight,” BJP MLC C.T. Ravi challenged the party’s failure to include even a single woman in the Cabinet. “Where are the women in the Congress Cabinet?” Ravi asked, framing the omission as a betrayal of the very values the party claims to champion. Meanwhile, political analysts and observers have weighed in on the implications of the Congress’s strategy. Some argue that the party’s decision reflects a growing trend among major political entities to centralize control over appointments, potentially weakening the checks and balances inherent in representative democracy. Others suggest that the move could backfire, alienating grassroots support and deepening divisions within the party. The situation underscores the delicate balance between party discipline and adherence to constitutional norms, a tension that continues to shape the political landscape in Karnataka and beyond.