Latest news with #Citizenship(Amendment)Act
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi HC bins plea against demolition of tenements of Hindu refugees from Pakistan
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking a stay on the proposed demolition of an illegal colony set up by Hindu refugees from Pakistan along the Yamuna river in north Delhi till an alternative plot of land is allotted to the affected people. The court also vacated an interim stay it had granted on March 12 against the demolition. Justice Dharmesh Sharma on Friday rejected the plea filed by a man named Ravi Ranjan Singh, seeking orders to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the refugees a different spot in the city as per the provisions in the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, before demolishing their tenements. Mr. Singh argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was framed with the idea of providing Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from the neighbouring countries, to help them escape religious persecution. 'Must be a citizen' However, the court said that it 'has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought by way of the present petition' because to be eligible to avail of the provisions of the Delhi government policy, the person seeking relief 'must first and foremost be a citizen of India'. 'On account of their nationality, the Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB policy,' it added. The court asked the petitioner, as well as the other refugees, to first acquire Indian citizenship, adding that it could 'be done online with ease' and asked the Delhi State Legal Service Authority to help the refugees to comply with the necessary legal formalities. Remarks against Centre The court added that 'even Indian citizens cannot claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases where the land they occupy falls under specially prohibited areas like Zone 'O' of Delhi, i.e., the Yamuna floodplains'. Justice Sharma also made observations regarding the court's attempts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees, saying all its 'efforts have been unfruitful, seemingly due to the classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of the Union of India'. The judge added, 'Nevertheless, this court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees.'
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
2019 anti-CAA violence in U.P.'s Rampur: Over ₹11 lakh recovery from 195 rioters ordered
The Uttar Pradesh Public and Private Property Damage Recovery Claims Tribunal in Meerut has directed for the recovery of ₹11,08,901 from 195 individuals involved in the 2019 violence against Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in Rampur. The three-member tribunal, chaired by Dr Ashok Kumar Singh, and comprising members Garima Singh and Alok Pandey, on Wednesday delivered the order after three years of hearing in the case titled 'State Government vs Islam & Others'. The violence, which erupted on December 21, 2019, caused extensive damage to public and private property in Rampur. According to the tribunal's records, a mob of 400–500 people, led by one Islam and others, gathered after raising inflammatory slogans during a protest against the CAA. The crowd marched from Hamid Inter College towards Eidgah Shahbad Gate, breaking barricades, and attacking security forces with gunfire and stones at Hathi Khana Crossing. According to the tribunal order accessed by HT, the damages included a government jeep, wireless equipment, multicoloured lights, sirens, motorcycles, fibre batons, helmets, body protectors, tear gas cans, barricading materials, iron barriers and folding barriers. Additionally, five private motorcycles, a scooter, and a mobile phone were also destroyed, with the total loss assessed at ₹11,08,901. In 2022, Rampur police filed a claim with the Meerut tribunal, seeking recovery from 197 accused. After issuing notices and conducting hearings, the tribunal found 195 of the accused guilty, ordering them to pay a fine of ₹5,687 each. The Rampur DM has been tasked with recovering the total amount within 30 days as per Section 23 of the Public and Private Property Damage Recovery Act, 2020. The recovered sum will be deposited in the government treasury. If the guilty fail to pay the fine within the stipulated period, the DM will treat the amount as arrears of land revenue with an additional 6% simple interest and recovery expenses applied until the fine is settled, the order mentioned.
The Hindu
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Minorities have reposed faith in the VCK because of its secular push, say leaders
The Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) is preparing to organise a massive rally against the Waqf (Amendment) Act in Tiruchi on May 31 to further cement its position as the strong defender of the rights of the minority communities in Tamil Nadu. The decision was taken at a recent meeting of the party district secretaries. Preparations are being made to organise the rally by mobilising Muslims and VCK workers in a large number. While only the Congress has so far been able to present the DMK-led alliance as 'secular', VCK founder Thol. Thirumavalavan persistently raising issues related to the rights of the minority communities has helped the party gain their trust, say party sources. 'Today, the minority communities see the alliance that we are part of as the secular alliance,' VCK general secretary and Villupuram MP D. Ravikumar said. He added that the party had raised the problems of Muslims and organised protests, including the one against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, because of its ideological commitment and not because of any electoral calculation. Senior party leaders said the ideologically consistent positions taken by the party without being swayed by 'offers' had given the VCK a stronger footing in the alliance. 'In the DMK-led alliance, we are the only partner that can appoint booth agents across Tamil Nadu. The Congress, the MDMK, the CPI, or the CPI(M) don't have the strength to do it. We hope to be given our due in the alliance,' a senior leader said.
NDTV
29-04-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Can Sharjeel Imam Be Tried In Different States Over Same Speech, Asks Top Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked if former JNU student Sharjeel Imam can be prosecuted in different states for offences including sedition over a single speech. The top court was hearing the 2020 plea of Imam seeking the clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him across four states, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, for the alleged inflammatory speech delivered during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was urged by senior advocate Sidharth Dave, who said couldn't be subjected to multiple trials across the country for one speech. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police which has also registered a criminal case against Imam, opposed the submissions and said, "He instigated a mob in Bihar, a mob in Uttar Pradesh and in Delhi. The offences are different." "But the speech is one and the same. If the speech is on YouTube, etc., and then it can be heard across India and the impact will be the same," the CJI said, indicating a case of "double jeopardy. The CJI said the cases should be transferred to Delhi. Raju said he was not representing other states and, therefore, did not have the instruction over clubbing or transfer of the cases. "Offence against the state is one issue and the offence against society is different," he said. The CJI said, "If there were different speeches then you may be right. Here, the speech is you agree, then can stay trial in other states." Raju reiterated his position following which the bench posted the hearing after two weeks. The top court previously sought to know from Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh about any objection if the trials against Imam in multiple FIRs were transferred to Delhi. On May 26, 2020, the top court sought their responses and the Delhi government to file its reply in the matter. Delhi Police booked Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). On January 28, 2020, Imam was arrested by the Delhi Police's crime branch from Bihar's Jehanabad in a sedition case for allegedly making inflammatory speeches in the Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University. The former student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University's Centre for Historical Studies was booked on sedition and other charges after purported videos of his alleged inflammatory speeches made during protests against the CAA were circulated on social media. An FIR was lodged against him by Delhi Police on January 25, 2020 under IPC Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever) among other provisions.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Can Sharjeel Imam be prosecuted in different states over single speech? SC asks
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked if former JNU student Sharjeel Imam can be prosecuted in different states for offences including sedition over a single speech. The top court was hearing the 2020 plea of Imam seeking the clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him across four states, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, for the alleged inflammatory speech delivered during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack The groundwork before India mounts a strike at Pakistan India considers closing airspace to Pakistani carriers amid rising tensions Cold Start: India's answer to Pakistan's nuclear threats A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was urged by senior advocate Sidharth Dave, who said couldn't be subjected to multiple trials across the country for one speech. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for Delhi Police which has also registered a criminal case against Imam, opposed the submissions and said, "He instigated a mob in Bihar, a mob in Uttar Pradesh and in Delhi. The offences are different." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like People thought hearing aids were expensive till they saw this. Read more Learn More Undo "But the speech is one and the same. If the speech is on YouTube, etc., and then it can be heard across India and the impact will be the same," the CJI said, indicating a case of "double jeopardy. The CJI said the cases should be transferred to Delhi. Live Events Raju said he was not representing other states and, therefore, did not have the instruction over clubbing or transfer of the cases. "Offence against the state is one issue and the offence against society is different," he said. The CJI said, "If there were different speeches then you may be right. Here, the speech is you agree, then can stay trial in other states." Raju reiterated his position following which the bench posted the hearing after two weeks. The top court previously sought to know from Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh about any objection if the trials against Imam in multiple FIRs were transferred to Delhi. On May 26, 2020, the apex court sought their responses and the Delhi government to file its reply in the matter. Delhi Police booked Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). On January 28, 2020, Imam was arrested by the Delhi Police's crime branch from Bihar's Jehanabad in a sedition case for allegedly making inflammatory speeches in the Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University. The former student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University's Centre for Historical Studies was booked on sedition and other charges after purported videos of his alleged inflammatory speeches made during protests against the CAA were circulated on social media. An FIR was lodged against him by Delhi Police on January 25, 2020 under IPC Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever) among other provisions.
