‘Persecuted Hindus from Bangladesh should apply under CAA'
Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA). The recent crackdown is not on Bengali-speaking people, as certain political elements may claim. The
Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP) is reaching out to such Hindus to assist them apply under CAA.
"Even certificates are being issued to them after confirming that they are Hindus," said VHP's organizing general secretary Milind Parande on Monday.
The new law applies to persons of Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, and Parsi communities who reached India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 31, 2014. "Those who came later can also get citizenship through naturalisation," he said adding, "The recent crackdown is against illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, not generally against those who speak Bengali."
Later, talking to TOI, Parande said it can be understood that those who fled these countries may not be able to produce the required documents needed in the CAA application. "The VHP is assisting them in dealing with such practical difficulties but in a legal manner," he said.
Parande said in its central committee meeting held at Jalgaon last week, the VHP raised concerns over what he termed "conversion by churches, Islamic fundamentalism, Marxism, secularists and even profit-driven market forces".
"There are certain global groups working to weaken the Hindu social fabric. Yet, the Hindus have remained resilient," he said adding the VHP also plans to start a campaign against drug addiction.
VHP also expressed concern over an incident in the Lakadganj involving an alleged attack on a Hindu girl's family.
# 'Review Secular & Socialist in Constitution'
VHP leader Milind Parande backed the idea of reviewing the inclusion of the words "secular" and "socialist" in the preamble of the Constitution. Parande said at the time of framing the Constitution, even Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar and Rajendra Prasad, who later became the President, were not in favour of having the two words in the preamble. "This was because they did not want the Constitution to be bound by any doctrine.
It was only added during the Emergency," he said. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sarkaryavaha Dattatreya Hosabale had raised a similar question recently.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
6 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC to hear Prez reference matter from Aug 19
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will commence detailed hearings in the Presidential reference matter on whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September. The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments. The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu, respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC fixes Aug 19-Sep 20 hearing schedule for Presidential Reference; will hear preliminary objection of TN & Kerala on its maintainability
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: A five-judge constitution bench of the SC led by CJI B R Gavai on Tuesday fixed a nine-day schedule to deliberate on a Presidential Reference that has questioned the SC's power to fix timelines for the President and Governors on granting, refusing and withholding assent to Bills passed by Assemblies. The bench of CJI Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar said the hearing would commence from Aug 19, when it will first hear senior advocates K K Venugopal and A M Singhvi on behalf of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, respectively, on the states' preliminary objections to maintainability of the Reference. It said those opposing the reference, represented by Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Gopal Subramaniam, would be given four days – Aug 19, 20, 21 and 26 - to complete their arguments. Those supporting the Reference – attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta – would place their response to maintainability plea as well as the constitutional issues warranting the Reference on Aug 28, Sep 2, 3 and 9. It reserved Sep 10 for rejoinders by parties and clarified that under no circumstance would the schedule be breached and told lawyers to arrange time-schedule for their arguments through prior consultation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like So Many Surprising Uses – Baking Soda Might Be The Only Thing You Need Read More Undo It appointed advocate Aman Mehta as the nodal counsel for those supporting Reference and Misha Rohatgi as one for opposers. 'The nodal counsel in consultation with lawyers shall arrange the timetable for the arguing counsel so that the hearing could be completed on Sep 10. The timetable will be followed scrupulously,' the CJI-led bench forewarned. TOI was first to report on May 15 about the President sending a Reference to the SC for its opinion on the contentious issue of judiciary stepping into the domain of the executive, especially when the Constitution gave no power to the SC to grant deemed assent on behalf of the Governor to Bills. Critical of the SC's Apr 8 judgment and use of its Article 142 powers to rule that the 10 Bills pending with the TN governor to be deemed to have been assented to, the President had said, 'The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the President and the Governor'. The Reference had said Articles 200 and 201, applicable to Governors and the President respectively, 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure' to be followed by them while considering grant or refusal of assent to a Bill passed by an Assembly. The Reference has sought the SC's opinion on 14 questions. Without any express provision in the Constitution, A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Apr 8 had set a three-month deadline for the Governor to either grant or return the Bill to the House. If the Bill is re-passed by the House and resent to him, then the governor must grant assent within a month, the SC had ruled. It had also fixed a three-month deadline for the President to decide whether to grant or refuse assent to a Bill.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage for detailed hearings in the presidential reference concerning whether governors and the president can be judicially compelled to act within fixed timelines on state bills, scheduling the matter before a five-judge Constitution bench starting August 19. SC to begin hearing on presidential reference from August 19 The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, finalised a nine-day hearing calendar extending into September. The court also decided to hear preliminary objections raised by Kerala and Tamil Nadu against the maintainability of the reference at the outset before allowing the Union government and other supporting parties to present arguments. The bench accepted a request by senior advocates KK Venugopal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively, to allow them make arguments on why the reference ought to be returned and how it is an attempt to re-litigate settled law and amounts to an appeal disguised as a reference. The Constitution bench directed that written submissions be filed by August 12. The hearings will take place on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, with arguments by the Union and supporting states. August 28 and September 2, 3, and 9 have been set aside for states opposing the reference, followed by a rejoinder by the Union on September 10. Advocate Aman Mehta was appointed nodal counsel for parties supporting the reference, and Misha Rohatgi for those opposing it. 'The time fixed shall be scrupulously followed and parties shall complete their arguments within the stipulated time,' the bench emphasised in its order. The hearing arises from an unprecedented presidential reference under Article 143, in which President Droupadi Murmu referred to the Supreme Court 14 constitutional questions stemming from the court's April 8 judgment that imposed enforceable timelines on constitutional authorities for acting on state bills. The April ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had for the first time laid down binding timelines for governors and the president in relation to state legislation. It held that governors must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-passed bills and decide within three months whether to grant assent or reserve them for presidential consideration. The court also ruled that inordinate delays could result in 'deemed assent', invoking Article 142 to ensure constitutional functionality. That verdict arose from a petition by the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its governor of delaying assent to 10 important state bills. The court termed the governor's inaction as 'illegal' and directed action within defined timelines, triggering constitutional debate about separation of powers and the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries. On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and all state governments, noting that the constitutional issues raised go beyond Tamil Nadu and have implications across the country. 'We are going to decide for everyone, and not only for Tamil Nadu,' the bench said, as it scheduled further proceedings for July 29 to finalise the hearing dates. In Tuesday's hearing, Venugopal and Singhvi reiterated their objections to the maintainability of the reference. Tamil Nadu has already filed an application seeking outright dismissal of the reference, while Kerala accused the Union of misleading the court into overturning the April 8 judgment. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, urged the court to consider the maintainability along with the merits, arguing, 'In the past, all issues have been decided together.' The bench, however, agreed to give Venugopal and Singhvi an hour on August 19 to argue on the maintainability of the reference. The presidential reference has flagged several critical constitutional queries, including whether a 'deemed assent', as mandated in the April 8 judgment by the two-judge bench, is constitutionally valid, and whether the Supreme Court can impose procedural directions on the president or governors. It questioned whether Article 142 can be used to override express constitutional provisions, and whether the president's discretion under Article 201 can be subject to timelines or judicial review. The reference also raised doubts over whether the April 8 judgment should have been decided by a larger bench, since Article 145(3) of the Constitution mandates that substantial questions of law must be heard by at least five judges. 'This concern is being looked into seriously, and the registry's review of precedent is crucial to determine how to proceed procedurally,' said another person familiar with the internal discussion. Since independence, Article 143 has been invoked at least 14 times to seek the court's advisory opinion on complex questions of law and public importance. While the court's opinion in such references is not binding on the president, they have historically played a vital role in constitutional interpretation. Among the issues raised in the reference are whether decisions of governors and the president under Articles 200 and 201 can be judicially reviewed before a law takes effect; whether courts can direct or substitute the president or governor's discretion using Article 142; and whether constitutional immunity under Article 361 precludes such review altogether. Another critical question pertains to whether disputes of this nature should only be adjudicated under Article 131 of the Constitution, which governs disputes between states and the Union, or whether the Supreme Court can resolve them through writ jurisdiction or otherwise. The reference also asks whether the governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the state's council of ministers while exercising discretion under Article 200.
