On Thursday (14th December) Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud refused to intervene and adjourn the hearing on the bail plea of AAP leader Satyendra Kumar Jain listed before another Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi. The hearing is regarding a money laundering case against the AAP leader. CJI DY Chandrachud said that the judge concerned will take the decision.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Satyendra Jain, who is currently on interim bail, urged a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra to postpone the scheduled hearing on his client’s plea by the Justice Trivedi-led bench later in the day.
Singhvi mentioned that a bench, including Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Trivedi, had already considered significant arguments in the case. However, the matter is currently scheduled before a bench, and Justice Bopanna is not part of this particular bench. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “This case was listed before Justice AS Bopanna. He had heard it for 2.5 hours. Now the case is listed before Justice Bela Trivedi.”
In his response, CJI said, “I will not control what the judge is doing in the matter listed before her. The judge who has the case will decide. I cannot. I cannot take a call.”
Insisting the CJI to look into this case, Abhishek Manu Singhvi continued, “We wish to only seek a deferment. If you (the CJI) can kindly see the case papers once.” Reacting sharply to this, the CJI said, “Only the judge before whom the matter is listed will take a call. I will not.”
During a previous hearing on Satyendra Jain’s bail plea, Justice Trivedi declined the request to postpone the matter until January, when Justice Bopanna is anticipated to resume court duties. Despite Jain being on interim medical bail, Justice Trivedi did not grant the adjournment but provided Jain’s counsel with the option to bring up the matter before the Chief Justice of India. The CJI has now refused to intervene.
Jain was granted interim bail on May 26, and is currently appealing the top court for regular bail.
What is the case against Satyendar Jain?
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initially filed a case against Satyendra Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case alleged that between 2015 and 2017, Jain acquired movable properties in the names of various individuals without satisfactory accounting. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also registered a case, claiming that several companies, beneficially owned and controlled by Jain, received accommodation entries totalling ₹4.81 crores from shell companies. These funds were allegedly transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
Bittu Bajrangi, who was arrested during the violence in Nuh, is once again being targeted. His family is also targeted by anti-Hindu forces in the Nuh and Mewat regions. On Wednesday night (13th December 2023), an attempt was made to kill Bittu Bajrangi’s brother Mahesh Panchal. The attackers attempted to burn him alive by pouring petrol on him. Bittu Bajrangi’s brother resides in Jhabua, Faridabad in Haryana.
Mahesh Panchal is currently hospitalised and in a serious condition. According to his statement, one of the assailants goes by the name Armaan. Armaan’s father operates a juice shop in the Jhabua vegetable market.
According to reports, the attackers led by Armaan first confirmed the identity of Bittu Bajrangi’s brother, Mahesh Panchal. They asked Mahesh Panchal, “Are you Bittu Bajrangi’s brother?” As soon as Mahesh answered “Yes”, the attackers poured petrol on him and set him on fire.
Bittu Bajrangi admitted Mahesh Panchal to the hospital. Mahesh Panchal’s condition has become critical in the hospital. Upon receiving information, the police also arrived at the scene and initiated an investigation into the incident.
The assailants attacked after midnight
Mahesh, who runs a shop in Faridabad’s Dabua vegetable market, was delayed in returning home. Around 1 am, Armaan and 4-5 others arrived in a car and targeted him. Mahesh Panchal, in his police statement, identified one of the assailants as Armaan. Reportedly, Mahesh has sustained severe burn injuries, estimated to be around 60%, and his condition is in critical condition.
Who is Bittu Bajrangi?
Bittu Bajrangi is a Hindu activist who raises his voice for the unity of Hindus. After the violence that erupted in Nuh in the Mewat region, his name gained more traction in the news. Subsequently, he was also arrested in a case of a clash with the police. At present, Bittu Bajrangi is out of jail on bail.
In this case, all Hindu organisations supported him. Initially, the rumour spread rapidly that Bittu Bajrangi’s name had come in the violence, but the police made it clear that action was taken against Bittu Bajrangi not related to the Nuh violence, but in the case of a clash with the police.
Satypal Malik is turning tables albeit on himself. In a recent interview with a leftist portal, the former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir has claimed credit for the abrogation of Article 370. This comes exactly eight months after his controversial interview with The Wire wherein he claimed that the Centre had not informed him about its decision to revoke Article 370.
In his 17-minute 54-second long interview with “The Red Mike”, Satyapal Malik welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the abrogation of Article 370. He said, “I welcome the order because the abrogation of Article 370 began with my letter. And I have been proven right. There will be no debate on it now with the Supreme Court’s stamp.”
When asked whether he was given any cue that Article 370 will be revoked at the time he was made the Governor of J&K, Malik said he wasn’t told any such thing. “But I had an idea that they will revoke it but because their election manifestos used to mention the same, I had suspected that they might revoke it during my tenure,” he said.
In the latest interview, Malik said that PM Modi’s brief when he was made Governor was “no poliking, development and reach out”.
After claiming the credit, Malik parroted the achievements that the Centre has been listing since the abrogation of Article 370. He was, however, quick to criticise the Centre when the anchor tried to downplay the development done in J&K.
Malik said, “You are right that the development that should have happened has not happened. But until the Centre is interested, it will not happen. They should set up industries. Although AIIMS and such have been developed but nothing significant has been done in the area of industrial development.”
He reminisced his days as Governor and when asked about the premature end to his tenure, Malik said that there was no political reason behind the same. “Since statehood was withdrawn and J&K was made a UT, my post would have to be downgraded to Leitenant Governor which I was not ready for,” Malik said.
Again, in his conversation with Rahul Gandhi in October, Malik was rather critical about just how many times he was transferred by the Central government. “Meghlaya was my punishment posting after Goa,” he said with a smirk adding that he was transferred five times like a bureaucrat.
Continuing the streak of credit-claiming with “The Red Mike”, Malik said that the people of Kashmir had understood the message of peace he had given to them which, he implied, is why peace prevailed in the valley even after the abrogation.
When asked if he thinks the situation would have been better today had he decided to stay in J&K (as L-G), Malik said, “100 per cent it would have been better because I never gave them a chance to complain.”
He further said that all other parties except for the BJP will be able to do well in the elections which the SC has directed to be held before 30 September 2024.
Malik also said that Delhi (Central government) did injustice to the people of Kashmir by removing their elected representatives like Yasin Malik, who is a convicted terrorist and serving life imprisonment in Tihar jail for terror funding in Kashmir.
Malik accused the Centre of tampering with the election results of terrorist Yasin Malik. He went on to say that he was not provided any security during and after SC’s verdict because the government wants him dead to prevent him from speaking.
When milked by the anchor that the government does not credit him with the abrogation of Article 370, Malik said that the people give him credit wherever he goes.
A day after the Parliament security breach incident, the mother and sister of one of the accused Sagar Sharma has appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a fair investigation as Sagar is innocent and has been framed in the conspiracy.
Sagar Sharma’s mother, identified as Rani Sharma and sister, Mahi Sharma also claimed that Sagar is a patriot.
Rani Sharma said, “On yesterday’s crime, we would like to say that our child has been framed; my son is not like that he used to drive an e-rickshaw, I have only one son, he is my support, our child is innocent, he has been framed.”
“Someone has framed him, he is our only son, he used to drive rickshaw, he is a patriot and a very good boy,” she added.
On the question of whether she knows the people with whom his son committed the crime, Rani said, “I don’t know about it but I know that he is innocent, he can never do this, all this has been filled in his mind.”
“He told me at home that he was going to Delhi to meet his friends for two days and would come back to work. He used to earn Rs 500 by driving an e-rickshaw.”
While appealing to PM Narendra Modi, Sagar’s sister Mahi Sharma said, “There should be a fair investigation, my brother is innocent and those who manipulated him for the crime should be punished.”
“My brother studied till intermediate amd a patriot and always talked about the progress of the country. Whenever it was 15th August, he used to go out in a rickshaw with the tricolour on it” Sagar’s sister said.
On the other hand, according to Police sources all the accused were associated with the social media page ‘Bhagat Singh Fan Club’. Everyone met in Mysuru about one and a half years ago. Sagar came from Lucknow in July but could not go inside the Parliament House.
On December 10, one by one everyone reached Delhi from their respective states. Everyone met near India Gate where colored crackers were distributed to everyone. Police is continuously interrogating them to find out who is the mastermind behind them, as per initial investigation, main conspirator is someone else.
Sagar Sharma, a resident of Lucknow’s Manaknagar area, is said to be inspired by left-wing ideology and use to share and comment on similar posts using two Facebook accounts.
Both Facebook accounts of Sagar have not been active for several months. His Facebook pages revealed that Sagar was also in contact with many people from Kolkata, Rajasthan and Haryana via Facebook.
Sagar’s family includes his father, mother and younger sister. The family originally hails from Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao district and has lived here in Lucknow in rented accommodation for almost 20 years.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
On 14th December, the maternal uncle of one of the Parliament intruders, Sagar Sharma, alleged that his nephew was dragged into the act as part of a “conspiracy” by a powerful individual. He asserted that the Sagar has no history of taking part in such acts.
The relative claimed, “An extensive investigation should be conducted. I know he is being trapped by someone. Any prior link should have existed if he was that way. He doesn’t have the money to travel. He had to have connected with them on social media. He must have befriended them on Facebook. He is a poor man and does not have the means to visit places. If it weren’t for Facebook, how would he have met someone who lives so far away? People are tricked into falling into traps in this manner. Perhaps he received some sort of incentive. Otherwise, a police station should have a record of him carrying out similar offences in the past. He has been pulled into it as part of a conspiracy by someone who holds a big position.”
#WATCH | "He has been pulled into it as per a conspiracy by someone who holds a big position," says Pradeep, maternal uncle of the Parliament breach incident accused Sagar, in UP's Lucknow pic.twitter.com/g8O2WnA0gr
On 13th December, on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D broke through security and jumping into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They shouted slogans and released yellow gas from canisters before being subdued by a few members of parliament. Meanwhile, Amol Shinde and Neelam Singh raised slogans outside the Parliament buildings as they released coloured gas from canisters. It was the worst case of Parliament security breach in two decades.
All four are now in police custody. Their accomplice, Vishal Sharma alias Vicky and his wife Vrinda Sharma in whose house the accused stayed before reaching Parliament, have also been apprehended from Gurugram. A search is on to capture their other accomplice Lalit Jha. Police sources mentioned that all accused were associated with a social media page ‘Bhagat Singh Fan Club.’
The Delhi Police has launched a case against the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A police team reached the house in Gurugram earlier in the day, where all four accused reportedly stayed briefly before the incident. The officials said the case has been registered under Indian Penal Code sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 452 (trespass), 153 (wantonly giving provocation, with intent to cause riot), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) sections 16 and 18 at the Parliament Street police station.
In a major security breach since the 2001 Parliament attack, two persons jumped into the Lok Sabha well on December 13 from the visitors’ gallery while the proceedings were going on and released yellow-coloured smoke from canisters. The question here arises that despite multiple security checks and frisking, how did the intruders manage to smuggle the smoke canisters inside the Parliament. Apparently, the intruders carried the smoke canisters in the shoes they were wearing.
Notably, the Parliament Security Service operates under the administrative control of the Joint Secretary (Security) of the Lok Sabha Secretariat and oversees the security operations of both Secretariats. After the deadly attacks on the Parliament in 2001, several measures were taken to streamline the access points, advanced security gadgets were deployed, and a high-tech access control system was implemented to ensure the safety and security of the MPs and VVIPs. In addition, Radio Frequency Tags were introduced to enhance the identification processes.
The intruders Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan managed to breach the three-tier security of the parliament. The initial check is undertaken at the Parliament premises’ entry gate. Subsequently, another check is conducted involving metal detectors and hand-held metal detector frisking. This is followed by another round of checking at the Parliament building’s entrance gate, with additional security deployed in the corridor leading to the visitors’ galleries. While the visitors were not allowed to carry cell phones inside the gallery, the intruders were skillfully carrying smoke canisters made of plastic in their shoes.
An obvious question that comes to the mind here is why was the smoke cannister not detected during any of the three tiers of security checks including metal detector frisking. To understand this, one must recall the “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid’s failed attempt to detonate a bomb on American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami 22 years back on December 22, 2001. Richard Reid had converted to Islam and joined the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Interestingly, Reid was carrying the bomb with around 10 ounces of explosives in his shoes when he boarded the flight. Despite the prior security checks, the bomb Reid was carrying could not be detected.
Fortunately, the terrorist failed in his attempt to blow up the plane mid-air as a co-passenger smelled the sulphur and Reid was then pinned down, sedated and eventually handed over to the security officials. This incident, however, demonstrated that, unless shoes are removed and checked separately, they can pass through security with plastic explosives stuffed within. For this, in the US and Europe, passengers at the airport are required to take off their shoes, belts, all metallic objects, cellphones and other electronic items in a separate tray before passing through the metal detectors.
During the security checks at the parliament, the officials usually do not check the shoes of the visitors. As reported earlier, two of the accused had conducted recce outside the parliament beforehand, during the Budget session as well as the monsoon session. Had the frisking staff regularly checked the insides or the soles of the shoes of the visitors including those of the two intruders on Wednesday, the duo could have been caught beforehand. The incident has aptly triggered a serious review of the security arrangements as there could been noxious contents in the canisters smuggled in by the now-arrested intruders.
Citing a Parliament Security Services official, Indian Expressreported that hundreds of visitors are arriving at the parliament daily, especially after the inauguration of the new parliament, however, the staff is limited. The report adds citing sources that “301 security officers are usually deployed inside Parliament, but on Wednesday, 176 were present.”
Notably, the security breach took place at 1 PM on December during the zero hour in the Lok Sabha, just before the lunch break. When Khagen Murmu, BJP MP from West Bengal, was raising some points regarding his constituency, a commotion was suddenly heard in the background. When the Sansad TV switched to the view of the entire hall, a man could be seen who had already jumped from the gallery and was on the benches. He then started to proceed towards the front of the hall, jumping from bench to bench.
#WATCH | An unidentified man jumps from the visitor's gallery of Lok Sabha after which there was a slight commotion and the House was adjourned. pic.twitter.com/Fas1LQyaO4
A video from the Lok Sabha shows the members of Parliament assaulting one of the two perpetrators who burst into the chamber during proceedings and tossed canisters emitting yellow smoke. The MPs can be seen plucking the hairs of the intruder, hurling shoes at him, and landing punches at him before encircling him.
Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha secretariat has reportedly suspended eight security officials in connection with the security breach. As the Winter Session of Parliament resumed this morning, security measures were significantly increased.
On 13th December, Rajasthan Police published a post on X (formerly Twitter) urging people not to participate in ‘Mrityu Bhoj’ and pointed out that it is a punishable offence. In the post, Rajasthan Police used the hashtag “MrityuBhojAct1960”.
मृत्यु भोज करना व उसमें शामिल होना कानूनन दंडनीय है।
The post read, “Eating at death feast and participating in it is punishable by law. This event is inappropriate, even from a human point of view. Let us together remove this evil from the society and oppose it.”
The post was criticised by many netizens who found this rule a needless interference with the religious practices of Hindus. Author and columnist Anshul Pandey wrote, “Since when did the Mrityu Bhoj became Evil–Rituals? If these are Evil–Rituals, then laws should be made on such Rituals of other religions too, are you ready for that?”
मृत्यु भोज कुरीति कबसे हो गई? अगर ये कुरीति हैं तो फिर दुसरे धर्मों की कुरीतियों पर भी कानून बनाना चाहिए, क्या आप तैयार हैं इसकेलिए?
Since when did the Mrityu bhoj became Evil–Rituals? If these are Evil–Rituals, then laws should be made on such Rituals of other religions too,…
Founder of Garuda Prakashan, Sankrant Sanu said, “When did the job of the police become to fix “kuritis.” It’s not your business colonial babus. Catch some thieves.”
When did the job of the police become to fix “kuritis.” It’s not your business colonial babus. Catch some thieves.
X user JIX5A said, “This is a barbaric law! How can anyone be so intolerant and hateful towards Hindus? Mrityu bhaji is no different from the western practice of keeping vigils for the dead. How can a country that has 80% Hindus violate their religious rights so much?”
This is a barbaric law! How can anyone be so intolerant and hateful towards Hindus? Mrityu bhaji is no different from the western practice of keeping vigils for the dead. How can a country that has 80% Hindus violate their religious rights so much?
Dr Amit Thadhani wrote, “It is our right to offer food to others for the moksha of our pitrs, and no one can stop us from doing it. The best time to change this disgraceful law is right now.”
It is our right to offer food to others for the moksha of our pitrs , and no one can stop us from doing it. The best time to change this disgraceful law is right now. @RajCMOhttps://t.co/9H98i82EuS
X user Shubhendu questioned why the post was made within two days after the new government was formed in the state and wrote, “The law has been in place in Rajasthan since 1960. Rajasthan Police rarely posts about it. But what made it post today when a new BJP CM has been declared, and the cabinet is going to take oath in a couple of days. Who (which agency) is running various handles of Rajasthan Police?”
The law has been in place in Rajasthan since 1960. Rajasthan Police rarely posts about it. But what made it post today when a new BJP CM has been declared and the cabinet is going to take oath in a couple of days. Who (which agency) is running various handles of Rajasthan Police? https://t.co/1e16SLrTIa
This is not the first time Rajasthan Police made a post on social media reminding people to refrain from attending Mrityu Bhoj. However, detailed information about it was never posted on social media. Similar posts were made in 2020, 2021, 2023 and earlier in 2023.
Source: Rajasthan Police/X
Source: Rajasthan Police/X
Source: Rajasthan Police/X
Source: Rajasthan Police/X
District Police handles in Rajasthan made similar posts over the years.
#मृत्युभोज ना तो मानवीय रूप से सही है, ना ही कानूनी रूप से।#राजस्थान मृत्युभोज निवारण अधिनियम 1960 के तहत मृत्युभोज करना या उसमें शामिल होना है कानूनन दंडनीय है।
— Jaipur Rural Police (@JprRuralPolice) July 8, 2020
The Rajasthan Government issued an order to strictly implement the Mrityu Bhoj Act amid COVID-19 pandemic
There was no such post prior to July 2020, and there is a reason for that. On 3rd July 2020, the Rajasthan Government, led by Congress leader and then-Chief Minister of the state Ashok Gehlot, issued an order to strictly implement the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960. In a social media post on X in July 2020, Jaipur Police had shared the orders and details of the Mrityu Bhoj Act. As per the document, in accordance with the Prohibition of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960, it was directed that the duty of informing the court about the occurrence of Mrityu Bhoj was assigned to the Panch, Patwari, and Sarpanch. The violation of the provisions of this law is also subject to punishment. The law enforcement agencies were asked to make efforts to ensure compliance with the provisions of the aforementioned law. DIG Kishan Sahay issued the order.
Source: Jaipur Police/X
Though the law has been in place since 1960, there has been no strict implementation of it in recent times. However, things changed in 2020 when the pandemic hit. Reports suggest that complaints were filed during the pandemic that people were organising Mrityu Bhoj following the demise of their loved ones. As there were guidelines for social distancing amidst the pandemic, the government used the opportunity to implement a decades-old law against Mrityu Bhoj. Following the instructions, FIRs were filed in the matter against those who organised Mrityu Bhoj. During research, we found two such reports. In July 2020, two brothers were booked only a week after the instructions were given to implement the law. In April 2021, 100 people gathered for Mrityu Bhoj after which a fine of Rs 25,000 was imposed on the family.
What is Mrityu Bhoj?
Mrityu Bhoj is an age-old Hindu tradition where priests, family, villagers, relatives and the poor are invited for a feast after the demise of a person. It is practised across the country by different names.
What is the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960?
The Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960, was enacted to address the concerns related to the holding of Mrityu Bhoj in the state. On 3rd February 1960, the President of India gave assent the bill. It came into force on 10th February, 1960. As per sub-section (a) of Section 2, events like Nukta, Mosar and Chahallum were included in the prohibition act. Furthermore, as per sub-section (b), though there was a ban on Mrityu Bhoj, there was no restriction on feeding the family or specific groups for religious or secular rites.
Source: Jaipur Police/X
As per Section 3, no one is allowed to hold, give, join or take part in a Mrityu Bhoj. Section 4 states that anyone breaking the law may face imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of Rs 1,000. Section 5 of the Act gave the court authority to issue injunctions to prevent such feasts. As per Section 6, Sarpanchs, panchs, patwaris and lambardars must inform law enforcement agencies about such dinners and may face punishment if they fail. Section 8 of the Act prohibited anyone from providing financial assistance or loans for holding feasts. Other Acts, such as the Jaipur Prevention of Funeral Feasts Act 1947, were repealed after introducing this Act.
The act found a place in the Rajasthan Government’s action plan for 2023-24. It read, “The other prominent practice associated with death is the Mrityu Bhoj, wherein food is offered to the priests, family, relatives and villagers, on mass-scale, after the death of a person. This social practice proves to be more of a burden on the offspring of the deceased and exerts a heavy financial burden on them, especially those belonging to poor families, as there is an expectation and social pressure to feed scores of families. To curb the evil practice of “Mrityu Bhoj”, and spread awareness about the Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 was passed, but the same needs better enforcement and implementation.”
It is important to note that the Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 specifically mentions the Islamic practice of Chahallum too. A Chahallum is a custom where Muslims honour the dead person of a family after 40 days.
Notably, the law from 1960 does not talk about the limit of people allowed. However, the action plan 2023-24 and a judgment in a matter related to the law mention it. The action plan read, “To effectively deal with the evil of Mrityu Bhoj, the Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 was enacted, which bars anyone from hosting a feast for more than 100 people and mandates punishment of up to one-year jail term or a fine of Rs 1,000 (or both) for anyone who violates the law or anyone who “abets or assists the commission of any such contravention.”
Rajasthan High Court in Fateh Lal vs State of Rajasthan passed a judgment on 27th January 1988 where Fateh Lal and others were accused of holding Mrityu Bhoj. While contending the matter, Fateh Lal’s advocate informed the court that there was no proof that the feast was organised for more than 100 people. The judgment read, “It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that “Mrityu Bhoj” to the extent of 100 persons was permitted under the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1972 and also under the Raj. Prevention of “Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 and there is no evidence on record that “Mrityu Bhoj” was arranged for more than 100 persons and on this ground alone, the revision petition deserves to be allowed.” It further read, “Admittedly, ‘Mrityu Bhoj’ for less than 100 persons was and is permissible under the Rajasthan Guest Control Order and Rajasthan Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act. To sustain a conviction for the breach of Clause 3 of the Order, it is necessary to prove that the “Mrityu Bhoj” was arranged from more than 100 persons. Admittedly, no person was found eating when the police raided Mabeshwarion-ka-Nohara.”
The limit of the number of guests is not under the Mrityu Bhoj Act but under the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1978. As per the order, the food cannot be served to more than 100 people, including the host or hosts. That means if there are five members in the family, they are allowed to invite only 95 people. During Covid, there was a restriction on any gathering hence, even if the number of guests were less than 100, fines were imposed.
The Mrityu Bhoj Act was introduced, claiming it put pressure on the poor section of society as they often don’t have the money to hold grand feasts. It was further contended that the poor section of the society was forced to sell land or take hefty loans to arrange Mrityu Bhoj, which would put financial pressure on the family, making the future insecure.
It is pertinent to note that the Mrityu Bhoj Act does not prevent people from observing death rituals for their deceased family members. It just restricts the number of people invited to attend the ‘Bhoj’. The intention behind the law was to reduce the economic and social burden on poor families who had to undergo hardships for organizing grand events that involved a lot of people. It was enforced by the Gehlot government during the Covid time to prevent large gatherings.
On Wednesday (13th December), Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami attended ‘Agenda Aaj Tak’. During his interview, he slammed the Pakistani social media handles who claimed that Shami stopped short of offering Sajda (prayer) on the ground in a match after taking the fifth wicket during the ICC Cricket World Cup 2023.
The anchor asked Mohammed Shami, “In a match, you took the fifth wicket and sat down on the ground. Then some social media handles from Pakistan claimed that ‘See, Mohammed Shami – an Indian Muslim – wanted to offer Sajda (prayer) but suddenly he was afraid and could not do it’.”
Mohammed Shami said, “If anyone wants to do Sajda, who will stop him? I won’t stop anyone from your religion from praying. You will not stop anyone from my religion from praying. If at all I want to do Sajda, I will do it anyway. What is the problem with it? I am a Muslim and I proudly say so. I am an Indian and I proudly say so.”
Mohammed Shami added, “If at all I had any problem with that, I should not have lived in India in the first place. Had I needed anyone’s permission to offer my prayers in this country, I would not have lived here. People have said a lot of things and even I have seen those things on Instagram. People are saying that I wanted to do a Sajda but I could not. Brother, have I done anything of that sort on the ground ever in my life before? I had taken five wickets before as well. I did not do Sajda at that time.”
Shami further said, “You tell me where I have to pray, and I will go and pray there. I will do it on every Indian platform I get. This is not done. We should change our thinking. These people think only about how to disturb us. They are not with me. Neither they are with you. They are not with anyone except gossiping. They do not love anyone and anything but gossip. All they need is content. They will take any content.”
About the five-wicket haul in that match, Mohammed Shami said, “Do you know how I took those five wickets? It was probably my sixth over. I was bowling with an effort that exhausted my energy limits. I already had three wickets. I was thinking that if I bowl even better in these 3 to 4 remaining overs, I will get five wickets. Because I already had three wickets. All I was thinking about was giving my 100 per cent. And in fact, I was giving my 200 per cent at that time. I was bowling better than my abilities.”
He further said, “I was tired. That batter was not getting out. I could beat him multiple times but he was not getting out. I was tired of this. When I got the fifth wicket I came on my knees. At that time, I lowered my neck. That’s it. People created different meanings out of that. These people are so free in their lives. I think they do not have anything else to do.”
Notably, Mohammed Shami had kneeled down for a few moments after taking five wickets against Sri Lanka, after which many Pakistani social media users started saying that the Indian bowler wanted to offer a Sajda but did not do it due to fear. Shami completed a five-wicket haul by dismissing Kasun Rajitha in the 13th over of the Sri Lankan innings. Shami took 24 wickets in seven matches – the most by any bowler in the tournament.
On 13th December, Trinamool Congress’s Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien was suspended from Rajya Sabha for the remaining part of Winter Session. Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha, and Bharatiya Janata Party MP, Piyush Goyal moved the motion to suspend the TMC leader for misconduct in the house.
In his motion, Union Minister Goyal said, “This house has taken serious note of the misconduct of Mr Derek O’Brien, member, who has entered the well of the house and has been continuously shouting slogans to the Chair. Therefore, disrupting the house’s proceedings in utter disregard to the authority of the Chair and having been named by the Chair, resolved that the above-mentioned member that is Derek O’Brien, be suspended from the service of the Council for the remainder of this Session under Rule 256.”
Following the motion, the Chairman of the house, Jagdeep Dhankhar, called for voting and accepted the motion based on a voice vote to suspend Derek O’Brien for the remaining Winter Session.
What is Rule 256 under Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of the States (Rajya Sabha)?
As per Rule 256 under Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of the States (Rajya Sabha) titled Suspension of the member, the Chairman has the power to name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
The rule states that the member, if named by the Chairman, shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member be suspended from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the Session.
Notably, the rule also states that the Council may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such Suspension be terminated. Furthermore, a member suspended under this rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the Council.
Lok Sabha secretariat suspended eight security personnel on Thursday over security lapses that led to a major security breach in Parliament on Wednesday.
The security breach happened on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. Two people–Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D–jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before being overpowered by the MPs.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned till 2pm amid sloganeering by Opposition MPs over Wednesday’s security breach incident. The opposition MPs also demanded the resignation of Union Home Minister Amit Shah over the incident.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla said “all of us are concerned” about what happened in the House yesterday. The security of the House is the responsibility of Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Congress MP Manickam Tagore said, “It is an intelligence failure and we hope for a fair investigation of the matter… Home Minister Amit Shah must answer, as the Delhi Police and all security agencies report to him. He cannot run away from this responsibility… BJP MP Mr. Simha provided passes to these culprits, there is a very deep conspiracy behind this and he must not be left unpunished.”
Meanwhile, a drastic security change was witnessed in the Parliament on Thursday with security personnel deputed on the entrance of the outer gates insisting to remove even shoes despite doing minute frisking of those entering the premises of the campus.
The new security set-up looks similar to that of the airport where shoes, especially long boots or a few made of leather, are asked to open during security check. Only MPs are being allowed to enter the Parliament building from Makar Dwar, and all persons entering the building are being checked thoroughly.
The move was adopted a day after Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma were arrested for breaking into the Lok Sabha and jumping from the visitors’ gallery and opening smoke cans that were hide by them in their shoes.
The security personnel have applied restriction for media to stand nearly 50-60 metre away from ‘Makar Dwar’ of the New Parliament building– one of the six entry gates from where majority of legislators enter.
Four people were arrested on Wednesday over the security breach in the Parliament under charges of the anti-terror Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
As per the Ministry of Home Affairs, the enquiry committee will investigate into the reasons for breach in security of Parliament, identify lapses and recommend further action. “The Committee will submit its report with recommendations, including suggestions on improving security in Parliament, at the earliest,” the MHA had said. (ANI)
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
