Nimisha Priya execution: Supreme Court tells govt to decide on travel request for blood money talks to Yemen
The Supreme Court on Friday asked the central government to respond to a request asking for permission to travel to Yemen to help stop the hanging of Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya. A group called the 'Save Nimisha Priya Action Council' had filed a petition requesting the court to tell the Ministry of External Affairs to use diplomatic efforts to save Nimisha from being executed.
Senior lawyer R. Basant, who spoke for the group, said that although Nimisha's hanging, which was originally planned for July 16, has been put on hold for now and they still need the government's permission to go to Yemen. The purpose of the visit is to try and get forgiveness from the family of Talal Abdo Mahdi, the man who was allegedly killed by Nimisha in 2017. What Save Nimisha Priya Action Council told the Supreme Court?
Senior lawyer R. Basant told the Supreme Court that Yemen is not a country where people can freely travel because there is a ban unless the Indian government gives special permission to travel. He asked the court to allow 2–3 people from the petitioner group and a representative of a Kerala Islamic cleric to go to Yemen.
However, the bench led by Justice Vikram Nath said it would not pass any order to the government. Instead, it told the group to directly ask the central government for travel permission. The bench said in its order, 'Petitioner wishes to make some representation to the government, which they are free to move. And once that representation is made, the government would consider it on its own merits.'
Basant also requested that someone from the government join them to help talk to the victim's family. He said they hoped to offer 'blood money' (called diya ), a form of compensation under Islamic law that is sometimes used to avoid the death penalty.
But Attorney General R. Venkataramani, the top legal officer of the central government, said he could not make any such promise. He added, 'We don't want anything to go wrong. Our goal is to bring the woman back safely.'
Meanwhile, Abdelfattah Mehdi, brother of the deceased, has asserted that there can be no pardon for the crime, reiterating that Nimisha Priya has to be executed.
The court will hear the matter again on August 14. Nimisha Priya's execution: MEA's response
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said that the Indian government is doing everything it can to help in the case of Nimisha Priya. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said the matter is very sensitive, and India is also working with some friendly countries to offer full support.
Speaking at a media briefing in New Delhi, Jaiswal explained that the government has provided legal help, appointed a lawyer, and arranged regular consular visits for Nimisha's family. He added that they are in constant contact with both the local authorities in Yemen and the family members to try and resolve the issue.
Nimisha Priya's mother, 57-year-old Prema Kumari, has been working hard to save her daughter from the death penalty. She even travelled to Yemen's capital, Sanaa, to try and reach an agreement with the victim's family by offering blood money, which is sometimes accepted in such cases under Islamic law. Her efforts have been supported by the Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, a group of NRI social workers working in Yemen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The Income Tax Bill does not award arbitrary power to the state by allowing digital search and seizure. Here's why
On July 21, the Parliamentary Select Committee tabled in Parliament its report on the Income Tax Bill, 2025, aimed at simplifying and reforming the country's primary legislation on income tax. The Bill was introduced in the Lower House of Parliament in February this year, and the Select Committee was tasked to sift through the text of the Bill, clause by clause, to ensure that its objects and purposes are clearly and adequately spelt out. Importantly, the Committee has retained — and rightly so — the controversial provisions dealing with powers and procedures relating to digital search and seizure. The digital search and seizure powers are contained in Clause 247 of the Bill, which empowers the tax authority to enter and search any place where an electronic media or computer system (used to store relevant information or evidence) is suspected to have been kept. Clause 261(e) seeks to define 'computer system' to include virtual digital space, that is, personal and professional communications platforms and social media accounts, among other things. The power of the tax authority to enter and search a taxpayer's digital space has been criticised on the ground that wide search and seizure powers arbitrarily infringe upon the taxpayer's fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Income Tax Act, as it currently stands, was introduced in 1961, and came into force in 1962. Section 132 of the 1961 Act — which corresponds to Clause 247 of the Bill — has always vested wide search and seizure powers in the tax authority. The Finance Act, 2001 inserted Section 2(12A) into the Act to extend legal recognition to books of account maintained on computers, and Section 2(22AA) was inserted to include 'electronic record' within the meaning of the word 'document' defined under the Act. Subsequently, the Finance Act, 2002 inserted Section 132(1)(iib) facilitating access to electronic devices. Finally, Section 275B made it a punishable offence to refuse cooperation with the tax authority in this regard. The power to conduct digital search and seizure, therefore, has always been available with the tax authority. In defining the term 'virtual digital space', the new Bill simply makes explicit what was already implicit in the law. Not only that, search and seizure powers have survived judicial review and scrutiny of the Supreme Court. In 1973, the constitutionality of Section 132 of the 1961 Act was unsuccessfully challenged before a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal vs Director of Inspection. There, the Court categorically held that the tax authority must possess the power to conduct search and seizure to combat tax evasion. There is no reason why the underlying legal reasoning should not extend to digital search and seizure. Of course, our jurisprudential understanding of the right to privacy has since changed, especially after 2017, when a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in K Puttaswamy vs Union of India recognised the right to privacy as part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to privacy, however, is not absolute and, even if we were to apply Puttaswamy principles, search and seizure powers would still survive the scrutiny of our constitutional courts. Importantly, Clause 247 of the Bill (much like Section 132 of the 1961 Act) has sufficient safeguards in place and satisfies the Puttaswamy test of proportionality. For instance, the law requires the tax authority to record reasons before initiating a search and seizure action, and sanction must be obtained from, and granted by, the appropriate authority. Moreover, the powers so exercised would be subject to judicial review and a constitutional court may call upon the tax authority to disclose the reasons behind the search and seizure operation and may even examine the circumstances based on which sanction was obtained and granted. In fact, in a recent decision in the case of Principal Director of Income Tax vs Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (2022), the Supreme Court applied the Wednesbury principle to allow for search powers by deferring to the wisdom of the tax authority. In the past decade, Parliament has incorporated several changes in the tax law to keep pace with the digital transformation of the society. For instance, the concept of significant economic presence was incorporated in the income tax law to tax business profits of foreign companies deriving income without having any physical presence in India. Likewise, a digital services tax was enacted (now withdrawn) to tax revenues generated from digital services offered in India by foreign digital platforms. India is also actively participating in the Pillar One tax project spearheaded by the OECD to address tax challenges posed by digitalisation. Digital search and seizure powers contained in the Bill, which facilitate recovery of incriminating digital data, have a similar objective. The writer is an advocate in the Bombay High Court. Views are personal
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
May the course be with you: Rudraneil Sengupta's tribute to marathoner Fauja Singh
The death of Fauja Singh, killed by a speeding SUV while crossing a road near his village in Punjab, is incomprehensible in its tragedy. It is also emblematic of a deeply entrenched Indian problem. Incomprehensible, because Fauja was 114 years old, a man who moved very slowly, with deliberation. How could the man driving the SUV not see him? Emblematic, because Indian roads are among the most unsafe in the world. In 2023 (the last year for which government data is available), at least 172,000 people died in road accidents. That's an average of 471 deaths a day. This included 10,000 children over the year, and 35,000 pedestrians. 'There are several reasons for accidents, but the biggest is human behaviour,' Nitin Gadkari, union minister for road transport and highways, has said. In Fauja's case, the driver, who fled the scene in his car as the marathoner lay on the road, has been arrested. I last met Fauja Singh a few days before his 103rd birthday, at his village of Beas Pind near Jalandhar. We went for a run together, past mustard fields full of yellow flowers, wheat fields shimmering under a light breeze, sentinels of poplars and groves of mangoes. Singh was in his trademark tracksuit, a slight man with a flowing silver beard, positively wizard-like. He spoke of his most recent race, a 10K he had run in Hong Kong a few months earlier. Chuckling, he recounted how he had a fall just past the halfway mark. 'People rushed to help me, because every time I fall nowadays people think I won't get up again,' he said, slapping his knee. 'But my time has not come. I got up on my own and just ran. When I crossed the finish line, I felt so light, so painless, I thought: God was running with me.' Fauja began running after a terrible tragedy in his life, the death of his youngest son, in 1994. Kuldeep Singh was decapitated in front of his father, when the tin roof of an outhouse collapsed while the two men were working to fix it. Months after the incident, people in the village called his eldest son Sukhjinder Singh, who lived in London, to tell him that Fauja was losing his mind, aimlessly roaming the village at all hours of the day. The son took Fauja to live with him in London, where he met others of his age who had taken up running as a hobby. One day, aged 86, Fauja joined them, making the start of a career that saw him run his first marathon at 89, and nine more after it, including the Toronto Marathon in his 100th year. In-between, Fauja sat down for tea with Queen Elizabeth II. 'Maharani England di tagri hegi ae (The queen of England is a fit woman),' he told me with a smile. He carried the Olympic torch through part of London, ahead of the London Games in 2012. He starred in an 'Impossible is Nothing' Adidas ad campaign alongside David Beckham and Muhammad Ali. 'Running keeps me alive,' Fauja once told me. 'One day I will be running and the earth will claim me back and it will be wonderful. How can you be scared of something like that?' (To reach Rudraneil Sengupta with feedback, email rudraneil@
India.com
20 minutes ago
- India.com
This Muslim nation imposes Taliban dress code; women banned from wearing shorts, leggings, sleeveless shirts in..., and then...
Representational Image In yet another attempt at Taliban-esque moral policing by the Muhammad Yunus-led interim regime in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Bank issued a diktat barring female employees from donning 'provocative' western outfits like short dresses, sleeveless shirts and leggings in the office. What did the order say? According to reports, the Bangladesh Bank, the country's central bank, had issued an order, directing women employees to wear 'decent and professional' clothing in the office, warning that the non-compliance with the office dress code would result in disciplinary action. 'Officials and employees at all levels should dress decently and professionally in accordance with the country's social norms,' the order read. The now rescinded order asked male workers to wear long or half-sleeved formal shirts, formal pants and shoes, while jeans and fancy pyjamas were not allowed. Similarly, it directed women employees to sarees, salwar-kameez, or any other 'simple, decent, professional attire' like a headscarf or hijab, but allowed formal sandals and shoes. The order also directed all departments to appoint an officer to monitor compliance with the dress code guidelines. However, the bank's Talibani diktat sparked a social media storm, forcing the institution to withdraw the directive after just three days. How Bangladeshi netizens responded? Taking to social media, netizens pointed out the hypocrisy reeking from bank's order, with one X user noting how daughter of the bank's governor could wear anything she wishes while employees were being forced to dress 'professionally' under the clandestine Islamic agenda which is being promoted in the country. Several users compared the directive to those imposed by the Afghan Taliban regime. 'Rule of a vigilant dictator in the new Taliban era,' one user tweeted. Why Bangladesh Bank withdrew the order? Following the backlash, Bangladesh Bank withdrew the order on Thursday. 'The circular is purely an advisory. No compulsion has been imposed regarding wearing hijab or burqa,' the bank's spokesperson Arif Hussain Khan, said in a statement. Earlier, while speaking to the media, Fauzia Muslim, president of the Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, termed the move as 'unprecedented', alleging that 'a certain cultural environment is being shaped, and this directive reflects that effort.' Meanwhile, the Muhammad Yunus regime passed another controversial ordinance on late Wednesday which proposes action against employees protesting against the government.
