Despite High Court order, J&K policeman and eight siblings shifted to Punjab for repatriation to Pakistan
Police constable Ifthikar Ali, his three brothers and five sisters, were rounded up by the J&K police and shifted to Punjab, according to Mr. Ali's wife. 'I have three kids and their father has been taken away to be sent to Pakistan. He has worked in the J&K Police for 26 years. How did he become a Pakistani?' she said.
Also Read | Pahalgam terror attack: Centre exempts many more from repatriation to Pakistan
'No help from DC, SSP'
The family on Tuesday (April 29, 2025) approached the J&K High Court, which directed that the petitioners 'should not be asked or forced to leave J&K'. In his order, Justice Rahul Bharti said: 'Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, is directed to come forward with furnishing of an affidavit with respect to the status of property holding if any by the petitioners in their own name and right, or by reference to their father Faqur Din, in reference to Mauza Salwah tehsil Mendhar district Poonch.'
Mrs. Ali said she and her family members had tried to approach both the Deputy Commissioner (DC) and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) after the court order. 'The DC says the SSP will help and the SSP says the DC will help. We fail to understand why my husband was shifted in spite of the court order,' she said.
In a separate case, two sisters aged 66 and 60 were rounded up for repatriation to Pakistan after 43 years of residence in Rajouri's Thanamandi. 'My mother came to J&K in 1983 along with my grandmother and aunt. At this age, where will they survive in Pakistan? We have no relatives there,' said the 66-year-old woman's son.
Also Read | Pahalgam terror attack: 22-year-old India-Pakistan ceasefire pact hangs by a thread as armies exchange fire for 4th day in J&K
'No law against cross-border marriage'
One official figure suggested that over 60 women married to former militants were rounded up for deportation through the Attari-Wagah border. However, Pakistan on Wednesday refused to allow entry to such women.
'We were never allowed to cross the border on Wednesday. Those who have married should have been allowed to stay. Is marrying an Indian a joke? Let there be a law that Pakistani women cannot marry Indian men. Till such a law is not there, we should be allowed to stay. I felt like a criminal when we were rounded up,' said Minal Khan, a Pakistan national who married Munir Khan, a CRPF jawan from Jammu's Gharota, in March this year.
'I had already applied for the Long Term Visa. In spite of that, I was being repatriated. We were pained by the Pahalgam attack. What is the sin of children whose parents are being repatriated,' she asked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 minutes ago
- Mint
Who is ‘Neha' aka Abdul Kalam? Bangladeshi national who lived as transgender in India for decades arrested in Bhopal
The Bhopal Police arrested a Bangladeshi man, Abdul Kalam, who was living in India under the alias Neha for decades. He was held in the intervening night between Monday and Tuesday, during a crackdown on illegal migrants. According to several reports, Abdul Kalam, who is aged around 30-32 years presently, was arrested in Bhopal. He was living as transgender woman, Neha. Sources told India Today TV that Abdul entered India at the age of 10 and spent nearly 20 years in Mumbai before moving to Bhopal. He had been living in Bhopal for the past 10 years under the assumed identity of Neha Kinnar, the New Indian Express (TNIE) reported. Sources revealed that Abdul had reportedly maintained the identity of a transgender woman for years in Bhopal to avoid detection by local authorities. He was widely known as "Neha Kinnar" in the locality where he was staying. Acting on specific intelligence inputs from a specialised unit tracking foreign nationals residing illegally in the state, Abdul Kalam alias Neha Kinnar was traced to the Mangalwara locality in old Bhopal. A senior Bhopal police official told TNIE, 'The third gender individual was recently traced and has since then been questioned by a dedicated team of cops.' Abdul has been placed under 30-day detention while the authorities initiate formal deportation procedures, India Today reported. As per TNIE sources, the process of Abdul Kalam aka Neha Kinnar's deportation to Bangladesh is likely to start over the next few days, once the entire probe about the 10-year-long illegal stay in Bhopal is over. Bhopal police found that Abdul had constructed a false identity as an Indian citizen after forging documents including an Aadhaar card, voter ID, and even a passport. According to TNIE, Abdul Kalam managed to get the new identity of Neha Kinnar by getting various identity proof documents to give legal sanctity to the false identity. However, it remains unclear whether these documents were procured in Madhya Pradesh or elsewhere to legally him as an Indian citizen. It's alleged that Abdul had made multiple visits to Bangladesh during his decades-long stay using the forged Indian passport. Police official Shalini Dixit told India Today, 'We received credible information through a confidential informant, which led to his identification and subsequent arrest.' Initial questioning revealed that Abdul Kalam has lived in various parts of the country, including West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra and MP. "He has been residing in Bhopal for nearly a decade, but prior to that, he lived in Maharashtra. During this time, he had also returned to Bangladesh, which he managed to do using forged Indian credentials," Dixit added. The official said the investigation is ongoing, and "we are closely coordinating with central agencies." According to India Today report, police are preparing to conduct a gender verification test to determine whether 'Neha' is biologically transgender or has been disguising himself as one to conceal his identity.
Time of India
11 minutes ago
- Time of India
Out or Not Out? Tammy Beaumont's close call vs India: What the rules say
Tammy Beaumont vs India (Image via X/Screengrab) Controversy unfolded at Lord's during the second Women's ODI between India and England, that tipped in the hosts' favour this time around following a win for India in the 1st. In the fifth over of England's innings, Deepti Sharma bowled a fuller delivery to Tammy Beaumont . The English opener drove it towards Jemimah Rodrigues at short midwicket. Rodrigues dove to her right, stopped the ball, and threw it back towards wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh. Beaumont, whocut short her run after opting against a quick single, was walking back to the crease. After placing her left foot inside the crease, with her right leg, she appeared to attempt kicking the ball away. Though she didn't make contact, it appeared that she had tried to stop the ball with her foot before it reached Ghosh. The visitors appealed without fail, gesturing to the umpires that Beaumont had tried to interfere with the throw. The umpires had a long discussion and opted for a review. After watching a few replays, the third umpire decided Beaumont was not out. However, according to the laws, there is no exemption that protects a batter from being given out for Obstructing the Field even if they are back inside the crease. The ball was still in play at the time, which is clear from the fact that it was moving towards the India wicketkeeper. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD 37.1 Out Obstructing the field 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2, and while the ball is in play, she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. See also clause 34 (Hit the ball twice). 37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of her wicket. 37.1.3 This clause will apply whether or not No ball is called. 37.1.4 For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batter, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed her direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder's attempt to effect a run out, the batter should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not. If the change of direction involves the batter crossing the pitch, clause 41.14 shall also apply. Additionally, it has been mentioned in another clause that the batter will not be out if they Obstruct the field accidentally, to avoid injury or in the case of a second/subsequent strike made to guard the wicket lawfully (for a striker). However, the not out decision didn't hurt India much in terms of runs conceded, given that Beaumont was batting on 25 off 16 balls at the time and was later dismissed for 34 off 35 by Sneh Rana in the 11th over. Poll Should Tammy Beaumont have been given out for obstructing the field? Yes, she attempted to interfere with the throw. No, she was already inside the crease. England level series after rain-hit win In the match itself, England bounced back to win the second ODI by eight wickets in a rain-shortened game at Lord's. Chasing a revised target of 115, opener Amy Jones guided the hosts home with an unbeaten 46, helping them level the three-match series 1-1. India, who had successfully chased down 259 in the first ODI, struggled with the bat this time. They managed only 143/8 in the 29-overs-per-side match, with Smriti Mandhana top-scoring with 42. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Out or Not Out? Tammy Beaumont's controversial dismissal vs India: What the rules say
Tammy Beaumont vs India (Image via X/Screengrab) Controversy unfolded at Lord's during the second Women's ODI between India and England, that tipped in the hosts' favour this time around following a win for India in the 1st. In the fifth over of England's innings, Deepti Sharma bowled a fuller delivery to Tammy Beaumont . The English opener drove it towards Jemimah Rodrigues at short midwicket. Rodrigues dove to her right, stopped the ball, and threw it back towards wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh. Beaumont, whocut short her run after opting against a quick single, was walking back to the crease. After placing her left foot inside the crease, with her right leg, she appeared to attempt kicking the ball away. Though she didn't make contact, it appeared that she had tried to stop the ball with her foot before it reached Ghosh. The visitors appealed without fail, gesturing to the umpires that Beaumont had tried to interfere with the throw. The umpires had a long discussion and opted for a review. After watching a few replays, the third umpire decided Beaumont was not out. However, according to the laws, there is no exemption that protects a batter from being given out for Obstructing the Field even if they are back inside the crease. The ball was still in play at the time, which is clear from the fact that it was moving towards the India wicketkeeper. 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD 37.1 Out Obstructing the field 37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2, and while the ball is in play, she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. See also clause 34 (Hit the ball twice). 37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of her wicket. 37.1.3 This clause will apply whether or not No ball is called. 37.1.4 For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batter, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed her direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder's attempt to effect a run out, the batter should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not. If the change of direction involves the batter crossing the pitch, clause 41.14 shall also apply. Additionally, it has been mentioned in another clause that the batter will not be out if they Obstruct the field accidentally, to avoid injury or in the case of a second/subsequent strike made to guard the wicket lawfully (for a striker). However, the not out decision didn't hurt India much in terms of runs conceded, given that Beaumont was batting on 25 off 16 balls at the time and was later dismissed for 34 off 35 by Sneh Rana in the 11th over. Poll Should Tammy Beaumont have been given out for obstructing the field? Yes, she attempted to interfere with the throw. No, she was already inside the crease. England level series after rain-hit win In the match itself, England bounced back to win the second ODI by eight wickets in a rain-shortened game at Lord's. Chasing a revised target of 115, opener Amy Jones guided the hosts home with an unbeaten 46, helping them level the three-match series 1-1. India, who had successfully chased down 259 in the first ODI, struggled with the bat this time. They managed only 143/8 in the 29-overs-per-side match, with Smriti Mandhana top-scoring with 42. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
