After Op Sindoor, 12 civilians killed, 42 injured in Pakistan shelling in Poonch
At least 12 civilians were killed and 42 injured as Pakistan army resorted to intense artillery shelling along the Line of Control (LoC) in Poonch district on Wednesday morning soon after India carried out precision strikes on nine terror targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to avenge the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam that left 26 people dead. Smoke billows after an artillery shell landed in the main town of Poonch district in India's Jammu region on Wednesday. (AFP)
A senior police officer of Poonch confirmed the casualties and said the dead include four children, aged between seven and 14 years. Among four minors, two were siblings. Four members of the Sikh community, including a woman, were also among the dead. A Muslim cleric of Darul Uloom Madarsa Quari Mohammad Iqbal was also killed in the Pakistani shelling.
The indiscriminate shelling created panic among the border residents who were forced to take refuge in underground bunkers or shift to safer places within or outside their villages. The shelling was reported from Balakote, Mendhar, Mankote, Sagra, Krishna Ghati, Gulpur, Kerni and even Poonch district headquarters, resulting in damage to dozens of houses.
Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha and Christ School in Poonch town were hit in the Pakistani artillery fire.
'Villagers are migrating to their relatives' houses in Jammu,' said Darshan Bharti, a local resident of Poonch, which is located 20km from the LoC.
'There is panic in Poonch town, which has witnessed two deaths in the Pakistani shelling. You can see long queues at fuel stations,' Bharti said, adding he was evacuating his family to Jammu.
Poonch deputy commissioner Vikas Kundal and district police chief Shafqat Hussain didn't respond to calls and messages.
The deceased included Mohd Adil of Sagra under Mendhar police station, Saleem Hussain of Balakot, also in Mendhar, Balvinder Kour, alias Ruby, 33, of Mohalla Sardaran in Mankote, Mohd Zain, 10, of Kalani village under Mandi police station in Poonch, Mohd Akram, 55, of Ward number 1 of Mohalla Sukka Katha, Amreek Singh of Mohalla Sandigate, Ranjeet Singh and Amarjeet Singh of Sandigate, Zoya Khan, 12, of Kalani village in Mandi, Mohd Rafi, 36, of Kojra, Bandichechian, and Mohd Iqbal, 45, of Baila village.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Putin's Army ‘INCHES Away' From Sumy Oblast, 3 Years After Russia Lost Region in 2022
Iran's Khamenei Warns Muslim Nations In Hajj Message | 'Cut Ties With Zionist Israel Or...' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme leader, came down heavily on Muslim nations in his annual Hajj message. Khamenei said that Muslim nations and allies need to immediately cut aid to Israel that 'fuels the savagery of the Zionist regime in Gaza.' He added that Muslim pilgrims in Mecca have to send a message to their governments and convince them to abandon and isolate Israel. He emphasized that the U.S. was complicit in Israel's acts of violence and aggression in Gaza. Watch for more details. 9.3K views | 2 days ago
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said. The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality. HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes. In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform. The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters. In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. 'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added. The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee. 'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added. Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said. In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias. Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Dhumma's Bluestar event messaging went beyond Gargaj, had a Patna Sahib outreach
Jalandhar: On the 41st anniversary of Operation Bluestar at Akal Takht, Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma-led Damdami Taksal showed it clout by not letting Akal Takht acting jathedar Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj to speak or honour the families of the "martyrs" (people who were killed in the Army action in 1984), but the messaging went beyond this. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Damdami Taksal also made it a point to invite two Takht Patna Sahib high priests and give them prominence at a function held at its Mehta Chowk headquarters on the same day. These high priests were barred by Akal Takht on May 21 from 'panthic services'. Both priests, along with three others, retaliated on the same day by declaring the jathedars of Akal Takht and Takht Damdama Sahib "tankhaiya" and summoned Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal. The two high priests in question were Patna Sahib head granthi Giani Baldev Singh and granthi Gurdial Singh. Both, along with three other priests, issued another directive on June 1, giving Sukhbir an extension and asking him to appear before them on June 10 to present his side, warning him with "stringent action" if he failed to do so. To communicate the message further, both were made to stand next to Darbar Sahib head granthi Giani Raghbir Singh when he addressed the congregation. Two others who were made to flank him included Darbar Sahib granthi Palwinderpal Singh, a former student of taksal, and a representative from Takht Hazur Sahib. Baldev Singh also addressed the congregation. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee president Harjinder Singh Dhami also addressed the function, while quite a few granthis of Darbar Sahib and leaders of different sampardas (traditional groups) attended the gathering. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A press statement issued by the taksal mentioned Raghbir Singh as "jathedar", while former Kesgarh Sahib jathedar Giani Sultan Singh, who is now working as granthi at Darbar Sahib, was mentioned as Kesgarh Sahib jathedar. Both Raghbir Singh and Sultan Singh were unceremoniously sacked from their posts of jathedars in March, and their removal led to a big controversy. Taksal chief Baba Dhumma has been agitating against their removal and has been objecting to Gargaj's appointment and taking charge as jathedar, arguing that 'maryada' was not followed. At the June 6 function at Akal Takht, Gargaj gave his message through the 'ardas'. While Baba Dhumma got an upper hand as his point prevailed, Gargaj, after the function, gained some sympathy from the community members. The tradition of Akal Takht jathedar not giving his message on that day was broken to avert a clash. Box – Clash between Akal Takht and Patna Sahib clergy Five Sikh high priests at Akal Takht, including Akal Takht acting jathedar Kuldeep Singh Gargaj and Takht Damdama Sahib jathedar Tek Singh Dhanaula, in their meeting on May 21 held that an earlier directive by Akal Takht on Dec 6, 2022, about Baldev Singh and Gurdial Singh was not complied with, and barred them from rendering panthic services. At that time, Giani Harpreet Singh was acting jathedar of Akal Takht. The May 21 directive also explicitly mentioned that Baldev Singh was not fit to render services at Takht Patna Sahib or in the panthic sphere. Both priests were also asked to appear at Akal Takht and present their side. Until then, they were barred from rendering 'panthic services'. The Akal Takht directive also asked the Takht Patna Sahib management committee to appear at Akal Takht and present its side. Hours after this directive, the five granthis (priests) of Takht Patna Sahib, including Baldev Singh and Gurdial Singh, hit back by declaring Gargaj and Takht Damdama Sahib jathedar Tek Singh Dhanaula 'tankhaiya'. They asked Sukhbir Singh Badal to appear there for "his interference and being a conspirator" in the whole affair and asked the Patna Sahib management committee to not appear at Akal Takht. They also held that from now on, no directive from Akal Takht or from any other yakht would be implemented at Takht Patna Sahib nor complied with. When Baba Dhumma announced his opposition to Gargaj's address, to further buttress his case, he prominently cited the Takht Patna Sahib clergy declaring him 'tankhaiya'. MSID:: 121707935 413 |
