Where is your public apology? Top court raps BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
"This man is testing our patience. Where is your public apology?" the bench asked, taking exception to a social media video posted by Shah, which the court said does not qualify as a "proper" apology.The bench directed Shah's lawyer to submit full details of the apology and where and how it had been published. It was made clear that the minister must demonstrate genuine remorse in a public and meaningful manner.Shah is currently facing an inquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was set up following the court's direction.The SIT, in its submission, informed the court that it had recorded statements from 27 people, including journalists, and is now reviewing videos and other materials related to the incident. The team has been given 90 days to complete its probe and has committed to filing the final status report by August 13.However, the court also criticised the SIT's approach, questioning why Shah's statement was recorded before collecting testimonies from those affected by his comments."What is so significant to record his statement? The statements of those who felt hurt and victimised by his statement — those should have been recorded," remarked the bench.In response, the SIT assured the court that victim and witness statements were also part of the investigation and that all relevant material is being analysed before final conclusions are drawn.The matter has now been adjourned to August 18. The court has directed that one of the three SIT members must be present during the next hearing and submit the status report outlining the outcome of the inquiry.Shah stirred a row when he, while speaking at a government event in May, said that the Prime Minister had sent a "sister from the same community" as those in Pakistan to avenge the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam. The remark was made with reference to India's Operation Sindoor strikes, which were spearheaded by Qureshi along with Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, on May 7.The case has sparked public outrage and renewed calls for accountability among public figures in their comments regarding the armed forces.- EndsTrending Reel
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Power Of Justice Is Above All': Victim's Family On Prajwal Revanna's Rape Conviction
Last Updated: The survivor in this case had faced intense abuse and was even kidnapped to a farmhouse when panic set in within the Revanna family about Prajwal's victims going public There is a sense of relief in the houses of the survivors who were victims of Prajwal Revanna and his dastardly acts of rape on several women. When the special court trying the former MP's case pronounced a life term for Revanna, they felt that the courts and the SIT had done right by them. Former Janata Dal (Secular) MP from Hassan and grandson of former PM Deve Gowda, Prajwal Revanna, has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in Bengaluru for raping his house help. 'It took a lot of courage to go to the police and file an FIR. They are a powerful political family. Taking them on itself made us shudder. But today we believe that the power of justice is above all," said a family member of the survivor who worked as a house help in the Revanna farmhouse and was subjected to rape and abuse over several years since 2021. This is the first among the four cases that the SIT is investigating, and the special court has delivered its verdict, sentencing Prajwal Revanna to life imprisonment — considered one of the harshest punishments. The survivor in this case had faced intense abuse and was even kidnapped to a farmhouse when panic set in within the Revanna family about Prajwal's victims going public. The biggest fear among all survivors was that they were taking on one of the most powerful political families in Karnataka. They believed Prajwal used his political power and control to inflict abuse and silence the victims. 'We are happy he has been punished with the harshest sentence possible. It was very important for us that the name of my relative be cleared — she had done no wrong. She pleaded to be let go, but they misused their power," said another relative, adding that the verdict has brought some solace through this traumatic ordeal. The son of the survivor, who worked as a housemaid in the Hassan farmhouse, had earlier recounted how she had managed to escape after being held captive in Mysuru. The survivor lived in constant fear. Her video was circulated among others in the car, making the crime even more serious. She was even kidnapped to prevent her from being questioned by the police. 'She has not stopped crying. She's terrified that people know about the videos. But we must say We've received immense support and courage, and this verdict has emboldened us," said another relative. According to the FIR filed by the survivor's son — the case for which Prajwal was convicted — an aide of former minister and JD(S) MLA H D Revanna and his wife Bhavani allegedly kidnapped the survivor. The son alleged that the aide warned his parents not to speak to the police. 'He threatened us that we'd be booked in a case and told us to alert him if the police came," the son had told News18 earlier. The FIR states that on April 29 , just days after the 2024 Lok Sabha polling around 9 pm, the aide returned and warned again that if his mother was caught by the police, a case would be filed and the whole family would be jailed. He claimed that H D Revanna had asked for his mother to be brought to him. 'He forced my mother to accompany him on his bike," the son said in his FIR to the police based on which the case was built. It was only hours later that he learned a video of his mother being raped by Prajwal Revanna was circulating. 'They told me that despite my mother pleading to be spared, Prajwal raped her., ' the son told News18 earlier. The son had also told News18, 'The SIT said they will stand with us. They've treated us well and told us not to hesitate or feel ashamed." The verdict in this case has given hope to other survivors awaiting justice, said another relative of this survivor. One of the first FIRs filed against the former MP was by a 44-year-old former ZP member and JD(S) worker on May 1, 2024. She accused Prajwal of raping her multiple times over three years and videotaping the alleged acts. Unlike the case of the house help who was present at the Revanna household , this woman — a JD(S) functionary — had to meet the MP officially. She said she had to frequently interact with Prajwal and his father, H D Revanna, the MLA from Holenarasipura, to get clearances for development works. In 2021, she had met Prajwal seeking hostel seats for women students at a Hassan college. After being made to wait several hours, she was asked to meet him in his antechamber. That's when he allegedly used force, recorded her, and warned her not to tell anyone — threatening to use the video and his influence if she didn't obey. She claimed he also threatened her with expulsion from JD(S) if she refused. 'She was subjected to such torture. All we want is for this criminal to be punished. The verdict gives us hope that we'll get justice too. The SIT has repeatedly told us to trust their investigation — the truth will come out. We hope the court gives him the harshest sentence in our case too," said a relative of the second victim. Cross-examination in this case is now complete and the trial is nearing conclusion. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 03, 2025, 10:09 IST News india 'Power Of Justice Is Above All': Victim's Family On Prajwal Revanna's Rape Conviction Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt, Governor set to begin talks for consensus on VC appointments
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: With the Supreme Court directing both the state government and the chancellor (Governor) to kick-start the process to appoint permanent vice-chancellors (VCs) in universities at the earliest, both sides are set to begin discussions to arrive at a consensus on the matter. Higher Education Minister R Bindu and Law Minister P Rajeeve are scheduled to meet Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Sunday at the directions of CM Pinarayi Vijayan. 'The government will try its best to resolve the deadlock,' Bindu told TNIE. As per highly placed sources, the constitution of search committees for selection of permanent VCs in a few universities will be taken up as a preliminary step. Of the 14 state universities, the Acts of seven varsities lay down that the chancellor shall constitute the search committee. However, the Acts of seven other universities are silent on who is the authority to constitute the panel. 'The second category mostly includes varsities that are newly established or under departments such as agriculture, fisheries, veterinary and health,' said a top source. 'The chancellor will allow the government to form search panel in such varsities to start the process. However, the Raj Bhavan will insist that the search committee be constituted as per UGC regulations,' the source added. As per the UGC regulations, the three-member panel will have nominees of the UGC chairman, the chancellor and the university syndicate. 'If the government agrees to this proposal, it would be an admission that the University Amendment Bill, that aims to alter the composition of search committees in its favour, is now a closed chapter. But there is no other choice as the President has withheld assent to the Bill,' said a government source. The preliminary steps by both parties will serve as a chance for either sides to demonstrate their intent in appointing permanent VCs through consensus. Universities where chancellor is authority to constitute search panel Kerala University MG University Calicut University Kannur University CUSAT Sanskrit University Digital University Universities where Act is silent on who should constitute search panel Kerala Agricultural University Malayalam University APJ Abdul Kalam Tech University Kerala University of Health Sciences Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences University Fisheries University Sreenarayana Guru Open University
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Constitutional contours: The power and purpose of Article 143(1)
The Indian Constitution, a living document, often presents complex questions that require nuanced interpretations to ensure its provisions align with the evolving needs of governance. One such issue has arisen with the President of India invoking Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on a constitutional question stemming from a recent judgment. This judgment mandated that a Governor must act on a Bill passed by a State Legislature within a stipulated period, failing which the Bill would be deemed to have received assent. The President's reference seeks clarity on this interpretation, prompting the Supreme Court to constitute a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, to hear the matter on August 19. However, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have raised preliminary objections, questioning the maintainability of this reference. They argue that the issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court, and under Article 141, the law declared by it is binding on all courts and constitutional authorities. They contend that seeking an advisory opinion on a decided matter is unnecessary and potentially undermines the binding precedent established under Article 141. This debate brings to the fore a critical tension between the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) and the binding nature of its judgments under Article 141, raising questions about the scope and purpose of presidential references. To evaluate the objections, it is essential to delineate the roles of Articles 141 and 143(1). Article 141 establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India, ensuring uniformity in judicial interpretation. The term 'courts' has been expansively interpreted to include statutory tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, reinforcing the judiciary's role in maintaining legal consistency. In contrast, Article 143(1) empowers the President to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion, irrespective of whether the issue has been previously adjudicated. The provision's language is broad, allowing references on questions that 'have arisen or are likely to arise,' thereby encompassing both settled and prospective issues. The discretionary nature of Article 143(1) is evident in its wording, which states that the Supreme Court 'may' provide an opinion. This discretion was affirmed in the Kerala Education Bill case (1959), where the court held that it could decline to answer a reference if the question is hypothetical, politically charged, or otherwise unsuitable for advisory adjudication. However, the existence of a prior judgment does not inherently bar a reference, as the advisory jurisdiction operates independently of the binding precedent framework under Article 141. Historical instances of presidential references under Article 143(1) underscore the provision's flexibility. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (Third Judges Case), the President sought the Supreme Court's opinion on judicial appointments, despite prior rulings in the Second Judges Case. The apex court entertained the reference and provided clarity without questioning its maintainability. Similarly, following the 2G Spectrum judgment, the President referred questions related to issues already addressed by the Court, which again responded without objection. These cases demonstrate that Article 143(1) allows the President to seek guidance on matters of constitutional significance, even when they involve existing precedents, particularly when broader governance implications persist. The objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which hinge on the binding nature of Article 141, overlook the distinct constitutional role of Article 143(1). The President, when invoking this provision, does not act in a judicial capacity but as a constitutional functionary seeking to clarify legal or governance issues. The advisory opinion, as clarified in Keshav Singh's Case (1965), is not a binding judgment but carries significant persuasive authority, guiding constitutional functionaries and shaping future judicial and administrative actions. The present reference centers on the Governor's role in the legislative process, a recurring point of contention in India's federal structure. Governors, as constitutional heads of states, are expected to act as neutral facilitators of the legislative process, not as obstructions. The Supreme Court's earlier ruling, which mandated timely action on Bills, sought to prevent executive inaction from derailing legislative intent. However, the ambiguity surrounding the 'stipulated period' and the concept of 'deemed assent' has sparked debate, particularly in states where Governors have delayed or withheld assent, leading to tensions with elected legislatures. The President's reference is timely, as it addresses a question with far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations. Governors' discretionary powers, though limited, have often been a flashpoint, as seen in recent controversies in states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, where delays in assenting to Bills have led to accusations of partisan overreach. By seeking the Supreme Court's opinion, the President aims to ensure that constitutional processes remain robust and that the Governor's role aligns with democratic principles. The Supreme Court's advisory opinion, while not legally binding, will carry significant weight. Conversely, if the court revisits its interpretation, it could provide nuanced guidance on the extent of gubernatorial discretion, potentially redefining the boundaries of executive power in India's federal framework. Moreover, the reference highlights the broader utility of Article 143(1) as a mechanism for resolving constitutional ambiguities. Unlike regular litigation, which is adversarial and case-specific, advisory opinions allow the court to address systemic issues in a non-contentious manner, offering clarity to policymakers and constitutional functionaries. This process strengthens India's constitutional framework by fostering dialogue between the judiciary and other organs of the state. The objections that have been raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala, while rooted in a respect for judicial precedent, do not undermine the constitutional validity of the President's reference under Article 143(1). The provision is designed to address questions of public importance, even those previously adjudicated, provided they carry significant constitutional weight. The Supreme Court's discretion to entertain such references, coupled with its historical practice, supports the legitimacy of this process. As the Constitution Bench prepares to hear this matter, its opinion—whether it upholds the existing precedent or offers a fresh perspective—will shape the discourse on the Governor's role and the delicate balance of power in India's federal system. This exercise, far from undermining judicial authority, exemplifies the dynamic interplay of constitutional mechanisms in addressing complex governance challenges. (The writer is a senior Advocate)
