Latest news with #Christianity
Time of India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for ‘persecution of tribal Christians'
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC junks plea for SIT, compensation & inquiry commission in Sukma violence against tribal Christians
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought various reliefs, including compensation, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a Commission of Inquiry. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the reliefs sought, such as compensation and the constitution of an SIT or Inquiry Commission under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register First Information Reports (FIRs), provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Some officials reportedly refused to acknowledge complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The Additional Advocate General argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for demands such as compensation or the formation of an SIT or Inquiry Commission. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law, such as filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the concerned court. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
The Star
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Star
Lecturer ordered to pay RM400,000 to Hannah Yeoh
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has ordered Universiti Utara Malaysia senior lecturer Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff to pay RM400,000 in damages to Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh over defamatory Facebook posts made in 2017. Justice Aliza Sulaiman ruled in Yeoh's favour, stating that the court was satisfied she had proven her case on the balance of probabilities. 'I am satisfied that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the first and second publications are defamatory,' said the judge yesterday. The defamatory statements were posted on Facebook on May 10, 2017 under the title 'Hannah Yeoh: Contoh Hipokrasi Terbesar DAP' and on May 17, 2017 as a police report titled 'Laporan Polis Saya Terhadap Hannah Yeoh'. Kamarul argued that he was referring to DAP in his first post but did not raise a similar claim regarding the second publication on May 17. The court found that both publications clearly referred to Yeoh. Justice Aliza also rejected Kamarul's defence of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege, concluding that he failed to substantiate them. The court awarded Yeoh RM200,000 in general and aggravated damages for each post, along with RM80,000 in legal costs to be paid by the defendant. An injunction was also granted, restraining Kamarul or any party acting on his behalf from publishing the defamatory words or anything similar. Kamarul, who was not present in court, later issued a statement expressing respect for the ruling but said he would file an appeal soon. 'I will be filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision on its facts and law,' he said. Yeoh's lawsuit, filed in 2022, accused Kamarul of defaming her by suggesting in the 2017 Facebook posts that she aimed to proselytise Christianity through her political work. The lecturer also referred to Yeoh's biography as promoting a Christian agenda.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Federal judge stands by block on Naples, Florida restrictions on 'PrideFest' drag show
Amid legal wranglings over a pro-LGBT organization that wants to host an outdoor drag show open to all ages in Naples, Florida, next week, a Clinton-nominated federal judge denied an emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction pending appeal. Earlier this month, Judge John Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction to block the city from prohibiting the drag performance from being held outdoors at Cambier Park and to prohibit the imposition of an age requirement for attendance. Then this week, Steele slapped down a bid to stay his preliminary injunction. The Naples PrideFest, which is free for children under 12, is scheduled to take place on June 7 and include a drag performance, Naples Pride notes on its website. According to a legal challenge lodged last month by Naples Pride, the city council voted 5-2 to issue a permit for the event, "but only on the conditions that (1) the drag performance take place indoors at the Norris Center; and (2) no one under 18 be admitted to the drag performance, even if accompanied by an adult parent or guardian." Drag Queen Group Mocks Jesus, Christianity In Easter Show Marketed To Kids Read On The Fox News App The organization objected to those limitations and to the size of the security fee it said the Naples Police Department indicated the organization would need to pay to hold the drag performance. "During the 2025 permit application process, the Naples Police Department initially told Naples Pride that it would have to pay $30,697.50 in security fees alone—on top of other permit fees—to hold the performance indoors, and $44,160.00 in security fees to hold it outdoors," the complaint noted. In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, the city of Naples noted, "On May 27th, U.S. District Court Judge Steele denied the City's emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal." This Progressive Actor Describes The Unlikely Political Evolution That Drove Him To Donald Trump "While this outcome was anticipated, the City's legal team is reviewing the order and determining next steps with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The City remains confident it has both the legal responsibility and the authority to attach reasonable restrictions on special event permits to ensure public safety. Beyond this, and as a matter of policy, the City does not comment in detail on legal strategy for active litigation." U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fl., issued a post on X in which he declared, "You have to be an adult to enter a strip club, but Clinton-appointed Judge John Steele wants sexually-explicit drag shows to take place next to a popular children's playground in Naples. This ruling is atrocious & the City of Naples should appeal this case to the Supreme Court." But Naples Pride hailed the judge's decision. Parents Can't Opt K-5 Children Out Of Lgbtq Curriculum: Appeals Court "Drag performances are a protected form of expression — period," Naples Pride spokesperson Callhan Soldavini noted in a statement the organization provided to Fox News Digital. "The district court's decision is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and firmly rooted in longstanding constitutional principles. Naples Pride will continue to stand for free speech and the rule of law, which safeguards the rights of all people."Original article source: Federal judge stands by block on Naples, Florida restrictions on 'PrideFest' drag show
The Print
a day ago
- The Print
Five women among nine held for bid to convert family to Christianity in Chhattisgarh
The incident took place in a house located near Raipur-Durg check-post under the Padmanabhpur police station limits and a complaint in this connection was lodged by a local resident, he said. The accused were identified as pastor Mamta Kumari Dixit (50), Sapan Deep (42), her son Shubham (24), Rajesh Patel (35), his wife Madhu Tandi (35), Neeta Baghel (40), her daughter Devanti (21), Bini Tandi (30) and Ribeiro Willaims (36), an official said. Durg, May 30 (PTI) Police have arrested nine persons, including five women, for allegedly trying to convert members of a family to Christianity in Durg district of Chhattisgarh, officials said on Friday. 'As per the complaint, the accused persons conducted a healing service meeting on Thursday night at the residence of Madhu Tandi, where they allegedly tried to convert her family to Christianity,' he said. One of the local residents filed a complaint with the police after the incident came to their notice, he added. Subsequently, a police team reached the spot for investigation following which a case was registered, he said. They were nabbed under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, the official said. PTI COR NP This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
