Citizens in Germany will be able to alter their gender and first name once a year, every year, under a bill that is anticipated to prevail soon in the country. The ‘Self-Determination Act’ will allow anyone requesting a name and gender change to skip any type of surgical procedure, hormone therapy, or psychological consultation.
According to the reports, anyone who identifies as transgender, intersex, or non-binary will be allowed to alter their gender under the act by simply going to a register’s office and filling out a form. Individuals will no longer be required to submit a medical report or receive a court order to alter their name and gender under the bill, which is anticipated to pass in parliament before the summer recess.
“For the disabled, the law is humiliating. We will finally replace it with a modern law of self-determination. The Self-Determination Act will improve the lives of transgender people and recognize gender diversity. In many areas, society is further ahead of legislation. As a government, we have decided to create a legal framework for an open, diverse and modern society”, said Family Minister Lisa Paus.
This is almost a month after the German government announced plans to make it easier for transgender people to change their first name and gender officially, acknowledging that existing legislation was outdated and humiliating. On June 30, Paus while addressing a Berlin press conference said that the right to live a self-determined life is fundamental to everyone.
The proposed new regulation will replace Germany’s 40-year-old transsexual legislation, which requires persons to appear in court and produce two expert evaluations, primarily from psychotherapists, before they can legally recognize the name and gender they identify with. To note, Gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, will be formally codified as a basic right under the new Act. Reports mention that the condition, which was earlier known as a psychiatric disorder, will also be validated in the same way that same-sex desire is.
According to YouGov polls, 46 percent of Germans support the government’s proposals to recognize gender dysphoria as a valid identity. Only feminist organizations and the political party named Alternative for Germany (AfD) are opposing the measure, claiming that it would deprive women of their rights and safety.
AfD’s Stephan Brandner, a member of the German parliament spoke about the legislation to Summit News. “The legislation has nothing to do with freedom but is an expression of blatant denial of reality. In biology, laws cannot simply be ignored,” Brandner said. Meanwhile, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party of Germany has also spoken out against the proposal, claiming that it will lead to irrationality in how official papers identify people. According to the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the rule may make it easier for criminals to avoid police or creditors by altering their name and identity.
On August 4, Raja Uday Pratap Singh, the previous Raja of Bhadri estate and father of former Minister Raghuraj Pratap Singh, also known as Raja Bhaiya, began a protest against the establishment of a temporary Muharram gate in the Shekhpur Ashik region of Pratapgarh’s Kunda development block.
Uday Pratap Singh, father of politician Raja Bhaiya, sitting on dharna for removal of a gate which resembles a mosque structure in Shekhpura village in UP’s Pratapgarh district. pic.twitter.com/R0fYT9WRX8
“In Shekhpur village located at Kunda, Pratapgarh, Muslims have built a gate of the mosque across the road, on which many things are written in their language. They are forcing the Hindus to walk under it. We suggest that all Hindus complain to the chief minister that the gate should be removed immediately”, Uday Pratap Singh was quoted in a report.
According to the reports, demands put forth by the UP MLA’s father include the removal of the illegal Muharram gate and other establishments assembled by the Islamists in the region. “I will continue with the sit-in until the temporary gate is removed,” Uday Pratap Singh said on August 4. This is a day after his condition deteriorated due to no food and medicines. Immediately, a team from Kunda’s community health facility was dispatched for a medical check on Wednesday. The team reported that Uday Pratap Singh’s blood pressure readings were noted lower than normal.
Singh, whose father Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh was the founder and vice-chancellor of Pant Nagar Agriculture University and later the second governor of Himachal Pradesh state, reiterated his demand for the removal of the Muharram gate. He stated that the religious sentiments of Hindus were being hurt and that rituals from other religions were forcefully being imposed upon Hindus. “The administration and the police are taking no action against them (Islamists). When they are asked to take action against Hindus, they (Police) are quick. We’ll protest until all our demands are met”, he said.
District Magistrate Nitin Bansal, Superintendent of Police Satpal Antil, and other top local officials also rushed to the spot on Wednesday night to appease Uday Pratap Singh. He however refused to move from his position. Later, though he ate his meal and took his medicine, he refused to stop protesting, which continued on Thursday with the assistance of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Adhivakta Sangh, and several other shopkeepers.
Meanwhile, the All India Hindu Mahasabha (AIHM) has also extended its support to Raja Uday Pratap Singh. National spokesperson of Mahasabha Shishir Chaturvedi said that Raja Uday Pratap Singh has the full support of ‘All India Hindu Mahasabha’ and soon the delegation of Mahasabha will go to Pratapgarh. Chaturvedi also said that the district administration is doing Muslim appeasement. If the district administration does not stop this appeasement, Hindu Mahasabha would protest on the streets.
However, Kundra SDM Satish Chandra Tripathi said that the temporary gate is built every year during Muharram which is removed after the festival, and it is a part of the local custom. He said that both parties should talk to each other to resolve the dispute.
On Thursday, a single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court suspended the West Bengal Correctional Services Department’s order to deport four Rohingya illegal immigrants to Myanmar with immediate effect. The court has asked the government not to deport the Rohingyas till their plea is heard on the 10th of August. The 4 illegal Rohingya Muslim women and their 13 children were arrested while trying to infiltrate India from Bangladesh. They were sentenced by the trial court in the same year.
The single-judge bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya also ordered the state correctional services administration to provide the 4 Rohingya Muslim convicts with the necessary necessities.
According to the reports, the four Rohingyas are at present incarcerated at the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home in Kolkata’s northern suburbs. The 4 Rohingya women completed their sentence in 2019 and are now detained at the Correctional Home. The illegal Rohingya convicts had approached the court on the 31st of January. They had said that they do not want to be deported to Myanmar as they fear for their lives. Reportedly, they also said that their children are lodged in children’s homes across West Bengal.
The correctional home officials recently notified them that they would have to return to Myanmar on August 5th. In this regard, the Rohingya illegal immigrants on Thursday moved an urgent plea in front of Justice Bhattacharya’s bench. Justice Bhattacharya questioned the attorneys of both the Union and State governments if there was any explicit instruction on this matter.
Both Dhiraj Trivedi, the Union government’s attorney, and Anirban Roy, the state government’s counsel, stated that they were unaware of any such order. Following that, Justice Bhattacharya ruled that the four convicts could not be sent to Myanmar under the prevailing circumstances till their plea was heard. She further directed the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home administrators to provide for their basic living necessities until the issue of their repatriation is eventually resolved.
The case will be heard on August 10, 2022. Justice Bhattacharya directed the petitioners’ counsel to submit all relevant documents in the form of an affidavit by that date.
Amidst calls to boycott the movie ‘Lal Singh Chaddha’, Bollywood actor Aamir Khan has been forced to adopt a conciliatory tone.
The controversial actor, who now professes his love for India after witnessing the large-scale resentment among the public, had earlier mocked his audience. Following the release of his 2014 movie ‘PK’, Aamir Khan had snubbed his fans for objecting to the Hinduphobic nature of the film.
While speaking about the matter, he snobbishly remarked, “Mujhe lagta hai ki ya ek democracy hai aur haar aadmi ko apna vichar samne rakhna ka adhikaar hai (This is a democracy and everyone should have the right to express their opinion).
“Agar kisiko film nahin pasand aayi toh usko nahin dekhni chahiye (If someone does not like the movie, then, he should not watch it),” Aamir Khan had said then.
He had brushed off the criticism over PK by saying, “For every film, there will be a group that will protest.”
From telling his audience to not bother watching his film if they didn’t like to lamenting over boycott calls, life has come to a full circle for the Bollywood actor.
The sudden change of heart comes after several Hinduphobic films and movies made by such actors have tanked at the box office. Khan’s upcoming movie ‘Lal Singh Chaddha’ is set for theatrical release on August 11 this year.
It is notable here that Bollywood as a whole is reeling under a crisis, big budget movies have been biting dust one after another.
Netizens call for the boycott of Lal Singh Chaddha
Earlier, Hindus had called for the boycott of the actor’s movie over his comments about India. Lal Singh Chaddha is a remake of the Hollywood classic Forrest Gump. The actor, who is hailed by most of Bollywood and the mainstream media as a ‘perfectionist’, is also facing criticism for lacking original ideas and making movies that are copied from old Hollywood classics.
It may be recalled that while speaking at an award function in 2015, Aamir Khan said, “When I chat with Kiran at home, she says ‘Should we move out of India?’ That’s a disastrous and big statement for Kiran to make. She fears for her child (son Azad). She fears what the atmosphere around us will be. She feels scared to open the newspapers every day.”
— Sanjjaey Karamcheti ?? (@ksanjay28904199) July 27, 2022
Popular Twitter user Shefali Vaidya had asked, “When you can watch the original classic (Forrest Gump) for free, why waste money watching a trashy remake by a Hindu bashing actor? #BoycottLalSinghChaddha.”
When you can watch the original classic for free, why waste money watching a trashy remake by a Hindu bashing actor? #BoycottLalSinghChaddha
This is not the first time that #BoycottLaalSinghChaddha is trending on social media. The uproar began soon after the trailer of Khan’s movie was released in May this year. At that time, netizens had raked up Khan’s 2015 controversial statement and called him anti-Hindu and anti-India.
In April 2022, Elon Musk made a bid to buy Twitter offering USD 54.20 a share and vowing to loosen the company’s policing of content and root out fake accounts. Since then, however, the social media giant and the world’s richest man have been locked in a legal battle, as Musk claimed that Twitter breached several provisions of the acquisition and therefore, he would want to back out of the deal. Amidst the claims and counterclaims, Twitter filed its response on Thursday in Delaware Chancery Court, attempting to debunk the claims made by Elon Musk, explaining how Twitter failed to live up to acquisition terms.
While most of the filing by Elon Musk and the response by Twitter focussed on Musk’s foremost reason to back out from the deal – Musk saying that Twitter failed to disclose the number of spam accounts and bots that infest Twitter – there was a portion where Elon Musk had also taken umbrage to the big-tech company picking a battle with the Indian government.
On June 5, social media giant Twitter approached Karnataka High Court against the Government of India’s orders to take down some content and handles from its platform over violation of the law. Twitter cried abuse of power by the GoI officials in its plea to the court.
Twitter claimed in its plea that some of the removal orders did not fulfil the procedural requirements per the IT Act. It claimed that some of the orders were related to the content posted by the official handles of political parties, and blocking such content would amount to a violation of freedom of speech.
While Twitter made these claims, it is pertinent to note that some of the accounts that were withheld or some content of the accounts were withheld by GoI orders include alleged journalist Rana Ayyub, pro-Khalistani author Aman Bali, pro-Khalistani activist Ravi Singh who is also the founder of Khalsa Aid and more. In these cases, the Indian government had issued take-down notices because it affected national security and content that incited violence or terrorism within the country cannot be broadcast according to the laws of the land.
Elon Musk vs Twitter: Twitter’s battle with India finds mention in court filings
In his filing that Twitter has now responded to, Elon Musk said that Twitter had initiated risky litigation against the Indian government thereby placing its third largest market at risk.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
In para 18, Elon Musk says, “These obfuscations and misrepresentations are not Twitter’s only sins. Since the Merger Agreement was signed, Twitter has also made significant changes to its business without obtaining the consent required by the Merger Agreement. Twitter has terminated its product lead and another key executive, retained a board member whose reelection was rejected by stockholders, instituted a hiring freeze, and disobeyed orders from and initiated risky litigation against the Indian government—thereby placing Twitter’s third largest market at risk”.
In its response, Twitter responds to the allegations of termination of employees and making significant changes to the business without taking the consent required by the merger acquisition. The social media giant admitted that it terminated certain employees, and declined the accept the resignation by board members but rejects the allegation that it initiated a hiring freeze. In its response, it also accepts that it initiated litigation against the Indian government, however, says that it did not need Elon Musk’s permission to initiate any of these decisions. In a generic response, Twitter simply “denied allegations in Paragraph 18”.
Further, in para 181, Elon Musk asserted that Twitter failed to disclose the litigation against and the investigation into Twitter by the Indian government, saying, “In 2021, India’s information technology ministry imposed certain rules allowing the government to probe social media posts, demand identifying information, and prosecute companies that refused to comply. While Musk is a proponent of free speech, he believes that moderation on Twitter should “hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates.””
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
Twitter in its response claimed, “The first sentence of Paragraph 181 purports to characterize rules promulgated by the Indian government, to which Twitter respectfully refers the Court for their complete and accurate contents. Twitter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 181 and therefore denies them on that basis”.
In what appears to be an attempt to willfully obfuscate, Twitter claims that the first part of the assertions in para 181 (which talks about the rules promulgated by India), “characterises rules promulgated by the Indian government” and therefore, it merely asked the court to refer to the documents for the “accurate contents”. In this part of its response, Twitter almost tries to mislead the court by insinuating that the characterisation of the laws promulgated by India are somehow untrue by Elon Musk, however, that is untrue. In the second part of its response, it merely says that Twitter “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies them on that basis”. The claim is that Elon Musk believes that while free speech is important, Twitter must adhere to the laws of the lands in which it operates. From this response, it is unclear what assertion Twitter is rejecting in the first place. Perhaps, it is saying that it does not believe in following the laws of the land in which it operates, which becomes an issue that the Indian government then must look into.
In para 182, Elon Musk says that Twitter has faced various investigations by the Indian government.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
Twitter, in response, says that all their interaction with the Indian government has been reported widely by the media and has also been documented in Twitter’s own transparency disclosures. What is telling, however, is that Twitter characterises the laws of India to be “restrictive” in its response, which is patently false. Indian laws do not restrict free speech in any manner, however, when India’s national security, integrity and law and order are at stake, India is bound to ask Twitter to take down such content. In fact, these are the very reasons cited by Twitter when it banned sitting President Donald Trump from its platform for life. The responses by Twitter only go to show that it has little respect for the laws of India and in the filing, Elon Musk seems to point that out repeatedly.
Twitter in its response has also rejected the claim that India is the third largest market for the social media giant, in an attempt to discredit the serious lapse that was pointed out by Elon Musk in the preceding paras. In para 183, Elon Musk asserts that the investigation by India could disrupt services in the Indian market, an assertion that Twitter rejected.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
In para 184 and 185, Elon Musk goes further and claims that Twitter did not disclose the investigation by the Indian government to him, as per the requirements of the acquisition agreement. Musk further said that Twitter filed a case against India on or around the 6th of July 2022, which would mean that Twitter was under investigation when the merger agreement was signed, and therefore, it failed to disclose required information to Musk at that time.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
Twitter, in its response, seems to cite a technicality saying that Section 4.11 of the agreement did not require it to disclose the company’s interaction with the Indian government to Elon Musk while admitting that it did not disclose the investigation to Musk. Interestingly, if the merger agreement required Twitter to disclose any litigation and investigation against the company to Musk, citing a technicality that it specifically did not require it to disclose interaction with the Indian government might not fly in the court of law.
For para 185, Twitter responded, “Twitter admits that it brought a legal challenge against the Indian government and respectfully refers the Court to its July 5, 2022 petition to the Karnataka High Court. Twitter avers that it has challenged certain blocking orders issued by the Indian government under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, directing Twitter to remove certain content from its platform, including content from politicians, activists, and journalists, and that Twitter’s legal challenge is contemplated by the law itself, which allows companies or persons to challenge government blocking orders. Twitter further avers that its legal challenge is consistent with its global practice of challenging government requests or laws where such requests are not authorized or properly scoped under local law, are procedurally deficient, or as necessary to defend its users’ rights, including freedom of expression. Twitter otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 185, including the allegation that its legal challenge is related to any “investigation” by the Indian government”.
Twitter in this response seems to hide under the garb of “global practises” and “freedom of expression”. Interestingly, it fails to mention that in its own transparency report, there are several countries ahead of India in its legal demands. India constituted only 8% of total legal demands against Twitter. As far as the request for information on Twitter users is concerned, the USA topped the list with 20% request. As far as a request to remove content from Twitter is concerned, Japan topped the list with 30% of total demands and India came 5th with only 8%. In most of these responses, Twitter makes it seem as if India is the top contributor and is enforcing “restrictive laws”, however, their own transparency report does not verify that claim. Twitter and the media in this case have been reductionist at best trying to interpret the data transparency report by Twitter and the misplaced conclusions have been used to launch a tirade against India.
In fact, this is the very fact pointed out by Elon Musk in the next para.
In para 190, Elon Musk points out that its combative stance with the Indian government was a “departure from the ordinary course” since it had followed obligations from Russia, including blocking pro-Ukraine accounts. It is pertinent to note here that Russia is ahead of India in takedown requests according to Twitter’s own transparency report.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
Twitter responded, “Twitter admits that it filed suit to challenge certain blocking orders by the Indian government. Twitter further avers that, in its continuing effort to make its services available to people everywhere, if it receives a valid and appropriately scoped request from an authorized entity, it may withhold access to certain content in the specific jurisdiction that has issued the valid legal demand or where the content has been found to violate local laws, but that it routinely pushes for limitations on, objects to, or otherwise challenges government requests or laws where such requests are not authorized or properly scoped under local law, are procedurally deficient, or as necessary to defend its users’ rights. Twitter otherwise denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 190. Twitter denies the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 190. Twitter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 190 and therefore denies them on that basis. Twitter denies the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 190”.
Twitter clearly skirted the important point raised by Elon Musk – if it agreed to politically motivated requests to remove pro-Ukraine accounts, that clearly had an impact on their freedom of speech, why did it pick a legal battle with India and was it not out of the ordinary for it to do so.
In two other paras, Elon Musk asserts that Twitter’s course of action with the Indian government was incorrect and out of the ordinary.
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
In para 195, Elon Musk clearly indicates that action against the Indian government was “out of the ordinary course” for Twitter and his permission should have been sought.
Next, in para 221, Musk says that Twitter breached the provisions of the acquisition by not taking the consent of the buyer before initiating litigation in India and refusing the orders of the Indian government (apart from other considerations like firing 30% of the workforce, instituting hiring freeze etc).
Filing by Elon Musk and response by Twitter
Twitter, in its inimitably evasive style, simply responded with “denied”.
In the filing by Elon Musk and the responses given by Twitter, it is evident that information is being selectively by Twitter to tarnish the image of India, however, it is also apparent that while Musk supports free speech, he considers Twitter’s conduct with India “out of the ordinary” since it conceded to demands by Russia to block pro-Ukraine accounts as well, clearly, not adhering to their espoused principle of upholding free speech. It is pertinent to note that Twitter has not initiated any litigation against Japan or Russia, which score higher than India in their take-down requests. Elon Musk has repeatedly asserted that Twitter’s action against India risks its stakes in the country. This viral information that emerges from the filing could clearly be used by the Indian government to assert how Twitter has conceded to far more problematic requests by other nations like Russia, however, is grandstanding and trying to undermine Indian national interest by rejecting the laws of India.
Indian government and the new IT guidelines
In February 2020, The central government issued fresh guidelines for social media and OTT platforms. The government said that these guidelines were being introduced to “establish a soft touch progressive institutional mechanism with a level playing field featuring a Code of Ethics and a three-tier grievance redressal framework for news publishers and OTT platforms on the digital media”.
The guidelines that were issued by the central government had several provisions and a code of ethics for the functioning of OTT platforms, Digital News websites and Social Media behemoths like Twitter, Facebook etc.
One of the most significant provisions of these guidelines is that if the social media platforms don’t comply with the provisions prescribed in the guidelines, this will attract penal provisions as per the Information Technology Act. The new guidelines say that the social media intermediaries must follow the due diligence mentioned in it, and if any intermediary does not follow the due diligence, the safe harbour provisions will not apply to them.
The section 79 of the Information Technology Act defines this safe harbour, which basically makes them not liable for any content posted by users on their platforms. It says that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them, provided they themselves didn’t initiate such communication, and observes due diligence under the IT act.
Now, this due diligence to be observed by the social media companies have been defined in the new guidelines. It includes various measures they have to perform, like identifying the first originator of any information that appears on social media, not allowing content that is defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, inciting violence, against national integrity, misleading, false etc. The platforms also have to remove any such content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or a government direction to remove such content.
According to the guidelines, if the social media sites allow such objectionable content to be hosted on their platforms, and don’t remove them even after receiving such orders from courts or the government, it will mean that they are not observing due diligence. As a consequence, they will lose the safe harbour in the IT Act that isolates them from content posted on their platforms.
This means, if the social media companies do not comply with the guidelines, they will be held responsible for any content which is not allowed as per the guidelines. And, the officials of the social media companies will be liable to be prosecuted for such content. This implies that the social media officials will also be punished according to the nature of the offence, which is defined in the IT Act for various kinds of offences. The punishment defined in the act includes imprisonment for three years for most offences, but life imprisonment for some like cyber terrorism, and also includes fines of various amounts.
When the IT guidelines were issued, one of the most important compliance requirements imposed on social media companies was the grievance redressal mechanism that they had to put in place.
Following are the guidelines related to the appointment of grievance officer and the redressal mechanism they were required to put in place:
Social media intermediaries shall register the grievance within 24 hours and dispose of the complaint within 15 days.
The Intermediaries will have to publish a compliance report once a month where they detail the complaints they received and how they redressed the complaint.
The resident grievance officer shall perform all functions under the grievance redressal mechanism.
All grievance officers should have a physical address and that address should be published on the website and the mobile app.
The person appointed as the chief compliance officer shall be a resident of India.
The nodal contact person will be responsible for 24×7 coordination with Indian law enforcement agencies.
It is pertinent to note that Twitter has breached almost all of the provisions in the IT guidelines that were enforced by the Indian government. One can read a primer on how social media behemoths were rampantly breaching the law to institute a grievance redressal system here.
With Twitter locked in a battle with India, the points raised by Elon Musk could be significant and it remains to be seen if Twitter’s policy with regard to India sees a shift after the court case in the US.
The Uttar Pradesh Police this week arrested a person named Nadeem from Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh for torturing and divorcing his wife citing her support to CM Yogi Adityanath-led BJP state government as the reason. According to the police, the woman complained that she had been subjected to atrocities by her husband and her in-laws as a result of her support for CM Yogi Adityanath and PM Modi.
The Police took the action against the accused based on the complaint filed by the victim on March 3.
Reports mention that the accused husband had already divorced his wife by giving her triple talaq and asked her to leave his house after the verbal divorce. Later he sent her a legal notice of divorce, punishing her for supporting the BJP. “My brother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing me a few days after my marriage as I supported Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath”, the woman stated in the complaint.
FIR copy (Image source- India Today)
The victim woman also reported the incident to Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath through Twitter after which the President of a Hindu organization from Delhi appealed to the Moradabad Police officials to get justice for the victim woman. “Whenever I was asked to divorce my husband, I would say that Yogi ji is with me. I support him and I had voted for Yogi ji only. My sister-in-law was very angry about this. Due to the same displeasure, a notice of divorce was sent today. I want justice”, the woman stated. Superintendent of Police Akhilesh Bhadoria meanwhile said that an FIR has been filed under sections 376 and 511 of the IPC and a case has been registered.
Moradabad, UP | A woman alleged that her husband & in-laws gave her triple talaq for supporting a specific party. Her husband, Nadeem, has been arrested & sent to jail. Further investigation underway: Akhilesh Bhaduria, SP city pic.twitter.com/y5VArCMYO1
According to the reports, the victim woman has identified herself as Sana Iram. She said she got married to Nadeem on December 7, 2019. After 6 months of marriage, Sana noticed a change in the behaviour of her in-laws towards her. She has stated in the complaint that her husband and sister-in-law were torturing her.
“My sister-in-law’s name is Hadija Begum, she started threatening me with divorce. She said that she would get me divorced from her brother. She also used to pass sarcastic comments and taunts on the food that I prepared and forced me to stay the way she liked”, Sana narrated her dreadful experience. The victim further reported that whenever she complained about her sister-in-law’s behaviour to her husband, he would support his sister and ask the victim to obey her instead.
SP City Akhilesh Bhadauria confirmed that the report had been registered at the police station Kotwali, in which the victim alleged that her in-laws were harassing her. The victim woman’s husband, Nadeem, has been arrested and sent to jail. Further investigations in the case are underway.
In Uttar Pradesh’s Amroha, dozens of cows have reportedly died after consuming fodder that was poison-laced. As per reports, in a Gaushala in Amroha’s Santhalpur dozens of cows suddenly fell ill after they were fed the fodder that was purchased from one Tahir in the village on August 3.
The said Gaushala had 188 cows under its care. On Thursday, the cows started falling sick one by one after consuming the fodder that was purchased the previous day. Over 25 cows have reportedly died in a day while several others are critical. Some media reports say that 55 cows have died so far while over 50 are under treatment.
UP | 25 cattle died, several sick after consuming poisonous fodder at a Gaushala in Amroha
The fodder they consumed was purchased from a person named Tahir. An FIR has been lodged against him & teams formed to nab him. Village development officer suspended: Amroha DM (04.08) pic.twitter.com/0GQETEv50Y
Amroha DM stated to the media that an FIR has been registered against the person named Tahir who had supplied the fodder for the day. Teams have been formed to nab him. The village Development Officer who was responsible for the maintenance of the said Gaushala has been suspended.
“ACS and Director, Animal Husbandry and Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad have been directed to investigate the incident and submit a report. The incident is very saddening. Anyone found guilty will not be spared”, tweeted UP CM Yogi Adityanath on August 4.
जनपद अमरोहा में गायों की हुई मृत्यु अत्यंत दुःखद है।
ACS व निदेशक, पशुधन तथा मण्डलायुक्त, मुरादाबाद को घटना की जांच कर रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने और संबंधित अधिकारियों को बीमार गायों की चिकित्सा के समुचित प्रबंध करने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया है।
The CM has asked for proper care and treatment of the cows that are sick. DM B Tripathi, DIG Shalabh Mathur and other senior officials had rushed to the spot after the news broke.
On Thursday (August 4), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) apprehended Salim Fruit, also known as Mohammed Salim Qureshi, for extortion and terror funding. This is the third arrest in the suo moto FIR registered by the NIA on February 3 against Dawood Ibrahim and the terrorists in his network. 2 other terrorists were arrested in the case by NIA on May 12th.
Salim is the brother-in-law of deceased gangster Chota Shakeel, who worked with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. A suo moto FIR was lodged against him by the central agency on February 3 this year.
The case pertains to furthering terrorist activities such as smuggling, narco-terrorism, circulation of fake Indian notes, money laundering and working in close association with international terrorists and Jihadi outfits such as JeM, LeT, Al Qaeda and acquiring assets to raise terror funding. The case was lodged against Dawood Ibrahim and his terror network.
Salim Fruit, a close aide of D Company, played an active role in extorting huge amounts of money in the name of Chhota Shakeel via property dealings & dispute settlements for raising terror funds in furtherance of terrorists activities of D company. Further probe underway: NIA
As per reports, Salim Fruit played an active role in extorting large sums of money in the name of Chhota Shakeel. Those funds were later used to fund terrorism and further the criminal activities of the D-company.
The accused hails from a family that sold fruits in South Mumbai, earning him the moniker of ‘Salim Fruit.’ A henchman of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, he was deported from UAE to India in 2006. Reportedly, he was kept in prison until 2010.
In February this year, the National Investigation Agency revealed that Dawood Ibrahim was planning to launch terror attacks on India using explosives and lethal weapons. The underworld don had reportedly formed a special unit with the aim of inciting violence in different parts of the country.
He was also planning to assassinate a few political leaders and famous businessmen and had drawn plans to destroy the cities of Delhi and Mumbai completely. The matter came to light after the Enforcement Directorate conducted raids in 9 places in Mumbai and one in Thane.
On August 4, Chief Just of India NV Ramana named Justice Uday Umesh Lalit (Justice UU Lalit) as his successor for the top post at the Supreme Court of India. CJI Ramana will retire on August 26. Notably, Union Minister of Law Kiren Rijiju had written to CJI to recommend his successor.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana today recommends Justice UU Lalit’s name as his successor. Justice Lalit to become the 49th CJI. Chief Justice Ramana is retiring this month. pic.twitter.com/AfJJc8652V
64-year-old Justice UU Lalit will be the second senior-most judge to become CJI if the recommendation is accepted by the government. However, as he is retiring in November this year, his tenure is going to be a brief one. Justice DY Chandrachud is set to become CJI after Justice UU Lalit.
It is noteworthy that Justice UU Lalit is the second judge directly elevated from the bar to be CJI. Justice SM Sikri was the first CJI who held the post from January 1971 to April 1973.
A brief intro to Justice UU Lalit
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit was born on November 9, 1957, in Maharashtra. His father, UU Lalit, had served as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court Nagpur bench. He also served as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court of India.
Justice Lalit started his law career in 1983 and practised as an advocate at the High Court of Bombay till 1985. In January 1986, he shifted his practice to Delhi. He continued to practice as an advocate in Delhi till 2004 and was designated as Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in April 2004. During his tenure, he appeared as Amicus Curiae in several matters.
He also served as a member of the Supreme Court of India Legal Services Committee for two terms. In August 2014, he was appointed as a judge at the Supreme Court.
During his tenure as Senior Supreme Court advocate, he handled several high-profile cases. He represented Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter case. He served as a special public prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation during the trial in all 2G matters as ordered by the Supreme Court. He had also appeared for former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in a case related to the demolition of a disputed structure at Ayodhya.
Recently, during a hearing, Justice UU Lalit stated that ideally, the Supreme Court should sit at 9 AM the morning. He had said, “I have always said that if our children can go to school at 7 in the morning, then why can’t we come at 9 AM.”
Justice Lalit was part of several Landmark judgments at the Supreme Court
During his tenure as Supreme Court Justice, he was part of many landmark hearings, including the Triple Talaq case. In 2017, he was part of the five-judge bench that declared the practice of Triple Talaq illegal and unconstitutional by a 3-2 majority.
In 2021, he led the bench that reversed the Bombay High Court’s controversial ruling in a POCSO case. In its ruling, the Bombay High Court said that “skin-to-skin contact” between an accused person and a child was required to make a case under POCSO Act. Justice Lalit-led bench said the High Court judgement would set a dangerous precedent and stayed it.
In July 2022, a bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha sentenced fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to four months in prison in a contempt of court case. He was held guilty of disbursing $40 million to his family members despite court orders against it.
Justice UU Lalit was also part of the Ayodhya hearing, but he rescued himself from the bench after the counsel of Muslim petitioners mentioned that he had appeared for former CM Kalyan Singh in a case related to the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.
Justice Lalit was also part of the three-member bench that cancelled the death sentence announced upon rape and murder convict Mohd. Firoz. The apex court challenged the legality of the judgement passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur in 2014, stating that ‘every sinner has a future.’
After the Enforcement Directorate sealed the Young Indian office in the National Herald building in New Delhi in the ongoing investigation against the Gandhi family, another building owned by the Congress mouthpiece is facing trouble. Madhya Pradesh govt has started an investigation into allegations that land allotted to National Herald in Bhopal is being used for commercial purposes after it was to private businesses.
Bhuppendra Siingh, the Udban Development Minister in the Madhya Pradesh informed on Twitter that he has issued orders to form a committee to probe commercial construction on the land allotted to National Herald at press complex in Bhopal by violating the conditions of the allotment. The committee will find out who had changed the use of the allotted land, who had sold the plots, who did the commercial construction, and who is responsible for taking concrete action in the case which is pending in the court for a long time.
नेशनल हेराल्ड को प्रेस कमप्लेक्स, भोपाल में आवंटित भूखंड में शर्तों का उल्लंघन कर व्यावसायिक निर्माण के प्रकरण में आज मैने जांच समिति के गठन के आदेश दे दिए हैं। आवंटित भूखंड के प्रयोजन का उल्लंघन किनके द्वारा किया गया, भूखंडों का विक्रय किनके 1/2 #NationalHeraldScam
The matter of the plot allotted to National Herald in Bhopal is pending in a district court after it was found that commercial establishments have come up in the plot allotted to the newspaper. Minister Bhuppendra Siingh said that the govt is monitoring the case in the court very closely, and parallelly the govt has also ordered a probe.
He said that if required, the complex will be sealed after the probe is over.
The case
Associated Journals Limited was allotted 1.14 acre of land at the Press Complex in Bhopal for just Rs 1 lakh in 1982 on a lease basis. AJL had published English daily National Herald, Hindi daily Navjeevan and Urdu daily Kaumi Awaz at that time. When the lease expired in 2011, officials of the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA) went to the site and found that it was being used for commercial purposes instead of publication of newspapers. The publication of newspapers had already stopped in 1992, and commercial establishments had started to take its place after that.
BDL also found that AJL had sold parts of the allotted to different buyers, and the ownership of those plots also changed several times. AJL had allegedly transferred power of attorney to different people over a period of years. BDL says AJL has no right to sale land that was allotted to in on lease at a nominal rate.
As a result, the Bhopal Development Authority refused to renew the lease. A report from 2016 says that the site has a unit of Vishal Mega Mart, and outlets of retail brands including Mangalam and Lotus. BDA cancelled the lease in 2012, and sent notices to take possession of the land.
AJL has filed a suit against the cancellation of the lease in a district court, but the court had rejected its plea. After that, they appealed at the High Court. A separate PIL was also filed at the High Court against the Gandhi family for misuse of the allotted land.
High Court had also dismissed petitions filed by several private businesses that bought plots at the land, asking to be included in the suit filed by BDL to evict the commercial establishments at the site. The court had said that they were not the original allotee, and therefore they can’t be heard in the case.
