logo
Why has Pakistan's Punjab province imposed a complete ban on kite flying?

Why has Pakistan's Punjab province imposed a complete ban on kite flying?

Al Jazeera08-02-2025

Pakistan's most populous Punjab province has imposed a complete ban on kite flying before the centuries-old Basant festival – which marks the arrival of spring – over public safety concerns.
Legal amendments passed by the provincial assembly impose heavier fines and longer jail terms for violators that were in force previously, in a disappointment to revellers who fly kites as part of an age-old tradition to welcome spring – a celebration that stands for joy, colour and the beauty of nature.
Authorities have defended the latest measure, saying the use of metal and glass-coated strings has caused injuries and even deaths, making kite-flying a danger to public safety.
But critics say the ban is unjust and in disregard to a popular cultural festival celebrated by people of all faiths in the South Asian nation. Some experts suggested that authorities could have regulated the use of dangerous strings instead of an outright ban, which has affected the livelihoods of thousands of kite makers.
So, why did authorities take such tough measures and will they prevent people from flying kites?
What's the new law that imposes a total ban on kite-flying in Punjab?
The Punjab assembly last month officially passed the Punjab Prohibition of Kite Flying (Amendment) Act, 2024, which introduced enhanced prison terms and heavy fines for kite fliers, manufacturers, transporters and sellers.
The law represents an amendment to the Prohibition of Kite Flying Act, 2007 and has made kite-flying a non-bailable offence.
Under the previous law, individuals caught flying kites could face up to three years in prison or be fined up to 100,000 rupees ($360), or both. Now, they may face up to five years in prison or a two-million rupee ($7,200) fine, or both. If the fine is not paid, an additional year of imprisonment can be added.
Kite makers and transporters can face between five to seven years in prison or a fine of between 500,000 ($1,800) to five million rupees ($18,000), along with an additional two years of imprisonment upon failure to pay the fine. The previous law targeted making, sale and trade of kites, but not the transport of kites and dangerous kite strings.
The law prohibits the transport of 'kites, metallic wire, nylon cord, any other thread coated with sharp maanjha [glass-coated string] or any other injurious material for the purpose of kite flying'.
The new law also includes specific penalties for minors. The first offence by a minor will result in a warning, and the second offence in a 50,000-rupee ($180) fine. A third offence would attract a 100,000-ruppe ($360) fine, while a fourth offence will lead to imprisonment under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, according to a summary posted online by the Punjab police.
Previous laws allowed kite-flying after permission from authorities on certain occasions and attempted to regulate the manufacture, sale, and trading of kites with lesser penalties for violators.
Mujtaba Shuja-ur-Rehman, a legislator from the ruling Pakistan Muslim League party, said the stricter penalties, which will apply across the province, were needed to save the lives of innocent people.
The latest measures took effect before the Basant festival, celebrated on the fifth day of the lunar month of Magha. This year's spring festival began on February 2, but kite-flying clubs have pledged to defy the ban.
Has Punjab issued curbs on kite flying before?
Yes. The government in Punjab province has issued a series of executive orders and bans to try to crack down on kite flying since the early 2000s, including an emergency law passed in 2001.
In 2005, the Supreme Court of Pakistan directed the Punjab government to regulate the manufacture, trade or even flying of kites in response to an outcry over dozens of injuries and deaths caused every year by the glass, metal-coated or nylon strings.
Punjab's provincial capital Lahore also imposed a kite-flying ban in 2005 to address what the top court said was a 'menace'.
What other actions have authorities taken to discourage kite-flying?
Over the years, penal, judicial as well as legislative measures have failed to prevent the revelers from flying kites.
Authorities have also roped in religious leaders to drive home the point that kite flying is dangerous. Religious scholars in consultation with Lahore police have issued a fatwa, or Islamic edict, declaring kite flying un-Islamic.
One-wheeling on a motorbike and aerial firing, other common activities during the Basant celebrations, were also declared un-Islamic. The ruling was based on Quranic verses emphasising the preservation of human life and prohibiting acts that endanger it.
Police have cracked down on kite manufacturers, with Punjab police confiscating more than 100,000 kites in Lahore – a regional hub for kite-making – last year.
Authorities have also organised awareness campaigns on the risks of kite flying.
How dangerous is kite-flying in Punjab?
Kite-flying competitions, which involve participants trying to cut each other's kites using glass or metal-coated string or nylon cords, take place in densely crowded neighbourhoods in cities across Pakistan.
Fierce competition has turned the centuries-old tradition into a deadly sport as some kite flyers have died falling from buildings, while sharp strings – also known as maanjha – coated with glass paste have caused deaths of bystanders or bikers.
Additionally, if the string is coated with metal, it can conduct electricity if it touches power lines, potentially causing electrocution, short-circuits or fires. This can take hours to restore in an already energy deficient country. In some areas, power grids are switched off to prevent short circuits, causing disruption in regular activities.
What has been the response to the ban?
Kite flying groups have been defiant, with the Rawalpindi Kite Flying Association saying it plans to celebrate Basant on February 13 and 14.
Sheikh Saleem, a former chief of Lahore's kite flying federation, told BBC Urdu that instead of banning the activity completely, officials should be more proactive in taking action against manufacturers of glass coated kite strings.
However, Khalid Zafar, who heads a law firm based in Lahore, says enforcing this kind of regulation would require more resources, which the police force lacks and the government might not be willing to invest in.
Police have also struggled to crack down on kite manufacturers, some of whom flex political connections.
But some media organisations have backed the government decision. The Tribune newspaper called the measures 'a bold but necessary measure that prioritises public safety over tradition'.
'While the Basant festival holds a cherished place in our cultural heritage, it is essential to recognise that safety must come first, especially when tragic incidents have marred the joy of this vibrant celebration in the past,' the paper said in its editorial on January 25.
'The passion and enthusiasm surrounding Basant are undeniably beautiful, but they cannot overshadow the responsibility we bear towards the safety of our fellow citizens… Critics of the ban argue that it infringes on cultural expression, but culture must evolve to reflect our values, including the paramount importance of human life.'
Mirza Iftikhar Baig, 85, a Lahore resident, is upset at the ban, saying 'kite-flying was a sport for us.'
During the day, people would fly colourful kites that decorated the sky, and at night, white ones that fluttered like stars, Baig told Al Jazeera, reminiscing about the festivities.
'People would make special dishes like carrot pudding and get together,' said Baig, who was an avid kite flyer during his youth growing up in Lahore's walled city.
But the 85-year-old Lahore resident said during his time, people only used safe, cotton string kites, unlike the metal or glass-coated strings that pose a danger to public safety today.
What has been the economic effect of the ban?
Some analysts point out the effect on kite manufacturers and the resulting loss of livelihoods of thousands of workers.
Recent data on the scale of the industry is scarce, but in 2004, Basant-related activities generated an estimated 220 million rupees ($790,000) in revenue in Lahore alone, and created business worth up to three billion rupees (some $7m) province-wide, benefitting workers and cottage industries.
The kite-making industry employs an estimated 1.5 million people across Pakistan.
Most workers in the industry are women, and the ban would not only render them jobless but also affect related industries like bamboo, thread, glue, and paper, say experts.
'Unfortunately, because most of the people associated with kite trade were poor or home-based workers, they were not able to raise their voice against anti-kite flying laws,' said Zafar.
What is Basant and where is it celebrated?
Punjab has historically been known for its centuries-old Basant festival, which celebrates the arrival of spring and agricultural produce. Basant means spring in the Hindi and Punjabi languages.
The Punjab region, which straddles India and Pakistan, is known for its fertile land and vibrant culture – and the soaring of colourful kites in the sky is a reflection of that.
Lahore and Kasur in Pakistan's Punjab, and Amritsar across the border in India's Punjab, have been some of the key cities where Basant has traditionally been celebrated for centuries.
Raza Ahmad Rumi, director at Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, says the curbs on kite-flying – which is the centrepiece of Basant festival – represent a cultural erasure.
The festival became not only a 'cultural marker' in the city's [Lahore's] landscape, but it was also an inclusive event that brought together the rich and poor, as well as diverse communities and age groups, making it a continuation of Lahore's 'pluralistic culture', he told Al Jazeera, referring to the city's mixed demography (Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims) before the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947.
'[The ban] by the government and then subsequently by the court has been a major rupture, I would say, in the shared cultural values between India and Pakistan, especially on both sides of the Punjab region,' he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What the assault on Columbia University is really about
What the assault on Columbia University is really about

Al Jazeera

time23-03-2025

  • Al Jazeera

What the assault on Columbia University is really about

The Trump administration's war on campus dissent has reached a new, disturbing milestone. On March 8, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers detained Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and prominent organiser of the Gaza solidarity encampment on campus. Days later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it had revoked the visa of Ranjani Srinivasan, a Columbia graduate student, and arrested Leqaa Kordia, a former Columbia student. In parallel, President Donald Trump's administration cancelled federal grants and contracts worth $400m that the university was receiving and demanded that it place its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department under 'academic receivership for a minimum of five years'. Columbia, for its part, announced it was expelling students and revoking the degrees of participants in the April 2024 occupation of one of its buildings, Hamilton Hall, renamed by the protesters Hind's Hall, after Hind Rajab, a six-year-old Palestinian girl killed by the Israeli army in Gaza. The university ultimately capitulated to the Trump administration's sweeping demands — banning masks, overhauling its disciplinary procedures, appointing an approved academic overseer, and expanding police powers on campus — despite widespread condemnation from scholars and legal experts. This unprecedented assault on freedom of expression and dissent on campus represents a new phase in the weaponisation of anti-Semitism accusations. What started as speech restrictions and campus disciplinary actions has now evolved into arrests, deportations, surveillance and outright interference in university affairs. The ultimate endgame is not just suppressing pro-Palestinian activism but taking ideological control over higher education in the United States. The assault on universities is part of a broader right-wing effort to reshape academia into an ideological stronghold of conservative nationalism. Trump made that clear during his campaign, saying that he aims 'to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical left and Marxist maniacs'. The targeting of Palestinian activism is merely an excuse — the lead chariot in the procession to dismantle academic independence and enforce ideological conformity. It is important to remember that the assault on US higher education, which Trump is now escalating, began years ago with pressure on universities in the US, as well as in Canada and Europe, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. IHRA introduced a working definition of anti-Semitism in 2016, providing examples of it – two of which involved criticism of Israel. Initially, the definition was intended to assist law enforcement and provide a research tool to track anti-Semitic incidents. But over time, persistent lobbying efforts led to its adoption by various governments and institutions. The pressure on universities to apply the definition in their internal affairs came as attitudes towards Israel started shifting, especially among young Americans. This change threatened the longstanding bipartisan consensus in the US on unconditional support for Israel, making it urgent for pro-Israel advocates to establish new lines of defence. On campuses, the IHRA definition started being used primarily for smear tactics, leading to harassment, doxxing, and reputational damage for those who criticised Israel. Professors, students, and activists were labelled as anti-Semitic and subjected to campaigns designed to intimidate them into silence. But after the October 7 attacks, the attack on pro-Palestinian views and activism escalated dramatically: professors were fired, student groups were banned, speakers were disinvited, and now, even arrests and deportations are taking place. The unprecedented campaign of suppression has even ensnared progressive Jewish communities. Universities have started suspending organisations like Jewish Voice for Peace and targeting Jewish academics critical of Israel. For example, Maura Finkelstein, a Jewish tenured professor, was fired from Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania after being accused of anti-Semitism for supporting Palestinian liberation. 'If I can be fired for criticizing a foreign government, calling attention to a genocide, and using my academic expertise as an anthropologist to highlight how power operates, then no one is safe,' she said in a statement after her dismissal last year. The campaign to silence Jewish voices critical of Israel led University of Haifa scholars Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona to warn, in an article for UCLA Law Review, that legal frameworks like the IHRA definition are being used to 'discipline Jewish identity' and stifle pro-Palestinian activism. Their analysis highlights how the IHRA definition narrows the scope of Jewish identity, punishing Jewish individuals who reject Zionism or criticise Israel. As a result, Jews who align with anti-Zionist traditions — including many religious and progressive voices — find themselves marginalised within their own communities. This suppression underscores a fundamental reality: the weaponisation of the IHRA definition and accusations of anti-Semitism wielded by politicians and institutions have nothing to do with protecting Jewish people. Rather, they serve as a pretext to advance a political agenda aimed at reshaping higher education into an ideological stronghold that censors inconvenient political perspectives. And this is not solely a Republican effort. Many Democrats have embraced these authoritarian measures as well. Senator John Fetterman openly praised Trump's funding cuts to Columbia, stating, 'Columbia let anti-Semitism run amok to cater to lunatic fringe and paid provocateurs.' Representatives Josh Gottheimer, Ritchie Torres and scores of others have also pushed for harsher measures against student protesters, aligning themselves with Trump's broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism. Even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, while calling for the release of Mahmoud Khalil, framed the pro-Palestinian campus protests as 'anti-Semitic', reinforcing the false narrative that equates Palestinian activism with bigotry. Democrats' complicity in this assault on academic freedom has to do not only with concerns about donors and influential interest groups, but also with their own insecurity about challenges to the establishment's authority. Many Democrats support suppressing dissent on college campuses as part of a broader strategy to maintain control over the next generation of activists and intellectuals. This campaign against US universities reflects historical patterns of state repression. During the 1950s, McCarthyism weaponised accusations of communism to silence political opponents and purge left-wing thinkers from universities, Hollywood, and government institutions. The era saw blacklists, loyalty oaths, mass firings, and even imprisonment of those suspected of left-wing affiliations. Despite its intensity, McCarthyism ultimately failed to erase left-wing ideas from public spaces or universities. Over time, the excesses of the Red Scare were exposed, and its main proponents were discredited. Similarly, today's repression of pro-Palestinian activism and broader academic freedom may succeed in intimidating academic institutions and individuals in the short term, but it will fail to erase ideas rooted in justice and liberation. How far this new McCarthyism will go will depend on Americans' will to fight back and protect their freedoms. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

How Columbia gave in to Trump's demands to get its $400m funding back
How Columbia gave in to Trump's demands to get its $400m funding back

Al Jazeera

time22-03-2025

  • Al Jazeera

How Columbia gave in to Trump's demands to get its $400m funding back

Columbia University has agreed to a list of demands laid down by United States President Donald Trump in return for negotiations to reinstate its $400m federal funding which he revoked last month citing 'a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment'. Among other concessions, the university has agreed to ban face masks and to empower 36 campus police officers with special powers to arrest students. A new senior provost will also be installed to oversee the department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies and the Center for Palestine Studies. So what happened and what has Columbia agreed to do? Last year, the school was a major hub during a wave of campus protests that swept the US as Israel's war on Gaza escalated. On April 30, a group of students, staff and alumni occupied Hamilton Hall, an academic building on campus at Columbia, before being forcibly cleared by New York police at the request of the university's leadership. Trump's administration has taken a hardline approach to those involved in the demonstrations last year, pledging in its first week to deport students involved. Earlier this month, it revoked Columbia's federal funding and issued a list of demands the university must agree to before the funding would be reinstated. This month, Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, 29, who played a key role in organising the pro-Palestine protests, was arrested from his university residence in New York's upper Manhattan by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who said they would revoke his green card – permanent residency – following an order from the Department of State. 'It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a news release about the arrest. On March 10, US authorities sent a letter to 60 academic institutions, including Columbia, informing them they were under investigation for 'antisemitic harassment and discrimination' and warning them of potential law enforcement actions if they do not 'protect Jewish students'. The letter also threatened further funding cuts. In response, Columbia said it had expelled, suspended or revoked the degrees of students involved in the Hamilton Hall occupation. As a deadline for Columbia to meet the rest of the government's demands approached on Friday night, the university sent a new memo to the US administration, saying it had also agreed to them. Critics say the move could fundamentally alter academic freedom and the right to free speech in the United States. In its memo to the Trump administration on Friday night, Columbia University listed the new rules and policies which will now apply on its campus and laid out plans to reform its disciplinary processes. Face masks will be banned, protesters will be required to identify themselves, security officers with special powers to arrest students are to be appointed and departments offering courses on the Middle East are to be reviewed and overseen by a new senior provost. The Trump administration had demanded that the school place the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department into 'academic receivership' for five years – a step which can be taken by a university's administration to take control of a department it deems to be dysfunctional away from the faculty. In the memo, the university said: 'All of these steps have been underway and are intended to further Columbia's basic mission: to provide a safe and thriving environment for research and education while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.' In the lead-up to Friday's deadline to meet the government's demands, US media reported that Columbia's trustees had been meeting behind closed doors for several days, with some board members 'deeply concerned the university is trading away its moral authority and academic independence for federal funds', while others said that the school has limited options, according to The Wall Street Journal. Agreeing to the demands does not guarantee the return of federal funds. The Trump administration said meeting its demands was merely a 'precondition for formal negotiations'.Critics say the government's demands go far beyond traditional compliance or conduct policies and that they amount to an attempt to stifle pro-Palestinian voices. Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said these conditions amount to political control over how universities function, what they teach and who is allowed to speak. She emphasised the danger of such federal overreach, saying Columbia's compliance with these demands would 'set a terrible precedent and eviscerate academic freedom throughout the United States'. 'Never before in US history have we seen such an unbridled assault on American civil society, including our constitutional freedoms and protections,' Whitson told Al Jazeera. According to her, the worst thing universities can do now is 'stay quiet and think they won't be next'. Complying with the government's demands 'will open the door for identical actions against every other university in the country', she added. She said the future of academic discourse itself is now at stake. 'The central driving mission of these assaults is first and foremost to silence not just speech but even study of Palestinian rights and history,' she said. 'It's about creating an environment where universities can teach only content that a particular administration deems acceptable.' Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a US policy fellow at Al-Shabaka: The Palestine Policy Network, called the administration's move 'absolutely absurd' and added that the university is 'effectively selling away its legitimacy and independence as an academic institution'. 'For an administration that is supposedly so dedicated to shrinking the influence of the federal government in the private affairs of everything from universities to women's bodies, to now be interfering in the matters of university conduct is a clear example of authoritarian overreach,' Kenney-Shawa told Al Jazeera. He argued that the Trump administration and its pro-Israel supporters are 'losing the debate about Israel' on college campuses and are resorting to forcing them to shut down discussions entirely. 'There is no doubt that Trump is applying a template that his administration will use against anyone who opposes its far-right agenda,' he said. 'But it's critical to highlight that this is a deliberate targeting of those who advocate for Palestinian rights and criticise Israel.' Professor Jonathan Zimmerman, a graduate of Columbia and now a historian of education at the University of Pennsylvania, told Reuters it was 'a sad day for the university'. He said: 'Historically, there is no precedent for this. The government is using the money as a cudgel to micromanage a university.' Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said the move was 'arguably the greatest incursion into academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy that we've seen since the McCarthy era. It sets a terrible precedent.' The government is certainly making efforts to do this but will face legal challenges. In recent weeks, reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents appearing on campus have unsettled many and advocacy groups say the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil is part of a broader pattern to target protesters. Khalil, who is a permanent resident of the US and whose American wife is eight months pregnant, was placed in immigration detention, first in New York and, later, Louisiana. The Trump administration said it plans to strip him of his green card. Khalil has mounted a legal challenge, arguing that the effort to deport him violates his rights to free speech and due process, which are guaranteed under the US Constitution. This week, a federal court rejected Trump's attempt to have the case dismissed. 'These are serious allegations and arguments that, no doubt, warrant careful review by a court of law; the fundamental constitutional principle that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of law demands no less,' Judge Jesse Fruman wrote in his ruling. Last week, a second Columbia University student protester, Leqaa Kordia, was arrested and accused of overstaying her F-1 student visa. She was detained by ICE agents and detained for deportation. Another foreign student, Ranjani Srinivasan of India, had her student visa revoked for participating 'in activities supporting Hammas', a misspelling of the Palestinian armed group Hamas. Earlier this week, government agents detained Badar Khan Suri, an Indian postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. He is being held in Louisiana for deportation for 'spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism' on social media, Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said on Wednesday. Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown who focuses on Palestinian-Israel affairs, said the enforcement efforts appear to be entering 'a different realm with this case', extending beyond protest activity. 'This person seems to have been targeted, not for his activism,' he said, 'but simply for being suspected of holding certain views.' Legal efforts to prevent universities from sharing information about students with the government are under way. Earlier this week, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s request for a legal injunction barring Columbia from sharing student information with federal agencies without due process. The ruling comes amid mounting concerns that universities may be pressured into handing over sensitive data on students, particularly those from Muslim or Arab backgrounds.

Trump deports 238 ‘gang members' to El Salvador: What's the controversy?
Trump deports 238 ‘gang members' to El Salvador: What's the controversy?

Al Jazeera

time17-03-2025

  • Al Jazeera

Trump deports 238 ‘gang members' to El Salvador: What's the controversy?

President Donald Trump's administration deported alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua from the United States to El Salvador on Sunday, despite a court order prohibiting their expulsion from the country. The move is the latest in a series of steps by the Trump administration to expel foreign nationals — some accused of being in the US without documentation, others targeted over campus protests. Here is what happened, and whether it violated the court order. What happened? El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said on Sunday that his country had received 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and an additional 23 members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 from the US. Bukele had agreed to jail members of these groups on behalf of the US in a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month. He added that these deportees were in the custody of the Central American country's Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) for a one-year period that could be extended. During Trump's inauguration speech, he said he would invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. On Saturday, Trump signed a proclamation invoking that 227-year-old law. The proclamation claims that Tren de Aragua is 'perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion' against US territory. It adds that all Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older 'who are members of' the gang and are not naturalised or lawful permanent US citizens are liable to be restrained and removed as 'Alien Enemies'. After Trump's order, federal judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order to block Trump's ability to exercise wartime powers to carry out deportations. This was during a hearing on Saturday sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. But hours later, Bukele confirmed that the Trump administration had nevertheless gone ahead with the deportations. He shared a snippet of a news article about the judge's ruling, captioning it: 'Oopsie … Too late', with a crying-with-laughter emoji. What is the Alien Enemies Act and how does it work? The Alien Enemies Act allows the US president to detain or deport non-citizens during wartime conditions. In 1798, the US was preparing for what it believed was a war with France. The law was introduced to prevent immigrants from sympathising with the French. The law allows the president to carry out these deportations without a hearing and based only on citizenship. The Act has been invoked only three times before, during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. Why is this controversial? While Trump and his allies have argued that the US is at threat of 'invasion' of undocumented immigrants, critics say the president is wrongly invoking the wartime law. An explainer published by the Brennan Center for Justice last year says invoking the Act 'in peacetime to bypass conventional immigration law would be a staggering abuse'. 'The courts should strike down any attempted peacetime use of the Alien Enemies Act,' it adds. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to a grand jury. 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,' it states, adding that wartime is one of the few exceptions to this. The fact that the Trump administration possibly defied a judge's order further exacerbates this controversy. The White House's action was in 'open defiance' of Judge Boasberg's order, Patrick Eddington, a homeland security and civil liberties legal expert at the Washington, DC-based Cato Institute, told the Reuters news agency. 'This is beyond the pale and certainly unprecedented,' Eddington said. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has pushed back against the criticism. 'A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft … full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from US soil,' Leavitt said in a statement posted on her X account on Sunday. She added that 'federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs'. Bruce Fein, an American lawyer specialising in constitutional and international law, disagreed. 'The President is not a king. January 20, 2025, was not a coronation. The President is not Napoleon … Federal courts have jurisdiction over the President,' Fein told Al Jazeera. 'The probability that Trump flouted Judge James Boasberg's order is high, but we need to await more due process,' he added. Leavitt argued that by the time the court order was issued, the deportees had been removed from the US. The exact timings of the deportation flight are unclear. Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University's Law Center, posted on Bluesky that 'a federal court's jurisdiction does *not* stop at the water's edge.' In other words, according to Vladeck, those deportees ought to be brought back to the US even if they had left the US airspace by the time the judge passed his order. 'The court's jurisdiction turns on the presence of the defendant in the United States, not the plaintiffs,' Fein explained, adding that Trump, the defendant in this case, is in the US. 'He could be ordered to return deportees who had been illegally deported to the United States.' Why were these migrants sent to El Salvador? Bukele is detaining the deportees under a deal where the US would compensate El Salvador to hold them, Bukele wrote in an X post. The Trump administration will pay approximately $6m to El Salvador for detaining about 300 alleged Tren de Aragua members from Venezuela for a year. The Salvadorian president also shared a video on his account showing the handcuffed deportees being dragged and having their heads and faces shaved by masked El Salvador police officers. 'The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us.' Venezuela has typically not accepted deportees from the US. The Trump administration has sent Venezuelan deportees to third countries in Central America 'because the US does not have decent relations with Venezuela', Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer, told Al Jazeera earlier. Over the past month, Venezuela has accepted some 350 deportees, including about 180 detained at the Guantanamo Bay US naval base in Cuba, for 16 days. As of 2022, there were 275,000 unauthorised Venezuelan immigrants in the US, according to estimates by the Pew Research Center. What is the CECOT? The Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, which means the Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism, is a 40,000-capacity maximum-security prison in El Salvador. That is where the alleged gang members deported by the US are now being held. The mega-prison prohibits visitation, education and recreation. Inmates are not allowed to go outdoors. CECOT opened in January 2023, within a year of Bukele ordering the construction. It is located in Tecoluca, 72km (45 miles) east of the Salvadorian capital, San Salvador. What is the Tren de Aragua? Tren de Aragua, which is Spanish for 'the train of Aragua', is designated to be a 'foreign terrorist organization' (FTO) by the US. While information about the group is sparse, media reports have previously suggested that the group was formed in 2014 by Hector 'El Nino' Guerrero and two other men who were imprisoned in Tocoron prison in the Venezuelan state of Aragua. The gang largely controlled the prison, ordering robberies, murders and kidnappings from behind bars. The gang is alleged to be behind the 2024 murder of former Venezuelan army officer Ronald Ojeda, who conspired against President Nicolas Maduro. In January, Maduro was sworn in for his third six-year term after a contentious election. A proclamation published by the White House alleges that Tren de Aragua 'operates in conjunction with Cartel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela'. What's next? On Sunday, Trump asked the DC Circuit Court for a stay of Boasberg's order. 'The stay will assuredly be denied within days,' Fein predicted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store