Waqf Act Faces Supreme Test: BJP, Opposition Engage in War of Words Before Big Hearing
/ May 05, 2025, 02:05PM IST
The Supreme Court is set to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, a law that has sparked intense political debate. The Centre told the court it won't denotify waqf properties or make new appointments to the Central Waqf Council and state boards until May 5. As the hearing looms, BJP and Opposition parties are locked in a war of words. While the Opposition calls the Act unconstitutional, the BJP says it will stand by the court's verdict. What's at stake in this high-profile legal showdown? Watch the full report on today's crucial hearing.#WaqfAct #SupremeCourtIndia #WaqfAmendment #WaqfProperty #BJPvsOpposition #LegalBattle #IndianPolitics #SupremeCourt #WaqfControversy #toibharat
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Sonia Gandhi on poll roll before attaining citizenship: BJP
Sonia Gandhi (File photo) NEW DELHI: BJP on Wednesday sought to turn the tables on Congress over the latter's campaign against alleged "vote theft" by making the serious charge that Sonia Gandhi got herself enrolled twice as a voter without renouncing her Italian citizenship. "Sonia Gandhi's name entered the electoral rolls twice without meeting the basic citizenship requirement - first as an Italian citizen in 1980, and then again in 1983, months before she legally became a citizen of India. We are not even asking why it took her 15 years after marrying Rajiv Gandhi to accept Indian citizenship. If this isn't blatant electoral malpractice, what is?" said BJP IT department head Amit Malviya to counter Congress's claim that EC had facilitated BJP's victories by enrolling fake voters. On X, Malviya posted a copy of the electoral roll form of the official residence of then PM Indira Gandhi, claiming Sonia's name was added during the revision of rolls with Jan 1, 1980, as the qualifying date. . "Following an outcry in 1982, her name was deleted from the list only to reappear in 1983," he said. "In the fresh revision of the electoral rolls that year, Sonia Gandhi was listed at serial number 236 in polling station 140. The qualifying date for registration was Jan 1, 1983, but she was granted Indian citizenship only on April 30, 1983," Malviya added.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Court acquits Swati Maliwal, Bhupender Singh in minor survivor's identity disclosure case
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal, along with Bhupender Singh, the then public relations officer of DCW, in a case alleging disclosure of the identity of a 14-year-old sexual assault survivor in 2014, who later died in 2016 due to injuries. Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal observed that courts have consistently "anonymised" trials involving children to protect their identities. The magistrate stated, "The prosecution failed to prove the commission of the offence under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Rules by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. " The case stemmed from a 2016 FIR filed by Delhi Police, accusing Maliwal and Singh of violating the Juvenile Justice Act by allegedly revealing the identity of the sexual assault survivor through a notice circulated in print, electronic media, and WhatsApp groups. Singh was specifically accused of preparing and circulating the notice. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi Maliwal, as DCW chief, had taken cognisance of the case involving a neighbour who sexually assaulted the minor and allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat, causing severe internal injuries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo On account of the presence of the consent of the survivor's parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the survivor) of the IPC was dropped, and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added to the case. The prosecution claimed Singh sent the notice revealing the survivor's identity to a WhatsApp group named 'DCW Media' and that the notice was subsequently shown on TV channels. However, the court found no proof that Singh circulated the notice via WhatsApp or shared it with media outlets. Further, footage of the TV broadcast did not reveal the survivor's name or identity. The court noted that the sending of the notice revealing the identity of the minor survivor on WhatsApp by Singh was not proved, nor did the prosecution establish that he shared a copy of the notice with a news channel. The ACJM observed, "Court holds the accused persons not guilty of the commission of said offence. Accused persons, namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind and Bhupender Singh, are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 74, read with rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act. " The court rejected the prosecution's argument that Maliwal could be convicted based on the notice that she sent to the SHO, where the name of the minor was revealed. It said that the police official was in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the chargesheet in the FIR. While acquitting the duo, the court, outlining the vulnerability of a child, pointed out that the aim of the legislatures and the endeavour of the courts is to insulate the child against the cruel vagaries of life which it cannot comprehend and lacks capacity to defend against. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court acquits Maliwal in rape victim disclosure case
NEW DELHI Throughout the trial, Maliwal's counsel had argued that the act was done in good faith. (Representative photo/Shutterstock) A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chief and Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal and her media advisor at the time, Bhupinder Singh, in a 2016 case accusing them of disclosing the name of a 14-year-old rape victim, who later succumbed to her injuries. The acquittal order was passed by additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal. The court said that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of offences under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, read with rule 86 of JJ Rules, by the accused beyond reasonable doubt as neither the notice sent on WhatsApp by Singh revealed the identity of the minor victim nor was the allegation of sharing of a copy of the notice with a news channel could be proved. In their FIR, the Delhi Police charged the two of them with violating provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act for revealing the identity of a sexual assault victim by circulating a notice in electronic media. Singh was accused of preparing the notices and forwarding them to media channels through the DCW WhatsApp group. The victim died in a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour, who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat, damaging her internal organs. Maliwal had circulated a notice addressed to the deputy commissioner of police (North) and the SHO of Burari Police Station in the media, seeking an update in the probe. The FIR said the notice was 'intentionally circulated' on various WhatsApp groups and shown by the television channel Times Now. Maliwal and Singh were booked under Section 74, read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Police had later dropped charges under IPC Section 228A (prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) after the victim's parents stated that they had given their consent to disclose their child's name. The court, in its judgment, noted that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits identification in a newspaper, magazine or audio-visual media. The court said, 'The sending of notice by accused No.1 to SHO PS Burari seeking explanation regarding the lapses in the investigation is not a report in any newspaper, magazine or news-sheet or other form of communication'. On the aspect of the copy of the notice revealing the name of the victim being sent to the news channel, the court observed, 'There is nothing to show in the chargesheet that the accused persons sent the notice to Times Now…further, the anchor of the programme has not revealed the name of the minor victim in the entire programme…the allegations are baseless and unfounded.'
