In Pics: President Murmu Confers 6 Kirti Chakras, 33 Shaurya Chakras
President Droupadi Murmu on Thursday conferred six Kirti Chakras, including four posthumously, to personnel of the Army and Jammu and Kashmir Police for displaying indomitable courage and extraordinary valour in the line of duty.
Kirti Chakra is India's second-highest peacetime gallantry award. Col Manpreet Singh of the Sikh Light Infantry, two other army personnel from the Rashtriya Rifles and a Jammu and Kashmir Police officer have been conferred the Kirti Chakra posthumously, according to the list of awardees.
President Murmu, who is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, also presented 33 Shaurya Chakras, including seven posthumously, to the personnel of the armed forces, Central Armed Police Forces and state/Union Territory police.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Countries we visited wanted to know Trump's role (in ceasefire) … Our sense is no one took the claims seriously': Sanjay Jha
The panel of MPs that visited Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to articulate India's stand on the Pahalgam terror attack and its aftermath returned to India late Tuesday night. JD(U) working president and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Jha who led the panel speaks about the matters raised at the meetings with the representatives of these countries and what their response was. Excerpts: What was the experience of your five-nation tour on behalf of the government? It was a great experience. Because it was a multi-party delegation, there was a very warm welcome wherever we went. People appreciated that MPs coming from the length and breadth of the country and cutting across party lines were putting forth the nation's stand on terrorism and India's right to defend itself. Representatives of some of these countries would even joke about our otherwise adversarial engagements in Parliament. But they appreciated that the delegation was carrying the message of 140 crore Indians speaking together on this issue. When we were talking about how the Indian economy had become the fourth-largest in one of the meetings, the Japanese ambassador even joked that we were talking about surpassing his country. What did you articulate on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? Pakistan was completely exposed as a propagator of cross-border terrorism. In all our meetings, we would recite Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir's statement on Kashmir before the Pahalgam attack. We underlined how an Army chief was speaking in such a radicalised manner. Then we talked about The Resistance Force (TRF) and it claiming responsibility for the (Pahalgam) attack. We showed evidence of its links with Pakistan. We flagged how Pakistan got a UN reference of the TRF withdrawn, highlighting its links with the organisation. We also spoke about Pakistan's involvement in the 26/11 attacks and all the evidence Ajmal Qasab's capture produced. We also spoke about Pakistan being on the grey list of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) between 2018 and 2022, and sought support from the country representatives to put it back on the list at the next FATF meeting. We told them not to compare India and Pakistan as the latter is a sponsor of terrorism. We told them to keep in perspective where we stand on democracy and economy and where Pakistan is, a nation run by the Army. What was the response from these countries? There was universal condemnation of terrorism wherever we went. Country representatives also expressed sympathy for India on the fact that it had suffered terror for so long. Interestingly, no one questioned our calibrated response to the Pahalgam terror attack. No one asked why we struck inside Pakistan. It conveyed their understanding that we have the right to defend ourselves. They were more interested in knowing how we conducted Operation Sindoor with such precision. How did the Muslim-majority countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, respond? In Indonesia and Malaysia, we told country representatives that Pakistan keeps bringing resolutions against India in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meetings. Since we are not part of the OIC, we told them to consider our point of view as well before entertaining such resolutions. Indonesia agreed. But Malaysia did not make any commitment. We also felt a tilt towards Pakistan in Malaysia. Did the countries you visited have any questions to ask? Their questions ranged from nuclear conflict precipitation and how the ceasefire was achieved to concerns about tourism in India in the wake of the Pahalgam attack. On the ceasefire, they wanted to know US President Donald Trump's role. We told them whenever a conflict happens anywhere in the world, countries make phone calls. It does not mean they mediate peace. We told them that during the Russia-Ukraine conflict even PM Narendra Modi spoke to leaders in both countries. It did not necessarily mean he was mediating in their affairs. Our sense from the conversations was that people had not taken Trump's claims very seriously. We gave them evidence of how the first call for a ceasefire was made by Pakistan. Indonesia and Malaysia had questions on whether tourism in India was safe. We told them India is a huge country, and people were still coming in droves, even to Pahalgam. Country representatives also had questions on the Indus Waters Treaty. We told them water and blood cannot flow together and that the preamble of the treaty mentioned 'friendship and cooperation', which was not there anymore. But, largely we argued that in the last few years India had requested to renegotiate the treaty due to climate change, demographic change, etc, but Pakistan was not responding. We also said that if Pakistan stops terrorism, the treaty can be looked at positively. There were questions on the escalation breaching the nuclear threshold. We told them our response never factored in reaching the nuclear threshold. We told them we have a no-first-use policy. But we made it clear that we would not tolerate Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. We also conveyed India's new normal of treating every terrorist attack as an act of war. How did the panel spend its free time? There was no free time. We were packed from 9 am to 9 pm. Sometimes we caught late-night flights and had morning meetings in another country. We met members of parliament, think tank representatives, ambassadors of different countries and the Indian diaspora, apart from media interactions.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Right to freedom of speech does not extend to defamatory statements against Indian Army: HC dismisses Rahul Gandhi's plea
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has recently held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army. The high court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who had challenged summons by a local court in connection with a case related to his alleged remarks on the Indian Army. A single judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order rejecting Rahul Gandhi's petition. 'No doubt, Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the high court observed in its June 2 order. It may be pointed out that additional chief judicial magistrate Alok Verma, Lucknow court, had directed Rahul Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24, 2025, in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi had challenged the additional CJM's order passed on February 11, 2025, in the high court. Advocate Vivek Tewari had filed the complaint on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army colonel. The complaint against Rahul Gandhi alleges that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022, he made a derogatory statement about a face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers. This statement, according to the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, was derogatory towards the Army and hurt the sentiments of the armed forces. 'In my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out,' the high court observed. 'No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant (Rahul Gandhi) are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches,' the high court observed. Additional advocate general Vinod Kumar Shahi opposed Rahul Gandhi's petition on behalf of the state government. The case will now proceed in the lower court where Rahul Gandhi will have to appear as an accused, said Shahi. The court's decision has significant implications for Rahul Gandhi, as he will have to defend himself against the allegations in the local court, added Shahi. 'Irresponsible statement of Rahul Gandhi has lowered the prestige of the Indian Army,' Shahi argued in court. .
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Rahul Gandhi must face trial over 'derogatory' Army remarks during Bharat Jodo Yatra: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case stemming from his Bharat Jodo Yatra remarks about the Army. LUCKNOW: Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench has dismissed Congress MP Rahul Gandhi 's plea challenging a summons in a defamation case linked to his remarks about the Army during his Bharat Jodo Yatra held between Sept 2022 and Jan 2023. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled on May 29 that Gandhi must stand trial, observing a prima facie case exists against him. 'Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not include the freedom to make statements defamatory to any person or to the Indian Army,' the court said. The case was filed by retired BRO director Udai Shanker Srivastava, who alleged Gandhi made derogatory comments in Lucknow on Dec 16, 2022, days after a face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. Gandhi had said, 'People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra... but they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2,000 sqkm of Indian land, killing 20 Indian soldiers, and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh... Don't pretend people don't know.' Srivastava called the remarks 'false and baseless', made with an 'evil intention of demoralising the Indian Army and damaging public faith'. He cited the Army's official Dec 12 statement, which described the Dec 9 clash in Arunachal as involving 'minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sutton Coldfield: If You Were Born Between 1940-1975 You Could Be Eligible For This Life Cover Reassured Get Quote Undo On Feb 11 this year, a Lucknow magistrate had summoned Gandhi under Section 500 (defamation) of IPC, saying his comments were not made in discharge of official duty and could demoralise armed forces. Gandhi's lawyer Pranshu Agarwal said in high court the case was politically driven and Srivastava lacked standing under Section 199 CrPC, as the Army—not the petitioner—was the target. Justice Vidyarthi rejected the claim, saying Srivastava was an 'aggrieved person' under the law. The judge said the lower court's summons was based on a 'judicious application of mind' after reviewing complaint details and witness statements, not issued mechanically.
