English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

It Was Godse Who Killed Gandhi, No need to re-investigate: Amicus to SC

Published

on

It Was Godse Who Killed Gandhi, No need to re-investigate: Amicus to SC

Senior advocate Amarendra Sharan, appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court in a petition seeking re-investigation of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi 70 years ago, has stated that such a probe was not required.

In his report to the apex court, Sharan has reportedly said that the theory pushed by the petitioner – Pankaj Phadnis, co-founder of Abhinav Bharat (an organisation inspired by the ideology of RSS and BJP icon Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) – of the presence of a second assassin on the day the Mahatma was murdered was without any basis.

Phadnis had termed the investigation into Gandhi’s assassination as the “biggest cover-up” in the history of India. “The blame on the Marathi people in general and Veer Savarkar in particular for being the cause of the Mahatma’s death has no basis in law and facts. On the other hand, there is a compelling need to uncover the larger conspiracy behind the murder by constituting a new Commission of Inquiry to look into the issue,” Phadnis’ PIL had mentioned.

Rejecting the contentions put forth by Phadnis in the PIL, the amicus curiae said that the Father of the Nation had been killed by Nathuram Godse.

In his report, Sharan – who had been appointed amicus curiae by a Supreme Court bench of Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao in October last year – has concluded: “the bullets which pierced Mahatma Gandhi’s body, the pistol from which it was fired, the assailant who fired the said bullets, the conspiracy which led to the assassination and the ideology which led to the said assassination have all been duly identified.” Sharan adds that no substantive material has come to light to throw any doubt on the investigation of the Mahatma’s murder.

For the purpose of his report, Sharan, assisted by advocates Sanchit Guru and Samarth Khanna, had examined nearly 4,000 pages of trial court records in the assassination case, besides the Jeevan Lal Kapur Inquiry Commission report.

The PIL filed by Phadnis had claimed that there was a “fourth bullet” that had pierced the Mahatma’s body the day he was assassinated (January 30, 1948) and that this bullet was fired by a second assassin and not Nathuram Godse, the man widely believed to be the murderer of the Father of the Nation. Godse, along with an associate, was hanged for the assassination.  The RSS, the parent organisation of the BJP, was subsequently banned by Sardar Patel, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Union home minister, in February 1948 for its role in fomenting an atmosphere of hate which played its role in precipitating events.

While rejecting the need for a re-investigation or a fact-finding commission to look at the Mahatma’s assassination afresh, Sharan has noted that he received a letter and an affidavit on December 2, 2017, of one Dr Nene who claimed to have treated the so-called second assassin of the Mahatma in the late 1950s.

According to a report by The Indian Express, the amicus curiae has pointed out in his report: “That material (submissions by Dr Nene) has no evidentiary value in the court of law after sixty years, especially as Dr Nene had the opportunity to appear before the Kapur Commission (constituted to investigate the assassination) in 1965 and then when a similar petition came up before the Bombay High Court in 2016.”

The amicus curiae’s report has also junked the alleged involvement of a foreign intelligence agency in the assassination, and stated that the petitioner’s claim was not substantiated by any evidence.

Phadnis had earlier filed a similar petition before the Bombay High Court in June 2016. However, the court had then rejected Phadnis’ demand for a fresh Commission of Inquiry in the assassination case.

With Sharan having submitted his report, the PIL is now scheduled to come up for hearing before the Supreme Court Bench on Friday (January 12). It may be recalled that several distinguished citizens of the country, including the Mahatama’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi and great-grandson Tushar Gandhi have voiced their opposition to Phadnis’ demand for a fresh probe in the assassination case, raising concerns over the possible political motive behind such a move.

India News

Amit Shah counters delimitation concerns, says southern states to gain Lok Sabha seats

Amit Shah assures Parliament that southern states will gain Lok Sabha seats after delimitation, countering opposition criticism during the women’s reservation debate.

Published

on

Amit Shah

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday addressed concerns over the proposed delimitation exercise, asserting in the Lok Sabha that southern states will not lose representation but instead see an increase in their number of seats.

His remarks came during a heated debate linked to the implementation of women’s reservation, where opposition parties have raised fears that population-based delimitation could reduce the political weight of southern states.

Shah rejected these claims, calling them misleading, and said the proposed framework ensures fairness while expanding the overall strength of the Lok Sabha.

Seat count to rise with expansion of Lok Sabha

The government has indicated that the total number of Lok Sabha seats could increase significantly as part of the delimitation process. In this expanded House, the combined representation of southern states is expected to rise from 129 seats at present to around 195 seats.

Shah emphasised that no state will lose seats in absolute terms, and the exercise is designed to reflect population changes while maintaining balance across regions.

State-wise projections shared in Parliament

During his address, Shah also provided indicative figures for individual southern states, suggesting notable increases in representation. According to the projections:

  • Tamil Nadu could see its seats rise substantially
  • Kerala, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh are also expected to gain additional seats
  • Karnataka’s representation may increase as well

These figures were presented to counter the argument that delimitation would disproportionately favour northern states.

Political debate intensifies over linkage with women’s quota

The delimitation exercise has been closely linked to the rollout of women’s reservation, which proposes one-third seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies.

Opposition leaders have questioned this linkage, arguing that tying reservation to delimitation could delay its implementation and raise federal concerns. Some leaders have also warned that the move could impact national unity if apprehensions among states are not addressed.

The government, however, maintains that the reforms are necessary to ensure equitable representation and to align the electoral system with demographic realities.

Centre dismisses ‘false narrative’ on southern states

Shah reiterated that concerns about southern states losing influence are unfounded. He said the delimitation process will increase representation across regions and described the criticism as a “false narrative” aimed at creating confusion.

The issue is expected to remain a key flashpoint as Parliament continues discussions on the women’s reservation framework and related legislative changes.

Continue Reading

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

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com