English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Hardeep Singh Nijjar killing: MEA slams Canada’s charge against Indian High Commissioner, diplomats; calls it preposterous

The Ministry of External Affairs said the Canadian government did not share a shred of evidence of India’s involvement in Nijjar’s killing despite repeated requests and accused Trudeau of doing vote bank politics

Published

on

Hardeep Singh Nijjar killing: MEA slams Canada’s charge against Indian High Commissioner, diplomats; calls it preposterous

The Ministry of External Affairs on Monday issued a strongly-worded statement over Canada’s charge that the Indian High Commissioner and other diplomats are persons of interest linked to a murder investigation, calling it preposterous imputations. Criticizing the Justin Trudeau government for smearing India as part of its vote bank politics, the MEA said that it now reserved the right to take further steps in response.

India and Canada ties worsened in September last year when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged Indian government agents involvement in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil. India had rejected those charges as motivated and absurd. However, the diplomatic row took a fresh turn recently when Canada named Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma as a person of interest in its investigation into Nijjar’s killing.

Issuing a scathing statement today, the Ministry of External Affairs said the Canadian government did not share a shred of evidence of India’s involvement in Nijjar’s killing despite repeated requests and accused Trudeau of doing vote bank politics and not doing enough to tackle separatist elements on Canadian soil.

The statement read that the Indian government received a diplomatic communication from Canada yesterday suggesting that the Indian High Commissioner and other diplomats are persons of interest in a matter related to an investigation in that country. The MEA in its statement clarified that the Indian government strongly rejects these preposterous imputations and ascribes them to the political agenda of the Trudeau Government that is centered around vote bank politics.

The statement claimed that since Prime Minister Trudeau made certain allegations in September 2023, the Canadian government has not shared a shred of evidence with the Government of India, despite many requests from our side. It added that this latest step follows interactions that have again witnessed assertions without any facts, and leaves little doubt that on the pretext of an investigation, there is a deliberate strategy of smearing India for political gains.

The government also pointed to the long evidence of Trudeau’s hostility to India, saying his 2018 visit to India was aimed at currying favour with a vote bank, rebounded to his discomfort.

The statement further stated that Trudeau’s Cabinet has included individuals who have openly associated with an extremist and separatist agenda regarding India. The Canadian Prime Minister’s naked interference in Indian internal politics in December 2020 showed how far he was willing to go in this regard, that his government was dependent on a political party, whose leader openly espouses a separatist ideology vis-a-vis India, only aggravated matters, it continued. The MEA was referring to Canada’s New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh, whose party pulled out of Trudeau’s government.

The government asserted that the Trudeau administration deliberately flagged India as an issue to mitigate the damage, asserting that Canada faced criticism for turning a blind eye to foreign interference in Canadian politics.

The statement said that the recent development targeting Indian diplomats is the next step in that direction. It is no coincidence that it takes place as Prime Minister Trudeau is to depose before a Commission on foreign interference. It also serves the anti-India separatist agenda that the Trudeau Government has constantly pandered to for narrow political gains, it added.

The MEA underlined the Trudeau government’s constant support to violent extremists and terrorists to harass, threaten and intimidate Indian diplomats in Canada, mentioning these were done in the name of freedom of speech.

The statement asserted that the Trudeau government has consciously provided space to violent extremists and terrorists to harass, threaten and intimidate Indian diplomats and community leaders in Canada, including death threats to them and to Indian leaders. All these activities have been justified in the name of freedom of speech, it mentioned.

Furthermore, the statement also claimed that some individuals who have entered Canada illegally have been fast-tracked for citizenship. It said that multiple extradition requests from the Government of India in respect of terrorists and organised crime leaders living in Canada have been disregarded.

The MEA said that High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma is India’s senior most serving diplomat with a distinguished career spanning 36 years. Sanjay Kumar Verma has been Ambassador in Japan and Sudan, while also serving in Italy, Turkiye, Vietnam and China. The Ministry said that the aspersions cast on the High Commissioner by the Government of Canada are ludicrous and deserve to be treated with contempt.

The government stated that it took note of the activities of the Canadian High Commission in India, which it said served as the political agenda of the Trudeau government. It concluded that India now reserves the right to take further steps in response to these recent efforts of the Canadian Government to concoct allegations against Indian diplomats.

India News

Women’s quota bill fails in Lok Sabha as it falls short of two-thirds majority

Women’s reservation proposal failed in Lok Sabha after securing 298 votes, below the required two-thirds majority

Published

on

Parliament

Government secures 298 votes in favour, 230 against; proposal does not pass constitutional threshold

The proposed amendment related to women’s reservation failed to pass in the Lok Sabha on Friday after the government could not secure the required two-thirds majority.

The bill received 298 votes in favour and 230 against, falling short of the constitutional threshold needed for passage. As a constitutional amendment, it required the support of at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

Despite securing a simple majority, the government was unable to gather sufficient support to meet this requirement.

Debate continues over two days

The discussion on the bill extended late into Thursday and continued on Friday, with members from both sides participating in the debate on women’s representation in legislative bodies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged members to support the proposal, calling for wider consensus on the issue.

Implications of the outcome

The failure of the bill underscores the challenges in securing broad political agreement on constitutional amendments, especially those related to representation and electoral reforms.

The proposal was aimed at advancing women’s representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, an issue that has remained under discussion for several years.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi faces FIR order as Allahabad High Court acts on dual citizenship plea

High Court allows plea in Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, paving the way for further legal process.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Continue Reading

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

on

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com