Home Blog Page 5899

Hindu Mahasabha to also file review petition against Ayodhya verdict, opposes 5 acres land provision for Muslim parties

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Hindu Mahasabha to also file review petition against Ayodhya verdict, opposes 5 acres land provision for Muslim parties

Its been almost a month since SC’s verdict over the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit was pronounced on November 9, but the litigants are yet to come to terms with the judgement.

The Hindu Mahasabha has today decided to file a review petition against the judgement wherein the apex court also granted 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Masjid which was demolished in 1992.

Moreover, the Peace Party of India is also set to file a petition to review the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case. The party’s National President Dr Muhammad Ayub is likely to file the review petition in Supreme Court on Friday.

According to sources, a total of four petitioners, assisted by All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), are likely to file a review petition in the matter. December 6, has been chosen for filing of the petition because it would the anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition, sources said.

Meanwhile, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, the president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had also filed a review petition against the Ayodhya Verdict that had awarded the ownership of the Ram Janmabhoomi to the Hindu side on December 2.

Since the Apex Court’s verdict was out on November 9, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant in the Ayodhya title suit has made such flip-flops several times.

Read: Sunni Waqf Board will not file review petition against Ayodhya Verdict, to decide on land offer later

The Sunni Waqf Board, however, had held a meeting and had stated that it will not file any review petition against the verdict. It had also stated that it will decide later on whether to take the 5 acres of land granted by the apex court.

BJP demands apology from two Congress MPs for their “threatening posture” towards Smriti Irani during debate on Unnao rape

OpIndia Staff
-
0
BJP demands apology from two Congress MPs for their “threatening posture” towards Smriti Irani during debate on Unnao rape

The BJP on Friday accused two of the Congress MPs in the lower house of parliament for “threatening posturing” while the BJP minister Smriti Irani was speaking about the Unnao rape case. The party has demanded an apology from the MPs for the same.


Smriti Irani asserted that she was chastised by a Congress MP for aggressively speaking in the Lok Sabha. She also claimed that some male MPs came towards her rolling up their sleeves and one other MP asked why did she speak at all.

Earlier, responding to Congress’ Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury’s remark- “Sita is being burnt while plans are afoot to build a Ram temple”, BJP minister Smriti Irani lambasted the opposition for politicising and communalising the issue of setting ablaze the Unnao rape victim.

“The shameful way in which the Congress leaders have politically connected the issues of women’s respect and security to communalism is unprecedented. Yes, it is condemnable. Setting afire a woman, rape and killing a woman is inhuman but don’t politicise the issue. Why are leaders from Bengal passing comments on heinous crimes in Hyderabad and Unnao conspicuously silent on the Malda case?” Smriti asked.

However, this did not sit well with a few Congress ministers who boldly charged towards Smriti Irani while she was rebutting Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury’s assertions. BJP leaders accused Congress MPs Dean Kuriakose and TN Prathapan of rushing towards Irani when she was speaking in the House.

When the House broke for lunch, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi denounced the unruly behaviour espoused by some of the MPs and asked for their apology.”This is the most condemnable behaviour. They came in a threatening position when she (Smriti Irani) was speaking. She is a lady member of the house. It is most uncalled and they should apologise.”

Another BJP leader, Meenakshi Lekhi, too sought an apology for the threatening behaviour of the Congress MPs and asked Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury to get his MPs to apologise in the House.

‘Allah’s law above all’? Jamia Millia students group plans event calling Ayodhya verdict a farce, Ramrajya ‘oppressive’

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Allah’s law above all’? Jamia Millia students group plans event calling Ayodhya verdict a farce, Ramrajya ‘oppressive’

‘Students of Jamia’, an alleged students organisation in the Jamia Millia Islamia has been holding regular meetings and sharing contents that display a rather radical opinion towards the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict and calls for Muslims to politically organise to establish ‘rule by Allah’s law’.

The ‘Students of Jamia’ organisation has on its Facebook page, stated that it has a scheduled meeting at 4.40 PM Friday, December 6 at the Polytechnic lawn of the university titled “The Command of Allah Is Over Every Law”.

Students of Jamia

The event poster shared by the organisation’s Facebook page claims that “Babri Masjid is a Masjid and will remain so, lest we forget.”

Another poster shared by the organisation declares that ‘Law of Allah is above all else’ and also says ‘Babri Masjid will remain a Masjid’.

Students of Jamia

The ‘Students of Jamia’ Facebook page also shows that it has held regular events almost every Friday in the same lawn in the University premises.

The organisation has also shared posts openly declaring that they obey no law but the ‘Law of Allah’. One of their posts, shared on October 29 says “The whole world is divided on many basis. On the basis of colour, race, and above all nationality. People having love and enmity towards others on the basis of their race or their colour or which country one belongs to.”

It further says that belief in Allah is the best form of association, better than nationality or birth. It calls for all the believers of Allah to sympathise with the Palestinians on the basis of faith on Allah and hence treat the “Zionist state of Israel” as the enemy.

Students of Jamia

Another post, shared on 15 November, had called the organisation’s followers to remind them that whoever was disagreeing with them earlier will now wholeheartedly agree. The context was the Ayodhya verdict, declared on November 9. The post stated, “The courts and other institutions of this vicious system are all facades. Behind this is the dirty dark reality and we need to understand it before it unveils by itself. Because then it would be too late.”

Students Of Jamia

The post had re-shared their post form the previous year, on December 6, 2018, the anniversary of the Babri Mosque demolition.

The 2018 post, shared on the Babri demolition day, had declared that from 1948, India had seen ‘Brahmanical rule’ and the rule speaks of ‘oppression, and injustice’. It further stated that the fall of Babri was the symbolic representation of the ‘fall of Ummah’ (The rule of Muslims as an entire global community).

It stated that ‘Ramrajya’ is nothing but the flag of ‘shirk'(oppression), and the Babri demolition was the fall of the flag of ‘Tauheed'(justice).

“Those claiming the leadership of Muslims and giving a fake hope that the matter will be solved through Supreme Court or any laws being written by bunch of people for self-class benefits (whose legitimacy has never been accepted by all of them), should know that the Artificial laws, powers, people and courts will change and vanish but the reality of Mosque being a Mosque will remain till Qiyamah”, it stated.

The post also equated the ‘occupation’ of Babri with the ‘occupation’ of the Masjid Al Aqsa at Jerusalem. It declared, “The justice is unattainable till the Flag of Tawheed and the Kalima of Allah dominates over all.”

Students Of Jamia

It is notable here that some students of the University, under the condition of anonymity, have stated that the organisation holds regular meetings inside the campus, and in one of the ‘freshers meet’ events organised by the group, two professors of Jamia Milia Islamia were invited as guest speakers. The Facebook page had listed Prof Muhammad Rafat and Asst Prof Abrar Ahmed as the speakers.

The students stated that the group carries out its activities and meetings unabated and with complete awareness of the university administration. Their statements often call for the subversion of Indian identity and embracing of the Muslim identity. They had also reportedly held events where they had declared support for Palestine and condemned Israel.

An October 4 post shared by the group condemns an Israel-sponsored event at the Faculty of Architecture and says that allowing any event by Israel is against the founding principles of the university.

The students also added that though the university has a rule that forbids events organised on campus lawn without express permission from the administration, this particular group ‘Students of Jamia’ have been holding meets almost every Friday.

When OpIndia tried reaching out to the Public Relations Officer of Jamia Millia Islamia, Mr Ahmed Azeem, we were told that he was not aware of any such event being held at that time, and he will talk to the proctor first about it and let us know after that. He added the university does not sanction its premises to be used for political purposes, and stated that any student group’s event too, has to first seek permission from the university proctor before using any lawn or ground inside the premises.

The deputy proctor of the university, Mr SM Mahmood, told us that the event was indeed planned at 4.30 pm today but the university is not allowing it as they have not sought prior permission. He also added that though ‘there is no ban on events’, the event has to be held at a designated place and seeking prior mermission is mandatory. He also confirmed that he had seen two posters of today’s events on Facebook but no permission was sought. After that the PRO Ahmed Azeem also asserted the same.

A look at the Facebook page of the students group tells that they have indeed been holding meets almost every week to discuss various issues from an Islamic point of view. Here are some of the posters shared by the group on the agenda of their past meetings.

Students of Jamia past meetings

One of the posters calls for fellow Muslim students to “be the Salahuddin of today” and calls for the “Liberation of Al-Quds (Islamic name for Jerusalem). Another poster titled “Who deserves to be your lawmaker?” declares that “Rulings belong to none but Allah”.

Even though the authorities claimed that the event was not allowed to be held, students who wish to stay anonymous are saying that the event did take place.

Advocate Rajeev Dhavan who was ‘sacked unceremoniously’ by Jamiat and other Muslim parties is back on board

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan who was ‘sacked unceremoniously’ by Jamiat and other Muslim parties is back on board

Rajeev Dhawan, the advocate representing Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ayodhya case after being ‘sacked unceremoniously’ from the Ayodhya case by AOR Ejaz Maqbool, representing the Jamiat, is back on the board and would be handling the four review petition filed by Muslim parties in the Supreme Court against its November 9th verdict.


These four review petitions assisted by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) are likely to be filed today. According to reports, December 6 has been chosen for filing of the petition because today is the anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition.

In a press statement signed by Mumbai based Jamiat’s legal head Gulzar Ahmed Azmi, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has clarified that Rajeev Dhavan continues to remain the Jamiat’s lawyer. The press release said that there was some misunderstanding and Jamiat thought that advocate-on-record Ejaz Maqbool may file the petition now and later Rajeev Dhavan will argue.

Read: It is Hindus, not Muslims who disturb peace: Ayodhya Muslim parties’ lawyer Rajeev Dhavan makes outrageous remarks

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan had taken to social media on December 3 to inform that he has been sacked unceremoniously. In his post on Facebook, the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties’ lawyer had said that he has been sacked from the Babri case by Advocate on Record Ejaz Maqbool who was representing Jamiat. “Have sent formal letter accepting the ‘sacking’ without demur. No longer involved in the review or the case,” he posted.

In another post, he had added, “I have been informed that Mr Madani has indicated that I was removed from the case because I was unwell. This is total nonsense. He has a right to instruct his lawyer AOR Ejaz Maqbool to sack me which he did on instructions. But the reason being floated is malicious and untrue.”

Read: Hindus have been demanding restitution since 1528 for the Ram Temple destroyed by Islamist barbarians, Rajeev Dhavan

In November, talking about Sunni Waqf Board’ decision to not file a review petition against the SC verdict on Ayodhya, the senior advocate said that they have taken this decision under immense pressure. He went on to castigate the chairman of the Sunni Waqf Board, Zafar Ahmad Farooqui by saying that since he has an FIR against him he is subject to the pressure of Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath, hinting that it is under Adityanath’s pressure that Farooqui decided that they will not file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya dispute.

Meanwhile, in yet another development in the Ayodhya case, the Hindu Mahasabha today has also decided to file a review petition against SC’s order to provide 5 acres of alternate land to Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Babri Masjid.

‘Goli Chal Jayegi’: Woman shot in face as she stopped dancing at wedding in UP’s Chitrakoot, caught on camera

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Goli Chal Jayegi’: Woman shot in face as she stopped dancing at wedding in UP’s Chitrakoot, caught on camera

A shocking video has surfaced wherein a woman in Uttar Pradesh’s Chitrakoot was seen being shot at in full public view at a wedding for merely stopping her dance performance after the music was stopped due to a technical glitch. The woman was suddenly shot from behind and the bullet pierced her jaw. She is currently being treated in a hospital in Lucknow.


In the video which was taken on December 1 during a performance at the wedding of village head Sudhir Singh Patel’s daughter, the young woman, who was part of a dancing group, was seen on the stage with a co-performer. The two women stop dancing when someone asks them to stop, as the music stops playing due to a glitch with the music system. After that, a gunshot is heard in the background, but the women and other people don’t react to that, presumably thinking it was a celebratory gunshot. After a brief moment, a man who sounds drunk is heard saying: “Goli chal jayegi” (shots will be fired).

After that another man is heard saying: “Sudhir bhaiya, aap goli chala hi do (Brother, you should fire the gun).” The woman was then suddenly shot from behind as a gunshot is heard in the video and the woman is seen falling to the ground.

The groom’s maternal uncles, Mithilesh and Akhilesh, who were on the stage, were also injured in the firing, according to the police.

Read: Former Bihar MLA arrested for shooting a woman at new year party in Delhi

According to reports, two people who fired shots, Sudhir Singh and Phool Singh, have been arrested by the police. The groom’s paternal uncle Ram Pratap had filed a first information report about the incident.

The dancers were invited by the groom’s side, and during the performance, the accused had climbed up to the stage and had started celebratory firing from his country-made pistol.

The 22-year-old dance performer, identified as Hina, suffered an injury to her jaw but is currently out of danger. She was immediately rushed to a local hospital after the incident and was then referred to the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences in Lucknow.

While talking to News18, the woman who was dancing with Hina said, “We were dancing when a man asked us to stop. We co-operated and even the music was stopped. We were waiting on the stage and suddenly the man (accused) aimed directly at Hina and fired a shot. She was hit in the chin and suffered serious injuries”. She alleged that th shooter is relative of the village pradhan.

Here are some of the prominent police encounters that has taken place in the country

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Here are some of the prominent police encounters that has taken place in the country

As the Hyderabad encounter that led to the killing of four rape accused in the Hyderabad vet rape and murder case has become the talking point of the country, here is a look at the other encounter cases that had led to controversies in the country.

Batla House Encounter:

Batla House encounter officially known as Operation Batla House, took place on 19 September 2008, against Indian Mujahideen (IM) terrorists in Batla House locality in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, in which two suspected terrorists, Atif Ameen and Mohammad Sajid were killed while two other suspects Mohammad Saif and Zeeshan were arrested, while one accused Ariz Khan managed to escape.

Encounter specialist and Delhi Police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, who led the police action was killed during the incident.

On the evening of 13 Sept 2008, a series of bomb blasts had rocked the country’s capital New Delhi. The blasts had killed around 30 people and injured more than 100. The Delhi Police was given the responsibility to investigate the bombing. As part of their investigation, the Delhi Police examined several leads, witnesses and CCTV footages.

Read: Batla House: The encounter where the killing of two Indian Mujahideen terrorists made Sonia Gandhi ‘cry bitterly’

During the investigation, the Delhi police received information that the accused terrorists responsible for the bombings were hiding in a building called “Batla House” in the Jamia Nagar area of New Delhi.

A Delhi Police team headed by renowned police officer Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and his team arrived at the Batla House to arrest the potential suspects. Since Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma knew that he would be raiding a terrorist hide-out, he had his team equipped with bulletproof jackets and automatic weapons but strangely he did not wear any bulletproof jacket. On top of this, he had also volunteered to lead the assault.

As soon as the assault team broke open the door, the terrorists who were hiding in one of the flats of Batla House fired with their weapon hitting Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. He was shot in his abdomen, thigh and arm. Besides him, two other policemen were also injured. Unfortunately, Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma lost his life on his way to the hospital due to excessive bleeding while his two colleagues survived.

In the ensuing firefight between the Delhi Police, two terrorists were killed, two were arrested and one escaped who reappeared in Syria two days ago as an ISIS recruiter. In the subsequent raids after interrogating the two captured terrorists, many arrests were made across India which included many low level Muslim political leaders.

In the meantime, while this investigation was underway, senior Congress leader Salman Kurshid had stated that the then Congress chief Sonia Gandhi had tears in her eyes when she read the news that two Muslims terrorists had been killed during the encounter.

Ishrat Jahan Encounter:

Around 5 am on the morning of June 15, 2004, an investigative unit in Ahmedabad had received a call that four people – three men and a woman linked Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) were planning to assassinate the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi.

The suspected LeT terrorists who killed in the incident were Ishrat Jahan Raza, a 19-year-old woman from Mumbai and three men – Javed Ghulam Sheikh, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar. The police officers from the Crime Branch had killed four suspected terrorists close to a water treatment plant on the outskirts of the Gujarat capital.

The First Information Report filed by the Gujarat police later that day said officers from the Ahmedabad city Crime Branch had received intelligence that two “Pakistani fidayeen (suicide killers)” were travelling from Kashmir to Ahmedabad to “attempt a suicidal attack” on Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat at the time. Johar and Rana were identified as the two Pakistani nationals. Shaikh, the third male victim, was allegedly arranging their local network.

Read: Headley names Ishrat Jahan, but will India’s “secular” brigade accept?

The Ishrat Jahan encounter had caused a huge controversy in the counter after the incident was allegedly used by the Congress party to target the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.

David Headley, a Pakistani-American terrorist who had collaborated with the Lashkar-e-Taiba, later had revealed that Ishrat Jahan was an operative of the LeT.

It is alleged that Congress used this incident for appeasement and vindicating politics by claiming that Ishrat Jahan was innocent and the encounter carried out by the Gujarat police as a fake. The allegations against the Congress party is that they misused the investigative agencies like CBI, IB, NIA and ATS for proving this encounter as fake for political gains against their rivals.

The police team involved in the incident had been led by DIG DG Vanjara, an officer who spent eight years in jail for this incident. The current Union Home Minister Amit Shah had also spent some days in jails due to this case.

However, in 2004, a Central Bureau of Investigation report denied that Amit Shah had any role in the shootout. In June 2013, an Intelligence Bureau report which appeared in the media told the PMO and the home ministry that the agency had enough evidence to prove that Ishrat was part of a LeT module which planned to kill CM Narendra Modi.

In May 2014, few days prior to Narendra Modi becoming the Prime Minister of the country, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) gave a clean chit to Amit Shah, who was the Home Minister when the encounter took place.

Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter:

On November 23, 2005, Sohrabuddin Shaikh, a suspected Let terrorist, his wife Kauserbi and aide Tulsiram Prajapati were allegedly abducted while travelling from Hyderabad to Sangli in Maharashtra. Shaikh and Kauserbi were taken to Gujarat, while Prajapati was arrested from Bhilwara in Rajasthan.

Read: CBI wanted to falsely implicate political leaders including Amit Shah, worked towards achieving script: Court on Sohrabuddin case

According to the accused, Shaikh was a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative and was on his way to Gujarat to “assassinate a big political leader”. Shaikh was killed in an encounter on November 26, 2005, near Ahmedabad. His wife, three days later, Prajapati was killed near the Gujarat-Rajasthan border on December 27, 2006.

Dara Singh Encounter:

Bootlegger and liquor mafia leader Dara Singh was killed in an encounter in 2006 by the Special Operations Group (SOG). The wife of Dara Singh Sushila Devi had called the encounter a murder, calling it fake. Later, the Supreme Court had asked the CBI to investigate the encounter on a petition filed by Dara Singh’s wife Sushila Devi.

Rajendra Singh Rathore, a union minister in the ruling central government was arrested in the case but discharged later. The CBI charge sheet said that Rathore had ordered Dara Singh’s encounter as he had threatened to kill him over an inter-caste liquor mafia gang war.

Bhopal Jailbreak- SIMI Encounter:

In October 2016, eight SIMI activists were killed in an encounter in Manikhedi Kot Pathar village on the outskirts of Bhopal eight hours after they escaped from Bhopal Central Jail by killing a guard.

Mohd Saliq, Zakir Hussain, Amjad Khan, Mehboob Guddu, Mohd Aqeel Khilji, Mujeeb Sheikh, Mohammad Khalid Ahmad and Abdul Majid were killed in the encounter.

The eight SIMI members were lodged at the state’s most secure prison and were being tried for several cases including offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. They had escaped after tying up one guard and slitting the throat of another.

Reportedly, the SIMI members had opened the lock of the cell with a key and scaled the outer jail wall using a ladder made of bedsheets and wooden pieces to escape from the prison.

Hyderabad Encounter:

On the early hours of Friday, all the four accused in the Hyderabad veterinarian’s rape and murder case have been killed in a police encounter at Shadnagar.

According to the Telangana police, the four accused in the Hyderabad rape and murder were shot dead in an encounter on the NH-44 near Hyderabad, the same highway where the charred body of the 26-year-old was found.

The police opened fire at the four accused as they tried to escape. The police had been taken the four accused to the spot for recreation of the crime scene.

According to the Shamshabad DCP Prakash Reddy, a police team had taken the four accused to the very spot of the crime early today morning between 3 to 6 am. The accused had snatched some weapons from policemen and tried to escape. They were killed by retaliatory fire in self-defence by the police. Two policemen have also reportedly suffered injuries in the encounter.

The Telangana police had arrested all the four under charges of gang-rape and murder in less than 24 hours after the crime. The police had confirmed that a lorry driver named Mohammad Pasha from Narayanpet in Mahababub Nagar district was allegedly the main suspect. The other accused were identified as Naveen from Gudigandla, cleaner Kesavulu, and an assistant named Shiva.

‘Law has done its duty, DNA profiling of accused done to find if they were involved in other crimes’: Telangana police tell media after encounter

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Law has done its duty, DNA profiling of accused done to find if they were involved in other crimes’: Telangana police tell media after encounter

Telangana police have said that the four accused in the Shamshabad gang-rape and murder of a veterinary doctor were shot dead by police after they attacked police with sticks and stones. Cyberabad Police Commissioner VC Sajjanar said this while addressing a press conference after the encounter earlier today where he presented a detailed account of the incident.

The police commissioner said that the four accused were arrested based on lots of human intelligence and scientific evidence after the horrific crime. Police had interrogated all of them on 4th and 5th December after getting custody of them from the court. During the interrogation, they had confessed to the crime. Based on their confession the police had reached the spot in the early morning today to recover the mobile phone of the victim and objects related to the case, bringing the accused persons with them.


But after reaching the spot, the accused persons attacked the policemen with stones and sticks and other materials. They also managed to snatch guns from two police personnel and started firing. Even after that the police officers maintained restraint and asked them to surrender, but they continued to fire at and attack the police party. After which the cops were forced to fire at them in retaliation, resulting in the death of all four. VC Sajjanar said that two police officers sustained grievous injuries in the incident, including one head injury, although none of them is bullet injuries. The police officer pointed towards the photographs of the scene which showed that the accused were lying with guns.

VC Sajjanar also informed that the police have done DNA profiling of the victim and the 4 accused, and will match them with crime data from the state to find whether they were involved in any other crime.

VC Sajjanar told the media that the incident took place between 5:45 AM to 6:15 AM today and there were 10 police personnel with them. He rejected the claim that they were brought to the scene in the night, saying they went there at the early morning. He revealed that along with the phone, the powerbank and watch of the victim were recovered from the spot which were hidden by the accused there. Rejecting the allegations of extra-judicial killing, VC Sajjanar said that “law has done its duty”.

The 27-year-old veterinary doctor was gang-rapped by the four on the night of 27th November, after which they had killed and burnt her by pouring petrol. Four persons Md Pasha, Naveen, Kesavulu and Siva were arrested on the basis of eyewitness accounts and CCTV footage, and they had confessed to the crime.

A faceless troll thought we ‘need to be disciplined’ because we were ‘out of line’

Nirwa Mehta
-
0
A faceless troll thought we ‘need to be disciplined’ because we were ‘out of line’

‘Abusive right-wing trolls’ make Internet an unsafe place for women, they say. An abusive troll with questionable credentials, Swati Chaturvedi, has written a full-fledged book naming everyone from the non-left as ‘BJP troll army’ who are nameless, faceless people who enjoy spending their time on the Internet abusing women. What these people do not write is that women are on the receiving end of abuse across the spectrum.

Following the gruesome rape and murder case in Hyderabad, where a 27-year-old doctor was gang-raped and then killed and had her body set on fire by the perpetrators, a filmmaker from Hyderabad, Daniel Shravan took to Facebook to suggest Indian government should legalise rape and women should carry condom and rather enjoy rape so that they are not murdered later. The bizarre suggestion which reduced women to sex objects made women angry. And I speak for women because I am one. This does not mean men do not feel angered by this. Please do not make this about political correctness.

This horrifying suggestion reminded us about the movie Padmaavat where actor Swara Bhaskar had written how watching a movie where Rajput women chose self-immolation over sex slavery and forceful religious conversion by Alauddin Khilji and his army had ‘reduced herself to a vagina’. OpIndia Editor Nupur J Sharma shared an article I had written in response to Swara’s rant where I had used her comparison and asked her to rise above her vagina. I had talked about Swara’s hypocrisy on how her own movie Raanjhanaa glorified stalking on celluloid and which she even justified as creative freedom. I wrote how if only in the 13th century, women had known that in the 21st century, their ‘cinematic depiction’ would lead to the fifth wave of feminism where open letters would try to imply how the fact that they would rather die than spend life as sex slave is a bigger ‘crime’ than beastly Islamic invaders who destroyed civilizations and murdered people along the way.

This, of course, triggered quite a few people. One anonymous troll decided to ask Nupur and I, ‘what was wrong with ours? Was ours leaking?’ He meant whether our vaginas were leaking. A very random sexually coloured remark sent to two women by a nameless, faceless troll, just because the Internet allows him.


He was told by few men to generally be little respectful to women. That his behaviour is not polite and acceptable in a functional society. He then also added how he respects women.


When Nupur confronted him with his imaginary ‘respect’, he told us that because we brought ‘vagina’ issue in the open, he had to ‘discipline us’.


Who is he to ‘discipline’ women on the Internet? He has an answer for that.


Nupur and I were ‘out of line’ and hence he felt the need to ‘discipline’ us. Nupur refused to write on this. She felt her ego would not let her play the victim. I said it is not about being a victim. It is about letting the world know we get abused too. That we too get threats, day in and day out.

A simple look at his profile showed how he glorified and hailed Tipu Sultan who was responsible for the murder of thousands of Hindus.


He has all the qualities of an Indian ‘liberal’. He sees the soft side of Pakistan.


Does not believe Hindus are persecuted in Pakistan.


Refers to Kashmir as ‘India occupied Kashmir’.


And in all possibility believes in Islam is the religion of peace.


So why does he, a textbook ‘liberal’ want to ‘discipline’ women? Women, who have views, different from his? Why is ‘vagina’ a bad word that immediately sends off signals to him that he must take the responsibility of ‘disciplining’ us? And what exactly does ‘discipline’ mean? Is he the Taliban? Since he can’t physically use lashes on us, is he going to throw sexist remark at us?

And is he really the only one? There are thousands of abuses we get a day in and day out. On our physical appearance to comments on our private parts to comments on our personal lives.

So when mainstream publications write about abuses women have to face on the social media, why are the abusers grouped as ‘right-wing trolls’? Are non-left women, not women enough? Aren’t abuses we are subjected to abuses enough? Or is it that because we do not agree with them on political ideology, we ‘deserve’ the hate we get otherwise we won’t be ‘disciplined’?

When we complain of abuses thrown at us, we are mocked. So women on the non-left spectrum of the political ideology, the fight against misogyny is even harder. Those on the Left, who identify themselves as feminists most of the time, will choose their political ideology over admitting that women on the non-left are being wronged.

So here we are. Fighting a new battle every day. Slaying it, quite like a boss, almost every single day.

 

Child rapists convicted under POCSO should not have the right to file mercy petitions: President Ram Nath Kovind

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Child rapists convicted under POCSO should not have the right to file mercy petitions: President Ram Nath Kovind

As Country grapples with a spate of rape incidents, the President has taken a tough stand against rape convicts booked under POCSO Act. The Indian President Ram Nath Kovind said that there should be no provision of filing a mercy petition for child rapists.

Speaking at an event in Sirohi, Rajasthan, Kovind said, “Women safety is a serious issue. Rape convicts under POCSO act should not have the right to file mercy petition. Parliament should review mercy petitions.”


It is pertinent to note that the President made these statements when the mercy petition filed by one of the convicts in Nirbhaya 2012 is still pending with him.

Kovind’s assertions also come at a time when the encounter in Hyderabad culminated into deaths of 4 accused in the gruesome gang rape and murder of a 27-year-old veterinary doctor Preeti Reddy (name changed).

As per the media statement given by Shamshabad DCP Prakash Reddy, a police team had taken the four accused to the very spot of the crime early today morning between 3 to 6 am. The accused had snatched some weapons from policemen and tried to escape. They were killed by retaliatory fire in self-defence by the police. Two policemen have also reportedly suffered injuries in the encounter.

Here is why it is not the Ayodhya judgement that needs to be reviewed, but the vicious and toxic mindset of Muslim parties

Ayush Anand
-
0
Here is why it is not the Ayodhya judgement that needs to be reviewed, but the vicious and toxic mindset of Muslim parties

On the 2nd of December 2019, M. Syed Ashhad Rashidi, the legal heir of M. Siddiq, the original litigant of the Ayodhya land dispute, has filed a review petition challenging the correctness of the Supreme Court Judgment pronounced in the Ayodhya case on 14 grounds. The Petitioner has not sought a review of the entire judgment but only of those issues which have been decided against them. Interestingly, they are in parts happy with certain findings but unhappy with the others. It clearly indicates who is more interested in keeping this issue alive, as there are several findings which are against the interest of other parties as well but even then they are more interested in giving quietus to the dispute.

It is very unfortunate that there are certain groups who are creating this situation in the country whereby the interpretation of this landmark judgment is being peddled in a very wrong manner. Certain interested groups are deliberately avoiding the findings and reasoning arrived upon by the Court which indicates in very clear terms that the Muslim Parties have lost their case because of their failure to adduce evidence to substantiate their case. At the same time, the case has been decided in favour of the Deity as per the well-settled principle of appreciation of the evidence in civil cases like this, i.e. ‘preponderance of probabilities’.

Read: The comprehensive legal History of Ram Janmabhoomi case: A case that will have its relevance for generations to come

It is very apparent that the Petitioner seeks review of an only adverse finding against them and a bare perusal of the Review Petition filed reflects that it nowhere satisfies the criteria fixed by the Hon’ble SC for reviewing its own judgment. However, on the contrary, it suggests that the groups which are behind this frivolous Review Petition require a review of their mindset in a socio-political context and up-gradation of their knowledge in law with respect to the valid grounds for filing such review Petition.

It is not the judgment which requires a review but the vicious and toxic mindset of certain people, who have misguided innocent Muslim community of the country for decades during the case including the Marxist historians and now after the settlement of this dispute, again crying that the Judgment is wrong. It is against the secularism. It is a kind of mandamus to destroy our ‘Babari Mosque’. The Court has rewarded illegal acts. The Court was wrong in extending what was earlier a prescriptive right only into a possessory title over the land to the Hindus. The Court has relied upon the traveller’s account and inadmissible evidence adduced by the Hindu parties while giving land to the Deity. The Court is wrong by not holding the structure as a waqf property and so on….  But hang on; these were the issues which have been already decided by the Court, Right? Then is it possible through a review petition to reexamine the same issue on the basis of the same set of evidence?

Let us, in brief, examine the grounds for review of an SC Judgment. Where the two interpretations/findings is possible and the Court has taken one, on the basis of evidence on record, then it can never be a ground for seeking a review by asking the Court to adopt the second one, which it has refused after thorough deliberation, upon the same issue in the same set of facts. Adopting that would amount to a violation of not only a principle of the Res-Judicate, but also damage the sanctity of the earlier Court proceedings. Such review is only permissible in rare of the rarest cases where while arriving at its conclusion Court has committed a human error. The scope of review is hence very narrow. It can never reopen the entire issue on the basis of the same set of old evidence which has already dealt upon and the decision has been taken thereof or unless the judgment has been passed without appreciating any law or misreading of the law and which should be clear on the face of record like typo mistakes.

Read: It is Hindus, not Muslims who disturb peace: Ayodhya Muslim parties’ lawyer Rajeev Dhavan makes outrageous remarks

Review, i.e., a judicial re-examination stems from Article 137 of the Constitution of India and Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A review under the said statute lies only when:

  1. There is a discovery of afresh and important matter of evidence, whereby the claimant is bound to prove that, after exercising due diligence, it was not within their knowledge or was not in a position to be produced at the time when the order or judgment was passed. (Aribam’s Case, AIR 1979 SC 1047)
  2. There is an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record and not from an erroneous decision or any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record is one that strikes at the mere looking of the record and does not need detailed scrutiny. It must be self-evident and should not have to be established. (Meera Bhanja’s Case, (1995) 1 SCC 170)
  3. Any other sufficient reason, after proving such sufficient reasoning.

Considering these limited scopes of review and while going through the grounds averred in the Review Petition, one can easily understand that the future of such Petition is bleak. The Review Petition has been filed in a manner to reopen the entire issue which is against the settled law hence it is bound to fail.

The Court has given a unanimous judgment on the findings that –

  1. The alternate plea of adverse possession was not established by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, as it failed to meet the requirements of adverse possession [Paragraph 788(XVIII)(iii)]
  2. The Archeological Survey of India’s report has suggested that the foundation of the mosque is based on the walls of a large pre-existing structure, which was not of an Islamic origin and was suggestive of a Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations. [Paragraph 788]
  3. The evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stood on a better footing than evidence so adduced by the Muslims. [Paragraph 800]
  4. The Hindus have been in unimpeded and exclusive possession of the property’s outer courtyard, where they continued worship over the periods of time, and other grounds.

The Court was therefore of a view that the Hindus have rightfully established a clear case over the possessory title of the disputed property by virtue of the long, unimpeded and continued worship at the Ramchabutraand other such objects of religious significance. Whereas, the Court has also observed that the Muslim Parties have failed to produce any document or evidence (be it admissible or inadmissible) prior to 1856 with respect to their right over the land. They have even failed to prove their exclusive adverse possession after 1856. What remains after that to claim over the property on behalf of Muslim Parties?  In short, they have failed to prove their case and cannot take advantage of weak evidence of other Parties.

Illegal acts can only be punished through criminal courts; it has no bearing at all on a civil case while deciding the title of the land. A Court while adjudicating a civil dispute cannot decide upon criminality of certain acts committed in past and punish the offenders by way of not awarding the title of the land to its legitimate owner. A Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction simultaneously both in the capacity of a criminal and civil court.

Read: Evidences prove that Hindus have always believed Ram Janmasthan is the place where Babri Mosque was built: Addendum to Ayodhya Verdict

The judgment has been a result of the higher principle being that of equality before the law and has not sided with majoritarianism, as criticised by critics. The Court has considered law and reason over faith, has explained each point of law before making any observation and has only then come to the conclusion of allocating the disputed land to the Hindus. Considering the strong reasons given by the Court in each issue upon scrutiny of evidences, it is imperative to state that the ends of law and justice have been met with, and that, there is no scope of injustice within the judgment, leave alone the presence of an unjust finding on the face of the judgment. Amongst other reasoning as to why the said review petition shall not stand, few of the most apparent reasons fall to be –

  1. The judgment does not include a cloud of uncertainty as it has provided sufficient reasoning with proofs and evidence (oral and documentary) of all its findings. The Court has also acted in the interest of all the parties and has therefore given directions of alternative allotment of land to Muslims, an interest to the Nirmohi Akhara in the Trust so made to look after the building of the Ram Mandir and other such directions.
  2. The party seeking the review, as also held by the Hon’ble Court, has not been successful in establishing their case, and that, the evidence as provided by the Hindus has been held to stand on a better footing than that of the evidence provided by the Muslims. In the Review Petition also they have not adduced any such permissible fresh evidence.
  3. The review petition so filed raises questions over the powers of the Supreme Court to pass orders by which the Babri Masjid be demolished. The interpretations so made by the claimant are not as to the allocation of land to the other party but emphasizes on the fact that the judgment of the Court virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid. Hence, such controversial interpretations cannot pave the way towards the admission of the petition, as it still does not clear the grounds of review under the required Article and Order.
  4. The Petition further questioned whether the Court has ignored the wrongs committed by the Hindu parties in 1934, 1949 and 1992, as to which the Court has already given orders stating the same were wrongful and illegal and has duly acknowledged the acts before passing the said judgment.
  5. Similarly, the Petition sought clarification over the evidentiary value of the ASI reports and the gazettes, which have also been duly answered in the judgment itself, and stands no reasonable ground for the said review.

It is for these reasons that the filing of the review petition is not the best of the decisions and with all reasonable factors does not stand valid in the eyes of law.

Before filing such mischievous Review in such a sensitive matter, the Petitioner should have thought that the land has not been given to any person or individual, it has been given to the Deity. The deity has never committed any illegal act upon anybody. In fact, illegality has been committed upon the Deity for centuries by the invaders. Then what is this argument that the Court has awarded certain illegal acts? Is it even sane to say that giving land to the Deity is an award to the criminals? This Petition is clearly filed with the intent to disrupt the harmony and peace in our society. The Socio-Political message which this Petition tries to convey is dangerous and the Society needs to remain wary of such groups.

1...5,8985,8995,900...7,665Page 5,899 of 7,665