Lynching in Mangaluru: Fact-finding report seeks CID probe
Two months into the mob lynching of Mohammed Ashraf, a ragpicker from Kerala at Kudupu, Mangaluru, People's Union for Civil Liberties-Karnataka, All-India Lawyers Association for Justice-Karnataka, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights-Karnataka have jointly released a fact-finding report on the incident.
The report, titled 'Lost fraternity: A mob lynching in broad daylight', has alleged failure on the part of the State administration in ensuring impartial investigations into incidents wherein the oppressed community members were the victims.
The organisations have demanded the transfer of the investigation to the CID, appointment of a special public prosecutor, and compensation to the victim's family.
'Failure of State'
Releasing the report at the Press Club of Bangalore, Mavalli Sankar, State convener, DSS – Ambedkarvaada, said, 'In such cases, it is important that officials and elected representatives visit at least the family of the victims to inspire public trust in the rule of law. It has happened neither in the case of Ashraf nor after the incident in which a Dalit at Kattarghatta was killed.'
Ashwini K.P., U.N. special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, reminded that, given India is a signatory to the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the State is duty-bound to eliminate hate that leads to violence. Noting that the media has played a key role in communalising the Pahalgam attack and Muslims have been increasingly villainised following it, she stressed on the need to report responsibly.
A hate crime
Maitreyi Krishnan, president of All India Lawyers Association for Justice, noted that the lynching incident was not a mere murder, but a hate crime.
'It is an attack on the values of the Constitution. The police officials who delayed the registration of the FIR did not follow the Supreme Court guidelines on mob lynching,' she said, demanding disciplinary action against the police officials.
Advocate Vinay Sreenivasa demanded that the State administration organise a meeting with civil society groups on how best to uphold law and order. He expressed concerns over the government's plans to introduce new laws to counter hate and fake news, as well as establish the Special Action Force, while, according to him, it has failed to enforce the existing laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Congress will pay price for neglecting SES-2015, claims Union Minister Bhupender Yadav
BENGALURU: Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav on Saturday predicted that the Congress in Karnataka will meet the same fate as its national counterpart as it has ignored the Socio-Economic Educational Survey-2015 (caste census report). Delivering the keynote address at the seminar 'Caste Census: Retrospective-Prospective' organised by the Social Justice Awareness Forum at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Yadav said that Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his government and LoP in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi were anti-backward classes. The Karnataka government had recently shelved the caste census of 2015 and opted for a fresh survey. Yadav said that the Congress lost power at the Centre because it ignored the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report recommending the upliftment of backward classes socially and educationally. He expressed confidence that when the backward classes become aware that the Congress is averse to their upliftment in Karnataka, it will not be able to return to power. 'Why did those who (Rahul Gandhi) keep the Constitution in their pockets not implement the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report? After the country became independent from the Emergency and from family rule, the Janata Party came to power at the Centre. It also formed the Mandal Commission. The Congress was out of power when the issue of justice for OBCs came to the fore. But when it came to power a few years later, it had ignored the Mandal Commission report as it did it with the Kaka Kalelkar report,' Yadav said, adding that the BJP-backed VP Singh government implemented the Mandal Commission report and got reservation for OBCs.
New Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Fact-finding report released on Mangaluru mob lynching
BENGALURU: A fact-finding report on the mob-lynching of Mohammed Ashraf at Kudupu, Mangaluru, titled 'Lost Fraternity: A mob lynching in broad daylight, A betrayal of the promise of the Constitution' was released. It was done by People's Union for Civil Liberties, Karnataka, All India Lawyers Association for Justice, Karnataka, and Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Karnataka. Mavalli Shankar, State Convenor, DSS (Ambedkarvada) pointed to the larger failure on part of the state administration in ensuring impartial investigations into incidents in the oppressed communities. He also added that in such cases, it is important that officials and elected representatives make a visit, at least to the family, to inspire public trust in the rule of law which has not happened in the case of Ashraf and killing of a Dalit. Advocate Vinay Sreenivasa said how bails have been granted to the accused on technical grounds which are indicative of the laxity displayed by the police. He also called on the state administration to organise a meeting with various civil society groups on how best to uphold law and order. He expressed his concerns over the governments' action of bringing new laws to counter hate and fake news.
NDTV
42 minutes ago
- NDTV
What's Next For Birthright Citizenship After US Supreme Court Ruling
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. "It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief," said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to "act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases "challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order." Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. "Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. "By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear."
