Nimisha Priya action council seeks MEA help for Yemen talks
The Action Council chairperson P.M. Jabir and general convener Jayachandran K., in a memorandum to MEA Secretary, sought a relaxation of the existing travel ban to Yemen for its five-member team. It also requested the Central government to depute two members to lead the discussions in Yemen.
Team members
The five-member team proposed to travel to Yemen comprise Supreme Court lawyer and the council's legal advisor Subhash Chandran K.R., council treasurer N.K. Kunhammed, member and Yemen returnee Sajeev Kumar, Islamic scholar and Kerala Haj Committee chairman Hussain Saqafi Chullikkode, and Yemen expert Hamid.
The council acknowledged the roles of the Central government as well as Sunni leader Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar and some Sufi scholars of Yemen in getting the July 16 execution of Nimisha Priya postponed.
The council assured that it would raise the diyah or blood money required to save Nimisha Priya once the talks are finalised with the family without seeking any government funds.
The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, recently told the Supreme Court that only Nimisha Priya's family should engage with the victim's relatives in Yemen and that intervention by any other organisation would not be effective. The Supreme Court, however, asked the action council to approach the Central government.
The council, in its memorandum to the MEA, said that Nimisha Priya's family would be unable to make any effective negotiations with the victim's family due to its socio-economic constraints. It also pointed out the recent allegations of financial fraud levelled by the victim's brother against the power of attorney holder representing Nimisha Priya's mother in Yemen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
23 minutes ago
- NDTV
India, China Review LAC Situation, Plan 'Special Representatives' Talks
New Delhi: India and China on Wednesday reviewed the overall situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh and prepared the ground for the next edition of the Special Representatives' dialogue on the boundary question. The two sides discussed the issues at a meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) that took place in Delhi. They expressed "satisfaction with the "general prevalence of peace and tranquillity in the border areas, leading to gradual normalisation of bilateral relations", the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said. It said India and China also prepared for the next round of the Special Representatives' (SR) talks to be held in India later this year. While India's Special Representative for the dialogue is National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval, the Chinese side is headed by Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Wang is expected to visit India for the upcoming SR talks. The last episode of the SR dialogue was held in Beijing in December last year. On the WMCC talks, the MEA said the two sides reviewed the situation in the India-China border areas. They "agreed to maintain regular exchanges and contacts on issues related to the boundary affairs at the diplomatic and military levels through established mechanisms", it said in a statement. "With a view to advancing effective border management and sustaining peace and tranquillity, the two sides deliberated on various measures as explored during the previous 23rd round of SR talks," the MEA said. The Indian delegation at the WMCC talks was led by Gourangalal Das, the joint secretary (East Asia division) in the MEA. The Chinese side was headed by Hong Liang, the director general of the boundary and oceanic affairs department of the Chinese foreign ministry. Hong also called on Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Over the last nine months, India and China have been engaged in normalising their relations after ending the military face-off along the LAC in October last year. Though the two sides have disengaged troops from the friction points, they are yet to de-escalate the situation by pulling back the frontline forces from the border. Each side currently has around 50,000 to 60,000 troops along the LAC in the eastern Ladakh region. The WMCC talks took place days after External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited China to attend a conclave of the foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The military standoff in eastern Ladakh began in May 2020 and a deadly clash in the Galwan valley in June that year resulted in a severe strain in ties between the two neighbours. The face-off effectively ended following the completion of the disengagement process from the last two friction points of Demchok and Depsang under an agreement finalised on October 21 last year. The decision to revive various dialogue mechanisms was taken at a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Russian city of Kazan in October last year. The Modi-Xi meeting came two days after India and China firmed up the disengagement pact for Depsang and Demchok.
India Today
38 minutes ago
- India Today
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
