English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

Published

on

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

The Supreme Court today (Monday, October 29) asked journalist-activist Gautam Navlakha to respond in two weeks to a plea filed by the Maharashtra police challenging a Delhi High Court order which set aside his transit remand in Bhima Koregaon violence case and released him from house arrest earlier this month.

Navlakha was among the five activists arrested in August in connection with a case linked to the Bhima Koregaon violence. The Delhi High Court had released Navlakha from house arrest on October 1 and quashed a Magistrate court order granting transit remand to the Maharashtra police to transfer him to Pune.

While the plea challenging it was heard in Supreme Court, in a related development, the Delhi High Court today initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against S Gurumurthy of RSS-linked Swadeshi Jagran Manch and now a director in Reserve bank of India,  for his tweets against sitting High Court judge Justice S Muralidhar who had passed the order in Navlakha case.

In Supreme Court today, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while hearing submissions by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, also stayed a Bombay High Court order that had declined to extend the time granted to the Maharashtra police to complete its investigation against Navlakha and the other activists – Varavara Rao, Sudha Bhardwaj, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves.

The order by the top court comes days after it rejected a petition filed by eminent historian Romila Thapar that had sought review of an earlier verdict by the court which refused to direct constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the controversial cases slapped by the Maharashtra police against Navlakha and the other activists.

A day after the bench headed by Chief Justice Gogoi rejected Thapar’s review petition, the Maharashtra police had sought custody of all five activists and succeeded in getting transit remand for Ferreira, Gonsalves and Bharadwaj from respective jurisdictional courts.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Chartered Accountant S Gurumurthy for his tweets against sitting High Court judge Justice S Muralidhar.

Gurumurthy had shared a tweet alleging bias on the part of Justice Muralidhar after the judge had passed an order setting aside the transit remand order against activist Gautam Navlakha earlier this month.

He had retweeted a link to a blog called ‘Drishtikone’, titled ‘Why has Delhi High Court Justice Muralidhar’s relationship with Gautam Navlakha not been disclosed?’

SC asks Navlakha to respond to plea against cancellation of his transit remand and release from house arrest

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Yogesh Khanna issued notice to Gurumurthy, Drishtikone and filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri. The Court also ordered that the tweets in question, and a YouTube video making allegations against Justice Muralidhar, be taken down. Notice has also been issued to the NCT government.

This is not the first time Gurumurthy has targeted Justice Muralidhar and been pulled up for it. After the court granted interim relief to Karti Chidambaram, Gurumurthy, who is the editor of the magazine ‘Thuglak’, through his tweets, had asked whether Justice Muralidhar had been a junior to Karti Chidambaram’s father and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram.

Taking cognisance of the tweet, the Court observed, “Being the editor of a magazine that has a wide readership in Tamil Nadu, had Mr. S. Gurumurthy cared to check, he could easily have ascertained that the presiding Judge of this Bench was as a junior of Mr. G. Ramswamy, who then was the Additional Solicitor General of India and who later was the Attorney General for India.

“At no time did the presiding Judge work as a junior to Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, the father of the Petitioner. It is unfortunate that despite some of the tweets in response clarifying the correct factual position, Mr. Gurumurthy chose not to withdraw his mischievous and false tweet.”

The Court, in that matter, did not initiate contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy.

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