MP High Court orders FIR against Vijay Shah
The Court described his remarks as 'disparaging,' 'dangerous,' and 'language of the gutters'-not merely targeting the officer in question but denigrating the armed forces as a whole.
It further observed that, prima facie, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are made out against the minister. "The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col Sofia Quraishi,' it said. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla held that a prima facie offence under Section 152 of the BNS, which criminalises any act that endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, was attracted in the instant case.
"Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feeling to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India," the bench noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
The HC prioritised the best interests of the boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing a child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances. Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years. A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding. Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care. Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent. The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody. Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Delayed clearing of drains could be behind gridlock
New Delhi: An intense spell of rain lashed the capital on Wednesday morning, triggering waterlogging on key roads. While some places held up — notably the flood-prone Minto Bridge near Connaught Place — several others were submerged, raising questions about monsoon preparedness. PWD sources reported water accumulation near Prahladpur, Laxmi Nagar, Mundka, Anand Parbat, Moti Nagar, and Loni Road. Social media videos filled in the gaps from other places. In one, former CM Atishi shared visuals of knee-deep water at the Municipal Girls' School in Tikri Kalan, captioning them: "BJP's four-engine govt should be ashamed. Water has entered up to knee level in the Nagar Nigam Girls' School in Tikri Kalan, but BJP doesn't care. " However, an MCD official argued that water collected inside the school because of the lack of drainage on the road and PWD carrying out infrastructure work there. "We have made a temporary slope with soil stacks to ensure water won't get inside the complex again. However, there is a desperate need for making permanent arrangements," the official added. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Other visuals showed a man swimming in a waterlogged stretch in Vinod Nagar, a woman boating in east Delhi\ and an AAP supporter rowing an inflatable tub — all underscoring localised failures in drainage. This comes despite official claims of having unclogged the stormwater drains. According to a July 9 progress report, 1,892km of Delhi's 2,158km of PWD-maintained drains were cleaned for an 88.5% completion rate, with 12,587 tonnes of silt removed. The final target date for completion of desilting was July 31. But zone-wise data reveals sharp disparities. The east zone reported 100% desilting, south zone was nearly done, and the north zone lagged—with 9 of 13 projects yet to reach even 90% completion on July 9. PWD officials on Wednesday claimed that overall completion was 93%, with pumps deployed in flood-prone areas to ensure smoother drainage. "Slip roads in certain parts are now being tackled. Zone-wise, west Delhi is where the gap still exists," said an official. With barely a week left before the desilting deadline, the big question remains: Will the remaining 7% make a difference or will some parts of the city continue to flounder every time it rains? As far as MCD drains are concerned, a recent claim by the corporation of clearing 1,70,620 tonnes of silt between Jan 1 and June 30, surpassing its target of 1,26,474 tonnes, still led to internal roads in the city reporting waterlogging on Wednesday. Residents in various localities in east Delhi, including Vinod Nagar, Pandav Nagar and Chander Nagar, complained about inundation on internal lanes. In south Delhi, Sangam Vihar, Badarpur, and Sainik Farms faced similar problems, while in central Delhi, Sadar Bazar and neighbouring areas reported water accumulation, albeit for a limited time. "In north Delhi's Kamla Nagar area, it didn't rain heavily on Wednesday, but on Monday and Tuesday, the lanes in the main market were flooded with rainwater," said Nitin Gupta, member, Kamla Nagar Traders' Association.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation blocked by federal judge in blow to Trump Administration
A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining or deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 22-year-old immigrant who was previously deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order. The ruling comes amid growing legal and political tensions over Abrego Garcia's case, which has become a flashpoint in debates over US immigration enforcement. US District Judge Paula Xinis issued the order on Wednesday, barring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from taking Abrego Garcia into custody if he is released from jail in Tennessee, where he is awaiting trial on human smuggling charges. She also mandated that the US government give three business days' notice before initiating any new deportation proceedings against him. Judge Xinis further ordered that Abrego Garcia's previous federal supervision status be reinstated — a condition that had allowed him to live and work legally in Maryland for several years while reporting regularly to immigration officials. That status was abruptly revoked when he was deported to El Salvador in March, despite a 2019 immigration judge's ruling that protected him from being returned to that country due to potential gang-related threats. 'Defendants have done little to assure the Court that absent intervention, Abrego Garcia's due process rights will be protected,' Xinis wrote in her ruling. The human smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, where Abrego Garcia was found driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Authorities suspected smuggling but allowed him to continue driving. He was later charged, and his defense attorneys are now seeking his release from jail pending trial — but only on the condition that he won't be immediately detained or deported by ICE. On Wednesday, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw ruled that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release under specific conditions that would address concerns about flight risk and public safety. However, his legal team has asked the court to delay that release until further protections are in place. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, who had previously supported his release, signed an order postponing it for 30 more days. Abrego Garcia became a symbol of what critics say are overreaches of the Trump administration's immigration policies after he was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March. His American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is now suing the Trump administration in Maryland court, seeking to block another deportation and to hold federal officials accountable for violating a 2019 court ruling that protected him from removal to El Salvador. US authorities argue that Abrego Garcia, who entered the US illegally in 2011, remains eligible for deportation based on a separate 2019 ruling — but they insist they won't send him back to El Salvador. Instead, they've suggested deporting him to a third country such as Mexico or South Sudan, citing alleged ties to the MS-13 gang — a claim his legal team strongly disputes. The court has not yet ruled on the legality of his original deportation, but the Maryland judge's order represents a significant rebuke of the administration's handling of the case and signals deeper scrutiny into the broader enforcement practices under Trump-era policies.
