India Keeps Skies Shut for Pakistan, Extends Airspace Ban Till Aug 23
'This extension reflects continued strategic considerations and is in line with prevailing security protocols. Stay tuned for further updates,' the minister informed.
This action followed Pakistan's earlier decision to bar Indian flights from its airspace.
Pakistan has extended the closure of its airspace for flights operated by Indian airlines by another month, till August 24, the Pakistan Airports Authority (PAA) said last week. The ban will remain in place till August 24 at 5:19 am (India time), the PAA said.
Meanwhile, NOTAM has been issued for a large-scale Indian Air Force (IAF) exercise scheduled in Rajasthan along the India-Pakistan border for July 23-25
The Indian Air Force is set to carry out a major military exercise in Rajasthan, covering areas from Barmer to Jodhpur.
The region witnessed Pakistani drone and missile intrusions during Operation Sindoor, where Pakistan launched several drone attacks targeting Rajasthan's Barmer, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, and Sri Ganganagar districts.
A NOTAM is issued when a specific airspace needs to be cleared of civilian air traffic. Similar notices were issued during previous tensions with Pakistan to ensure that no passenger aircraft would be caught in the middle of potential aerial operations. It helps prevent civilian casualties by keeping commercial aircraft away from zones of military activity.
NOTAM was issued against the backdrop of India's 'Operation Sindoor', which was launched on May 7, in retaliation for the terror attack in Pahalgam, where Pakistan-sponsored terrorists killed 26 innocent people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC seeks Centre's response on timeline for Prez assent to Bills
New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses of the Centre and all states on the Presidential reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with Bills passed by the Assembly. Observing that the issues raised in the Presidential reference will affect 'the entire country', a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai sought the replies in a week and fixed the reference for fixing timelines and other procedural details on July 29. "There are issues of interpretation of the Constitution. We have requested the Attorney General to assist us. Issue notice to the Union and all state governments. The Solicitor General will appear for the Union. All state governments be served through emails. List it on next Tuesday. Notice be also served to all standing counsel," ordered the bench which also comprised justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. During a brief hearing, senior advocates KK Venugopal and P Wilson, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, opposed the reference and questioned its maintainability. These objections can be raised later, the CJI said, adding the matter will be taken up in mid-August. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the Bills passed by the state Assemblies. Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of President to consult the Supreme Court "if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon". The President's decision comes in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court passed in a matter over the powers of Governor in dealing with bills questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor, President under Article 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. Article 200 deals with situations with regard to passage of Bills by the state Assembly and subsequent options available to the Governor on grant of assent, or withholding of assent or sending the Bill to the President for reconsideration. Article 201 deals with the Bills reserved for the President's consideration by the Governor. The rules prescribe for the review petitions to be heard by the same set of judges in the apex court in chambers while presidential references are heard and considered by a five-judge Constitution bench. Article 200, the reference underlined, which prescribes powers of Governor to be followed while assenting to bills, withholding assent to bills and reserving a bill for President's consideration, does not stipulate any time frame upon Governor for the exercise of constitutional options. The President said similarly Article 201, which prescribes the powers of President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to bills or withholding assent, therefrom does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options under Article 201 of the Constitution. President Murmu also questioned the exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to make the bill re-presented to Tamil Nadu Governor, as deemed to have been passed. "Whereas the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor," the reference of May 13 said. President Murmu said the contours and scope of provisions in Article 142 of the Constitution in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also require an opinion of the Supreme Court. The verdict has set a timeline for all Governors to act on the Bills passed by the state Assemblies and ruled that Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any Bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Gaurav Gogoi: ‘Dhankhar's resignation shows unease between govt and V-P … Congress will defend dignity of a Constitutional post'
Congress Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi speaks to The Indian Express on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, the resignation of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, and the motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma. The Opposition has been demanding a discussion on the Bihar electoral roll revision. Has the government responded so far? We have not received any indication from the government about whether they are willing to discuss this issue. It is an issue related to the core of democracy. It is about a citizen's right to vote… While the government publicly says they are willing to discuss any issue, during closed-door meetings, they have refused to even mention this issue, that it would be taken up for discussion. Since the EC is conducting the Bihar roll revision, if a discussion happens, who will reply on its behalf? It is for the government to decide… It is not for us to decide. We want a discussion, and we will not be fulfilling our responsibility if we let the government steal votes. The Vice-President has quit and the Congress has said there's more to it than meets the eye. What does that mean? Principally, we have had differences with the Honourable V-P regarding proceedings in the Rajya Sabha. For us, principles of Parliamentary democracy are important and so is the dignity of a Constitutional post. And the sudden resignation, and the cryptic tweets of PM Narendra Modi. It shows the unease in the relationship between the government and the Constitutional post of V-P. It seems like a game of one-upmanship. And PM is displaying his political might in this decision. If the relationship were normal, the government would have known this was on the mind of the V-P and a smooth transition would have been ensured … The Congress will defend the dignity of a Constitutional post, especially when it is held by a farmer's son … The process for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma was initiated by the government in the Lok Sabha. The Opposition led by the Congress introduced a similar motion in the Rajya Sabha. When this matter came to light, the Opposition started discussing what options it had. In the Lok Sabha, we supported the motion. The Opposition also took the initiative to introduce a similar motion in the Rajya Sabha. The Samajwadi Party, your key ally, is not supporting the motion. We are in constant touch with the SP on all issues. Especially on issues that need to be discussed urgently, such as Pahalgam, Operation Sindoor, and Bihar SIR. Asad Rehman is with the national bureau of The Indian Express and covers politics and policy focusing on religious minorities in India. A journalist for over eight years, Rehman moved to this role after covering Uttar Pradesh for five years for The Indian Express. During his time in Uttar Pradesh, he covered politics, crime, health, and human rights among other issues. He did extensive ground reports and covered the protests against the new citizenship law during which many were killed in the state. During the Covid pandemic, he did extensive ground reporting on the migration of workers from the metropolitan cities to villages in Uttar Pradesh. He has also covered some landmark litigations, including the Babri Masjid-Ram temple case and the ongoing Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath temple dispute. Prior to that, he worked on The Indian Express national desk for three years where he was a copy editor. Rehman studied at La Martiniere, Lucknow and then went on to do a bachelor's degree in History from Ramjas College, Delhi University. He also has a Masters degree from the AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. ... Read More
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The outspoken Jagdeep Dhankhar must break silence on his resignation
The circumstances surrounding the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar as Vice President of India, the second-highest constitutional office in the country, are fraught: It comes when there are two years still to go in his five-year tenure, and at the end of an eventful first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, which is likely to see the House take up an array of important issues, beginning with Operation Sindoor and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar that has run into controversy. The Monday night announcement of Dhankhar's exit came virtually mid-sentence, with no evidence of consultation or discussion having preceded it — he had scheduled a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee for Tuesday afternoon, and on Wednesday a one-day official visit to Jaipur. The stated reason for the resignation is 'to prioritise health care and abide by medical advice' — if true, that would leave no space for loose ends, only for a nation's best wishes. But coming as abruptly as it does, and given the conspicuous silence of the government and ruling party — except for the Prime Minister's strikingly terse tweet on someone he had earlier described effusively as 'kisan putra' while announcing his candidature for V-P — the unavoidable impression is of a withholding. That impression is distinctly at odds with Dhankhar's own record and personality. The lawyer who began his political career with a Lok Sabha election from Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan on a Janata Dal ticket in 1989, joined the BJP in 2003, was appointed governor of West Bengal in 2019 and rose to the position of Vice President in 2022 is known for an outspokenness that has, at times, pushed at constitutionally laid-out red lines. As West Bengal Governor, Dhankhar earned a reputation for conducting himself as a one-man Opposition to the Mamata Banerjee government. The Raj Bhawan's run-ins with the elected chief minister were in-your-face and frequent, on issues ranging from law and order and post-poll violence to charges of corruption. As V-P, he has spoken his mind in ways that have regularly ranged him against the Opposition and also the Judiciary. He is the only V-P against whom the Opposition took the unprecedented step of bringing a no-confidence motion, accusing him of 'partisan conduct' and of being a 'spokesperson' for the government. He has made it a habit to take on the judiciary in ways that are seen to undermine the principle of separation of powers — be it his criticism of the SC ruling on the NJAC, his making a case for overriding the 'basic structure' doctrine and advocacy of Parliament's sovereignty, or most recently, in the context of cash being found at a judge's residence, the Court's alleged lack of accountability. On some of these issues, especially the black box that judicial accountability seems to be locked up in, he surely hit many a nail on its head. But even as Dhankhar has invited criticism for his interventions while occupying constitutional office, he eludes glib type-casting. Despite their many confrontations in Kolkata, Mamata Banerjee's TMC supported his election as V-P by abstaining. After his resignation, prominent Opposition leaders have spoken of him respectfully and warmly. He owes it to the place he has created in a polarised polity, as a man unafraid to provoke, as someone who can spring a surprise, to dispel the opacity that surrounds his mid-term departure. For the dignity of his office and his own tradition of speaking up, Dhankhar should break the silence.
