‘Insult' of Ambedkar's portrait: SC panel seeks action taken report from Bihar govt
New Delhi: The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has shot off a notice seeking an action taken report from chief secretary of Bihar on allegations that former chief minister Lalu Prasad insulted a portrait of Dr B R Ambedkar during his birthday celebrations last week.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
In the notice also marked to the Director General of Police of Bihar, the NCSC has sought the report within 15 days.
The allegations emanate from a video circulating online, purportedly showing the RJD chief's feet near the portrait of Ambedkar during the former's 78th birthday celebrations, according to media reports.
The NCSC has strongly asserted in the notice that failure to respond within the stipulated time could lead to the Commission invoking its powers under Article 338 of the Constitution, which allows it to summon individuals or representatives to appear before it with relevant documents.
New Delhi: The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has shot off a notice seeking an action taken report from chief secretary of Bihar on allegations that former chief minister Lalu Prasad insulted a portrait of Dr B R Ambedkar during his birthday celebrations last week.
In the notice also marked to the Director General of Police of Bihar, the NCSC has sought the report within 15 days.
The allegations emanate from a video circulating online, purportedly showing the RJD chief's feet near the portrait of Ambedkar during the former's 78th birthday celebrations, according to media reports.
The NCSC has strongly asserted in the notice that failure to respond within the stipulated time could lead to the Commission invoking its powers under Article 338 of the Constitution, which allows it to summon individuals or representatives to appear before it with relevant documents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
"June 25 is a black day...": West Bengal LoP Suvendu Adhikari on 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'
Kolkata (West Bengal) [India], June 19 (ANI): As West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee condemned the idea of observing June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas', Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly and BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari on Thursday said that June 25 is a black day and every 'nationalist citizen' will observe the 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'. 'It is a black day. We observe this every year. Not only the BJP but also every nationalist citizen observes it. In West Bengal, many people were jailed during the emergency due to politics and ideology. Every year, we give them a reception. It will happen this year too,' Suvendu Adhikari said. Earlier on Wednesday, CM Mamata Banerjee questioned if democracy prevailed in the country under the current government. 'The Central government says that it will celebrate Samvidhan Hatya Diwas on completing 50 years of Emergency this year. I object to the statement 'Samvidhan Hatya'. The Constitution is the basis of our rights; it is the mother of democracy. How can they call it Samvidhan Hatya?' Mamata Banerjee said. Earlier West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday condemned the idea of observing June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas' and said that she objected to the name. She questioned if democracy prevailed in the country under the current government. 'The Central government says that it will celebrate Samvidhan Hatya Diwas on completing 50 years of Emergency this year. I object to the statement 'Samvidhan Hatya'. The Constitution is the basis of our rights; it is the mother of democracy. How can they call it Samvidhan Hatya?' she asked. Last week, the Centre announced that 25 will be observed as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'(Constitution Murder Day) to pay tributes to all those who suffered and fought against the gross abuse of power during the period of Emergency government said that every year on June 25, the country will remember the great contribution of those who endured the 'inhuman pain' of the Emergency of 1975. A notification has also been issued by the Government of India to celebrate June 25 as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'. (ANI)
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Can Trump Go To War With Iran? The 50-Year-Old Law That Few Presidents Fear
Washington/New Delhi: When President Donald Trump was asked on the White House lawn whether the United States might join Israel in its war with Iran, he gave a vague, provocative and open-ended reply in his signature style. 'I may do it. I may not,' he shrugged. The words were casual and almost dismissive. But they carried the weight of a nation. With every passing hour, the possibility of American boots stepping into a new Middle Eastern firestorm seems less hypothetical. His administration, too, has made its stance clear. 'He (Trump) is the one making the decisions. What comes next is his call,' said State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce. But not everyone agrees that war should hinge on one man's instinct. Some lawmakers and peace advocates are once again invoking a nearly forgotten piece of legislation that was supposed to stop presidents from doing exactly this. It is called the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973. It was meant to rein in the president's power to send soldiers into foreign battles without Congress's approval. Whether it still has any real teeth, though, is up for debate. A Promise Made After a Bloody Past The War Powers Resolution was born from the trauma of Vietnam – a war launched with no formal declaration, prolonged through executive decisions and paid for with tens of thousands of American lives. When it finally passed, over President Nixon's veto, the Congress was trying to reclaim some control over the blood and money being spent without their consent. The law says the president must inform the Congress within 48 hours of any military action. It also sets a 60-to-90-day limit unless lawmakers approve an extension. The idea was to stop secret wars and endless deployments without public scrutiny. But that is not how things unfolded. The last time the Congress formally declared war was 1942. Since then, U.S. presidents have sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries – sometimes for full-scale invasions, other times for airstrikes or covert missions. Instead of declarations of war, the Congress started using something called an Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). After 9/11, one such authorisation gave President George W. Bush sweeping powers to pursue terrorists across the globe. Another, in 2002, authorised military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Those authorisations are still being used today. Trump cited the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. That strike nearly brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war without the Congress ever voting on it. The Constitution says the Congress has the power. So what happened? Technically, the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare war. But over the decades, that power has been slowly swallowed by the executive branch. The president is the commander-in-chief. That title, often interpreted loosely, has become a tool to bypass Capitol Hill. Even when lawmakers try to reassert themselves, they run into brick walls. In 2019, the Congress voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. In 2020, after the Soleimani strike, both the House and Senate passed a resolution to limit the president's ability to strike Iran. Trump vetoed that too. The Congress did not have the votes to override him. What Happens Now? As tensions rise again, with Israel bombing Iranian sites and Iran responding in kind, some lawmakers are trying to stop a wider war before it starts. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced legislation requiring Trump to seek congressional approval before launching strikes on Iran. Congressman Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders are backing similar bills. But with both chambers now under the Republican control, the chances of these bills surviving a veto are slim. The real test is not legal. It is political. Do lawmakers have the courage and the numbers to pull the brakes on a president ready to act unilaterally? The War Powers Act matters; but in practice, it rarely stops anything. More than 100 times since 1973, presidents have reported military action to the Congress under the law. But very few of those actions were ever challenged or reversed. Critics say the law is toothless and more of a formality than a firewall. Even former President Joe Biden, who once criticised its limits as a senator, has sidestepped the War Powers Act in recent years. Regardless of who is in charge, the White House tends to argue that 'emergency' powers and AUMFs are enough. As war brews once more in the Middle East, the stakes are no longer hypothetical. Americans could again be drawn into a conflict that starts with one missile but escalates quickly beyond control. The War Powers Act was written to stop exactly that. Whether it can still do the job or whether Trump will ignore it like so many presidents before him remains an open question. But if history offers any warning, it is this – once the war begins, the Congress may be the last to find out, and the people the last to understand why.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Privacy is a fundamental right but is subject to reasonable curbs: High Court
BHOPAL: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh HC has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats, even if obtained without consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions - particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order. The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case. The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery. To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife's mobile phone. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship. When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her fundamental right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband's method to obtain the chats breached the IT Act. HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence - regardless of admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act - if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes. Citing SC precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He upheld the family court's April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited, stating that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection. The court also concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 - the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial - the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake. Additionally, the court invoked section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings.
