Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the matter.It asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier order.On May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against him.Shah came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Sindoor.The Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and hatred.After drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi govt files review plea in SC against blanket ban on ELVs
New Delhi: Delhi govt on Friday filed a review application in the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration of the 2018 blanket ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years in Delhi-NCR. Environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said the matter is listed for Monday. The application requests the apex court to direct the Central govt or the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM) to conduct a comprehensive scientific study evaluating the actual environmental benefits of the age-based ban. It also seeks assessment of the feasibility and fairness of a blanket restriction across vehicle categories and technologies, and whether the policy meaningfully contributes to air quality improvement in the NCR, compared to targeted emission-based measures. Delhi govt argued that the current system enforces collective compliance without individual assessment of pollution levels or roadworthiness. "This approach does not align with the objective of reducing pollution," the application stated, adding that the directive disproportionately affects middle-class citizens whose vehicles may be less used, well-maintained, and compliant with emission norms. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi The 2015 National Green Tribunal order banning such vehicles was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, Delhi govt now contends that the landscape has changed significantly with the introduction of Bharat Stage-VI emission standards from April 1, 2020. It noted that as of July 24, 2025, Delhi has 2.8 million BS-IV and an almost equal number of BS-VI registered vehicles. "If the 2018 order continues, roadworthy, non-polluting BS-VI vehicles may be forced off the roads in a few years without scientific justification," the petition added. It questioned the rationale behind taking even BS-IV vehicles—meeting Pollution Under Control (PUC) norms—off the roads, asserting that such decisions must be based on updated, data-driven evaluations. The application pointed out that countries like Japan, the US, and those in the EU do not impose blanket bans based solely on vehicle age. Instead, they follow nuanced, sustainable policies that assess actual emissions and focus on roadworthiness through regular testing. Delhi's review petition, settled by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, stressed the need for a "graded, balanced and technology-driven regime" to tackle vehicular pollution. It urged for a scientific framework that accounts for individual vehicle emission data rather than broad age-based criteria. The CAQM's July 1 order denying fuel to end-of-life vehicles sparked public backlash, prompting Sirsa to request a pause in its implementation. Lieutenant governor VK Saxena later advised govt to approach the Supreme Court for a review. Following this, CAQM deferred the fuel-denial order to November 1 in high-density NCR districts and to April 1, 2026, for the rest of the region. Govt highlighted that other major pollution sources—like stubble burning, construction dust, and industrial emissions—also need to be considered. Its strict enforcement of PUC norms led to over 1.63 lakh challans in 2025 so far, up from 29,589 in 2021. It said the good AQI days increased from 159 in 2018 to 209 in 2024. Till July this year, there have been 106 such days. The robust implementation of Graded Response Plan has contributed to reducing pollution in the national capital, it said.
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
Kargil Vijay Diwas Today: From 1999 To Op Sindoor, Indian Army Has Come A Long Way
Last Updated: While the 1999 battle was challenging, with the Army often relying on less sophisticated weapons, OP Sindoor launched recently showcased a transformed force As dawn breaks over the rugged peaks of the Kargil sector, India pauses to remember and honour the bravehearts who reclaimed its sovereignty 26 years ago. On the 26th Kargil Vijay Diwas, the legacy of valour and sacrifice is not only a tale of the past but vibrantly alive, reinforced by recent events such as Operation Sindoor. India has come a long way in the past 26 years. The Battle of Kargil in 1999 was unlike any conflict India had fought before. Pakistani troops and militants, exploiting the treacherous terrain and frigid altitudes, infiltrated key positions in the Dras sector of Kargil. The Indian Army launched Operation Vijay, a daring campaign, in one of the world's most unforgiving battlefields. Peaks like Tololing, Tiger Hill, Gun Hill, and Batra Top became household names. The Battle of Kargil The Battle of Kargil came at a steep human cost. More than 500 Indian soldiers were martyred, and over 1,300 were injured. The nation still reverberates with the stories of sacrifices made by officers and jawans, such as Captain Vikram Batra and Lieutenant Manoj Pandey. Pakistani casualties remain disputed, but estimates suggest they lost several hundred soldiers and did not officially accept many casualties. Despite limited technological support and under extreme conditions, Indian soldiers kept fighting the war that lasted over two months. It culminated in a decisive victory on July 26, 1999, now commemorated as Kargil Vijay Diwas. Significance This Year This year, the significance of Kargil Vijay Diwas deepens in light of Operation Sindoor. Launched in the wake of a devastating terror attack, Operation Sindoor saw the Indian Armed Forces unleash a precise, multi-domain offensive against terror infrastructure, not only in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir but also deep inside Pakistan itself. Pakistan attempted to strike military and civilian infrastructure along the northern and western borders but failed miserably and requested a ceasefire. In Dras, drones were sighted, prompting additional air defence deployments. In fact, short-range artillery guns engaged most of these drones. Then and now While the 1999 battle was challenging, with the Army often relying on less sophisticated weapons and lacking seamless integration across services, Operation Sindoor launched recently showcased a transformed force. During the Kargil War, the Indian Army leveraged the Bofors FH-77B howitzer to devastating effect, using its precision and range to dislodge adversaries from mountain outposts. Infantry units relied on the INSAS rifles, LMGs, SLRs, and support weapons such as the Carl Gustav rocket launcher. MiG-21s and Mirage 2000 fighter jets of the Indian Air Force provided vital aerial cover and precision bombing, especially during the recapture of strategic positions like Tiger Hill. Despite major logistical constraints and sometimes limited surveillance and night-vision capability, the tenacity and innovation of Indian soldiers overcame the odds. The Indian Army is technologically advanced today. From indigenous communication handsets to cutting-edge artillery and missile defense systems, the force is better equipped for modern warfare. The Army's arsenal reflects a leap in capability and modernisation. Indigenously developed platforms like the Dhanush and ATAGS (Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System) howitzers (to be inducted soon) have replaced legacy artillery, providing greater range and accuracy. Infantry is now equipped with modern assault rifles such as the SIG716, AK-203, and protected by advanced body armor and helmets. Surveillance has dramatically improved with long-range drone systems, while integrated battlefield management systems facilitate seamless communication. The air defense is bolstered with indigenous Akash and imported S-400 missile systems, drastically improving the ability to intercept aerial and drone threats. Integration across the Army, Navy, and Air Force has enabled multi-domain operations. The armed forces now train for hybrid conflict, counter-drone operations, and information warfare, cementing their place among the world's most professional militaries. 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 : 1999 kargil war india Pakistan kargil Kargil Vijay Diwas news18 specials Operation Sindoor view comments Location : Ladakh, India, India First Published: July 26, 2025, 06:00 IST News india Kargil Vijay Diwas Today: From 1999 To Op Sindoor, Indian Army Has Come A Long Way 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.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Third US Court Halts Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal." New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was "thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere." "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history," he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen." Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be "tailored to the States' purported financial injuries." Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. "That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes," the judge wrote. "In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic." Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration "are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," Sorokin wrote. "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional." The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is "enshrined in the Constitution," and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a "flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage." They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to "provide essential services" — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to "early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities." At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement.
