Home Blog Page 1654

Theory of ‘Basic Structure’ and its impact on NJAC: Why a synthesized NJAC would be better than the Collegium system

Atul Tyagi
-
0
Theory of ‘Basic Structure’ and its impact on NJAC: Why a synthesized NJAC would be better than the Collegium system

The Constitution remains a living document that reflects the will of the people as expressed through its founding principles and values. The Constitution of India is made up of several key components that include the Preamble, Part III & Part IV of the Constitution of India. Additionally, it includes fundamental principles like democracy, secularism, socialism, and sovereignty, which guide the functioning of the Indian state. The Constitution establishes a federal parliamentary structure backed by three concrete independent yet assimilated and synergized pillars of powers separated out as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL POWERS

The Constitution ensures the separation of powers by defining the roles, functions, and limitations of each branch. Additionally, it includes mechanisms to prevent one branch from unduly encroaching upon the powers of another. The specific allocation of powers in the Indian Constitution is a crucial feature that evolved to concretize a balance of power amongst all three domains and simultaneously ensure that one power constituent does not infringe upon the other’s sphere. The separation of powers is a fundamental feature of our Constitution that ensures the allocation of roles, responsibilities and powers to three distinct branches with inbuilt checks and balances.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The executive branch consists of two separate sub-branches; one is administrative & the other is political executive. The administrative branch is committed to implementing and enforcing rules and regulations and protects the sanctity of the law of the land. The Political executive is represented by the President of India, the Vice President, and the Council of Ministers (headed by the Prime Minister). The executive branch is expected to run the day-to-day affairs of the government, making policy decisions, and implementing laws passed by the Legislature.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The legislative branch is primarily responsible for formulating laws. The legislative power is demonstrated by two houses – the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Parliament of India has the power to make, amend, and repeal laws on various subjects listed in the Constitution.

JUDICIAL BRANCH

The judiciary is owed with responsibility to dispense justice & also interpret the laws. It is independent of the other two branches.

ARTICLE 13

Article 13 primarily focuses on safeguarding fundamental rights. It states that any law whether pre- or post-Constitution which is found in conflict with or at variance with fundamental rights shall be revoked to the extent of variance. It empowers the judiciary to review laws and, if necessary, strike them down if they violate fundamental rights. Article 13 provides a protective umbrella to maintain the inviolability of fundamental rights due to any legislative or executive action. The term “law” in Article 13 includes not only statutes and legislation passed by Parliament or State Legislatures but also ordinances, regulations, orders, bylaws, rules, and other forms of delegated or subordinate legislation. Article 13(2) empowers the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts to review the constitutionality of laws where if any law is assessed to be in violation of fundamental rights and inherent spirits, the same can be suitably declared void to the extent of inconsistency.

The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. In essence, Article 13 serves as a safeguard for the fundamental rights of Indian citizens and ensures that any existing law or new legislation that violates these rights can be declared void by the judiciary, upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Article 13 is a critical tool in ensuring that fundamental rights are not violated or undermined by any legislative or executive action. It provides a mechanism for citizens to challenge laws that infringe upon their fundamental rights in the courts.

ARTICLE 368

Article 368 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It outlines the procedures and mechanisms for amending various parts of the Indian Constitution. It grants Parliament the power to amend various provisions of the Constitution. Article 368 confers upon the Parliament of India the power to amend the Constitution. It can amend any provision of the Constitution including the provisions related to the fundamental rights of citizens.

Amendments can be made by introducing a bill in either house of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha). Some amendments can be passed by a simple majority of the members present and voting in each house. Certain other amendments, which are not related to the federal structure but still affect significant parts of the Constitution, require a special majority. This means they must be passed by most of the total membership of each house and by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. Article 368 itself contains an exception. It specifies that certain provisions of the Constitution, such as the federal structure, Parliamentary form of government etc. cannot be amended without the ratification of most state legislatures. Article 368 is crucial in understanding the process by which the Indian Constitution can be amended. The theory of Basic Structure impinges upon the ambit of amendment to any provisions of the Constitution of India.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE 13 AND ARTICLE 368 CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS

Article 13 acts as a watchdog on the power of Parliament as provided under Article 368. It ensures that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot do so in a manner that violates fundamental rights. Article 13 does not make all constitutional amendments invalid. Instead, it applies specifically to amendments that violate fundamental rights. If a constitutional amendment infringes upon fundamental rights, it can be declared void to that extent, as per Article 13. The doctrine of Basic structure limits the amending power of Parliament, is a product of judicial interpretation and was established in the Keshvanand Bharati case (1973). It harmonizes the powers of Article 13 and Article 368 by allowing amendments that do not affect the basic structure of the Constitution and ensuring that fundamental rights are protected. While Article 13 and Article 368 have different purposes, they work together to maintain a balance between amending the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights. The basic structure doctrine which is a judicially evolved concept in the epoch-making Keshwa Nand

The Bharti case is a key element that reconciles by setting limits on the amendment power to prevent any alteration of the core principles of the Constitution. The Basic Structure is however not defined & is left to the interpretation of Justices of the bench, every time it gets constituted.

OVERSTEPPING OF ORGANS

Legislature Overstepping:

The legislature may sometimes pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution. In such cases, the judiciary has the authority to strike down these laws through judicial review.

Executive  Overstepping:

The executive can issue ordinances in exceptional circumstances when Parliament is not in session. However, if the legislature excessively uses ordinances to bypass the normal legislative process, it can be seen as overstepping its authority. The President, on the advice of the Cabinet, can declare a state of emergency under specific circumstances. However, if the executive misuses emergency powers for political gain or to suppress dissent, it can be seen as overstepping its authority.

Judiciary  Overstepping:

While the judiciary’s role includes interpreting the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights, excessive judicial activism, where the judiciary takes on roles that are traditionally the domain of the executive or legislature, can be seen as overstepping. It’s important to note that the allocation of powers in the Indian Constitution is designed to create a delicate balance and each branch has specific checks and balances on the others to prevent overstepping. Additionally, the concept of judicial review allows the judiciary to strike down laws and actions that violate the Constitution, serving as a vital safeguard against overreach by the legislature and executive.

In practice, maintaining this balance is an ongoing challenge, and instances of overstepping can arise. However, the system relies on the vigilance of each branch, as well as public awareness and engagement, to ensure that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are upheld. In any democratic system, including India, there is always the potential for one branch of government to overstep its authority, which can lead to a disruption of the system of checks and balances. Here are some common examples of overstepping of authority by the three branches of government in India: where the judiciary is perceived to have overstepped its boundaries into the legislative and executive domains in India, has been a subject of debate. While the judiciary’s role includes interpreting the Constitution and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, there have been instances where it has made decisions that some critics argue encroach upon the functions of the other branches of government.

The term “judicial activism” is often used to describe instances where the judiciary takes an active role in shaping public policy and governance. Critics argue that at times, judicial activism has led to the judiciary overstepping its role. For instance, in the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court formulated guidelines on workplace sexual harassment even before specific legislation was enacted. While this was seen as a necessary step to protect women’s rights, it raised questions about whether the judiciary was intruding into legislative territory. The judiciary has been actively involved in environmental matters, issuing directives and guidelines to address issues like air pollution, river cleaning, and industrial pollution. While this has been necessary to protect the environment and public health, critics argue that such interventions sometimes bypass the executive’s role in crafting and implementing environmental policies. made by the executive.

The judiciary has been involved in decisions related to religious practices. The Sabarimala temple entry case, where the Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, raised questions about whether the judiciary was infringing on religious traditions and practices, a domain traditionally left to religious authorities. The judiciary has been involved in issues related to reservation policies. In some cases, it has ordered changes in reservation criteria or questioned the implementation of reservation policies, which are primarily within the legislative domain. It’s essential to recognize that these instances of perceived judicial overreach often come with differing interpretations and perspectives.

Some view them as necessary interventions to protect fundamental rights and uphold the rule of law, while others argue that they encroach on the legislative and executive functions. To address concerns about judicial overreach, there have been calls for greater clarity in the separation of powers, the need for well-defined roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and discussions on judicial reform to ensure that the judiciary respects the boundaries set by the Constitution while upholding the rights and welfare of citizens. While the judiciary’s role includes interpreting the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights, and excessive judicial activism, the judiciary takes on roles that are traditionally the domain of the executive or legislature, which can be seen as overstepping.

While judicial review is a crucial aspect of the separation of powers, an overly broad interpretation of this power can lead to a perception that the judiciary is encroaching on the legislative and executive domains. It’s important to note that the separation of powers in the Indian Constitution is designed to create a delicate balance and each branch has specific checks and balances on the others to prevent overstepping. Additionally, the concept of judicial review allows the judiciary to strike down laws and actions that violate the Constitution, serving as a vital safeguard against overreach by the legislature and executive. In practice, maintaining this balance is an ongoing challenge, and instances of overstepping can arise. However, the system relies on the vigilance of each branch, as well as public awareness and engagement, to ensure that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are upheld.

KESHVANAND BHARTI CASE

In the Keshvanand Bharati case, relief was sought against the Kerala government vis-à-vis two state land reform laws, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property. Question underlying the case: Was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, or abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights? The Constitutional Bench in the Keshvanand Bharati case ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part. The ‘basic  structure doctrine has since been interpreted to include:

  • the supremacy of the Constitution,
  • the rule of law,
  • Independence of the judiciary,
  • doctrine of separation of powers,
  • a sovereign democratic republic,
  • the parliamentary system of government,
  • the principle of free and fair elections,
  • welfare state, etc.

BASIC STRUCTURE

The basic structure doctrine was established in Keshvanand Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, however, cannot do so in a manner that violates or alters its basic structure. This doctrine is significant because it places limitations on the amending power of the Indian Parliament, ensuring that the core principles and values of the Constitution remain intact and unaltered. It was developed to determine the limits of the amending power of Parliament (under Article 368) and to protect certain core principles and values of the Constitution. The power of judicial review, which empowers the judiciary to measure the constitutionality of laws and actions including constitutional amendments, is a vital part of the doctrine of Basic Structure. The primary aim of the basic structure doctrine is to ensure that the fundamental principles and essential features of the Constitution, which are vital for maintaining democracy, justice, equality, and the rule of law, are not arbitrarily or substantially altered through constitutional amendments. The basic structure doctrine is a legal principle developed by the Indian judiciary, particularly by the Supreme Court of India.

CHANGE INEVITABLE

The architects of the Indian Constitution granted confirmed powers to Parliament as per the needs and demands of “We the People”. Article 368, which gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, can also be amended. The Constitution is an ever-developing index & a reflection of the collective consciousness of the citizens which embodies the spirit of the nation. The dynamism in the Constitution is integral, however, the Doctrine of Basic Structure impedes the dynamism. The impact of the past enriches it now and makes the future richer than the present.” A provision for amending the Constitution has been made to address any challenges “We the People” may face in the future as the Constitution functions since time is not static; it is always changing, just as the political, economic, and social circumstances of the people do.

APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES PRIOR TO 1993

Before the introduction of the collegium system in 1993, the appointment of judges to the higher Courts in India, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, was primarily made under the provisions of Article 124 and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution. The Chief Justice of India, as the head of the judiciary, would recommend the names of candidates for appointment as judges to the President. These recommendations were often made after consultation with other senior judges, both within the Supreme Court and the concerned High Court.

The President of India, bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers (the executive branch), would make the final appointments based on the recommendations received from the Chief Justice and the Executive. The executive branch played a significant role in the appointment process. The President would consider the recommendations and could seek further information or clarification if necessary.

In practice, the government had a significant say in the appointment process. While the Chief Justice’s recommendations were considered, the government’s role in the final decision often led to allegations of political influence in judicial appointments. The introduction of the collegium system in 1993 marked a significant shift in the appointment process. Under the collegium system, a group of senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India, became responsible for recommending candidates for judicial appointments. This system was cited as aimed at enhancing the independence of the judiciary in the appointment process. It means that all appointments of justices up to 1993 were incorrect and subject to legislative and executive interference.

It is assumed that the frailties of the appointment of justice were over with the introduction of a collegium system with necessary transparency and accountability. The question of whether all judicial appointments made before the introduction of the collegium system in 1993 were “incorrect” or subject to legislative and executive interference is a matter of perspective and legal interpretation. The introduction of the collegium system was aimed at addressing certain perceived shortcomings in the earlier appointment process and enhancing the independence of the judiciary, but it does not inherently render all prior appointments “incorrect.”

ADVENT OF COLLEGIUM

The collegium system was introduced through a series of judicial pronouncements and not through a specific legislative enactment. It evolved gradually over several decades. The term “collegium” itself was coined in the 1990s. The idea of judicial consultation in the appointment of judges can be traced back to various judicial precedents. For example, in the 1977 case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, commonly known as the “First Judges Case,” the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) should consult with a plurality of judges to make recommendations for appointments of Justices. The significant development in the establishment of the collegium system came in the Second Judges Case, also known as the Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993).

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the CJI should make recommendations to the President in consultation with a collegium of senior judges. The court ruled that the executive’s role should be limited to appointing judges based on these recommendations. Following the Second Judges Case, the collegium system became the standard practice for judicial appointments in India. The system evolved over time, and the composition of the collegium varied, but it generally included the CJI and a group of senior judges of the Supreme Court. Several other cases and judgments in subsequent years further clarified and reaffirmed the collegium system’s role in the appointments and transfers of judges.

NJAC

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): The issue of judicial appointments faced significant debate and controversy, leading to attempts to change the appointment process. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was passed in 2014 with the aim of introducing a new mechanism for appointments. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, asserting that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution and upheld the primacy of the collegium system. NJAC was an attempt to reform the judiciary’s appointment process and may not be seen as legislative overreach per se, the judiciary’s concerns about the potential impact on judicial independence were central to the court’s decision. This complex issue reflects the ongoing debate about the balance between the branches of government and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the Constitution in India’s democratic system.

EXISTING ARRANGEMENT

It is true that the appointment process before the judiciary evolved into the collegium system, allowing involvement and influence from the executive branch, particularly in the final decision-making stage. This sometimes led to allegations of political interference in judicial appointments. While the introduction of the collegium system was a significant step toward enhancing judicial independence in the appointment process, it does not necessarily render all appointments made before 1993 as “incorrect.” The issue of judicial appointments is complex and has evolved over time in response to various challenges and concerns.

The collegium system is one of the many mechanisms designed to address these concerns, but it is not without its own set of criticisms and debates. While the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding the Constitution, it also has its limitations. It cannot directly enforce its decisions, relying on the executive branch to implement them. Leaving the judiciary as the sole custodian may raise questions about democratic accountability. Judges are not elected representatives, and some argue that their power should be checked by elected officials who are directly accountable to the people. The theory of separation of powers suggests that no single branch of government should have unchecked authority. While the judiciary’s independence is crucial, an appropriate balance of powers among the branches is essential for a well-functioning democracy. The power to amend the Constitution (under Article

368) lies with the legislature. If the judiciary was the sole custodian, it could potentially limit the ability of the legislature to make necessary constitutional amendments. In practice, the Indian Constitution is committed to establishing a system of balance among the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. While the judiciary plays a significant role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution, it does so within the broader framework of democratic governance.

Ambedkar said, “However good the Constitution is, it might turn out not to be good if the people were administering it bad however bad the Constitution is, it might do its job well if people administering it happen to be good.” “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” and “if men were angels, no government would be necessary”, we get to an axiomatic idea of checks and balances.

The question of whether the judiciary alone the custodian of the Constitution of India should be is a matter of considerable debate and has been a subject of discussion in legal and political circles.

JUDICIARY AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION

The judiciary is designed to be an independent branch of government, which is essential for interpreting and upholding the Constitution impartially. Its decisions are not influenced by political considerations.

Judges have legal expertise and training, which makes them well-suited to interpreting and applying the Constitution’s provisions and principles accurately.

The judiciary serves as a check on the actions of the executive and legislative branches to ensure that they are in conformity with the Constitution. This helps prevent potential abuse of power.

The power of judicial review allows the judiciary to strike down laws and actions that violate the Constitution. This is a critical mechanism for protecting individual rights and preserving constitutional values.

COUNTERVIEW OF JUDICIARY AS SINGLE CUSTODIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION

While the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding the Constitution, it also has its limitations. It cannot directly enforce its decisions, relying on the executive branch to implement them.

Leaving the judiciary as the sole custodian may raise questions about democratic accountability. Judges are not elected representatives, and some argue that their power should be checked by elected officials who are directly accountable to the people.

The separation of powers doctrine suggests that no single branch of government should have unchecked authority. While the judiciary’s independence is crucial, an appropriate balance of powers among the branches is essential for a well-functioning democracy.

The power to amend the Constitution (under Article 368) lies with the legislature. If the judiciary were the sole custodian, it could potentially limit the ability of the legislature to make necessary constitutional amendments.

The consensus in most democratic systems is that the Constitution should be a shared responsibility, with each branch of government playing a role in its protection and preservation. The exact balance between these branches can vary from one country to another, depending on the specific constitutional framework and historical context.

HERE IS HOW THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS WORKED PRIOR TO THE COLLEGIUM SYSTEM

Before the introduction of the collegium system in 1993, the appointment of judges to the higher courts in India, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, was primarily made by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. This method was based on Article 124 and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution. The CJI, SC as the head of the judiciary,

would recommend the names of candidates for appointment as judges to the President. These recommendations were often made after consultation with other senior justices, both within the Supreme Court and the concerned High Court. President’s Decision: The President of India, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers (the executive branch), would make the final appointments based on the recommendations received from the Chief Justice and the Executive.

The executive branch played a significant role in the appointment process. The President would consider the recommendations and could seek further information or clarification if necessary.

In practice, the government had a significant say in the appointment process. While the Chief Justice’s recommendations were taken into account, the government’s role in the final decision often led to allegations of political influence in judicial appointments.

The introduction of the collegium system in 1993 affected the process of appointment of judges significantly, tilting the weight towards the judiciary. Under the collegium system, a group of senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India, became responsible for recommending candidates for judicial appointments. The system was said to be committed to ushering in the independence of the judiciary. It’s important to note that the collegium system itself has faced criticism and debate, with some arguing that it lacks transparency and accountability. The issue of judicial appointments in India has been the subject of ongoing reform discussions, and various proposals for change have been considered over the years.

The question of whether all judicial appointments made before the introduction of the collegium system in 1993 were “incorrect” or subject to legislative and executive interference is a matter of perspective and legal interpretation. The introduction of the collegium system was aimed at addressing certain perceived shortcomings in the earlier appointment process and enhancing the independence of the judiciary, but it does not inherently render all prior appointments “incorrect.”

It is true that the appointment process before the collegium system allowed for involvement and influence from the executive branch, particularly in the final decision-making stage. This sometimes led to allegations of political interference in judicial appointments.

The introduction of the collegium system was one of several reforms aimed at improving the appointment process and reducing the potential for political interference. However, no system is without its own criticisms and challenges.

Appointing judges to the higher courts is a complex and nuanced process. It involves considerations of legal expertise, integrity, experience, and the need to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Different systems and mechanisms have been used to strike the right balance between these considerations.

The collegium system did not retroactively invalidate appointments made before its introduction. Judicial decisions made by judges appointed under the previous system remain valid and legally binding.

The debate over judicial appointments and reforms in this area continues in India. Various proposals and discussions have taken place regarding potential improvements to the appointment process, including increasing transparency and accountability.

In summary, while the introduction of the collegium system was a significant step toward enhancing judicial independence in the appointment process, it does not necessarily render all appointments made before 1993 as “incorrect.” The issue of judicial appointments is complex and has evolved over time in response to various challenges and concerns. The collegium system is one of the many mechanisms designed to address these concerns, but it is not without its own set of criticisms and debates.

The collegium system for the appointment and transfer of judges in India was introduced through a series of judicial pronouncements and not through a specific legislative enactment. It evolved gradually over several decades. The term “collegium” itself was coined in the 1990s.

Following the Second Judges Case, the collegium system became the standard practice for judicial appointments in India. The system evolved over time, and the composition of the collegium varied, but it generally included the CJI and a group of senior judges of the Supreme Court. The collegium system, as it stands today, remains the predominant method for appointing and transferring judges in the higher judiciary in India. It is based on judicial interpretations and pronouncements, making it a unique and distinctive feature of India’s legal system.

The issue of judicial appointments faced significant debate and controversy, leading to attempts to change the appointment process. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was passed in 2014 with the aim of introducing a new mechanism for appointments. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, asserting that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution and upheld the primacy of the collegium system. The very fact that  the NJAC  was  struck  null  &  void is  itself a  violation  of  the  basic  structure  of  the

Constitution of India as it is nowhere prevalent that justice chooses justice which may lead to favoritism to family members & friends. In the absence of a strict definition of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, it is well nigh appropriate to deduce that the Judiciary overstepped & violated the Basic Structure & tenets associated with it. The provisions as enshrined in Article 124 and Article 217 of the Indian Constitution were inviolable & power & appointment could not have been concentrated within a fold by one of the organs unilaterally.

If that is true, all other constitutional & sensitive appointments may be determined by concerned departments under the same pleas of keeping interference of other organs let it be executive, legislative & judiciary. Judiciary alone cannot be accorded special status as fundamentally deemed non-interfering & neutral pillar out of three pillars. While preserving the independence of the judiciary is a paramount requirement, the NJAC with assimilated & synthesized composition would have offered a better & competent option within the ambit of the Basic Structure.

‘I think Sharad Pawar will send his daughter Supriya Sule to fight for Hamas in Gaza’: Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

ANI
-
0
‘I think Sharad Pawar will send his daughter Supriya Sule to fight for Hamas in Gaza’: Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

 Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar is currently in the middle of a political furore over his remarks criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi for standing with Israel in their war against the terrorist organisation Hamas.

Reacting to Pawar’s remarks, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma gave a bizarre response to Sharad Pawar’s comment and said it seems like the NCP chief will send his daughter Supriya Sule to Gaza to fight for Hamas.

“I think Sharad Pawar will send Supriya (Sule) to Gaza to fight for Hamas,” responded Sarma when questioned about NCP leader Sharad Pawar’s alleged remarks regarding India’s position on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Earlier, expressing solidarity with Israel over the rocket strikes launched by Hamas, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on October 7 that India’s thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. “Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour,” PM Modi posted on X (formerly Twitter).

A heated political exchange emerged on Wednesday surrounding the Israel-Hamas war, with leaders from various parties expressing contrasting views. Union Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed his dismay at Pawar’s remarks, emphasising the need to condemn terrorism worldwide. Goyal pointed out that Pawar had held prominent positions in the government during critical security incidents.

“It is very disturbing when a senior leader like Sharad Pawar makes preposterous statements on India’s stand on a terror attack in Israel. The menace of terrorism has to be condemned in all forms, in any part of the world. It is a pity that a person who has been India’s Defence Minister as well as a Chief Minister many times has such a casual view of issues relating to terror,” he posted on X.

“Pawar ji was a part of the same Government that shed tears on the Batla House encounter and slept while there were terror attacks on Indian soil. This rotten mindset has to stop. I hope Pawar ji at least now, thinks of the nation first,” he said further.

Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also reacted to Pawar’s remarks and said that the country has never changed its position on this issue but has “always strongly opposed terrorism”.

“India has never changed its position on the Israel-Palestine dispute. However, at the same time, India has been consistently against and has always strongly opposed terrorism in any form and against anyone,” Fadnavis said in a post on ‘X’.

Fadnavis said that India followed the footsteps of other nations in the world in condemning the killing of innocent civilians in Israel and Sharad Pawar should also take the same stand against terrorism.

“When the entire world has condemned the killing of innocent people in Israel and India did the same, Shri Sharad Pawar ji should also speak in the same language against terrorism,” the Deputy Chief Minister said.

Earlier, addressing a gathering of party workers in Mumbai, the NCP chief said that while all former Prime Ministers of India have taken a firm stand supporting Palestine, Prime Minister Narendra Modi supported Israel in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.

(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)

AIMIM leader Md Farhan moves to the court against Rahul Gandhi for naming his dog ‘Noorie’, says ‘religious sentiments hurt’

OpIndia Staff
-
0
AIMIM leader Md Farhan moves to the court against Rahul Gandhi for naming his dog ‘Noorie’, says ‘religious sentiments hurt’

On Thursday (18th October), an AIMIM leader from Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, Mohammad Farhan, filed a complaint in a municipal court against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Farhan accused Gandhi of gifting a dog named ‘Noorie’ to his mother Sonia Gandhi and hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims by giving the dog a Muslim name. 

Mohammad Farhan, leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), stated that the dog’s name offended him and his community because the word ‘Noorie’ is especially tied to Islam and is mentioned in the Quran. The judicial magistrate’s office confirmed the development and said that the AIMIM leader had approached the court.

According to Farhan’s attorney, Muhammad Ali, they went to the Judicial Magistrate Aviral Singh’s court on Monday (16th October) in an attempt to file a formal complaint against Rahul Gandhi under IPC Section 295 A, which deals with offending religious sentiments.

The AIMIM leader is said to have learned the dog’s name from a variety of sources, including Rahul Gandhi’s YouTube channel, Facebook page, and newspapers.

The lawyer claimed that despite Farhan having encouraged Rahul Gandhi to rename the dog and issue a public apology through newspapers and TV channels, it had no impact on him.

The lawyer further confirmed that the court has asked the AIMIM leader to appear before the Court to issue his statement in the case on November 8. He also said that within the coming few days, Gandhi can also be summoned by the court.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi posted a video of himself on YouTube traveling to Goa and meeting a Goan family, who gave him a puppy. He surprised his mother with the gift by flying the dog to his residence in New Delhi.

“I’d like you all to meet the newest and the cutest member of our family, our little pup, Noorie. She flew in from Goa straight into our arms and has become the light of our lives. Unconditional love and uncompromising loyalty, there is so much this beautiful animal can teach us!” Gandhi could be heard saying in the video.

‘Spreading atheist fitnah, Allah is the only God’: Followers of Mohammad Zubair abuse Alt News founder Pratik Sinha after he claims there is no God

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Spreading atheist fitnah, Allah is the only God’: Followers of Mohammad Zubair abuse Alt News founder Pratik Sinha after he claims there is no God

On 18th October, co-founder of dubious web portal Alt News, Pratik Sinha, claimed in a post on X that “there is no God”. His statement came while trying to support the Palestinian cause on social media. However, his attempt misfired as followers of his associate and co-founder of Alt News, Mohammed Zubair, accused him of misinformation and abused him.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Sinha said, “Reminder: There is no god. Religion is a made-up thing. There is no one keeping account of the atrocities humans are committing on other humans. No one is keeping track of who’s good and who’s evil. American Presidents who have historically overseen the most amount of killing of innocent civilians across the world live very long lives. George Bush, the inventor of the fiction called WMD, is 77 and continues to live a healthy, hearty life while having authorised the killings of thousands.” (sic)

Source: X

Followers of Mohammad Zubair, who put a target on former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma for quoting Islamic text during a debate, got irked by the post and called him out.

An X user, Mukarram, said Sinha was “spreading atheists fitnah in the name of fact-checking”. (sic)

Source: X

X user Azzhar Malik urged everyone not to donate to Alt News. Notably, every time Zubair put a target on a Hindu leader like Nupur Sharma or something favouring Islamists, the donations towards Alt News skyrocketed.

Source: X

X user escapereality47 questioned if Pratik Sinha was in a mood of getting abused on social media.

Source: X

Another X user, Sarfaraz Ahmed, wrote, “It’s your opinion, But we believe in “The God” Only one. I think you will also accept when you read the history of cruelty like Changez Khan, etc. One time world knows about his supremacy now what? Nobody knows where his grave is. So Every cruel person will be history as unknown.” (sic)

Source: X

X user EkUrdistani wrote, “This world is temporary and only a test. No one is punished during the test anywhere. Examiner waits till results day to pass and fail someone. Hell and Heaven are eternal and have many tiers. So act accordingly.” (sic)

Source: X

X user Asad Khan replied to Sinha’s post and said, “We believe there is, and all these evildoings are being jotted down perfectly, nothing is being neglected. Punishment and justice are sometimes delivered in this life or the hereafter, but there are no two thoughts about it not happening.” (sic)

Source: X

Another X user, Abu Moin, said, “Reminder: There is Allah, The ONE and Only, Creator and sustainer. All religions are man-made except Islam, which has been ordained and sent by Allah SWT. There are servants of Allah(Angels) who keep an account of every deed and will be held to account on ‘THE DAY’. Bushes, Netanyahu’s and Macrons leading healthy and hearty lives without being held to account is a testimony to man made system of Liberal-secular world order being incapable of delivering Justice and humanity need Islam for Justice to prevail.” (sic) He then urged him to contact Zubair for further clarification.

Source: X

Mohammad Zubair put a target on Nupur Sharma

In May 2022, former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma got agitated by the comments of Islamist panellist Taslim Ahmed Rehmani on Bhagwan Shiv and quoted Islamic texts in retaliation. However, Alt News‘ co-founder and fake news peddler himself cunningly edited the video to depict Sharma as a ‘blasphemer’. He ran an international campaign to put a target on her back, resulting in severe backlash against her. As a result, the BJP suspended her from the party, and she had to go into hiding. Because of the act of Mohammed Zubair, there were protests across the country, and Islamists killed Hindus for supporting Nupur Sharma. Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur, Rajasthan, was beheaded by Islamists for supporting Sharma. Umesh Kolhe from Amravati, Maharashtra, was also killed for the same reason.

Specially-abled bride complains about inconvenience caused at the marriage registrar’s office, Devendra Fadnavis apologises and vows to fix the issue

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Specially-abled bride complains about inconvenience caused at the marriage registrar’s office, Devendra Fadnavis apologises and vows to fix the issue

On Wednesday (18th October), a specially-abled woman named Virali Modi posted on social media platform X about the inconvenience caused to her at the marriage registrar’s office in the Khar area of Mumbai. Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis took cognisance of her complaint and vowed to fix the issue she had highlighted.

Virali Modi registered her marriage at the Khar office on Monday (16th October). She brought it to public notice that there is no provision of lifts for specially-abled persons although the office is located on the second floor of the building. Moreover, the officers did not come down the stairs to sign the necessary documents for the wheelchair-bound woman who also works as a disability rights activist.

Virali Modi wrote, “I am disabled and I got married at the Registrar’s Office at Khar Mumbai on 16/10/23. The office was on the 2nd floor without a lift. They wouldn’t come downstairs for the signatures and I had to be carried up two flights of stairs to get married.”

As the TEDx speaker described this ordeal on X, Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis himself took cognisance and replied to her saying that appropriate action in this regard would be taken.

Devendra Fadnavis wrote, “First of all many congratulations on the new beginnings and wishing you both a very happy and a beautiful married life! Also, I really am sorry for the inconvenience caused to you. I have personally taken cognisance and will take corrective and appropriate action.”

The marriage registrar’s office at Khar in Mumbai is located in an old building. Buildings in that era would seldom have lifts, but now Devendra Fadnavis is looking to fix this issue.

Ram Mandir: 51-inch Balswaroop idol to be handed over to the Temple trust by 31st October

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ram Mandir: 51-inch Balswaroop idol to be handed over to the Temple trust by 31st October

The decades-long wait of Hindu devotees is going to end in January 2024. The construction work of the Bhavya Ram Mandir at Ram Janmabhoomi is progressing rapidly. In May, the Ram Janmabhoomi temple trust announced that three sculptors are making the Ram Lalla statue to be placed in the Garbhagriha. 

A member of one of the three teams, Vipin Bhadouriya recently informed that the 51-inch tall Balswaroop idol will be handed over to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple trust by 31st October. 

Bhadouriya asserted, “The statue of Ramlalla, which will be placed in the sanctum sanctorum of Ayodhya’s Ram temple, is almost complete and will be handed over to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust by 31st October.” 

Bhadouriya has been working around the clock with his mentor, Ganesh Bhatt, who is an eminent sculptor from Karnataka. Regarding Ramlalla’s idol, Bhadouriya noted, “Our idol made of black stone will be the world’s most beautiful statue of Lord Ram, more beautiful than what was imagined. The beauty of the idol would leave people mesmerised.” 

He further highlighted that the idol depicts a balswaroop Ram, as a five-year-old, standing on a lotus, carrying a bow in one hand and an arrow in the other. Additionally, the statue would also have fine carvings and designs. All signs related to Lord Ram are carved on the statue which will be 51 inches tall.

Bhadouriya added, “I am happy that our efforts have yielded some good results. Our work is on the verge of completion. After some finishing touches, the idol will be handed over to the trust by the end of this month.” 

(Image Source – X handle of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerthshetra @ShriRamTeerth)

However, he is not the only one who is preparing the Ram Lalla idol. In May, General Secretary Champat Rai said, “The construction work of the idol of Ram Lalla has started. Dr Ganesh Bhatt from Karnataka, Satya Narayan Pandey from Jaipur, and Arun Yogiraj from Karnataka are making idols at three different places on three different stones.” 

According to the Trust officials, the finest Ram Lalla idol would be placed in the ‘garbhagriha’, while the remaining two would be placed in another temple. The Ram Lalla idols are being made based on the sketch of internationally acclaimed artist Vasudeo Kamath. He hails from Karnataka’s Karkala town and his paintings from the Ramayana series are acclaimed worldwide.

Meanwhile, out of the three sculptors, two — Bhadouriya and his mentor Bhatt, and Arun Yogiraj from Mysore – have used ‘Krishna Shila’ (black stone) from Karnataka to carve the Ram Lalla idol. Krishna Shila is found in the vicinity of Karkala, a small town in Karnataka, approximately 60 kilometers away from Mangalore.

According to the officials, the most attractive and durable sculptures are made with Krishna Shila as it is one of the finest stones used for sculpting. A trust official said, “The stone, weighing 10 tonnes, 6 feet wide, 4 feet thick, and almost one foot long, was specially brought from Nellikaru village in Karkala, almost a month ago.” 

Whereas the third team comprising Satya Narayan Pandey and his son Shilpi from Jaipur is carving the Ram Lalla statue from ‘A-class’ stone or marble from Makrana. 

Regarding the usage of Makrana marble, Officials said, “Makrana marble is used for its durability, translucency and fine grains. It is ‘weatherproof’, as it is resistant to erosion and weathering, which makes it ideal for outdoor sculptures and statues.”

However, it is important to note that the trust is not using the two Shaligram stones, weighing 14 and 26 tonnes, which arrived from Nepal on 2nd January, for the construction of the Ram Lalla idol.

Regarding this Champat Rai said, “The two Devshilas were gifted to us by Nepal. These stones were calcite and quartzite and were procured from the Gandaki River in the Muktinath area of the Himalayan region. However, after consulting many seers, priests, and experts, the trust decided not to use the Devshila from Nepal. It was a difficult decision to take.” The trust has not yet finalised what will be done with Devshila.

(Image Source – X handle of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi TeerthShetra)

Further, the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust officials also elaborated on the procedure that will be followed prior to the consecration (pran pratishtha) ceremony of the idol, in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi would take part, on 22nd January.

According to the officials, a grand procession will be taken out through the streets of Ayodhya and the Ram Lalla idol will be placed on a special chariot that is under construction. 

The trust officials said, “The scholars from Kashi will worship River Saryu and give a holy dip to the idol amid the chants of special mantras and hymns. On the final day, the idol will be installed in the garbhagriha.”

US sanctions 10 Hamas members and its international financial networks over surprise attack on Israel

OpIndia Staff
-
0
US sanctions 10 Hamas members and its international financial networks over surprise attack on Israel

On 18th October (Wednesday), the United States announced sanctions against a group of 10 Hamas-linked entities and financial networks across Gaza, Sudan, Turkey, Algeria, and Qatar. The sanctions are aimed at disrupting the funding of the Palestinian Islamist terror outfit, Hamas.

As per the official press release of the US Treasury, this action targets six individuals managing assets in a secret Hamas investment portfolio, a Qatar-based financial facilitator with close ties to the Iranian regime, two members of the terror outfit including a key Hamas commander, and a Gaza-based virtual currency exchange and its operator.

In its official statement, the U.S. Department of Treasury said, “The sanctions, imposed under a terrorism-related executive order, targeted nine individuals and one entity based in Gaza and elsewhere including Sudan, Turkey, Algeria, and Qatar.” 

Regarding sanctioning Hamas, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said, “The United States is taking swift and decisive action to target Hamas’s financiers and facilitators following its brutal and unconscionable massacre of Israeli civilians, including children.” 

She asserted that the U.S. Treasury has a long history of effectively disrupting terror finance and we will not hesitate to use our tools against Hamas. She added, “We will continue to take all steps necessary to deny Hamas terrorists the ability to raise and use funds to carry out atrocities and terrorise the people of Israel.” 

As per the US Treasury Press release, the six Hamas operatives are part of Hamas’s investment network in Turkey and Algeria. The sanctioned operatives include –

  1. Musa Muhammad Salim Dudin (Dudin). West Bank-based Dudin manages Hamas’s Political Bureau and Investment Office and is responsible for negotiations to free Hamas members in prison.
  2. Abdelbasit Hamza Elhassan Mohamed Khair (Hamza) is a Sudan-based Hamas financier. He has managed numerous companies in Hamas’s investment portfolio. Previously, he was involved in the transfer of almost $20 million to Hamas. He has facilitated funds for Hamas through a network of large companies in Sudan. 
  3. Amer Kamal Sharif Alshawa (Alshawa) – He is based in Turkey and is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Trend GYO. He has served as a board member on several Hamas investment portfolio companies. 
  4. Ahmed Sadu Jahleb (Jahleb) – Jahleb is also based in Turkey and serves as the Hamas investment portfolio secretary. He coordinates various activities for Hamas-controlled companies and Hamas officials. 
  5. Aiman Ahmad Al-Duwaik (al-Duwaik) – Algeria-based al-Duwaik is a senior Hamas investment portfolio manager. 
  6. Walid Mohammed Mustafa Jadallah (Jadallah) – Turkey-based Jadallah, also serves on the boards of several investment portfolio companies along with al-Duwaik. 

Two Hamas operatives sanctioned are – 

  1. Muhammad Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Dayim Nasrallah (Nasrallah), is a longtime Hamas operative who is based in Qatar. He has close ties with Iranian elements. As per the press release, he recently was involved in the transfer of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas, including Hamas’s military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassim Brigades.
  2. Ayman Nofal (Nofal) was a member of the Izz al-Din al-Qassim Brigades. He was reportedly killed in an airstrike on Tuesday (17th October).

Two entities that were fundraising through virtual currency for Hamas have also been sanctioned. This includes a Gaza-based business Buy Cash Money and Money Transfer Company (Buy Cash). It provides money transfer and virtual currency exchange services, including Bitcoin. Buy Cash has been sanctioned “for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hamas.” 

While Ahmed M. M. Alaqad (Alaqad), who is based in Gaza, has acted as Buy Cash’s representative and owner of the Buy Cash financial exchange. As per the executive order, he has also been sanctioned. 

The sanctions have been announced in the wake of the attack on a Gaza hospital. Presenting aerial pictures, radar, and telephonic conversation between two Hamas terrorists, Israel revealed that the attack took place after a Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s rocket misfired and struck the hospital’s parking lot killing several civilians. 

The sanctions have been announced right after U.S. President Joe Biden met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to terror-struck Israel. During the meeting, Biden asserted that it was the other side (PIJ) that had hit the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza which was followed by the announcement of sanctions against Hamas-linked entities.  

Kanpur: St Aloysius’ School teacher suspended for attempting to convert a minor Hindu boy and pressurises him for having physical relations

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Kanpur: St Aloysius’ School teacher suspended for attempting to convert a minor Hindu boy and pressurises him for having physical relations

On Tuesday (17th October), a lady teacher from a missionary school in Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) was suspended for allegedly pressuring a Class 10 student to engage in physical relations. The student’s father has accused the teacher of attempting to influence his son’s religious beliefs, aiming to convert him from Hinduism to Christianity. Subsequently, ABVP activists held a protest march on October 16th, demanding legal action against the teacher. The school administration responded by suspending the accused teacher.

The incident took place at St. Aloysius’ High School in the Kanpur Cantt police station area. The victim is a class 10 student of St. Aloysius’ High School. According to the victim’s family, their son, who believes in Hinduism, would get irritated even by the ringing of bells during Puja and worship in their house. For about a year, he had stopped respecting gods and goddesses. When the family asked the reason for this, he did not give any satisfactory answer.

Roughly four months ago, upon returning home from school, the child’s parents noticed that his Shikha, a sacred lock of hair, had been cut off. After thorough questioning, the boy revealed that a female teacher from the school had taken him to a church and cut off the Shikha. According to the victim’s father, a recent examination of his son’s phone revealed that the female teacher had been engaging in late-night conversations with the boy. These chats reportedly included the teacher sending explicit messages to the child, pressuring him to engage in physical relations.

The accused teacher, who has been teaching at the school for nearly 37 years, is approximately 60 years old and nearing retirement. The family of the victim has labelled the incident as a ploy to convert their child under the guise of affection. The parents alleged that the children were being brainwashed in the school by calling Hindus beggars. The principal of the school, Walter D’Silva, is said to be the mastermind of this conspiracy of conversion.

Moreover, it has been alleged that the husband and brother of the accused teacher were also complicit in this purported conspiracy. The teacher’s husband and brother also teach in the same school.

The victim’s father had lodged a complaint with the police on 11th October 2023. The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad alleged that the school administration wants to suppress the matter, due to which the registration of the FIR is being delayed. On 16th October, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) protested over the incident.

The protest march was led by ABVP’s state organisation minister Anshul Vidyarthi. The ABVP demanded strict action against the school administration. The victim’s father also joined the procession. After this march, the school administration suspended the female teacher.

According to the student’s father, P White, a teacher at the school, told his son that Hindus are beggars. Additionally, there were purported restrictions within the school, including a ban on applying tilak on the forehead and tying kalava on the wrist.

The family also claims to have faced pressure to suppress the matter. Vikrant Agnihotri, an office bearer of ABVP, alleged that the school’s syllabus includes a chapter featuring great personalities of the freedom struggle, where a cross symbol is prominently displayed.

According to Kanpur Police, the matter is being investigated. No arrest has been made so far. Police said in a X post that further action will be taken on the basis of the facts revealed after the investigation.

‘Preposterous…Rotten Mindset’: Union Minister Piyush Goyal slams Sharad Pawar for his remarks on India’s stand on the Israel-Hamas war

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Preposterous…Rotten Mindset’: Union Minister Piyush Goyal slams Sharad Pawar for his remarks on India’s stand on the Israel-Hamas war

On 18th October (Wednesday), Union Minister Piyush Goyal slammed NCP chief Sharad Pawar for his ‘preposterous’ statements on India’s stand on the terrorist attack that took place on 7th October in Israel. Taking to X, he asserted that terrorism should be condemned in all its forms. He added that it is a pity that senior politician like Sharad Pawar who had assumed several key positions in various governments has a “casual view” on issues relating to terrorism.

He tweeted, “It is very disturbing when a senior leader like Sharad Pawar makes preposterous statements on India’s stand on a terror attack in Israel. The menace of terrorism has to be condemned in all forms, in any part of the world. It is a pity that a person who has been India’s Defence Minister as well as a Chief Minister many times has such a casual view of issues relating to terror.”

Further in his post, Goyal slammed NCP Chief Sharad Pawar pointing out that he was part of the UPA government which didn’t act tough on terror attacks that killed innocent Indians. He also highlighted that the then-UPA government sympathised with the terrorists who were killed in the Batla House encounter episode. He further lambasted Pawar saying that “this rotten mindset has to stop” and advised him to think of the nation first. 

He added, “Pawar was a part of the same Government that shed tears on the Batla House encounter and slept while there were terror attacks on Indian soil. This rotten mindset has to stop. I hope Pawar at least now, thinks of the nation first.” 

Goyal made this remark in the wake of statements given by Former Maharashtra Chief Minister and NCP Chief Sharad Pawar on the ongoing developments in the Middle East. 

On 15th October (Sunday), while addressing a gathering of NCP workers in Mumbai, Pawar argued that India always stood for the cause of Palestine. He added that former Prime Ministers of India also “stood firmly with Palestine”.

Accusing Israel of being an ‘oppressor’ and a guilty party for the recent turn of events, Pawar claimed that PM Modi shouldn’t have stood with Israel after it faced one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history in which more than 1,300 unsuspecting Israelis have been killed.  

Pawar ranted, “It is very unfortunate that for the first time, our Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) stood with Israel, leaving the real issue over there. He neglected the real issue. We should be clear about our stand. The stand of the NCP should be clear. We stand by the people who originally belonged to that land.” 

It is important to note that he made this remark claiming that India changed its earlier stance after PM Modi condemned the terrorist attacks on Israel, hours after it unfolded on 7th October. 

Following the 7th October terrorist attack, PM Modi expressed solidarity with Israel and condemned the “terrorist attacks” there. PM Modi tweeted, “Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour.” 

Later, on 10th October, PM Modi reiterated his stance when he received a phone call from his Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. PM Modi said the people of India stand firmly with Israel and expressed strong and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. 

However, it is important to note that on 18th October (Wednesday) PM Modi expressed condolences at the loss of lives in the Gaza hospital explosion. He also expressed concern over the mounting civilian casualties in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war adding that those behind such deaths should be “held responsible”.

Pakistan: Court sends Hindu girl to shelter home after escaping from her kidnappers; her requests to be sent to her family turned down

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Pakistan: Court sends Hindu girl to shelter home after escaping from her kidnappers; her requests to be sent to her family turned down

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan continues to be an infernal place for its religious minorities particularly Hindus whose innumerable sufferings have no end in sight. The country’s police, judiciary and executive act as instruments to strengthen the hands of the extremists and facilitate the exploitation of Hindus. In the latest incident, a Hindu girl named Reeta Meghwar managed to escape from the clutches of Islamists in Sindh’s Badin. Ashiq Ahmadani had abducted her two months earlier and even authorities failed to locate her during the time.

She complained that she was pressurised to embrace Islam and marry a Muslim. Death threats were issued against her family by the accused if she refused to comply with the demands as she endured unimaginable torment at the hands of her abductors. She nevertheless found a way to break free from their prison and make it to the police station. Unfortunately, the police stations and the courts in Pakistan generally serve as means for the radicals to carry out such horrible crimes rather than being institutions to preserve and uphold the rule of law.

She implored the judges to allow her to be with her parents again after she was brought to court. However, the court directed her to be placed in the custody of Dar-al Aman which operates as a refuge for females. These safe shelters are usually regarded as the last resort in cases of contentious custody disputes. The girl pleaded to leave with her family, but the judges turned down the request. To put it plainly, the judiciary’s role looked dubious. She sobbed and begged to be taken home to her mother and father several times and collapsed to the ground in the courthouse courtyard in agony.

A similar instance surfaced in June of this year when a 14-year-old girl named Sohana Sharma Kumari was abducted from her home in the Benazirabad district of Sindh province. She was married off to a Muslim man after being forced to convert to Islam. Her plight was exacerbated when a Pakistani court denied her request to go back to her parents again in spite of her pleadings.

Her tutor and his associates abducted her in front of her mother at gunpoint. Her father Dilip Kumar Sharma reported her horrifying event to the authorities. Later, the victim was manipulated to release a video in which she revealed that she had become a Muslim and wed a guy of the same faith. Her parents however countered that she was a minor. Five days after her abduction and in the wake of significant social media outcry, the authorities found the victim in a house in the district.

According to reports, she gave a statement declaring that she wished to return to her family and after much wrangling a Pakistani court eventually granted her request. It allowed her to reunite with her parents, but it did not take any concrete steps towards apprehending the perpetrators.

1...1,6531,6541,655...7,584Page 1,654 of 7,584