The steep illegal parking fine levied by the BMC to motorists is too much. The civic body should first clean up the city’s garbage and the drainage system and only then levy fine on illegal parking. They should also provide enough free parking space to motorists for parking their vehicles on the roads. The BMC and the traffic police are only robbing the common man of his hard-earned money.
JubelD’Cruz
Collapse of house of cards
Dongri building collapse is one more case of danger in waiting during monsoon season. It has become a house of cards as it collapsed and many people were trapped in the debris. Mumbai continue to reel under persistent monsoon rains and the problems go unabated as more and more rain related issues continue to haunt the city. Old buildings are coming down in a heap, causing fear among the citizens.There is no end solution as BMC is passing blame as they claim that a warning was issued and the blame passed on to the builder. Monsoon mayhem continue haunt the city and suburbs. In case of building collapses there is no building audit and the dilapidated buildings pose problem for the people in the metro city. It is time to stop all illegal extensions as people take law into their own hands. It is reliably learnt that only two floors were legal and the rest constructed after the plan was approved. It is one more eye opener for BMC.
Subbu Sujatha
Chennai’s acute water crisis a wake-up call for citizens
The recent news of Indian Railways ferrying 50000 litres of water wagons to Chennai residents is very overwhelming. The relief provided by Indian Railways “Water Train” to ferry drinking water at the time of acute water crisis is commendable. The Hon’ble Ministry of Railways and Southern Railway should be lauded for such a noteworthy effort to help people quench their thirst.
The government on the other hand should now extensively involve citizens to put an effort to conserve water. Mere dependability on water train to quench the thirst at short notice should not be the end of the road. Meticulous planning to conserve water including initiating steps to rain water harvesting will help every citizen satisfy the need of water. The efforts now to conserve water at micro level and public awareness programmes regarding the same should increase manifold. Chennai’s acute water crisis is a wake-up call to all the citizens to use the water judiciously and help conserve water for a better future.
Government may also involve multiple stakeholders and agencies to bring efficiency and innovation in water conservation. An effort should be made to reach out to international water agencies across the globe to understand and adopt smarter ways to conserve water and help citizens to consume it in a judicious manner. A new water policy primarily aimed at better steps to conserve water may also be looked into in order to avoid such a crisis arising yet again in the summer of 2020.
Varun Dambal
(The views expressed by the author in the article are his/her own.)
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the mediation in Ayodhya land dispute case will continue till July 31. The court sought a report about the outcome of the mediation on August 1 and said that after perusing the report filed by the mediation panel, it will take a decision on August 2 on whether hearing is required in the case.
Chairman of three-member mediation panel Justice (Retd) FMI Kalifulla submitted the report on the mediation process in the Supreme Court today. After this, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, “We now fix the date of hearing on August 2. We request the mediation panel to inform the outcome of the proceedings as of July 31st.”
Earlier, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, had on July 11 sought a report on the issue and said that a day-to-day hearing may commence from July 25 if the court decides to conclude the mediation proceedings.
Timeline of the case
1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.
1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea.
1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure.
1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.
1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols.
1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.
1981: Uttar Pradesh (UP) Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.
February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.
August 14, 1989: Allahabad High Court ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.
December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished.
April 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area. Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed in Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act. Supreme Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A transferred the writ petitions, which were pending in the High Court.
October 24, 1994: Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that mosque was not integral to Islam.
April 2002: Allahabad High Court begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.
March 13, 2003: Supreme Court says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.
March 14: Supreme Court says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.
September 30, 2010: Allahabad High Court , in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.
Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.March 21, 2017: Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
August 7, 2017: Supreme Court constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court .
August 8, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.
September 11, 2017: Supreme Court directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.
November 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. December 1, 2017: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals.
March 14, 2018: Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
April 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.
July 6, 2018: UP government tells Supreme Court some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.
July 20, 2018: Supreme Court reserves verdict.
September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.
October 29, 2018: Supreme Court fixes the case for the first week of January before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.
November 12, 2018: Supreme Court declines early hearing of petitions in the case requested by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
November 22, 2018: Supreme Court dismisses public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to organisations and public at large to “behave” and not air their views that can spoil the atmosphere till it decides the title dispute case.
December 24, 2018: Supreme Court decides to take up petitions on case for hearing on January 4.
January 4, 2019: Supreme Court says an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the title case.
January 8, 2019: Supreme Court sets up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
January 10, 2019: Justice U U Lalit recuses himself prompting Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing for January 29 before a new bench.
January 25, 2019: Supreme Court reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench to hear the case. The new bench comprises Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
January 27, 2019: Supreme Court cancels the January 29 hearing due to non-availability of Justice S A Bobde.
January 29, 2019: Centre moves Supreme Court seeking permission to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.
February 20, 2019: Supreme Court decides to hear the case on February 26.
February 26, 2019: Supreme Court favours mediation, fixes March 5 for order on whether to refer matter to court-appointed mediator.
March 6, 2019: Supreme Court reserves order on whether the land dispute can be settled through mediation.
March 8, 2019: Supreme Court refers the dispute for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kallifulla.
July 11, 2019: The Supreme Court asks chairperson of the three-member mediation panel to submit the report of panel by July 18 and says hearing on daily basis from July 25 if Mediation Panel rules out role
July 18, 2019: Mediation in Ayodhya dispute will continue till July 31. Supreme Court seeks report on mediation on August 1; next hearing on August 2.
The NCP has demanded equal seat sharing from the Congress for contesting the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly elections. The party said that it has performed better in the Lok Sabha polls. Both the parties had a meeting pertaining to the distribution of seats in Mumbai. Assembly polls in the state are likely to be held in October this year. Both NCP and the Congress had fought the Lok Sabha polls jointly. After the meeting, NCP leader stated that now the situation has changed and the party has performed well as compared to the Congress in the Lok Sabha polls. Therefore, the NCP is demanding equal seat share from Congress.
On Tuesday, senior leaders of the NCP had a meeting to discuss the strategy for assembly polls. The drubbing received in the Lok Sabha polls by NCP too was discussed. Meanwhile, there are speculations about the Congress, NCP, MNS and Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) joining hands in assembly elections. The Maharashtra assembly has 288 seats.
D.P. Tripathi, NCP General Secretary said, “Yes the Congress will definitely go for a 50-50 seat sharing pact with the NCP. The Congress should have given us more seats for contesting Lok Sabha polls. First, let us win the elections and then we can decide the contender for the chief ministerial post.”
The Congress has fought the Lok Sabha polls on 25 seats, NCP on 20 seats and other alliance partners had contested polls for three seats. The NCP managed to win four seats and Congress won only one seat in the Lok Sabha polls. Both the parties had contested the 2014 Lok Sabha polls where NCP won four seats and Congress won only two seats.
Congress spokesperson Hemlata Patil said, “Right now preliminary meetings are being held. Every party demands more seats to gain an upper hand over their alliance partner. This is the first meeting and discussions will be held and no dispute will happen. Right now we are not discussing which party will keep the Chief Minister’s post. It is necessary that more and more candidates win the election and then we will decide the rest.”
The Congress has been having an alliance with NCP since 1999 but both the parties contested the 2014 assembly polls separately. The NCP had contested on 21 seats while its partner Congress fielded 26. When NCP had won more seats as compared to Congress in the 2004 assembly polls it had demanded the chief ministerial post from Congress. The Congress nonetheless was reluctant to offer the chief ministerial post to NCP.
MNS leader Prakash Pawar said, “There are lesser chances of the Congress, NCP, and MNS coming together for contesting assembly polls. Right now no talks are being held with MNS and only reports are being carried by the media. No leader from Congress or NCP has come forward to hold talks with MNS.”
“The situation has changed now. We had fared better than the Congress in the last two Lok Sabha polls. So seats have to be divided equally,” a party leader stated. The newly appointed Maharashtra Congress chief Balasaheb Thorat said that his party would like to have an alliance with MNS for the assembly polls. Thorat’s statement comes at a time when the Congress had earlier rejected the MNS as an alliance partner for the Lok Sabha polls. The MNS was not popular with the North Indian community in Mumbai and Maharashtra. The MNS has been blaming migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for rising crime rates in the city.
“To safeguard democracy and progressive values, the present Maharashtra government needs to be voted out of power. We and the NCP are together but we will also try to take the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) and the MNS,” said Thorat while speaking to the media. Thorat’s statement is a realisation that the Congress has changed its stand with regard to having alliance with MNS.
In 2009, assembly polls, the Congress contested 174 seats while NCP fought on 114 seats. In 2014, both the parties contested the elections separately. Both the parties are yet to arrive at a consensus pertaining to seat-sharing as they will have to incorporate several other parties like Raju Shetti-led Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana, Bahujan Vikas Aghadi, factions of Republican Party and possibly the Raj Thackeray-led Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.
And the decision in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case is out! The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled in favour of India on merits, affirming Jadhav’s right to consular access and notification. The Court has also directed Pakistan to provide effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences.
While the verdict is considered as a major diplomatic win for India, hope Kulbhushan’s story won’t go Sarabjit way. According to Surjeet Singh, another convict in Pakistan who was released later on, upon reaching India confessed that Sarabjit and another Indian detainee Kirpal had converted to Islam in the hope of getting “concessions” from jail authorities. India accused Pakistan of denying consular access to Jadhav in violation of the rules under the Vienna Convention.
Sarabjit is known as Sarfaraz while Kirpal’s Muslim name was Mohammad Deen. They embraced Islam for concessions from the jail authorities and from the Pakistan government, but it didn’t happen. Sarabjit case hit the headlines after his sister made this issue international; finally, his release was announced but he was attacked in the Central Jail Lahore (Kot Lakhpat jail).
According to his sister, the attack on Singh was pre-planned and the jail authorities were involved. His wife, sister, and two daughters were allowed to visit him in the hospital but Sarabjit returned dead to Indian soil. The extraordinary publicity made it worst for him. Kulbhushan Jadhav’s story is of a similar kind.
Pakistan’s foreign office released a photo of meeting between Kulbhushan Jadhav and family in December 2017. Jadhav met his wife and mother at the Pak foreign ministry for around 45 minutes across a glass screen. Going by the tweeted photos, Kulbhushan Jadhav could speak to his family only through the intercom, with five officials present and no physical contact allowed.
Pakistan’s foreign office portrayed the brief meeting – coming after months of waiting on the family’s visa application – as a grand gesture on the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
The International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of spying. The order came a day after India approached the Hague-based ICJ against the death sentence handed down to Jadhav by Pakistan’s field general court-martial in April, sources said.
India has accused Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention and said that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy but Pakistan claimed to have arrested him from Balochistan on March 3, 2016.
Many appeals were made; many petitions were filed to save Jadhav because no one wants him to die the way Sarabjit died. Jadhav was born in Sangli, Maharashtra; his father is a retired Mumbai Police officer. Jadhav is married and has two children. His family resides in Powai, Mumbai.
According to reports in the Pakistani media, Jadhav joined the Indian National Defence Academy in 1987 and was commissioned in the engineering branch of the Indian Navy in 1991. After the 2001 attack on the Parliament of India, he started gathering information and intelligence within India. After 14 years of service, he entered into intelligence operations in 2003 and established a small business in Chabahar in Iran. From Chabahar, he made several undetected visits to Pakistan, where his activities were confined to Karachi and Balochistan.
According to the Pakistani government, on March 3, 2016, Jadhav was arrested inside Balochistan during a counterintelligence raid conducted by the security forces. He was arrested in Mashkel near the border region of Chaman, having made illegal entry into Pakistan via Iran.
Pakistani security forces reported Jadhav as a serving officer in the Indian Navy and asserted that he was commissioned to the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency. They believed him to be involved in subversive activities in Balochistan and Karachi. Jadhav was shifted to Islamabad for interrogation.
India accepted that an officer arrested in Pakistan served with their Navy but at the same time denied that he was an agent for an intelligence agency. Indian MEA communicated that Jadhav took premature retirement from the Indian Navy and the government had no link since his retirement. India expounded that Pakistan had fabricated the documents without ascertaining discrepancies. Pakistan has previously raised concerns over the involvement of foreign elements in terrorist activities in its territory but this was the first instance of India acknowledging the arrest across the border of an individual associated with its armed forces. It stated that Jadhav entered Chabahar with a visa stamped on a fake passport numbered L9630722 in 2003 where he got a new identity of Hussain Mubarak Patel born on August 30, 1968, from Maharashtra. Officials claimed that his job was to weaken Pakistan by solidifying separatist movement in Balochistan and Karachi — a mission that officially began in 2013.
Jadhav’s trial lasted three and a half months and the charges he was convicted for included spying for India, waging war against Pakistan, sponsoring terrorism, and destabilising the state. Following the sentencing, the government of India summoned Pakistani High Commissioner to India, Abdul Basit and issued a demarche stating that the proceedings that led to Jadhav’s sentencing were farcical and that India would regard Jadhav’s execution as murder in the first degree. The Indian government also assured consequences with Pakistan after Sarabjit’s death, but that remained only a Jumla. The big question this time is that CAN WE SAVE JADHAV?
(Any suggestions, comments or dispute with regards to this article send us on feedback@www.afternoonvoice.com)
An income tax return is a form, where a taxpayer disclosed details of his/her income, claims applicable deductions and exemptions and pays the taxes so calculated or claims the refunds in case excess tax have been deducted.
As per section 139(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, Every individual/HUF/AOP/BOI/artificial juridical person has to file the return of income if his total income (including income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable) without giving effect to the provisions of section 10(38), 10A, 10B or 10BA or Chapter VIA (i.e., deduction under section 80C to 80U), exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax i.e. exceeds the exemption limit.
Most of millennial think that if their salary is below taxable limit, they do not require filing their tax return. However, the story doesn’t end here, one needs to file ITR even of their income is below tax bracket because of the benefits attached with such compliance. Being a good corporate citizen, It is always advisable to file an ITR, As a tax return is considered to be more robust proof of income than Form 16, especially when you are switching to a new company and required to give proof of income said CA. Aditya Banka, Prop. Aditya Banka & Co.
Considering various scenarios, the benefits of filing Tax returns can be summed up below,
Mandatory requirement for applying for bank loan : if your are planning to gift you a car or getting you a new flat on loan, then the best proof of income is ITR for processing a bank loan easily. The preliminary requirement that a banker shall ask you is your ITRs of previous 2 to 3 years and then make way forward for other requirements.
Getting Tax refunds: There is a possibility that your income is less than taxable limit and your employer or bank has deducted TDS on salary or on Interest you get from bank on investment made in FDs, then to get the refund one need to file ITR.
Carrying forwarding loss of business or capital Loss: If you are an entrepreneur running a start-up or a frequent investor of share market or doing share trading, having incurred losses during the year, then such loss can be carried forwarded to next financial years and setoff from the profit only if you file your tax returns within due date.
VISA application processing : If you are planning a vacation to a foreign country then you need proof of your income as there are many cases being heard where embassies like UK, US, Canada etc. ask your past tax returns to check your tax compliances in the country, which also helps in hassle free processing of your VISA application. There comes the need to ITR.
Buying a high life cover: When you want to take a high life cover term insurance then the Insurance companies shall as your Tax returns for 3 consecutive financial years to assess the amount of risk cover to be given to you. It is not possible for one to give receipt from all the source of earning especially when you doing job and well as free lancing, the ITR proves to be a summary of all your earning from different sources.
Having accumulated savings: During the demonetisation period, people wanted to deposit their savings which was kept at their homes into their bank account but were scared because the amount was more than the safe limit in purview of income tax laws although they had all there saving from genuine sources. In such cases, there came the need of having ITRs of past year from which the source of income can be easily proved when the notice would be served from the tax departments even if they deposit more amount in bank.
Certificate of being self-employed: Sometimes when you need to prove your source of income but you are self-employed then ITR comes to your rescue. The source of income shown in the ITR proves that you have a sufficient amount of income to process your application further.
Helps to avoid penalty: In case you have some TDS deducted by bank and filed a belated return then you have to pay interest at the rate of 1% on the remaining of tax payable by you. Also, if you have filed return for the previous financial year when your income was above taxable limit but for current financial year income is below limits and you are planning not to file tax returns then in that case you will get continues reminders from the department for filling returns. Instead of going for a lengthy process of proving the non-requirement, it’s easy to file tax return to enjoy a hassle-free leisure.
Privilege from government: In coming days, the government shall make an arrangement to honour the tax return filers by giving them privilege entry or any other similar benefits to increase the higher number of tax complied citizens as in the recent past, the government has started to give appreciation certificate acknowledging taxpayer’s role in nation-building. Such certificate shall increase the beauty of your profile or resume.
It is always advisable to file your tax return within due date even if your income is below the prescribed taxable limit as it carries a lot of advantages with it. If you know someone who is not filing the tax return and requires to file, then being a true friend and responsible citizen of India, you should suggest them to file their tax return at the earliest as deadline for timely filing is July 31 for non-audit case and belated return shall carry penalty of up to Rs 10,000.
The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled in the favour of India in its appeal against the death sentence given to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan. The ICJ also granted consular access to India. The ICJ said that Jadhav’s death sentence should remain suspended until Pakistan effectively reviews and reconsiders the decision. It is a big jolt to Pakistan.
The 49-year-old retired Indian Navy officer was sentenced to death by the Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and terrorism after a closed trial in April 2017. His sentencing had evoked a sharp reaction in India. President of the Court, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, read out the verdict during a public sitting at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The verdict in the high-profile case comes nearly five months after a 15-member bench of ICJ led by Judge Yusuf had reserved its decision on February 21 after hearing oral submissions by India and Pakistan. The proceedings of the case took two years and two months to complete.
India moved the ICJ on May 8, 2017, for the “egregious violation” of the provisions of the Vienna Convention by Pakistan by repeatedly denying New Delhi consular access to Jadhav. A bench of the ICJ on May 18, 2017 had restrained Pakistan from executing Jadhav till adjudication of the case.
The recent meeting of Kashmiri Pandits (KPs) under the leadership of Satish Mahaldar with Hurriyat Conference Chairman and religious leader of largest Mosque in Srinagar, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is a welcome development notwithstanding criticism by BJP leaders Surinder Ambardar and Ashwini Kumar Chrungoo.
Mahaldar needs to understand that though all the political parties including BJP, Congress, NC, PDP, etc. have goodwill towards KPs and want their rehabilitation in Kashmir but (whether KPs etc like it or not) the problem of KPs will be solved only along-with the solution of Kashmir problem which cannot be solved by existing political parties as these are ideologically very weak. Therefore Mahaldar (along-with to be constituted committee which will comprise members of the Hurriyat, migrant KPs and the Kashmiri civil society) should launch a new political party and the mentions in its Constitution and on the party website, as given below:-
(1)- This political party shall be based on Secularism, welfare-State, Party-democracy, Federalism, Rule-of-law and Globalization (then only Muslim Kashmiris on both sides of LoC will opt for Hindu majority India during plebiscite). For restoring Secularism in India and for an effective solution to Kashmir problem this new political party shall file 6 writ petitions ( 5 in SCI and one in J&K High Court)
(2)- In consonance with said Socialism/welfare-State, the Party shall work for achieving minimum wages of Rs 300 for eight working hours a day and shall guarantee jobs to every working-age Indian. Also, the Party shall work for modifying MNREGA by making it for unlimited time (not for 100 days etc. per year) and shall give the job to jobseeker within a month through MNREGA. For mobilizing funds for such Welfare-State writ petition shall be filed in SCI for recovery of Rs 1,000 lakh crore Income Tax from about one million tax evaders
(3)- For Federalism Party should mention in its Constitution (uploaded on Party website) that only martial subjects will be with Union of India whereas all civilian subjects including natural resources will be with States (even Railways will be National and with States)
(4)- Due to advance in modern science and technology Globalisation is inevitable hence in Party Constitution following should be written:-
(i)- The Party shall work for and demand that in place of veto to five nations, in new UN the voting power should be given to all member countries commensurate with their contribution of men (especially martial), money and material (especially military) and the record about human rights of member countries
(ii)- The Party shall work for and demand that Optional protocol OP-1 of ICCPR at UN should be replaced with Mandatory Protocol MP-1 in a way that even the citizens of member countries can move UN to protect their human rights (even with a military intervention of UNPKF)
(iii)- The Party shall work for and demand for global currency (with proper asset back-up) with its Central Bank at United Nations and its branches in all the member countries of UN.
(iv)- Because many member countries of UN on their own cannot manage their political affairs and this leads to even global terrorism hence Party shall work for and demand that ‘International Political Parties (IPPs) should be launched by UN.
(5)- If justice is not delivered at a moderate cost and promptly by Courts then rule-of-law has no meaning. Hence the Party shall work for and demand that High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution should check every file which comes to it from subordinate Courts (District and Lower Courts in appeal, revision writ, etc.) to find whether presiding officer has granted adjournments unnecessarily with commensurate punishment to erring presiding officers of subordinate Courts.
Moreover, along with full-fledged legal library, the government lodging and boarding facilities at nominal charge should be provided at all the seats of appellate Courts (under supervision of Bar Council of States and of India) for advocates coming from lower Courts so that cases in appellate Courts can be contested at a much lesser cost.
(6)- Dispute with Pakistan is political but a dispute with China is legal which can easily be resolved peacefully. Hence the Party shall demand that India should ask UN to resolve it through ‘Judicial Commission’ in which member nominated by India, China and some other countries can be there.
(7)- Party should contest all coming election of Vidhan Sabha and Lok Sabha to become a formidable political force all across India which is the only way for finding Kashmir solution along with a solution to the rehabilitation-problem of KPs.
(8)- The Party shall demand (even through a writ petition in SCI) Constitutional obligation regarding public debt against the security of consolidated funds under Article 292 and 293 and not under FRBM which is unconstitutionally promoting unethical unbridled usury (interest-earning) and increasing public debt unconstitutionally. Party shall further demand that such unconstitutional public debt should be forfeited.
(9)- The Party believes that no country can progress without working in its mother tongue. Hence while keeping English as a second language the Hindi (with Devnagri script) should be made working language (including in allopathic medicine, engineering, etc) in Hindi speaking and in States having Devnagri variant script (like Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, etc). Both types of such States combined to form the overwhelming majority of Indians. Regarding other (non-Hindi and non-Devnagri variant script) States of India, it can be left to them to decide this matter.
(10)-The Party shall demand and work for bifurcation of the Banking sector in two namely ‘Lending Banks’ and ‘Saving Banks’. Only ‘Lending Banks’ shall be allowed to lend money and their deposits shall be converted into shares and these shareholders shall be responsible (like other business) for their loss or gains.
(11)- Party shall have no objection to reservation only in Government services (and not in education and elections) to any identifiable group which demands it (but not in the name of ‘Dalits’ and Backwards which demoralizes the beneficiary and which is fatal for democracy). Party will also demand that cow slaughter by law should be banned only in those States where the administration is satisfied that some organizations (of Hindus or otherwise) have proper ‘Gaushalas’ which will purchase any non-productive cow/ bull from its owner at market price.
Along with Hindu KPs presently the overwhelming majority of Muslim Kashmiris are also suffering (due to chronic and gory Kashmir problem) hence it is hoped that Satish Mahaldar will realize that the problem of KPs will be solved only along-with the solution of Kashmir problem (which cannot be solved by existing political parties) hence will endeavour to launch a new political party which will become formidable political force all across India through elections, as mentioned above.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of AFTERNOON VOICE and AFTERNOON VOICE does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.)
Pakistan government has been under pressure from Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to act against terror outfits and terrorists operating out of Pakistan. The arrest comes a day after Pakistan opened its airspace and before Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s maiden trip to the White House to help repair its relationship with the United States. Imran Khan is scheduled to meet President Donald Trump on July 22.
According to reports, Punjab chief minister’s spokesman Dr Shahbaz Gill said that Saeed was arrested near Gujranwala. Gill said, “The main charge is that he is gathering funds for banned outfits, which is illegal.” Saeed was on his way to an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Gujranwala to seek bail. He was arrested by the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) Punjab in the Gujranwala jurisdiction. He has been shifted to an unknown location. A JuD spokesperson also confirmed the report of Hafiz Saeed’s arrest.
The FATF placed Pakistan on its grey list of countries over terrorism financing. In June this year, the FATF gave Pakistan a deadline of October this year to prove that it has improved its efforts to counter terror financing failing which the country would be facing sanctions. Hafiz Saeed is a UN-designated a global terrorist and is the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The US has announced a bounty of $10 million for providing evidence leading to his conviction.
It is notable that on July 3, top 13 leaders of the banned JuD, including Saeed, were booked in nearly two dozen cases for terror financing and money laundering under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The CTD, which registered the cases in five cities of Punjab, declared that the JuD was financing terrorism from the massive funds collected through non-profit organisations and trusts including Al-Anfaal Trust, Dawatul Irshad Trust, Muaz Bin Jabal Trust, etc. These non-profit organisations were banned in April as the CTD during detailed investigations found that they had links with the JuD and its top leadership, accused of financing terrorism by building huge assets/properties from the collected funds in Pakistan.
A Lahore High Court division bench on Monday sought replies from the Ministry of Interior, Punjab home department and CTD on a petition of JuD chief Hafiz Saeed and his seven aides challenging an FIR carrying a charge of terror financing. Advocate A.K. Dogar represented the petitioners and contended that the facts narrated in the impugned FIR registered on July 1, 2019 illegally described them as members of LeT and levelled unlawful allegations of terror financing. The counsel referred to a 2009 judgement by an LHC full bench against the then detention of Hafiz Saeed and stated that the petitioners were not members of LeT.
He said the Lahore High Court through another judgement issued in 2003 had also held that Hafiz Saeed left the leadership of LeT on Dec 24, 2001 while the organisation was banned on Jan 14, 2002. The lawyer pleaded that the claim of the government that the petitioners were members of LeT stood disapproved in light of the two judgements. Therefore, he asked the court to quash the impugned FIR lodged by the CTD for being unlawful and of no legal effect. A government law officer opposed the petition and stated that it was not maintainable at this stage of the case.
However, the bench comprising Justice Shehram Sarwar Chaudhry and Justice Waheed Khan directed the law officer to furnish written replies on behalf of the respondents by July 30. The other petitioners are Mohammad Ayub Sheikh, Zafar Iqbal, Syed Luqman Ali Shah, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Makki, Abdul Salam, Abdul Ghaffar and Abdul Qudoos Shahid.
On Monday, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore had granted pre-arrest bail to the JuD chief and three others in a case pertaining to the outfit’s alleged illegal use of land for its seminary, against surety bonds of Rs 50,000 (Pakistani rupee) each.
In February, the FATF had warned Pakistan to deliver on its commitments to curb terror financing and money laundering. Risks to the global financial system had virtually put the country’s entire machinery into an aggressive mode to show tangible progress within two months of the warning. While the meetings were taking place, the government had announced a ban on JuD and Falah-e-Insanyat Foundation (FIF) to partially address the concerns raised by India that Pakistan supported these and six similar organisations, including Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) or at least considered them low-risk entities.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the 16 rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs could not be forced to take part in the trust vote scheduled for Thursday. The court also gave liberty to Speaker KR Ramesh to decide on the resignations of the MLAs. The court said that there was no deadline for him to take a call on the issue. The Supreme Court’s decision is seen as major blow for the Kumaraswamy government. If the resignations are accepted, the coalition would be reduced to a minority in the assembly and leave it poised on the brink of collapse in the climax of a crisis that began on July 6. But still, all is not well for the Kumaraswamy government as according to the Supreme Court’s order, the MLAs cannot be forced to participate in tomorrow’s trust vote. In the event that all the 16 MLAs remain absent from the Assembly tomorrow, the ruling Congress-JD(S) government in all likelihood will topple.
Following the Supreme Court’s judgement, debates are being waged on whether the rebel MLAs will be disqualified ahead of the trust vote. According to experts, disqualifications seem unlikely given the limited time frame. Additionally, the Speaker cannot decide to disqualify the MLAs on the singular ground of the MLAs violating the party whips. Hence, the only hope for the Congress-JD(S) is to appease the rebel MLAs.
To a question posed on the BJP‘s next course of action in case the Speaker decides to disqualify the 16 MLAs, BS Yeddyurappa says “We will wait and see.” Yeddyurappa lauded the Supreme Court verdict. He said, “All 16 MLAs who have resigned cannot be issued any whip and there is no condition to attend the Vidhan Sabha. That means Kumaraswamy will no longer have the mandate. Tomorrow he is going to go. I welcome the Supreme Court verdict, it is a victory of Constitution and democracy. It is a moral victory of MLAs.”
On the other hand, Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh welcomed the top court’s order in the matter. He said, “I will not delay, will work as per my constitutional role.” Meanwhile, Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy is seen offering prayers at Sri Sringeri Shankara Mutt in Shankarapuram.
Former Karnataka CM Jagadish Shettar reiterating that the Supreme Court has observed that there is no time frame for the Speaker to take a call on the rebel MLAs. He said, “I hope the Speaker will decide on the resignations within a day or two.” Shettar also urged Kumaraswamy to resign as the Chief Minister. “There is anarchy in the state because of HD Kumaraswamy, he should resign immediately after this verdict and not wait for the trust vote.” BJP’s GVL Narsimha Rao also hailed SC’s verdict in the case. He said, “SC has given the relief to the MLAs they were hoping for. The many whips issued by the Congress-JD(S) will not affect the MLAs”
CJI Ranjan Gogoi read the order in the matter of the resignations of the rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs. He said, “Speaker has been given liberty to decide on resignation by 16 MLAs within any time frame.”
Another point of contention that was raised in the hearing was the timing of the resignation and the procedure followed by the 16 MLAs. All the sides debated over whether its important if the disqualification petition came first or the resignations. Lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Speaker, said that even if disqualification occurs months later, it has to be counted on the date when the act which resulted in disqualification occurred”. In this case, Singhvi qualified the resignation as the act which justified the disqualification petition filed by the ruling parties in Karnataka. Singhvi was replying to the rebel MLAs argument which stated that the disqualification and the resignation were filed together.
The rebel MLAs, however, contested the Speaker’s argument and said that he has not a valid reason for disqualification. “Disqualification proceedings are only an attempt to stall the resignation,” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi who is representing the Congress-JD(S) MLAs said.
CM Kumaraswamy, the Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh and the rebel MLAs put up a formidable fight in yesterday’s hearing arguing on the viability of disqualification and resignations in this case. The Speaker contested that the rebel MLAs should be disqualified and that resignations are not a way of escaping disqualification.
Speaker KR Ramesh in yesterday’s hearing argued that being a constitutional functionary he cannot be directed to first decide on the resignations of the MLAs over their disqualification. The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi responded by saying that it was not restraining the Speaker from deciding the disqualification but was only asking him to ascertain whether the rebel MLAs voluntarily resigned.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict at the conclusion of a hearing that went on for a little more than three hours on Tuesday, punctuated by sharp exchanges between the judges and counsel for speaker KR Ramesh Kumar.
The speaker asked the court to exercise self-restraint and not issue interim orders on internal matters of the assembly. The bench had questioned his reluctance to speedily dispose of the resignations.
It is remarkable that 16 MLAs, 13 from the Congress and three from JD(S), have quit since July 7, pushing the coalition government to the brink of collapse. The defections will trigger a legal clause that disqualifies these MLAs, bringing the 224-member assembly’s strength down to 208 and giving the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a majority in the House.
The ruling coalition government has a strength of 100, excluding the rebels. The speaker cannot vote unless there is a tie. Also, two independent MLAs have withdrawn support to the government. The BJP has the support of 105 MLAs and is expected to be backed by the independents. One additional member in the House is nominated.
The alliance, which was hastily cobbled together in May last year to prevent the BJP from coming to power in the only southern state it has governed, has been roiled by periodic dissent and open squabbling between the partners. The Congress-JD(S) managed to win just two of the 28 Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka in the recent general elections. The BJP won 25 seats in the general elections.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented speaker Ramesh Kumar, asked the court not to give a judicial direction and asked it to vacate a July 12 status quo order to let the speaker decide finally on both the disqualification petitions and resignations. Singhvi said the constitutional scheme did not warrant judicial intervention in internal matters of the assembly.
The world will be celebrating Nelson Mandela International Day on July 18 — Mandela’s birth anniversary. Mandela Day is a global call to action for citizens of the world to take up the challenge and follow in the formidable footsteps of Madiba, a man who transformed his life, served his country and freed his people. Its objective is to inspire individuals to take action to help change the world for the better and in so doing, to build a global movement for good. A day not only to honour the man himself but also a chance for us to join the global movement to make the world a better place. Most of us know the facts of his life: his fight against apartheid, his imprisonment for 27 years first at Robben Island, then at Pollsmoor Prison and finally at Victor Verser Prison, how he became the first Black President of South Africa, his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, etc.
Nelson Mandela of South Africa was an icon for modern democracy. Today Nelson Mandela is acclaimed as one of the greatest personalities of our times. He belongs to that category of men who have graced our civilisation with their personal charisma and noble contributions. He was a champion for the rights of all humans. He showed to the world that all souls are created equal without any string attached. He was a leader with a difference.
Mandela spent 27 consecutive years of his life in detention. For 18 years (1964 – 1982) he was held on Robben Island, in 1982 he was moved to Pollsmoor Prison, Cape Town, and in 1988 he was again moved to Victor Verster Prison, in Paarl, till 1990. A real leader, according to him, works and serves the people making them know about their strengths. He was not for ‘power’, ‘money’ or ‘greed’. This humble soul was created for benefits other souls who were suffering. He said, ‘it is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see it realised. However, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die’.
Mandela followed three rules throughout his life, which he did at great personal sacrifice: [1] Free yourself, [2] Free others, and [3] Serve every day. Mandela’s greatest legacy is perhaps his commitment to the redemptive powers of hope and struggle. He played a major role in many political endeavors, many anti-apartheid movements such as the Program of Action, a policy-based initiative that was founded on the principles of non-violent “civil disobedience, boycott, strike, and non-co-operation” Peace was his motive.
He achieved objectives for the benefits of all mankind without ‘violence and killings’ which is a lesson to everybody in present-day world. He showed to the world how humanity can be achieved through peace without violence and killings. In 1975 he wrote a letter from prison “The cell is an ideal place to learn to know yourself,” and “Never forget that a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying.”
Mandela was a liberator of the stature of Gandhi. Both shared a common vision and passion for the breaking away of the shackles of tyranny and oppression. Both stand as stalwarts of our proximate history. Nelson Mandela was one man who was able and willing to stand up and fight back. Indeed, we can also see how this man developed his legacies through his years in prison, his activist years and his elaborate life afterward. Many people have been inspired by the South African movement, especially their decision to forgive and move on. He’s endowed with many personality traits; this makes him a natural leader and also has developed many leadership skills and strategies in his lifetime.
He was a superhuman being and the architecture of Modern South Africa and of the world. Mandela will always be remembered as a saint, a sage of humanity in line with Mahatma Gandhi. Hope our present and future generations learn from his great experiments with the struggle for oppressed and downtrodden.
(The views expressed by the author in the article are his/her own.)
An 
The International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled in the favour of 
Mumbai terror attack
The 