The London High Court has refused to reopen fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s case against extradition to India, placing significant reliance on the “quality of assurances” provided by the Government of India.
Modi, wanted in India in connection with the ₹13,000-crore Punjab National Bank fraud, had sought to reopen his extradition case citing the recent ruling in the Sanjay Bhandari matter, where extradition was denied on human rights grounds, including concerns over possible torture.
However, the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, comprising Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice Jay, rejected his plea, emphasising that the assurances given by India through a formal note verbale were detailed, specific, and carried substantial diplomatic weight.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged that the Bhandari ruling had raised concerns about alleged treatment of detainees in India. It noted that, in the absence of fresh assurances from the Indian government between September 2025 and February 2026, it might have considered reopening the case under exceptional powers.
The Bench, however, concluded that the guarantees provided by India were sufficient to address these concerns. It rejected the argument that Modi would face a “real risk of torture or ill-treatment” during transit or while in custody.
The court highlighted that the assurances were not vague but clearly outlined the conditions under which Modi would be held, including arrangements for his stay at Mumbai’s Arthur Road prison, access to legal representation, and overall treatment during trial proceedings.
It further noted that these assurances were issued by a competent authority within India’s Ministry of Home Affairs and were binding on both the central and Maharashtra state authorities, as well as the investigating agencies involved.
While observing that India is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the court stated it had no reason to doubt that torture is prohibited under Indian law. It also underscored that any breach of these assurances would seriously damage diplomatic trust between India and the United Kingdom.
The Crown Prosecution Service, supported by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) team that travelled to London for the hearing, strongly opposed Modi’s petition. The CBI later said that coordinated efforts helped counter the legal challenge based on the Bhandari judgment.
Modi has been in a UK prison since his arrest on March 19, 2019. UK courts had earlier approved his extradition and dismissed multiple appeals, finding no legal barriers and accepting India’s assurances regarding his treatment.
According to officials, Modi is accused of siphoning off ₹6,498.20 crore from Punjab National Bank in collusion with his uncle Mehul Choksi, as part of one of India’s largest banking frauds.
Maharashtra Council Orders 5-Day Jail for Youth Over Fake News on MLC Amol Mitkari 3
The Maharashtra Legislative Council has ordered the implementation of a five-day jail term for a youth from Akola for allegedly publishing fake news against NCP MLA Amol Mitkari on a YouTube channel.
The accused, Ankush Gawande, had been directed to appear before the House on Wednesday to tender an apology. However, he failed to comply with the order, prompting the Council to enforce the punishment recommended earlier.
Gawande, along with journalists Ganesh Sonawane, Harshada Sonawane, and Amol Nandurkar, had reportedly aired false information against Mitkari on the ‘Satya Ladha’ YouTube channel. While the three journalists appeared before the House, apologised for their actions, and were let off with a warning, Gawande’s absence led to stricter action.
Council Chairman Ram Shinde stated that since Gawande did not present himself despite clear directions, the House decided to proceed with the punishment. The Upper House had passed a motion on Tuesday recommending a five-day jail term in case of non-compliance with its directive.
In a separate development, the Council accepted an apology from NCP (SP) leader Suryakant More for making objectionable remarks against the Chairman and members of the House. A motion passed earlier had proposed a seven-day jail term for More.
The Council also granted an extension to its privilege committee to submit a report on Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sushma Andhare and comedian Kunal Kamra over their alleged remarks mocking Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. The committee has now been given time until the last day of the next legislative session.
Prashant Kishor Slams Nitish Kumar Over Son's JD(U) Entry, Questions 'Moral High Ground' 5
Jan Suraaj Party founder Prashant Kishor has launched a sharp attack on Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, alleging that his re-election as JD(U) national president and the induction of his son, Nishant Kumar, into the party mark a departure from the principles he upheld for decades.
Speaking in Munger district on Wednesday, Kishor said Nitish Kumar, who had long projected himself as a leader above nepotism, has now “stepped down from the pedestal” he occupied for the past 35 years. A former JD(U) national vice president, Kishor claimed that the developments indicate that Kumar is no different from leaders who treat political parties as personal fiefdoms to be passed on to their heirs.
“Nitish Kumar has always been the supreme leader of JD(U). His continuation as national president and the induction of his son show he is no different from those he once criticised,” Kishor said. He added that Kumar can no longer claim the moral high ground he once held while attacking dynastic politics and championing socialist ideals.
Kishor also commented on the anticipated leadership change in Bihar, as Nitish Kumar is expected to step down as chief minister following his election to the Rajya Sabha. He said the decision on the next chief minister rests with the NDA but alleged that the alliance’s electoral success was aided by what he described as “brazen voter inducements” ahead of the assembly elections.
Referring to welfare measures announced before the polls, including the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana under which ₹10,000 was transferred to over one crore women, Kishor claimed such initiatives influenced voter turnout and contributed to the NDA’s sweeping victory.
Continuing his criticism, Kishor accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah of prioritising Gujarat over Bihar. In a sarcastic remark, he said that regardless of who leads the next government, it would function with Gujarat’s interests in mind.
Meanwhile, in Patna, Nishant Kumar visited the JD(U) office to celebrate his father’s re-election with party workers. The 44-year-old assured that he would work closely with grassroots workers and proposed distributing booklets across the state highlighting Nitish Kumar’s governance record over his long tenure as chief minister.
14 Killed, 23 Injured as Bus Catches Fire After Collision in Andhra’s Markapuram 7
At least 14 people were killed and 23 others injured after a private bus collided with a tipper lorry and caught fire in Andhra Pradesh’s Markapuram district on Thursday, police said.
The impact of the collision caused the bus to burst into flames, trapping several passengers inside the burning vehicle and leading to heavy casualties.
Markapuram Superintendent of Police V Harshavardhan Raju confirmed the toll, stating that 14 people lost their lives in the accident, while the injured, including the bus driver, have been shifted to nearby hospitals for treatment.
The bus was travelling from Jagityal in Telangana to Kaligiri in Nellore district with around 35 passengers on board when the incident occurred.
The driver of the tipper lorry also sustained injuries and has been hospitalised.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu expressed deep shock and grief over the tragic loss of lives. He spoke to officials and directed them to ensure proper medical care for the injured.
The Chief Minister also ordered a comprehensive inquiry into the cause of the accident and asked authorities to submit a detailed report.
Rescue and relief operations were carried out at the site, while officials are working to ascertain further details of the incident.
From Facts to Fiction: The Political Hijack of ‘Dhurandar’ 9
There was a time when cinema reflected society. Today, it engineers perception. What we are witnessing now is not filmmaking—it is narrative manufacturing. And Dhurandar stands as a glaring example of how history is not just being retold, but selectively edited, repackaged, and politically reassigned.
Let’s call it what it is: propaganda with a cinematic budget.
Because when a film takes real intelligence operations, real sacrifices, real blood spilled in silence—and then conveniently rewrites the credit line to suit a present-day political narrative, it stops being art. It becomes an agenda.
The entire storyline of Dhurandhar is drawn from events that occurred between 2004 and 2014. That is not my opinion. That is a record. And during this entire period, India was governed by the Indian National Congress under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Not Narendra Modi. Not the BJP.
Yet somehow, by the time the credits roll, the audience is nudged—subtly, cleverly, repeatedly—into associating these operations with a leadership that had nothing to do with their execution.
That’s not storytelling. That’s intellectual dishonesty.
Let’s strip this down to bare facts—the kind that don’t bend to screenplay demands.
Hamza’s infiltration into Pakistan took place in 2004. Rehman Daiket was neutralized in 2009. Arshan Pappu was eliminated in 2013. Aslam Khan was killed on 9 January 2014. Every single one of these operations falls squarely within the Congress-led era.
And yet, the film behaves as if these were part of some post-2014 strategic doctrine.
Why?
Because perception today matters more than truth yesterday.
Even more telling is the case of long-term operations. Jamal Jamili was sent to Pakistan nearly four decades ago, during the time of Indira Gandhi. The intelligence groundwork that India benefits from today was not built overnight—it was laid brick by brick across decades, across governments, across ideologies.
But Dhurandar doesn’t have the patience for historical continuity. It has a political point to make.
Let’s talk about institutions.
The Research and Analysis Wing—India’s premier external intelligence agency—was established in 1968 under Indira Gandhi’s leadership. It was strengthened, structured, and strategically empowered during Congress regimes. The rank of Secretary (Research) was placed on par with the highest bureaucratic offices in the country, reflecting its importance.
Then came 1977.
The Janata Party government under Morarji Desaidowngraded this status, reducing its institutional weight. It took another Congress government under Rajiv Gandhi in 1986 to restore that stature.
This is not ideology. This is documented administrative history.
But does the film acknowledge any of this?
Of course not.
Because acknowledging it would complicate the narrative—and propaganda thrives on simplicity.
Now let’s address another convenient illusion: the idea that bold economic or strategic decisions began in recent years.
Demonetisation, often portrayed as a groundbreaking modern strike against black money, had already been implemented twice before—once in 1946 and again in 1978. The 1978 move, ironically, was carried out by the same Janata Party regime that weakened R&AW’s institutional standing.
History, it seems, is only remembered when it suits the script.
And then comes perhaps the most uncomfortable truth of all—the elimination of Ilyas Kashmiri in 2011. A high-value target, neutralized during a period when India’s intelligence cooperation and groundwork were at their peak under the Congress-led government.
But watch how such events are absorbed into a broader narrative that subtly shifts credit elsewhere.
It’s not accidental. It’s designed.
What Dhurandar does is take a decade of sustained intelligence effort, built on institutional continuity and strategic patience, and compress it into a single political personality. It erases the timeline, blurs accountability, and hands over a neatly wrapped narrative to the audience.
And the audience, unaware or unconcerned, consumes it.
Because cinema has one advantage over history—it doesn’t need footnotes.
But here’s the problem.
When films start rewriting recent history—history that is still within living memory—they don’t just distort facts, they distort public understanding. They create a generation that believes complex national security operations are the result of one leader, one ideology, one moment.
That is not just false. It is dangerous.
Because institutions matter more than individuals.
Governments change. Officers retire. Political narratives shift. But institutions like R&AW operate in the shadows, across decades, beyond headlines. Their successes are cumulative, not episodic.
And when you reduce that legacy to fit a political storyline, you don’t just disrespect history—you undermine the very idea of institutional integrity.
Let’s be blunt.
If Dhurandhar 2 wanted to be honest, it would have acknowledged that the operations it glorifies were conceived, executed, and completed during a time when the BJP was not even in power at the Centre. That Narendra Modi had no administrative role in these missions. That the credit, if it must be given politically, belongs to the Congress-led governments of that era.
But honesty doesn’t sell as well as hero worship.
So instead, we get a carefully curated illusion—one that aligns with current political sentiments, one that reinforces a pre-existing narrative, one that replaces complexity with convenience.
And that is the real tragedy.
Not that a film took creative liberties—but that it chose to do so at the cost of truth.
Because once cinema becomes a tool to rewrite recent history, it stops being entertainment. It becomes indoctrination.
And a society that consumes such narratives without questioning them slowly loses its ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Nashik 'Captain' Scandal: When Power, Blind Faith, and Silence Collide 11
This is not just another criminal case. This is not merely about one man falling from grace. What has unfolded in Nashik is a brutal exposure of a system that thrives on blind faith, political convenience, and collective silence. At the center of this storm stands Ashok Kharat—a self-styled “Captain,” a so-called cosmology expert, a numerologist, a temple trust president, and a man who, until recently, enjoyed proximity to power, privilege, and unquestioned influence.
Today, he stands arrested on grave allegations, including rape. And suddenly, the carefully constructed image collapses. But the real question is—did it collapse overnight? Or did we all choose not to see what was always there?
Kharat’s rise is not accidental. It is engineered—by perception, by access, and most importantly, by endorsement. A retired merchant navy officer who claimed to have traveled across 154 countries, he built an aura of global wisdom and spiritual authority. He positioned himself as a rare blend of astrology, numerology, and ritual expertise—a “solution provider” for the powerful and the desperate alike.
And people bought it. Not just ordinary citizens, but politicians, businessmen, celebrities—those who publicly speak the language of rationality but privately surrender to superstition when stakes are high. Elections, business deals, personal crises—Kharat became a go-to man for “guidance.” Guidance that reportedly came with a price tag reaching ₹50 lakh per consultation.
Let that sink in.
Fifty lakh rupees for advice rooted in unverifiable claims, wrapped in religious undertones, and sold as certainty in uncertain times. This was not spirituality. This was a business model—calculated, exclusive, and immensely profitable.
The police now estimate his assets to be worth over ₹100 crore, spread across Nashik, Shirdi, and beyond. Land, properties, investments—an empire built not on industry or innovation, but on fear, belief, and influence. And yet, for years, no serious questions were asked. Why?
Because power protects what it uses.
Kharat’s real strength was not astrology. It was access. His proximity to influential figures gave him legitimacy. When powerful people publicly or privately associate with someone, they don’t just seek advice—they confer credibility. They create a halo effect that shields scrutiny and attracts more followers.
And this is where the story becomes deeply uncomfortable.
Because the same people who now distance themselves from him were once part of the ecosystem that elevated him. The same corridors of power that now express shock were once doors he walked through with ease.
So let’s ask the question directly—who enabled Ashok Kharat?
Who gave him platforms? Who validated his claims? Who turned a blind eye as his influence grew?
Because make no mistake—men like him do not rise alone. They are lifted.
The most disturbing aspect of this case, however, is not his wealth or his connections. It is the allegations of exploitation. A 35-year-old woman has accused him of repeated rape. Police raids have reportedly uncovered over 50 obscene videos from his phone. This is not just criminality—it is predation.
And it forces us to confront an ugly truth: when authority is cloaked in spirituality, abuse becomes easier, and victims become more vulnerable.
Because questioning a “godman” is seen as questioning faith itself.
And that silence is precisely what predators rely on.
The controversy deepens further with allegations linking Kharat to individuals in positions meant to protect society—particularly women. Questions are being raised about his proximity to those in leadership roles, including figures associated with women’s welfare.
Now, whether these links are proven or not is for the investigation to determine. But the perception itself is damaging enough. Because it raises a fundamental question—if those entrusted with safeguarding society are themselves influenced by such individuals, where does accountability begin?
This is not about targeting individuals. This is about examining a pattern.
A pattern where self-proclaimed spiritual figures gain access to power. A pattern where influence replaces scrutiny. A pattern where wealth accumulates without transparency. A pattern where allegations surface only after damage is done.
And then, as always, the narrative shifts.
Some call it political vendetta. Others claim it is a conspiracy to target certain individuals or weaken specific power groups. There are whispers of factional politics, of rivalries, of strategic takedowns.
Maybe there is politics involved. Maybe there isn’t.
But here’s the uncomfortable reality—whether this is a political conspiracy or a genuine crackdown, the existence of someone like Kharat at the heart of power circles is itself the real scandal.
Because even if politics is at play, it only exposes what was already there.
You cannot weaponize something that does not exist.
So instead of getting lost in the noise of political narratives, we must focus on the core issue—how did a man accused of such serious crimes gain such immense influence in the first place?
The answer is simple, but inconvenient.
Because we allowed it.
As a society, we have normalized the idea of seeking shortcuts to success—whether through astrology, rituals, or “divine guidance.” We have blurred the line between faith and blind faith. We have elevated individuals without demanding accountability, simply because they speak the language of belief.
And when influential people endorse such figures, it sends a dangerous message—that power respects superstition more than reason.
This is not a new phenomenon. India has seen its share of self-styled godmen who rose to prominence, amassed wealth, and eventually faced serious allegations. The pattern repeats because the system that enables them remains unchanged.
Public fascination. Political patronage. Lack of scrutiny. Delayed accountability.
It is a cycle—and Kharat is just the latest chapter.
The formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) suggests that authorities are taking this case seriously. Investigations are underway across multiple locations, and there is a strong possibility that more victims, more financial irregularities, and more connections will come to light.
But let’s be clear—legal action alone is not enough.
Because this is not just a law-and-order issue. It is a societal failure.
If tomorrow another “expert” emerges with a new label—cosmology, energy healing, divine science—will we question them? Or will we once again be impressed by titles, connections, and appearances?
Will politicians stop associating with such figures? Will celebrities stop endorsing them? Will the public stop following them blindly?
Or will we wait for the next scandal?
This editorial is not about outrage. Outrage is easy. It fades.
This is about accountability.
Accountability of those who create influence. Accountability of those who validate it. And accountability of a society that often chooses belief over truth.
Ashok Kharat is under investigation. The law will take its course. He may be guilty, he may defend himself, and the courts will decide his fate.
But beyond the courtroom, a larger judgment is pending.
A judgment on our collective conscience.
Because when fraud wears the mask of faith, and power chooses convenience over responsibility, the real victim is not just an individual—it is society itself.
And unless we confront that truth, this will not be the last “Captain” we salute before he sinks.
Adharma in the Name of the Divine: A Dark Stain on the Dignity of Sanatan 13
This is not merely an isolated incident; it is a stark reflection of a moral decay we have long chosen to ignore under the comforting label of “faith.” When wrongdoing thrives under the cover of religion and society chooses silence despite recognizing it, the problem ceases to belong to individuals—it becomes systemic. The case of Mamta Joshi, alias Mandakini, is not just disturbing; it is a brutal exposure of a rotting structure that has gone unquestioned for far too long.
There was a time when renunciation was not a title but a lifelong discipline. To be accepted into the fold of saints required years of surrender, rigorous training under a Guru, and a complete conquest over ego, desire, and greed. Today, that sacred pathway appears dangerously diluted. A woman who began by cooking at religious gatherings gradually entered the inner circles of ascetics through manipulation, false claims, and calculated proximity. Eventually, during the Ujjain Simhastha, she rose to the rank of Mahamandaleshwar—an elevation that once demanded spiritual merit, now seemingly granted without adequate scrutiny. This is not merely an individual’s cunning; it is a collapse of institutional vigilance.
But the real horror lies deeper. Allegations suggest that a woman was lured under the pretext of spiritual guidance, secretly filmed in compromising conditions, and then blackmailed using those recordings. She was allegedly coerced into falsely accusing a saint of rape. This is not just immorality—it is a calculated criminal enterprise masquerading as religion. Here, devotion has been replaced by intimidation, and spirituality by manipulation. Faith has become a currency, traded in fear, greed, and control.
And let us not pretend this is unprecedented. Over the past decade, numerous controversies have surfaced—cases of sexual exploitation within ashrams, financial fraud under the guise of donations, and power struggles disguised as spiritual hierarchy. The pattern is painfully consistent: build trust, exploit it, and when exposed, dismiss it all as a conspiracy against religion. But how long can this defense hold? Is every accusation a conspiracy? Is every victim lying? If so, where does truth reside?
The most tragic consequence of such scandals is borne by women. They are first drawn in through faith and trust, then exploited, and finally discarded—often with their dignity shattered beyond repair. When they dare to resist or speak out, society frequently turns against them, questioning their character rather than the actions of the accused. It is a double injustice—first the violation, then the vilification.
Is this the ethos Sanatan Dharma claims to uphold? A civilization that reveres women as embodiments of Shakti—how does it reconcile such repeated indignities within its own spiritual institutions? If a woman cannot feel safe within the very spaces that preach purity and protection, then what moral authority remains?
An even more uncomfortable question arises—does the saintly order still possess any mechanism of self-purification? Who ensures that those donning saffron truly embody renunciation and not ambition? When positions can allegedly be influenced by money, when ashrams become battlegrounds for control, and when words like blackmail and honeytrap find their way into religious discourse, we are no longer dealing with isolated lapses—we are witnessing systemic erosion.
So how can such individuals claim to safeguard the dignity of Sanatan Dharma? How can those who lack personal integrity guide a society seeking moral direction? If saffron robes become tools for power rather than symbols of sacrifice, then the very identity of spiritual leadership stands compromised.
Have we, as a society, paused to examine how easily our faith is being manipulated? Or have we chosen convenient silence out of fear that questioning might “damage religion”? But does suppressing truth preserve dignity—or does it accelerate decay? History is clear: institutions are not destroyed by criticism, but by unchecked corruption.
Consider this—when a doctor commits malpractice, we demand accountability from the entire medical system. When a police officer is corrupt, we question the integrity of law enforcement. But when a self-proclaimed saint is accused of grave misconduct, we hesitate even to ask questions. Why? Is religion so fragile that it cannot withstand scrutiny? Or have we become too complacent to defend it honestly?
Sanatan Dharma, by its very nature, is eternal and resilient. Its strength lies in its ability to evolve, to introspect, and to cleanse itself. But that process of self-correction requires courage—the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. If we abandon that courage, we risk allowing decay to masquerade as tradition.
What is needed today is not blind defense, but fearless introspection. The saintly community must take responsibility for cleansing its own ranks. Empty statements and claims of conspiracy will not suffice. Transparency, accountability, and strict adherence to ethical conduct are no longer optional—they are imperative.
Society, too, must awaken. Blind devotion is not faith; it is surrender of intellect. True faith is rooted in awareness, in the ability to question without losing reverence. If followers cannot question their spiritual leaders, then the relationship ceases to be spiritual—it becomes subservient.
Ultimately, this is not just about one scandal or one individual. It is about the direction in which a civilization is heading. Are we moving toward a society where religion becomes a façade behind which anything can be justified? Or will we uphold the core principles that have sustained Sanatan Dharma for millennia—truth, discipline, and righteousness?
Because the truth is simple and unyielding—Sanatan Dharma does not need protection from external forces; it needs protection from those who exploit it from within. And until we recognize this distinction, such scandals will not remain exceptions—they will become the norm.
So the final, uncomfortable question remains: how long will we continue to look away? And if not now, then when will we choose to stand up for the true dignity of Sanatan Dharma?
204 Veterans, Former Officials Demand Rahul Gandhi's Apology Over 'Unbecoming' Parliament Protest 15
A group of 204 retired armed forces personnel, former civil servants, diplomats and legal professionals on Tuesday demanded that Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, apologise to the nation for his conduct during a protest within the Parliament premises, calling it a violation of decorum and institutional dignity.
In an open letter, the signatories alleged that Gandhi’s actions during a protest on March 12 inside the Parliament House complex amounted to a “deliberate defiance” of the Speaker’s directives and reflected a disregard for parliamentary authority.
“Despite explicit instructions from the Speaker prohibiting demonstrations within Parliament premises, the Opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, chose to ignore these directions,” the letter stated.
The group said such conduct undermines established parliamentary norms and places “political theatrics” above the dignity of a constitutional institution. They urged Gandhi to apologise and introspect, stating that preserving the sanctity and authority of Parliament is essential.
The signatories also criticised the manner in which the protest was carried out, alleging that Gandhi and several MPs were seen sitting on the steps of Parliament and engaging in activities that were “wholly unbecoming” of elected representatives.
“Parliament is the temple of democracy, and its dignity must be maintained at all times—not only inside the chambers but across the entire premises, including corridors, staircases and lobbies,” the statement said.
The letter further claimed that repeated such actions risk lowering the quality of public discourse and eroding faith in democratic institutions.
“Such behaviour suggests a pattern driven more by personal political expression than respect for democratic processes,” the signatories added.
The initiative was coordinated by former Jammu and Kashmir Director General of Police S P Vaid and includes signatures from 116 retired armed forces officers and 84 former bureaucrats, among them four former ambassadors and four senior advocates.
Expressing concern over disruptions and the loss of valuable parliamentary time, the group said such protests weaken the functioning of the legislature and harm the country’s democratic image.
They also described the conduct as particularly concerning given the responsibility attached to the office of the Leader of Opposition, urging greater accountability from those holding constitutional positions.
Lok Sabha Revokes Suspension of 8 MPs; Speaker Om Birla Warns Against Protests Inside House 17
The Lok Sabha on Tuesday revoked, with immediate effect, the suspension of eight opposition MPs who were barred from the House on February 3 for “unruly” behaviour, even as Speaker Om Birla issued a stern warning against protests inside Parliament.
The decision came after Congress member K Suresh urged the House to reconsider the suspension, stating that the Opposition regretted the earlier disruptions and was committed to ensuring the smooth functioning of proceedings.
Responding to the request, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said there was a need to draw a “Laxman Rekha” to maintain discipline in the House, a view that found support across both treasury and opposition benches.
Speaker Birla emphasised that no placards, posters, photographs or AI-generated images should be displayed either inside the House or within the Parliament complex. He underlined that maintaining decorum was essential for the functioning of the world’s largest democracy.
Following the discussion, Rijiju moved a motion to revoke the suspension of seven Congress MPs and one CPI(M) member, which was adopted by a voice vote.
The MPs whose suspension was lifted include Gurjeet Singh Aujla, Hibi Eden, C Kiran Kumar Reddy, Amarinder Singh Raja Warring, Manickam Tagore, Prashant Padole and Dean Kuriakose from the Congress, and S Venkatesan from the CPI(M).
The eight MPs had been suspended for the remainder of the Budget session, scheduled to conclude on April 2, after a resolution was passed citing unruly conduct during proceedings.
During the debate, Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav supported the move to revoke the suspension, assuring the House that his party would uphold parliamentary dignity. However, he also urged members of the ruling alliance to maintain decorum, naming BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in his remarks.
Dubey rejected the allegation, stating that in his 17-year parliamentary career, he had never acted in a manner that undermined the dignity of the House, and demanded an apology.
NCP leader Supriya Sule also called for mutual respect between the ruling and opposition benches, stressing that both sides must adhere to a “Laxman Rekha” to ensure smooth functioning.
Union minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh echoed similar sentiments, urging cooperation from all members.
Rijiju reiterated that the ruling alliance has always respected parliamentary rules and called for collective responsibility in maintaining order.
Suresh, in his concluding remarks, said the Opposition had already refrained from displaying placards since Monday and reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the House functions without disruption.
Opposition Moves to Remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Here's the Constitutional Process 19
Opposition Members of Parliament have submitted notices in both Houses of Parliament seeking a motion for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Friday.
According to sources, the notice has been signed by 130 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 63 MPs in the Rajya Sabha. The signatories include members from parties associated with the INDIA bloc as well as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which, though no longer formally part of the alliance, has backed the initiative. Some Independent MPs have also supported the move, while several others have reportedly shown interest in joining it.
This marks the first time in India’s parliamentary history that a notice has been submitted seeking the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner.
Sources said the notice lists seven allegations against Kumar, including claims of “partisan and discriminatory conduct in office”, “deliberate obstruction of investigation into electoral fraud”, and “mass disenfranchisement”. Opposition parties have accused the CEC of favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), particularly in relation to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which they claim could benefit the party at the Centre.
Under the Constitution, the process for removing the Chief Election Commissioner is similar to that for removing a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The removal can only take place on grounds of “proven misbehaviour or incapacity”.
In a blog post, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien said the term “proven misbehaviour” has been interpreted to include deliberate abuse of authority, partisan exercise of constitutional duties in favour of a particular political formation, and actions that erode public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.
O’Brien noted that India has had 25 Chief Election Commissioners in the past 75 years and that Parliament has never before initiated a removal motion against a CEC.
Describing the move as a “strong message”, he said opposition parties were using “every constitutional tool available to protect the sanctity of India’s democratic institutions”. He added that if the notice is not taken up by the government, questions may arise about a possible understanding between the executive and the CEC.
Article 324(5) of the Constitution states that the CEC cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. The motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament and must be passed by a special majority — a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of members present and voting.
According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, if such notices are submitted in both Houses on the same day, a committee will be constituted only after the motion is admitted in both Houses. The committee is jointly formed by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
The inquiry panel consists of the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of one of the High Courts, and a distinguished jurist. The committee conducts proceedings similar to a court trial, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
The Chief Election Commissioner is also given an opportunity to present his defence before the panel. Once the committee submits its findings, the report is tabled in Parliament and debated before a final vote on the motion in both Houses.
