Home Blog Page 274

India rejects unilateral order by International court on the Indus Water Treaty that favours Pakistan’s argument, says the tribunal itself is a violation of IWT

Anurag
-
0
India rejects unilateral order by International court on the Indus Water Treaty that favours Pakistan’s argument, says the tribunal itself is a violation of IWT

On 27th June, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, issued a strong rebuttal to what it called an “illegal Court of Arbitration” seated in The Hague, Netherlands, which had released a “supplemental award” regarding the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The MEA labelled the tribunal as “purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, albeit in brazen violation of it.”

Pakistan had run to The Hague hoping to force India’s hand on the Treaty after India suspended its obligations post the Pahalgam terror attack. But with India refusing to even acknowledge the tribunal’s legitimacy, yet another Pakistani bluff stands thoroughly busted. India has made it clear that it has never recognised the legality of the tribunal.

India unequivocally stated that the very formation of the arbitral body represents a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and renders all its proceedings and so-called awards “illegal and per se void”. The Government of India further asserted that after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, it had invoked its sovereign rights under international law to place the Treaty in abeyance until Pakistan credibly ceases its support for cross-border terrorism.

India further noted that there is no obligation under the Indus Waters Treaty that is currently binding on India. India pointed out that the illegitimate tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever to examine India’s sovereign decision. The MEA dismissed the “supplemental award” as just another facet of Pakistan’s desperate attempt to distract the global community from its role as a hub of international terrorism.

What the Court said in its supplemental award

On 27th June, the so-called Court of Arbitration issued a Supplemental Award on Competence favouring Pakistan. This was in response to India’s formal declaration made in April 2025, following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, that the Indus Waters Treaty would be held in abeyance. The arbitral panel rejected India’s position in a unanimous decision and claimed that the treaty remains binding. The court further claimed that it has jurisdiction in the matter to tell India it cannot step back from the treaty.

The so-called court ruled that India’s unilateral decision to hold the treaty in abeyance does not affect the court’s competence, regardless of how that decision is characterised, whether as suspension under international law or otherwise. The court cited both the treaty text and customary international law and claimed that the Indus Waters Treaty cannot be held in abeyance or suspended unilaterally by either party. It further claimed that the jurisdiction of a court, once properly seized, cannot be defeated by post-hoc actions of a party.

Citing Article IX of the treaty, the court claimed that the dispute resolution process is a binding mechanism meant to function regardless of the political developments in either of the countries. The court also asserted that this reasoning applied similarly to any proceedings involving the Neutral Expert appointed in the parallel case by India. It said the ongoing work of both dispute resolution mechanisms must continue “in a timely, efficient, and fair manner”.

Interestingly, India did not submit any formal argument before the court in this phase, which led the court to base its assessment on the public statements and diplomatic communications originating from New Delhi. Not to forget, India has submitted only one reply throughout the case, which was initially submitted in 2016 by Pakistan. India has stood firm on its stance that the whole process was illegal and was against the provisions of the treaty.

In short, the Supplemental Award reaffirms the court’s stance that it retains full authority over the dispute concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, despite India’s sovereign decision to no longer consider the treaty binding amid ongoing cross-border terror activities sponsored and supported by Pakistan.

Pakistan’s 11 June submission – Using PO 15 to prop up a tribunal India never recognised

The Supplemental Award issued by the so-called Court of Arbitration on 27th June did not emerge in a vacuum. It was directly precipitated by Procedural Order No 15, which was issued by the court to India and Pakistan on 16th May 2025 in response to India’s declaration that it would place the treaty “in abeyance with immediate effect” in light of the Pahalgam terrorist attack. The order asked both parties to make formal submissions by 6th June on whether these developments had any bearing on the ongoing arbitration proceedings or on the competence of the Court or the Neutral Expert.

As India does not recognise the Court of Arbitration, there was no formal response sent. India has maintained that the very constitution of this court, running parallel to the Neutral Expert process, is in violation of Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty. Hence, India did not recognise its jurisdiction. India has categorically refused to give even a shred of legitimacy to what it calls “a fabricated arbitration mechanism at Pakistan’s behest”.

On the other hand, Pakistan responded to the court’s invitation with a comprehensive submission on 11th June 2025, seizing the opportunity to exploit the moment and revive its legal offensive. In its filing, Pakistan argued that India’s declaration of abeyance had no legal effect under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty, nor under international law.

Pakistan cited paragraph 16 of Annexure G of the treaty, which gives the court sole authority to decide on matters of its competence, and claimed that no unilateral declaration by India can suspend, delay, or dissolve the proceedings once they had commenced.

Furthermore, Pakistan asserted that the treaty has no provision allowing either party to place it in abeyance or suspend its operation on national security grounds. The submissions conveniently ignored the context of the cross-border terrorism that prompted India’s decision. Instead, Pakistan portrayed it as a “tactic” to obstruct arbitration. It argued that permitting such a suspension would amount to handing a veto to either party, undermining what it called the Treaty’s “compulsory third-party dispute resolution mechanism”.

Pakistan also requested the court to take note of India’s absence from the submission process and urged it to proceed ex parte, that is, proceed with the case without India’s participation. It effectively demanded that the court continue hearing the matter and issue decisions regardless of India’s opposition, refusal to appear, or its sovereign decision to suspend its treaty obligations.

This was a calculated move as Pakistan used the Procedural Order, which was meant to take stock of a serious diplomatic and security escalation, to instead corner the tribunal into reaffirming its own authority. Pakistan cleverly responded within the framework of the tribunal’s own rules, which India does not recognise, and manufactured a legal context where the court could declare India’s decision illegal and continue its proceedings in “a timely, efficient, and fair manner”.

The outcome of Pakistan’s move to reply to the Procedural Order of the Court of Arbitration, which India does not recognise as a legal entity, reflected only one side’s version of legality, that of Pakistan’s. The 27th June Supplemental Award ignored the foundational issue of the court’s own illegitimacy, which India has raised from day one.

The entire episode illustrated how Pakistan continued to exploit international mechanisms. It does not seek honest resolution but wants to indulge in legal warfare aimed at constraining India’s sovereign rights while evading accountability for terror exported across the border.

India’s 2022 letter to the World Bank – A firm and reasoned rejection of the arbitration court’s legitimacy

In October 2022, India sent a comprehensive formal communication to the World Bank, which comprised a covering letter and a detailed explanatory note, making its position perfectly clear. India stated that the so-called Court of Arbitration, constituted at Pakistan’s behest, is illegal and that it violated the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. India further asserted that it was entirely created without any jurisdiction in the matter.

India’s objection was based on a procedural violation with far-reaching legal consequences. According to Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty, disputes between India and Pakistan are to be resolved in a stepwise, escalating manner. It should begin with bilateral talks, followed by Neutral Expert proceedings for technical matters, and only reach arbitration if both parties agree, or if the Neutral Expert explicitly determines that the matter falls beyond his mandate. The Treaty makes it absolutely clear that the Neutral Expert process and arbitration are not to run in parallel.

India highlighted that Pakistan initiated both the Neutral Expert process and the Court of Arbitration on the same set of issues, that is, technical objections to the design features of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. The double approach adopted by Pakistan was not only a breach of the Treaty’s letter and spirit but also a cynical attempt at forum shopping to secure a favourable outcome.

Notably, India had consented in good faith to the Neutral Expert process, which is a mechanism that had worked in the past, especially during the previous Kishenganga dispute. However, India was taken aback when Pakistan simultaneously moved to activate arbitration proceedings. India bluntly stated that it never gave its consent to the establishment of a Court of Arbitration and that no condition precedent under the Treaty for arbitration was satisfied.

In short, the creation of the court while Neutral Expert proceedings were pending constituted a “legal nullity”. India warned the World Bank that facilitating this tribunal, especially when a Neutral Expert had already been appointed and had accepted the assignment, would place the Bank in material breach of its own role under the Treaty. Notably, India pointed out that the World Bank is strictly an impartial facilitator of the Treaty between India and Pakistan and not an adjudicator.

The Explanatory Note – Clause-by-clause dismantling of the arbitration move

India’s Explanatory Note, attached to the letter, served as a clause-by-clause rebuttal of the rationale behind the arbitration. India noted that Annexure G of the Treaty, which governs arbitration, applies only when the Neutral Expert process has either failed or has been exhausted. Furthermore, Annexure F, which governs the Neutral Expert process, was still active, with the Neutral Expert having been appointed and preparing to conduct a site visit.

India further stated that the existence of the Neutral Expert process made the parallel arbitration proceeding “jurisdictionally defective, procedurally premature, and fundamentally incompatible” with the Treaty. Furthermore, India’s participation in the Neutral Expert process could not, and should not, be misrepresented as tacit consent to arbitration.

India also noted that it had engaged in good faith dialogue and communication at every stage, including with the World Bank, to avoid an institutional split. However, Pakistan’s refusal to cooperate with the Neutral Expert process and its insistence on arbitration had manufactured a legal crisis, one that could jeopardise the very dispute resolution framework the Treaty was built upon.

A warning to the World Bank – Do not enable a Treaty violation

The 2022 letter served as a firm caution to the World Bank. India reminded the Bank of its limited role under the Treaty, that it has to act as a facilitator in the appointment of a Neutral Expert or arbitrators only when either party has failed to do so. India further pointed out that the World Bank had no mandate to determine the sequencing or permissibility of dispute resolution tracks. By entertaining Pakistan’s demand to constitute a court, that too when a Neutral Expert was active, the World Bank would essentially be enabling a breach of the Treaty’s fundamental architecture.

India emphasised that if the World Bank proceeded with actions recognising or enabling the arbitral tribunal, India would consider the Bank to have abdicated its neutrality, thereby compromising the credibility of the dispute resolution system under the Treaty.

Notably, India mentioned that while it asked for Neutral Expert proceedings, Pakistan asked for Court of Arbitration. Without considering the set rules in the treaty, the World Bank initiated both processes simultaneously which was against the rules. World Bank had paused both the proceedings in 2016 and the pause was lifted in 2022 after Neutral Expert was appointed and panel for the Court of Aribitration was formed.

The foundation of India’s continued rejection

The 2022 letter remains the foundational articulation of India’s position on the matter of the Court of Arbitration. India explained in the letter that while it continues to fully cooperate with the Neutral Expert proceedings, it has boycotted the so-called Court of Arbitration. All subsequent statements issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, including its categorical rejection of the June 2025 Supplemental Award, have reiterated the same legal stance that India made explicitly in its first and last communication on the matter with the World Bank.

Pakistan’s arbitration request – A deliberate bypass of the Treaty’s dispute resolution framework

Looking at the history of Pakistan’s efforts to initiate arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty, it formally began with the request for arbitration made on 19th August 2016. In February 2023, Pakistan sent an amended request for the same. Pakistan sought to escalate its objections to India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects to a Court of Arbitration. India has seen the move as not only premature but also a deliberate violation of the Treaty’s sequential dispute resolution framework.

According to Article IX and Annexures F and G of the Treaty, parties must first engage in bilateral negotiations. If unresolved, technical disputes may be referred to a Neutral Expert. Only under specific circumstances, either when both parties agree or when the Neutral Expert explicitly states that the dispute lies outside his mandate, may arbitration be invoked. In this case, none of these preconditions were fulfilled, making Pakistan’s arbitration request not just flawed but entirely inadmissible under the Treaty’s rules.

In its 2016 request for arbitration, Pakistan alleged that India’s hydroelectric projects violated the Treaty’s provisions by including drawdown flushing and other design features that allegedly impacted Pakistan’s rights as a lower riparian state. It asserted that the matter involved legal interpretations and was therefore unsuitable for the Neutral Expert mechanism, which traditionally addresses technical disputes.

However, this claim was misleading on multiple fronts. The dispute was already before a Neutral Expert at Pakistan’s own request in 2015, and that process had not reached any conclusion. Furthermore, the features objected to by Pakistan, particularly drawdown flushing, had previously been adjudicated in the 2007 Kishenganga arbitration, which had ruled largely in India’s favour, validating its design approach under specific operational constraints.

Instead of waiting for the Neutral Expert’s assessment or exhausting bilateral avenues, Pakistan abruptly requested arbitration, undermining the very architecture of the Treaty. This dual-track approach was not only unprecedented but tactically motivated. Pakistan sought to create parallel legal forums to pressure India diplomatically and to confuse procedural timelines. It was an abuse of process dressed up as legal recourse.

In 2023, when Pakistan submitted the amended request, it argued that India’s continued work on the Kishenganga and Ratle projects constituted a breach of the Treaty’s core obligations. It claimed that the Court of Arbitration should adjudicate the legality of India’s project designs and went further to question India’s compliance with the previous decision of the 2007 tribunal. Notably, India had adjusted its Kishenganga project to align with the 2007 ruling, a fact that Pakistan conveniently ignored.

Crucially, Pakistan again refused to acknowledge the Neutral Expert mechanism, even though India was fully engaged in that process. The amended request ignored the fact that both parties had already appointed experts and that Pakistan had unilaterally walked out of site visits, an act of procedural sabotage intended to portray the technical process as dysfunctional, thereby justifying arbitration.

Pakistan’s actions were not those of a treaty-abiding party seeking resolution. Rather, they were part of a calculated legal offensive to internationalise a bilateral issue, generate political pressure, and delegitimise India’s sovereign rights over development in its own Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

India’s objections and the court’s arguments against them

India has firmly maintained that the Court of Arbitration was illegally constituted. It further asserted that the court has no authority to determine its own competence. India argued that, according to the Treaty, arbitration must follow only after exhausting the Neutral Expert route, which was not done.

India further objected that no valid dispute under Article IX(2) had arisen and that Pakistan’s procedural steps were flawed and premature. India also pointed out that when Pakistan initiated arbitration in 2016, the matter was already being examined under the Neutral Expert mechanism, making any parallel arbitration impermissible. Moreover, India questioned the legitimacy of the tribunal’s formation and claimed there was no “necessity” for arbitration under the Treaty framework.

However, the court rejected the objections and held that under Annexure G of the Treaty, it had the authority to rule on its own competence. It claimed that India’s original acceptance of the Treaty implicitly meant it accepted this clause. The court claimed that a dispute had arisen once the Commission failed to resolve the matter, and that no formal Neutral Expert request had been made by India before Pakistan’s arbitration move.

It also claimed that Pakistan’s actions fulfilled procedural requirements and that the tribunal’s composition was valid, noting that India’s delayed arbitrator appointments were still honoured. Regarding the “necessity” objection, the court stated that no such condition exists in Annexure G and that India’s later activation of the Neutral Expert process did not block the arbitration. The court dismissed India’s argument that parallel proceedings violated the Treaty, claiming both mechanisms could continue simultaneously.

The Court, interestingly, ignored the very structure and sequencing prescribed by the Indus Waters Treaty. Article IX and Annexures F and G clearly mandate a step-wise process. It should start with bilateral negotiation, followed by Neutral Expert determination for technical disputes, and arbitration only as a last resort.

The Court’s assertion that a dispute had arisen simply because the Commission failed to resolve it is misleading, as Pakistan had itself referred the matter to a Neutral Expert in 2015, and India had engaged in that process in good faith. At the time Pakistan initiated arbitration in 2016, no Neutral Expert determination had been made, nor had the Neutral Expert declared the dispute outside his mandate, as required under Annexure F(8)(a) for arbitration to be triggered.

The Court’s claim that India’s original acceptance of the Treaty meant automatic consent to any arbitration defies the conditional framework of Article IX(6). The Treaty explicitly prohibits simultaneous proceedings, and Pakistan’s move to initiate arbitration while the Neutral Expert process was ongoing amounted to forum shopping and procedural sabotage.

The Court’s defence of its own competence by citing Annexure G(16) fails, as that clause applies only to a lawfully constituted tribunal, a status India never recognised due to the procedural violation. Thus, the Court’s arguments rest on a selective reading of the Treaty and disregard both its text and spirit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, India’s stand on the so-called Court of Arbitration is rooted in law, logic, and treaty integrity. Pakistan’s repeated attempts to bypass the agreed dispute resolution process reflect not a quest for justice but a tactic to internationalise a bilateral issue and obstruct India’s sovereign development rights. By refusing to legitimise a flawed and politically motivated process, India has upheld both the spirit and the structure of the Indus Waters Treaty.


With record 15,000 Megawatts capacity, Adani Green becomes India’s largest and fastest capacity addition company

ANI
-
0
With record 15,000 Megawatts capacity, Adani Green becomes India’s largest and fastest capacity addition company

Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL) has achieved a significant milestone by surpassing 15,000 megawatts (MW) of operational capacity, specifically reaching 15,539.9 MW.

According to the Adani group, this accomplishment marks the fastest and largest capacity addition in India to date. The operational portfolio includes ~11,005.5 MW of solar, ~1,977.8 MW of wind, and ~2,556.6 MW of wind-solar hybrid capacity.

AGEL is the first and only renewable energy company in India to attain this landmark achievement, primarily through greenfield projects.

Gautam Adani, Chairman, Adani Group, posted on X, “Delighted to share that Adani Green has surpassed 15,000 MW of renewable energy capacity, marking the largest and fastest green energy build-out in India’s history. From the desert landscapes of Khavda to a proud place among the world’s Top 10 Green Power Producers, this milestone is more than a number. It reflects our commitment to the planet and our resolve to drive India’s green resurgence! #HumKarkeDikhateHain”.


Ashish Khanna, CEO, AGEL, said, “Inspired by Mr Gautam Adani’s ambition to position Adani as the global leader in renewable energy, AGEL is committed to setting new benchmarks in innovation and operational excellence–proving that clean energy can be delivered at unprecedented scale and speed. We aim to accelerate even faster from 15,000 MW to 50,000 MW by 2030, remaining steadfast in our mission to power India and the world with sustainable energy solutions.”

AGEL’s 15,539.9 MW operational portfolio can power approximately 7.9 million households. The clean energy produced can light up thirteen individual Indian states. AGEL’s operational portfolio can power the entire northeast region with renewable energy.

The milestone coincides with AGEL completing 10 years of powering India with clean and affordable energy at unmatched speed and scale.
Adani Green Energy is developing the world’s largest renewable energy plant of 30,000 MW on the barren wasteland at Khavda in Kutch, Gujarat. Built across 538 sq km, it is five times the size of Paris and will be even visible from space.

Once complete, it will be the planet’s largest power plant across all energy sources. AGEL has operationalised a cumulative capacity of 5,355.9 MW of renewable energy at Khavda so far. The accelerated progress at Khavda underscores AGEL’s commitment to India’s goal of 500 GW non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030.

AGEL’s entire operational portfolio is certified as water positive. AGEL has been ranked 1st in the National Stock Exchange’s (NSE) Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings for the power sector and in the FTSE Russell ESG score in the Alternative Electricity Subsector globally.

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

Kolkata: CCTV footage shows law student, raped by TMC leader, was dragged into the college, police recreate crime scene

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Kolkata: CCTV footage shows law student, raped by TMC leader, was dragged into the college, police recreate crime scene

A CCTV clip has emerged in the South Calcutta Law College gangrape case, verifying crucial facts of the survivor’s complaint.

The video, according to reports, depicts the 24-year-old law student being dragged from the college gate into the campus against her will by two of the accused.

The movement of the prime accused Manojit Mishra, the two other accused, the security guard, and the victim is also seen on the footage, according to Kolkata Police sources.

Officials stated that the footage is being closely analysed by the officials now. A 90-second video has also been found showing the assault on the accused’s phone and is being checked by the experts.

Four arrests have been made so far 

The crime was committed on Wednesday, 25th june in the guard room of the college situated in the Kasba area of Kolkata.

According to the complaint of the survivor, she was gangraped by Manojit Mishra, a senior student and a student leader of Trinamool Congress (TMC) student wing, when she turned down his proposal of marriage.

Two other students were said to have been present at the time of the crime and recorded the act so that they could blackmail her later. The survivor had visited the campus to fill up an exam form and was taken to the guard’s room against her will.

She lodged a police complaint on Thursday, 26th June, a day after the incident.

Four individuals have been arrested so far in relation to the case: Mishra, students Promit Mukherjee and Zaid Ahmed, and the security guard Pinaki Banerjee who allegedly let the act occur and failed to assist the woman.

Police recreate crime scene

A medical check-up of the survivor has established gangrape. Physicians identified evidence of forceful penetration, bites, and scratch marks on her body.

The survivor was taken by the police to the college on Saturday to reenact the timeline of events. Investigation is now being carried out by a five-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by an officer of assistant commissioner rank.

In another development, BJP president JP Nadda has formed a four-member committee which will visit the state to investigate the matter and submit its findings, the party’s national spokesperson Sambit Patra said.

TMC under fire for party leaders’ remarks

The case has caused huge public outrage and political unrest in West Bengal. Controversial remarks by top TMC leaders have fuelled the fire.

MP Kalyan Banerjee remarked, “If a friend rapes a friend, what can be done? Will police be in schools?” MLA Madan Mitra seemed to blame the survivor, remarking, “If that girl hadn’t gone there, this incident wouldn’t have happened.”

These comments have been universally condemned, including by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, who stated, “Misogyny in India transcends party lines. What makes us different is that we strongly condemn such repulsive remarks whoever utters them.”

The case has not only thrown serious questions on the safety of women but has also brought to light internal fissures within the ruling party, mere months before the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.

Cumilla rape case: Father rubbishes claims of ‘extra marital relationship’, used to character assassinate victim, police dismisses rumours about woman’s death

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Cumilla rape case: Father rubbishes claims of ‘extra marital relationship’, used to character assassinate victim, police dismisses rumours about woman’s death

Days after a Hindu woman was raped by a BNP leader named Fazor Ali in in Muradnagar upazila in the Cumilla district of Bangladesh, the victim’s father has dismissed claims of ‘extra marital relationship’. These allegations are being used by extremists to downplay the heinous crime and shame the victim online..

On Sunday (30th June), he spoke to Hindu activist and lawyer, Sumon Kumar Roy, about the matter. The victim’s father clarified, “I had borrowed money from him (Fazor Ali) to conduct the wedding of my youngest daughter.”

He added that he took Taka 50000 as a loan from Fazor Ali and that the victim had no relationship with him. He pointed out that the victim lives with her in-laws in a far off village and does not even stay in vicinity of the accused.

Sumon Kumar Roy highlighted, “The victim had come here for 1-2 days. She lives with her in-laws. The incident occured at night when the family had gone to see the Rath Yatra. Fazor Ali exploited the opportunity and raped her.”

The victim’s father nodded in affirmation. He informed that he does not know the identity of the men who recorded the explicit video of the victim and circulated it on social media.

The victim’s father said that he did not withdraw the case and is under no pressure. Sumon Kumar Roy pointed out that there is no provision to withdraw cases. He reassured the victim’s father and promised all possible help in the matter.

In the meantime, he also reached out to Muradnagar Police OC Jahadur Rahman. Sumon Kumar Roy informed the police officer about social media claims that the victim was in an extramarital relationship with Fazor Ali.

He also highlighted rumours about the victim’s death. Muradnagar Police OC Jahadur Rahman stated that claims about the suicide of the woman are false and baseless.

“The woman had filed a fresh case just a while ago,” he added.

The Background of the Case

On Thursday (26th June), a prominent leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) named Fazor Ali forcibly broke into the house of a Hindu woman and then raped her at knifepoint.

The incident occurred in Ramchandrapur Panchkitta village in Muradnagar upazila in the Cumilla district of the country. According to reports, the victim is 21 years old and the mother of 2 children. Her husband works and lives in Dubai.

The victim had been residing in her paternal house for about 2 weeks. Fazor Ali had been stalking her from the time she had been staying there.

On Thursday (26th June), when the family members of the victim went to a local fair, the BNP leader seized the opportunity to break into his house and rape her at knifepoint.

When the victim screamed for help, locals rushed to the crime scene and detained Fazor Ali. But he managed to flee.

The victim was taken to the Cumilla Medical College Hospital for medical examination. A disturbing video of the incident has now gone viral on social media. The victim filed a complaint with the Muradnagar police on Friday (27th June).

A case was registered under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000. The police first arrested 4 people for sharing the explicit video of the victim on social media.

On Sunday (29th June), the cops apprehended Fazor Ali and 4 other accused in connection to the rape of the 21-year-old Hindu woman. In the meantime, legal action is being taken against all 5 men.

BJP begins internal organisational elections, state unit presidents to be appointed first before election of national president

ANI
-
0
BJP begins internal organisational elections, state unit presidents to be appointed first before election of national president

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has initiated its internal organisational elections, beginning with the appointment of state unit presidents across the country.

According to party sources, the election process in most states is expected to be completed within the next three weeks, while in states like Jharkhand, it is likely to conclude by the end of August.

Several states are expected to elect their state unit presidents within the coming week. Following the election of presidents in at least five states, the process to select the national president will commence.

As per the BJP’s constitution, district presidents are elected after elections are held in half of the party’s mandals (blocks), state presidents are chosen after elections in half of the districts, and the national president is elected only after state presidents have been appointed in at least half of the states.

So far, the BJP has appointed new state presidents in 14 states, while organisational elections are required in a total of 37 states and Union Territories. This indicates that state presidents still need to be appointed in at least 19 more regions.

The BJP will announce the names of the new state presidents for Uttarakhand and Maharashtra on July 1. Union Minister Harsh Malhotra has been designated as the election officer for Uttarakhand, while Union Minister Kiren Rijiju will act as the returning officer for Maharashtra.

Next week, the BJP is expected to announce state unit presidents in several more states, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Gujarat.

The term of the BJP’s national president JP Nadda officially ended in January 2023. However, in view of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the party leadership extended his tenure until June 2024. With the general elections now concluded and the organisational election process gaining momentum, the appointment of a new national president is likely to take place soon.

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

Bangladesh: Hindu woman raped at knifepoint in Cumilla wants to withdraw the case saying she wants peace in the country

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Bangladesh: Hindu woman raped at knifepoint in Cumilla wants to withdraw the case saying she wants peace in the country

Days after a man broke into the house of a Hindu woman and then raped her at knifepoint in Cumilla, the victim has now said that she wants to withdraw the case. The horrific crime had created massive outrage in both India and Bangladesh after some people had video recorded the crime and posted the video on social media.

The police have already arrested the main accused Fazar Ali, a Bangladesh Nationalist Party leader, and 4 other people for sharing the explicit video of the victim on social media. The police action came after the victim woman herself lodged a complaint against Fazar Ali with the police at in Muradnagar Upazila of Cumilla.

But in a sudden twist in the case, the Hindu woman on Sunday said that she wants to withdraw the case, as she wants peace in the country. She said, “I will withdraw the case filed against Fazar Ali. No one has put any pressure on me to withdraw this case. I do not want Fazor Ali to be tried, I want peace in the country.” 

When further probed why she does not want to pursue the case, she said that she is doing it as per husband’s opinion. She said, “My husband says that whatever honor is lost, it is gone. If you file a case, it will not be recovered. So I will withdraw the case on my own free will.”

The incident took place on Thursday (June 26) night, when the woman was alone in her house in Baherchar Pachkitta village of Ramchandrapur Dakshin Union of the upazila. Her parents were out of the house, while her husband works and lives in Dubai.

Fazor Ali came to the house and asked her to open the door. When she did not open the door, the accused entered the house by breaking open the door and then raped her. Hearing her screams, the neighbors rushed to the house, thrashed Fazar Ali, and detained him. Some of them also made a video of the crime, showing the victim momentarily without cloths, and uploaded the same on social media. Ali then managed to escape from there. Later when a complaint was filed, police arrested him.

Bangladesh High Court has ordered the removal of video from social media platforms. The court also asked the authorities to ensure security of the rape survivor and provide necessary treatment to her. It is not confirmed yet whether the police will close the case based on the victim’s request as it is a criminal case.

Ujjain Love Jihad: Jafar and his friend were blackmailing a minor Hindu girl, members of Hindu group thrash them, case registered

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ujjain Love Jihad: Jafar and his friend were blackmailing a minor Hindu girl, members of Hindu group thrash them, case registered

Two Muslim men were beaten by a crowd including workers of a Hindu organization at the Premchhaya complex in Ujjain on Saturday, June 28. The activists alleged that one of the man had trapped a minor girl in a love jihad. One of the them had recorded her objectionable video and threatened to make it viral. He was also pressuring her to meet at his friend’s room.

According to Bajrang Dal worker Rishabh, the accused Jafar, a resident of KD Gate, was friends with a minor Hindu girl. After her engagement was fixed, Jafar allegedly began threatening her and pressuring her to come to his friend’s room. When the girl resisted, he threatened to make a video viral. He was pressuring her to meet at his friend’s room. She then approached Bajrang Dal and narrated the incident.

Members of the Hindu organization reportedly made a plan, using the girl to lure Jafar to the Premchhaya complex. Jafar arrived around 2:30 PM with his friend, Murdu shah (a resident of Loha Pul). Workers who were present at the spot immediately began beating both men. A crowd gathered during the incident, and several people recorded videos of the beatdown.

Dewasgate police station has registered a case against the accused under the section 64, 75(2), 78 and 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), section 3(i) and 3(ii) of POCSO Act and section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Acroachism) Act, 1989.

Surge in Love Jihad cases in Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh has witnessed a spike in love jihad cases over the past few months, with several incidents reported from cities including Bhopal, Ujjain, Indore, and Jabalpur.

In Bhopal, multiple women came forward accusing men of hiding their religious identity to enter relationships, later subjecting them to sexual exploitation and blackmail.

A disturbing case from Ujjain involved a gang of seven individuals accused of filming obscene videos of Hindu girls and forcing them into conversion. In Indore, a woman filed a police complaint stating she was tricked into a relationship under a false name and later threatened when she refused to convert.

In Indore Congress councilor Anwar Qadri was paying money to Muslim boys for trapping Hindu girls in Love Jihad.

Another case in Jabalpur made headlines when an interfaith couple faced severe social backlash and threats. Families of the victims allege a pattern of pre-planned deceit under the guise of romance. The recurring nature of these cases has sparked public concern across the state.

Puri Rath Yatra stampede: Odisha govt orders transfer of officials, two cops suspended, probe launched

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Puri Rath Yatra stampede: Odisha govt orders transfer of officials, two cops suspended, probe launched

The Odisha government has taken strict action after the tragic stampede near the Gundicha Temple in Puri. Chief Minister Mohan Majhi on Sunday directed the two top officials, District Collector Siddharth Shankar Swain and Superintendent of Police Vineet Agrawal, to be transferred immediately. Two top cops, DCP Bishnu Pati and Commandant Ajay Padhi, have also been suspended.

The government has ordered an administrative inquiry into the mishap, which will be headed by the Development Commissioner. The CM has also appointed the Khurda Collector Chanchal Rana as the new SP of Puri and STF DIG Pinak Mishra as the new Collector.

Three devotees killed, more than 50 injured 

The accident occurred early on Sunday, 29th June, around 4-5 AM, in the course of the annual Rath Yatra festival. Thousands of devotees had assembled close to the Gundicha Temple in Saradhabali to see the deities riding on their chariots when the stampede occurred.

Three individuals, two of them women, were killed, and more than 50 were injured. Some of the injured were children, while many fainted or were injured in the stampede.

State law minister Harichandan said that the Director General of Police (DGP) of Odisha is investigating the stampede, adding that stringent action against those responsible will be ensured. Odisha DGP YB Khurania said an investigation has been initiated into the incident.

CM Majhi apologises, announces ₹25 lakh for victims’ families

Terming the incident as “unpardonable,” CM Mohan Majhi felt sorry and asked for apology from the devotees. “I apologize on behalf of all devotees of Lord Jagannath,” he said. He also condoled the families of the deceased and wished them strength during this hard time.

The government has declared ₹25 lakh ex gratia for the kin of the victims and assured severe action against whoever will be found guilty of negligence.

Senior Daitapati servitor (sevayat) of the Puri Jagannath Temple, Ramakrishna Das Mahapatra, also expressed his condolences for the victims and urged the administration to ensure proper arrangements for the safety of devotees.

Puri’s titular king, Gajapati Maharaja Divyasingha Deb, expressed shock and sadness over the stampede and offered his condolences to bereaved families. He also urged the Odisha government to carry out a prompt, comprehensive inquiry into the stampede.

Reason behind the stampede

The stampede started when two trucks transporting ritual articles entered the already congested place close to the temple. With over 1,500 devotees collected along a 3-km road, the unexpected motion of vehicles resulted in panic.

Individuals started shoving and pushing in panic, and several fell on top of one another. Some were injured because of suffocation, and others were trampled in the stampede. Witnesses stated that inadequate crowd control and the presence of vehicles exacerbated the situation.

One of the residents also said that although VIPs were given a special entry, ordinary worshippers were compelled to take the exit through a longer path, which led to even more congestion at a single point. Poor traffic management further aggravated the problem.

Uttar Pradesh: Sahiba Bano becomes Khushi Tiwari to lure Hindu man after he disclosed his wealth in Aniruddhacharya’s show, then kills him with husband’s help to loot cash and jewellery

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Uttar Pradesh: Sahiba Bano becomes Khushi Tiwari to lure Hindu man after he disclosed his wealth in Aniruddhacharya’s show, then kills him with husband’s help to loot cash and jewellery

A woman named Sahiba Bano has been arrested by police in connection with the murder of a man named Indra Kumar Tiwari whom she lured into a fake marriage by posing as Khushi Tiwari to grab his property. As per reports, Sahiba Bano spotted 45-year-old Tiwari, a resident of Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh, in a viral video in which he was telling Hindu saint Aniruddhacharya that he owned 18 bighas of land but was unmarried.

The case came to light after police found Tiwari’s dead body in a drain in the Hata area of Uttar Pradesh’s Kushinagar on 6th June. Initially, the dead body remained unidentified, but later police matched it to a missing person’s case from Jabalpur. Police said that Tiwari was stabbed to death.

During the investigation, it was revealed that after coming to know about Tiwari’s property through the viral video, Bano hatched a plan with her husband Kaushal to grab Tiwari’s property. She adopted the fake identity of Khushi Tiwari and even forged a fake Aadhaar card. Kaushal, posing as Khushi’s brother, contacted Indra Kumar Tiwari and offered to marry off ‘his sister Khushi’ to him.

After this, Bano started talking to Indra Tiwari. On May 26, Kaushal reached Indrakumar’s village in Sohra, Madhya Pradesh with the wedding gifts, and the wedding was fixed on 5th June. However, Kaushal insisted that the wedding will take place at Gorakhpur, which Indra agreed.

Unaware of Bano and her husband’s conspiracy, Tiwari started preparations for the wedding. He bought jewellery worth lakhs for Bano and reached Gorakhpur carrying the jewellery cash, where Bano and her husband faked a wedding ceremony in a hotel to fool Tiwari. Indra Kumar even sent the photos of his wedding to his relatives in his village.

However, the next day when he asked his ‘wife’ to accompany him to his village, she refused. Bano told Tiwari that she first wanted to show him her village. Hours later, Bano and Kaushal killled Tiwari and dumped his body in a drain. They looted all the money and jewellery from Tiwari. Police said that Bano was planning to use the wedding photos to claim ownership of Tiwari’s land as his widow.

In Indra Kumar’s village, people got worried as there was no information of him after the wedding, and his phone was switched off. Therefore, he villagers informed Majhauli police about this. When the villagers went to Gorakhpur with the police to search for Indrakumar, they came to know that the police had recovered an unclaimed body and were trying to identify it. The villagers identified that it was Indra Kumar.

They also showed the police the wedding photos he had sent to them, based on which the police launched a search. The police were able to find and arrest them.

TMC issues show cause notice to party MLA Madan Mitra over his comments blaming the victim of law college rape case, says his comments were unnecessary and insensitive

OpIndia Staff
-
0
TMC issues show cause notice to party MLA Madan Mitra over his comments blaming the victim of law college rape case, says his comments were unnecessary and insensitive

Trinamool Congress on Sunday (June 29) issued a show-cause notice to senior party leader and Kamarhati MLA Madan Mitra for his controversial remarks regarding the rape of a student of South Calcutta Law College by a TMC functionary. Earlier on Saturday, Mitra had tried to blame the victim girl for the crime, saying that she should not have gone to the college alone.

Madan Mitra had said, “If that girl had not gone there, this wouldn’t have happened. If she had informed someone before going or had taken a couple of friends with her, then this wouldn’t have happened”. He further added, “The one who committed this dirty deed took advantage of the situation.”

Similarly, senior party leader and MP Kalyan Banerjee also made controversial comments on the case, as he said that the woman was raped by her friends. He had said, “What can be done if a friend rapes his friend. Will the police be in schools? This was done by students to another student. Who will protect her (victim)?”

Trinamool Congress then issued a statement distancing itself from the comments of both the leaders, saying that those were their personal remarks. After that, Madan Mitra issued a clarification on X, saying that he had no intention to shield the accused. He wrote that his “statement has been totally misled and misused by a motivated group”.

But the party was not convinced, and TMC’s state president Subrata Bakshi issued a served a show-cause notice to Mitra on Sunday. The notice stated that he has breached party discipline and his comments were unnecessary and insensitive.

The notice said, “Your unwanted, unnecessary and insensitive comments on 28th June 2025 in this regard have hurt the image of our party in every way. At the same time, your comments have gone against the strict stand of the party.”

Mitra has been asked to show cause within the next three days for this behaviour of breach of party discipline.

The notice also said that the top leadership of the party has expressed special sorrow over the very sensitive incident of sad and brutal torture and has strongly condemned this incident. It added, “The administration is taking necessary action. The miscreants have been identified and arrested promptly.”

1...273274275...7,603Page 274 of 7,603