 "Varanasi rally issue: DM revoked the permission as an afterthought, says BJP")
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Thursday contested the Varanasi returning officer (RO)’s assessment, which the Election Commission had also endorsed, that a public meeting by Narendra Modi in Varanasi’s Beniabagh Park would have had security repercussions.
BJP leader Arun Jaitley said the party welcomed the statement of the Election Commission that it was an independent constitutional body committed to holding free and fair elections. Jaitley said the party, however, refused to accept RO Pranjal Yadav and the EC’s assessment on security concerns.
The BJP made public a letter dated May 7 from the Varanasi administration, which had granted the party the permission to hold the rally. It had also deposited Rs 10,000 as fee for using the venue.
The letter claimed that Beniabagh Park could accommodate only 40,000 people, whereas the BJP’s meeting was likely to draw a crowd of over 100,000. This, the district administration said, could lead to untoward incidents, as the approach roads to Beniabagh Park were extremely narrow.
The letter also pointed out how during the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, a rally by BJP leader Shatrughan Sinha for the party’s Varanasi candidate led to communal tension and violence.
Jaitley said the local administration’s reasoning in disallowing Modi’s public meeting at was “not relevant” because “in the past 23 years, hundreds of rallies have been held at Beniabagh, including that of the BJP. Nothing untoward has happened so far.
The BJP leader said UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal, who like Modi is a candidate from Varanasi, had held rallies at Beniabagh. “There is no reason why tension would emerge in Varanasi. Rallies have been held in the Kashmir Valley and Maoist-affected areas. Is there a special reason why tension would be there in Varanasi alone?” Jaitley asked.
He said the EC was abdicating its jurisdiction under Article 324 of the Constitution in favour of the judgment of appointees of the state government, which he argued, would be a failure to exercise jurisdiction. “It is dangerous to rely exclusively on the ‘professional’ advice of those who may render unprofessional advice,” Jaitley said. He said conducting a free and fair election required that all were given a level playing field, which in this instance was being denied to Modi.
BJP leader Arun Jaitley said the party welcomed the statement of the Election Commission that it was an independent constitutional body committed to holding free and fair elections. Jaitley said the party, however, refused to accept RO Pranjal Yadav and the EC’s assessment on security concerns.
The BJP made public a letter dated May 7 from the Varanasi administration, which had granted the party the permission to hold the rally. It had also deposited Rs 10,000 as fee for using the venue.
More From This Section
Jaitley said the permission was “subsequently revoked as an afterthought”. He also made public the administration’s letter in which it had withdrawn the permission for the meeting.
The letter claimed that Beniabagh Park could accommodate only 40,000 people, whereas the BJP’s meeting was likely to draw a crowd of over 100,000. This, the district administration said, could lead to untoward incidents, as the approach roads to Beniabagh Park were extremely narrow.
The letter also pointed out how during the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, a rally by BJP leader Shatrughan Sinha for the party’s Varanasi candidate led to communal tension and violence.
Jaitley said the local administration’s reasoning in disallowing Modi’s public meeting at was “not relevant” because “in the past 23 years, hundreds of rallies have been held at Beniabagh, including that of the BJP. Nothing untoward has happened so far.
The BJP leader said UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal, who like Modi is a candidate from Varanasi, had held rallies at Beniabagh. “There is no reason why tension would emerge in Varanasi. Rallies have been held in the Kashmir Valley and Maoist-affected areas. Is there a special reason why tension would be there in Varanasi alone?” Jaitley asked.
He said the EC was abdicating its jurisdiction under Article 324 of the Constitution in favour of the judgment of appointees of the state government, which he argued, would be a failure to exercise jurisdiction. “It is dangerous to rely exclusively on the ‘professional’ advice of those who may render unprofessional advice,” Jaitley said. He said conducting a free and fair election required that all were given a level playing field, which in this instance was being denied to Modi.