can you digest Mrs. Pratibha Patil as "india's" president?

who do you want as president?


  • Total voters
    71
Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
mayanks_098

mayanks_098

world is evil
yesh1683 said:
If Mis Prathiba Patil becomes president how she will be called in hindhi and other languages

President=Rashtrapathi
[pathi=male (even president name itself male gender)]

Then how should we call Rashtrapathi:confused: or ??????

she would still be called RASHTRAPATI.....because constitution says the post of the president is independent of the gender of the person.
 

praka123

left this forum longback
Prathibha patil-criminals suites against her brothers.Dont stare with a religion bias on Sir APJ.he is one nice man.there is nowhere proved a scientist can be a scientist only,not a very good president.he is a Very good president and he can be inspiration for all of us. :-|
Both Pratibha and Bhairavan Singh -we dont want.let APJ continues,else some other clean people,not like few earlier (vice)Presidents like Devilal...India cant be headed by Criminals and selfish politicians.why cant someone from other sectors like charity comes who is clean.
but i know after 4-5 yrs we got another poll running,where our elite,enlightened forum members voting for La(l)lu Parsad Yadav as such a nice,good human being.right? :x
 

kumarmohit

Technomancer
karnivore said:
First, given a choice, the white elephant called "The President" should be done away with, and so be the case with "The Governors".

Now, since that is not going to happen anytime soon, and we must have a president, then seeing the alternatives around, APJ would have been a better choice. Not because he is honest, learned etc. etc. but simply because there is no other alternative.

As with Mrs Patel, she represents all that is wrong in Indian politics. First woman president, my foot.

I would disagree with gx_saurav, in that, president doesn't run our country. In any case his is a position of a rubber stamp. Thats all.

Actually its not that the president of India is a white elephant. We need a president because a democracy needs checks and balances. In a democracy the constitution is supreme, but since const is a mere book, there has got to be some one who balances the power of parliament, just like we cannot allow the president to have a lot of power and become a dictator, we cannot have a parliment which suspends const, bans elections and becomes the supreme ruler of the nation.

A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
kumarmohit said:
A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.
The Indian President(TM) is more likely a by-product of mixing the British constitution with that of the American one, than a symbolic balancing factor introduced voluntarily. Same goes for the Governors of the states.

Seems, our *great* constitution experts were little more than cheap plagiarists of the worst kind. Why is that we must bear the unnecessary burden of their stupidity and inefficiency? We can most certainly do well without a mammoth bureaucracy that is only feeding onto the resources it is supposed to build for us.
 

karnivore

in your face..
@ Yamaraj
Seems, our *great* constitution experts were little more than cheap plagiarists of the worst kind. Why is that we must bear the unnecessary burden of their stupidity and inefficiency?

Hey, come on. Don't be so hard on them:D :D .

Given the circumstances, they did the best they could. Actually its the generation after them who should be blamed. Instead of revising the Constitution, they simply sat on it.

@ kumarmohit
Actually its not that the president of India is a white elephant. We need a president because a democracy needs checks and balances. In a democracy the constitution is supreme, but since const is a mere book, there has got to be some one who balances the power of parliament, just like we cannot allow the president to have a lot of power and become a dictator, we cannot have a parliment which suspends const, bans elections and becomes the supreme ruler of the nation.

No brother, u got it a little wrong here. The constitution does not give him any power or authority to do the balancing act. Parliament is supreme and NOTHING can supersede it. Not even the President. Don't get carried away by the term "President". All our president ever does is eat, sleep, $hit, tour foreign lands, collect mementos and lecture from Red Fort. Oh, sometimes signs some bills as well.

A president is as necessary as the parliament. Look @ the British, while the parliament has a lot of power, the govt is still called Her Majesty's Govt and the courts are called crown courts because the British monarch is the supreme enforcer of the British Constitution. The crown is a balancing tool in British system similarly the President is the balancing tool in Indian parliament.
Yeah, thats why they, along with the Canadians, are the butt of all jokes. :DOur democracy emulates the British. Thats why we have a President, a bunch of good for nothing Governors and a circus called Rajyasabha, a.k.a. Upper House in British democracy. The Monarchy does not hav any say in the internal as well as any external politics.

Trust me, a poor country like ours can very well do without these useless showpieces.
 

kumarmohit

Technomancer
Just FYI, If there had not been the President, or had he been powerless, the Parliament members would have increased their pays and perks as and when they thought fit (Venkataraman stopped that bill), They would have defined everything as per their whims (Office of Profit Bill), Killed the power of state (Refusal by a number of presidents to impose President's rule in states as a number of times). Indian Pres also has something called Pocket Veto. (Please search wikipedia for *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India and *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Veto:)

Actually the Constitution is supreme, not the Parliament, but since Const. is a mere book and cannot safeguard, we have to have some one who enforces it (President, through the executive) and someone who safeguards it and interprets it when needed (The courts)

Despite Indian const being the longest, it is still vague in a number of areas. And you cannot always interpret it in light of 1950s, at that time Parliament was not made of goons and criminals, now its hard to locate a parliamentarian without a single FIR ever lodged against him/her.
 

karnivore

in your face..
Sorry boss, i hav to differ this time too.(hope this doesn't turn out to be a slugfest:D )

Venkataramn didn't stop any bill. If my memory serves me right, he only returned the bill to the parliament for revision. It was never returned back to him.

Actually this is the procedure. A bill is FIRST sent to the president for his approval, which, by the way is purely symbolic. He sees it and if he thinks that something needs to be changed he sends it back to the parliament with recommendation for scrutiny, revision or changes etc. Note, he can only and only make a recommendation. If the parliament decides not to pay heed, it can do so. Now if the same bill is sent back to the president for the SECOND time, in whatever form, the president WILL HAVE TO SIGN IT. He has NO choice. Thats what happened with Office of Profit bill. So that makes the post of president redundant, useless junk and nothing else.:D

As with Article 356, imposing a presidents rule, it is imposed by the president only and only if it is ratified in both the Houses. So, again president is powerless.:D

Constitution can be amended by a unanimous decision in the parliament and not by the president. Which means, parliament is supreme:D . It is highest of the high. And rightly so. Parliament is the hallmark of any democracy and what differentiates it from other form of governance.

Believe me, whatever the president does, can be done without him around. There is no sense in spending cores of money for a rubber stamp.:mad:
 
Last edited:

kumarmohit

Technomancer
Oho read about Pocket Veto?
Naturally, he will have to sign it, but in what period?
There is no period defined, and the Presidential assent can only be overridden in case of a money bill not in a general bill.
As there is not defined period for Presidential assent, but there is a limit on parliamentary term, you must be aware that a bill cannot sustain parlimentary transition unless its assented and made a law by the President So the President can keep a bill in his pocket, niether sign it and nor return it in which period if the parliametary elections are held, bill will have to be repassed by both houses.

One more thing, The President can refuse to sign a bill outright if Supreme Court backs him. If the court thinks that the bill is unconstitutional when President seeks its opinion, the President is automatically authorised to throw the bill in trash.

Actually the thing is that even Professors in the Law faculty of Delhi University where I study are not having a unanimous opinion on presidential powers. So how can we have one!!!

As for Parliament and people's power being higher than Constitution,please read the jayalalitha case, wher SC held that COnst, even though amendable is still more powerful than parliament, which cannot tamper its basic skeleton.

One more thing, Constitutional Amendment does not need a unanimous vote (100% yay and 0% nay) It just needs a 2/3 vote, and the state govts also come in the picture in some types of amendments.
 
Last edited:

karnivore

in your face..
Professors in the Law faculty of Delhi University where I study are not having a unanimous opinion on presidential powers...
Darn! u hav started using the big guns already:D I am only using my little, humble knowledge that i gathered in college. And that was a long time back. Not fair, dude.:D Anyway, the ambiguity is on how the president exercises his powers and not on the extent or limitations thereof. Any student of Constitution will tell the limitations. But the problem is how the president can maneuver within those limitations.
....the Presidential assent can only be overridden in case of a money bill not in a general bill.
President can't send a money bill for recommendation and hav to sign it the first time. He can send other bills for recommendation but will hav to sign the second time. He has no choice.
Naturally, he will have to sign it, but in what period?
There is no period defined....
Yes very true. But only in theory. When was the last time a president of India did that. Never. Not even APJ (office of profit bill was only delayed)

Many years ago a former chief justice of Pakistan provided the answer. He was asked by his country’s president (during that country’s initial experiment with democracy) whether he could constitutionally refuse to give his assent to a Bill passed by the National Assembly (Pakistan’s first constitution after independence was like ours — fashioned on the Westminster model). Chief Justice Munir’s answer went something like this: “If you think it is a matter of the gravest importance, and you cannot in all conscience accept the measure presented to you, you can, and you must (if you are true to your oath) refuse assent — but having refused assent you must then resign; the system must go on; people will know why you resigned, and will sort things out with their governments”.
Shamelessly plagiarized from an article by Fali S. Nariman:D
The President can refuse to sign a bill outright if Supreme Court backs him....President is automatically authorised to throw the bill in trash
I am not sure about this. I hav never heard of anything "automatic" about the presidentship, but most likely, SC can only advice the President. The president can send it back for review. This the best he can do. Or as you said, pocket veto, i.e. sit on it forever. Again thats theoretical.
As for Parliament and people's power being higher than Constitution,please read the jayalalitha case, wher SC held that COnst, even though amendable is still more powerful than parliament, which cannot tamper its basic skeleton.
Absolutely. But only in spirit. The parliament works within the framework of the Constitution. Of course. Suppose some wise govt decides to hav reservation on the basis of religion. What happens then. It can't. Unless of course it amends the constitution. In theory it can be done. But the furore will not let it happen. Thats the magic of parliamentary democracy. Political compulsion has its bad sides. It has its share of goods as well.
One more thing, Constitutional Amendment does not need a unanimous vote (100% yay and 0% nay) It just needs a 2/3 vote..
Thx for the correction. Appreciate it. Although, i will check on that once i am home.,

The important aspect is who appoints who and who removes who. President and Chief Justice are appointed by the parliament. They are also removed( read impeached ) by the parliament. But the members of the Parliament are appointed by us, no other authority can do that. They are also removed by us or by the opposition through "Vote of NO-CONFIDENCE". If someone's existence is dependent on another, how long and to what extent can the former preside over the later.

See, the point i am trying to make is, all that the president does can be done without him. All the so called checks and everything can be put in place without a president around. We really don't need a president at all.
 

kumarmohit

Technomancer
As for all the theoretical things there is always a first time.

Oh and i am just trying to say that President is very necessary to act as a balancing tool when half of our parliamentarians are goons. So we need President if we do not want the Parliament to hold the entire country a hostage:)

BTw I think its better that we return on discussion abut Intel and AMD and windows and Linux.;)
 

Sarvothaman

Right off the assembly line
She has got the highest vote and she is the most probable contender for this POST of being the president of India.
Well I say how does it matter any way to me.
India will still remain the way it is no matter who becomes the president.
 

Yamaraj

The Lord of Death
vish786 said:
sorry to interrupt guys... what does Mrs Pratibha Patil do??? like kalamji was scientist.
She used to cook food for Indira and her clan. Later, she was into failed business attempts. Quite an impressive record for a PoI, I say.
 

kumarmohit

Technomancer
~Phenom~ said:
Finally , Mrs.Pratibha Patil is the new President of India.

She is not the President yet. She still has to be sworn in;)

Look @the irony people. She won the election today. Harry Potter's final book which came out today has the first chapter titled

"The Dark Lord Ascending"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom