Sri Lankan Navy Detains 5 Rameswaram Fishermen for Crossing Maritime Boundary
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The mechanised fishing boat and its crew were taken to Talaimannar and handed over to Sri Lankan fisheries officials for legal procedures.
According to sources, the arrested fishermen were onboard a boat bearing registration number IND TN 10 MM 960, owned by J Justin (56) of Manthoppu in Thangachimadam. The others were identified as S Denson (36), J Mobin (24), T Simon (50), and M Sekar—all hailing from Rameswaram and Pamban areas.
Officials said over 320 mechanised boats ventured into the sea from Rameswaram fishing harbour on Monday. While some stayed near the IMBL, a few were reportedly chased off by Sri Lankan Navy patrols. One vessel allegedly crossed into Sri Lankan waters and was apprehended.
The Rameswaram Fishermen Association condemned the arrests and urged the Union govt to act. Fishermen leader Jesu Raja said that since the end of the annual fishing ban 60 days ago, 31 fishermen and five boats from Ramanathapuram district were arrested and demanded govt intervention.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
4 hours ago
- The Wire
Savarkar Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi Tells Court He Faces Threat to Life, Cites Complainant's Lineage
The application also cited two public threats, one by Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu calling Gandhi the 'number one terrorist of the country' and another by BJP leader Tarvinder Singh Marwah. New Delhi: Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (August 13) told a Pune court that he faces threat to life in wake of his recent political battles and the lineage of complainant Satyaki Savarkar in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi urged the special MP/MLA court, where the defamation case is being heard, to take judicial notice of the matter. Gandhi said that he has 'grave apprehensions' to his safety and to the fairness of proceedings in the case,' reported Bar and Bench. He also sought "preventive protection" by State. 'Preventive protection is not only prudent but is a constitutional obligation upon the State," it was stated in the application filed through advocate Milind Dattatraya Pawar. Gandhi said that the application was filed as a 'protective and precautionary measure for safeguarding the fairness, integrity, and transparency of the present proceedings.' Gandhi's application stated that in a written statement filed on July 29, Satyaki Savarkar had categorically admitted that through his maternal family lineage, he is a direct descendant of Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse, the principal accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The fact that Satyaki Savarkar has also claimed descent from Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was also noted in the application. "Given the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage… there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Shri Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting,' stated the application. Gandhi's plea said that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was not an act of impulse; rather it was the calculated outcome of a conspiracy, rooted in a specific ideology, culminating in deliberate violence against an unarmed person. 'In view of the grave history associated with such lineage, the defence harbours a genuine and reasonable apprehension that history must not be permitted to repeat itself,' the submission to the court stated. The application also spoke about Gandhi's recent political interventions including the August 11 slogan 'Vote Chor Sarkar' in parliament along with the submission of documents alleging electoral irregularities, actions, which he claimed, have triggered hostility from political opponents. His plea also referred to Gandhi's speech in parliament in which he said, "A true Hindu is never violent. A Hindu cannot spread hatred. The BJP spreads hatred and violence, and you do not represent Hindus.' Gandhi also said in his submission how immediate press conferences were held by Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw and BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi who accused him of insulting the Hindu community and lowering the dignity of his position. The application also cited two public threats, one by Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu calling Gandhi the 'number one terrorist of the country' and another by BJP leader Tarvinder Singh Marwah. The Court will hear the matter next on September 10. The case pertains to a speech delivered by Gandhi in London in March 2023 in which he had reportedly referred to Savarkar's writings about an incident where Savarkar, along with others, allegedly assaulted a Muslim man – a situation Savarkar supposedly found 'pleasurable.' Satyaki Savarkar had filed the defamation case against Gandhi in 2023, claiming that no such incident about Savarkar is mentioned in his works. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
The Wire
7 hours ago
- The Wire
MHA Directive Contradicts Union Minister's Lok Sabha Reply on Detentions of Bangla-Speaking Migrants
While Shobha Karandlaje said state police were responsible for the drives against suspected undocumented immigrants, a May 2 Union home ministry directive proves otherwise. The recent crackdown has left the entire Khatola neighbourhood in Gurgram, where Assamese migrant workers live, deserted. Photo: Shruti Sharma New Delhi: On August 11, speaking in the Lok Sabha, Union minister of state for labour and employment Shobha Karandlaje replied to Trinamool Congress MP Abishek Banerjee's question on detentions of Bangla-speaking migrant workers. She said that the responsibility lay with state governments, citing 'public order' and 'policy' as state subjects. While she shared general statistics on migrants from West Bengal, she evaded Banerjee's question regarding concrete data on detained Bangla-speaking migrants. Karandjale's reply seemed to suggest that somehow, different police forces across states, especially in those ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, spontaneously began simultaneous detention drives of their own accord. However, a directive from the Union home ministry (MHA) and inputs The Wire gathered from officials, lawyers and detainees, point to quite the opposite – that the detentions follow MHA guidelines. On May 2, the MHA (Foreign Division) had issued a directive to the chief secretaries of all states and union territory administrations, DGPs/IGPs of all states/UTs, the DG of the Border Security Force, DG of Assam Rifles, and DG of Coast Guard, outlining the procedure for deporting undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and the Rohingya. Though a copy of this directive is unavailable online, it has been widely reported in the media. The directive reads, 'The Central Government has laid down the legal framework wherein all State Governments and Union Territory Administrations are fully empowered to take action regarding detection, imposing restrictions on the movement of illegally staying foreign nationals and their deportation/ removal/ expulsion as per the provisions in the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948.' It further states, 'Since the Central Government does not maintain a separate federal police force exclusively dedicated to the task of detection, imposing restrictions on movement and deportation of illegally staying foreigners, action in this regard has been entrusted to the State/ UT police.' 'Therefore, State Governments/ UT Administrations are primarily responsible for identifying the illegally and overstaying foreign nationals, their restriction in identified places and their deportation.' Also read: In Dhubri, Muslim Residents Were Evicted First and Then Deleted from Electoral Rolls The directive also lays down guidelines to be followed while apprehending Bangladeshis and Rohingya living illegally in the country. It said: '(i) All State Governments/UT Administrations shall set up a Special Task Force in each District under the police of the State/UT to detect, identify and deport / send-back illegal immigrants from Bangladesh / Myanmar settled in the State/UT concerned. (ii) All State Governments/UT Administrations shall set up adequate Holding Centers in each District under the Police of the State/UT to detain illegal immigrants from Bangladesh / Myanmar. (iii) In respect of Bangladesh / Myanmar nationals identified to be staying unauthorizedly in any particular State/UT, an inquiry shall be conducted by the State Government/UT concerned. (iv) If the suspected Bangladesh / Myanmar national claims Indian citizenship and residence of a place in any other Indian State/UT, the concerned State Government/UT would send to the Home Secretary of the State/UT and District Collector/District Magistrate of the District from where the suspected person claims to hail, the details including name, parentage, residential address, details of near relatives etc. The State Government/ UT/Collector/District Magistrate concerned in turn will ensure that an appropriate report is sent to the deporting State Government/UT after proper verification within a period of 30 days. During the period of 30 days, the suspected person shall be kept in the Holding Center to ensure physical availability at the time of deportation/ send back. If no report is received within the period of 30 days, the Foreigners Registration Officer may take necessary action to deport/ send-back the suspected Bangladesh/Myanmar national. If a person is identified as an illegal Bangladesh national / Rohingya after the enquiry, the State/ UT shall immediately capture their biometrics (fingerprints and facial photographs) and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal (FIP) of the MHA. Where connectivity is not available, these shall be captured offline and then shall then be uploaded on the Foreigners Identification Portal (FIP) of the MHA as soon as possible. For this purpose, the State/ UT shall use the biometric equipment available at the Districts under the District Police Module for capturing the biometric data on FIP. In case biometric equipment is available at the Police Station in the State/UT, the same may be used to upload data on the FIP. The use of NAFIS to capture biometrics will stand to be discontinued. All State Governments/UT Administrations should maintain a record of illegal Bangladesh nationals or Rohingya handed over to designated Border Guarding Forces / Coast Guards for deportation and send a report in this regard to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the 15th day of every month through the FRRO. This report is mandatory. The order instructs states, UTs, and border guarding forces to strictly follow the revised deportation guidelines and avoid 'unnecessary publicity' around such actions. It further says that complete details of any detained Bangladeshi or Rohingya should be sent to the Ministry of External Affairs.' It carries the signature of Pratap Singh Rawat, under secretary, MHA (Foreigners). Initially, this MHA directive was not publicly available, not even on the ministry's website. When The Wire inquired with Gurugram police officials about the order, they confirmed receiving a copy but refused to share it. The PRO of Gurugram Police had told The Wire, 'Although police can detain 'suspected' foreign nationals without any order from the government, in this matter, we have the MHA directives.' Senior police officials at various instances reiterated the same claim. However, under the Foreigners Act of 1946, a uthorities cannot detain individuals solely on suspicion of being foreign nationals. Despite being severely critiqued as flawed by legal experts, there is an expectation on the part of the state to produce some evidence before a foreigners tribunal, like in the case of Assam, to challenge a person's citizenship. Last month, The Wire reported on how the Gurugram Police detained hundreds of Bengali-speaking migrant workers from West Bengal and Assam – most of whom are Muslim – on the suspicion of them being Bangladeshi citizens living in India without the required documents. People were detained despite many of them possessing Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards and, in some cases, even passports issued by the Government of India. All were later released except ten individuals whom the police claimed were 'confirmed Bangladeshis'. Following the crackdown, large numbers of Bengali-speaking migrant workers fled to Assam and West Bengal, fearing police action and harassment. In Gurugram's Khatola village – a neighbourhood that housed around 2,000 Assamese workers – most residents have fled to their villages in Assam. Also read: Bengal Migrant Who Was Stripped and Beaten in Odisha, Returns to Work – in Nagpur A copy of the May 2 MHA directive was obtained by the All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ), a pan-India association of lawyers and law students. AILAJ has called on the Union home ministry to withdraw this 'unconstitutional and illegal' directive, which they say allows the detention of individuals solely on suspicion of being foreign nationals. It has demanded that such detentions be stopped altogether and urged the courts to intervene to halt what it sees as a violation of constitutional rights. They said the May 2 directive is part of a broader assault on citizenship and the rights of working people, particularly Muslims and non-Hindi-speaking communities. It linked the Gurugram crackdown to other measures such as the verification drive in Assam, sudden voter roll revisions in Bihar, forced evictions, imposition of Hindi and the institutionalisation of Islamophobia through laws and media narratives. Legal scholar Mohsin Alam Bhat, who recently released a report titled 'Unmaking Citizens: Architecture of Rights Violations and Exclusion in India's Citizenship Trials' which argues that India's citizenship tribunals have transformed into instruments of exclusion, told The Wire in an interview this month that the detentions outside Assam – including in Gurugram and NCR – are worse than Assam. 'There is no process here,' he said. 'This is a system built on distrust and suspicion. A police official sitting in Haryana can decide who's an Indian just by looking at their faces or hearing them speak.' The Trinamool Congress has accused the Union government of evading questions on the detentions. The party alleged that the Union home ministry under Amit Shah had earlier directed BJP-ruled states to profile Bengali speakers, brand them as 'Bangladeshis' and push them out, making the Union government equally accountable for the harassment, detention and deportation of innocent workers. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Video: Lawyer Slaps Dog Lover Outside Supreme Court
New Delhi: Dog lovers and lawyers got involved in a physical fight right outside the Supreme Court over its order to relocate stray dogs from residential localities to shelter homes. In a video, a lawyer can be seen pulling a civilian and thrashing the man. The lawyer, visibly fuming with anger, hits the man twice before people intervene and try to mediate. The video of the fight, which has now gone viral, is said to be from August 11, the day the Supreme Court pronounced the order. In the video, people can be heard screaming and abusing the lawyers. View this post on Instagram A post shared by NDTV (@ndtv) On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered civic authorities in the Delhi NCR region, covering Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram, to immediately build dog shelters, move stray dogs and update the court. These shelters, the court said, must have professionals who can tackle dogs, carry out sterilisation and immunisation and also have CCTVs to ensure dogs don't escape. "We are not doing this for us, it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest," Justice Pardiwala said. "Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to shelters. For the time being, forget the rules," he told amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwala, who suggested the steps that can be taken to address the stray dog menace. The Supreme Court's decision comes amid a rise in cases of dog bites in Delhi, leading to rabies deaths. However, the order didn't sit well with dog lovers. Animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi strongly criticised the order, calling the directive "impractical", "financially unviable" and "potentially harmful" to the region's ecological balance. "You have three lakh dogs in Delhi. To get them all off the roads, you'll have to make 3,000 pounds, each with drainage, water, a shed, a kitchen, and a watchman," she told the news agency PTI. "That will cost about Rs 15,000 crore. Does Delhi have Rs 15,000 crore for this?" she asked. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday assured a relook at the ban on stray dogs amid an uproar from several quarters of society.
