High court allows KA Paul's ‘Gospel to The Unreached Millions' meeting today, but under strict conditions in Secunderabad
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda passed the order while hearing a house motion moved by the society questioning the denial of permission by police.
The society claimed that the event was meant to promote world peace and commemorate the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan. They argued that similar events were held peacefully in the past, including on Gandhi Jayanti in 2022, and that the denial of permission this time was unjust.
The police, however, cited multiple reasons for refusal: anticipated traffic congestion on a working day, absence of clear participant and logistics details, potential noise disturbance, lack of parking facilities, and concerns over provocative statements previously made by Paul, which could trigger protests and law and order issues.
After hearing petitioner's advocate Brahmadandi Ramesh and state home counsel Mahesh Raje, the HC observed that most of the police objections were logistical and could be addressed through conditional permissions.
The HC quashed the police rejection letter and directed them to allow the event under strict conditions: not more than 1,000 people, no speeches, only prayers permitted with only four microphones without loudspeakers, no provocative slogans and the event should begin at 7 pm and end at 9 pm. Violation of these conditions would enable the police to take action, the judge said.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Brother's Day wishes
,
messages
and quotes !
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Will allow CPI(M) to hold ‘peaceful assembly' against Gaza ‘genocide' on August 20: Mumbai police to HC
The Mumbai police Tuesday informed the Bombay High Court that they have granted permission to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to hold a 'peaceful assembly' at Azad Maidan against the 'genocide' in Gaza. Appearing for the CPI(M), Senior Advocate Mihir Desai submitted that as the police have granted permission to hold the assembly, it would be organised between 3 and 6 pm on August 20. Desai also submitted that the CPI-M will 'strictly' follow the prohibitions and responsibilities prescribed for organisers under the draft regulations of Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, proposed under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. On July 25, a division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad dismissed a plea by the CPI (M) seeking direction from the court to allow peaceful protest at Azad Maidan on the Gaza issue. The bench noted that the petitioner had no locus standi (legal standing) to challenge the decision of the police, as it was not an applicant seeking permission for protest. The Mumbai police on July 17 rejected the application of All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation (AIPSF) to stage a protest on the Gaza issue. Justice Ghuge orally remarked that instead of being 'short-sighted', the petitioner should focus on issues in India. 'Look at your own country. Be patriots. This is not patriotism.. Speak up for the causes in our own country.' However, after filing the earlier petition on July 10, the CPI (M) made an application on July 19 to the Mumbai police seeking permission to hold a protest meeting, and it was pending when the HC passed an order on July 25. Justice Ghuge-led bench noted that the Mumbai police should decide upon the pending application by the CPI (M) on merits, and the same be communicated to the party. After the police rejected the CPI(M)'s application, the party filed a fresh petition before the High Court challenging the refusal. On Tuesday, Additional Public Prosecutor S V Gaand, on specific instructions, submitted before a bench led by Justice Ghuge that statutory authority would allow the CPI (M) to hold a peaceful assembly on August 20, and it will have to follow the prescribed rules. After Desai, for the petitioner, said it will strictly follow the rules for such assemblies, the HC disposed of the plea. Another bench of HC led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe in March this year directed the state government to notify rules to regulate public meetings, agitations, and processions in Mumbai, and implement them in 'letter and spirit.' Mumbai police commissioner prepared the draft rules as per court directives under Section 33 (power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in a public place) of the 1951 Act, and provided for peaceful protests without affecting law and order to be held at the designated area of Azad Maidan. As per draft regulations, part of Azad Maidan opposite the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) headquarters has been identified for conducting sit-ins, agitations, gatherings, meetings, protests, and morchas, and no such activity will be allowed in the South Mumbai area.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Aadhaar, PAN card, voter ID not sufficient to determine Indian citizenship: Bombay HC
"Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act," the HC said. The law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants, the bench said. People falling in the category of illegal migrants are barred from obtaining citizenship through most of the legal routes mentioned in the Citizenship Act, it added. "This distinction is important because it protects the sovereignty of the country and ensures that benefits and rights meant for citizens are not wrongfully taken by those who have no legal status to stay in India," the court said. The bench, while refusing bail to Sardar, noted that verification of his documents was still on and the investigation was also still continuing, and the police's fear that he may abscond if granted bail is a genuine apprehension. The allegations in the case are not small and it is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying, but it is about making and using fake and forged identity documents with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen, the HC said. Sardar was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Passport (Entry to India) Act and the Foreigners Order. The court noted the investigation in the case is still going on with regard to genuineness of the Aadhaar card, which is being verified by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Sardar in his bail plea said he was a bona fide citizen of India and that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove he is a national of Bangladesh. He further claimed his documents are linked with his income tax records and business registration and that he has been residing in Mumbai's neighbouring Thane district since 2013. The prosecution opposed the plea, claiming if the accused was released on bail, he may abscond. The police further said a probe was on to ascertain if there was a larger organised network involving illegal immigration and identity fraud. The court in its order noted the allegations against Sardar are not limited to a mere technical violation of immigration norms, but indicate a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining the Indian citizenship benefits. When the Constitution of India was being drafted, the country had just gone through a historic transformation and the partition at the time caused a massive movement of people across borders, creating a need to decide who would be accepted as citizens of the new nation, it noted. Keeping this in mind, framers of the Constitution decided to make an arrangement for deciding citizenship, the high court said. The Constitution laid down provisions which gave immediate clarity on who would be considered a citizen at the very beginning of the Republic and it gave the elected Parliament the powers to make laws on citizenship in future, the court noted.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Merely possessing Aadhaar, PAN card or voter ID doesn't make person Indian citizen: HC
TIL Creatives AI generated image. For representation only A person does not become a citizen of India merely by possessing documents like Aadhaar card, PAN card or a voter ID, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said while refusing bail to a man, allegedly from Bangladesh, for entering India man is accused of staying in India for more than a decade with forged and fabricated documents.A bench of Justice Amit Borkar said provisions of the Citizenship Act lay down who can be a citizen of India and how citizenship can be acquired and documents such as the Aadhaar card, PAN card and voter ID are only meant for identification or availing services. The court refused bail to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, alleged to be a Bangladeshi national, who entered India illegally without a valid passport or travel documents. He allegedly procured forged Indian documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter ID and also an Indian passport. In 1955, Parliament passed the Citizenship Act which created a permanent and complete system for acquiring citizenship, Justice Borkar noted. "In my opinion, the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired and in what situations it can be lost," he said."Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act," the HC law draws a clear line between lawful citizens and illegal migrants, the bench falling in the category of illegal migrants are barred from obtaining citizenship through most of the legal routes mentioned in the Citizenship Act, it added."This distinction is important because it protects the sovereignty of the country and ensures that benefits and rights meant for citizens are not wrongfully taken by those who have no legal status to stay in India," the court bench, while refusing bail to Sardar, noted that verification of his documents was still on and the investigation was also still continuing, and the police's fear that he may abscond if granted bail is a genuine allegations in the case are not small and it is not just about staying in India without permission or overstaying, but it is about making and using fake and forged identity documents with the aim of pretending to be an Indian citizen, the HC was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Passport (Entry to India) Act and the Foreigners court noted the investigation in the case is still going on with regard to genuineness of the Aadhaar card, which is being verified by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).Sardar in his bail plea said he was a bona fide citizen of India and that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove he is a national of further claimed his documents are linked with his income tax records and business registration and that he has been residing in Mumbai's neighbouring Thane district since prosecution opposed the plea, claiming if the accused was released on bail, he may abscond. The police further said a probe was on to ascertain if there was a larger organised network involving illegal immigration and identity fraud. The court in its order noted the allegations against Sardar are not limited to a mere technical violation of immigration norms, but indicate a case of deliberate concealment of identity and creation of forged documents for obtaining the Indian citizenship benefits. When the Constitution of India was being drafted, the country had just gone through a historic transformation and the partition at the time caused a massive movement of people across borders, creating a need to decide who would be accepted as citizens of the new nation, it this in mind, framers of the Constitution decided to make an arrangement for deciding citizenship, the high court said. The Constitution laid down provisions which gave immediate clarity on who would be considered a citizen at the very beginning of the Republic and it gave the elected Parliament the powers to make laws on citizenship in future, the court noted. PTI
