Uttarakhand Cabinet approval to bill amending anti-conversion law makes it far more stringent
The first amendment was made in 2022 when Pushkar Singh Dhami assumed office as chief minister for a second consecutive term.
The second amendment legislation approved by the state cabinet on Wednesday provides for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh for forced conversion.
The maximum prison term for the offence in Uttarakhand at present is 10 years, and the highest fine is Rs 50,000.
The new bill proposes to raise the jail term for such offences to 14 or 20 years and can be extended to even life imprisonment depending upon the gravity of a case.
The state government is preparing to bring the legislation during the monsoon session of the state assembly scheduled to commence on August 19, sources said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cabinet okays bill that seeks to ban ‘online money game'
NEW DELHI: Cabinet on Tuesday approved a bill that seeks to ban "online money game", where users pay a fee or deposit money, proposing a maximum three years in jail or fine of up to Rs 1 crore for those involved in offering, encouraging or inducing players to participate, which also extends to banks facilitating these transactions. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the same time, Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, which will be introduced in Lok Sabha on Wednesday, seeks to promote e-sports and online social games where no money is involved. A regulator body is planned to oversee the functioning of the sector, sources told TOI. The proposed legislation defines "online money game" as an online game played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes in expectation of winning. 2 years' jail, ₹50L fine likely for those advertising online games Online social games have been defined as those that don't involve exchange of money, although users may be allowed to pay a subscription or one-time access fee. Govt has proposed the new law considering unregulated online money gaming platforms pose threats to national and economic security as they use digital wallets and cryptocurrencies for money laundering and illicit money transfer, cross-border data flows without compliance of data protection law, sources said. Moreover, offshore entities are seen to be circumventing tax and legal obligations. The proposed legislation also assumes significance as online money gaming poses serious concerns, including addiction among children and youth, mental health issues, financial losses leading to suicides and lack of uniform regulation across states. Law enforcing agencies face problems in tracking and regulating these platforms, particularly those hosted or operated from outside India. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Sources said the govt proposes penalties of up to two years in jail or with a maximum fine of Rs 50 lakh or both for any entity advertising such games in media. For those offering online money games and banks engaged in transactions face violations of the proposed law will be "cognisable and non-bailable" offences. Every subsequent violation after conviction would attract penalties of at least three years' jail and fine of Rs 10-20 lakh. In the case of advertisers, such penalties would be 2-3 years in jail and fine of Rs 5-10 lakh. The bill proposes to hold senior executives of the companies liable, if it's established that the offences have been committed with the consent or connivance or due to their neglect. It also proposes blocking of platforms and money gaming services, if the entities or individuals fail to comply with the law. According to the proposal, the bill seeks to encourage Indian startups to build culturally relevant content, reduce dependence on foreign platforms and promote self-reliance in the digital gaming ecosystem.
The Print
42 minutes ago
- The Print
A Sena minister & a Maratha family that ‘sided with colonial powers'—the Rs 5,000 crore CIDCO land ‘scam'
The plot in Navi Mumbai is currently valued at Rs 5,000 crore and it was reserved for housing for the poor but Shirsat allegedly gave away this land parcel to the Bivalkar family, according to the NCP (SP) MLA. Rohit Pawar of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) has accused him of bypassing the rules and handing about 15 acre of land of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to the heirs of a Bivalkar family, who have been holding this land parcel for over two centuries. Mumbai: Controversial minister Sanjay Shirsat from the Shiv Sena has once again found himself at the centre of a controversy in Maharashtra, this time battling allegations of a land 'scam'. The land parcel is under litigation for years, as the Bombay High Court in 2014 had accepted the ownership of Bivalkar family and directed the CIDCO to furnish the compensation, only to have the decision stayed in the Supreme Court. The Maharashtra government-owned CIDCO is known as a premier town planning and development agency. Shirsat became the CIDCO chairman in 2024. Originally from Ratnagiri and now settled in Pune, the Bivalkar family is said to have been given around 4,000 acres of land in Kolaba (now Raigad) by Raghuji Angre, who controlled the erstwhile state of Kolaba, in 1816 in lieu of its services. The family, according to Pawar, received the land parcel for helping the British against the Maratha empire. 'The family tried to get the land allotted to them but despite repeated attempts, the family's claims were rejected. Yet, Shirsat Saheb, ignoring all norms, handed over 15 acres back to them,' Pawar told the media. 'The rightful share of the poor has been gifted to the heirs of those who once sided with colonial powers. We demand that this land, which is illegally being given to the family, should be taken back by the government and also request the government to take the resignation of Shirsat.' Last month, the social justice minister was earlier in the news after a widely-shared video showed him purportedly sitting on a bed and smoking while a bag full of currency lies near him. ThePrint reached Shirsat for comment via phone calls. This report will be updated if and when a response is received. CIDCO PRO Priya Ratambe refused to comment on the allegations brought against CIDCO and the minister. Also Read: Malegaon ruling, 'Sanatani terror'—Mahayuti, MVA draw battlelines in Maharashtra The legal quagmire Yashwant Bivalkar, who dragged the CIDCO to the court over compensation for a 157-acre parcel, had petitioned that his great-great-grandfather was a minister in Angre's state, which came to prominence when its then ruler Kanhoji Angre led the Maratha navy against the Europeans in the 1700s. Kolaba was annexed by the British in 1840, but the land stayed with the Bivalkars even post-Independence. In fact, it held the properties even after the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act was enacted 1 August 1953. Later, according to an agreement dated 21 January 1959, and gazette on 21 October 1959, between the Colaba collector and the Bivalkars under the Indian Forest Act, the management of 'private forest lands' was handed over to the forest department, as 'reserved forest', on certain terms and conditions. The ownership was never divested even then. In 1960, the Bivalkars saved their property by bringing their property under the ambit of the Bombay Court of Wards Act. On 3 February 1970, a notification was brought out under the Land Acquisition Act, announcing that land is likely to be needed for the planned development and utilisation of the land in the trans harbour, Panvel and trans Thane Creek area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Three years on, the Maharashtra government directed that the land cease to be 'protected forest' from the date of the notification, facilitating its transfer to the CIDCO for the planned development of the area. For this purpose, about 150 acres of land was to be used. In 1985, the Bivalkars contended that they should get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and not the Forest Act. Four years later, their ownership was upheld, but compensation was granted under the Forest Act for 157 acre of land. Yashwant's mother Indirabai Bivalkar challenged the order in the Bombay High Court seeking compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Since then the land is entangled in legal matters. According to the HC, the Bivalkar family's ownership was not questioned till 2010. On 17 September 2010, the CIDCO filed a petition to hold and declare that Bivalkars are not the owners and that the property was finally vested with the government and transferred to the CIDCO. In turn, the HC acknowledged the government's standing that the Bivalkars were the land owners and their proprietary rights till the year 2014. It also ordered the CIDCO to pay compensation but also did not stop the land from being used for Navi Mumbai International Airport, as required by CIDCO, the nodal agency of implementing the airport project. The CIDCO challenged the order in the Supreme Court in 2015, and the apex court has given a stay on the HC order. What oppn MLA says According to Rohit Pawar, since 1990, the Bivalkars have approached CIDCO multiple times to get the allotment of land under the 12.5 percent scheme brought in by then CM Sharad Pawar and local leader late for development of land for the sons of soil. Under this scheme implemented in 1994, the CIDCO allocates 12.5 percent of developed land to project affected persons (PAPs) in lieu of their acquired land. But, the CIDCO is said to have rejected their applications on the grounds that they are not the cultivators of the land. The latest request was made in 2023, which was again rejected citing that the issue is subjudice, according to a copy of the letter from CIDCO seen by ThePrint. But in 2024, through the urban development department, the CIDCO was asked to give away plots to the family, Pawar alleged. When Shirsat became the CIDCO chairman in September 2024, he allotted the land measuring about 15 acre worth Rs 5,000 crore to the family just about a month before the Model Code of Conduct kicked in, he further alleged. This land is for the poor people and on that land, about 8,000-10,000 houses could have been built for the locals, he said, while announcing a protest at the CIDCO office in Navi Mumbai on Wednesday. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: Hindi imposition, English preference, Maharashtra's Marathi schools are vanishing amid a language war
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How CBI case against Arvind Kejriwal ex-aide hit a wall in approver's bank locker
It started with a raid nearly a decade ago. On December 15, 2015, sleuths from the CBI searched the office and residence of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's ex-Principal Secretary Rajendra Kumar in a case related to the award of contracts worth Rs 9.5 crore between 2007 and 2014 to a private company in alleged violation of rules. The CBI also searched 14 locations linked to eight other accused in this case. Among the accused was A K Duggal, who was a managing director at the time of Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL), a PSU through which the contracts under probe were allegedly awarded to Endeavour Systems Pvt Ltd (ESPL). While Duggal was initially an accused, he was granted a pardon by a Delhi Court in November 2016 after the CBI named him an approver. Along with the houses and offices raided, the CBI also searched the bank lockers of all the accused. While the contents of the lockers of all accused persons were eventually made known to the court and to the other accused, what was found inside Duggal's locker still remains a mystery. 'What was in the locker?' Special Judge Manisha Khurana Kakkar, who is hearing the corruption case at Rouse Avenue Court, asked the CBI on July 22 — close to a decade after the case was lodged. 'We don't know, your honour,' came the response of the CBI's counsel. The judge asked the CBI to clarify whether the missing material was 'untraceable'. 'Otherwise, the matter won't proceed further,' she said. Issuing notice for the Investigating Officer to appear, the judge listed the matter for August 26. Court records trace the locker mystery back to 2015 when the CBI submitted a compliance report before the court mentioning that they had seized a 'stainless locker key of a locker maintained at SBI Civil Lines' from the accused Kumar's residence. A similar search conducted at Duggal's residence resulted in two locker keys being found: 'one Locker Key of Canara Bank, Vikas Puri' and another 'Locker Key No. 20756 of State Bank of Patiala, near Janak Cinema Hall, Janak Puri', the agency said. Records show that the mystery unfolded in a series of court hearings: September 2018: The CBI told the court that they were preparing a list of 'un-relied' documents — ie, records not used by the prosecution to build its case but can be accessed by the accused. July 2019: Advocates Rahul Tyagi and Mathew M Philip, who represented Kumar, asked for a list of 'un-relied' documents and a list of all witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation. April 2022: The court directed the CBI to supply a list of 'un-relied' documents, holding that the accused were 'entitled for the same'. August 2022: The court took on record the list of 'un-relied' documents. In Duggal's case, this included printouts of emails, a debit card intimation, a vehicle insurance certificate, bank documents, receipts of purchase of jewellery, such as diamonds, and a duplicate vehicle registration. What was allegedly found in his bank locker was not mentioned. February 2023: Kumar's counsel approached the court, this time seeking a copy of the compliance report of all the searches and seizures done by the CBI. November 2024: The court directed the CBI to provide a copy of the report — it had no mention of the 'locker operation memo', a record of the contents of Duggal's bank locker. May 8, 2025: Kumar's counsel contended that the absence of the 'locker operation memo' in the CBI's compliance report cast 'a shadow on whether due process was followed by the IO during investigation'. In its reply, the CBI told the court: 'Locker Operation Memos… as seized from the residence of Shri A K Duggal on 15.12.2015 are not traceable despite thorough searches. It is submitted that the aforesaid two locker keys pertaining to Shri A K Duggal have already been returned to him.' The reply further stated that locker operation memos pertaining to all the other accused had been provided. In three of these lockers, nothing had been found, the CBI told the court. It further stated that the original IO who was investigating the case had retired from service and subsequent IOs had left the CBI. '…no articles were seized and the aforesaid both keys pertaining to Shri A K Duggal had already been returned to him…As such, there was no mention of the Locker Operation Memo in the list of un-relied documents. There was nothing intentional for not mentioning the Locker Operation Memo in the list of un-relied documents…the accused Petitioner is lingering the matter by filing such baseless petitions,' the CBI's reply said. On July 22, the CBI counsel told the court: 'The locker operation memo is not part of relied or un-relied upon documents.' It was at this juncture that the judge decided to pause and call for the IO to be present at the next date. The case is significant for the CBI because it was among the first allegations of corruption that was levelled against Kejriwal's aides by the Centre at the time. Rajendra Kumar, a 1989-batch IAS officer who was described by the CBI as the 'kingpin' of the alleged scam, was arrested in July 2016 and later granted bail. The chargesheet in the case was filed in December 2016. According to the CBI, the alleged scam led to a loss of Rs 12 crore for the Delhi government. ESPL, the agency alleged, was a 'front company' floated by Kumar in 2006 along with his purported 'schoolmate' Ashok Kumar. The private firm, along with its directors Sandeep Kumar and Dinesh Gupta, was also named as accused. When contacted, Rahul Tyagi, counsel for Rajendra Kumar, asserted that 'the only plausible reason for not disclosing what was found in the lockers of Duggal is that had these been disclosed, no court would have allowed Duggal to become an approver'. 'It is a travesty that the person, who has awarded the contracts, is a witness and a highly decorated and honest officer like Rajendra Kumar, against whom nothing incriminating has been found, has been made an accused,' Tyagi said.
