"We only want to discuss Pahalgam terror attack, not action taken by government": Shiv Sena (UBT)' Sanjay Raut
New Delhi [India], June 4 (ANI): Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Wednesday stated that the INDIA bloc wanted to discuss the Pahalagam terror attack and not the action taken by the government during a special session of Parliament.
He further stated that if the 16 opposition parties demanded a special session, then the same should happen.
'We only want to discuss the Pahalgam terror attack, not the action taken by the government. If 16 Opposition parties demand a special session on this, then a discussion should be held,' Raut said, addressing the media.
He further stated that letters would also be sent to the President and the Prime Minister regarding the conduct of the special sessions.
Raut also took a jibe at the government for keeping matters of importance hidden from the public.
'In a few days, we will also send letters to the President and Prime Minister. In a democracy, the government should take the public into confidence and tell them what it is doing. But in the largest democracy, everything is kept hidden from the public,' he further added.
Meanwhile, BJP leader Prakash Reddy said that the demand for the special session was meaningless.
Speaking to ANI, Reddy said, '...Whenever the parliament commences, all the issues will be discussed, whether the 'Operation Sindoor' or our losses (of our Indian army or Indian Air Force). We can discuss everything during the parliament session.'
Reddy said that since the operation is ongoing and key matters are under review, a special session is not justified.
'However, when the 'Operation Sindoor' is already going on, and economic activities go on, national security issues are in the process, so at this stage, demanding a parliament session is meaningless,' he told ANI.
Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray echoed the Opposition's demand for a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindhoor, alleging that the BJP is engaging in dirty politics over the matter.
On Tuesday, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge reiterated the demand of the opposition parties and their leaders to convene a special session of Parliament upon the arrival of all-party delegations to discuss various issues, especially the developments that followed the ghastly Pahalgam terrorist attack that claimed 26 civilian lives.
'We, the leaders of INDIA, reiterate our collective and urgent request to convene a special session of Parliament to discuss the developments following the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025,' Kharge posted on X, quoting the letter signed by prominent opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee among others.
Accusing the central government of 'keeping people of India and their elected representatives in the dark', the Congress chief said that there are serious questions regarding the Pahalgam terror attack, killing of civilians in Poonch, Uri and Rajouri during the recently concluded conflict between India and Pakistan.
Congress Chief Kharge added, 'Today, 16 political parties of the opposition have written a letter to PM Modi that a special session of the Parliament must be called so that all the parties can thank our armed forces. From Pahalgam to Operation Sindoor to America's announcement of the ceasefire to delegations worldwide, we should discuss them in the Parliament...We should also discuss eradicating terrorism and our further strategies in the Parliament...' (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
22 minutes ago
- News18
Allu Arjun In Spotlight As 'Arrest Virat Kohli' Trends On X After Bengaluru Stampede Row
Last Updated: Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede has sparked a trend on X calling for Virat Kohli's arrest. Amid this, Allu Arjun is trending on the platform due to a similar incident. RCB Parade Stampede News: A tragic stampede broke out outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium after a crowd gathered to celebrate Royal Challengers Bengaluru's (RCB) IPL victory on June 4. The incident claimed the lives of 11 people. In connection with the incident, police have taken six individuals into custody. Amid this, RCB captain Virat Kohli's name has been trending on X (formerly Twitter), after a section of the Internet felt he should be arrested. The conversation comes after Allu Arjun was arrested on December 13, 2024, by the Chikkadpally police in Hyderabad in connection with a tragic stampede at the premiere of Pushpa 2. As the 'Arrest Virat Kohli' trend continues to soar on X, so does Allu Arjun. The South megastar has found himself in the spotlight on the social media platform, as fans rally for equal treatment for both him and Virat in connection with similar stampede incidents – just six months apart. A social media user said that a neutral approach should be taken in the stampede row. 'Who was arrested after kumbh 2025?? Who was arrested after pahal gai attack?? Y r only innocent people are targeted? Just like #kohli and #AlluArjun … Dear #ViratKohli enjoy your trophy #arrestkholi," the post read. Who was arrested after kumbh 2025?? Who was arrested after pahal gai attack??Y r only innocent people are targeted? Just like #kohli and #AlluArjun … Dear #ViratKohli enjoy your trophy 🏆 #arrestkholi — Hiral B Chauhan (@SanatanDharmi2) June 6, 2025 An ardent Virat Kohli fan wrote, 'Stop targeting #ViratKohli sir He is not one to be blamed Accuse those who created a mess leading to a tragedy in Bengaluru and RCB 's celebration ruined by stampede Similar to #AlluArjun sir's case. Please try to understand Rohit fans." Stop targeting #ViratKohli???? sirHe is not one to be blamedAccuse those who created a mess leading to a tragedy in Bengaluru and RCB 's celebration ruined by stampedeSimilar to #AlluArjun sir's casePlease try to understand Rohit fans 🙏🏻— Sunayana Chakraborty (@Sunayana999) June 6, 2025 'Just like #AlluArjun #Kohli should be arrested Only cause this shameless creature have no humanity most selfish human in history. For him winning/celebrating for #RCB is more important human lives. #ArrestKohli," commented a third user. Here are some other X posts: Rules Sabke liye hona chahiye? #Rcb #Viratkohli #AlluArjun — Filmi Channel (@filmy44577) June 6, 2025 Tragic stampede at Pushpa 2 premiere, Hyderabad, Allu Arjun celebrations stampede, Virat Kohli ???? #ArrestKohli #AlluArjun — Younish P (@younishpthn) June 5, 2025 Meanwhile, Virat Kohli, wife Anushka Sharma and the RCB team, too, had reacted to the stampede row. The Indian skipper posted RCB's official statement on Instagram, writing, 'At a loss for words. Absolutely gutted", on the post. All you need to know about Allu Arjun's arrest in 2024 On December 4, 2024, a stampede at Hyderabad's Sandhya Theatre resulted in the death of 39-year-old Revathi and left her son, Sri Teja, critically injured. Authorities attributed the tragedy to an uncontrolled rush of fans attempting to enter the venue to catch a glimpse of actor Allu Arjun. Police reported that they were not informed in advance about the attendance of the Pushpa 2 team, leading to a lack of proper crowd control measures. Following the incident, Allu Arjun, his security team, and the Sandhya Theatre management were charged under Sections 105 and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt. All parties were arrested on December 13. The actor spent one night in custody before being granted regular bail by a Hyderabad court. As part of the bail conditions, the Nampally court required Allu Arjun to submit two sureties of Rs 50,000 each. He returned home to his wife and Sneha Reddy and kids the next morning. Few days later, on December 24, the actor held a press conference where he publicly reacted to the incident and spoke about the character assassination and humiliation he and his family had to face all throughout. He had further clarified the 'misinformation" that was being spread about him. Soon after, the matter was put to rest. First Published:
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Scroll.in
40 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: RBI cuts repo rate, four arrested in Bengaluru stampede case and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Reserve Bank of India's Monetary Policy Committee cut the repo rate by 50 basis points, lowering it from 6% to 5.5%. This is the third consecutive rate cut. Central banks usually reduce repo rates to stimulate economic growth by making borrowing cheaper for individuals and businesses. This translates to lower equated monthly instalments for borrowers. The RBI retained India's growth projection for the financial year 2025-'26 at 6.5% despite global uncertainties, with quarterly estimates unchanged. Read on. The Karnataka Police arrested four persons, including an official of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru, in connection with the stampede that took place outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Those arrested are Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of the cricket franchise, along with event management firm DNA Entertainment Networks' Sunil Mathew, Kiran and Sumanth. This came after Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Thursday said that the state government had ordered the arrest of representatives from the Karnataka State Cricket Association, DNA Entertainment Networks and Royal Challengers Bengaluru. A first information report was filed against the persons based on a complaint alleging that criminal negligence had led to the stampede. Eleven persons had died and several were injured in the incident on Wednesday. Fans had gathered to celebrate the team's victory in the Indian Premier League. Read on. The Congress described the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla railway line as an example of 'continuity in governance', which it claimed had not been acknowledged by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his 'perennial desire for self-glory'. The statement came ahead of Modi inaugurating the Chenab bridge on Friday. The world's highest railway arch bridge is part of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla rail link. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the project was sanctioned in March 1995 when Congress' PV Narasimha Rao was the prime minister and that it was declared a national project in 2002 by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The contract for the Chenab bridge was awarded in 2005, Ramesh said, adding that several segments of the project had been inaugurated by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
