English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Kathua child gangrape and murder: SC seeks J&K’s reply on plea to transfer case to Chandigarh

Published

on

Kathua child gangrape and murder: SC seeks J&K's reply on plea to transfer case to Chandigarh

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud on Monday, April 16, asked Jammu and Kashmir government’s reply on plea for transferring trial in Kathua gangrape case to Chandigarh and directed the state government to provide security to the victim family’s lawyers Deepika Rajawat and Talib Hussain.

Hearing the appeal from the 8-year-old Kathua rape-murder victim’s father who had asked for the trial to be shifted out of J&K, the SC decided to take it up and listed the case on April 27 while making it clear that this will not be treated as a PIL.

Also, it said, “As an interim measure, it is directed that the Jammu and Kashmir Police to beef up the security and provide adequate security personnel to the family, Deepika Singh Rajawat and family friend Talid Hussain.”

The apex court also asked the state police to provide security at the observation home where delinquent juvenile is kept in connection with raping and killing the eight-year-old girl.

As the trial in the case started in Kathua on Monday, the eight accused pleaded not guilty and asked the judge for a narco analysis test, said media reports.  Seven of the eight accused were produced before District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Gupta, who asked the state Crime Branch to give them copies of the chargesheet and fixed April 28 as the next date of hearing.

The seven accused were shifted back to the jail under heavy security immediately after the brief hearing in the sessions court.

In SC, during the hearing, the victim’s father expressed satisfaction over the probe conducted by the state police so far and opposed the plea for a CBI probe as sought by others. Senior advocate Indira Jaising made it clear the victim’s father was seeking transfer of the trial of the case and not the investigation.

She said that the grievance is not the investigation and that she is not asking for any closure in this matter. The issues are grave and that the police couldn’t file the chargesheet for several hours. The lady police officer had to face a lot of trouble while filing the chargesheet.

She said that the atmosphere in that place (J&K court) is such that the “fair trial will become impossible. The petition pertains to the transfer of the case from Jammu and Kashmir.”

She pointed out that there have been direct attacks on the counsel for the 8-year-old’s father. She said that even the investigating officer was told to give up on this case.

She also sought interim protection for the family of the child and the counsel.

The CJI said: “Basically the case pertains to victim protection?” To this Jaising agreed, India Legal reported.

The CJI asked: “Suppose, if we transfer the case, will the investigation continue?”

Jaising said various cases have come up wherein the entire investigation is sought to be transferred to the CBI. However, we only demand for the transfer of the trials. The CBI comes in for the investigation only when there is a loophole in the case. The police has a done a god job.

The court also rejected a petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor seeking a CBI probe in the case .

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition has been filed by the adoptive father. This Jaising objected to, saying that the petition has been filed by the biological father of the child. The letter from the father was submitted before the CJI bench.

A team of five policemen is already with the family of the victim, submits the counsel for the respondents.

Listing the matter for April 27, the bench said that no multiple counsels will be allowed to argue. The CJI made it clear that this matter will pertain only to victim’s family. It’s not a PIL.

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com