Latest news with #Constitution
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Politics
- Hans India
‘Art 370 abrogation put an end to Kashmir problems'
New Delhi: Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who is part of the all-party delegation on Operation Sindoor outreach mission, has said in Indonesia that the scrapping of Article 370 ended the long-standing problem of separatism in Jammu and Kashmir. He said this while interacting with members of Indonesian think tanks and academia as part of an all-party Indian parliamentary delegation. 'Kashmir had a major problem for a long time. Much of that was reflected in the thinking of the government in an article called 370 of the Constitution, which somehow gave the impression that it was separate from the rest of the country. But Article 370 was abrogated, and it was finally put to an end,' he said. Article 370 of the Constitution accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir until it was revoked by the BJP-led government on August 5, 2019. After the abrogation, the state was bifurcated into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Both were turned into union territories. Khurshid, who is accompanying a multiparty delegation led by Janata Dal (United) MP Sanjay Kumar Jha, also noted that the post-abrogation environment in Jammu and Kashmir has yielded progress. He cited the 65 per cent voter turnout in subsequent polls and the formation of an elected government in the union territory. 'Subsequently, there was an election with 65 per cent participation. There's an elected government in Kashmir today, and therefore, for people to want to undo everything that has the prosperity that has come to Kashmir. It would not be advisable,' he added. The delegation currently visiting Southeast Asia comprises representatives across political lines, including BJP MPs Aparajita Sarangi, Brij Lal, Pradan Baruah, and Hemang Joshi, Trinamool Congress' Abhishek Banerjee, CPI(M)'s John Brittas, and former Indian Ambassador Mohan Kumar.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Ex-MLA Kishore Samrite gets 6 months in jail for threatening to blow up Parliament
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Friday sentenced former Madhya Pradesh MLA Kishore Samrite to six months in jail for threatening to blow up Parliament in September 2022 over his 'unfulfilled demands'. Special Judge Vikas Dhull noted that the threatening letter and the suspicious substance were sent to Parliament "which is the temple of Indian democracy". "It is a forum where issues of all hues and pertaining to national interest are expected to be discussed with decorum and in deference to public aspirations. For the highest contemplative body of the country to be subjected to a threat of being blown up with dynamite and the threatening letter to actually be accompanied by a suspicious substance is indeed a grave circum stance which requires an appropriate sentence," he said. It is equally pertinent that the convict is not just an ordinary citizen, but a former MLA from Lanji in Madhya Pradesh's Balaghat district, the judge said. "Being most acquainted and sensitised to the security of Parliamentary establishments and more so to the sanctity of such representative institutions, his dispatch of such a threatening letter to the Parliament acted to normalise the threat of violence towards the elected Houses of the Parliament. Judge imposes Rs 50k fine on Samrite If such conduct is not deterred, it raises the prospect of others emulating the course taken by Samrite for voicing his dissent towards government policies. Perhaps, every such threat would not be accompanied by harmless substances," the judge said. The judge also imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on Samrite. A parcel containing some suspicious substance related to explosives, besides an Indian flag, and a copy of the Constitution was received through speed post at the Parliament House on September 16, 2022. The judge said that the letter from Samrite, a former MLA from Lanji in Balaghat, threatening to blow up the Parliament building, constituted a threat to cause destruction of property by fire, thereby rendering him liable for conviction under Part II of section 506 of IPC. The judge, however, acquitted Samrite of the charge under Explosives Act, after noting that the substance in question did not constitute an "explosive" under the Act. Samrite was represented by advocate Manish Kumar Choudhary. The court in December 2022 granted bail to the accused noting that the threat to blow off Parliament did not result in any kind of explosion or loss to life or property. The parcel also had a 10page signed complaint of Samrite, from which it was made out that he was showing dissatisfaction with the policies of the ruling government and made 70 different demands with a threat to blow off Parliament House on September 30, 2022 if his demands were not fulfilled. During the investigation, it also came to light that the accused has sent a similar parcel to the Supreme Court on September 19, 2022 and a separate FIR was lodged in that regard.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'Civilians' court martials unconstitutional'
Fateh Khan, Fazal Ghaffar and Tajir Gul had been convicted of carrying our terror attacks in the country by military courts. CREATIVE: AAMIR KHAN Listen to article Supreme Court Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan on Friday released a dissenting opinion in the case concerning the trial of civilians in military courts, declaring such court-martials unconstitutional. The 35-page minority decision firmly states that the jurisdiction of court-martials was exclusively limited to military personnel and cannot be extended to ordinary civilians. The judges ruled that the application of military jurisdiction to civilians was unconstitutional. The dissenting note critically examines the broader assumption that civil courts are incapable of dealing with high-profile terrorism cases, suggesting instead that this narrative was misleading. It observes that it has generally been portrayed that civil courts have failed to handle grave offences such as terrorism, and that military courts are the only remedy, but the reality is quite the opposite. Recalling past precedent, the judges noted that military courts were temporarily authorised in 2015 to hear certain terrorism-related cases. However, the experiment failed to eliminate terrorism, partly because military officers lack the judicial experience required to adjudicate complex criminal matters. The decision observes that globally, terrorism cases are not tried in military courts. It argues that criticism of the criminal justice system is misplaced and notes that acquittals in civil courts often result from poor investigation, weak witnesses, or politically charged cases, not from judicial incompetence. It pointed out that according to Article 25 of the Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The principle of equal protection ensures that all citizens are treated alike under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, political affiliation, action or other classifications. "This is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring that the law applies equally and no one is above the law. Treating citizens differently, without a reasonable classification amount to discrimination." "This happens when two equally placed persons or groups of people are treated differently. Discriminating individuals in legal proceedings on account of their acts or nature of an offence, is a violation of the principle of equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law," it further noted. "The security of life and liberty of a person is a fundamental right, to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees and ensures that citizens have the right for protection from harm, physical danger, potential risks and threats to their life, unjust or illegal detention or imprisonment and of any action that could take away their freedom or life, in all circumstances," the dissenting note read. It further observed that an independent judiciary can act as a check on the government's power to ensure the security of life and liberty of citizens. The criminal justice system entails a set of laws and principles that provide a procedure, aim to protect lthe ife and liberty of citizens, and to ensure order in society. Article 10 of the Constitution ensures safeguards as to the arrest and detention of a person, with a right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice. It is also made sure that no person shall be detained in custody beyond a period of twenty-four hours without the authority of a magistrate. "The courts martial established under the MJS, consisting of executive, are not independent and impartial. They do not provide the constitutional protection of security of life and liberty of a person, and safeguard as to his arrest and detention. While detained in military custody, the provisions of jail manual are not applicable to the persons accused of military crime. Courts' martial proceedings are in-camera." It further noted that the right of the accused to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice, guaranteed by the Constitution, was subject to the approval of the Chief of the Army Staff or the convening officer, as provided by rule 82 of the Pakistan Army Act, Rules 1954. "This is a fundamental right of a person under sub-Article (1) of Article 10 of the Constitution, which cannot be made conditional. The custody of accused of offence under clause (d) and the procedure adopted by the courts martial are inconsistent with, takes away and abridge their fundamental rights, which is violative of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution." The note stated that the right to fair trial and due process is universally accepted as a fundamental right, therefore, the legislature, realising its importance and necessity, inserted Article 10A in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. "Fair trial and due process help limiting abuse by Governments and State authorities and ensure integrity and fairness of the legal system. Due process has a requirement that the legal matter pertaining to civil rights and obligations and a criminal charge against a citizen be resolved according to law, established rules and principles, on the basis of evidence presented." The dissent also criticises both the federal and provincial governments, stating that instead of investing in and improving the civil justice system, they opted for court-martials of civilians, a move that exceeds constitutional boundaries. The judges observed that the punishments handed down to civilians involved in the May 9, 2023, events by military courts were beyond their jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The note concludes by reiterating that the delivery of justice falls within the constitutional domain of the civilian judiciary. The rule of law demands that every citizen be afforded the right to a fair trial, the decision states.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
US court won't lift block on Trump's govt overhaul
A US appeals court has refused to pause a judge's ruling blocking President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out mass layoffs of federal workers and a restructuring of government agencies as part of a sweeping government overhaul. The decision on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals means that, for now, the Trump administration cannot proceed with plans to shed tens of thousands of federal jobs and shutter many government offices and programs. US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on May 22 blocked large-scale layoffs at about 20 federal agencies, agreeing with a group of unions, non-profits and municipalities that the president may only restructure agencies when authorised by Congress. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday denied the Trump administration's bid to stay Illston's decision pending an appeal, which could take months to resolve. The administration will likely now ask the US Supreme Court to pause the ruling. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The Ninth Circuit's decision today rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganisation of the federal government," said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. The court said the administration had not provided any evidence it would suffer an irreparable injury if the lower court order remained in place and said plaintiffs were likely to prevail. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," said the majority opinion from Judge William Fletcher, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. He was joined by Judge Lucy Koh, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that was spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person and CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla. Along with blocking layoffs, Illston barred the Department of Government Efficiency from ordering job cuts or reorganisation at federal agencies. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged DOGE's work on various grounds, including claims that it violated labour and privacy laws and exceeded its authority, with mixed results. Two judges had separately ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees, who are typically newer hires and were fired en masse in February, but appeals courts paused those rulings. A US appeals court has refused to pause a judge's ruling blocking President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out mass layoffs of federal workers and a restructuring of government agencies as part of a sweeping government overhaul. The decision on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals means that, for now, the Trump administration cannot proceed with plans to shed tens of thousands of federal jobs and shutter many government offices and programs. US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on May 22 blocked large-scale layoffs at about 20 federal agencies, agreeing with a group of unions, non-profits and municipalities that the president may only restructure agencies when authorised by Congress. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday denied the Trump administration's bid to stay Illston's decision pending an appeal, which could take months to resolve. The administration will likely now ask the US Supreme Court to pause the ruling. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The Ninth Circuit's decision today rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganisation of the federal government," said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. The court said the administration had not provided any evidence it would suffer an irreparable injury if the lower court order remained in place and said plaintiffs were likely to prevail. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," said the majority opinion from Judge William Fletcher, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. He was joined by Judge Lucy Koh, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that was spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person and CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla. Along with blocking layoffs, Illston barred the Department of Government Efficiency from ordering job cuts or reorganisation at federal agencies. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged DOGE's work on various grounds, including claims that it violated labour and privacy laws and exceeded its authority, with mixed results. Two judges had separately ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees, who are typically newer hires and were fired en masse in February, but appeals courts paused those rulings. A US appeals court has refused to pause a judge's ruling blocking President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out mass layoffs of federal workers and a restructuring of government agencies as part of a sweeping government overhaul. The decision on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals means that, for now, the Trump administration cannot proceed with plans to shed tens of thousands of federal jobs and shutter many government offices and programs. US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on May 22 blocked large-scale layoffs at about 20 federal agencies, agreeing with a group of unions, non-profits and municipalities that the president may only restructure agencies when authorised by Congress. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday denied the Trump administration's bid to stay Illston's decision pending an appeal, which could take months to resolve. The administration will likely now ask the US Supreme Court to pause the ruling. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The Ninth Circuit's decision today rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganisation of the federal government," said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. The court said the administration had not provided any evidence it would suffer an irreparable injury if the lower court order remained in place and said plaintiffs were likely to prevail. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," said the majority opinion from Judge William Fletcher, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. He was joined by Judge Lucy Koh, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that was spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person and CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla. Along with blocking layoffs, Illston barred the Department of Government Efficiency from ordering job cuts or reorganisation at federal agencies. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged DOGE's work on various grounds, including claims that it violated labour and privacy laws and exceeded its authority, with mixed results. Two judges had separately ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees, who are typically newer hires and were fired en masse in February, but appeals courts paused those rulings. A US appeals court has refused to pause a judge's ruling blocking President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out mass layoffs of federal workers and a restructuring of government agencies as part of a sweeping government overhaul. The decision on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals means that, for now, the Trump administration cannot proceed with plans to shed tens of thousands of federal jobs and shutter many government offices and programs. US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on May 22 blocked large-scale layoffs at about 20 federal agencies, agreeing with a group of unions, non-profits and municipalities that the president may only restructure agencies when authorised by Congress. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday denied the Trump administration's bid to stay Illston's decision pending an appeal, which could take months to resolve. The administration will likely now ask the US Supreme Court to pause the ruling. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The Ninth Circuit's decision today rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganisation of the federal government," said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs. The court said the administration had not provided any evidence it would suffer an irreparable injury if the lower court order remained in place and said plaintiffs were likely to prevail. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," said the majority opinion from Judge William Fletcher, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. He was joined by Judge Lucy Koh, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that was spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person and CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla. Along with blocking layoffs, Illston barred the Department of Government Efficiency from ordering job cuts or reorganisation at federal agencies. Dozens of lawsuits have challenged DOGE's work on various grounds, including claims that it violated labour and privacy laws and exceeded its authority, with mixed results. Two judges had separately ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees, who are typically newer hires and were fired en masse in February, but appeals courts paused those rulings.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
June nonfiction: Six recently published books that try to make sense of India's past and present
The Dismantling of India's Democracy: 1947 to 2025, Prem Shankar Jha India's democracy, once celebrated as an unprecedented experiment in pluralism and participatory nation-building, now faces a grave crisis. In this urgent and penetrating work, veteran journalist Prem Shankar Jha traces how the country's hard-won democracy – rooted in diversity and tolerance – has been steadily hollowed out since Independence – slowly at first, and since 2014, with determined ferocity. Structural flaws in our Constitution, like the lack of state-funded elections, Jha argues, were made substantially worse by Indira Gandhi's ban on company donations to political parties. As parties increasingly turned to clandestine donors for election financing, politics became a near-criminal enterprise, facilitating the rise of a predatory state long before 2014. And now, under the Modi regime, the weaponisation of state agencies, the serious undermining of electoral processes and the transformation of governance into a tool of political vendetta threaten to tear down the last remnants of India's democracy. Jha further argues that the erosion of democratic institutions, the rise of Hindu majoritarian politics and the normalisation of state repression are not isolated events but symptoms of a deeper transformation. Drawing on Indian history and global parallels, he makes the bold case that what India is witnessing is not simply a drift towards authoritarianism but the emergence of a distinctively Indian form of fascism. Our only hope cannot be, he says, an electoral victory for the opposition; it must be grounded in a commitment to both political accountability and cultural inclusivity. A Man for All Seasons: The Life of KM Panikkar, Narayani Basu KM Panikkar was a multifaceted man, one of India's first public intellectuals when India won its independence. His imprint is all over India's colonial and post-colonial history: from constitutional reform in the princely states, where he was a strong advocate for India's current federal model to charting India's maritime policy as a free country. He believed in an essential Hindu culture that held his land together, yet he was a committed secularist. He was Gandhi's emissary and the founder of the Hindustan Times. He was independent India's first and most controversial ambassador to both Nationalist China and the People's Republic of China. He was Nehru's man in Cairo and France and a member of the States Reorganisation Commission. He had enemies in the CIA as well as in India's own Ministry of External Affairs. He frustrated his admirers as much as he provoked their reluctant respect. From the British Raj to the Constituent Assembly, across two world wars and an ensuing Cold War, KM Panikkar was India's go-to man in all seasons. Through it all, he never stopped writing – on Indian identity, nationalism, history and foreign policy – material that remains as relevant today as it was seven decades ago. Yet, about the man himself, strangely little is known. In A Man for All Seasons, Narayani Basu bridges that gap. Drawing on Panikkar's formidable body of work, as well as on archival material from India to England, from Paris to China, and from Israel to the United Nations, as well as on first-time interviews with Panikkar's family, Basu presents a vivid, irresistibly engaging portrait of this most enigmatic of India's founding fathers. Featuring a formidable cast of characters – from Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel to Zhou Enlai, Chairman Mao and Gamal Abdel Nasser. Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia, Sam Dalrymple As recently as 1928, a vast swathe of Asia – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait – were bound together under a single imperial banner, an entity known officially as the 'Indian Empire', or more simply as the Raj. It was the British Empire's crown jewel, a vast dominion stretching from the Red Sea to the jungles of Southeast Asia, home to a quarter of the world's population and encompassing the largest Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian communities on the planet. Its people used the Indian rupee, were issued passports stamped 'Indian Empire', and were guarded by armies garrisoned in forts from the Bab el-Mandab to the Himalayas. And then, in the space of just fifty years, the Indian Empire shattered. Five partitions tore it apart, carving out new nations, redrawing maps, and leaving behind a legacy of war, exile and division. Shattered Lands presents the whole story of how the Indian Empire was unmade. How a single, sprawling dominion became twelve modern nations. How maps were redrawn in boardrooms and on battlefields, by politicians in London and revolutionaries in Delhi, by kings in remote palaces and soldiers in trenches. Its legacies include civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka, ongoing insurgencies in Kashmir, Baluchistan, Northeast India, and the Rohingya genocide. It is a history of ambition and betrayal, of forgotten wars and unlikely alliances, of borders carved with ink and fire. And, above all, it is the story of how the map of modern Asia was made. Tagore in Tripura: An Enduring Connection, Khagesh Burman A part of Rabindranath Tagore's life that remains largely unknown is his connection to the state of Tripura. Tagore had close ties with four generations of the Tripura royal family, especially Maharaja Radhakishore, who helped set up and fund the Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan. Tagore's relationship with the Tripura royal family began in 1882, when Maharaja Birchandra was so moved by his poetry that he sent his minister to congratulate the poet. During Birchandra's son Radhakishore's reign, Tagore was involved in Tripura's administration, advising the king on all state matters. He visited the state several times too. Later generations of the royal family continue to patronise Tagore and Visva-Bharati, sending several students with stipends to the university. This book, written by a member of the Tripura royal family, explores their connection with Tagore, including the friendships and associations the poet formed and the ways in which Tripura appeared in his writings. The Outsider: A Memoir for Misfits, Vir Das When comedian and actor Vir Das found himself stranded on a pier in Cozumel, Mexico, watching his cruise ship sail away without him due to visa issues, it became a metaphor for his life: he's always been, and will always be, an outsider. Standing on that beach, he took in the absurdity of it all-broke, hungover, dumped, jobless, trousers full of sand. He knew the best way to deal with the situation wasn't to retreat. It was to laugh. Vir's story is one of cultural dissonance and identity exploration. As a child, he bounced from India to Lagos, Nigeria, and back again. He navigated life between worlds, never quite fitting in. In Africa, he was the kid from India, and back in India, he was the kid from Africa. As the only Indian kid costarring in War and Peace on stage at Knox College in Illinois, his outsider status was undeniable. Whether he's washing dishes at a Grand Lux Cafe in Chicago, navigating Bollywood, getting cancelled by an entire country and then embraced by that country all over again, or performing on stages from New York to Mumbai to Stavanger, Norway, Vir has learned to lean way into his place as an outsider, and to find humor and meaning on the fringes. Meet the Savarnas: Indian Millennials Whose Mediocrity Broke Everything, Ravikant Kisana In the early 2000s, India was expected to 'shine' and emerge as a rising superpower. It was the post-1990s golden generation – professionals fresh out of B-schools and engineering programmes – who were supposed to take us there. The Great Indian Dream was ready to lift off. Except we never left the ground. No one could really explain what went wrong. Some blamed politicians, some corruption, some capitalism and some communal polarisation. Most people missed the giant elephant in the room – caste. Caste in India is mostly researched and reported from the experience of the oppressed. Caste as a privilege is not well understood. How do caste elites respond to modernity? How do they understand culture, intimacy, love and tradition? Were their ideas, institutions and imaginations ever even capable of delivering upon the Great Indian Dream?
