High Court in Apparent Error in Pratyusha Case, as Naveen Patnaik is not Asked to Explain Why He Found Her the Most Suitable

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The ruling BJD is de facto owned by Naveen Patnaik, whom all the members thereof know as their supreme master (‘the supremo’) and obey, exactly as my German Shepherd Dog knows me as its master and obeys my orders.

Patnaik decides who should contest from which constituency, provides funds for electioneering, projecting them as party candidates under the pretense of democratic practice.

He appoints his sycophants in any post available in Government, Public Sector and his party and even uses his personal factotum to take action against any of them as and when he wants.

He treats Orissa as his fee simple and squanders away Orissa’s natural resources like his father’s property in interest of any private – even foreign – industry and education mafia as he likes.

All his offenses are supported by his stooges, as they know, thereby is generated the election funds. Their participation in elections begin with nomination of candidates by him.

He or his authorized agent issues party tickets and inform the Returning Officer of this, basing on which, his party symbol is allotted to his candidates.

So, Naveen Patnaik is basically and entirely responsible for the nomination papers, which the BJD candidates file before the ROs.

The RO is guided by Naveen Patnaik as the issuer of party tickets pursuant to which election symbol of BJD gets allotted.

Laws prohibit a non-Indian to contest election.

So, the party boss that issues party tickets to a non-Indian is responsible for acceptance of a non-Indian by the RO/Election Commission as a legitimate candidate.

Kandhamal MP Ms. Pratyusha Rajeswari is alleged to be not of Indian nationality. She is alleged to be a lady of Nepal, staying in India as a widow of an Indian.

On this allegation, the High Court of Orissa has asked Pratyusha to explain as to why her election to Lok Sabha should not be nullified on nationality ground and has issued notices to the RO and the EC to explain their positions.

But Naveen Patnaik, the so-called supremo of BJD, being basically responsible for misguiding the RO/EC into accepting Pratyusha as a legitimate candidate to the extent of throwing the entire electoral process in to the feared fiasco, has not been asked by the HC to say as to why he set as his/his party’s candidate a non-Indian.

I think, this is an error that needs to be removed and Naveen Patnaik needs to be be asked by the High Court to explain as to why he shall not be responsible for crime against the country if his Kandhamal MP for whom he had actively campaigned along with his ministerial colleagues, is not of Indian Nationality.

If the allegation is found correct, Naveen is bound to be punished. But for this, it is essential that he be called for to explain as to why he had found Pratyusha the most suitable to be set up as his party candidate.

2 comments » Write a comment

  1. But,
    how can the HC call for an explanation from the ‘supremo’ ……….. when it is clearly the job of RO-n-EC ………. who need to be hung upside down conveniently if the explanation sought for found unsatisfactory.
    And,
    as regard to selection of a candidate by the ‘supremo’ in this matter is irrelevant, since – for a dog lover – a dog is a Dog ……. whether it’s a German Shepherd or street roamer.

    Of course, this is my personal view in regard to the concluding para of the Article. You have your take…………………………

  2. Respected Sir,
    You are absolutely right and your stand on the issue of Pratyusha Rajeswari,MP,Kandhamal is undoubtedly enlightening.
    Your strong logic regarding this matter will keep the judges under pressure to think over it.
    Ranjit Rout,
    at/po-votaka,
    via-kabirpur,ps-kuakhai,
    dist-jajpur

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.