Farmers' leader takes out silent march demanding Mahadevi elephant be brought back
The pachyderm has shifted to Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust Jamnagar (Vantara sanctuary).
Thousands of peoples along with women from all parts of the district, gathered at Sri Chakreshwar temple in Nadani village of this district in the early morning at 0500 hours and began their Silent March (Muk Morcha) towards Kolhapur city, which will reached around at 1600 hours this evening with taking boards in hands with slogans as 'Aamchi Madhuri Parat Dhya"(Return our Madhuri).
Shetty, while talking with reporters in March, said that Vantara sanctuary misguided supreme court with submitting false report on the health of Mahadevi elephant. Even supreme court directed to shift the elephant to Jamnagar, it was not final and president of India has a right to change this judgement.
A delegation comprising women, will meet district collector Amol Yedge to hand over a memorandum demanding to bring back Mahadevi elephant and also a letter addressed to president Droupadi Murmu to interfere and changed supreme court's direction.
UNI SSS SSP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
36 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC extends interim relief to Madrasas facing derecognition over RTE compliance
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today extended interim protection to madrasas whose recognition was withdrawn following directions from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for alleged non-compliance with the Right to Education Act, 2009. The court was hearing a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the Commission's directives. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh stated that the interim protection already granted would continue and suggested that the petitioner could approach the concerned High Court for further relief. "We will extend the protection and allow you to approach the High Court," the bench observed, while clarifying that the Court was not entering into the merits of the case at this stage. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner, contended that the issue involved broader questions of law and deserved an in-depth hearing. She noted that a prior order by a three-judge bench had stayed similar directions and urged the Court to keep the matter under its consideration. She also requested additional time to decide on whether to move the High Court. Justice Sundresh remarked, 'What is there to file when we are not examining the merits right now?' Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Advocate Siddharth Sangal, reiterated that the apex court had already signalled that such issues could be adjudicated at the High Court level. Taking note of the submissions, the Court recorded, 'We put it to the senior counsel for the petitioner that an approach can be made to the High Court with sufficient interim protection. Let her take instructions. List after three weeks.' Earlier, on October 21, 2024, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had granted a stay on letters issued by the NCPCR in June 2024. These letters directed the Centre and state governments including Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, to withdraw recognition from madrasas allegedly violating the RTE Act. The Court also stayed subsequent communications from the Ministry of Education and state authorities, ruling that these directions 'shall not be acted upon.' The petitioner was permitted to implead all States and Union Territories and make necessary amendments within a week, with liberty to serve notices to their respective standing counsel. The matter will now be listed again after three weeks, pending further instructions from the petitioners. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
3 hours ago
- United News of India
'Fight political battles outside court, not here', CJI tells Karnataka minister
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal filed by Karnataka Minister Shivananda S. Patil, challenging a Karnataka High Court decision that had quashed his defamation case against BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal. Patil's counsel sought to contest the High Court's order dated September 28, 2024, which had set aside the proceedings, citing non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was alleged that Yatnal made defamatory remarks against Patil during a rally ahead of the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections, tarnishing his image despite his Cabinet status. At the outset, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, sitting with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, made his stance clear and said, 'Fight political battles outside the court, not here.' When the lawyer tried to press the appeal, the CJI responded curtly, 'So what?' and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000, which he later escalated to Rs 1 crore. However, the cost was waived after the lawyer requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Karnataka High Court had ruled that the magistrate failed to follow due process under Section 223 of the BNSS. According to the provision, a magistrate must first examine the complainant and any witnesses under oath and provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard before taking cognisance. The High Court found these steps were skipped, invalidating the trial process. With the apex court's dismissal, the High Court's decision stands, bringing the defamation case against Yatnal to a close. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
5 hours ago
- United News of India
SC issues notice on challenge to section 9 of Citizenship Act over automatic termination of Indian citizenship
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a pending case, Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India, which raises a similar issue concerning revocation of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status. The Court also issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking protection from being required to renounce Indian citizenship in order to acquire foreign citizenship, while the constitutional challenge to Section 9 is under consideration. The petition was filed by Sanjay Gundlagutta Reddy, a US-based Economics professor of Indian origin, who, despite living in New York for several years, continues to identify as an Indian citizen. He argues that Section 9(1) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violates fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality and personal liberty. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant initially questioned the petitioner's counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, asking, 'You are an eminent person. But what grievance is there…if you are so keen for Indian citizenship, you surrender the foreign citizenship and get the Indian one?' However, after hearing her submissions including reference to a previous case where the Supreme Court had granted interim relief on similar grounds the Bench agreed to issue notice and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks. Key arguments in the Petition are that Section 9 imposes a 'Hobson's choice' on Indians abroad, either acquire foreign citizenship and lose Indian nationality or retain Indian citizenship at great personal and professional cost. It fails to consider the global mobility and dual loyalty of Indian-origin individuals who maintain cultural and emotional ties with India The provision does not offer any discretionary or adjudicatory mechanism, resulting in automatic cessation of citizenship. The petitioner highlights that non-citizens globally face precarious legal status, with risks of deportation and limited access to rights. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh, seeks a reconsideration of India's citizenship framework to better align with contemporary realities of global Indian diaspora. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Indian-origin individuals across the world, particularly in how India defines and regulates its citizenship laws in a globalized era. UNI SNG RN
