Sambhal temple-mosque row: Court sets August 21 to hear case
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can't give nod ‘every now and then': Court rejects Navlakha's plea to travel to Delhi
A special court rejected a plea filed by activist Gautam Navlakha, arrested in the Elgaar Parishad case, to stay in Delhi for 45 days to visit his 86-year-old sister and for other purposes. In his plea, Navlakha sought permission to stay in Delhi from July 15 to August 30, citing that he had been similarly permitted in November 2024 and had abided with all conditions. Rejecting the plea, the court stated that being allowed to travel and stay once in Delhi, does not mean that 'every now and then', he will be granted permission. Navlakha, a Delhi resident, was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in December 2023, with one of the conditions being that he cannot leave the jurisdiction of the trial court in Mumbai without its permission. In April this year, the 72-year-old Navlakha cited living expenses and increasing finances in Mumbai to seek permission to shift to Delhi, pending trial, which the special court had rejected, stating that the high court set conditions did not permit it. The trial in the case is yet to begin, seven years after the first arrests in 2018. In the latest plea, he submitted that he wants to travel as his sister cannot come to Mumbai due to her health condition. He also submitted that he wants to meet his partner's children and grandchildren who are visiting in August, whom he has not met since his arrest in 2020. He also submitted that he wants to visit his doctor and take care of domestic affairs. Special judge C S Baviskar said that the High Court had in its 'magnanimous humanity', granted permission to Navlakha to travel but with the permission of the trial court. 'While imposing such conditions, the Hon'ble High Court axiomatically expected the accused not to go beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, save for exceptional and extraordinary circumstance and that too, only after prior permission of the trial court ie. this court,' the court said, in its order on July 30, made available this week. The special court said that Navlakha in moving a plea previously rejected, to shift to Delhi had shown 'utter disregard towards intention and objective of the Hon'ble High Court' and called his plea to seek permission now to stay in Delhi for 45 days, a 'trick'. 'Now, perhaps to give go by to the intention and directions of the Hon'ble High Court as above, the applicant/accused ingeniously has found out the trick of moving such application after application with the same prayer on the same grounds to facilitate him to reside at Delhi. It is not at all expected,' the court said.
The Wire
10 minutes ago
- The Wire
Modi Govt Responsible for 'Return of Cross-Border Militancy': J&K Human Rights Forum
The forum notes in its report that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability. New Delhi: The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir (FHRJK) – an informal group of concerned citizens that includes the likes of former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai, former Supreme Court judges Madan Lokur and Ruma Pal, former chief justice of Delhi and Madras high court A.P. Shah, and former member of group of interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir Radha Kumar – in its recently released report has placed the blame entirely on the Narendra Modi government for the 'return of cross-border militancy' in Kashmir. 'The Union Home Ministry's policy of placing non-State officers ('outsiders') to helm civilian security and governance' and 'jettisoning of experienced local officers' that followed as a result of the Narendra Modi government's unilateral decision to reorganise Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory and concentrate power in its own hands 'entailed a paucity of intelligence from the ground and contributed to the security lapses that allowed cross-border militancy to return to the Pir Panjal and Chenab valley areas of Jammu from 2020-2021 on, and then allowed it to spread to Kashmir…,' the report states. 'It contributed, too, to the failure to prevent the Pahalgam terrorist attack,' it adds. The 2025 report is the sixth annual report released by the FHRJK, which was formed after the Union government diluted Article 370 and reorganised Jammu and Kashmir. Compiled on the basis of government sources, media accounts, NGO fact-finding reports, interviews and information gathered through legal petitions, the report notes that in spite of the assembly elections in September-October 2024, the people of the union territory continue to feel disempowered. It says that the Transaction of Business Rules issued by the Union home ministry on July 12, 2024, months ahead of the assembly elections, ensured that the Union government retained most of the administrative powers in J&K through the Lieutenant-Governor and held control over 'civil servants, the police, the Attorney-General, and prosecutorial services'. The report states that the extent of the Union government's control could be gauged from the fact that soon after the Omar Abdullah government came to power with a comprehensive majority, the L-G returned his proposal for 'allocation of portfolios to Ministers and establishment of a mechanism to resolve difference of opinion between the elected and centrally appointed administrations, with queries as to whether it was in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019.' It further notes that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, as despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability, the police investigators hastily announced the involvement of two Kashmiris in the attack, only to retract later. However, in the meantime, the evidence-less declaration resulted in a pan-India backlash against Kashmiris, the report says. 'Allegedly, over 2,800 people have been detained or summoned for questioning and over 100 have been arrested under the draconian Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). There are daily cordon and search operations as well as raids; continuing purges of local officers; intimidation of the media, and other scantily verified or unjustified harassments detailed in this report's section on civilian security,' the report says, adding that 'the post-Pahalgam environment, which was widely conducive to the re-establishment of peace building initiatives, is thus already being vitiated.' The report goes on to recommend that such 'vitiation of civil and political rights, including oversight institutions' can be contained only by granting the promised statehood to the union territory. Yet, there are still no signs by the Modi government of 'fulfilling its promise', even after several MPs demanding restoration of statehood in J&K in the run-up to the monsoon session of the parliament. The forum has demanded a rollback of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and an immediate discussion between Ladakhi representatives and the Union government on demands of Ladakh's statehood and its incorporation in the Sixth Schedule, too. Pahalgam security lapse The report found that there was 'a major security lapse by the Lieutenant-Governor's administration and the Union Home Ministry' in the case of Pahalgam terror attack. The report confirmed that intelligence warning of an attack was 'received in actionable time' but the security reviews were both 'feeble and incompetent'. A Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) picket close to the Baisaran meadow, where the attack took place, was removed in January, 2025, the report notes, and was not reinstated even after intelligence inputs about a possible attack. Further, the FHRJK found that 'the responsibility of Union home minister Amit Shah remains to be acknowledged' as he 'personally supervised repeated security reviews following the intelligence that an attack was being planned'. The report also holds the Union gvoernment accountable for not preventing a backlash against Kashmiris in various parts of India and allowing hate speech and hateful actions against them in the aftermath of Pahalgam terror attack. The FHRJK expressed concern about Pakistani military response to 'Operation Sindoor' that it thought 'revealed a new level of China-Pakistan defence cooperation' that included not only supply of arms but also 'onsite guidance by Chinese military-strategic personnel'. This, the report says, deviates from China's earlier stance of non-involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict, and can add to India's challenges in the context of 'China's encroachments in Ladakh'. Despite the Union government increasing expenditure on security in J&K, amounting to Rs 1347.79 crores, the FHRJK believes that merely enhancing security measures could be ineffective as the Pahalgam incident showed. '...the immediate and past lessons of counterinsurgency are being ignored. As our own experience has repeatedly shown, armed attacks dwindle only when the local people and their elected representatives are involved in peace building on the ground, and when security forces are seen to adhere to the human rights guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997, which were included in the Indian Army's 'List of Dos and Don'ts' under the Armed Forces (Special Protection) Act,' the report says. Apart from pressing for restoration of statehood for J&K and Ladakh, the FHRJK recommended opening a dialogue between parliamentarians and members of legislative assembly on the special status of J&K and reinstating J&K's oversight commissions like the Human Rights Commission, the Women's Commission, the Accountability Commission and the Information Commission which were shut down after Article 370 was hollowed out. The FHRJK is chaired by former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai and former member of group of interlocutors Radha Kumar, and its members are: Justice Ruma Pal, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice Madan Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts Justice Bilal Nazki, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court Justice Hasnain Masoodi, former judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Justice Anjana Prakash, former judge of the Patna High Court Probir Sen, former Secretary-General, National Human Rights Commission Amitabha Pande, former Secretary, Inter-State Council, Government of India Moosa Raza, former Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Shantha Sinha, former chairperson, National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights Major-General Ashok Mehta (retd) Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak (retd) Lieutenant-General H S Panag (retd) Colonel Yoginder Kandhari (retd) Enakshi Ganguly, Co-founder and former Co-director, HAQ Centre for Child Rights Ramachandra Guha, writer and historian Anand Sahay, columnist Shivani Sanghvi, lawyer Abhishek Babbar, lawyer The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court reserves judgment on Telangana's domicile policy for medical admissions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 05) categorically said it has no intention to open a Pandora's Box while questioning the domicile policy of Telangana government for medical admissions. The Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, required students to complete classes 9 to 12 in the State to be eligible for admissions to medical and dental colleges under the State quota. The High Court, in a decision last year, had found the rule arbitrary. It had reasoned that the rule excluded students who had left the State, even for a couple of years, to attend preparatory courses ahead of the medical exams, but whose parents were permanently domiciled in the State, from admissions under the State quota. During the hearing of the State's appeal on Tuesday, a Bench of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Vinod Chandran also focussed on the same aspect, which the High Court had found anomalous in the State domicile policy. 'If students otherwise domiciled in Telangana or whose parents are domiciled in the State choose to study for four years from Class 9 to Class 12 outside Telangana for one or the other reason, may be due to the transfer of a parent, will they not be eligible? You are telling students not to go out of Telangana? We are not opening any Pandora's Box… We will consider the jurisprudence, but at times you will have to consider the ground reality,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate A. M. Singhvi and advocate Sravan Kumar, appearing for Telangana, in a hearing which took the whole morning before reserving the case for orders. The State argued that it possessed the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. 'But take a student, born and raised in Telangana, who shifts outside after Class 10 to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer whose child studies outside the State for two years. Should such children be disqualified?' the CJI asked. Justice Chandran intervened to ask, 'if a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study does not. Is that not an anomaly?' Mr. Singhvi said the High Court created the term 'permanent resident,' which only the State had the authority to define. 'There may be students who go for a two-year study course, after Class 10, to London or the U.S. or even Delhi and Mumbai… They plan to return to Telangana, do their medical course and start a big hospital in the State. Would you be denying them the chance because their parents may be affluent and can send their children abroad?' Chief Justice Gavai asked. Mr. Singhvi said he was not judging them, but asked why the State should reserve seats for such people under the State quota when they could apply under the NRI quota. He said there were hundreds of poor students waiting for seats in medical colleges. 'Besides, a person who goes out, may not come back. He may see more opportunities abroad,' Mr. Singhvi submitted.
