"Turkey committed the sin of backing Pakistan": Maharashtra Dy CM Eknath Shinde
His remarks came during a workshop organised by the Urban Development Department in Pune today, amid upcoming local body elections in the state.
Speaking to the media, Shinde said, 'I welcome and appreciate the traders who have imposed a boycott on Turkey. Turkey committed the sin of supporting Pakistan, which has barbarically killed our innocent people. As a result, Turkey must be boycotted, and this exclusion is justified. To those receiving threats, I assure you that no harm will come to you...there is no need to fear Pakistan.'
Shinde praised Rajasthan traders for their decision to boycott Turkish marble and Azerbaijani apples, calling it a 'sign of patriotism.'
He added that traders in Pune had taken similar action, showing solidarity against nations that support Pakistan.
Shinde also lauded Prime Minister Narendra Modi's stance on Pakistan and congratulated him for responding firmly.
'I congratulate Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his courageous response to Pakistan. They have been taught a lesson and Pakistan will learn from this,' he said.
Commenting on the upcoming local body elections, Shinde said the government was working as per Supreme Court directions.
'The Supreme Court has ordered elections, and preparations are underway according to their directives. We fought and won the last Lok Sabha and Assembly elections as a Mahayuti, securing a landslide victory. Similarly, we will contest the upcoming local body elections with the same intensity and emerge victorious,' he said.
He added that Mahayuti's competition had grown, but expressed full confidence in securing another win. 'Now our competition has increased even more, so the upcoming local body elections will be contested by the Mahayuti and the Mahayuti will win,' he said.
The two-day urban development workshop at Yashada in Pune brought together municipal commissioners and chief officers from across Maharashtra. The discussions focused on city-specific challenges and policy decisions, especially regarding the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR).
'There should be a holistic, balanced development of cities. This will be discussed at the conference in today's workshop,' Shinde said.
He emphasised that the goal was to uplift living standards and ensure that 'municipalities should be given justice.' He also addressed the cancellation of the Development Plan (DP) under the PMRD scheme, promising that future decisions would prioritize citizen rights and interests. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
23 minutes ago
- The Print
CJI's involvement in selection of CBI director is a safeguard, not a subversion
The insertion of judicial oversight was neither accidental nor theoretical. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) emerged from the public shock of the Jain Hawala diaries, its essence was doctrinal, not defensive. The Supreme Court held that the need of the hour is to insulate the CBI from extraneous influence. It insisted on structural measures, not temporary decrees. Parliament listened: the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 entrenched a tripartite panel for the selection of the CBI director — the PM, LoP, and the CJI or his nominee — forming a legal bond between democratic design and historical necessity. The CJI's statutory presence in appointing the head of the nation's premier investigative agency is not a fluke of legal drafting, it is a structural feature. It is a successor to experiences where power went unchecked: the Emergency's weaponisation of law, the Hawala scandal's institutional paralysis. 'Republics are formed, not found,' wrote Philip Bobbitt in The Shield of Achilles , capturing the intentional craftsmanship behind modern constitutionalism. They are not gifts of history, but acts of memory, of caution, of design. Constitutions are not accidental artefacts, they are blueprints of humility, instruments to channel and control power. When the Vice President raises concern over the Chief Justice of India's role in appointing the CBI Director, he touches not on privilege, but on architecture. This is not abstract theory; it is the grammar of a functioning republic. India did not choose the American isolation of powers or the British concentration. We chose a tensioned architecture, where each power leans against the other, not to destabilise, but to steady. Perception and principle If anyone doubts the continuing vitality of that design, recent jurisprudence confirms it. In Common Cause v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court upheld statutory requirements for fixed tenure, noting that transparency in appointment and continuity in office are 'constitutional imperatives that flow from independence.' It struck down executive efforts to circumvent the panel. In Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2023), the SC further condemned post-tenure extensions as injurious to public perception: where 'perceived capture' prevails, institutional legitimacy collapses. This is not unique to India. Across democratic orders, judicial participation in appointments to sensitive public offices is a safeguard, not a subversion. In the United Kingdom, the Judicial Appointments Commission includes judges in appointments beyond the bench, extending into review boards for oversight bodies. In Canada, judicial members sit on selection panels for integrity commissioners, privacy regulators, and national security review boards. South Africa's Chief Justice serves as the chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, which advises on prosecutorial oversight. In Israel, the Attorney General, akin to the CBI Director, emerges from a multi-stakeholder process that includes judicial members. Indeed, to place entire control of coercive institutions within the executive is not an act of democracy, it is Hobbes without honesty. It is a rehearsal of Leviathan, cloaked in constitutional formalities but stripped of institutional conscience. The CJI's seat at the table is not a throne, it is ballast. It prevents the investigative state from drifting toward political shores. As constitutional scholar Aharon Barak noted in the Israeli context, 'Judicial participation in public appointments is not to blur the boundary between powers, but to clarify their mutual restraint.' Concerns around post-retirement appointments of judges are not frivolous. They strike at the heart of perceived impartiality. But to conflate that concern with the statutory presence of the judiciary in a democratic appointment process is both analytically lazy and constitutionally unsound. The answer lies in reform, not removal. If Parliament is indeed serious, it may codify a cooling-off period, apply it prospectively and uniformly, and preserve both perception and principle. Also read: Shantonu Sen's CBI tenure was a long battle against corruption—and political interference A quiet reminder In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the SC acknowledged that even unproven allegations can erode public confidence in the judiciary. But that danger cannot justify the dismantling of institutional checks elsewhere. Perception is vital but it must not overpower constitutional intention. One must also resist the urge to confuse participation with dominance. The CJI is one of the three members on the panel for the appointment of the CBI director. He does not hold a veto. His presence is not a counter majoritarian triumph, it is a quiet reminder that public power must not be shaped behind closed doors. To deride that presence as judicial intrusion is to forget the very scandals that demanded it. Yes, constitutions evolve, but they do so by memory, not amnesia. The appointment structure being criticised was crafted after inquiry committees, court orders, and parliamentary deliberation. It came not as an innovation but as an inheritance. To question it casually is to misremember our own institutional biography. As John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton warned, 'The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.' That includes the Bench, the executive, and the legislature. Which is why the framers, and later Parliament, placed each beside the other, not to dominate, but to co-discipline. This is not the judiciary conquering executive space, nor the executive retreating into symbolism. This is equilibrium earned through political pain, preserved through constitutional memory. The author is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How Maharashtra ‘Urban Naxal' Bill targets Property Rights
Written by Prashant Randive In the name of public order and national security, the line between legitimate state interest and authoritarian overreach is often blurred. The recently enacted Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024, is a troubling example of this phenomenon. While the State justified the bill as a necessary response to threats posed by 'unlawful organisations', several provisions, particularly those that empower police to seal, seize or restrict the use of private property, pose a grave challenge to the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Article 300A of the Constitution stipulates that 'No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.' Though the framers left it to the legislature to define the contours of the lawful deprivation, Indian courts have consistently held that this power must be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and with due process. Yet, Sections 9 and 10 of the new law allow the police, with prior approval of the commissioner or District Magistrate, to prohibit the use of any premises allegedly linked to unlawful activity. The law authorises eviction, sealing, and restriction of use without prior judicial oversight, without compensation, and crucially, without providing the occupant or owner a chance to be heard beforehand. In the landmark judgement K T Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka (2011), the Supreme Court laid down the core principles that must guide deprivation of property by the state. Most notably, the Court held that there must be a legitimate public purpose. Secondly, there must be fairness and, in most cases, compensation. Finally, the law must be subject to judicial scrutiny for reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality. In the case of the MSPS 2024, all three constitutional safeguards appear to be compromised. First, it allows the state to seal or restrict the use of property merely based on the 'belief' of association with an unlawful organisation. This does not meet the constitutionality of the required threshold of a clearly defined public purpose. A blanket seizure of homes, businesses, or rented premises based on such vague suspicion, without establishing direct and deliberate involvement in unlawful activity, cannot be justified as serving a proportionate or legitimate public end. The concept of guilt by association dilutes the principle of individual responsibility and turns property holders into collateral damage in a scrutiny operation. Second, the law failed to provide for any form of compensation to those whose properties are sealed or rendered unusable, often with serious livelihood consequences. While Article 300A does not mandate compensation in every instance, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is often an inherent component of lawful deprivation, especially when action causes material harm. In the absence of compensation and with no clear path to restitution, the law violates both the spirit and substance of the Constitution's property protections. Third, and most dangerously, the law bypasses the prior judicial oversight. The decision to seal, evict or restrict property use is taken by police with approval from the Commissioner or District Magistrate, but not a judicial authority. Review mechanisms are post-facto, limited, and internal to the executive. The Supreme Court in K T Plantation explicitly stated that such statutes must be amenable to judicial review, which implies that they must be designed in a way that embeds procedural fairness and provides a genuine avenue for redress, without preventive remedies or an impartial tribunal, affected citizens are left vulnerable to arbitrary state action. The failure of the Act to meet these constitutional benchmarks of public purpose, just procedure and proportionality renders its property-related provision deeply problematic. Far from being an exception in extraordinary circumstances, the law risks becoming a template for routine and unchecked executive overreach, with ordinary citizens paying the price through the loss of homes, shops and shelters. While countering extremist threats, a democratic state must not wield the weapon of national security in a manner that tramples civil liberties. Laws targeting unlawful associations must not become tools for harassment, chilling dissent, or arbitrary seizure of private spaces. Unfortunately, the MSPS 2024 resurrects colonial impulses of the idea that executive suspicion is sufficient to invade homes, shutter businesses, and override property rights. In doing so, it inverts the constitutional promise from the state that serves its people to one that surveils and punishes without accountability. If left unchecked, such laws may set a dangerous precedent across states, normalising a 'guilt by association' doctrine with wide-ranging implications not just for activists and dissenters but also for ordinary citizens whose homes, hostels, and businesses could fall victim to vague suspicions. The Right to Property may no longer be 'fundamental', but it is still the foundation to liberty, livelihood and dignity. Any law that seeks to erode it must be subjected to the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny. The act, in its current form, fails that test. The writer is an independent researcher and development practitioner working with Savitribai Phule Resource Centre
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Custody battle unfolds after Russian woman found living in Gokarna cave with daughters: Report
A custody dispute has emerged following the discovery of a Russian woman and her two young daughters living in a remote cave in the forests of Karnataka's Gokarna region. Days after authorities located Nina Kutina and her children during a post-landslide inspection near Ramatirtha hills, her former partner, Dror Goldstein, has stepped forward seeking shared custody of the girls, news agency PTI reported. Dror Goldstein (L) is the father of Russian woman Nina Kutina's daughters. The woman was found living inside a cave with her children in Karnataka.(PTI/ANI) READ | Tejasvi Surya dares DK Shivakumar for open debate on Bengaluru tunnel road project Goldstein, an Israeli national, who splits his time between Goa and abroad, expressed concern over the potential separation from his daughters if they are sent to Russia. "I just want to be able to see my daughters a few times a week and take care of them, too. My concern is that if they go to Russia now, it will get tougher to keep in touch with them. So, I wish they could stay in India," he told the agency. The 38-year-old said he and Kutina, 40, had been estranged for a couple of years and had lost contact entirely when she left Goa with the children several months ago. 'I managed to find them on a beach in Gokarna, but Kutina refused to let me be with my children as I don't live with them anymore,' he explained. READ | Bengaluru to face power cuts in several areas today for maintenance work. More details Their relationship began in Goa in 2017, and over the years, they moved between India and Ukraine before separating. Goldstein said his last departure from India was in March, and the ongoing war made it difficult for him to return sooner. "When I heard the news, I booked a flight immediately to Bengaluru to try and meet them," he said. According to Goldstein, Kutina has insisted on raising the children on her own. He had previously filed a missing person report when Kutina and the children left Goa without informing him. Now, he wants to pursue legal avenues for joint custody. Goldstein said he has financially supported Kutina since the birth of their first child. He also emphasized that their younger daughter, Ama, was born in India and has lived here for years. Kutina and her daughters — Prema, 6, and Ama, 4 — were found on July 11, reportedly after spending nearly three weeks in solitude in a cave. The police were conducting a safety inspection after a landslide when they discovered the family. READ | Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh tug of war over aerospace park intensifies. Who said what Kutina has since spoken out about their situation, saying the portrayal in the media has been misleading. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the conditions at the shelter where they were taken. (With inputs from PTI)
