English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Digvijaya accuses BJP government and NIA chief of protecting Lt Col Purohit in Malegaon blasts probe, kicks up row

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Infamous for his controversial remarks, the Congress general secretary alleges that the NIA chief was being given extensions by the Modi government to ensure that all RSS-affiliated men accused in terror attacks are acquitted

Being increasingly sidelined by his own party, Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh is back to doing what he is best at – stirring up controversies with his comments on micro-blogging website Twitter.

On Monday, the former Madhya Pradesh chief minister who has often embarrassed his party with his unsubstantiated allegations against the BJP or even public officials and their role in either spreading or shielding ‘Hindu terror’, trained his guns at National Investigation Agency (NIA) chief SK Sinha.

Soon after the Supreme Court announced bail for Malegaon blasts accused Lieutenant Colonal Shrikant Purohit on Monday morning, Singh alleged that while the Narendra Modi-led BJP government at the Centre was “protecting all the accused connected with RSS in all bomb blast cases (sic)”, the NIA chief was now set to win a suitable post-retirement position.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_column_text]Singh comments against the NIA chief came in light of the Supreme Court accepting Purohit’s application for bail after his lawyer, Harish Salve, argued before a two-judge Bench of Justices RK Agrawal and AM Sapre that: “Lieutenant Colonel Purohit was caught in a political crossfire and was falsely implicated in the case”. Senior advocate Salve had told the Bench that his client – who had been in jail for the past nine years for his alleged role in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case – “did not want to be discharged from the case at present, but for the interest of justice, wanted an interim bail”.

The NIA, Salve claimed, had filed a new chargesheet in the case which contradicts the agency’s claims made in its earlier chargesheets. The critical issue, according to Salve, was that the NIA, after it filed the supplementary chargesheet, had noticed the discrepancies in chargesheet filed by the Anti-terrorism Squad on two key issues – first , people who had given statements in the case had retracted their statements saying they were forced to give them, and thereafter, there was a serious question on recovery of RDX from the premises of Purohit.

Salve had also argued that even if charges were framed against Purohit, the maximum penalty that he was liable for is seven years. However, Purohit had already been in jail for the past nine years.

Digvijaya Singh’s allegation that the BJP and NIA were working in tandem to ensure acquittal of all RSS-affiliated people who have been accused in various bomb blast cases was also a reference to the Bombay High Court’s order earlier this year under which key Malegaon blasts accused, Sadhvi Pragya, was granted relief after the NIA claimed that it did not have sufficient evidence to prove her involvement in 2008 blast that had killed 4 people and left 79 injured. However, the NIA had then claimed that it had enough evidence to prove the involvement of Lt Col Purohit, who then challenged the Bombay High Court’s order of not granting him relief in the Supreme Court.

The Congress, which often has been forced to distance itself from Singh’s remarks related to Hindu terror, however, seemed to back him on his latest salvo. The party’s chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala insisted that the bail granted to Purohit “is not a reflection of whether or not Purohit was guilty in the blast case”.

Surjewala seemed to concur with Singh’s remarks about the NIA chief getting two extensions in office, saying it is “strange” that the Modi government could not find any competent police officer in India to head the NIA and had to give two extensions to the current chief.

The BJP, expectedly, has slammed Singh’s comments with several party leaders claimed that Purohit was granted bail by the Supreme Court and the Congress leader “has no right to question the judgement of the country’s highest court”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

on

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

on

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

India News

No state will lose a seat, Centre assures as delimitation debate takes centre stage in Parliament

Parliament’s special session begins with key focus on implementing women’s reservation and delimitation, setting the stage for major electoral changes.

Published

on

Parliament

A special session of Parliament commenced on Thursday, with the Centre set to take up crucial legislation related to women’s reservation and delimitation of constituencies. The session, scheduled over three days, is expected to witness intense debate as the government pushes forward its legislative agenda.

At the centre of discussions is the proposal to operationalise the women’s reservation law, which seeks to allocate 33 percent of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies to women. The law, passed earlier, requires enabling provisions before it can be implemented.

The rollout of the reservation is closely tied to the delimitation exercise — a process that redraws parliamentary constituencies based on updated population data. The implementation is expected only after the next census and delimitation process are completed.

The government is aiming to put in place the framework so that the reservation can be enforced in future elections, likely around 2029.

Delimitation and numbers at play

Delimitation is a key aspect of the proposed changes, as it will determine how seats are redistributed and which constituencies are reserved. The exercise is expected to reflect population shifts and may also involve an increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats.

This linkage has made the issue politically sensitive, with several opposition parties backing women’s reservation in principle but raising concerns over how and when delimitation will be carried out.

Political reactions and expected debate

The session is likely to see sharp exchanges between the government and opposition. While there is broad agreement on increasing women’s representation, disagreements remain over the timing, process, and potential political implications of the delimitation exercise.

Some leaders have argued that delimitation could significantly alter the balance of representation among states, making it a contentious issue beyond the women’s quota itself.

The government, however, has framed the move as a step toward strengthening women’s participation in governance and ensuring more inclusive policymaking.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com