SC to hear on Thursday PIL seeking judicial probe into Pahalgam terror attack
NEW DELHI:
The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday a PIL seeking a judicial probe into the horrific and brutal
A two-judge bench of the apex court, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, is slated to hear the PIL (Public Interest Litigation) on May 1, Thursday, according to the causelist.
The plea has been filed in the top court by three individuals: Mohammad Junaid, a resident of Kashmir, along with Fatesh Kumar Sahu and Vicky Kumar.
The matter is listed as item number 25 before the bench, and the hearing is expected to begin around 11:30 a.m.
The plea seeks a direction from the apex court to constitute a judicial commission to investigate the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22. It also requests that the Supreme Court direct the Central government and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to ensure the protection of other tourists in Kashmir.
According to reports, 25 tourists and one local guide were killed when four to five terrorists allegedly opened fire on them in the Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam. The Resistance Force (TRF), an affiliate of the banned Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility for the alleged terror attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Operation Sindoor 2.0? Pakistan secretly rebuilding terror infrastructure near..., India can now...
Pak PM Shehbaz Sharif Operation Sindoor 2.0: After India conducted massive attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in its Operation Sindoor killing more than a hundred terrorists, fresh intelligence reports are suggesting that Pakistan is secretly rebuilding its terror infrastructure using advanced and sophisticated technology. Through its new tactics, Pakistan is rebuilding with the use of encrypted communication tools, satellite phones, and drones to avoid detection. As per reconstruction plan, the new plan accommodates smaller batches of 20–30 terrorists, as opposed to the earlier practice of training 70–80 militants at once. 'ISI has chosen new terror training centres at places like Athmuqam, Sardi, Lipa, Kotli, Kahuta, Jankote and Chamankot in PoK which are surrounded by forests and small mountains and where it is easy to hide the terrorists and keep them for long time,' Deccan Herald quoted sources as saying. 'The training of fresh recruits is being supervised not just by Pakistani handlers, but also by some former terrorists from Kashmir who have now crossed over and are operating from PoJK,' the sources revealed. Special court grants NIA 10-day remand of two Pahalgam terror accused In another important event related to the Pahalgam attack, a special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) granted a 10-day remand of the two accused who were arrested for harbouring Pakistani terrorists behind the deadly Pahalgam terror attack in April, officials said. A local court had earlier granted the NIA a five-day remand of the two accused on Monday, which expired on Friday. The NIA produced the duo before the special NIA court, which granted a further 10-day remand, they said. The two men — Parvaiz Ahmad Jothar of Batkote, Pahalgam; and Bashir Ahmad Jothar of Hill Park, Pahalgam — were arrested by the NIA on Sunday in the first major breakthrough in the investigation into the April 22 attack that left 26 people, mostly tourists, dead and 16 others injured. (With inputs from agencies)
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
