After facing huge backlash, the developer of a ‘Halal Lifestyle Township’, which is being developed in Karjat, near Mumbai, has reportedly removed the video advertisement for the township from social media platforms. The promotional video of the township named ‘Sukoon Empire’ attracted widespread criticism on social media for marketing the real estate project as being exclusively for Muslims.
Apart from the promotional video, huge banners of the township were put up at various locations in Mumbai by the developer of the township. These banners have now been covered with black sheets. The developers of the township tendered an apology after being accused of trying to create a communal divide by reserving the township for a certain community.
The township, located around 100 km from Mumbai, stirred a storm after its video advertisement went viral on social media. The advertisement showed a burqa clad woman promoting the real estate project where “like-minded families sharing similar” values could live and their kids could grow in a “safe and Halal” environment”.
NHRC issued notice to Maharashtra government
On September 1, 2025, Priyank Kanoogo, a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), shared the video on X, describing the township as a ‘Nation within the Nation’. He said that a notice was served on the Maharashtra government regarding the township.
यह विज्ञापन नहीं विष व्यापन है। मुंबई के पास करजत इलाके में केवल मुसलमान मज़हब वालों के लिए हलाल लाइफ़ स्टाइल वाली टाउनशिप बनाई जा रही है। यह Nation Within The Nation है,महाराष्ट्र सरकार को नोटिस किया जा रहा है। pic.twitter.com/zYtW4PN4Qt
— प्रियंक कानूनगो Priyank Kanoongo (@KanoongoPriyank) September 1, 2025
Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) spokesperson Krishna Hegde questioned the motive of the developers behind the advertisement. Demanding the removal of the advertisement, he urged the Maharashtra government to investigate the project.
Slamming the developers of the real estate project, BJP spokesperson Ajit Chavan described that township as a step towards “Ghazwa-e-Hind” (an Islamic concept of the complete takeover of India by Islam).
Chavan said that such projects had no place in Mumbai or Maharashtra. He added that the project violated the Constitution and called for stringent action against the developers.
Russia has rejected the proposal of Western nations providing Ukraine with formal security guarantees, dismissing a European-led effort to establish a multinational “reassurance force” designed to deter future Russian aggression. The Kremlin said that it can’t agree to any situation where foreign military troops will be stationed in Ukraine to execute the security guarantees.
The rejection came after French President Emmanuel Macron said that 26 Western allies have formally committed to deploying troops “by land, sea or air” to Ukraine the day after a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is agreed. He added that the planning work will be finalized with the United States.
Russia’s stand deepens the fault line between Moscow and Western capitals at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump, European leaders, and Kyiv are struggling to craft a framework to be implemented after the war is over.
Speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “security guarantees for Ukraine cannot be provided by foreign, especially European and American, military contingents. Definitely not – they cannot.” He added, “This cannot serve as a security guarantee for Ukraine that would be acceptable to our country.”
He added that Russia regards such proposals as unacceptable and believes the issue was already addressed in earlier peace frameworks, including talks in Istanbul in 2022. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reinforced the Kremlin’s position, arguing that any lasting settlement must reflect territorial changes on the ground and be embedded in what Moscow describes as a new Eurasian architecture of “equal and indivisible security.”
Moscow’s rejection came as French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a summit in Paris where 26 European nations pledged to stand behind Kyiv with security guarantees. The plan envisions land, sea, and air deployments as a broader deterrent force. Macron called the move a historic commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the pledge as “the first such serious, very specific substance” after years of vague assurances.
However, some countries, including Germany and Italy, remain hesitant about committing troops in Ukraine, instead opting to train and equip Ukrainian forces, while others such as Bulgaria are preparing naval support in the Black Sea.
President Donald Trump has promised that Washington will be part of the security framework, but has consistently ruled out sending American ground troops. Instead, he has suggested that the United States could provide “very good protection” through air support, intelligence, and coordination with European forces, helping Europe “front-load” the effort.
In a conference call with “Coalition of the Willing” countries hosted by France, Trump pressed European leaders to stop buying Russian oil, insisting that such purchases were fuelling Moscow’s war. He also urged tougher economic pressure on China for supporting Russia.
On the other hand, while rejecting presence of foreign military forces in Ukraine, Kremlin also said that it should be one of the countries acting as “guarantor” for Ukraine. However, Kyiv and its European allies have rejected the demand.
Rejecting Russia’s rejection for European security for Ukraine, NATO chief Mark Rutte said that Russia does not have a veto on the issue. He said, “Why are we interested in what Russia thinks about troops in Ukraine? It’s a sovereign country. It’s not for them to decide.”
Notably, Russian Putin has indicated that the war will end soon, necessitating discussions on Ukraine’s security after the conflict is over. He said that there was “a certain light at the end of the tunnel”, adding that “there are options for ensuring Ukraine’s security in the event the conflict ends”.
The latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine unfolded against the backdrop of American efforts to end the war. Donald Trump has tried to position himself as a central mediator in the conflict, in an effort to increase his chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. On August 18, Zelenskyy and several European leaders met with him at the White House. Trump pledged U.S. participation in security guarantees, though outside NATO structures, and promised to help Europe “front-load” responsibility for Ukraine’s defence.
Zelenskyy described the talks as a breakthrough, saying the details of security guarantees would be finalised within ten days, and stressed that only after such guarantees are secured, he would be willing to meet with Vladimir Putin to discuss territorial issues directly. Trump has floated the idea of a trilateral summit involving himself, Putin, and Zelenskyy, though Moscow has remained noncommittal.
Putin, for his part, has sent mixed signals. While declaring that Ukraine’s potential accession to the European Union would not be opposed by Moscow, he has insisted that NATO membership remains off the table. In recent remarks, he warned that any deployment of Western troops to Ukraine would make them legitimate targets for Russian forces. At the same time, he has hinted at the possibility of ceasefire negotiations “if common sense prevails,” while stressing he remains ready to continue military operations to achieve Russia’s objectives if necessary.
As the war continues in its fourth year, the clash over security guarantees highlights the growing distance between Western powers and Russia. For Kyiv, the security guarantees are important, but their credibility rests on Western unity and U.S. commitment. For Moscow, the very idea of foreign troops in Ukraine remains an existential provocation.
In a demeaning post on X, the Kerala Congress ridiculed the people of Bihar by comparing them with ‘Bidi’. The post was made in reference to the recent Goods and Services Tax (GST) reforms announced by the Modi government, under which the tax on Bidis has been reduced from 28% to 18%.
To attack the BJP government for reducing tax on Bidis, all that the Kerala Congress could come up with was equating ‘Bidi’ with ‘Biharis’. Apparently, by Congress logic, the people of Bihar are synonymous with Bidi just because both words happen to have the same initials. This is not the first time that the Congress or an INDI alliance party has mocked the people of Bihar. Biharis have historically been at the receiving end of the vitriol and contempt of the INDI alliance parties.
Screenshot via X
INDI Alliance politicians have a history of insulting the people of Bihar
People of Bihar have faced blatant discrimination and hatred in other states under the rule of the opposition parties. Recently, INDI alliance politicians from Tamil Nadu expressed baseless fears that lakhs of Bihari people were added to the voter list in Tamil Nadu by the Election Commission.
The INDI Alliance politicians, including Chief Minister MK Stalin, claimed that the Bihar migrants, who have been working in the state, would spoil the ‘culture and tradition’ of the state if added to the state’s voter list. There is no legal or constitutional bar to an Indian citizen being added to the electoral roll of a constituency without having a permanent residence in that constituency. The groundless fears of these INDI Alliance politicians are not based on law or logic but on absolute disdain for the people of Bihar.
Decades of Congress rule and RJD’s ‘Jungle Raj’ robbed Bihar of its dignity
Bihari migrants have endured insults and have faced physical attacks in other states from the north to the south. The fact that they still choose to live in these states instead of returning to their home state speaks volumes about the grim reality of Bihar. It is true that the people of Bihar migrate to other states of the country seeking work opportunities. They form a large chunk of the country’s workforce, and have been silent but active contributors across sectors to the country’s progress.
The migration of Biharis to other, more developed states is not a new phenomenon and has been happening for years. The people of Bihar have been compelled to leave their homes to find a living in other states, and this has been a direct consequence of decades of misrule of the Congress and the Jungle Raj of the Lalu Yadav regime.
The scale of the damage inflicted on the state during the rule of the Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) can be estimated from the fact that, even so many years after the end of the Jungle Raj, the state is reeling under its lasting effects.
Congress misrule and RJD’s Jungle Raj not just pushed the state into an unending loop of crime and poverty but also left a permanent scar on the psyche of the people of Bihar, who have been forced to choose survival over self-respect. The word ‘Bihari’ itself has become an insult because the people of Bihar were not just robbed of all prospects of development and progress, but also of basic dignity by their own politicians.
During the 15 years of Lalu Yadav’s Jungle Raj, all the industries were systematically wiped out from the state as extortion and killings of industrialists became rampant. With the relocation of industries, all the opportunities for employment for the local Biharis were lost. Mere existence in the state became a challenge as crimes like murder and kidnapping became the norm in the state. Bihar became a den of mafias and criminals, who enjoyed the patronage and protection of the government itself. Common people were left to fend for themselves.
Dynastic parties like the RJD couldn’t care less about the interests of the people of Bihar. It is evident from the fact that the party is in alliance with parties and politicians who have openly expressed their disdain for the people of Bihar. Besides, every time the party comes to power in Bihar, criminals are emboldened and lawlessness returns to the state. While the history of RJD’s rule has been a dark chapter for Bihar, its prospects of giving good governance to the state appear also grim.
The Congress government in Karnataka has decided to withdraw cases against its supporters, Muslim rioters and several Ambedkarite ‘activists’.
On Thursday (4th September), the state government approved the withdrawal of cases against those involved in the 2019 stone-pelting incident in Chittapur, wherein a Muslim mob comprising 20 to 30 youths pelted stones after Hindu activists gave tip to police about cattle smuggling. This case was withdrawn on the petition submitted by IT/BT minister Priyank Kharge.
?#BREAKING | Acting against advice of key departments, Karnataka cabinet clears withdrawal of 60 cases including rioting and arson
The Congress government has withdrawn cases against the supporters of deputy CM DK Shivakumar, who were were booked for stone-pelting on buses and government offices in Kanakapura after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in 2019. Cases against supporters of Shivakumar’s brother, former Bangalore Rural MP D K Suresh, who in 2012 had gheraoed then CM, protesting the exclusion of Suresh from a function to garland Dr B R Ambedkar’s statue, have also been withdrawn.
Deccan Heraldreported that these withdrawals were approved against the advice of the Home Department – the DGP and IGP, the Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigation, and the Law Department. These authorities said that these cases were “not fit” for withdrawal and that “no public interest” was involved.
In addition, cases pertaining to violence on Ganesh Chaturthi procession in Ramanagar, Koppal and other areas have also been withdrawn after an appeal by former Home Minister Araga Jnanendra. In one of these cases, police was allegedly misbehaved with by Ganesh procession participants. The second case was against those who organised a ram fight and the third was was related to violations during the Ganesh Chaturthi procession in 2019.
Four cases pertaining to the violent protests held at Shikaripura in the Shivamogga district in 2023 against the internal reservation for Scheduled Caste members announced by the then BJP government.
Three cases were withdrawn on petitions filed by Karnataka Home Minister Dr G Parameshwara, and the chief whip of the government in the Legislative Assembly, Ashok Pattan.
“We have withdrawn 60 cases which were filed by the government; they include cases booked against farmers, students, and Kannada activists. We have withdrawn the cases in various police stations,” Law and Parliament Affairs Minister H K Patil said.
This, however, is not the first time that the Congress government has withdrawn cases against rioters. In October 2024, the CM Siddaramiah-led government withdrew the case against leaders from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and others involved in the 2022 Hubballi Riots.
These Muslim individuals were accused of orchestrating a large mob of Muslims that stormed the Old Hubli police station and attacked police personnel. The mob had not only pelted stones at the police station and police vehicles but also targeted a nearby Hanuman temple and a hospital, causing significant damage. The Karnataka Government’s decision came despite the state’s Law and Police departments being opposed to the move.
The Congress government’s move to withdraw 60 cases, with most being those against its own supporters, has sparked a political storm. Amidst the controversy, the Karnataka cabinet has approved the recommendations of the one-man inquiry commission headed Justice P.N. Desai, which gave ‘clean chit’ to Chief Minister Siddaramiah and his family in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land allotment case.
The report was submitted on 31st July to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh.
“We (the Cabinet) had constituted Justice P N Desai’s one-man commission, which has submitted its report in two volumes. The report makes it clear that there is no truth in allegations made against the chief minister and his family. It has also asked for action against certain officials on various accounts. We have accepted the report and its recommendations,” Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said.
Background of MUDA Scam
On 10th July 2024, a complaint was filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and nine others for allegedly forging documents to claim compensation from the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Social activist Snehamayi Krishna has filed the complaint. It has accused Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathy, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy Devaraj, who claimed to be a landowner, and his family of ‘wrongdoings’.
It is pertinent to note that earlier, CM Siddaramaiah rejected the BJP’s demand for a CBI probe in this matter. In his defence, he demanded Rs 62 from MUDA claiming that it “usurped” his family’s 3.16-acre land for a development project. However, the Chief Minister’s demand soon sparked an outrage among the Bengaluru farmers. They accused the administration of following separate rules for the Chief Minister and state farmers. Additionally, they have also started to demand higher compensation from MUDA for acquiring their land for key development projects. The Lokayukta Police, however, handed clean chit to the accused earlier due to “lack of evidence”.
As promised during PM Modi’s Independence Day speech, the government of India has come out with GST reforms designed to ease the tax burden on the common man. The GST reforms have rationalised the tax slabs and have reduced taxes on several items consumed by the common man.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi underscored the Government’s commitment to economic reforms that have reshaped India’s fiscal architecture and global standing. From corporate tax reductions that catalyzed investment, to the implementation of GST that unified the national market, and personal income tax reforms that enhanced Ease of Living—the reform trajectory has been consistent and citizen-centric.
The Prime Minister hailed the latest phase of the #NextGenGST reforms which continues this journey by simplifying tax structures, rationalising rates, and making the system more equitable and growth-oriented. These measures are complemented by India’s strong fiscal discipline, which has earned global confidence and led to improved sovereign credit ratings.
PM Modi said, “The last decade has been about bold reforms aimed at transforming India’s economic landscape, from corporate tax cuts that spurred investment, to GST creating a unified market, to personal income tax reforms enhancing Ease Of Living.”
The last decade has been about bold reforms aimed at transforming India’s economic landscape, from corporate tax cuts that spurred investment, to GST creating a unified market, to personal income tax reforms enhancing Ease Of Living.
PM Modi further added, “The #NextGenGST Reforms continue this journey, making the system simpler, fairer and more growth-oriented, while our fiscal discipline has earned global confidence and better credit ratings. With these efforts, we are laying a strong foundation for a Viksit Bharat.”
For over three decades, Kashmir’s graveyards have been used not just as sites of mourning but as weapons in an information war. Western NGOs, separatist lobbies, and Pakistan’s propaganda machine have pushed one carefully curated narrative: that unmarked graves in Kashmir are “evidence” of mass atrocities by Indian security forces.
Reports like Buried Evidence (2009) by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) and the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir (IPTK) went so far as to claim that these graves contained victims of “enforced disappearances.”
Be it Community Human Rights and Advocacy Centre (CHRAC), Amnesty International, The London School of Economics and Political Science, or Human Rights Watch, all of which have demanded “international probes”, insinuating wrongdoing on the part of the Indian state, particularly the Indian Armed Forces, over “disappearances” of locals in Kashmir.
But the latest study by the Save Youth Save Future (SYSF) Foundation, “Unraveling the Truth: A Critical Study of Unmarked and Unidentified Graves in Kashmir Valley (2025)”, has put these myths to rest. After years of fieldwork across Baramulla, Kupwara, Bandipora, and Ganderbal, surveying over 373 graveyards, SYSF has documented 4,056 graves in total.
The results demolish decades of propaganda:
2,493 graves of foreign terrorists, mostly Pakistanis, Afghans, and others sent across the Line of Control.
1,208 graves of local terrorists, Kashmiris recruited into terrorism.
70 graves of tribal invaders from 1947.
276 unmarked graves.
That means 93.2% of all graves are identified and documented. Far from “mass graves of civilians,” they overwhelmingly belong to terrorists neutralised in counter-insurgency operations.
The numbers that end the myth
The SYSF report is categorical: “A significant number of the graves contain unidentified individuals, many of whom were foreign militants who infiltrated across the Line of Control and were killed in security operations”.
This single line dismantles the decades-long trope of “mass civilian killings.” These were not victims of a genocidal state policy, but terrorists killed in firefights, many of them unclaimed because their handlers in Rawalpindi denied they ever existed.
The study further notes: “Unidentified burials became a practical necessity rather than a deliberate policy of concealment”. In other words, terrorists carrying no IDs were buried quickly by villagers or mosque committees, hardly the stuff of war crimes.
When 93.2% of graves are accounted for as terrorists or invaders, the hysteria about “thousands of disappeared Kashmiris” collapses.
Pakistan’s hand behind the graves
SYSF places the graves firmly in the context of Pakistan’s proxy war. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the ISI redirected its jihadi infrastructure toward Kashmir. “Pakistan provided logistical support, funding, arms, and facilitated the movement of both Kashmiri militants and Pakistani militants across the Line of Control”.
Groups like Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammed transformed the Valley into a battlefield. Foreign fighters carried no documentation; many were buried as “unidentified terrorists.”
The report underlines that the shift from local political dissent to cross-border jihadist terrorism fundamentally altered the character of the conflict. The graveyards are, in fact, Pakistan’s signature on the soil of Kashmir.
How propaganda hijacked the discourse
The so-called “human rights” industry seized on these graves to spin a tale of Indian atrocity. The APDP, IPTK, and Amnesty claimed they contained “disappeared civilians.” But SYSF exposes their methodological dishonesty:
“In the absence of forensic verification such as DNA testing, these reports treated different categories of the deceased as the same, without clearly distinguishing between local civilians, local militants, and foreign militants”.
That is the heart of the deception. By blurring terrorists and civilians, earlier advocacy reports inflated numbers and painted India as genocidal. SYSF explicitly criticises this: “These early investigations had notable limitations… shaped by ideological predispositions”.
Even the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), in its 2011 inquiry, concluded that many of these graves belonged to foreign terrorists killed in encounters. Yet the propaganda machine ignored this nuance, because the goal was not truth but demonisation.
The real victims ignored
The global reports obsessed with “unmarked graves” have little to say about the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989-90. They also downplay massacres of Muslims who defied terrorists: Wandhama (1998), Chittisinghpora (2000), Nadimarg (2003).
SYSF acknowledges that terrorists unleashed brutal violence: “Militant groups resorted to forced disappearances, targeted assassinations of political activists, intimidation of minority communities (notably Kashmiri Pandits and moderate Muslims), and the systematic suppression of dissenting voices”.
Those graves exist too, but they do not feature in Amnesty’s glossy reports. The selective outrage tells its own story.
Accountability: India vs Pakistan
Critics often cite Pathribal (2000), Machil (2010), and Amshipora (2020), cases where civilians were tragically killed in fake encounters. SYSF does not hide these. It notes the CBI called Pathribal a “cold-blooded murder,” that five Army men were sentenced in Machil, and that the officer in Amshipora was court-martialed.
This is accountability. India punished its own when wrong.
Now contrast with Pakistan. SYSF notes how “mass graves in Balochistan” have been discovered amid widespread allegations of enforced disappearances, but credible investigations are consistently blocked.
The difference is clear: India investigates mistakes, Pakistan institutionalises them.
The propaganda dividend
Why then has the narrative of “unmarked graves = Indian atrocities” persisted? Because it is propaganda gold.
SYSF bluntly observes: “Militant groups and separatist networks… actively exploited the imagery of unmarked graves to fuel propaganda, making sweeping allegations without credible substantiation”.
Western NGOs, chasing headlines, repeated these allegations. Pakistani diplomats waved these reports at the UN. Separatists fed them to angry Kashmiri youth. The graves became psychological weapons.
The truth, however, is now clear: the graves are overwhelmingly those of terrorists sent by Pakistan.
Global context: Not Bosnia, not Rwanda
One of the most insidious tricks has been to equate Kashmir’s graves with Bosnia’s genocide graves. But SYSF is clear: “Unlike mass grave situations in post-conflict societies like Iran, Bosnia or Rwanda where state-led repression was a defining cause, the Kashmir context is different”.
Here, graves arose from operational realities of counter-terrorism against cross-border terrorists, not from state-engineered ethnic cleansing. To continue equating the two is dishonest.
Why this report matters
The SYSF report does not whitewash. It admits there were excesses, it acknowledges families of the disappeared, and it calls for DNA verification where possible. But crucially, it places the graves in context: terrorism, Pakistan’s proxy war, and the operational realities of counter-insurgency.
It is a rare local effort to correct the distortion created by decades of advocacy-driven reports. By documenting 93.2% of graves, SYSF has provided data that undercuts the propaganda narrative at its root.
Graves that tell the real story
The facts now speak louder than the propaganda:
93.2% of Kashmir’s graves are documented.
The vast majority are terrorists, foreign and local, killed in encounters.
Only 276 graves remain unmarked, just 6.8% of the total.
As SYSF concludes, these graves are not proof of systematic Indian atrocities, but “complex artifacts of a live and evolving conflict, shaped by operational necessities as well as human tragedy”.
The carefully crafted lies of Amnesty, HRW, and separatist groups collapse under this weight of data. The graves are not monuments to Indian brutality; they are the unintended epitaphs of Pakistan’s jihadi terrorism.
Kashmiris deserve to know the truth: the men who filled these graveyards were not victims of India, but pawns of Rawalpindi. The Indian Army did not create this bloodbath; it contained it. It was terrorism exported from Pakistan that is responsible for their deaths of their kin and the general misery in the Valley. The Indian Armed Forces tried to control it. And for that, countless Kashmiris are alive today.
In a significant step towards strengthening anti-doping efforts in sports, the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Guwahati, under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, in collaboration with the National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL), New Delhi, has successfully developed a rare and high-purity Reference Material (RM) – Methandienone Long-Term Metabolite (LTM).
The Reference Material was formally launched today by Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya, Union Minister for Youth Affairs & Sports and Minister of Labour & Employment, during the 22nd Governing Body Meeting of NDTL, in New Delhi. The event was attended by senior officials from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Pharmaceuticals, and representatives from NIPER Guwahati and NDTL.
Reference Materials (RMs) are the most highly purified and scientifically characterized forms of drug substances or their metabolites, essential for accurate analytical testing. In the context of anti-doping, they are crucial for the detection of over 450 substances that are currently prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
MADE IN BHARAT, FOR THE WORLD ??
Under the dynamic leadership of PM Shri @narendramodi ji, India is rapidly emerging as a global hub for sports science and innovation.
Proud to share that NDTL has developed a new reference material “methandienone long-term metabolite” to boost… pic.twitter.com/7X0gZl9nzp
Due to their specialized application in dope testing, these RMs are produced by only a few manufacturers globally, approximately 4–5, making them scarce and often expensive. The National Dope Testing Laboratory (NDTL) and NIPER-Guwahati are collaborating to produce 22 such Reference Materials, which are not commercially available worldwide for Anti-Doping analysis.
Since 2020, 12 RM out of 22 has been synthesized by NIPER Guwahati and delivered to NDTL with Methandienone LTM being the latest one. As of now, Methandienone LTM is not commercially available globally. At present scenario, the best targets to track doping misuse in sports are those eliminated in urine over extended times. These are usually referred to as long-term metabolites (LTMs).
These metabolites help in identifying athletes who have used Methandienone, even if they ceased usage months or years prior to testing. This leads to an increase in the number of positive tests, reflecting improved detection capabilities and serving as a deterrent for athletes considering the use of anabolic steroids like Methandienone.
The use of this new reference material “Methandienone LTM” will help in enforcing transparency and integrity in sports by protecting clean athletes and acting as deterrents for use of prohibited substances. This reference material may be shared with all 30 WADA accredited laboratories worldwide as India’s contribution to the world anti-doping community.
Marking the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between India and Singapore, Prime Minister Narendra Modi hosted Singapore PM Lawrence Wong in New Delhi today. The visit, Wong’s first official trip to India as prime minister, resulted in a comprehensive roadmap aimed at deepening cooperation between the two nations across multiple sectors, underscoring the strength of what both leaders called an enduring and forward-looking partnership.
Lawrence Wong arrived in India on 2nd September, and had meetings with several union ministers and NSA Ajit Doval. He also had a meeting with business leaders from the CII Core Group on Wednesday.
At the joint press conference, PM Modi described Singapore as a pillar of India’s Act East policy and a trusted partner whose role extended far beyond diplomacy. He said that after his Singapore visit last year, the ties were elevated to the level of Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. In the course of this year, our dialogue and cooperation have gained both momentum and depth.
PM Modi said, “Today, in the South East Asian region, Singapore stands as our largest trading partner. Singapore has made substantial investments in India. Our defense ties continue to grow stronger, and our people-to-people relations are both deep and vibrant.”
He announced that in order to further accelerate our bilateral trade, a time-bound review will be undertaken of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, as well as India’s Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN. PM Modi added that Indian states will also play an important role in strengthening the bonds between India and Singapore.
India is delighted to welcome Prime Minister Wong. This visit is special because it is his first visit to India after assuming office as Singapore’s PM and it comes at a time when our nations mark 60 years of diplomatic relations. Our talks covered ways to deepen the… pic.twitter.com/uZfVfpwDAH
He said, “Over the past year, the Chief Ministers of Odisha, Telangana, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh have visited Singapore. Gujarat’s GIFT City has now emerged as yet another link, connecting our stock markets.”
“India-Singapore relations go far beyond diplomacy. They are rooted in shared values, guided by mutual interests, and driven by a common vision for peace, progress and prosperity,” he said, noting that Singapore is not only India’s largest trading partner in Southeast Asia but also the biggest source of foreign direct investment.
He underlined the importance of strengthening defence ties, people-to-people contacts, and economic cooperation as the two countries prepare to navigate the challenges of a rapidly changing global landscape.
Prime Minister Wong expressed gratitude for the warm welcome extended to him and called the trip an opportunity to celebrate six decades of “close and enduring friendship.” He stressed Singapore’s commitment to working with India on future-oriented areas of cooperation, highlighting the city-state’s contribution to India’s growth story as a major investor and partner in infrastructure, digital technology and financial integration.
Wong pointed out that roughly a quarter of India’s foreign direct investment inflows in recent years had originated from Singapore, reflecting the scale of economic engagement.
The two leaders announced a series of agreements and initiatives that will define the next phase of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. They agreed on a time-bound review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement and regional trade mechanisms, while also unveiling plans to develop sustainable, next-generation industrial parks and expand collaboration in the semiconductor sector through joint research, supply chain integration and skills development.
Met with PM @narendramodi today. Together, we launched an ambitious Roadmap for the SG–India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, charting cooperation in advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, sustainability, and emerging areas such as digitalisation, AI and space. pic.twitter.com/KUZrJMQyYf
Singapore will also partner with India’s new National Centre of Excellence in Chennai to train workers for advanced manufacturing, aviation maintenance and electronics, ensuring both countries’ workforces are equipped for the industries of the future.
Connectivity emerged as another major theme, with the two sides signing a civil aviation agreement to boost training and research while also inaugurating Phase II of the PSA-operated Bharat Mumbai Container Terminal, India’s largest standalone container port facility. They also committed to greater cooperation between their central banks on digital asset innovation and regulatory frameworks, reflecting the central role of financial technology in bilateral ties.
Maritime and space collaboration added further depth to the agenda. India and Singapore launched a Green and Digital Shipping Corridor to promote environmentally sustainable shipping, digital port processes and cleaner marine fuels. A new agreement between their space agencies was also concluded, covering satellite communication, Earth observation and the exploration of emerging space technologies. The leaders additionally pledged to advance joint efforts in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other frontier digital fields, while continuing youth exchanges through initiatives like the India-Singapore Hackathon.
During his India visit, Prime Minister Wong paid homage at Raj Ghat, met with President Droupadi Murmu, and joined a banquet hosted by Prime Minister Modi.
Looking ahead, the two countries agreed to institutionalize an annual India-Singapore Ministerial Roundtable to track the progress of new initiatives and ensure implementation of the roadmap. Both leaders concluded that the visit not only celebrated six decades of friendship but also laid a strong foundation for the decades ahead, with a partnership that they hope will remain resilient, innovative and deeply people-centric.
On 2nd September, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case. The Court stressed that the very delays cited by him were the result of adjournments repeatedly sought by co-accused, many of whom are already on bail.
Defence cites five years in custody and right to speedy trial
During the hearing, Ahmed’s counsel argued that he has been in custody since 19th June 2020 and completed over five years as an undertrial without the trial itself commencing. His counsel contended that this amounted to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India that guarantees the right to life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.
The defence highlighted that the prosecution had indicated plans to examine hundreds of witnesses, and with the trial still at the stage of arguments on charge, there was no foreseeable end in sight. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in KA Najeeb to say that prolonged incarceration, even under the stringent UAPA, could be a ground for bail. The argument was that liberty cannot be indefinitely curtailed simply because the allegations are serious. The defence therefore pressed that the sheer length of custody should tilt the balance in favour of release on bail.
Prosecution blamed co-accused for dragging the proceedings
The Solicitor General, supported by the Special Public Prosecutor, firmly rejected this reasoning. They argued that while long custody may in rare cases justify bail, the facts of this case did not allow such relief. The prosecution placed on record the trial court’s proceedings to show how arguments on charge were repeatedly stalled at the request of the accused themselves.
According to the prosecution, adjournments were sought on multiple occasions by co-accused such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, all of whom are already out on bail. Furthermore, even those who are in custody, like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, sought adjournments. The trial court had noted that the requests directly delayed progress and those still in custody now sought to use the delay as a ground for bail.
It was contended that this was an attempt to game the system. The prosecution pointed out that KA Najeeb does not apply where delay is self-inflicted. The prosecution urged the court not to permit a situation where the accused deliberately prolonged trial proceedings on one hand and on the other hand, argued for bail on the ground of those very delays.
Court noted ‘systematic delay’ caused by accused
The Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with the prosecution. After examining the trial court record, it noted that adjournments had been sought again and again by the accused, despite earlier consensus to proceed with arguments. The trial court itself had recorded its “distress” over this behaviour on 4th October 2024.
The High Court observed, “the inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant herein, is not due to the inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court… the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial.”
The judges went further, warning against misuse of constitutional guarantees, “Speedy trial is a fundamental right. But to ask for bail after there has been systematic delay in trial on the part of the accused is not acceptable, and if it is done, then the statute which restricts the grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial can easily be circumvented by delaying the trial on the one hand and by pressing bail applications on the other.”
The Bench concluded that the delay argument in Ahmed’s case could not hold, since he himself began pressing his arguments on charge only in April 2025, well after filing the present appeal.
UAPA’s tough bail bar emphasised
The court also underlined the legal standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which bars bail if accusations appear “prima facie true”. Citing the Supreme Court’s Watali precedent, the Bench reiterated that bail under UAPA is an exception, not the rule. The court stressed that while liberty is important, it cannot override the gravity of offences linked to terrorism and conspiracy against the State. Long custody by itself, absent other factors, was insufficient to justify release.
Case background
Tasleem Ahmed was named as Accused No 12 in FIR 59/2020, the principal case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi. He is charged under multiple sections of the IPC, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and UAPA provisions relating to terrorism and conspiracy.
The prosecution alleges that the riots were not spontaneous but a “deep-rooted conspiracy” to coincide with the visit of the then US President, resulting in the deaths of 53 people, injuries to scores of police officers and civilians, and widespread destruction of property. Ahmed is among several accused, including student activists, local politicians, and organisers of protest sites, whom the police say played different roles in the conspiracy.
By rejecting Ahmed’s plea, the High Court drew a sharp line: while the right to a speedy trial is sacrosanct, it cannot be turned into a loophole by those accused of delaying proceedings themselves.
On 2nd September, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the 2020 northeast anti-Hindu Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The decision was based on three decisive reasons that are the gravity of the offence, inability to prove parity and delay engineered by the co-accused, both those in jail and those who are out on bail, in front of the Trial Court.
While parity was discussed in our previous report, it is essential to discuss the gravity of the offence, forum shopping by Kapil Sibal in the Supreme Court of India and delay designed by the co-accused as pointed out by the Delhi High Court while rejecting the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed. The bench stressed gravity under Section 43D(5) and rejected parity; separately, as the High Court explained in Tasleem Ahmed, the trial delays were largely of the accused camp’s making.
Defence claimed Khalid and Imam were engaged only in ‘lawful dissent’
During the arguments, the defence teams of both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam argued in front of the Delhi High Court that they were engaged only in lawful dissent and peaceful protests. They maintained that there was no evidence that could place them at the scene where the riots broke or at the meetings where the violence was directly plotted.
In Umar Khalid’s case, the defence claimed that his Amravati speech of 17th February 2020 called for “peaceful, Gandhian methods”, and no explicit incitement to violence was made. Sharjeel Imam’s counsels emphasised that he was already detained by the police and remained in custody from 28th January 2020, weeks before the main riots. Therefore, he could not be linked to their planning or execution. They also challenged the reliability of protected witnesses and called their statements “concocted, coerced and repetitive”.
The defence further argued that even if some of the material was accepted at face value, it would only fall under Section 13 of UAPA and not the graver Chapter IV terrorist offences that invoked the strict bar under Section 43D(5). They relied on precedents such as KA Najeeb to argue that bail can be granted when incarceration is prolonged and the trial shows no end in sight.
Prosecution counter
The Solicitor General and Special Public Prosecutor opposed these submissions firmly. They argued that the conspiracy was neither accidental nor spontaneous but “well-orchestrated and strategically timed to coincide with the State visit of the President of the USA”.
They pointed to the formation of multiple WhatsApp groups by Imam and Khalid after the Citizen Amendment Bill (CAB) was passed in December 2019. The circulation of pamphlets openly calling for disruption and a sequence of speeches urging chakka-jams and violence escalation were also mentioned.
According to the State, Khalid was a “veteran of sedition” who had instructed Imam to mobilise universities and Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods. Imam’s own pamphlet, distributed on 13th December 2019, explicitly spoke of Muslims being disenfranchised and called for disruptive chakka-jams, stating “Thousands of Muslim youths are ready to disrupt Delhi which will give international media attention to our issues”.
The State further relied on multiple protected witnesses who testified that the two appellants portrayed the government as “anti-Muslim” and urged protestors to “spill blood” to make the government bend.
Court’s observations
In the judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reaffirmed earlier findings that the accusations against Khalid and Imam were prima facie true. The judgment emphasised that “Prima facie it appears that the Appellants were the first ones to act after the CAB was passed in early December 2019, by creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets… including the disruption of essential supplies”.
Furthermore, the judgment categorically pointed out that the alleged “inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the Appellants, when considered in totality” prima facie indicate towards their “role in the alleged conspiracy”.
On Imam’s claim of being in custody before the riots and Khalid’s absence from the riot sites, the judgment stated that it is irrelevant whether the appellant was “physically present at the protest sites or in meeting post 28.01.2020”. The Court noted that mere absence “may not be sufficient to mitigate their role, as they have been alleged to be the key conspirators in planning and designing the scheme of events”.
The judgment also invoked Section 43D(5) of UAPA, reminding that once accusations appear prima facie true, the embargo on bail squarely applies.
Forum shopping and Kapil Sibal’s role in delaying bail
During the hearing at the Delhi High Court, Khalid’s team argued that his long incarceration was partly due to delays in the Supreme Court hearing his Special Leave Petition (SLP) after the Delhi High Court’s October 2022 denial of bail. They claimed that the repeated adjournments and the eventual withdrawal of the SLP in February 2023 were forced by the slow pace of the proceedings and changes in circumstances. At that time, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the Bench at the Supreme Court that Khalid would “try his luck in the trial court” given this change.
The defence presented this narrative to the trial court and later to the High Court as evidence that Khalid was not responsible for the delay, but rather a victim of systematic adjournments. They argued that this justified bail, particularly when the trial itself had yet to conclude.
Prosecution counter
The defence’s argument was dismantled by the prosecution with dates and facts. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad highlighted that seven of the fourteen adjournments in 2023–24 were at the request of Khalid’s side itself. Far from being a victim of delay, Khalid was gaming the system by seeking adjournments strategically, prosecutors argued.
It was also pointed out that after the High Court rejected his bail plea in October 2022, Khalid waited for almost six months before approaching the Supreme Court in April 2023. The question raised was, if he was genuinely aggrieved by the delay, why wait so long?
The withdrawal of the SLP was not about delay but about forum shopping. From October 2022 to February 2024, Khalid’s counsel Kapil Sibal had sought repeated adjournments and then pulled out when it became clear that the judicial climate was not in favour of his client. Furthermore, Khalid’s counsel claimed “change in circumstances” as one of the reasons behind withdrawing the bail plea from the Supreme Court. This so-called change in circumstances coincided with two developments. Firstly, a change in the Bench after Justice Aniruddha Bose stepped down, and cases were listed before Justice Bela Trivedi. Khalid’s lawyers resisted this and sought repeated de-tagging and relisting.
Secondly, a change in law after a Supreme Court ruling in January 2024 in the Gurwinder Singh case under UAPA clarified that in such cases, “jail is the norm and bail the exception”, explicitly endorsing the Watali precedent where the Supreme Court had said that the court would not satisfy the prima facie test unless there is at least a surface analysis of the probative value of the evidence at the stage of examining the question of deciding the bail.
With these clarifications, the defence’s argument that “bail is the norm” was untenable. Thus, the withdrawal before Justice Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was seen less as necessity and more as a tactic, trying one court, then another, hoping for a favourable bench.
Court’s observations
In its 2nd September 2025 judgment, the Delhi High Court revisited the long bail saga of Umar Khalid. The Bench recalled that his bail application had been rejected by the High Court in October 2022, where the Court, after examining the material, had already found a prima facie case made out against him. The judges emphasised that the arguments advanced before them now had already been raised and considered earlier, and that the earlier conclusion continued to hold good.
The judgment also noted that Khalid had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn upon his counsel’s request on account of what they described as a “change in circumstances”. After this withdrawal, he filed a fresh bail plea before the trial court, again relying on delay and alleged changes in law as grounds.
While the judgment did not explicitly state that the withdrawal of the SLP had no bearing on the earlier finding, its reasoning made that effect clear. By affirming once more that the case against Khalid was prima facie true, the High Court indicated that shifting forums or citing supposed changes in circumstances could not undo the substance of its earlier conclusion.
In practical terms, Khalid could not delay hearings through adjournments and withdrawals and then rely on the resulting passage of time as justification for bail. The strategy of forum shopping, far from helping him, only weakened his claim that his prolonged custody was unfair.
Delays engineered by co-accused outside jail
While seeking bail, the defence repeatedly leaned on Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial. They cited KA Najeeb and other rulings to argue that five years of incarceration without conclusion of trial was excessive. They highlighted that charges were not yet framed and 700 witnesses were to be examined. “There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the foreseeable future,” the defence submitted, urging that this delay must tilt the balance in Khalid’s favour.
The prosecution, however, pushed back and cited trial records. In Tasleem Ahmed’s judgment, it was noted that on 5th August 2023, compliance under Section 207 CrPC was completed and the trial court ordered day-to-day hearings on charge from 11th September 2023. But when the day arrived, accused out on bail, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and others, objected, claiming the investigation was still open.
In the Trial Court’s summary it was stated that, “Despite giving considerable period of time for starting the arguments on charge, no adjournment application was moved on time… the accused persons will later claim bail on the ground of delay in trial.” Within a week, on 18th September 2023, a larger group including Meeran Haider, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Faizan Khan, Ishrat Jahan, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Saleem Malik, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmad and Gulfisha Fatima also sought deferment. This meant that even though the prosecution was ready to argue charges, the defence deliberately blocked the process.
The prosecution stressed that some accused, including Umar Khalid himself and Tahir Hussain, had actually said they were ready to proceed on 18th September 2023. But the applications filed by Devangana and Natasha derailed the process.
Both the Sessions Court in May 2024 rejecting Khalid’s bail and the Delhi High Court in September 2025 noted that the delay narrative was hollow. The Tasleem Ahmed judgment, which came out the same day, put the issue beyond doubt by reproducing trial court order sheets. On 11th September 2023 and 18th September 2023, objections were raised by Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, among others, stalling arguments on charge. From January to August 2024, “the accused who got bail were not permitting the argument on charge to commence on the ground that the investigation had not been completed”. On 4th October 2024, the trial court recorded its distress, “Despite a consensual schedule, none of the counsel is ready… any delay will be viewed by the court seriously”.
The High Court therefore concluded that it was the accused camp, especially those already on bail, who engineered delay. In Tasleem Ahmed’s case, the Court said, “Material on record indicates that certain accused persons have got bail and some of the accused persons are in prison. Those accused persons who got bail are trying to delay the arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The arguments on charge are being delayed by the accused persons who are out on bail at the cost of those accused persons who are in prison. Despite orders from the Court directing the counsels for the accused persons to decide amongst themselves as to how and in what order the arguments on charge will be advanced by the accused, there seems to be no consensus among them.”
Source: Delhi High Court
The larger strategy
The sequence of events exposes a deliberate pattern. Those on bail delayed proceedings by filing speculative applications questioning the investigation’s completeness. Those still in jail, like Umar Khalid, then sought to leverage that very delay as a ground for bail. The High Court refused to permit this circular logic and held that the bar under Section 43D(5) remained intact as the accusations were prima facie true.
