Sibal questions Dhankhar's 'inaction' after SC drops probe into Allahabad HC judge
NEW DELHI: Amid reports that the Supreme Court dropped its investigation against Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav following an intervention from the Rajya Sabha, Upper House MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has not taken any action on the notice seeking an impeachment motion against the judge.
Addressing media in the capital, Sibal, who is also a senior advocate and SCBA president, said the whole incident smacks of 'discrimination.' He alleged that the government is attempting to save the judge after he made 'entirely communal' remarks last year.
'On one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to the Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, which was not done in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma,' he said.
'Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him,' he said.
Speaking on the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Yadav of Allahabad HC on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same.
Speaking at a VHP event, he had stated that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'Bahusankhayak' (majority) and that the Uniform Civil Code would soon become a reality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
M.C. Davar's Behind-the-Scenes Role in Trying to Stop Partition
Excerpted with permission from He Almost Prevented Partition: The Life and Times of M.C. Davar (Speaking Tiger). Why the Shimla Conference failed is recorded by [then Viceroy Lord] Wavell: 'He (Jinnah ) refused even to discuss names unless he could be given the absolute right to select all Muslims and some guarantee that any decisions which the Muslims opposed in Council could only be passed by a two-thirds majority – in fact a communal veto. I said these conditions were entirely unacceptable.' Praveen Davar He Almost Prevented Partition: The Life and Times of M.C. Davar Speaking Tiger, 2025 Dr [M.C.] Davar, who was so passionately devoted to the prevention of Partition, made sure that he was present in Shimla for the entire duration of the Conference which lasted for almost 15 days in June-July 1945. While he was there, staying at the house of Sanjiva Roy, Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission, one day at 11 PM, he got a telephone call from Mrs Rajen Nehru asking him to reach the Grand Hotel. When Dr Davar reached within less than twenty minutes, he found her hotel room packed: it was full of a dozen frontline leaders of the Muslim League – all members of the League Working Committee. They included Khaliq-ur-Rahman, Mohd. Ismail and Abdul Majid Sindhi. Rajen Nehru wanted Davar to convey to Pt Nehru that these Muslim League members were prepared to resign from the working committee of their party if Jinnah remains adamant on his condition of having only Muslims from the League. On being asked by Davar why she couldn't speak to Jawaharlal herself being a close relative, Rajen replied that 'your work in this field is well known and you will be able to convince Panditji.' So under tremendous pressure from Rajen Nehru, Davar after speaking to the League leaders left for Armsdale, where Nehru was staying. When he reached there at almost twenty minutes past midnight, he found Dharam Yash Dev, a local personal assistant of Nehru's, waiting for Panditji to return from dinner at Mashobra from where he was, as per his habit, walking back. It was thirty minutes past midnight when Panditji reached, he asked Dharam the purpose of being awake so late. Dharam replied pointing towards Davar that 'Doctor Sahib's business seems to be more important.' Panditji then said: 'Davar, come in' while entering the house. But he could not find the switch to put on the light. Then Dharam Yash Dev came to his rescue and found the switch at the bottom of a wall while Nehru and Davar were trying to locate the switch on the middle of the wall. Davar narrates: 'Now Panditji said, 'sit down Davar.' We sat down on the sofa, and he asked what brought me here to which I replied 12 League members are at Grand Hotel and want to meet you… 'What for do they want to meet me? ' asked Panditji. I said: 'Jinnah is pressing for 5 seats as Liaqat Ali got in writing from Bhulabhai Desai that League will get 5, Congress 5 and others 3. Now Maulana Azad is demanding one seat for Nationalist Muslims as also the Unionist Party of Khizar Hayat Khan. So Jinnah is adamant…he wants all five Muslim seats…that is why this Conference seems to fail and that is why they want to meet you.' Then Panditji asked why should they not meet Maulana? (Davar narrated to Panditji details of his meeting with Azad five years ago at Kolkata wherein Maulana after great persuasion had agreed to bless his efforts for Congress-League unity but now seemed to be backing out.) But Panditji, though partially convinced, kept insisting that they must Maulana and that 'I will not interfere in Maulana's work.' (Despite Davar telling Nehru that Muslims of India had more faith in him than any leader, and these 12 League leaders were ready to ditch Jinnah provided he 'holds their hand ', Nehru refused to listen). [Davar says,] 'When I told him that I was the original author of the Liaqat-Desai formula, which actually is Davar -Sultan formula, Panditji remarked: 'Oh, then you are the person who has put us in trouble.' After I left I rang up Dharam Yash as I had left my umbrella there. Dharam told me Panditji had guessed it was your umbrella which is lying safely, but your discussion with him created a deep impression on him, and he kept asking me about you, though he appeared to know about your homoeopathic and revolutionary background.' Deeply disappointed, Davar left Simla in the morning, but before doing so dropped a line at Wavell's house telling the Viceroy about his meeting with Pt Nehru who did not agree to his suggestion of meeting the Muslim League members. He therefore concluded that the Simla Conference would fail. That it failed was not only due to Jinnah's intransigence, equally it was because of Wavell's lack of firmness. HV Hodson, who was the Reforms Commissioner in 1941-42, wrote in his memoirs, The Great Divide : 'Lord Wavell had in effect capitulated to Jinnah… Mr Jinnah's control of the Muslim League was at that time far from complete. The Unionist Party was still strong, and Mr Liaqat Ali Khan favoured a settlement. There were still many uncommitted Muslims in the country. It is arguable that if the Viceroy had been as adamant as Mr Jinnah, the latter would have been obliged to give in; that the destruction of the Unionist Party, which paved the way for partition of Punjab,would have averted.' But probably Wavell also could not forget so soon that it was the Congress which had challenged the Empire with the Quit India Movement during the period when he, as the Commander-in-Chief himself, had to bear the brunt, and hence he let Jinnah sabotage the Conference which would also please Churchill who was, naturally, in sympathy towards the 'enemy's enemy'. But within two weeks, Churchill's Conservative Party lost elections, displaying the maturity of the British electorate that victory in war was no passport to better governance in peace times. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
In CM Himanta Sarma's black and white ‘anti-foreigner' drive, how a 1950 law's greys fit in
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has said that his government has decided to bring into action a 1950 law to 'push back' into Bangladesh any people whom district commissioners in their respective areas 'prima facie find' to be foreigners, without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs). While doing so, he invoked a key Supreme Court judgment from October 2024, saying that the apex court 'empowered' the state to pursue this course of action. This announcement comes at a time when the state is already in the process of 'pushing back' people declared foreigners by FTs, having deported hundreds through an informal process in the past three weeks. The 1950 law that Sarma was referring to is the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act. A look at the extent to which it has been implemented in the past, where does it feature amidst the tangle of various citizenship processes in Assam, and what the Supreme Court said about it: The IEAA was a legislation drafted by the Centre – coming into effect on March 1, 1950 – following pressure from the Assam government at the time for measures to check migration from then East Pakistan in the years following Partition. Migration into the region was already a key political issue by then, as it is now, 75 years later. The Union government drafted the law as citizenship was a Central subject, and delegated powers to the state to expel 'undesirable' migrants – the legislation was originally even called the Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act. In the uncertain socio-political aftermath of Partition, the Act sought to distinguish between migrants and refugees, stating that it shall not apply to any person displaced 'on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan'. The Act added that if the Centre was of the opinion that the stay of any person in Assam – who was ordinarily resident of any place outside India and had come either before or after the commencement of the Act – 'is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', it could direct such a person to 'remove himself or themselves' from Assam or India 'within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' The IEAA said any officer of the Union government or Assam government could exercise this power. Its implementation turned out to be short-lived. In his book The Quest for Modern Assam, historian Arupjyoti Saikia wrote that at the same time as this Act was finalised, parts of Lower Assam saw rioting between Hindus and Muslims, with anywhere between 40,000 and 1 lakh Muslims from these areas fleeing to East Pakistan. The Act hence posed problems for many Bengali Muslims who originally were from Assam, Saikia wrote, adding. '… when an old resident was asked to leave his residence in an Upper Assam town within three days (of such an order being issued to the resident) Nehru was furious'. This incidentally also coincided with the pact signed between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Pakistani counterpart Liaquat Ali Khan to ensure the security and rights of minorities in the respective territories of Pakistan and India. On April 10, two days after the pact was signed, Nehru wrote to Assam Chief Minister Gopinath Bardoloi to stop all action under the IEAA, saying the Pakistani PM had also raised the Act in their talks. '… it would be most unwise to take any action under that Act (the IEAA) now. Our main purpose is to concentrate on getting full control (over) the situation in East and West Bengal and Assam and to remove the sense of fear from the minorities. Everything else should be subordinated to this. If we cannot succeed in this, then all kinds of other problems will overwhelm us,' Nehru wrote to Bordoloi. According to different accounts, the numbers of those affected by the IEAA remained a couple of hundred. In 1983, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act came into force, with its provisions stating that it would have overriding effects over the 1950 Act. The IMDT Act laid out the process of determination of the nationality of a suspected illegal immigrant through tribunals and, importantly, put the onus of proving the nationality or otherwise of the person concerned on the complainant. More than 20 years after the IMDT Act was passed, the IEAA saw a revival after the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional. In a 2005 judgment, the Court held that the IEAA, along with the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners' Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967 – all of which the IMDT Act had been given overriding powers over – 'shall apply to the state of Assam'. The Court also said that all pending cases in this regard be shifted to FTs operating on the lines of the Foreigners' Tribunal Order 1964, thus shifting the burden of proof to the accused. FTs are quasi-judicial bodies which determine whether a person presented before them – usually referred by the border police or if listed as 'D-voters' or 'Doubtful Voters' in electoral rolls – is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners have the option to appeal in the Gauhati High Court or the Supreme Court. In 1985, in line with the Assam Accord, the Citizenship Act had been amended to include Section 6A, which essentially established March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date after which anyone entering the state would be considered an 'illegal immigrant'. The constitutional validity of this was challenged in 2012, on the grounds that there could not be different cut-off dates for Indian citizenship in Assam and in the rest of India, for which it is July 1948. The petition also urged that 1951 be established as the cut-off date for inclusion in a National Register of Citizens to be prepared for Assam, instead of 1971. Hearing the plea, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman framed 13 questions on Section 6A for deliberation by a Constitutional Bench. One of these was on the IEAA. In 2024, the Constitutional Bench said that the petitioners' case was that, in the case of Assam, the IEEA should override the Foreigners' Act, 1946 – which ordinarily governs the entry, stay and departure of foreigners in India – and Section 6A, presuming a conflict between these legislations. The Court said that all these enactments can be read 'harmoniously'. By a 4-1 majority, the Court also upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 6A. But noting that the restriction of immigration post-1971 had 'not been given proper effect', issued a set of six directions, including: 'The provisions of the IEAA 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' As per CM Sarma, the Supreme Court order affirmed that the long-defunct IEAA remained in force and it empowered the state to 'push back' people that district commissioners 'prima facie find' to be illegal immigrants, without referring them to FTs for scrutiny and determination of the same. Senior Advocate at the Gauhati High Court and Congress member Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Chaudhury expressed the apprehension that the implementation of this would be 'arbitrary' and result in 'a large-scale law and order situation'. 'The 1950 Act had been introduced in an extraordinary situation to deal with a particular purpose. It also categorically mentions that the presence of the persons concerned should be found to be detrimental to the interests of the country. But there was still arbitrariness built in, and the FTs had been introduced to deal with the arbitrariness,' Chaudhary said. He added that citizenship in India was overall determined by the Citizenship Act. 'The 1950 Act continues to exist alongside all these frameworks and provisions… By interpreting things in this way, the CM is trying to bypass all legal procedures for the harassment of a particular community. These actions cannot be taken on a whim, they have to be through settled procedure,' the advocate said. Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Anas Tanwir also said that 'any expulsion without following the FT process would be contrary to law'. 'As the court states, these legislation are operating in different spheres. Because the court is saying that they can be read harmoniously doesn't mean that the Act can be used to the exclusion of existing processes and for expulsion,' he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Kerala open to revising new school timings after Samastha flags impact on 12 lakh madrassa students
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Left government in Kerala on Wednesday said it is open to discussion if any group faces difficulties following the announcement of new school timings for high schools in the state. The move comes after Muslim scholar and president of Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, Jifri Muthukoya Thangal, expressed concern that the revised schedule would affect madrassa education for around 12 lakh students. Thangal raised the issue at a function attended by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan . Samastha Kerala Jamiyyatthul ul-Ulama, known as Samastha, is an association of eminent Sunni scholars who enjoy the highest support base among Kerala Muslims. General Education Minister V Sivankutty, responding to the concerns, said the government is ready to listen and consider changes if needed. The revised timings, announced earlier in the day, extend the school day by 15 minutes in both the morning and evening sessions, except on Fridays. Under the new schedule, high school classes will run from 9.15 am to 4.15 pm. Talking to a news channel, Sivankutty said the government is under no compulsion on this matter. He said this was not framed by the Education Department on the basis of a government decision, but follows a court directive and a commission's decision. "Still, if any section faces difficulties due to the new timings, the government will hold discussions with them and put in place a system that does not cause difficulties to anyone," Sivankutty said. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
