Only 2 UAPA cases filed between 2018 and 2022 quashed: Govt
In a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai presented data from the latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report on "Crime in India", which showed that 6,503 individuals were charge-sheeted under the UAPA during the period, while 252 people were convicted for the offences.
The country-wide data presented by the Minister showed that two cases were quashed in Kerala in 2022.
Law enforcement agencies arrested a total of 8,947 individuals under the UAPA between 2018 and 2022, with 2,633 arrests in Jammu and Kashmir, followed by 2,162 in Uttar Pradesh.
According to the data, 1,421 arrests were made in the country under the anti-terror law in 2018, 1,948 in 2019, 1,321 in 2020, 1,621 in 2021 and 2,636 in 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 minutes ago
- First Post
US officials begin probe against attorney who investigated criminal cases against Trump
The Trump administration is launching probes against Special Counsel Jack Smith, who pursued legal cases against Trump before he was re-elected to the White House. read more The US federal government has launched an investigation against special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated criminal cases against former US President Donald Trump in 2022. The US Office of Special Counsel said on Saturday that it would look into Smith's potential violation of the Hatch Act. The Act in question restricts government employees from political involvement. The announcement of a probe came after Trump and his allies had previously alleged that Smith went after Trump without legal standing to thwart his second campaign for the presidency. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is pertinent to note that Former Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith just three days before the president announced his reelection bid. Since then, GOP lawmakers have been pushing for the special prosecutor to be investigated. 'Jack Smith's legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the [former President] Biden and [former Vice President] Harris campaigns. This isn't just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office,' Senator Tom Cotton wrote in a Wednesday post on the social media platform X. 'Special Counsel Smith pushed for an out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump, with jury selection to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly,' the Arkansas senator added in a separate post. What's Smith's take on the matter Meanwhile, Smith has long defended his actions. 'The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,' Smith wrote in his final report published in mid-January. He made it clear that neither Garland nor anyone else at the Department of Justice encouraged him to prosecute Trump. 'To all who know me well, the claim from Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable," he added. Amid political pressure, Smith ultimately had to resign from the Justice Department (DOJ) after Trump's November win. He eventually dismissed charges against the POTUS, arguing that he would have secured a conviction against the leader if the legal battles had been tried in court. 'The throughline of all of Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of election fraud, and the evidence shows that Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States' democratic process,' Smith wrote at the time of his exit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Until Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,' he added. Earlier this month, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired 20 additional employees tied to Smith weeks before the Office of Special Counsel said it would investigate the prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that the independent body can only research Smith's action and seek disciplinary measures for the federal employee. Investigators can present their findings to the DoJ, and the department can eventually decide whether to press criminal charges.
India Today
38 minutes ago
- India Today
Bombay High Court grants bail to teacher convicted of sexually abusing student
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 60-year-old tuition teacher who was convicted earlier this year by a POCSO court for sexually assaulting a minor Sarang V Kotwal suggested that the victim might have been tutored as she had admitted in her cross-examination that her mother, a police constable, had told her how to respond to questions in the trial alleged incident happened on March 15, 2017, when the victim, then studying in Class 4, was attending tuition classes along with her elder sibling. A complaint was lodged by the girl's mother on March 19 that year. The girl claimed that the teacher called her to his room, asked her to read a book, and touched her breasts inappropriately. The girl got frightened and went to an adjacent room where the teacher's wife was also taking a the court noted that the girl's claim of attending the tuition class a day after the alleged incident, despite informing her mother, seemed IMPLICATED, CLAIMS TEACHERDuring the hearing, the teacher's lawyer, Satyavrat Joshi, argued that he had been falsely implicated due to a grudge harboured by the victim after being scolded for not attending also pointed out that the teacher's wife was present in the house during the alleged incident, making it improbable that any offence could have occurred. Joshi further alleged that the child had been tutored by her teacher was convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years of rigorous was taken into custody on January 9, 2025, and had previously spent a short time in jail in prosecution and the lawyer representing the victim opposed the bail, stating that a 10-year-old girl would not fabricate such allegations against her teacher. They also noted that the alleged incident occurred in a separate GRANTS BAILHowever, the court said the evasive answers by the victim and inconsistencies in her statement suggest the alleged incident might not be true."She again attending the tuition class on March 16 after informing her mother seems rather difficult to believe. She has further answered that she did not remember whether she attended the tuition class on March 17. All these evasive answers support the submission of advocate Satyavrat Joshi that the incident may not be true. All these questions will have to be decided during the final hearing stage of the appeal," the court the teacher's age, lack of antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in the appeal's disposal, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 25,000.- EndsTrending Reel
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
FRA approved fees for 695 colleges after deadline, claims student body
MUMBAI: A youth organisation has accused Maharashtra's Fee Regulatory Authority (FRA) of violating state law by approving fee proposals from nearly 695 unaided professional colleges well past the statutory deadline of October 31, 2024. FRA approved fees for 695 colleges after deadline, claims student body In a letter to the principal secretary of the higher and technical education department, Yuva Sena — the youth wing of Shiv Sena (UBT) — alleged that the FRA's decision flouts provisions of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act, 2015. Kalpesh Yadav, state joint secretary of Yuva Sena, cited Clause 14 of the Act, which mandates that colleges submit their fee proposals by October 31 for the next academic year beginning in June. 'If an institute misses this deadline, it cannot revise or hike fees for the upcoming academic year,' Yadav said, adding that colleges can only challenge FRA's decision within 15 days, and FRA must deliver a final verdict before March 31. 'This year, the FRA repeatedly extended the deadline even after October 31 and has now allowed submissions until August 15. This is a blatant violation of the law,' Yadav claimed. He warned that if the state government fails to intervene, Yuva Sena is prepared to seek judicial remedy. Responding to the allegations, FRA member Adv. Dharmendra Mishra acknowledged the statutory timelines but defended the authority's actions. He said the FRA's internal norms require colleges to seek annual fee approvals to ensure transparency and prevent unjustified hikes. 'Colleges are allowed to skip one year of revision — but only without increasing fees. In all other years, they must approach FRA for approval. If we reject late submissions outright, colleges might sidestep the process entirely and impose arbitrary fees on students,' Mishra said. He explained that the FRA accepts late submissions with penalties to ensure fees remain regulated. Mishra also disclosed that one college has filed a petition in the High Court challenging the FRA's functioning and the constitutional validity of the Act itself. 'The matter has been pending for four years, but we are clear: all colleges must come to us annually for fee regulation. We will also recommend changes to the Act to formalise this requirement,' he added. Directors missing from key FRA meetings Yadav further raised concerns about poor departmental representation in FRA meetings. 'As per the law, directors of technical and medical education departments are ex-officio FRA members. But they have skipped at least 205 meetings where college fees were finalised,' he said. Another FRA member, while confirming these absences, said stronger departmental participation is essential for a more robust and accountable regulatory framework.
