Operation Sindoor sansad showdown now, fiery debate next week
Meanwhile, the government has expressed readiness for a discussion on Operation Sindoor next week, but the opposition claims the topic was not on the business advisory committee's agenda. The show also touches on the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, with opposition leaders protesting the exercise. The Election Commission has responded in the Supreme Court, stating that the petitions against the revision are based on misleading reports and that no eligible elector will be excluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Focus on big issues': Rajnath Singh starts Lok Sabha debate on Op Sindoor with list of questions Oppn should have asked
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told Lok Sabha Monday that India had fulfilled all its objectives in Operation Sindoor, agreed to a ceasefire when Pakistan requested it without any pressure, and added that the Opposition was not asking the right questions when it sought to know how many planes were shot down. He was speaking to initiate the 16-hour debate in Parliament on Operation Sindoor. He underlined that Operation Sindoor had been halted and not ended, and India would once again give a befitting reply if Pakistan sponsored any other terror attack, as a 'new Lakshman Rekha had been drawn'. He added that India would not accept any nuclear blackmail. 'In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks in an exam and not focus on whether his pencil was broken or pen was lost,' Rajnath said, in a dig at questions by the Opposition regarding losses to the Indian Air Force, amid applause from ruling party MPs. 'The Opposition asks about planes shot down. Their question does not represent India's sentiments. They have not yet asked how many Pak planes were shot down. They should ask: did India destroy terror bases? Yes. Was Operation Sindoor successful? Yes. Were the masters of terrorists who wiped off Sindoor from the foreheads of our sisters destroyed? Yes. Did our soldiers face any losses? No,' Rajnath said, listing out the questions he felt the Opposition should have asked. 'Focus on big things, not comparatively small ones; else we lose focus on big issues and the honour of soldiers.' He added, 'We asked in 1962 why another country captured part of our territory. We asked why we lost. We did not ask how many machine guns were damaged. We asked about territory, not equipment. In 1971, Atal Bihari Vajpayee praised the leadership of that time. We did not ask how many Indian planes fell or equipment got damaged in the process of teaching the enemy a lesson.' 'Aim not to capture land, but destroy terror nurseries' Rajnath explained the ceasefire after four days of hostility, saying, 'Operation Sindoor was halted because we had fulfilled our objectives. To say it was done under any pressure is wrong. The aim was not to capture territory but to destroy their terror nurseries. The aim was not to go to war… Pakistan accepted defeat and requested that hostilities be stopped… We accepted with a caveat. If Pakistan attempts any misadventure, we will again begin this operation.' The defence minister said India had always wanted peace with neighbours, as it is part of the civilisational values of the country. He recalled Vajpayee's attempts at peace, and then the Kargil War when Pakistan did not understand the language of peace. He added that Prime Minister Narendra Modi also started with attempts at peace and also visited Nawaz Sharif, but since Pakistan did not understand the language of peace, India undertook a surgical strike in 2016, an air strike in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025. Rajnath expressed disappointment that the UPA government did not do any such thing after the Mumbai terror attack of 2008. Under the Modi government, he added, 'two-day dossiers have been replaced by decisive actions.' He likened the policy of the Modi government to the strategy of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna. 'We haven't occupied any territory. We also know that one should fight only equals. Lions should not kill frogs – the message it sends is not good. Our army is a lion. Pakistan is nowhere close to us in size or strength. What competition do we have with them? They are reliant on others for aid. Our strategy is against terrorism emanating from there,' Rajnath asserted. 'Our policy based on strategy of Ram, Krishna' 'We have learnt from Krishna that one can forgive Shishupala 100 times but the Sudarshan Chakra must be used to protect dharma. Ab humne sudarshan chakra utha liya hai (Now we have decided to wield the Sudarshan Chakra). Our policy is based on the strategy of Ram and Krishna, which teaches both dhairya (patience) and shourya (valour). Pakistan did not understand what we were saying; so, we will answer them in this way,' he said. 'Our stand is clear that terror and talks cannot co-exist. A country that has no democracy, sponsors terror and hates India cannot be engaged in dialogue. Blood and talks do not go together,' Rajnath added, reiterating what PM Modi had said after the ceasefire. 'Pak-sponsored terrorism is not random madness; there is a method in this madness. It is a toolkit against every civilised code of conduct. Our fight against Pakistan is the contest between civilisation and barbarity.' He recalled that PM Modi got the world to condemn the Pahalgam terror attack, adding that he (Rajnath) refused to sign a joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet that sought to dilute India's position on terror. Rajnath rued that the UPA government could not make the Mumbai terror attack a global issue, and also decided not to launch an attack on Pakistan's terror havens after it. Underlining that multi-party delegations sent across the world after Operation Sindoor did great work, Rajnath said, 'During the operation, all political parties cooperated with the government, and we thank them.' He said Indian forces accomplished the attack on terror hubs in Pakistan in just 22 minutes, and saluted the defence forces for their valour and dedication.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
J&K L-G hands over job assurance letter to daughter of official killed in Pak shelling
Jammu: Jammu and Kashmir Lt Governor Manoj Sinha on Monday handed over a government job assurance letter to the daughter of additional district development commissioner (ADDC), Raj Kumar Thapa who was killed during unprovoked shelling by Pakistan in Rajouri town. An official statement said that L-G Manoj Sinha on Monday met Mareesa Thapa, Raj Kumar's daughter and Meenakshi Kundan Thapa, wife. 'The Lt Governor handed over an assurance letter to the daughter of the martyred ADDC that she will be appointed as an Assistant Law Officer after completion of her studies. The Lt Governor expressed solidarity with the family of Dr. Raj Kumar Thapa and reaffirmed the commitment of the administration to providing all possible assistance. 'Ramesh Kumar, Divisional Commissioner Jammu was also present on the occasion at Raj Bhawan," the statement read. After Indian armed forces carried out target specific strikes against terror infrastructure deep inside Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack, Pakistan retaliated by heavy mortar shelling on the line of control (LoC) in Jammu and K including Poonch, Rajouri, Baramulla, Kupwara and Bandipora districts. Eighteen civilians including the ADDC Raj Kumar Thapa were killed in Pakistan shelling on civilian facilities. Fourteen of these civilians were killed in Poonch district. Scores of homes, shops, other business establishments, a Gurudwara, a temple and a church were destroyed in Pakistan mortar shelling in Poonch town. After Pakistan targeted civilian and military installations, the Indian Armed forces under Operation Sindoor damaged 18 defence bases of Pakistan. It must be recalled that the target specific strikes by Indian Armed forces were carried out only against terror infrastructure in Muridke near Lahore, Bahawalpur, Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) but no civilian or military facility was targeted by India initially. Indian retaliation against Pakistan military started only after Pakistan escalated the tension.
