Archives for July 2025

New Delhi Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to press for a legislation in Parliament’s upcoming Monsoon session to grant full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

The leaders of opposition in the two houses of Parliament — Kharge is the LoP in the Rajya Sabha and Gandhi is the LoP in the Lok Sabha — also called on the government to bring a legislation to include the Union Territory of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.

In their joint letter to Modi, Kharge and Gandhi said that for the past five years, the people of the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir have consistently called for the restoration of full statehood.

This demand is both legitimate and firmly grounded in their constitutional and democratic rights, they said.

“It is important to recognise that while there have been instances of Union territories being granted statehood in the past, the case of Jammu and Kashmir is without precedent in independent India. This is the first time a full-fledged state has been downgraded to a Union territory following its bifurcation,” the letter said.

“Your goodself has, on multiple occasions, personally reiterated the government’s commitment to restoring statehood. In your interview in Bhubaneswar on 19 May 2024, you stated: ‘The restoration of statehood is a solemn promise we have made and we stand by it’. Again, while addressing a rally in Srinagar on 19 September 2024, you reaffirmed: ‘We have said in Parliament that we will restore the region’s statehood’,” the two leaders said.

The Union government has also made similar assurances before the Supreme Court in the Article 370 matter, submitting that statehood would be restored “at the earliest and as soon as possible”, they pointed out.

“In view of the foregoing and aforementioned, we urge upon the government to bring forward a legislation in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament to grant full statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,” Kharge and Gandhi said.

“Additionally, we request that the government bring forward legislation to include the Union Territory of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution,” they said.

This would be a significant step towards addressing the cultural, developmental, and political aspirations of the people of Ladakh, while safeguarding their rights, land, and identity, the letter said.

Reacting to Kharge and Gandhi jointly writing the letter to Modi, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah welcomed the Congress initiative, saying “we are not demanding something that was not promised to us”.

“This is a very good thing, we were waiting for this day when the opposition would raise our voice in Parliament and Delhi. I am thankful to Kharge and Rahul that they have raised the statehood issue with the Centre,” the chief minister said on the sidelines of an event in Jammu, when asked about the letter.

He said, “We are not demanding something which was not promised to us. We were repeatedly promised within and outside Parliament, Supreme Court and public functions that the statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir at an appropriate time.”

Expressing gratitude, spokesperson of Jammu and Kashmir’s ruling National Conference (NC) Imran Nabi Dar said, “We welcome this and thank the Congress leadership for taking the initiative.”

He said there is no reason to delay the restoration of statehood to the Union Territory further.

“We are hopeful that the government will bring the bill (for the restoration of statehood) in the forthcoming Monsoon session (of Parliament),” Dar said.

People’s Democratic Party (PDP) spokesperson Mohit Bhan said statehood is the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and there has already been a delay in restoring it.

“As far as statehood is concerned, that should be given to Jammu and Kashmir. The prime minister and the home minister have promised it and I think much time has already passed and Jammu and Kashmir should get its statehood back,” he said.

Bhan, however, asserted that the “real fight” is for the restoration of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution, which were revoked by the Centre on August 5, 2019 and the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into Union territories.

Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee president Tariq Karra expressed gratitude to the party leadership for its letter to Modi.

The letter comes a day after the top Congress leadership decided to raise issues such as the Pahalgam terror attack, the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and rising atrocities against women in the country during the Monsoon session starting July 21.

Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor

Kishanganj (Bihar): Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor waded into the political controversy surrounding the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar on Wednesday when he described the mammoth exercise as a “BJP conspiracy”.

Kishor made the remark in Kishanganj, the state’s lone district with a Muslim majority population, and promised that his fledgling party would help those whose names get wrongfully deleted from the voters’ list.

Talking to reporters, he said, “The SIR is a BJP conspiracy. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Election Commission cannot determine people’s citizenship. Does the Election Commission, by carrying out such an exercise now, intend to say that the electoral roll of 2014, when Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister, was fake?”.

He added, “The same electoral roll was fine till last year’s Lok Sabha polls. We fail to see a problem in conducting the upcoming assembly polls on the basis of the same voters’ list.”

“Obviously, the BJP is jittery in Bihar realising that the people here now have a new alternative in Jan Suraaj Party. So they are trying to wrongfully delete the names of voters. I would ask all people who face such wrongful deletions to contact our party. We will extend all possible help”, said the former political strategist.

Kishor, whose nine-month-old party is aiming to make a big dent in the state’s Muslim vote base, also trained his guns at the RJD, which has so far been the first party of choice for the minority community.

“The RJD has treated Muslims as nothing more than the kerosene that could serve to keep the lantern bright. But the community has now had enough,” said the Jan Suraaj Party founder, in an obvious reference to the main opposition party’s poll symbol.

Replying to a query, he said he saw “no role” in Bihar for the AIMIM headed by Asaduddin Owaisi, which had won a few seats in the 2020 assembly polls and has expressed the desire to contest the upcoming elections as part of the INDIA bloc.

“Bihar does not need to import leaders from Hyderabad,” asserted Kishor, whose own party has decided to go it alone in the polls.

The IPAC founder, who has in his previous avatar handled election campaigns of several political parties across the ideological divide, was also asked about the Hindi versus Marathi row that has erupted in Maharashtra.

Blaming the controversy on “Thackeray brothers”, son and nephew of late Bal Thackeray, Uddhav and Raj, respectively, Kishor said, “these people are lumpen elements. But the Congress and the BJP too have their share of the blame as these national parties have no qualms in tying up with such divisive forces.”

He also alleged that Bihar BJP president Dilip Jaiswal has indulged in corruption and favouritism in his capacity as one of the trustees of Kishanganj-based MGM Medical College and challenged the latter, a sitting MLC and former state minister, to initiate legal action “if what I am saying is wrong”.

Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad being escorted by police personnel after his arrest

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned Haryana SIT’s line of investigation in the case of Ashoka University professor booked for social media posts on Operation Sindoor saying “it misdirected itself”.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the Haryana SIT headed by a senior police officer to only confine itself to the two FIRs against Ali Khan Mahmudabad over his contentious social media posts and see if there was an offence and submit its report in four weeks.

“We are asking why SIT is, on the face of it, misdirecting itself? They were supposed to examine the contents of the posts,” Justice Kant said.

The bench said though it did not want to interfere or intervene with the investigation, it questioned the seizure of the cell phones and other electronic gadgets.

“It is open for the SIT to say that the contents of the FIRs does not disclose any offence, this case can be closed. It can always say that during the course of investigation, they have come across certain incriminating materials, which constitute separate offences and the law will take its own course,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the SIT.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mahmudabad, submitted despite the court directing the SIT to focus on the contents of the FIR, it carried out a “roving inquiry” and sent the gadgets seized from the professor to forensic laboratory for examination.

He referred to the interim status report of the SIT saying it had received the forensic lab report of the gadgets and two more months were required for its examination.

Raju said the investigation was SIT’s prerogative and the accused couldn’t dictate terms of the probe.

“All you had to do was examine the posts, whether the expression, words or terminology constitute any offences alleged in the FIR. For that you do not need him, or a dictionary or his gadgets. We want to know for what purposes, these gadgets were seized?” the bench asked Raju.

Justice Kant said if Raju was unable to answer the question it would call the head of the SIT and them about the line of investigation.

Sibal said the posts were very patriotic statements and anyone looking at it would give the same view.

Raju argued to see if there was an offence, devices had to be examined to see if there was more than just social media posts.

“We feel that the SIT has misdirected itself despite the mandate given in the May 28 order,” the bench reiterated.

Since Mahmudabad was cooperating with the investigation, there was no need to summon him again, it said.

The investigation should not have taken two days, it added.

“There are two social media posts and two FIRs. The question is very simple. Which line and which word or expression constitutes an offence. This is what the SIT, being an expert body, has to find out,” the top court said.

The bench relaxed the professor’s bail condition imposed on May 21 and allowed him write posts, articles and express any opinion except on the sub judice case.

On May 28, the top court said there was no impediment on the professor’s right to speech and expression, but barred him from sharing anything online on the cases against him.

The top court had made it clear that the subject matter of investigation was two FIRs lodged against the professor and asked the Haryana police not to go “left and right” in the investigation and seek the “devices”, which the cops said they would like to examine.

On May 21, the top court granted him interim bail, but refused to stay the investigation against him.

The top court had also restrained the professor from expressing any opinion in relation to the terrorist attack on Indian soil or the counter-response given by the Indian armed forces.

It directed a three-member SIT to look into the FIRs against him.

Haryana Police arrested Mahmudabad on May 18 after two FIRs were registered against him.

His contentious social media posts on Operation Sindoor, it is alleged, endangered the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

The two FIRs — one based on a complaint by the chairperson of Haryana State Commission for Women, Renu Bhatia, and the other on a complaint by a village sarpanch — were lodged by Rai police in Sonipat district.

He was booked under BNS sections 152 (acts endangering sovereignty or unity and integrity of India), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief), 79 (deliberate actions aimed at insulting the modesty of a woman) and 196 (1) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion).

Several political parties and academicians condemned the arrest.