Home Blog Page 27

French ex-Navy pilot behind Pakistan’s Rafale claims under scanner for espionage for China: How Rahul Gandhi echoed his Operation Sindoor narrative

Shriti Sagar
-
0
French ex-Navy pilot behind Pakistan’s Rafale claims under scanner for espionage for China: How Rahul Gandhi echoed his Operation Sindoor narrative

A former French Navy pilot who publicly claimed during Operation Sindoor that Pakistan’s Chinese-made fighter jets had shot down Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafales has now come under formal investigation in France over allegations of passing sensitive military information to Chinese operatives. Pierre-Henri Chuet, a former naval aviator and defence commentator, was detained and questioned by France’s domestic intelligence agency before being released under judicial supervision. French investigators are probing allegations that he shared classified military knowledge with China while he was still serving in the French Navy.

The development has drawn attention not only because of the espionage allegations but also because Chuet had emerged as one of the prominent foreign commentators making unverified claims about India’s military operations during Operation Sindoor in May 2025. His videos, which praised Chinese fighter aircraft and questioned the capabilities of the Rafale, were widely circulated online despite the absence of any official evidence supporting his assertions.

French pilot placed under formal investigation

According to reports by French investigative outlets Le Canard Enchaîné, Mediapart, and Intelligence Online, Chuet was taken into custody during the week of 20th July, 2026, by the Directorate-General for Internal Security (DGSI), France’s principal domestic intelligence and counter-terrorism agency. Investigators also searched his residence before presenting him before an investigating magistrate.

Although he has since been released, Chuet has been placed under formal judicial investigation. French prosecutors are examining multiple allegations against him, including sharing intelligence with a foreign power, disclosure of national defence secrets, collection of information relating to France’s fundamental national interests, and delivering sensitive information to a foreign country.

Chuet, who holds dual French and Canadian citizenship, served in French naval aviation until around 2021. During his military career, he flew Super Étendard strike fighters and Rafale M multirole fighter aircraft from France’s only operational aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.

He has denied any wrongdoing. Speaking to Le Canard Enchaîné, Chuet said, “I simply led two three-day seminars. My 2019 trip did not go very well. I never set foot in China again afterwards.”

What Chuet claimed during Operation Sindoor

Alongside his military background, Chuet built a significant public profile as a defence analyst, regularly appearing on television and operating a YouTube channel with more than 560,000 subscribers.

During Operation Sindoor, the four-day military confrontation between India and Pakistan in May 2025, Chuet released several videos analysing the aerial engagements. 

In one video published on 10th May, 2025, he claimed that a Pakistan Air Force J-10C fighter had successfully shot down an Indian Air Force Rafale using a Chinese-made PL-15 beyond-visual-range missile.

At the time, there was no official confirmation from India supporting such a claim. In subsequent videos, Chuet went further, praising Pakistan’s Chinese-origin J-10C and JF-17 fighter aircraft. He described the aircraft and the PL-15 missile as “Rafale killers”, arguing that the conflict had demonstrated the superiority of Chinese air combat technology over the French-built Rafale.

His remarks attracted significant attention internationally and were frequently cited on social media by accounts promoting Pakistan’s version of events during the conflict.

Why French authorities are investigating him

The espionage allegations against Chuet, however, predate his comments on Operation Sindoor. According to French media reports, investigators believe Chuet made at least two undeclared trips to China in September 2018 and August 2019 while he was still serving in the French Navy. French military regulations reportedly required him to inform his commanding officers before undertaking such travel, but investigators allege that these visits were not declared.

The trips were organised through the Test Flying Academy of South Africa (TFASA), a South African aviation company, which reportedly arranged training programmes for Chinese military personnel.

Mediapart reported that the first seminar focused on technologies used in aircraft carrier landings. The second programme allegedly expanded to include aircraft carrier operations, training for naval aviators, landing signal officers (LSOs), operations involving the E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft, and discussions relating to recent Western military operations in Syria.

The allegations first surfaced publicly in 2023 and resurfaced in 2025. In April 2025, prosecutors in Paris confirmed that France’s Ministry of the Armed Forces had referred a case involving a former serviceman suspected of sharing intelligence with a foreign power, disclosing national defence secrets, violating military regulations, engaging in dual employment, and laundering proceeds linked to tax fraud. French newspaper Le Parisien later identified that individual as Pierre-Henri Chuet.

The preliminary inquiry eventually led to the recent detention, questioning, and formal judicial investigation now underway.

Part of a wider pattern of alleged Chinese recruitment

Chuet is not the first Western military pilot accused of assisting China.

Reuters reported earlier in 2026 that US authorities arrested and charged a former US Air Force F-35 pilot for allegedly providing military training to Chinese personnel.

In June 2024, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand jointly issued a security bulletin warning that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) continued to recruit current and former military personnel from NATO countries and other Western nations to strengthen its military capabilities.

Despite the accusations, Chuet continues to deny that he transferred classified information to China, maintaining that his involvement was limited to conducting two short seminars.

Rahul Gandhi echoed the Pakistani narrative based on his false claims 

Chuet’s claims regarding Operation Sindoor also became part of the political debate in India.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi echoed the Pakistani narrative based on his false claims and argued that while Pakistan repeatedly claimed to have shot down multiple Indian Rafale fighter jets, Rahul Gandhi questioned the Union government instead of demanding evidence from Islamabad.

BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya alleged that, “During Operation Sindoor, when India was confronting a grave national security challenge, Rahul Gandhi chose to amplify questions and narratives that mirrored Pakistan’s propaganda about Indian Rafale fighter jets.”

Malviya further claimed, “Instead of demanding evidence from Pakistan, Rahul Gandhi sought answers from the Government of India, lending credibility to an adversarial claim at a sensitive moment.”

The BJP linked its argument to a recent Indian Air Force Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking a five-month bridge support package covering all 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in India’s fleet. According to the party, because the tender covered all 36 aircraft, it contradicted Pakistan’s repeated claims that several Rafales had been destroyed during Operation Sindoor.

While the BJP has argued that the maintenance tender disproves Pakistan’s claims, the Congress has continued to question aspects of the government’s handling of Operation Sindoor. 

Hinduphobia in Parliament premises: Pappu Yadav dresses as Hindu priest, enacts Ram Mandir donation theft; Rahul Gandhi, Awadhesh Prasad perform symbolic mob lynching  

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Hinduphobia in Parliament premises: Pappu Yadav dresses as Hindu priest, enacts Ram Mandir donation theft; Rahul Gandhi, Awadhesh Prasad perform symbolic mob lynching  

From Bollywood’s ‘creative freedom’, and neo-Ambedkarite ‘rationality’ to political slogans and gimmicks, the methods vary, but the mockery of Hindu faith stays constant. On 31st July, Independent MP Pappu Yadav cosplayed a greedy priest and staged a nukkad Natak-style skit in the Parliament complex, enacting the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft. 

Dressed as a Hindu priest in saffron robes, Rudraksh mala, Tripund, and saffron headgear, Pappu Yadav sat near the Makar Dwar with donation boxes, with Congress MPs Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra ‘donating’ into the boxes. Symbolically, Yadav then pocketed the cash and ran off with the donation box to enact ‘Chanda Chori’. 

Awadhesh Prasad, the Samajwadi Party MP from Faizabad, the constituency that includes Ayodhya, was also a part of this blatant mockery of Hindu priests and furtherance of the ‘Lalchi-chor Brahmin’ stereotype. 

In the videos of the Opposition’s Hinduphobic gimmick, the ‘priest’ can be seen touching the feet of the Faizabad MP Awadhesh Prasad and faced mock confrontation from ‘devotees’. 

In another clip, several Opposition MPs, including Rahul Gandhi, Kharge, SP MP Awadhesh Prasad, and others, can be seen performing a lynching of the ‘Brahmin priest’ who stole the donated cash.  

While on the surface, the Opposition MPs performed the skit to raise the Ram Mandir donation theft issue, their intentions, the saffron attire and the factually incorrect insinuation warrant scrutiny. 

Were Ram Mandir priests behind the donation theft? 

The outrageous skit and Pappu Yadav’s cosplay as a temple priest suggested that the alleged donation theft in Ram Mandir was carried out by the temple priests. 

However, the reality is that none of the temple priests has any reported role in the embezzlement of Ram Mandir donations. 

A preliminary report submitted before the court by the Uttar Pradesh Police Special Investigation Team (SIT) indicated systemic failures and the role of the counting staff in donation theft rather than temple priests. 

The report revealed that approximately 70 suspicious incidents of alleged pilferage were captured on CCTV between around 27th April and 5th June 2026. 

Some of the counting staff members were also seen repeatedly concealing wads of cash in pockets, socks, underclothing, and even in the attached bathroom. 

The SIT report hinted at serious lapses in the security protocol. It found absence of proper frisking at entry and exit of the counting area, substandard control over personal belongings, combined counting of cash from multiple donation boxes (Daan Patra, Hundi), exploitation of CCTV blind spots, and inadequate monitoring. 

The CCTV video footage showed that some of the key employees counting the money were secretly hiding the bundles of notes and loose notes inside their clothes, pockets and shoes, while some other employees were helping them in this work by providing cover. 

The SIT report emphasised that the continuous embezzlement of donated cash was not a mere oversight, but rather the result of deliberate and gross negligence of security regulations.   

The report also mentions that the theft of donations took place under the watch of Subhash Srivastava, the in-charge of the counting room. 

The SIT probe has found six employees directly involved in this theft, which include Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey and Ramshankar Mishra. 

These individuals were appointed by the SBI through a private agency; however, their appointments were made on the recommendations of some temple Trust officials. 

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust  

Trust functionaries have been criticised, and the Trust head, Champat Rai, has even resigned on moral grounds. However, nowhere does the SIT report mention any direct or indirect involvement of the Ram Mandir priests in the alleged donation theft.  

The SIT report makes it clear that the core donations embezzlement mechanism was identified in the counting process after collection and had no connection with temple priests performing rituals.  

Pappu Yadav deliberately invoked Hindu Brahmanical image 

The Member of Parliament from Bihar’s Purnia, Pappu Yadav’s choice to dress up as a saffron-donning temple priest was a deliberate invocation of Hindu religious imagery.  

The Opposition MPs, notorious for their disdain for Hindus and Muslim appeasement, mocked the entire Brahmin Pujari tradition, stereotyping them as thieves who steal money donated by devotees while pretending to be in the noble service of God. 

While anti-BJP parties have had a longstanding record of Hinduphobia, such theatrics mocking Hindus, especially Brahmins, unfolding in the Parliament complex is outrageous on many levels. 

These political parties, Congress, Samajwadi Party, and others, ridiculing the Brahmin community and the Hindu faith, begin their ‘temple run’ ahead of elections to win over Hindu voter support.  

Rahul Gandhi becomes kattar Shivbhakt, Dattatreya-gotri Brahmin, Akhilesh Yadav claims that Lord Krishna comes in his dreams, and Priyanka Gandhi rushes to every temple she can to appear more Hindu than the BJP leaders. 

Clearly, Hindu-hating political leaders are exploiting the Ram Mandir donation theft issue to mock Hindus, their faith, and their intellect.  

OpIndia has long highlighted a prevalent fashion among the Islamo-leftist political-ideological ecosystem to mock Brahmins. Cutting Janeu is celebrated as a victory over Brahminism, attacking Brahmin food choices is glorified as a fight against ‘caste purity’, portraying Brahmins as frauds and sexual objectification of Brahmin women is described as social justice. 

Meanwhile, Pappu Yadav’s Brahminphobic theatrics inside the Parliament complex have triggered a backlash. Several Hindu saints gathered at the Chitragupta Ashram in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura and raised posters describing Pappu Yadav as “Kaliyug ka Kansa”. The saints said that people like Pappu Yadav have nothing to do with Hindu Sanatan Dharma; they only indulge in religious charades for vote bank politics while harbouring hatred for the Hindu faith. 

Pappu Yadav, Congress, and Samajwadi Party have a long track record of Hinduphobia 

While this blatant Hinduphobic ‘comedy’ inside the Parliament premises is startling, Pappu Yadav has long been engaging in anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin commentary. 

Back in 2016, Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav had called all Hindu saints “anti-national”. While addressing the media, Yadav urged poor people to stop going to temples to save themselves from being exploited by Hindu saints. 

He even said that there was “nothing wrong” in the burning of national flags in Jammu and Kashmir. 

Unsurprisingly, Pappu Yadav had once ‘predicted’ that one day the world will accept Islam.  

Similarly, the Congress party, which now is pretending to be concerned about breach of trust of crores of Rambhakts due to Ram Mandir donation theft, had denied the existence of Lord Ram. 

In 2007, an affidavit filed by the Congress-led government read, “Valmiki Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature, but these cannot be said to be historical records to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters and occurrences of events depicted therein.” The affidavit was filed to register the UPA government’s opposition to the demand to scrap the Setusamudram project as it would damage the Ram Setu. 

And who can forget how the Samajwadi Party government led by late Mulayam Singh Yadav had ordered firing on unarmed Karsevaks in Ayodhya in late 1990. Mulayam Singh’s Muslim appeasement had earned him the opprobrious “Mullah Mulayam” moniker. His son Akhilesh Yadav has also taken forward the Muslim appeasement legacy he inherited from his father, and now his party leaders are openly mocking the Hindu faith. 

Reckless words, real consequences: The case for CJP’s contempt for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Reckless words, real consequences: The case for CJP’s contempt for the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction

A constitutional democracy cannot run on selective obedience. When political actors start treating Supreme Court orders like suggestions, things to be accepted, renegotiated, or ignored depending on whether they fit a prior political promise, they are not just disagreeing with a judgment. They are attacking the very structure that keeps India a republic of laws, not a republic of convenience.

That is exactly what has happened since late July 2026, after the Jantar Mantar protests. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a self-described satirical youth movement founded on May 16, 2026 by digital strategist Abhijeet Dipke, after the Chief Justice of India compared lawyers with fake degrees to cockroaches and parasites of society, had been protesting at Jantar Mantar for weeks over the NEET paper leak scandal. Dipke conveniently distorted the CJI’s comments, claiming that he compared all unemployed youths to cockroaches.

CJP was demanding the education minister’s resignation and compensation for families of students who reportedly died by suicide because of the NEET paper leak. A July 20 Sansad Chalo march to Parliament ended in tear gas and lathi charges, leaving about 150 protesters and over a hundred police personnel injured. Days later, the government struck a truce. The minister would go, families would be compensated, and FIRs against protesters would be withdrawn.

Then the Supreme Court, hearing a batch of PILs connected to the protests, passed an interim order whose Direction No. 4 allowed governments to continue existing FIRs and investigations. Two of CJP’s most prominent voices responded by turning their fire on the Court itself, not just on the government’s political choices. Spokesperson Saurav Das called the order ‘wholly unacceptable,’ saying it went against the government’s solemn assurance, and warned of renewed protests. Days later, founder Abhijeet Dipke went further, telling reporters in his hometown in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar that there was a question mark even on judiciary, in the same breath accusing the probe agencies of being used to break rival political parties. He also claimed, without offering evidence, that the police action on July 20 must have been personally ordered by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and demanded Shah’s resignation.

Neither statement was criticism of the Court’s reasoning. Das said a lawful order should bend to a political bargain. Dipke told the country, just as the judiciary had ruled in a way CJP disliked, that the judiciary itself was suspect. That distinction, between disputing an order and undermining the institution that issued it, is the argument of this article, and it is one the law itself recognises.

The constitutional foundation

It is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the set of basic features that even Parliament cannot change, as the Supreme Court held in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and has reaffirmed many times since. Article 50 of the Constitution of India keeps the judiciary separate from the executive as well as legislature, Article 141 states that law declared by the Supreme Court binding on every court in the country, with no exception for political inconvenience, and Article 144 goes further as it requires all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of the Supreme Court, not just tolerate it, but actively support the execution of its orders. Under Article 129, the Supreme Court is a court of record with the inherent power to punish for its own contempt, a power the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 gives teeth to.

Cumulatively, these clauses do one thing, they insulate the Court from being leaned on by whoever holds power or public pressure at a given moment, a government, an opposition party, or a movement outside the electoral system altogether. Disagreeing with a judgment’s reasoning is legitimate and healthy. Publicly casting doubt on the judiciary’s impartiality the moment it rules against you, or declaring an order need not be honoured because it collides with a political promise, is a different act. It treats the Court’s jurisdiction and its neutrality as conditional on the outcome. Once that becomes normal, the certainty that makes a court order meaningful starts to fade for everyone, even the very movements that benefit from it today.

Where the Contempt of Courts Act come in?

Here’s where the law steps out of the textbooks and gets real. If we look at the Contempt of Courts Act from 1971, Section 2(b) says civil contempt is basically just ignoring a court order on purpose. Criminal contempt, covered under Section 2(c), is a lot wider. It hits anything, written or done, that insults the court, hurts its authority, messes with an ongoing case, or gets in the way of justice.

Now, if you want to fairly and logically criticise a judgment, you completely can. Section 5 of the Act protects that, and Indian courts have backed it up time and time again. But there’s a line. You can’t just tell the whole country to ignore a valid legal order because it ruins a political deal. You also can’t plant baseless seeds of doubt about a judge’s motives right after you get a ruling you don’t like.

Das actually did the first thing, while Dipke did the second. And honestly, Dipke making that claim in the exact same breath as an unproven rumour about a Union minister directing a police crackdown makes the whole situation worse. It pushes the public to view the court’s order not as actual law, but as proof that the entire system is politically rigged.

That’s not a genuine critique of the legal logic. It’s a deliberate move to make people think the order doesn’t matter, way before anyone even tries to challenge it properly, like through an appeal, a review, or asking the same bench to look at it again.

Finally, we have to remember how massive CJP’s reach is. They reportedly have millions of followers online. Because of that scale, these weren’t just accidental slip-ups from either leader. They were calculated, public statements made just days apart. And honestly, that is exactly the kind of situation Section 2(c) was written to handle.

Due process is not persecution

Look, nobody is saying the original anger was fake. The medical exam paper leaks caused genuine harm, reportedly even leading to student suicides. And the harsh police response at the July 20 march, where tear gas and batons left people injured on both sides, absolutely deserves to be investigated. The courts, the National Human Rights Commission, and Parliament should all be looking into it. If the government made a public promise, they owe everyone a straight answer on whether they’re actually keeping it.

But there is a right way to fight this battle, and holding a press conference to blindly attack the judges isn’t it.

Take Dipke’s claim that Amit Shah personally ordered the police to use force. He just threw that out there without offering a single shred of actual evidence. That’s a massive accusation to make against a specific official in public, rather than using the proper legal channels to actually prove it.

What makes it even harder to defend is that CJP themselves admit it’s the government, not the courts, that has the power to drop the police cases (the FIRs). So, attacking the judiciary makes no sense. Their actual beef is with the government breaking a political promise, yet CJP’s leaders chose to attack the court’s fairness instead.

Fairness under the law has to go both ways. A movement that built its entire reputation on demanding fair legal processes against police brutality can’t just turn around and tell the country the judges are rigged the second a ruling doesn’t go their way.

Conclusion

If we just let this kind of talk slide, it slowly destroys the public’s trust. People start doubting whether a Supreme Court order actually means anything final, or if the judges are even fair to begin with. It also sets a terrible example. It teaches every future protest group, and every future government, that if you yell loud enough about a rigged system, you can beat a court order in the court of public opinion, even if you can’t beat it legally.

Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of room in India to criticize judgments, orders, and the system as a whole. But that freedom has a limit. It ends the second your criticism turns into telling people that following a court order is optional, or claiming the court is completely untrustworthy just because it ruled against you that day. If a movement has a real, valid complaint, they don’t need to drag the judges’ integrity through the mud to make their point. And when a group’s founder and its main spokesperson do exactly that, just days apart, that is exactly why the Contempt of Courts Act exists. It’s there to draw the line and push back. At the end of the day, our Constitution didn’t create a court system to be anyone’s pet or anyone’s servant. The law sits above both the government and the protest movements. Honestly, that’s the only way this whole setup works. It’s the only way both sides can trust that when someone eventually loses in court, they will still actually follow the rules.

The anatomy of violence: Muslim mob attacks Kanwar Yatra in Nepal, police kills 3 Hindus

Aditi
-
0
The anatomy of violence: Muslim mob attacks Kanwar Yatra in Nepal, police kills 3 Hindus

Tensions prevail in several districts of Nepal, including the Sunsari district bordering India’s Bihar, following an attack by Muslims on the Hindu Kanwar Yatra over DJ music. The attack resulted in three persons losing their lives and about 2 dozen people sustaining injuries. Among the killed are Ganesh Yadav, Om Prakash Mehta, and Jay Prakash Mehta.

An indefinite curfew has reportedly been imposed in several districts of Nepal, including the Dhanusha and Siraha districts, after violence spread to several parts of the country. The Armed Police Force and Nepal Army personnel have been deployed in several areas to maintain order. As per reports, authorities are also using air surveillance to keep a watch on the situation.

On Thursday, a massive protest was organised by several Nepali Hindu organisations in Janakpurdham following the death of the Hindus. The protests jammed key areas of the city, raised slogans, and burned effigies of the Nepali Prime Minister and Home Minister. The local police used tear gas to disperse the protestors and imposed a curfew in the area.

PM Balen Shah speaks up on the violence after four days

Meanwhile, the Nepali Prime Minister Balen Shah appealed to people to maintain unity and social harmony and show restraint. Addressing the people of Nepal on Thursday (30th July), four days after the communal violence, Shah said that his government is treating the situation with “full seriousness and sensitivity”. The Government of Nepal is completely serious and sensitive about the tragic incident that took place in Dewanganj, Siraha, and other places in Sunsari a few days ago and the turbulent atmosphere that has arisen in some districts since then,” Shah said.

He announced that the Ministry of Home Affairs has formed an investigation committee to probe the incidents of violence and prosecute the culprits. He also promised compensation to the victims of the violence. According to Assistant Chief District Officer of Sunsari, Poshan Lamichhane, a compensation of Nepali Rupees (NRs) 2,00,000 is promised to the kin of the persons killed in violence in Sunsari, while NRs 50,000 will be provided to the injured for treatment expenses. The government reached out to the families of the deceased and agreed on a seven-point resolution, assuring action against the culprits

How the violence occurred

The unrest started on 26th July in Sunsari’s Dewanganj Rural Municipality-3, Kaptainganj, when a Hindu religious procession carrying a DJ sound system entered a Muslim-dominant locality. As per reports, a disagreement over the DJ sound and religious flags led to an altercation, which escalated into violent clashes involving stone-pelting between the two communities in no time.

As the situation deteriorated, the Nepal Police and the Armed forces intervened. The police reportedly fired multiple rounds to disperse the crowds, which led to the loss of 3 lives. The violence, however, spread to neighbouring areas as protestors committed widespread arson, vandalism, stone-pelting, and clashed with security forces. Several vehicles, shops, and other private properties have been damaged in the violence. The violence has now reached parts of Madhesh Province, including Dhanusha and Siraha districts. 

Curfews imposed in several parts

To bring the situation under control, authorities imposed curfews in several areas, including Inaruwa, Janakpur, Siraha, Golbazaar, and Lahan, while additional restrictions were imposed in Dhanusha and other sensitive locations. In Dhanusha district, curfews have been implemented in Laxminia Hatbazaar, Belauni Road, Nagarain Municipality, Dudhmati Bridge, and parts of Janakpur. And in Siraha, similar restrictions have been imposed in the Golbazaar area along the East-West Highway to curb the violence.

The situation is likely to affect commercial activities between India and Nepal, as Sunsari is a crucial transit and commercial corridor between the two countries.

Victims declared as ‘martyrs’ by local body

Devanganj Rural Municipality declared Om Prakash Mehta and Jay Prakash Mehta as “martyrs” at the local level. The Municipality said that it would urge the Nepal government to confer official martyr status on the deceased. Besides, the municipality approved financial aid of 1 million Nepalese rupees for each bereaved family.

Those left permanently disabled or severely injured due to gunshot wounds will be provided 200,000 Nepalese rupees each, and the people who suffered minor disabilities will receive compensation of 50,000 Nepalese rupees. The municipality has also decided to seek compensation from the government for the people whose homes, businesses, and properties were vandalised during the violence.

Former monarch expresses concern

Former Nepalese monarch Gyanendra Shah expressed concern over the escalating communal tension in the country. Shah recounted how people of different ethnicities, languages, and religions had lived in harmony for decades in Nepal. He called for the preservation of Nepal’s multi-ethnic, multilingual, and multi-religious identity, along with its tradition of respecting all faiths and cultures. The former King urged people of Nepal to maintain communal harmony and brotherhood.

The violence came months after Prime Minister Balen Shah assumed office, following a violent Gen-Z-led revolution in the country.

As thousands of illegal immigrants swim to Spain, read how a Supreme Court order triggered the massive influx

Rukma Rathore
-
0
As thousands of illegal immigrants swim to Spain, read how a Supreme Court order triggered the massive influx

Spain had to send troops to Ceuta, an exclave in Africa bordering Morocco and the Mediterranean Sea, after thousands of illegal immigrants arrived from Morocco within a few hours in one of the most serious border breaches in years on 30th July (Thursday). Several people were killed while trying the perilous sea trip as Madrid deployed forces to re-establish law and order in response to the unexpected influx in its North African enclave. According to the government, 60 soldiers and 200 specialised police officers rushed from the mainland to support the local forces.

At least 18 individuals perished while attempting to flock to Ceuta. A recent increase in attempted crossings for several days led local authorities to seek assistance from the government of Spain. However, unrest erupted in the latest incident after border control appeared to have collapsed. The Spanish government’s team in the enclave reported that the bodies of 9 persons have been found by officials.

According to analysis from the interior ministry, 49,000 unlawful immigrants stormed Ceuta in a single day. The videos showed large groups of people trying to scale the border fence or move past the Tarajal breakwaters between the Moroccan and Spanish territory.

Thousands swam around the border jetty by sliding down concrete embankments into the sea. Rubber rings and flippers quickly covered the beaches on the Spanish side as the new arrivals started to celebrate and even shouted “Viva Espana” (Long live Spain) to express their joy.

Image via New York Post

Pedro Sanchez, the prime minister of Spain, assured that his government “is fully committed to providing an immediate response to the situation in Ceuta,” and is assembling “all necessary resources, working with Moroccan and international authorities” as well as planning the appropriate actions “to restore normalcy as soon as possible.” He also intimated the same to the Spanish president.

Sanchez appealed, “This is the moment to build solutions, with responsibility and cooperation.” He was also scheduled to visit the region on Friday.

The interior ministry declared, “The Armed Forces will reinforce the Guardia Civil in the exercise of its powers and any others that may be necessary to maintain civil security in the city of Ceuta.” The current number of soldiers in the tiny 18.5 square kilometres of area stands at 80 and would likely be doubled along with coast guard ships and diving teams.

The ministry also stated that the Moroccan government is working “faithfully and permanently with Spain” to manage the issue and their police are stopping “numerous people” who want to get across the border. It conveyed that the two nations decided to cooperate “for the return, as soon as possible, of all the people who entered Ceuta illegally.”

There was widespread conflict in the Moroccan town of Bni Nsar, which borders the Spanish territory. People who were trying to cross over clashed with authorities, hurled stones and set police cars on fire. Security personnel were injured and many arrests had been made.

The ministry reported being “acting in coordination to respond with the utmost speed and efficiency to the situation in Ceuta.” It informed that more resources have been directed “to guarantee security and control of migration as well as the necessary humanitarian aid, so that no lives are put in danger at sea.” Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska would also visit the region “to monitor the situation” and meet officials on Friday.

Demand to introduce national emergency

“The situation is absolute chaos. It’s not possible to give precise numbers but there are thousands of migrants crossing,” Rachid Sbihi, head of the association that represents Spain’s Guardia Civil in Ceuta, disclosed while talking to the Associated Press. He added that the border has completely broken down, highlighting, “There is no more room for anyone.” The local authorities have accused Madrid of being too slow to react to the overcrowding at the reception centres.

The chief of the Ceuta regional administration, Juan Jesus Vivas, urged the Spanish government to proclaim an emergency on the grounds of national security, requesting the mobilisation of the army and additional police on the border “to guarantee the inviolability of the frontier and citizen safety.” This came after the city’s board of spokespersons met and came to a unanimous decision.

He mentioned, “I spoke out to warn of the extreme gravity of the migration crisis we are enduring,” remarking that the matter continues to intensify with “another night of mass arrivals, nearly a thousand people waiting outside the CETI (Temporary Migrant Reception Centre), our resources completely overwhelmed, and another life lost at sea.”

Vivas compared the unfolding circumstances with “a humanitarian and social emergency” of national proportions. “We cannot face this pressure alone, pressure that has resulted in the arrival of between 1,500 and 2,000 people in just 10 days, equivalent to 2% of our population,” he conveyed, adding that “with every passing hour, the situation becomes more difficult.”

Italy considers pausing open border arrangement

On the other hand, the Italian government announced that it could impose “extraordinary measures” in response to the development. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wrote, “The images coming from Ceuta are striking and demonstrate, once again, that uncontrolled illegal immigration poses a concrete threat to the security of Europe’s borders,” on social media.

She also held a meeting with Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi and asserted, “Italy will not stand by and watch. We are convening the relevant bodies, and following these meetings, we are prepared to intervene with extraordinary measures to defend the borders and the safety of citizens, including the suspension of the Schengen Area with Spain.”

“On illegal immigration, we will not yield an inch: defending the borders, stopping human traffickers, and ensuring effective repatriations will continue to be the line of this Government,” Meloni warned.

What caused the problem

The Strait of Gibraltar divides Ceuta, which is on the northern coast of Morocco, from mainland Spain. The small autonomous area only has around 85,000 people. The people frequently swim from the Moroccan town of Fnideq to Ceuta, a roughly 5-kilometre journey, while some try to cross the land border from the next town of Belyounech, which is at a shorter distance. Others try to make their way through Melilla, another Spanish enclave.

People gather at Bab Sebta, on the Morocco-Spain border near Ceuta and Fnideq. (Source: NBC)

This month, the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that infiltrators who are intercepted at sea en route to Ceuta or Melilla, cannot be promptly sent back to Morocco. These two share the European Union’s only land border with Africa. Notably, the order is only applicable for illegal immigration through the sea. Spain can deport immigrants who cross the land border to Ceuta or Melilla immediately, as per the court order. This decision heavily incentivised people to attempt the crossing by water.

This is the reason why such a large number of Moroccans took boats and swam to Ceuta, instead of taking the easier route of crossing the land border. The Supreme Court order was widely spread on social media, and the illegal immigration mafia took advantage of the order to ship thousands of people to Spain.

Guardia Civil spokesperson said, “It has been a slow trickle since the Supreme Court’s ruling but today has been an explosion,” reported Reuters. Multiple businesses have also been shuttered in Ceuta.

Image via BBC

Ceuta and Melilla present exceptional cases because it is technically feasible to enter them “by sea,” avoiding a land border and without crossing the Strait of Gibraltar or the Mediterranean. Human trafficking organisations have been accused by the interior ministry of abusing the verdict to “encourage the flow of undocumented migrants.”

Moreover, the Spanish government also offers amnesty and temporary residency to people who can prove they made it into the country without permission. The law, which was enforced this year, only applies to those who can establish that they were in the country at the time it went into effect. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani drew a parallel between the policy enforced through a royal decree and the troubling scenes in Ceuta.

The precise reason behind the ongoing problem is unclear, but the pictures are evocative of a similar incident at the border crossing in May 2021, when over 10,000 people from Morocco and sub-Saharan Africa flooded the area only in days triggering a massive diplomatic face-off. Morocco was accused of lowering border controls after Spain allowed Polisario Front commander Brahim Ghali to undergo medical treatment in its hospital. He is viewed as a separatist leader by Rabat.

The lesson for India

India has been plagued by the significant issue of infiltration in relation to Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims for decades, which has not only been neglected but even facilitated by opposition parties such as the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) to strengthen their voter base at the expense of national interest and security.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has intervened on behalf of these people periodically. In August of last year, it announced its intention to determine whether the illegal Rohingyas residing in the country should be classified as “refugees” or “illegal immigrants.”

The apex court annulled the judgement of the Foreigners Tribunal as well as the order from the Gauhati High Court and recognised Rahim Ali, a suspected illegal immigrant from Bangladesh as an Indian citizen. It asserted to identify inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural errors throughout the investigation.

The crisis of illegal immigration is consistently expanding, with conservative estimates indicating that there could be over 20 million such people in just one state, Karnataka. Thus, the deteriorating condition in Spain acts as a sobering reminder for the nation and its institutions, including the judiciary, regarding the growing challenge at home that requires a viable and effective response instead of any efforts to defend, justify or endorse it.

Umar Khalid’s bail applications: A timeline of every rejection and withdrawal so far, and the clause in UAPA law that keeps him in jail

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Umar Khalid’s bail applications: A timeline of every rejection and withdrawal so far, and the clause in UAPA law that keeps him in jail

Umar Khalid has asked for bail eight times. Eight times, in the Sessions Court, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, a judge has gone through the Delhi Police file and decided it is strong enough for him to stay in Tihar. Today, as the Delhi High Court hears his ninth plea, that record is the story.

Khalid, a former JNU student leader and co-founder of ‘United Against Hate’, was arrested in September 2020 over the anti-Hindu riots that broke out in north-east Delhi that February, during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, riots that killed 53 people and injured more than 700. The Delhi Police case, under FIR 59/2020, does not say he threw a stone and set a car on fire. It says he did something courts have repeatedly found much more serious. He helped plan the violence, as part of what police call a ‘larger conspiracy,’ carried out through speeches, WhatsApp groups and planned road blockades timed for maximum disruption.

That case runs under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the UAPA, India’s toughest anti-terror law. Parliament wrote into it a bail rule, Section 43D(5), that turns the usual rule on its head. A judge cannot grant bail unless satisfied there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is true. It is one of the hardest bars to clear in Indian law. Khalid has not cleared it so far.

First stop: The sessions court says NO (2022)

Khalid was picked up on the night of September 13, 2020, and charged under FIR 59/2020. He moved the Sessions Court for bail in July 2021. The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, put forward chats from a WhatsApp group called the ‘Delhi Protest Support Group’, saying they showed Khalid wanted to push the government to the edge, and that the anti-CAA protests were being used to create spots of violence, not just voice disagreement. The defence challenged how the chats were being read and pointed to gaps in the charge sheet.

Eight months later, on March 24, 2022, the Sessions Court refused bail. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said the material, taken at face value, prima facie showed a planned conspiracy that Khalid was part of. That finding, the first of eight, became the pattern every later court would follow.

High Court upholds the ‘no bail’ view (October 2022)

Khalid appealed on April 21, 2022, before Justices Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on a speech Khalid gave in Amravati, Maharashtra, a few days before the riots, the court itself focused on whether his words about the Prime Minister went from strong rhetoric to actual incitement, read together with speeches by co-accused Sharjeel Imam calling for disruption. The defence said the chargesheet was full of contradictions, the bench was not convinced.

On October 18, 2022, the High Court turned down bail, saying the chargesheet made out a prima facie case of terrorist activity and criminal conspiracy under the UAPA. Under Section 43D(5), that finding by itself is enough to keep bail out of reach, no matter how long someone has already been in jail.

A narrow exception, and a separate, smaller case closes

On December 3, 2022, the Karkardooma Court acquitted Khalid and co-accused Khalid Saifi in a separate, much smaller case relating to vandalism and arson at a Khajuri Khas parking lot. It’s important to be clear about the scale: that case never carried UAPA charges and was never the reason he was kept in custody. It changed nothing in FIR 59, the larger conspiracy case, where both the Sessions Court and the High Court had already found a prima facie case against him. Nine days later, he was given one week’s interim bail, under a gag order that barred him from speaking to the media, to attend a family wedding, a temporary, conditional release on humanitarian grounds, not a fresh look at the merits of the case.

To the Supreme Court, and then a tactical retreat

Khalid filed a Special Leave Petition on April 6, 2023, challenging the High Court’s bail rejection. The hearing barely moved for over a year, judges recusing themselves, lawyers unavailable, and the case being tagged with a separate constitutional challenge to the UAPA meant he got no real hearing at all through 2023. Rather than let the delay drag on, on February 14, 2024, Umar Khalid withdrew the petition himself, betting that a fresh application built around the time already spent in jail might work better in the trial court than a stalled Supreme Court appeal. It didn’t.

Back in the trial court (2024-25)

Khalid applied for fresh bail on May 28, 2024. Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai rejected it, relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in NIA v Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v Barkathullah to hold that even a surface reading of the evidence still pointed to Khalid’s involvement, and finding no real change in circumstances since the last order. The appeal that followed dragged into 2025 before Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur finally heard it. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s position for the state was blunt: if you’re accused of acting against the nation, you stay in jail until a trial says otherwise.

High court again says no, upholds prosecution’s version

On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected bail for Khalid and eight co-accused. Justice Kaur’s judgment accepted the prosecution’s version that the riots were the result of a premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy, not spontaneous unrest. The court pointed to the sheer scale of the case, around 3,000 pages of chargesheet, backed by 30,000 pages of electronic evidence, as reason enough that the trial needed to run its full course rather than be rushed. It said clearly that delay alone cannot override the UAPA’s bail bar when the underlying allegations remain serious. Five years inside did not move the needle.

Supreme court: Bail for some, not for the architects (January 2026)

Khalid appealed on September 10, 2025. Over weeks of hearings, the Delhi Police told the Court the riots were an ‘orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed’ attack on India’s sovereignty, not a protest that spiralled out of control. ASG S.V. Raju laid out the state’s case in fine detail. CCTV cameras allegedly covered and acid bottles thrown from rooftops at Chand Bagh, accounts from protected witnesses about a planning meeting on February 23, 2020, an alleged funding network running through shell companies and the Jamia alumni association and, using location data, chat records and witness statements, the claim that Khalid himself had directed the start of the chakka jam road blockades. The defence argued for parity with co-accused already granted bail, the bench drew a line instead.

On January 5, 2026, five co-accused, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, were released on bail with twelve conditions. Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not among them, the Court described the two as ‘architects’ of the conspiracy, on a different footing from the others. Not participants who joined a protest, but the men the bench found had directed it. They were told they could reapply only after a year, or once protected witnesses were examined, whichever came first.

A new twist, another no at trial court, and today’s hearing

On May 22, 2026, a different Supreme Court bench, hearing a co-accused’s case, granted six months’ interim bail and pointed to a ‘perceived divergence’ in how benches were applying an earlier ruling on prolonged custody, sending the underlying question to a larger bench. Khalid and Imam cited this as their own change in circumstances and filed fresh pleas on June 13, 2026. On July 4, 2026, Justice Bajpai dismissed them as not maintainable, holding the trial court remained bound by the Supreme Court’s January order until its own conditions for reapplication were met. Khalid has now appealed that order to the Delhi High Court, which was listed today before Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, in which reply from Delhi Police has been sought within two weeks.

Conclusion

Eight rulings, three courts, one answer every time, the case clears the UAPA’s bar. That’s the thread running through six years of litigation, and it’s why Khalid remains in custody today while the Delhi High Court hears his ninth attempt. The only real question left in the system isn’t whether the prosecution’s case has held up, by every court’s own account, so far, it has. It’s a narrower legal point the Supreme Court has now sent to a larger bench, which is whether years in custody can ever outweigh that finding under the UAPA’s statutory bar. That ruling, whenever it comes, will matter well beyond this one case.

Taslima Nasreen returns to Kolkata after 19 years: Read why she was banned from Bangladesh and exiled from West Bengal

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Taslima Nasreen returns to Kolkata after 19 years: Read why she was banned from Bangladesh and exiled from West Bengal

Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi author and critic of Islamism, returned to Kolkata on 31st July 2026 after nearly 19 years of being forced out of West Bengal.

Nasreen arrived in Kolkata from Delhi to attend a literary programme organised by Secular Mission, Paschimbonger Jonno (For West Bengal), and Human Rights Beyond Frontiers at the Rabindra Sadan Cultural Centre on 1st August 2026. 

As per the organisers, West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, state finance minister Swapan Dasgupta, and noted author Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay will also attend the event.

Nasreen described her return to Kolkata as an emotional homecoming. While noting the pain of lost years, the renowned author said, “It was like returning to my own country.” 

The Bangladeshi physician-turned-author’s literary works and activism first drove her out of her homeland, Bangladesh, and then Kolkata, the city she grew to call her second home. 

Why Taslima Nasreen was driven out of Bangladesh 

Islamists across the world, including those in Bangladesh, have been strictly opposed to women’s rights, secularism, freedom of expression, rational criticism directed at Islam, and any advocacy against their oppression of religious minorities. 

As Taslima Nasreen’s writings focused on these issues, she came under the radar of Bangladeshi Islamists. The trigger, however, for widespread protests and Nasreen’s ouster was her 1993 novel, Lajja. 

Lajja depicted the persecution of a Bangladeshi Hindu family in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition in the Ayodhya city of India’s Uttar Pradesh. 

Source: Amazon.in

The novel centres on the Hindu Dutta family in Dhaka. Sudhamoy, the father, is a doctor and a secular patriot who refuses to leave Bangladesh despite the raging anti-Hindu riots, with Islamic fanatics destroying Hindu houses, temples, and shops. 

The Hindu family’s tragedy begins when Sudhamoy’s daughter, Maya, is abducted by Islamists. The Hindu family searches for the girl in vain. Eventually, an unidentified boy resembling Maya is found under a bridge, leaving the family devastated. Ultimately, the reluctant Hindu family is forced to flee their homeland and seek refuge in the Hindu-majority India. 

Taslima Nasreen’s brutally honest depiction of the horrors Hindus in Bangladesh endured in the 90s irked Islamist groups. What followed was a massive backlash, protests, a ban on the book in Bangladesh, a fatwa, several death threats, and bounties. 

In 1994, when Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was in power, a non-bailable arrest warrant was issued against Taslima Nasreen under Section 295A (hurting religious sentiments) of the Bangladesh Penal Code. Nasreen was forced into hiding for weeks before she flew to Sweden. 

Instead of ensuring her safety and acting against Islamists baying for her blood, the PM Khaleda Zia-led government invalidated Nasreen’s passport.  

The subsequent governments, including those of Awami League supremo Sheikh Hasina, out of fear of upsetting Islamists, did not enable Nasreen’s safe return. All this while, Taslima Nasreen’s works were banned in Bangladesh, and she was forced to live in a prolonged exile. 

Taslima Nasreen found a home in India, only to be exiled all over again: CPIM’s surrender before the street veto of Islamist mobs 

Forced out of Bangladesh, Taslima Nasreen spent her days in Europe and elsewhere, before India granted her a residence permit. Nasreen settled in West Bengal’s Kolkata in 2004, drawn by the shared Bengali culture and language.  

Taslima Nasreen continued writing columns focusing on human rights, Islamic fundamentalism, minority rights, and issues concerning women. 

However, Taslima Nasreen ended up hurting the fragile religious sentiments of the perennially offended Islamists who are all the same across the world regardless of nationality, when she published an autobiographical volume in 2003. 

Nasreen’s book Dwikhandito (Split in Two / Bifurcated) was banned by the then ruling CPIM-led Left Front government in West Bengal. Reason? The same given by the BNP regime in Bangladesh for banning Lajja.

Dwikhandito by Taslima Nasreen (Image source: Boighar)

The Communist government, led by Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, capitulated before Islamist mobs and banned the book’s publication and sale in West Bengal. 

It was only in 2005 that the Calcutta High Court overturned the ban, calling it unjustified. The ban on Dwikhandito was lifted; however, Nasreen’s troubles did not end here. 

Muslims organisations, politicians, and ordinary Islamists alike grew intolerant of the Bangladeshi author’s mere presence on the soil of Kolkata.  

While protests against Taslima Nasreen continued, a Kolkata imam, Syed Mohammed Noorur Rahman Barkati, then Imam of the Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid, sought her deportation to Bangladesh and offered an unlimited cash reward to anyone who blackened Nasreen’s face in 2007. 

“If our demand is not met, there will be an unlimited cash reward for whosoever kills her. The United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre and the Left Front government in the state will be responsible for the consequences,” the imam announced after Jummah namaz in August 2007. 

Interestingly, Barkati is a ‘rakhi brother’ of Trinamool Congress supremo, Mamata Banerjee, who went on to rule West Bengal for 15 years and crossed all limits of Muslim appeasement. 

TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee in 2007 with Syed Mohammed Noorur Rahman Barkati, then Imam of the Tipu Sultan Shahi Masjid. (Image via DailyO)

A week before Barkati’s announcement, Taslima Nasreen was physically attacked in Hyderabad by Islamist political outfit, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) while Nasreen was attending a book event. 

On 21st November 2007, Islamist groups, including the All-India Minority Forum, staged violent protests in Kolkata, demanding Nasreen’s expulsion. The violence also spilt outside Kolkata. 

Islamist mobs blocked roads, vandalised vehicles and public property, and injured dozens. The Islamist violence magnified to such an extent that the Indian Army had to be called in to control the situation as the state law enforcement became insufficient to tackle the crisis. 

The ultimate capitulation of the Left government before Islamist intransigence was CM Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s statement that his government can no longer guarantee Taslima Nasreen’s safety in West Bengal. 

Soon after, senior CPIM leader Biman Bose publicly said that Taslima Nasreen should leave West Bengal so the situation could cool down.  

First to Rajasthan’s Jaipur, and then to Delhi, Taslima Nasreen was forced to flee her second home due to the same Islamist intolerance she faced in Bangladesh. 

Ironically, the Communist government that boasted of being defenders of ‘secularism’ offered an abject surrender in the face of pressure from Muslim mob violence rather than protecting the Bangladeshi author’s right to live with dignity, speak and work safely in Kolkata.  

Although there was no legal ban on Nasreen’s entry into West Bengal, it was only when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in May 2026, ending the 15-year tyrannical rule of Mamata Banerjee, that Taslima Nasreen could return to Kolkata. 

Taslima Nasreen’s return to Kolkata holds both personal and symbolic significance. Her return to West Bengal marks the return of a fierce voice that Islamists tried to silence, and the reversal of a dark chapter that was inked by Islamist intolerance and violence facilitated by a pliable Communist regime. 

Even Nasreen’s return has outraged Islamists; however, times have changed, political winds in Bengal have changed, and so has the practice of accommodating Islamist whims for the sake of political gains. 

As SC hears petition over exclusion of CJI for appointing Chief Election Commissioner, read what the Modi govt argued to stop judicial overreach

OpIndia Staff
-
0
As SC hears petition over exclusion of CJI for appointing Chief Election Commissioner, read what the Modi govt argued to stop judicial overreach

On 30th July (Thursday), the centre raised questions regarding the insistence on including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on the panel to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The union government contended that an “outsider” or a former judge should also be consulted when selecting cabinet ministers if the prime minister’s decision cannot be trusted.

The argument transpired during the hearing of pleas challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, in the Supreme Court. In previous hearings, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had questioned absence of even “one absolutely neutral person” on the panel. It countered that a cabinet minister would rarely oppose the prime minister. The court had claimed that the public would receive wrong signals from the executive’s “dominant” presence on the committee.

“The office of the prime minister has a certain sanctity attached. If his decisions are not to be trusted and are to be seen as necessarily a bad faith exercise, then why not have a provision that even while selecting his cabinet, he must consult some other former judge or outsider,” submitted solicitor-general Tushar Mehta before a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

However, the court mentioned that since the Election Commission was an independent body, the issue was one of justice and transparency in the nomination of the CEC and the ECs rather than mistrusting the prime minister. It emphasised the necessity of an impartial and independent procedure and noted that the poll monitor must both operate independently and be perceived as doing so. The court also questioned Parliament’s decision to leave out CJI from the panel when drafting the bill.

Justice Datta conveyed, “The appointment procedure should be shown to be fair. The issue is that the composition of this committee tilts in favour of one side. There is a two versus one here, two of the executive and one of the opposition. Should there not be a show of fairness in the appointment to one of the most important offices of this country.”

Mehta inquired if the Anoop Baranwal ruling could really limit the Parliament’s ability to replace the CJI on the panel with a cabinet minister. According to him, the Constitution envisions independence for the Legislative and Executive branches, just as it does for the judiciary.

He highlighted, “When the executive wants to participate in the selection of another organ, it becomes a question of independence of another organ. Can it be said to the judiciary then that we will not trust your appointments because there is no outsider? This is not adversarial. I am just saying this as a student of law.” The government’s repeatedly unaddressed grievances against the “Collegium” system of “judges selecting judges” was mentioned by Justice Datta in response.

SG Mehta and Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani urged the bench to refrain from challenging Parliament’s wisdom, otherwise it would be equivalent to interfering with the legislature’s independence. The AG stated that “Parliament cannot be gagged” and that the legislative decision made by it could not be questioned only because a different model could be used. Mehta pointed out that the independence of the country’s three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial, must be preserved.

He further remarked, “The issue is whether one democratic organ of the state could assume that decisions of another constitutional organ would necessarily be taken in bad faith merely because the executive enjoyed a numerical majority in the selection committee.”

The bench asserted that there was no doubt about the prime minister’s credibility. Recalling that the court had earlier relied on the elected government to make sure that individuals with criminal records were not chosen as ministers, it asked the SG how many government ministers had charges pending against them.

According to the petitions, the aforementioned act “defeated” a constitution bench judgement in the Anoop Baranwal case, which established a CEC selection panel headed by the prime minister and comprised the CJI along with the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. It was passed after a few months of the verdict and substituted the CJI with a prime minister-nominated cabinet minister. Mehta contended that the goal of the order was only to close a legislative vacuum that existed at the time and was later filled by the act.

Although the prior petitions contesting the current statute have not yet been resolved, the court is also handling later pleas contesting the centre’s nomination of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC last year. Following a day of deliberations, the bench reserved its decision on whether the CJI’s absence from the selection panel constituted a “substantial question of law” that needed to be addressed by a five-judge constitution bench.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 verdict

On 2nd March 2023, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the chief justice of India, the prime minister, and the opposition leader in the Lok Sabha would serve on the panel that selects the chief election commissioner and other commissioners until the Parliament passed legislation outlining the selection process.

On 377 page of the ruling, the court issued a set of guidelines stating unequivocally that “We declare that the appointment of the chief election commissioner and the election commissioners shall be made on the recommendations made by a three-member committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition of the Lok Sabha and in case no leader of opposition is available, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength and the chief justice of India.”

This was until the parliament passes legislation in accordance with Article 324(2) of the Constitution. The bench led by Justice KM Joseph passed the order to guarantee the independence of election commissioners. It declared that there was no parliamentary bill that outlined the procedure for choosing election commissioners at the time the order was passed, in compliance with Article 324(2) of the constitution. As a result, it was clarified that the order, which included the CJI in the selection committee, was only in effect until a legislation was passed by the parliament.

Meanwhile, with this judgement, the apex court directed the government to follow a framework that the court had previously rejected for appointing judges through the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC). Additionally, it mandated that the government implement “necessary changes” to guarantee that ECI becomes “truly independent,” implying that ECI was not operating independently up until this point. However, the same can be extended to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, which is carried out by a closed body of justices called the “Collegium.”

As Goa High Court reserves its order, know about the 2013 sexual assault case against Tehelka’s Tarun Tejpal, and the ‘apology email’ 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
As Goa High Court reserves its order, know about the 2013 sexual assault case against Tehelka’s Tarun Tejpal, and the ‘apology email’ 

On Thursday (30th July), the Goa High Court reserved its order on the appeal by the Goa Government against the acquittal of the former editor-in-chief of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal, in the sexual assault case.  

A bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar focused on whether Tejpal’s apology email to the complainant and Tejpal’s journalist colleague amounted to an admission of the occurrence of a physical encounter. 

The court reserved its order after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Goa Government, and advocate Abad Ponda, who represented the controversial journalist, Tarun Tejpal.  

Back in 2021, Tarun Tejpal was acquitted by a Goa Sessions Court in the sexual assault case filed by his colleague. Tejpal’s acquittal, however, was challenged by the Goa government before the High Court. 

During the High Court hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta slammed the trial court’s decision, criticising its evaluation of the complainant woman’s conduct against preconceived notions of how a sexual assault survivor should behave. 

“My primary objection is to the way in which the trial court has examined the entire matter as if it is setting down a model code of conduct on how the victim should behave and if the victim does not behave in this way, then it is not right,” Mehta said. 

Mehta further argued that since the conduct of sexual assault survivors varies based on their social background, education levels, and circumstances, courts cannot reject allegations just because a complainant did not exhibit a stereotypical behaviour. 

“The behaviour of a victim of molestation can be different based on the background they come from, their educational qualifications. One cannot say one’s behaviour is not like the other, so it is to be disbelieved,” Mehta said. 

The Goa High Court has reserved its order after hearing arguments from both sides; however, it has not specified the date for the pronouncement of the verdict. 

Background of the sexual assault case against Tarun Tejpal 

Tarun Tejpal (full name Tarunjit Tejpal), the far-left journalist, was accused of forcing himself on a colleague against her wishes inside an elevator of the Grand Hyatt, Bambolim, Goa, on November 7, 2013, during a Tehelka magazine event.  

The matter became public after several media houses published a leaked trail of emails exchanged between the woman, Tejpal and the managing editor of Tehelka, Shoma Chaudhary.   

Tejpal had stepped down as editor six months after being accused of sexual assault to ‘recuse’ himself. 

Tarun Tejpal was arrested in November 2013 and later released on bail in July 2014. Tejpal was charged under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (sexual harassment), 354A(1)(I)(II)(demand for sexual favours), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376 (2)(f) (person in a position of authority over women, committing rape) and 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of control). 

The trial against Tejpal began in 2017. Meanwhile, Tejpal had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking dismissal of the case against him, claiming that the charges were fabricated. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court had also dismissed the plea in 2019. 

When Goa High Court called the sessions court’s order acquitting Tarun Tejpal a “manual for rape victims” 

It must be recalled that back in September 2021, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court noted that the sessions court’s verdict read like a “manual for rape victims”. The High Court had said that the lower court’s order had described how a sexual assault survivor should or should not respond in such cases. 

“The judgement goes into how she (survivor) responded. There are some observations on this. It is like a manual for rape victim. There is a prima facie case to consider the leave (permission) to appeal (against the acquittal). Issue notice to the respondent (Tarun Tejpal) returnable on June 24,” Justice S C Gupte had said. 

Justice S C Gupte had also noted that the lower court’s judgment did not even include the prosecution’s case. 

Highlighting the sessions court’s sheer lack of understanding of a sexual assault survivor’s post-trauma conduct, and attacks on her character, the BJP government in Goa had contended that the order warranted a retrial. 

“(The court) considered the evidence given by defence witnesses as gospel truth, but at the same time discredited without any finding the evidence given by the victim and the prosecution witnesses,” the government said back then. 

Tarun Tejpal’s ‘apology email’ to the sexual assault survivor 

In late November 2013, Tehelka’s Tarun Tejpal had purportedly written an email to his journalist colleague who filed the sexual assault case against him. 

In his purported email, Tejpal had admitted a “shameful lapse of judgement” that led him to attempt a sexual liaison with the survivor on two occasions. 

“It wrenches me beyond describing, therefore, to accept that I have violated that long-standing relationship of trust and respect between us and I apologise unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on 7 November and 8 November 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me,” Tejpal wrote. 

“…I know you feel I used my position as Editor, Tehelka to force my attention on you, and I acknowledge that I did at one point say to your contention that I was your boss, “That makes it simpler,” but I do want to put on record that the moment those words escaped my lips, I retracted them saying “I withdraw that straight away – no relationship of mine has anything at all, ever, to do with that,” it added. 

Tejpal had reportedly described his alleged indulgence in sexual predation as a “moment of insanity”. 

“I have often spoken for the absolute rights and freedoms of women, and it shames me beyond words, to find myself located in this awful context. I would say it was a moment of insanity, except that would mean evading responsibility for it, and that I will not do. I hold myself, first and last, accountable,” he purportedly wrote back in November 2013. 

“In extreme contrition, I would like you to know that but for this unconscionable lapse, that man still exists and holds you in highest regard. If an apology can heal, please consider this an unconditional one,” he concluded. 

Tarun Tejpal had received support from Congress leaders 

Following his acquittal by the lower court in May 2021, Tarun Tejpal issued an official statement thanking people who helped him with the legal fight. 

“In these 8 years a host of outstanding lawyers came to our aid, and we owe them all a deep debt, prime among them Pramod Dubey, Aamir Khan, Ankur Chawla, Amit Desai, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, Aman Lekhi, Sandeep Kapoor, Raian Karanjewala, and Shrikant Shivade,” Tejpal said. 

In September 2021, Congress MP Manish Tewari had even claimed that Tarun Tejpal was ‘politically persecuted’ and that he has been “honourably exonerated”. 

“My college Senior the much maligned, hugely politically persecuted &now honourably exonerated, the brilliant & mercurial Tarun Tejpal has written this teaser of his new book Animal Farm. Tarun at his evocative & provocative best. Welcome back friend,” he posted on X. 

Tewari had faced backlash for backing Tejpal and disregarding the seriousness of the allegations against him. 

Not for CJP protest, Aishe Ghosh was picked up in a 2021 case after repeated court no-shows: How the Left twisted the narrative

Aditi
-
0
Not for CJP protest, Aishe Ghosh was picked up in a 2021 case after repeated court no-shows: How the Left twisted the narrative

A Delhi Court on Thursday (30th July) stayed the non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued against Communist and Students Federation of India (SFI) leader Aishe Ghosh in connection with a 2021 criminal case. The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Vijayshree Rathore of the Patiala House courts, a day after the Delhi Police arrived at the New Delhi office of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) to execute the non-bailable warrants issued against Ghosh.

The non-bailable warrants were issued by the court after Ghosh failed to appear before the court during the last hearing of the case. Advocates KN Jayasankar and Subhash Chandran KR, representing Ghosh, moved an application before JMFC Rathore, stating that she could not appear on the last date of the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances. Subsequently, Ghosh was granted relief by the court.

However, the Communist cabal distorted the facts, as usual, and grabbed the opportunity to cast aspersions on the Delhi police and the Modi government, claiming that the police action was motivated by Ghosh’s involvement in the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests. Despite the Delhi Police’s clarification that the investigating officer showed up at the CPI-M office to execute court-issued non-bailable warrants in the 2021 case, the CPI-M alleged that the police targeted Ghosh for supporting the student protests.

The CPI-M posted a video of the incident on X and described the police action as a “brazen intrusion”. The party portrayed a completely valid police action as illegitimate and unlawful and misrepresented it as an attempt by the Modi government to stifle students’ voices.

What is the case against Aishe Ghosh?

The case relates to an agitation held by the SFI and the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) members on February 12, 2021, outside Banga Bhawan in Chanakyapuri. The agitation was organised against an alleged police crackdown on student unions and youth protestors in Kolkata for opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens (CAA-NRC).

According to police, the protest was held in a prohibited area in violation of prohibitory orders. The police said that the protesters raised slogans and blocked the road, refusing to disperse despite clear directions. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the police at Barakhamba Road Police Station against Aishe Ghosh and 15 others, under sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 34 (common intention), and 447 (criminal trespass) of the Indian Penal Code, the same day. The case arising from the FIR is being heard at the Patiala House Courts complex. OpIndia accessed court documents related to the case. FIR in the case was not publicly available.

Multiple non-bailable warrants issued by the court against Ghosh

The case has been going on for about six years and has not yet reached the stage of final judgment. Multiple bailable and non-bailable warrants have been issued by the court against Ghosh since the commencement of the trial to secure her presence on the hearing dates. A total of six bailable warrants and four non-bailable warrants have been issued by the court so far.

A court issues bailable warrants after an accused repeatedly fails to appear and respond to court summons. It is issued by the court when an accused fails to appear before the court, but the court does not yet consider detention necessary. A bailable warrant is a less coercive way than a non-bailable warrant of securing the appearance of an accused before the court. It allows the police to arrest the accused but allows the person to be released on bail after fulfilling the conditions specified in the warrant, without having to be produced before the court first.

However, if the accused does not respond to bailable warrants, the court then goes on to issue non-bailable warrants. A non-bailable warrant directs the police to arrest the accused without giving them the discretion to release the accused on bail without being produced before the court. The accused, however, can file an application requesting the court to cancel or withdraw the non-bailable warrant. This is what Aishe Ghosh has been repeatedly doing. She has been ignoring the court’s summonses and bailable and non-bailable warrants. Whenever the court issues non-bailable warrants against Ghosh, she appears before the court and requests cancellation.

The non-bailable warrants that the Delhi police went to execute at the CPI-M office were issued by the court on April 11, 2026, after noting that the warrants issued against her on December 12, 2025, had been returned without being executed. The reason the warrants were returned to the court is that Ghosh was not found at her given address, even though she was informed on a call about the date of the hearing. Subsequently, the court went on to issue the warrants against her through the Deputy Commissioner of police.

A perusal of the court records shows that Ghosh and her counsel have not appeared before the court since August 2024. The court has issued multiple bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants against Ghosh due to her non-cooperation in the trial. She has repeatedly failed to appear on the dates of hearing, causing delays in the trial of the case.

The Leftist modus operandi of delaying trial

What Aishe Ghosh has been doing in her criminal trial is a classic leftist tactic for delaying court proceedings. We have seen this happen in the case of Delhi anti-Hindu riots accused like Umar Khalid, who engineered delays and indulged in forum shopping to secure bail.

Umar Khalid’s applications were rejected by both the District Court and the High Court. After a gap of six months, he approached the Supreme Court requesting bail. His bail hearing was adjourned 14 times, out of which 7 times it was Umar Khalid and his legal team (Kapil Sibal) who had requested the adjournment.

Subsequently, Kapil Sibal withdrew Umar Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court, citing a ‘change in circumstances’, saying that he would “try his luck” in the Sessions Court. The Delhi High Court, while rejecting Khalid’s bail plea, saw through his tactics and refused to allow the legal procedure to be exploited and misused.

Khalid had been delaying his own trial while his lawyers kept blaming the slow pace of the proceedings for his prolonged incarceration. One wonders why a person languishing in jail would delay his own trial while claiming innocence before the court. Why would an accused who is sure of his innocence want to delay the judgment in his case, which could acquit him and set him free? This is only possible when the accused has a guilty conscience and is aware that his acts will be laid bare and he will have to face justice once the judgment is delivered.

1...262728...7,651Page 27 of 7,651