Mumtaz Patel, the daughter of late Congress leader Ahmed Patel, expressed disappointment over the recent seat-sharing arrangement between the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for the upcoming parliamentary polls in Gujarat. The discontent stems from the Bharuch seat, a traditional stronghold for the Congress, slipping into the hands of AAP.

The Congress and AAP sealed a seat-sharing deal for several states, including Gujarat, as they aim to present a united front against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

Mumtaz Patel, expressing her disappointment, wrote, “Deeply apologize to our district cadre for not being able to secure the Bharuch Lok Sabha seat in alliance. I share your disappointment,”

“Together, we will regroup to make Congress stronger. We won’t let Ahmed Patel’s 45 years of legacy go in vain. #bharuchkibeti (sic)” Ms Patel added in her post on X (formerly Twitter).

Deeply apologize to Our district cadre for not being able to secure the Bharuch Lok Sabha seat in alliance.I share your disappointment.Together, we will regroup to make @INCIndia stronger .We won’t let @ahmedpatel 45 years of Legacy go in vain. #bharuchkibeti

— Mumtaz Patel (@mumtazpatels) February 24, 2024

The BJP has retained the Bharuch seat for seven consecutive terms, making it a crucial battleground for the opposition parties. Speculations had been rife for months that either Faisal Patel or Mumtaz Patel, children of Ahmed Patel, would be fielded by the Congress to challenge the BJP’s dominance.

The seat-sharing arrangement has not only disappointed Mumtaz Patel and the Congress’s district cadre but has also raised eyebrows within the party. The AAP will now contest from Bharuch and Bhavnagar in Gujarat.

Seat-sharing negotiations have been a significant challenge for the opposition INDIA bloc, with regional parties vying for a larger share. The recent electoral setbacks in three heartland states have emboldened regional powers to assert their influence, further complicating the seat-sharing talks.

The three new criminal laws will come into effect from July 1 and replace the country’s colonial-era legislations, the government announced on Saturday.

The Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill will replace the Indian Penal Code of 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973, and Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.

The three laws were cleared by the Parliament and President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to those last December.

The new legislations lay “emphasis on Indianness, the Indian Constitution and the well-being of the people,” Union Home Minister Amit Shah had said while introducing those last year in the Parliament. The new laws encourage the use of technology and gives more importance to forensic science in investigation, prosecution and judicial system, he said.

Mr Shah had asserted the Indian criminal justice system will become the most advanced in the world in five years once all systems under the three laws are in place.

The BNS, set to replace the IPC, has reformed major aspects of criminal laws in view of the changing times. It prioritises laws that protect women and children, punish murderers, and deter those who would harm the state.

The BNS includes 20 new offences like organised crime, terrorist acts, mob lynching, hit-and-run, sexual exploitation of a woman by deceitful means, snatching, abetment outside India, acts endangering the sovereignty, integrity, and unity of India, and publication of false or fake news.

Opening another front in his battle with the AAP, the Delhi lieutenant governor has written to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and questioned the delay in presenting the budget. Hitting out at the government, LG VK Saxena has accused it of “stalling the budget for no apparent reason” and said the people have a right to know how public funds are being used.

Saturday’s letter by the LG comes a day after his missive to Mr Kejriwal regarding five Comptroller and Auditor General reports that, he said, have been “pending” with Delhi Finance Minister Atishi since August 2023.

On February 15, the budget session of the Assembly had been extended till the first week of March after Ms Atishi had said in the House that there had been some delays in the finalisation of the financial statement.

In Saturday’s letter, Mr Saxena wrote, “I am constrained to bring to your notice that despite the Annual Financial Statement being ready and available with the Government, after due clearance of Government of India, since as long as 19.02.2024, it is yet to reach me for causing it to be laid in the House as per law established.”

Pointing out that the Centre had approved the budget on February 19, three days after the Delhi government had sent it, the LG said, “Thereafter, the process seems to have been stalled for no apparent reason at the level of GNCTD (Government of National Capital territory of Delhi)… it will be in the fitness of things that the Annual Financial Statement (Budget), be laid, discussed and passed in the Assembly at the earliest for the benefit of people of Delhi.”

Doing so, Mr Saxena wrote, will give the people of Delhi an opportunity to know the expenses and revenue of the government and also find out what the public funds, which “belong to the people themselves”, are being utilised for.”

“You are accordingly requested to get the process expedited and utilise the Budget Session for what it was summoned for in the interest of transparency, accountability and good governance,” he signed off. 

Pending Reports

In his letter to the chief minister on Friday, Mr Saxena had requested him to ask the Delhi finance minister to “expeditiously process” five reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) so they could be tabled in the ongoing budget session.

Stating that the reports of the CAG are a constitutionally mandated independent and impartial assessment of the performance of the government, Mr Saxena wrote, “It is an obligation of the government of the day to share with the people, through the House, an objective account of its performance – revenue and expenditure of public funds.” 

(With PTI inputs)