J&K LG sacks 3 UT staff for terror links
Tuesday dismissed three J&K govt employees after they were found to be transporting arms, explosives and narcotics to and arranging logistical support for operatives of LeT and Hizb to carry out terror attacks in the UT.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
This takes the total dismissals ordered by Sinha under Article 311(2)(c) of Constitution, since he took office, to over 75.
All three govt employees sacked in the latest round - Malik Ishfaq Naseer, a constable; Ajaz Ahmed, a teacher in school dept; and Waseem Ahmad Khan, a junior assistant in GMC, Srinagar - are currently in jail on terror charges.
Naseer was recruited as a constable in J&K Police in 2007. His brother Malik Asif Naseer, a Pakistan-trained terrorist of LeT, was killed by forces in 2018.
Malik, however, continued his terror activities, using his cover as a constable to avoid suspicion. His LeT link was exposed in Sept 2021 when cops found him to be helping LeT drop arms, explosives & narcotics, guided by GPS, at pre-shared coordinates facilitated by him to his Pakistani handlers.
Ahmed was recruited as a teacher in 2011 but led a double life as a terror associate of Hizb in Poonch region. He was helping the outfit in smuggling arms and ammunition.
Khan's terror links with Hizb were exposed with his arrest in Aug 2018. Sources said he was one of the conspirators behind killing of journalist Shujaat Bukhari in June 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Panel backs law for SC, ST, OBC quota in private varsity admissions
A parliamentary panel has recommended 27%, 15% and 7.5% reservation for OBC, SC and ST students, respectively, in private higher education institutions, noting the 'considerably low' number of OBC students and 'abysmally low' number of SC and ST students in select private institutions. Data provided by three of the four private Institutions of Eminence (IoEs) — BITS-Pilani, OP Jindal Global University, Shiv Nadar University — to the panel showed less than 1% of students belonged to the ST category in each of the institutions. Citing 'substantial' annual fees in private universities, the panel underlined the need for the State to take steps through legislation to accommodate students from these categories. Article 15(5) of the Constitution empowers the State to include private aided and unaided institutions of higher education in the scheme of reservations, it stated, adding that private institutions are currently not legally obliged to implement reservation policies. The committee called for implementing Article 15(5) in full across the country through legislation by Parliament, to match the reservation with the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act of 2006 applicable on centrally-funded institutions like IITs, IIMs, and central universities. '…in the interest of fairness, any introduction of reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private HEIs must be fully covered financially by the Government,' the committee noted, recommending a model similar to reimbursements provided to private schools by the government for 25% reservation. The panel recommended that the governments should allocate dedicated funds for private HEIs to increase seats, build infrastructure, and hire faculty in institutions implementing reservations, ensuring that there is no reduction in general category seats. The Department of Higher Education of the Union Ministry of Education told the committee that it is the responsibility of the state governments to make suitable legislative provisions for providing reservation in higher education institutions established by them, since private universities are established by Acts of state legislatures. The department referred to All India Survey of Higher Education data for 2022-23 which shows that students in the SC category comprise 15.5% (67.87 lakh students) of the total student enrolment in government and private higher education institutions (4.38 crore), while this figure is 6.4% (28.25 lakh students) for ST category students, and 38.9% (1.7 crore students) for OBC category students.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Government: Governor can scrap bill by withholding assent
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Amid conflicts between governors and opposition-led governments in states, the Centre on Wednesday told Supreme Court that if a governor, in rare and extraordinary circumstances, chooses to withhold assent to a bill passed by a state assembly, the bill gets scrapped. Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta had to labour a good part of the day before a five-judge Constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar to explain the sweeping power conferred on governors through Article 200 of the Constitution. The proposition, which the SG said, is backed by two five-judge SC bench judgments categorically stating that if a governor exercised the option of withholding assent, then the bill "falls through", evoked questions from a bench that was clearly alive to frequent stalemates between governors and state govts over indefinite pendency of bills with the former. Mehta said on a bill, the governor has options of granting assent, withholding assent, reserving it for the President's consideration or returning it to the assembly with suggestions for modification. "Once he declares he has withheld assent, the bill falls through. The governor then cannot exercise any of the other three options," he said. "The governor can simpliciter withhold assent ...if he believes the bill is unconstitutional or beyond any remedial changes, in which case the bill would 'fall through' or lapse as has been observed in several SC judgments by five-judge benches. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo " Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that the Constitution fixes no timeline for governors, in exercise of their plenary powers, to choose any of the four options. "The constitutional provision conferring such powers on the governor can only be amended by Parliament and the judiciary cannot encroach on the legislative domain in the guise of interpretation," Mehta said in what appeared to be a challenge aimed at the verdict of a two-judge bench fixing deadlines for governors and the President to take a call on bills sent to them for assent. CJI Gavai said similar arguments were advanced by ruling dispensations when it came to SC directing the speaker to decide within a timeframe petitions on disqualification of MLAs under the anti-defection law. For the sake of democracy, SC has fixed timelines for speakers in such cases, he said. Mehta, however, argued that the two cases are not alike since the speaker, while adjudicating petitions under the anti-defection law, acts as a tribunal and not in his/her constitutional capacity. It is a settled law that as a tribunal he is amenable to the jurisdictions of HCs and SC, he further argued. The SG said discretionary power to 'withhold assent to a bill' is one of the few areas, delineated by the Constitution, where the governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the state. "Because no council of ministers would advise the governor to withhold assent to a bill, yet that power is specifically given by the Constitutio," he said. The SG cited 10 illustrative situations where the governor would be well within his discretionary powers to withhold assent to a bill to render it ineffective. He said, for instance, if a border state enacts a law allowing citizens of a neighbouring country free entry into the state, the governor would be justified in withholding assent.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Centre's proposed amendment to remove ministers from office: What SC has previously said on the matter
Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in Lok Sabha a significant constitutional amendment that seeks to remove a central or state Minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively. The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review. What does the amendment propose? The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively. These provisions will have a new clause: 'A Minister, who for any period of thirty consecutive days during holding the office as such, is arrested and detained in custody, on allegation of committing an offence under any law for the time being in force, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more, shall be removed from his office by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister to be tendered by the thirty-first day, after being taken in such custody.' The removal can be reversed when the Minister is released from custody. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister will be in the ambit of the proposed law. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, there is a need for a legal framework for the removal of a Minister arrested on serious criminal charges. Ministers facing such allegations 'may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance', which could 'diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people'. The constitutional amendment will require a majority of two-thirds of Members present and voting to be passed. What is the current legal framework, and how does the Bill depart from it? Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent a certain time in custody. Ministers do not have qualifications that are distinct from those of legislators (with whom the RPA deals), but they have different responsibilities. In the RPA, the yardstick for disqualification is conviction by a court. The disqualification can be stayed if the conviction is stayed by a higher court on appeal. India's constitutional scheme envisages the presumption of innocence for the accused, and puts the onus of proving the charges on the prosecution. Police file a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, after which a court frames the charges. Trial begins after that, and can end in acquittal or conviction. In the proposed Bill, the yardstick for removal is 30 consecutive days of being 'arrested and detained in custody'. Since arrest and detention are only the preliminary step in a criminal investigation, such a yardstick raises serious questions of due process. What has been the debate on when a legislator can be disqualified? Given the serious concerns over the growing criminalisation of politics, a view has gained ground that a legislator must be disqualified even before the stage of conviction. It has been argued that the long wait for conviction defeats the purpose of disqualification. Since September 2013, only 27 sitting MPs and MLAs have been disqualified after being convicted of offences. However, constitutional principles of natural justice require a person to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before consequential action is taken against them. Also, disqualification impacts not only the rights of the legislator but also the will of the people who have elected the legislator. In its 170th report in 1999, the Law Commission of India proposed that the framing of a charge for offences punishable by up to five years' imprisonment should be made an additional ground for disqualification, which should be for five years or until acquittal, whichever was earlier. This proposal was reiterated by the Election Commission of India in 2004, and by the Law Commission in its 244th report in 2014. The Law Commission's 2014 report recommended that a legislator could be disqualified when charges were framed against them by a court, since this showed prima facie judicial satisfaction that there existed sufficient material against a person to put them to trial. The report rejected suggestions that the filing of a chargesheet by police or of a court taking cognizance of an offence against a legislator were appropriate stages for disqualification. Disqualifying a person before the 'application of judicial mind' would be 'against the principles of natural justice', and 'would mean that a person is penalised without proceedings being initiated against him', the Commission said. What has the Supreme Court said on the question of disqualification of a legislator? 🔴 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court discussed these recommendations in a 2018 judgment in a public interest litigation. The PIL by Public Interest Foundation had sought disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for serious offences. The court stated that it could not legislate or add new grounds for disqualification beyond what Parliament had provided. It reiterated that the power to make laws on disqualification rested solely with Parliament. The court did recommend, however, that Parliament should enact a 'strong law' making it mandatory for political parties to revoke the membership of those against whom charges have been framed for 'heinous and grievous offences', and to not give them tickets to contest elections. 🔴 Earlier, in its judgment in Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court had said there is no bar against a person with criminal antecedents being appointed as Minister. However, the court suggested that as the 'repository of constitutional trust', the Prime Minister should consider not choosing individuals with criminal antecedents, especially if charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or corruption. 🔴 More recently, the SC made some observations in two cases of Ministers facing money laundering charges — one, V Senthil Balaji of Tamil Nadu, and two, then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. BALAJI was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in 2023 in the alleged cash-for-jobs scam and remained in custody for 14 months. He was dropped as a Minister after significant pressure from the Governor and the opposition. In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted Balaji bail because the trial was likely to take several years. Within days of being released, Balaji was reinstated as a Cabinet Minister. The ED urged the SC to cancel his bail, arguing that from his position of authority, he might influence the case against him. The SC observed that it had not taken into account his ministerial position, as he had resigned before his bail application was heard. Once he was reappointed after being released, the court said it was misled. In April 2025, the court told Balaji to choose between 'freedom or post' — he could either resign or risk the cancellation of his bail. Days later, Balaji stepped down, and the court allowed his bail to continue. KEJRIWAL was granted bail in the alleged liquor policy money laundering case, but the SC barred him from signing official documents, entering government offices, and interacting with witnesses and accessing files connected with the case. The court, however, made it clear that it had no jurisdiction to compel an elected leader to step down; whether he should resign was left to Kejriwal's discretion. In September 2024, the court granted him regular bail, noting that prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial would be unjust. It refrained from issuing directions on his continuance in the office. Kejriwal voluntarily resigned soon afterward.
