The Delhi High Court has dismissed yet another bail application of senior Congress leader and accused in INX Media scam P Chidambaram. The bail has been denied in the case filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the INX Media transactions.
In a scathing statement, the Delhi High Court, while dismissing P Chidambaram’s bail plea said that prima facie, the allegations against Chidambaram were serious in nature and that there is evidence to show that he played a ‘key and active role’.
Observing that grant of bail in the case would send a wrong message, Court states that it is not inclined to give any relief to P Chidambaram.
Court clarifies that its observations are not conclusive in nature. #PChidambaram#INXMedia
While the Court did say that Chidambaram is not at flight risk and since the case is already being filed, he cannot tamper with witnesses either, the High Court went on to dismiss the bail plea saying that Chidambaram is accused of serious financial wrong-doing and such cases need to be dealt with strictly by the Court.
Interestingly, the High Court observed that granting bail to senior Congress leader and scam accused P Chidambaram would send the wrong message to society. The High Court observed that the entire community would be aggrieved if such serious offenders are let off by the Court.
While the bail proceedings were on, SG Tushar Mehta presented a letter given by one of the witnesses, in a sealed cover. Justice Kait had asked the SG to show statements of witnesses that suggest Chidambaram tried to influence the witnesses.
SG Mehta also said that there are three other witnesses whom Chidambaram tried to influence and ‘win over’.
While SG Tushar Mehta made these arguments, Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that accused tampering with witnesses while in custody is a ‘rarest of rare’ case.
The court cited arguments made by SG Tushar Mehta on shell companies abroad, generation of fake invoices by the companies controlled by Karti and layering of money in bank accounts, to opine that the allegations against the Petitioner are prima facie serious, hence relief in the form of bail cannot be warranted.
On October 18, the CBI had submitted charge sheet against Chidambaram, his son Karti, former INX Media head Peter Mukherjee and eleven others for offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 9 and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Banaras Hindu University has been lately embroiled in various controversies, with one being over the appointment of a Muslim professor in the Sanskrit department. For the last week, students of the Sanskrit literature department at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) have been protesting against the appointment of a Muslim assistant professor.
The professor, one Firoze Khan, has been appointed in the literature department of the faculty of Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan (SVDV) of the BHU.
On November 8, a large group of students staged a sit-in protest outside the vice chancellor’s house to demand that the decision to appoint Firoz Khan as an assistant professor in the department be revoked.
Meanwhile, the administration has been adamant on its decision to appoint the professor saying that it has appointed the ‘most qualified candidate’ for the position. The university maintains that they had selected candidates after a transparent process and the appointments are unanimously decided.
According to sources no classes are being held in the department since Dr Firoz Khan’s appointment on November 6. Fearing protests from the students, Khan too has not yet visited the faculty premises since his appointment.
“It is written on the plaque that the entry of non-Aryans is prohibited in the department. The plaque was installed by BHU founder Madan Mohan Malaviya Ji in 1916 when the university was established. The entry of Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists is allowed, but other non-Hindus are prohibited from entering the department,” said Shubham Kumar Tiwary, a PhD student at the Sahitya department of the faculty echoing the mind of many protesting students who believe that appointing a Muslim would be against the values of Madan Mohan Malaviya, the founder of BHU. Some also believed that corruption and bribery were involved in hiring Khan.
The students, who have been protesting the appointment, met Vice-Chancellor Rakesh Bhatnagar and the Head of Department Umakant Chaturvedi on Thursday and demanded the immediate cancellation of Khan’s appointment. However, the VC and the head of the department, in the meeting which lasted over 3 hours, made it clear that management is not willing to rescind the professor’s appointment.
“We have been told that the matter will be discussed with a legal expert in the future. We will continue our protest till he (Khan) is removed,” Tiwary said.
On the other hand, Professor Chaturvedi said that Khan was appointed by due process. “What is written on the plaque can’t be followed because the university comes under the UGC and we have to follow the rules and guidelines of the UGC,” the professor said.
This controversy had not yet simmered down when an additional controversy erupted in the University on Thursday after students of Birla and Lal Bahadur Shastri hostel in BHU got into an ugly brawl over an old dispute. Police had to intervene and resort to lathi-charge to calm down the situation which went out of control with students pelting stones and assaulting each other.
After the police intervention, students have now sat on a dharna (sit-in-protest) demanding legal action against the policemen. Several students who thronged to the campus and blocked the main gate of the university demanded that police forces, which have been heavily deployed in the university premises to maintain law and order, be sent back immediately. The students also demanded that the vice-chancellor and the chief proctor should resign taking moral responsibility of the lathi-charge and assault on students at the hands of the police.
In what transpired, two groups of students had got into an argument over something at the Birla hostel intersection on Thursday morning. This dispute turned ugly after the students went back to their hostels. Students of the LBS hostel allegedly threw stones and petrol bombs from their roof at students of the Birla hostel.
After receiving the information the police had reached the premises and searched the hostel rooms. Police recovered several stones and a pistol from LBS hostel’s terrace. They also detained 15 students who did not belong to BHU and were allegedly there to fan tensions.
While SP City Dinesh Singh said that students are being questioned and security has been tightened in the camps, the chief proctor said that action would be taken against those found guilty.
The Supreme Court on 14th November 2019 dismissed the review petitions filed against its verdict on the Rafale case where it gave the deal a clean chit. The review petitions were filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie. Post the verdict, Congress took to lying profusely and the media played Nero’s guest.
Several news agencies misrepresented the verdict and the separate note by Justice KM Joseph that spoke about a technicality to insinuate that Justice Joseph gave a dissenting view of some sort, indicating wrong-doing.
The Media headlines after Rafale verdict
PTI had the following headline
CNN News 18 headline (PTI story)
Business Standard had the following headline. The story was written by Ajai Shukla who claims to be a defence analyst.
Business Standard headline
Following is the headline by ANI:
ANI Headline
The sheer misrepresentation of the verdict in the media is staggering if not unexpected. Considering the conduct of the media during the Rafale controversy and how it played the role of a propaganda tool in the hands of Congress, is not surprising that even today, the media would mislead the masses.
Nexus between Rahul Gandhi and Media?
The media has almost lifted the exact words that Rahul Gandhi used in his tweet after the Rafale verdict was pronounced. In a tweet, Rahul Gandhi stated that the Supreme Court’s Justice KM Joseph has left open a “huge door” for an investigation into the Rafale deal and demanded that a probe must begin in full earnest. He also called for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the fighter jet contract.
The Congress in a press conference had said, “BJP is in habit of celebrating without going into details of verdict. The Supreme Court order has paved the way for a probe into the Rafale deal. The verdict has opened a window for a detailed enquiry into the matter, it has said that 14 Dec 2018 or today’s verdict is not an obstacle in way of the CBI from taking action in the case in future”.
One easily notices the eerie similarities between the exact words used by the media and by Congress. However, the Media and Congress are both lying blatantly and misinterpreting the judgement shamelessly.
Understanding the note by Supreme Court Justice KM Joseph in Rafale case
The exact words used by Justice Joseph were “a case MAY have been made out”. If it was the contention of Justice Joseph that the petitioners had already made a case against the Rafale deal, he would not have used the word ‘may’. Justice Joseph essentially said that the petitioners did not approach the right forum for their request.
The import of these words, which @RahulGandhi gleefully quoted, is, even if it is assumed a case is made out, petitioners (i.e., @pbhushan1 & Co) didn’t make the right requests. They basically wanted to bypass legal procedure for corruption cases. How do I say this? Paras 81 & 82 pic.twitter.com/SaYLimySdl
The note by Justice Joseph mentions clearly that the petitioners did not even seek a preliminary inquiry and a direct FIR would mean raising fingers at a public figure without proof.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court judgement and even Justice Joseph’s note clearly stated that there is “absence of any substantial material to show to be a cse of commercial favouritism”. Further, it says that the Court lacks to expertise to judge on a technical basis.
SC judgement
It may be interesting to note here that Congress itself had said that they have no grouse with the Rafale jet technically, and their entire premise of wrong-doing was based on fictitious “commercial favouritism”. The court, even in the words which are being gleefully quoted by Rahul Gandhi has categorically said that there was no proof of commercial favouritism whatsoever.
Lawyer Kartikeya Tanna explained the essence of this in simple language. He said if his wallet gets stolen and he approaches the Homes Minister, the HM may listen to him sympathetically, however, tell him to go file a case in the local police station. When he gets to the police station, he will have to produce enough material for the police to decide what is to be done next. He cannot, however, go to the police station, give no facts and material but scream that the Home Minister opened the door for an FIR to be filed.
So, to get my remedy, I have to go to the thana, recount facts, describe thief, mention contents etc, i.e., give MATERIAL for police to decide what to do next.
But, if I shout that Home Minister of India has “OPENED THE DOORS” for an investigation, I’d be the one looking stupid
Essentially, the door was never “closed” for an enquiry but the procedure was never followed by any of the parties since they had no material evidence to begin with.
Essentially, the separate but concurring note by Justice Joseph clarifies two things. One, the review petition filed by the petitioners has failed to prove any irregularities prima facie in the Rafale deal and hence they are not ordering an investigation pertaining to Rafale deal. Secondly, the order states that an investigation can be still launched but prior permission is needed to do so.
An investigation officer can take up an investigation on any such issues even if the magistrate has dismissed an application for an investigation under Section 156(3). However, the investigation has to take a prior sanction under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has been clearly stated by Justice Joseph’s order and it has always been the case. Hence, the question of the Supreme Court allowing or not allowing to investigate further on the ‘irregularities’ in the Rafale deal does not arise as there is no bar for any such future investigation even though SC has clarified that there are no irregularities in the multi-crore jet deal.
In fact, the Supreme Court also observed that the petitioners filed the petition knowing fully well that Section 17 (A) would bar any FIR to be filed without prior approval.
SC judgement
It thus makes one wonder if all these court cases are just an excuse to keep an issue alive, knowing fully well that they don’t have the evidence of any wrong-doing whatsoever.
The blatant lies by Business Standard’s Ajai Shukla on Justice Joseph’s notes
Section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the government to accord prior permission for prosecuting an official for an offence carried out in the discharge of his duty.
Playing the quintessential Nero, Ajai Shukla in his Business Standard article lies blatantly regarding Justice Joseph observations with regards to this section.
Ajai Shukla in Business Standard
Ajai Shukla lies blatantly in his article when he claims that Justice Joseph in his note “recognised” that “attempting to obtain government permission would be futile exercise” and the “the petitioners cannot succeed”.
Ajai Shukla essentially said that Justice KM Joseph told the petitioners that they would not succeed in getting permission from the government under Section 17 (A) and their attempt would be futile, insinuating that even Justice Joseph meant that the government has something to hide.
The note of Justice Joseph said no such thing. Justice Joseph actually said something completely different.
SC judgement
Justice KM Joseph said that even IF the court accepted the premise that on the bases of the petitions, an FIR must be registered, it “will be a futile exercise” since Section 17 (A) is in place.
SC judgement
Further, Justice Joseph said that “more importantly, Section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in aa Review Petition, the petitioners cannot succeed”.
Essentially, Justice Joseph was enumerating the provisions of Sectio 17 (A) and in no way insinuating that the government would not approve. In fact, the government was not even a point of discussion. Justice Joseph was enumerating hypothetical scenarios to explain all positions vide Section 17 (A).
Justice Joseph said that EVEN IF the court had accepted the petition and ordered an FIR, Section 17 (A) would have come into play and thus, it would be “futile”. Secondly, Justice Joseph said that due to the existence of Section 17 (A), the Review Petition ‘cannot succeed’.
Ajai Shukla twists Justice Joseph’s words to write, “Joseph’s judgment recognised that attempting to obtain government permission would be “a futile exercise” and that “the petitioners cannot succeed”. A complete misrepresentation that would ideally amount to contempt of court.
The 2018 Supreme Court judgement dismissing petitions for inquiry into Rafale deal
In the 2018 judgement, the Court had made it amply clear that the allegations were baseless. SC had reasserted that the allegations made by the petitioners were inadequate. The Supreme Court had observed that after going through all the material carefully and after interacting with several airforce officers, there is no occasion to doubt the process. In fact, in the judgement, the court has mentioned that it has even gone through material etc regarding the pricing of the deal.
The court has said that broadly the processes have been followed and that the long negotiations in the MMRCA (Congress regime negotiations) did not procure any results.
The court also said that the wisdom to cancel the defunct MMRCA cannot be questioned since our defence capabilities were being diminished after our enemies have acquired 5th generation aircraft and we had none.
The Court had also revealed that the government had shared the pricing details with the court.
The Supreme Court Rafale judgement, in para 22, states clearly that the pricing is not in the public forum (other than base price) even though the petitioners based on news articles have asserted escalation of price. The pricing has been shared with the CAG and the CAG report has been examined by the PAC. The Chief of Air Staff too said that sharing the pricing would result in a breach of national security and that the pricing details have been mentioned in Article 10 of the contract between India and France. In the end, the court says that “despite this reluctance, the material has still been placed before the Court to satisfy its conscience”.
The Court was slightly on the secretive side while talking about the pricing, obviously, for national security concerns. The court, however, did say that it was compared the price of the previous deal and current deal and suffices to say that the official respondents say there is a financial benefit to the country.
Further, the court had said that “mere press interviews or suggestions cannot form the basis for judicial review by this Court”. The court said that there is “no material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian government” to choose offset partner.
Essentially, the material evidence was already examined by the court and the petitions for inquiry dismissed with scathing observations that there was no wrong-doing in the case. In the review petition too, that there is no evidence of commercial favouritism has been reiterated.
It thus suffices to say that the Media, hand in gloves with Congress, is not only trying to help one political side form a narrative to undermine a duly elected government but also, severely undermine national security.
Update: After the OpIndia article, Business Standard updated its headline from “SC junks Rafale Review pleas, but keeps doors open for a CBI probe” to “SC junks pleas seeking review of verdict absolving govt in Rafale deal case”.
New Business Standard Headline
While Business Standard changed the headline of the article written by Ajai Shukla, it is yet to amend the blatantly fallacious interpretation of some statements made by Justice KM Joseph.
A case has been registered against an official of the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) for forcefully removing a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) flag from its south campus in Uttar Pradesh’s Mirzapur district.
According to the reports, a complaint was registered at the Dehat Kotwali police station against BHU south campus deputy chief proctor Kiran Damle for outraging religious feelings. The case against Damle has been filed based on the complaint of RSS office-bearer Chandra Mohan, the police officer said.
On Tuesday, students of Banaras Hindu University’s Rajiv Gandhi South campus in Barkachha had staged a dharna the demanding the resignation of the college’s Deputy chief proctor Kiran Damle alleging that she had uprooted the RSS flag from the campus during a Shakha organised by the students of the college.
As per reports, the resident students of various hostels in the college organise such Shakhas every morning in the playground within the campus. On Tuesday, many students had put up an RSS flag to set up a Shakha.
According to the police officials, Damle had removed the RSS flag and had taken it away while the members of the RSS and ABVP were practising yoga in a ‘shakha’ on the campus. Damle had allegedly said that the flag will not be allowed but members can go on with their yoga practice.
Terming it as disrespect of the flag, RSS members had demanded her removal from the university while alleging that Damle had misbehaved with students. Damle later apologised for removing the flag and resigned from the post.
The deputy chief proctor had said in view of the ‘prevailing atmosphere’ she had asked for the removal of the flag and since it was not done, she handed it to her assistant attendant Satish.
Her resignation has been sent to proctor OP Singh. The protestors got the support of local MLA Ratnakar Misra and RSS leader Sohan who reached the spot soon after. Meanwhile, SP Dharamvir Singh said the removal of the flag has hurt the sentiments of RSS swayamsevaks and Damle should instead have explained and prevailed upon them for getting it removed.
The Delhi Congress on Thursday accused Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party of corruption in the name of controlling air pollution in the national capital and demanded a CBI inquiry.
According to the reports, Delhi Congress president Subhash Chopra launched an attack on the Aam Aadmi Party government, accusing them of involving in corruption in purchasing and distribution of masks among school children and also in extending financial benefits to the party volunteers during the odd-even traffic scheme.
Chopra said that Delhi government has spent Rs 10 crore to buy masks, but those masks have not been distributed. He also alleged that very poor quality masks have been procured which can’t be used more than 3-4 hours in such high pollution. He said that they demand CBI inquiry into the matter, and will also approach the Lokayukta.
The Congress party alleged that AAP government collected money from the people in the name of ‘Green Tax’ and instead of spending that money on checking pollution, the AAP government indulged in corruption by introducing the Odd-Even traffic regulation once again in the capital. The party accused Kejriwal government of spending the Green Tax money for its self-publicity.
Chopra said the AAP government, which has collected Rs 1,174.67 crore from the people as ‘Green Tax” since 2015 has spent only Rs 272.51 crore, out of which Rs 265 crore was spent on the orders of the Supreme Court for the Delhi-Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System.
“The AAP government spent only Rs 7 crore for the repair of Delhi roads for pollution control, which was a big scam as the Delhi government has no account of the expenses incurred,” he said, adding around Rs 400 crore were lying with the Central government.
Chopra also said that 63,142 children had died due to air pollution in 2017. He said that according to available statistics, 58 children face death every day in Delhi due to pollution.
He added, “Despite this shocking revelation, the BJP government at the Centre and the AAP government in Delhi have not taken effective measures to control pollution in the Capital.”
Questioning the basis on which the masks were purchased and distributed, Delhi Congress leaders said there were doubts about the manner in which the masks were purchased and distributed and demanded a high-level probe.
Just yesterday, the Delhi High Court had slammed Delhi Government and concerned authorities on the present state of air pollution in Delhi. The High Court had observed that if the government had followed its previous orders, the pollution level would not have reached present levels.
The High Court pulled up the Delhi government saying the problem lies in implementation and not lack of ideas. There is a complete lack of will, observed Delhi HC.
Three Republican senators in the United States have cautioned their government over the possible nexus between social service organisations and Islamist terrorist groups, like the Hizb-ul Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, reported Times Now.
#Exclusive#Breaking | American Senators caution the U.S Govt over a possible nexus between American social service organisations & terror groups.
The Congressmen of the US’s Republican Party have written the letter to Ambassador Nathan Sales, the coordinator of counter-terrorism in the US State Department, said the Times Now report.
In their letter, shared by Times Now, the Congressmen have urged the Ambassador for a full investigation into “potential terror links between US-based groups like the Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) with UN Security Council designated terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Hizb-ul Mujahideen.
The Republican Congressmen, namely Randy Weber, Chuck Fleischmann and Jim Banks, have stated that the HHRD and the ICNA “sell themselves as innocuous Muslim civil society organisations when they are, in fact, arms of one of the most radical networks in the world.”
In the letter dated November 1, these lawmakers have stated that ‘there is no doubt that the ICNA and HHRD are part of Jamaat-e-Islami’s international network.’ They added that the evidence of these two organisations’ links with terror groups is extensive and overwhelming.
They have claimed that these organisations have openly worked with US-designated terror organisations operating in Kashmir under the guise of international aid. Asserting that the US government must work on stopping the money flow from these organisations to the terrorist groups working in Kashmir, the letter stated that both groups are ‘directly involved in terror funding’.
As per the report, the HHRD had organised a conference in Pakistan in December 2017, at a government college in Timergara, which was co-sponsored by the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, a front of the LeT which was designated by the US Treasury Department as a terrorist organisation. Another co-sponsor was Al-Khidmat, which supports the Hizb-ul Mujahideen.
The Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation is listed as a terror organisation by the government of India too under the UAPA. The HHRD’s links with internationally designated terror organisation through the guise of ‘charity groups’ has been documented by many sources.
The congressmen have also highlighted that the ICNA has received 10 million USD as a grant from the Trump administration.
The US politicians have urged their government not to ‘fan the flames of war’ and help to keep peace in the Kashmir region by taking solid steps to curb funding to these so-called ‘charity’ organisations.
Media reports had stated that the government of Pakistan is in the process of amending its Army Act in accordance with the decision by the International Court of Justice in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Reportedly, the laws were to be amended to allow Kulbhushan Jadhav to file an appeal in a civilian court in Pakistan. However, now the Pakistan Army had denied all such reports and called them baseless.
The Pakistan Army has said that reports of Pakistan amending Army Act to allow Kulbhushan Jadhav to appeal his conviction in the civilian court is baseless and that they are ‘considering legal options’ to review and reconsider the Indian national’s case.
Speculations for amendment in Pak Army Act to implement ICJ verdict regarding convicted Indian terrorist Cdr Kulbushan Jadhav are incorrect. Various legal options for review and reconsideration of the case are being considered. Final status shall be shared in due course of time.
Earlier in the day, Pakistani government sources hinted at the amendment of the act under which no appeals can be made under civilian court. Earlier sources in Pakistan said Islamabad plans to amend the Army Act, section 133 which will give Jadhav right to appeal in a civilian court and also opens the door for India to provide legal aid to him.
As per existing laws under Pakistan’s Army Act, Kulbhushan Jadhav was forbidden from filing an appeal in Pakistan’s civilian courts. However, after the ICJ gave its verdict in India’s favour and stayed the death sentence pronounced for Jadhav, and further allowing consular access to India, the ICJ had asked Pakistan to allow Jadhav to file an appeal in civilian court.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands had in July directed Pakistan to stay Jadhav’s execution and allow him consular access. Based on ICJ’s verdict in a 15-1 decision on July 17, Pakistan had on July 30 sent its first proposal to India but with 2 riders attached. One that Pakistani security personnel will be present during the meeting and second there will be CCTV cameras present in the room.
After the ICJ verdict stayed the execution and allowed India consular access, India had declared that it will now push for shifting Jadhav’s case to a civilian court, to ensure he gets proper legal representation.
After the consular access was finally granted in September, India has stated that Jadhav is under extreme pressure by Pakistan to parrot a false narrative.
The Delhi High Court issued a notice to the central government to file an affidavit within a week and share the names of all the ex-MPs, MLAs and other government officials who are yet to vacate their government accommodation in the national capital.
As per a report in Livelaw, a division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel, and justice Hari Shankar also asked the central government to mention the amount that needs to be recovered from these ex-MPs, MLAs and government officials towards the payments of dues for overstaying in government dwellings.
The notice was issued over the PIL filed by the Anti Corruption Council of India. The PIL included the demands that
The central government provides the details of all the ex-MPs, MLAs and government officials who have been overstaying in government bungalows
The centre provides the details of the expenses incurred by the government for providing accommodation to present MPs and MLAs, who have been staying outside due to non-availability of government dwellings
The petitioners reportedly also stated that over 100 ex-government officers are also overstaying in their government accommodations in an illegal manner as they are not authorised to stay in these bungalows after the completion of service.
The petitioners have also argued that due to non-availability of government accommodations, many MPs are staying in expensive hotels on the Taxpayers’ money. They also added that an RTI enquiry seeking the above details has failed to get any response from the government.
The Delhi HC’s notice also reportedly included that, if the central government fails to furnish the affidavit within a week, the secretary will have to make a personal appearance before the court.
It is notable here that after the 17th Lok Sabha took the oath, ex-MPs were asked to vacate their government bungalows in Delhi. In August, when many of the ex-MPs still did not vacate the bungalows, the Lok Sabha housing committee, headed by CR Patil, had served a notice to over 200 former MPs who continued to occupy Lutyens bungalows.
The 17th Lok Sabha saw more than 260 MPs who have been elected for the first time in the lower house of the parliament. The government of India has been constructing duplex flats to accommodate the new MPs in Delhi’s North Avenue.
After 2014 elections too, a larger number of MPs had refused to leave their houses and it took a long time and lots of efforts in getting the houses vacated to accommodate newly elected MPs.
As per reports, even till October, over 50 ex-MPs were still occupying government bungalows in Delhi’s Lutyens area. On October 17, the 12-member committee led by Patil had sought the help of Delhi police to evict the 27 ex-MPs who were still occupying the government bungalows.
The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant in the Ayodhya title suit, stated that they will not be accepting the 5-acre alternative land for building a mosque as mandated by the Supreme Court.
Reportedly, the decision by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind comes two days before the crucial meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to discuss the future course of action following the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya.
The working committee Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind met in Delhi on Thursday, stated that nothing would be acceptable as an “alternative” to a mosque, be it money or land. In another big decision, Jamiat did not rule out the possibility of going for a review of the Supreme Court verdict.
A five-member fact-finding committee to be headed by its president, Arshad Madani, would seek legal opinion on the issue.
Calling the Supreme Court verdict ‘baffling’, Jamiat president Maulana Arshad Madani said it was the prerogative of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf Board to decide on whether to accept 5 acres that the court ordered to build a mosque, but, he added that the Jamiat working committee has decided to reject the offer since there was no need for such “charity”.
“Once a mosque is built, it remains a mosque till the end of time. So Babri Masjid is, was, and will remain a mosque. However, if the Supreme Court had said that Babri Masjid had been built after demolishing a temple, we would have forfeited our claim. Also, if we do not have a claim, why give us land at all? That is why this is a baffling verdict from the Supreme Court,” added Madani.
Uttar Pradesh JuH president Ashhad Rashidi, who was present in the meeting, said two crucial decisions were taken in the working committee meeting. “One was related to the five-acre alternative land for a mosque and the other was the possibility of filing a review plea,” said Rashidi.
He added, “The working committee unanimously decided there can be no ‘badal’ (alternative) of a mosque for anything in the world, neither money nor land. It will not be right for any Muslim outfit to accept barter,” said Rashidi.
Founded in 1919, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind is one of the most influential and financially sustainable Muslim organisations in the country. Recently, it had created a massive controversy after it had extended legal and financial aid to the Islamists accused in the Kamlesh Tiwari murder.
The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, which roughly translates to Council of Indian Muslim Theologians belonging to the Deobandi school of thought, had said that it was willing to bear all the legal costs and also offered the held of their legal cell to defend the 5 Islamists, who were accused in the Kamlesh Tiwari murder.
Maharashtra has been in limbo post-Assembly elections. While BJP and Shiv Sena, the ideological allies had a fall out over Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena demanding the Chief Minister position, the erstwhile Hindutva party has now allied with Sonia Gandhi led Congress and Sharad Pawar led NCP. According to media reports, the three parties have reached a broad consensus on a Common Minimum Program (CMP) where Hindutva has been dropped like a hot potato and the cause of minorities, farmers have taken the spotlight.
According to a report in the Times of India, a 40 point Common Minimum Program has been reached by the three parties. The CMP is now expected to be circulated to the party chiefs who will discuss the finer points over the weekend. A final word on CMP is expected to be reached on 19th November 2019. Interestingly, there were 3 meetings that took place to decide the CMP. In two of the meetings, Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP were all present, however, in one meeting, only Congress and NCP were present. According to TOI, Shiv Sena is likely to get 16 cabinet members, NCP 14 and Congress 12. The Speaker is likely to be from Congress and will get a deputy from Sena, while the legislative council chairman’s post will go to NCP, with the deputy’s chair, again, for Sena.
However, a report in India Today claims that Shiv Sena is going to get a full term Chief Minister with Congress and NCP electing one Deputy CM each. The report also says that Shiv Sena and NCP will get 14 Cabinet Ministers each while Congress is likely to get 12.
However, on the post of CM, TOI quotes a senior Congress leader as saying: “Shiv Sena has staked a claim for the CM’s post. It is not yet clear if it will be for five years or it will be by rotation for two and half years, or it should be for an equal period among Congress, Shiv Sena and NCP.”
Media reports have also given broad indicators as to what the agenda for CMP between the three parties is. Broadly, it appears that in their thirst for power, Shiv Sena seems to have given up on the Hindutva cause. In fact, if reports are to be believed, Congress and NCP want an assurance from Shiv Sena that their Hindutva agenda is going to take a back-seat once the government is formed. The demands are that Shiv Sena too needs to agree to be a part of a secular government, reported Jagran.
The reports indicate that the central focus of the CMP is going to be minorities and farmers. The CMP mentions the welfare of minorities, loan waiver for farmers, tracking of wet droughts, the revival of closed and sick industries, action plan for employment generation etc.
Interestingly, a journalist had recently claimed that 5% reservation for Muslims was to be a part of the Common Minimum Program reached by the three parties.
Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan has reportedly said, “We took note of Shiv Sena’s manifesto as well as our own manifesto and drafted the CMP. It is not an election manifesto, but an action plan for providing clean and transparent administration. Contentious issues have been dropped”.
Recently, several Shiv Sena MLAs had revolted saying that the entire party is suffering because Uddhav Thackeray is hankering for the Chief Minister position. The revolting MLAs had reportedly left the resort they were being holed up in due to fear of poaching by BJP.
