&w=3840&q=100)
Cong seeks govt's help for release of Catholic nuns jailed in Chhattisgarh
Nuns Preethi Merry and Vandana Francis along with Sukaman Mandavi were arrested at the Durg railway station in the BJP-ruled Chhattisgarh on July 25 following a complaint by a local Bajrang Dal functionary, who accused them of forcibly converting three girls from Narayanpur and trafficking them.
Raising the matter during Zero Hour, Congress members K C Venugopal and K Suresh said the incident is "deeply disturbing and shocking" as the nuns are innocent and were doing social work by providing palliative care for cancer patients.
Venugopal said the nuns were manhandled and "falsely accused" of religious conversion and human trafficking by Bajrang Dal members. The two nuns were stopped at the Durg railway station while they were travelling to Agra.
"These two nuns are in jail without any reason for the last five days. What a cruelty this is. Is the country a banana republic ?... We wrote to the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and Home Minister of India seeking release of the nuns. But the chief minister is repeating the same version of Bajrang Dal. What a shame," Venugopal said.
"This is a high time to act upon. If the government is not acting, the situation will go out of control. The situation in Kerala is also burning, everywhere agitation is happening... The government has to intervene, we need a clear answer and they have to release (the nuns) immediately," Venugopal said.
Suresh too raised the issue of the arrest of two nuns and demanded central government intervention. He said the nuns are innocent and were doing social work.
Soon after the issue was raised in the Zero Hour, Congress members entered the well demanding release of the nuns.
Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra stood in their seats protesting against the arrest of the nuns.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
NIA attaches D-Company operative's properties in Gujarat BJP leaders' murder case
Anti-terror agency National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday said it has attached two properties belonging to Mohammad Yunus, an alleged member of the Pakistan-based D-Company gang, in connection with the 2015 double murder of BJP workers in Bharuch, a major crackdown on D-Company's operations in India, properties located in Bharuch city were attached under Section 33(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, based on a recent order by the NIA Special Court in Ahmedabad in connection with the double murder attached properties include a residential house in Ward No. 3, City Survey No. 3614 and a property in City Survey No. 3615, covering a total area of 174 square metres," NIA said in a statement. Yunus, also known as Manjro, was arrested for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy and murder of BJP workers Shirish Bengali and Pragnesh Mistry. Former BJP president of Bharuch and senior RSS member Bangali and general secretary of Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha Mistry were shot dead in the district on November 2, 2015.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation. The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS. The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on 'defamatory' comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader's house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation. Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year. In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. 'Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,' the court said. 'The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,' it said. While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no 'willful misrepresentation or malicious intent' of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation. 'If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,' it added.
