Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

A Constitutional amendment being enacted to nullify a judgment arose in the case of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain wherein the order of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the election of Indira Gandhi, was challenged. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Congress Party...

nsitharamanoffc's profile picture

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

628,986 subscribers

14,492 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

BildungNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Kommentare

Profilbild von ktc
ktcvor 1 Jahr

yaawwwn. @narendramodi

Profilbild von secular baba
secular babavor 1 Jahr

bjp barking up the wrong tree. @narendramodi

Profilbild von Secanalyst2112@gmail.com
[email protected]vor 1 Jahr

Keep living in the past. High taxes, high Emi, high inflation and no one is cared?

Profilbild von Rajesh Rawat
Rajesh Rawatvor 1 Jahr

Why dont you speak on current situation hon. Mam. Everything has been destroyed. Till what time Hon. Mam you will save. As finance minister you did excellent work .

Profilbild von Deepak Srivastava
Deepak Srivastavavor 1 Jahr

Ur reduced to a joke

Profilbild von Naman singh
Naman singhvor 1 Jahr

🙇🏻🙇🏻🙇🏻🙇🏻

Profilbild von BNS
BNSvor 1 Jahr

Does this constitution say that extortionate taxes on fuel is a sin?

Profilbild von BNS
BNSvor 1 Jahr

Is it true that Donald Drumpf is thinking that India won't defend itself if BD were to invade it because we're too busy cramming on the history of the amendments to our constitution?

Profilbild von Venkatesh Alla
Venkatesh Allavor 1 Jahr

Most useless twitter handle in india. Everything is fake and false.

Profilbild von Arun
Arunvor 1 Jahr

Is ministers for people of the country or for that portfolio wealth ji @narendramodi

Ähnliche Videos

In the words of Granville Austin- ''The important Constitutional development of the Emergency, other than its very imposition, was the enactment of the 42 Amendment. Coming in November 1976, the amendment demonstrates the progression of the Prime Minister and her government from having near-absolute power without a coherent programme – other than the protection of her prime ministry to power expressed through fundamental constitutional change.' The electoral process does teach lessons and Smt Indira Gandhi learned that lesson. I want to say this to the Congress party today: Smt Indira Gandhi learned the lesson, and I'm happy that Shri Jairam Ramesh says she stood up to support the amendment that Morarji Desai and his government were bringing. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.
5:44

In the words of Granville Austin- ''The important Constitutional development of the Emergency, other than its very imposition, was the enactment of the 42 Amendment. Coming in November 1976, the amendment demonstrates the progression of the Prime Minister and her government from having near-absolute power without a coherent programme – other than the protection of her prime ministry to power expressed through fundamental constitutional change.' The electoral process does teach lessons and Smt Indira Gandhi learned that lesson. I want to say this to the Congress party today: Smt Indira Gandhi learned the lesson, and I'm happy that Shri Jairam Ramesh says she stood up to support the amendment that Morarji Desai and his government were bringing. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

14,964 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Speaker Sri Om Birla Ji today passed a resolution in the Lok Sabha on the 1975 Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. It's crucial for the youth to understand the #EmergencyHorrors of those 21 months up to 1977 when democracy was crushed and constitutional machinery was subverted to sustain Indira Gandhi's dictatorship. Urge the Young of India to read more about #DarkDaysOfEmergency & call out the double standards of the Congress Party in claiming to be the saviours of democracy.
2:45

Speaker Sri Om Birla Ji today passed a resolution in the Lok Sabha on the 1975 Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. It's crucial for the youth to understand the #EmergencyHorrors of those 21 months up to 1977 when democracy was crushed and constitutional machinery was subverted to sustain Indira Gandhi's dictatorship. Urge the Young of India to read more about #DarkDaysOfEmergency & call out the double standards of the Congress Party in claiming to be the saviours of democracy.

Tejasvi Surya

24,788 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Social Justice, Economic Justice, Constitutional process or the Constitutional spirit, nothing of these were respected and each time Congress brazenly brought in Constitutional Amendments only to help the family. The dynasty kept amending the Constitution. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.
0:27

Social Justice, Economic Justice, Constitutional process or the Constitutional spirit, nothing of these were respected and each time Congress brazenly brought in Constitutional Amendments only to help the family. The dynasty kept amending the Constitution. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

13,533 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, as this law is a direct attack on the country's constitution, which not only provides equal rights to its citizens but also grants them complete religious freedom. This bill is a dangerous conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. Therefore, we have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, and the state units of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind will also challenge the constitutional validity of this law in the High Courts of their respective states. We are confident that just as the court has delivered justice in many cases, we will also get justice in this important and unconstitutional law. #WaqfBoardAmendmentBill
3:20

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, as this law is a direct attack on the country's constitution, which not only provides equal rights to its citizens but also grants them complete religious freedom. This bill is a dangerous conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. Therefore, we have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, and the state units of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind will also challenge the constitutional validity of this law in the High Courts of their respective states. We are confident that just as the court has delivered justice in many cases, we will also get justice in this important and unconstitutional law. #WaqfBoardAmendmentBill

Arshad Madani

70,839 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

VIDEO | "The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment wherein it was said that the existence of Madrassa Board and the Act which created it are against the principle of secularism and therefore unconstitutional. SC has said that these are not against secularism," says advocate Anas Tanvir on Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Law and setting aside an Allahabad High Court verdict quashing it on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism.
0:57

VIDEO | "The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment wherein it was said that the existence of Madrassa Board and the Act which created it are against the principle of secularism and therefore unconstitutional. SC has said that these are not against secularism," says advocate Anas Tanvir on Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Law and setting aside an Allahabad High Court verdict quashing it on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism.

Press Trust of India

22,404 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.
2:15

Two cases which were brought before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe challenging Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) have been struck off, NOT dismissed. CAB 3, which seeks, among other things, to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the method of electing a president from direct election by citizens to election by Parliament, requires two referendums in law, but the ZANUPF faction sponsoring it wants to avoid a referendum. The Constitutional Court struck both cases off the roll this morning. It is important to understand that the cases were not dismissed on their merits. Rather, the Court held that the issues raised could not originate and be determined solely by the Constitutional Court and should first be ventilated in another forum, High Court. Professor Lovemore Maduku, who is arguing the cases, has indicated that they will now proceed to the High Court. Should the applicants fail to obtain the relief they seek there, the matters will inevitably return to the Constitutional Court on appeal. Many lawyers have described the Constitutional Court’s decision as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court has declined to confront what has become a highly contentious constitutional question, preferring instead to defer consideration of the substantive issues. A central argument in the war veterans’ challenge, led by Professor Madhuku, is that Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 was discussed and approved by Cabinet, which included President Mnangagwa, the two Vice Presidents, and Cabinet ministers. Professor Madhuku argues that because President Mnangagwa stands to benefit directly from provisions extending his term of office, he should not have participated in deliberations on the amendments. According to the argument, the Constitution prohibits public officials from participating in decisions in which they have a direct personal interest. However, the Constitutional Court did not determine the merits of that argument, ruling instead that the matter should be heard elsewhere first. The legal battle is therefore far from over. It now moves to the High Court and, whatever the outcome there, is likely to find its way back to the Constitutional Court for a final determination.

Hopewell Chin’ono

29,743 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

When a motion for the removal of the Speaker is taken up, Article 96 makes it very clear that the Speaker cannot sit in the Chair. The actions of the Speaker also cannot be admitted at that point of time. You (Jagdambika Pal) have been appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. You are sitting there as a member of the panel of chairpersons appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 93 states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.” Immediately after the election, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are supposed to be elected. For the last seven years, you have not elected a Deputy Speaker. You have created a constitutional vacuum. This question is very clear. Article 96 is very clear. 👉The House has to select a person to sit in the Chair. : Congress General Secretary (Org.) K C Venugopal ji in Lok Sabha
1:30

When a motion for the removal of the Speaker is taken up, Article 96 makes it very clear that the Speaker cannot sit in the Chair. The actions of the Speaker also cannot be admitted at that point of time. You (Jagdambika Pal) have been appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. You are sitting there as a member of the panel of chairpersons appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 93 states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.” Immediately after the election, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are supposed to be elected. For the last seven years, you have not elected a Deputy Speaker. You have created a constitutional vacuum. This question is very clear. Article 96 is very clear. 👉The House has to select a person to sit in the Chair. : Congress General Secretary (Org.) K C Venugopal ji in Lok Sabha

Congress

112,713 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

During a discussion on The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill 2024 in Lok Sabha, Shri K C Venugopal today contended that former Prime Minister late Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji had once referred late Smt Indira Gandhi as 'Durga'. To this, Smt Nirmala Sitharaman intervened and said that the statement which the Congress leader is saying quoting Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee about Smt Indira Gandhi is contentious and it should be removed. In an earlier interview to India TV's Shri Rajat Sharma, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji had also clarified that he never called Smt Indira Gandhi as 'Durga'. He mentions in the interview that he had also clarified this to Smt Indira Gandhi’s biographer Pupul Jayakar.
2:03

During a discussion on The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill 2024 in Lok Sabha, Shri K C Venugopal today contended that former Prime Minister late Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji had once referred late Smt Indira Gandhi as 'Durga'. To this, Smt Nirmala Sitharaman intervened and said that the statement which the Congress leader is saying quoting Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee about Smt Indira Gandhi is contentious and it should be removed. In an earlier interview to India TV's Shri Rajat Sharma, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji had also clarified that he never called Smt Indira Gandhi as 'Durga'. He mentions in the interview that he had also clarified this to Smt Indira Gandhi’s biographer Pupul Jayakar.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

143,368 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.
1:48

In the second matter before the Constitutional Court, filed by former opposition Member of Parliament Prince Dubeko Sibanda, the argument was that Parliament could not lawfully debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 because the bill itself is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court ruled that the application was not yet ripe for determination, meaning that the parliamentary process must first run its course before the applicant can return to court to challenge the outcome. Once again, many lawyers have described the Court’s approach as an example of constitutional avoidance. In their view, the Court is declining to engage with the substantive constitutional questions now and is instead postponing their determination. However, the issues will not disappear. Even if the matter proceeds through the High Court first, it is almost inevitable that it will eventually return to the Constitutional Court on appeal for a final determination on the merits. In short, the Constitutional Court has not resolved the constitutional questions surrounding CAB 3; it has merely deferred them.

Hopewell Chin’ono

39,069 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

WATCH: Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna believes there was a violation in turning over former President Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC). “There was a violation in the act of surrender,” Azcuna says, noting that the Rome Statute requires the arrested person to be brought before a local court. However, Azcuna points out that the ICC adheres to the “Male captus bene detentus” principle, which means that “even if the arrest is illegal, the detention can still be legal” based on the gravity of offense. A member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, Azcuna says there are pending petitions before the Supreme Court. “There was a violation, and there will be consequences for that violation” | Eimor Santos
3:37

WATCH: Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna believes there was a violation in turning over former President Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC). “There was a violation in the act of surrender,” Azcuna says, noting that the Rome Statute requires the arrested person to be brought before a local court. However, Azcuna points out that the ICC adheres to the “Male captus bene detentus” principle, which means that “even if the arrest is illegal, the detention can still be legal” based on the gravity of offense. A member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, Azcuna says there are pending petitions before the Supreme Court. “There was a violation, and there will be consequences for that violation” | Eimor Santos

NewsWatch Plus PH

47,508 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | Delhi | AAP MP Sanjay Singh says, "Yesterday, you saw a non-constitutional, illegal, and against the rules, seven people announced that they will join the BJP. This is completely illegal, and the anti-defection law clearly states that any type of split, breakaway faction, or any type of break within the assembly and parliament cannot be recognised in the Lok Sabha... This has been clearly stated in the 10th Schedule as well... That is why today, I will write to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Vice President, a letter to revoke the Rajya Sabha membership of all seven Rajya Sabha MPs."
2:27

#WATCH | Delhi | AAP MP Sanjay Singh says, "Yesterday, you saw a non-constitutional, illegal, and against the rules, seven people announced that they will join the BJP. This is completely illegal, and the anti-defection law clearly states that any type of split, breakaway faction, or any type of break within the assembly and parliament cannot be recognised in the Lok Sabha... This has been clearly stated in the 10th Schedule as well... That is why today, I will write to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Vice President, a letter to revoke the Rajya Sabha membership of all seven Rajya Sabha MPs."

ANI

21,265 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

[THREAD🪡] The Speaker of the National Assembly has resolved to file a notice to abide, accompanied by an explanatory affidavit, in the urgent court application brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa relating to the work of the Impeachment Committee established in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution. This is intended to fully apprise the court of Parliament's constitutional obligations, the steps taken to implement the Constitutional Court judgment, and the institutional considerations relevant to the continued execution of the National Assembly's constitutional mandate. 1/7 🧵
1:32

[THREAD🪡] The Speaker of the National Assembly has resolved to file a notice to abide, accompanied by an explanatory affidavit, in the urgent court application brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa relating to the work of the Impeachment Committee established in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution. This is intended to fully apprise the court of Parliament's constitutional obligations, the steps taken to implement the Constitutional Court judgment, and the institutional considerations relevant to the continued execution of the National Assembly's constitutional mandate. 1/7 🧵

Parliament of RSA

14,207 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Shri Kameshwar Singh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, said - 'This Parliament, again, is a provisional one and it cannot be said to be reflecting the will of the people in the way the Constitution wants Parliament to reflect it. For a Government or a Parliament of this kind it is highly improper to make such fundamental changes in the Constitution without making any reference to public opinion, and that too at the fag end of a strenuous parliamentary session and almost on the eve of a General Election.' He again says - 'Do they not show utter disregard for the Constitution when they attempt to amend it simply because some of the laws have been criticised and found invalid by the Judiciary?' 'The Prime Minister, I am constrained to say, is creating a bad precedent by sowing the seed of executive despotism and playing with the supremacy of the Constitution for party advantages,' he further says. So, there was no doubt that the Amendment was brought for the sake of party, the Prime Minister, or the government's image. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.
2:17

Shri Kameshwar Singh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, said - 'This Parliament, again, is a provisional one and it cannot be said to be reflecting the will of the people in the way the Constitution wants Parliament to reflect it. For a Government or a Parliament of this kind it is highly improper to make such fundamental changes in the Constitution without making any reference to public opinion, and that too at the fag end of a strenuous parliamentary session and almost on the eve of a General Election.' He again says - 'Do they not show utter disregard for the Constitution when they attempt to amend it simply because some of the laws have been criticised and found invalid by the Judiciary?' 'The Prime Minister, I am constrained to say, is creating a bad precedent by sowing the seed of executive despotism and playing with the supremacy of the Constitution for party advantages,' he further says. So, there was no doubt that the Amendment was brought for the sake of party, the Prime Minister, or the government's image. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

15,233 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | Patna, Bihar: Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishor says, "Rahul Gandhi should introspect on what role the Congress party has played in the plight of Bihar as an ally of RJD. Rahul Gandhi should note that when his father Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of the country, in 1989, he had talked about a special package of Rs 50 thousand crore for Bihar. But they (Congress) never fulfilled the promise made by Rajiv Gandhi..." On Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi meeting the BPSC (Bihar Public Service Commission) aspirants in Patna, he says, "...Be it Chirag Paswan, Rahul Gandhi or Tejashwi Yadav, all leaders should stand in support of the youth of Bihar. Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi was late in coming because the matter had already reached the court... Congress should also stand in support of the youth and I appeal to the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi to provide legal aid to the students to get justice..."
2:33

#WATCH | Patna, Bihar: Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishor says, "Rahul Gandhi should introspect on what role the Congress party has played in the plight of Bihar as an ally of RJD. Rahul Gandhi should note that when his father Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of the country, in 1989, he had talked about a special package of Rs 50 thousand crore for Bihar. But they (Congress) never fulfilled the promise made by Rajiv Gandhi..." On Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi meeting the BPSC (Bihar Public Service Commission) aspirants in Patna, he says, "...Be it Chirag Paswan, Rahul Gandhi or Tejashwi Yadav, all leaders should stand in support of the youth of Bihar. Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi was late in coming because the matter had already reached the court... Congress should also stand in support of the youth and I appeal to the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi to provide legal aid to the students to get justice..."

ANI

53,189 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | Delhi: Police deploy water cannons to disperse women workers of the BJP, who are protesting near the residence of Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, a day after the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill failed to pass in the Lok Sabha.
1:08

#WATCH | Delhi: Police deploy water cannons to disperse women workers of the BJP, who are protesting near the residence of Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, a day after the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill failed to pass in the Lok Sabha.

ANI

23,418 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten