Mumbai blasts lawyer, ex foreign secretary among 4 new nominees to Rajya Sabha
Ujjwal Nikam served as the special public prosecutor in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case. He represented the prosecution in the sessions court, the Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court in the case against Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only terrorist captured alive during the attacks. Kasab was sentenced to death in 2010, a decision later upheld by the higher courts.
Harsh Shringla is a former Indian Foreign Service officer who has held senior positions in India's diplomatic missions, including Ambassador to the United States, and served as Foreign Secretary. He has also held postings in Bangladesh and Thailand during his diplomatic career.
Dr. Meenakshi Jain is a historian whose work focuses on medieval and colonial Indian history. She is a former Associate Professor at Gargi College, University of Delhi, and a former Fellow of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. She has authored several books, including Rama and Ayodhya, The Battle for Rama, and Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples. She was awarded the Padma Shri in 2020.
C. Sadanandan Master is a schoolteacher from Thrissur district in Kerala. He has taught social science at Sree Durga Vilasam Higher Secondary School in Peramangalam since 1999 and holds degrees from Gauhati University and Calicut University. On January 25, 1994, he was attacked near his residence in Kannur, a district known for political violence. The incident resulted in the amputation of both his legs. 'The attack was allegedly carried out by members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and was reportedly linked to his political shift away from the Left,' said officials familiar with the case. He was 30 years old at the time.
According to Article 80 of the Indian Constitution, the President may nominate up to 12 members to the Rajya Sabha for their expertise and contributions in fields such as literature, science, art, and social service. These nominations are made on the recommendation of the central government and are intended to bring domain knowledge into parliamentary debates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
Marriages sacrosanct to Hindus are at stake due to trivial issues between couples: HC
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man and his family members seeking to quash a dowry harassment case registered against them by his estranged wife in December 2023. The Nagpur bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and M M Nerlikar, in an order dated July 8, held that in matrimonial disputes, if a reunion is not possible, the same should be ended immediately to ensure the lives of the parties involved are not ruined. Mumbai, Jul 14 (PTI) Marriages considered sacrosanct by Hindus are at stake now because of small and trivial issues between couples, the Bombay High Court remarked while quashing a dowry harassment case against a man and his family members. The estranged couple informed the court that they had settled their dispute and had been granted a divorce by mutual consent. The woman informed the court that she had no objection if the case was quashed, as she wished to move on with her life. The court, while quashing the case, said though the provisions pertaining to dowry harassment and unnatural sex of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, to secure the ends of justice, courts can quash the proceedings. The court stated that considering the recent trend of filing cases against many persons from the husband's side, it has become imperative to look into matrimonial disputes from a different angle. If the parties want to settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the court's duty to encourage the same, it held. 'Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in the society due to various factors. Small issues between a couple spoil their entire life, and marriage, which is sacrosanct in Hindus, is at stake,' the court said. Marriages are not merely a social contract but a spiritual union that binds two souls together, it said. The court further noted that the legislation with an intent to improve marital relationships enacted several Acts, but people frequently misuse them, resulting in mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to family members and children. PTI SP ARU This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
28 minutes ago
- The Print
No legal, valid ‘citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
The special intensive revision in Bihar involves an indicative list of 11 documents provided by the ECI to be submitted by eligible voters. Several petitioners before the Supreme Court have objected to the non-inclusion of documents like Aadhaar and voter ID in the list of acceptable documents. The last such intensive revision was carried out in the state in 2003. In its order directing the revision last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, according to which elections to the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This provision says, 'Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.' New Delhi: The Election Commission of India's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised several questions over the scope of the exercise, and the impact that it may have on the citizens' right to vote. While the petitions challenging the ECI's revision were being heard by the apex court Thursday, the poll body asserted that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a proof of citizenship. Courts have, in the past, also ruled the same with respect to Aadhaar. So, is there a specific document issued under Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically certifying Indian citizenship? Experts say there isn't. Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa told ThePrint that there is no clear document issued under the Citizenship Act, certifying that a person is a citizen. This means that while there are documents like the passport, which may serve as proof of a person being an Indian citizen, there isn't a document certifying such citizenship exclusively under the 1955 law. A lawyer familiar with the petitions challenging the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar explained, 'All the documents that they are asking for are going to show only the date and place of birth. Through that, you may extrapolate and say—okay, you're a citizen. But none of the documents, except the passport, is proof of citizenship. None of the others are indicative of citizenship at all.' The lawyer further told ThePrint that there is no document in India, which is a proof of citizenship per se, like a national citizenship card. 'The only document which is proof of citizenship in that sense is the passport, and the proof of citizenship in passport is ancillary to its main purpose, which is that it is a travel document for an Indian citizenship. And because it is such a travel document only for Indian citizens, it is considered a proof of citizenship, but it is not per se a proof only of citizenship.' Also Read: SC invokes 'document starvation' to suggest EC accept Aadhaar for special roll revision in Bihar What is a 'citizenship' proof? Citizenship in India is determined by the Citizenship Act, 1955, which lists down different methods of acquiring Indian citizenship—by birth, by descent, by registration, and by naturalisation. While citizenship by descent is for a person born outside India, citizenship by registration is for people including those of Indian origin, or those married to an Indian citizen. Citizenship by naturalisation is for foreigners. 'There is nothing called a 'citizenship certificate' for those who are citizens of India since the commencement of the Constitution or their descendants. There is also no stand-alone document for Indian citizens to prove their citizenship,' Guwahati-based lawyer Aman Wadud, who has worked on citizenship cases, told ThePrint. 'The group of people who have 'citizenship certificate' are those who get Indian citizenship by naturalisation, by registration, by descent, and those who have been granted citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.' The 1955 Act talks about such a certificate only in cases of citizenship by descent, naturalisation and registration. As for the documents required, the Citizenship Rules, 2009 only talk about specific applications for registration under Sections 4 (descent), 5 (registration) and 6 (naturalisation). No such specific application is required to be submitted in case of citizenship by birth. 'Not citizenship, only identity' That most of the documents on the list provided by the ECI may not be proof of citizenship was highlighted by the Supreme Court Thursday as well. In case of Bihar, the 11 acceptable documents listed by the ECI are birth certificate, passport, matriculation certification, permanent residence certificate issued by a state authority, forest rights certificate, caste certificate, National Register of Citizens or NRC (wherever it exists), family register prepared by state/local authorities, any land/house allotment certificate by the government, any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of central government/state government/PSU, or any such identity card/certificate/document issued by the government/local authorities/banks/post office/LIC/PSUs prior to 1 July, 1987. During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, assured the court that the only purpose behind the exercise was to ensure that everyone who was eligible is on the electoral roll, and that it was looking at the aspects of citizenship and age. However, the court immediately pointed out, 'All the documents you have listed are related to identity.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi was quoted as saying, 'Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.' This is why the petitioners have challenged the selection of documents by the ECI, alleging that the exercise is 'arbitrary, because the inclusions and the potential exclusion of documents do not make sense from the perspective of what they claim they are trying to do, that is to authenticate citizenship', the lawyer quoted earlier asserted, speaking to ThePrint. The Aadhaar dichotomy There seems to be a dichotomy between the ECI's resistance towards accepting Aadhaar for the revision in Bihar, and its past actions. ECI's manual on electoral rolls issued in March 2023 mentions the Aadhaar as an acceptable document to be attached with Form 6, the official application form used for new voter registration, or for those voters who may be shifting their residence from one constituency to another. It says that Aadhaar may be furnished, both as proof of age and proof of ordinary residence. Back in 2015, the commission had launched a nationwide comprehensive programme, National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP) with an objective of bringing an 'error-free and authenticated electoral roll' by linking EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) data of electors with Aadhaar number, mobile number and e-mail. However, on 11 August that year, the Supreme Court passed an interim order in the petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme, asserting that the production of an Aadhaar card would not be mandatory for obtaining any benefits, and that it would not be used for any purpose other than the PDS and LPG distribution schemes. Post this order, the poll body had halted its Aadhaar programme, directing its Electoral Officers to suspend all activities to collect and feed Aadhaar numbers of voters. 'Henceforth, no more collection of Aadhaar numbers from electors or feeding/seeding of collected Aadhaar data shall be done by any election authority or official connected with NERPAP,' the commission's directive had reportedly read. In 2021, on the ECI's recommendation, the government had amended the Representation of People Act, 1950, introducing a new form 6B to collect Aadhaar numbers from existing electors on voluntary basis for authentication of his entries in the electoral roll. Also Read: Congress, TMC oppose EC's 'special intensive revision' of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar What is ECI's mandate? The revision exercise in Bihar has triggered concerns over the commission indirectly entering the domain of determining citizenship of citizens through the revision of voter rolls. During the latest hearing in the top court in the case, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship, and not a 'small officer of the EC'. 'The Supreme Court has said in many cases that it is not the remit of the Election Commission to go into the citizenship aspect. That is creating a little problem here,' Former Lok Sabha secretary general and Constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary told ThePrint. 'The job of preparing or revising the voters list is with the ECI. When the ECI is preparing the list, the question is whether they have the power to go into the question of citizenship. How will they decide whether a person is a citizen of India or not? What are the guidelines or the documents which the ECI can ask for, that is not clear at all.' Achary pointed out that the Representation of Peoples Act does not deal with this aspect at all. 'That means, the Election Commission does not have the remit to decide this question, because it can only be decided by the Home Ministry, which administers the Citizenship Act,' he said. 'ECI is thinking about this only because Article 326 stipulates citizenship as one of the conditions of eligibility, and its question is genuine. But I don't know why they are thinking about it now, when all these years they have not been doing it. There is a presumption that a person is a citizen.' The inclusions and exclusions The 1995 Citizenship Act is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is tasked with framing the rules under the law and overseeing its implementation. During the hearing Thursday, when advocate Dwivedi asserted that Aadhaar isn't proof of citizenship, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia shot back saying, 'But citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA.' Former EC Lavasa also points out that it is the MHA which is tasked with determining citizenship under the 1955 law. 'Every Act has its own administrative mechanism. That administrative mechanism is supposed to carry out the functions that it is responsible for,' he told ThePrint. Apart from exclusion of Aadhaar, Achary is also troubled by the fact that the commission isn't accepting voter ID cards as well. 'That is a very strange position to take, that you have given the voter identity card, which is given to a person who is enrolled as a voter, and that voter's list was prepared under the law and the Constitution. What question remains after that? What is the value of this document?' he remarked. Besides, the petitions filed by the top court point to several issues that emerge from each of the 11 documents. For instance, Rajya Sabha MP Jha's petition cites various government surveys and data to highlight that a negligible part of Bihar's population holds several of these documents, including birth certificate, passport, permanent residence certificate, and identity card/pension payment order issued to regular government employees. It also points out that at least two in this list—NRC and family register—do not apply to Bihar. How have revisions been done before? Intensive revisions have taken place ever since the first general elections in the country. For instance, the preparation of first electoral rolls began in 1947, well before the 1950 Act, or the establishment of the ECI. However, it was noticed that in the rolls used for the first elections, several names of women electors had to be deleted because they were enrolled as 'mother of' or 'wife of', instead of their proper names. To fix this, after the first election in 1952, the ECI had directed revision of electoral rolls in 1/5th of each state annually from 1952 to 1956 to finish the exercise before the Lok Sabha polls in 1957, and 1/3rd of each state annually from 1957 to 1961 to complete the exercise before the 1962 polls. Post this, the commission had said that summary revisions should be sufficient in 1962 and 1964, while intensive revision was conducted once again in 1965 in 40 percent of the country, and in 1966 in the remaining 60 percent areas. Lavasa explained that the approach in earlier intensive revision exercises was 'very simple'. 'In case of intensive revision, it was done as a fresh exercise. During house-to-house verification, the head of the family gave the names of the people who lived in the same house. The ERO would then put out a draft roll, and the expectation was that if a person had given false information, somebody would object to it,' he said. In the normal course also, if someone objects to a person's eligibility as a voter, it is on the objector to prove the claim that a voter is not eligible, unlike the current exercise in Bihar, where the burden of proof of citizenship has been placed on the already-enrolled voters. However, Lavasa asserted, the old 2003 order directing intensive revision should be made available to check how that exercise had been undertaken. 'Till that notification is available, it is difficult to say with certainty how it was done in 2003.' (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: 'Arbitrary, to be replicated in Bengal.' What pleas by ADR, Mahua challenging EC's Bihar exercise say
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Marriages sacrosanct to Hindus are at stake due to trivial issues between couples: Bombay High Court
NEW DELHI: Marriages, long regarded as sacrosanct in Hindu culture, are increasingly breaking down over minor and trivial issues, the Bombay High Court observed while quashing a dowry harassment case against a man and his family. In its July 8 order, the Nagpur bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and M M Nerlikar noted that in matrimonial disputes, if reconciliation is not possible, it is in the best interest of both parties to end the relationship promptly to prevent further harm to their lives. The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man and his family members seeking to quash a dowry harassment case lodged by his estranged wife in December 2023. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The couple informed the court that they had resolved their differences and obtained a divorce by mutual consent. The woman told the court she had no objection to the case being quashed, stating she wanted to move forward with her life. While quashing the case, the court noted that although offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, including those related to dowry harassment and unnatural sex, are non-compoundable, courts have the authority to quash such proceedings in order to secure justice. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pensia Pilon 3 NN Pensia Facultativă NN Vezi oferta Undo The bench observed that with the growing trend of naming multiple family members in matrimonial disputes, it is essential to approach such cases with a fresh perspective. If both parties are willing to resolve their issues amicably and seek peace, the court has a responsibility to encourage and support such settlements, it added. "Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in the society due to various factors. Small issues between a couple spoil their entire life, and marriage, which is sacrosanct in Hindus, is at stake," the court said. The court emphasized that marriage is not just a social contract but a spiritual bond that unites two souls. It further observed that while various laws have been enacted to strengthen marital relationships, they are often misused. This misuse, the court noted, leads to mental and physical harassment, prolonged conflict, financial strain, and lasting damage to family members and children.
