&w=3840&q=100)
Sanjay Raut writes to Amit Shah, seeks info on ex-VP Dhankhar's whereabouts
ANI General News
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut has written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking information about the whereabouts of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar.
"What exactly has happened to our Vice President (Jagdeep Dhankhar)? Where is he? How is his health? Is he safe? The nation deserves to know the truth about these questions," Raut said in his letter.
Dhankhar resigned from his post on July 21, citing health reasons. Multiple Opposition leaders have repeatedly raised questions over the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, claiming that the former VP might have been forced to resign due to differences between leaders.
Raut said in his letter that rumours are circulating in Delhi that Dhankhar has been confined to his residence and is reportedly not safe.
"On July 21, the Parliament session commenced. At 11 a.m., Rajya Sabha Chairman and Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar initiated the proceedings. During the session, he appeared normal and conducted the session in a usual manner," Raut wrote.
"There was a verbal altercation between him and the Leader of the Opposition, Mallikarjun Kharge, after which the House proceedings were adjourned for the day. This suggests that the Chairman's health was fine at that time. However, after 6 p.m. on the same day, it was announced that the Vice President had resigned from his post, citing health reasons. This was shocking for everyone," he added.
He said that what is even more shocking and disturbing is the fact that from July 21 till today, there has been no information about the whereabouts of Dhankhar.
"What is his current location? How is his health? There is no clarity on these matters," he said.
Raut claimed that some members of the Rajya Sabha attempted to contact Dhankhar but were unsuccessful.
"There has been no communication with him or his staff, which is a matter of grave concern," he said.
"In fact, some colleagues from the Rajya Sabha are even contemplating filing a writ petition of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court, as we are genuinely worried about the whereabouts of Dhankar and whether he is safe and healthy."
"Before knocking on the doors of the Supreme Court, I thought it to be prudent to seek this information from you. I hope you will understand my sentiments and provide genuine information regarding Shri. Dhankhar's current whereabouts, his safety, and health," he said.
Earlier on Saturday, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said that the whereabouts of former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have not been known since his resignation and demanded that Union Home Minister Amit Shah issue a statement on the matter.
"After his resignation, we do not know anything about his whereabouts. I had previously heard about the 'Laapataa Ladies,' but this is the first time I have heard about the 'Laapataa' vice president," Sibal told reporters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
19 minutes ago
- News18
US Supreme Court Urged To Revisit 2015 Ruling Legalising Same-Sex Marriage
Curated By : Last Updated: August 12, 2025, 00:39 IST It remains uncertain whether the Supreme Court will take up the case (Pexels/Representative Image) The US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage in 2015 following its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Now, nearly a decade after that historic decision, the nation's highest court is being urged to revisit the ruling. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, has submitted a petition asking the Court to consider granting her protection from personal liability under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, reported ABC . Davis made national headlines in 2015 when she was jailed for six days after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. At the time, she was the only official authorised under Kentucky law to issue marriage licenses in Rowan County. When she denied a marriage certificate to David Ermold and David Moore, a lower court ordered her to pay $100,000 in damages for infringing on their constitutional rights. Recommended Stories In her recent appeal to the Supreme Court, Davis is contesting the $100,000 jury verdict and is also seeking $260,000 in emotional damages and attorneys' fees. Her claims had previously been dismissed by lower courts. A federal appeals court panel earlier this year ruled against her, stating that the former clerk 'cannot raise the First Amendment as a defence because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect." It remains uncertain whether the Supreme Court will take up the case. The justices are expected to consider if they will take the matter during a private conference at the end of September. Should the Court agree to hear the case, oral arguments would likely take place in the spring of 2026, with a final decision anticipated by the end of June. 'I'm hoping that we'll obviously get justice in this case for Kim Davis but that the religious accommodation that she obtained for all clerks," said Matt Staver, Davis' legal representative, in a statement to Scripps News . View All "Dragging Out War" Zelensky Eyes "Stronger Global Pressure" on Russia Ahead of Trump-Putin Meet Donald Trump Will Try To Get Back Territory For Ukraine In "Feel-out Meeting" With Putin In Alaska North Korea Slams US-South Korea Drills; Lukashenko Admits Kim's Troops Took Part in Ukraine War |4K Air India Crash Victims' Families Demand Immediate Release Of Flight Recorders, Hire Us based Lawyer "Road To Misery" IRGC Slams Trump-Backed Zangezur corridor, Iran to Hold Meet with Armenia | 4K View all Meanwhile, William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, expressed confidence in the current legal outcome. In a statement to ABC , he noted, 'Not a single judge on the US Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis' rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that her arguments do not merit further attention." In her petition, Davis further argues that the Court should treat the issue of same-sex marriage similarly to how it addressed abortion in its 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. This is the first time that someone has challenged the same-sex marriage ruling after it was announced in 2015. News world US Supreme Court Urged To Revisit 2015 Ruling Legalising Same-Sex Marriage Read More
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC strikes down Army's quota policy for JAG corps
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the Indian Army's policy of reserving six out of nine Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch vacancies for men and only three for women, calling it 'arbitrary', unconstitutional and contrary to the principle of gender neutrality. Tariffs won't hit defence deals with US, says MEA In an important ruling reinforcing gender equality in the armed forces, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the Army and the Union government could not impose a ceiling on the number of women in the JAG cadre once they had been permitted entry under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950. 'No nation can be secure when half of its population (i.e., its women force) is held back,' emphasised the bench, adding that the 'true meaning' of gender neutrality is that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of gender, must be selected. The ruling came on petitions filed by two women candidates who had ranked fourth and fifth overall but were denied selection because of the gender-based allocation of seats in the 2023 JAG recruitment. The bench pointed out that in this case, one petitioner , Arshnoor Kaur, had secured 447 marks, higher than the 433 scored by a male candidate ranked third in the men's list, yet she was excluded. The court directed her induction in the next available training course, noting that her exclusion amounted to 'indirect discrimination' in violation of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (no discrimination), and 16 (equality of opportunity) of the Constitution. While the other candidate, Astha Tyagi had secured 477 markes, no order was passed in her case since she joined the Indian Navy during the pendency of the matter. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the petitioners. Rejecting the Army's reliance on 'extent of induction' policies dating back to 2011 and 2012, the court held these administrative instructions had no statutory backing and could not override the Section 12 notification allowing women into the JAG branch. The bench further declared that the 2023 recruitment policy, which envisaged at least 50% of JAG vacancies for women to 'compensate for their previous non-enrolment' but capped their share at that figure, was neutral on the face of it, but discriminatory in effect. 'Though neutral in form, it is anything but gender-neutral in application and practice…The evidence of the disparate treatment is writ large in the form of the merit list… female candidates have overwhelmingly outscored their male counterparts,' the judgment noted. It cited the example from the present case where a male candidate ranked sixth in the men's merit list had scored fewer marks than a woman ranked tenth in the women's list, yet was selected while she was not. 'The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory to women candidates. The result of such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective of their performance or merit, in their gendered category, thereby being destructive of not just the constitutional scheme but also of the concept of gender-neutrality and merit,' it held. Observing that male and female JAG officers form part of the same cadre, face identical conditions of service, and are evaluated by the same selection criteria, the bench said there was no justification for separate merit lists. It directed that future recruitment be conducted through a common merit list for all candidates, with the list and individual marks made public. 'The primary job of this branch is to give legal advice and conduct cases… there is no explanation why gender-based vacancy allocation is necessary for a legal branch where the duties, training, and performance expectations are identical for all officers regardless of gender,' the court said, adding that a merit-based process would only improve the branch's efficiency. It directed the Union of India and the Army to conduct future JAG recruitments without bifurcating vacancies by gender, making it clear that if all deserving candidates happen to be women, all of them must be selected. 'To restrict the women candidates to 50% of the seats, as argued by the respondents despite they being more meritorious than the male candidates is violative of the right to equality,' declared the bench. The Army's contention that JAG officers constitute a combatant reserve and that women are not deployed in counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism roles was dismissed as misconceived. The bench pointed to existing policy changes that have brought women's field attachment and operational training 'at par' with men, as well as examples of women officers commanding convoys in militant-prone areas, serving in elite airborne and parachute units, and operating in UN peacekeeping missions in combat zones. The judgment noted that under the 2023 policy, at least 50% of the vacancies must be reserved for women to 'compensate' for their earlier non-enrolment and to raise their strength in the JAG branch to 142 officers. However, it added that women candidates figuring in the merit list beyond this 50% quota must also be accommodated, and their intake cannot be capped at that limit. 'If women can pilot Rafale jets, operate behind enemy lines, and command convoys in high-risk zones, there exists no legal or operational bar to their deployment at peace locations in the JAG branch,' the judgment said. It added; 'This court clarifies that it is not imposing its own views or predilection on the Army but is implementing the Constitution and the mandate of law. But this court agrees with the view held by many that 'no nation can be secure, when half of its population (i.e. its women force) is held back.' Quoting Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates -- 'People feared electricity when it was invented, the court observed that resistance to change cannot justify discrimination. It stressed that women were not seeking special treatment or relaxed standards, only that merit be given a chance. 'If women officers do not conform to discipline or match the standards prescribed or expected of them, the Army shall be at liberty to act as it would with regard to any errant or unfit male officer,' it said.
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Punjab moves SC to retain 1158 asst profs, librarians whose recruitment was quashed
The Punjab government has moved a petition in the Supreme Court urging it to reconsider its July 14 order by which recruitment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in the state-run colleges in 2021 was quashed. In its plea, the government has sought permission to allow the appointed assistant professors to continue their services on a temporary basis until a fresh recruitment process is completed, Punjab education minister Harjot Singh Bains Monday said. 'Punjab government has moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of its 14 July 2025 orders — requesting that 1158 Assistant Professors and Librarians be allowed to continue for the time being in the interest of students in our government colleges. Meanwhile, the State is also exploring all other legal possible remedies,' Bains said on X. The recruitees, who are now on the verge of being unemployed, meanwhile demanded they do not merely expect a 'modification' in the order, but 'complete justice.' 'Harjot bains ji, we expect a strong defence and complete justice — not mere modification. We are victims of system failure, not our own fault. It is about restoring merit, saving government colleges revived after three decades & honouring Punjab's vote for education,' they said in a post on X. Quashing the appointment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians, the Supreme Court on July 14 had also directed the Punjab government to initiate the fresh recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC regulations. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran, setting aside the September 2024 decision of a division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the appointments, had said that though they were aware that 'the quashing of the entire recruitment process will cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders.' 'A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored,' the top court had said, while rapping the Punjab government for failing to explain why UGC norms were not followed. 'In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process. It has failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the reasons for this departure were narrow political and clearly arbitrary.' The issue goes back to October 2021, when then Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notice inviting online applications for 1,091 assistant professor posts for various subjects and for 67 librarians ahead of the 2022 Assembly elections. Then Congress government had announced that these vacant posts would be filled 'within 45 days' The recruitment later came under legal scrutiny after several candidates filed petitions alleging irregularities in the merit-based selection process. They alleged that the entire process was done in haste for political reasons and that department flouted UGC guidelines and also 'bypassed' the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), whose approval was mandatory for these recruitments. The petitions demanded quashing of the entire exercise. On August 8, 2022, High Court bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, while quashing the entire recruitment process, said: '..It cannot be ignored that the entire exercise has been conducted in total disregard of the rule of law and in case, the same is allowed to remain alive, that would be travesty of justice.' In October 2023, Balwinder Kaur, one of the recruited assistant professors allegedly died by suicide while protesting against the ruling Aam Aadmi Party government for failing to give them postings despite recruitment. Later on September 23, 2024, a division bench of the high court reversed the 2022 decision of single bench and upheld the recruitments after the Punjab government challenged it in favor of 1158 recruitees. However, the aspirants led by Mandeep Singh then moved the Supreme Court against the government alleging that the entire recruitment procedure was done by flouting the UGC norms.
