Allahabad HC stays further proceedings in 2017 case against Ajay Rai
Allahabad High Court
has stayed further proceedings in a case against former Congress MLA
Ajai Rai
involving violation of a 2017 restraint order under section 144 of CrPC.
Justice Sameer Jain passed the order on Monday in a petition filed by Rai challenging summons issued against him as well as the
charge sheet
filed by police.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
Project Management
Design Thinking
Digital Marketing
Public Policy
Operations Management
MBA
Degree
Management
MCA
Technology
Product Management
Leadership
healthcare
Artificial Intelligence
Healthcare
Data Science
PGDM
Finance
CXO
Data Science
others
Cybersecurity
Data Analytics
Others
Skills you'll gain:
Project Planning & Governance
Agile Software Development Practices
Project Management Tools & Software Techniques
Scrum Framework
Duration:
12 Weeks
Indian School of Business
Certificate Programme in IT Project Management
Starts on
Jun 20, 2024
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Portfolio Management
Project Planning & Risk Analysis
Strategic Project/Portfolio Selection
Adaptive & Agile Project Management
Duration:
6 Months
IIT Delhi
Certificate Programme in Project Management
Starts on
May 30, 2024
Get Details
Rai, in his petition, sought quashing of the summons order dated September 9, 2019 and the charge sheet of November 7, 2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the case lodged in 2017 at Kotwali police station in, Varanasi under section 188 (Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) of IPC.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Play War Thunder now for free
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
After hearing the parties concerned, the court fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing and observed, "In the meantime, further proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, shall remain stayed."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What R N Ravi's criticism of linguistic states misses
Amid a recent resurgence of language politics in the country, Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi on Tuesday stirred up a fresh row by criticising the linguistic division of states which, he said, had turned a large section of the populace into 'second-class citizens'. 'Within a decade of our Independence, there had to be a linguistic reorganisation of Bharat… When we created linguistic states, a large population became second-class citizens…,' Ravi said at an event in Gandhinagar. Scholars have long argued, however, that the linguistic organisation of states has been critical in ensuring India's continued unity and integrity. Here's a brief history. Before first reorganisation The British had administered India with two systems running in parallel — a system of direct control in its provinces, and a system of indirect control across 565 princely states. The provincial boundaries India inherited in 1947, were thus products of colonial administrative exigencies and the historical process of integration of erstwhile principalities and kingdoms into the Empire. The Constitution, which came into force on January 26, 1950, declared India to be a 'Union of States'. The country, at the time, was divided into 28 states, falling under four categories. * There were nine Part A states (governors' provinces in British India), which were ruled by elected legislatures. These were: Assam, Bihar, Bombay, East Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. * There were eight Part B states (former princely states or group of princely states), which were ruled by elected legislatures and a rajpramukh. These were: Hyderabad, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan, Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin. * The ten Part C states included both the former chief commissioners' provinces and some princely states, and were governed by a chief commissioner appointed by the President. These were: Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Coorg State, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, Tripura, and Vindhya Pradesh. * There was only one Part D state, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which was governed by a lieutenant governor appointed by the President. The reorganisation of 1956 Pre-Independence, the Congress had supported the formation of linguistic provinces. But after witnessing Partition, New Delhi was not too keen on immediately creating further linguistic divisions. The so-called JVP committee set up in 1949, comprising Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, head of the States Ministry Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Congress president Pattabhi Sittaramaya, cautioned against the 'disintegrative effects of reorganisation'. But by the early 1950s, there was momentum in many regions for the creation of linguistic states. On October 19, 1952, Potti Sriramulu, a 51-year-old railway engineer, went on a hunger strike demanding the creation of a Telugu-speaking Andhra state. His death, after a 58-day-long fast, triggered widespread public outcry and protests. Two days later, on December 17, Nehru announced the creation of Andhra, which would officially become a state on October 1, 1953. The creation of Andhra opened a floodgate of demands for linguistic statehood. Less than three months after the state officially came into being, the Centre set up the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) under Justice Fazl Ali. 'The greater development of political consciousness among the people and the growing importance of the great regional languages led gradually to demands for the formation of certain States on a linguistic basis. Each such separate problem was however closely interrelated with other problems, and any formation of a new state necessarily affected a number of other States. It thus became increasingly difficult to consider any such problem in isolation…,' the Centre said in its resolution to create the SRC. Justice Ali submitted a 267-page report on September 30, 1955. Based on the SRC's recommendations, the political map of India was redrawn to comprise 14 states and six Union Territories (UTs). Language not the only criteria In its December 1953 resolution on the SRC in Parliament, the Centre had made clear that language would not be the only criterion for the reorganisation of states. 'The language and culture of an area have an undoubted importance as they represent a pattern of living which is common in that area… in considering a reorganisation of States, however, there are other important factors which have also to be borne in mind. The first essential consideration is the preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India. Financial, economic and administrative considerations are almost equally important, not only from the point of view of each State, but for the whole nation,' it had said. The final report too reflected this sentiment. '…After a full consideration of the problem in all its aspects, we have come to the conclusion that it is neither possible nor desirable to reorganise States on the basis of the single test of either language or culture, but that a balanced approach to the whole problem is necessary in the interests of our national unity,' the SRC report stated. Notably, the Bhararitya Jana Sangh, the forerunner of the BJP, reacted to the SRC report by saying that it was 'satisfied that the Commission had rejected the suggestion of creating states merely based on language' and demanded the 'quick implementation of the recommendations'. In fact, most of the criticism directed at the SRC and the Centre was that it was not doing enough to recognise linguistic demands. For instance, the SRC recommended the creation of a bilingual Bombay state that stretched from Kutch in the northwest to Vidarbha in the east and bordered Goa in the south. This was in spite of their being vibrant movements, which could be traced to well before Independence, for both a Marathi- and a Gujarati-speaking state. On the other hand, the Centre rejected the SRC's recommendation of bifurcating the Punjabi- and Hindi-speaking regions of Punjab, primarily to strengthen the border state that had already been split by the Partition less than a decade ago. Bombay and Punjab thus saw continued protests, often violent, for linguistic division. While the Centre would eventually cave to these demands — Bombay State was split into Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960, and united Punjab was split into Punjab and Haryana, with certain Hindi-speaking areas merged with Himachal Pradesh, then a UT — Nehru more than once expressed his displeasure with the principle of unilingualism. 'We do not stand for this principle of unilingualism. We may have a unilingual State… but basically we stand for something different from that… Language should not be confused with the boundaries of a State. It may be that sometimes the boundaries may be linguistic… [But] we can never function in this country unless we cooperate with each other, unless the Tamil cooperates with the Telugu and the Kannada, the Malayalee and the Marathi and the Gujarati and the Bengali and the Punjabi and so on,' he famously said on August 10, 1956, while the State Reorganisation Bill was being debated. A success story Historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in India After Gandhi (2007): 'Some Western observers… believed that [the] profusion of tongues would be the undoing of India… Linguistic states they regarded as a grievous error… that would further divide the states from each other [and] heighten the impulse toward secession'. But quite the opposite has happened. As Guha put it, 'the sustenance of linguistic pluralism has worked to tame and domesticate secessionist tendencies.' This is in stark contrast to India's immediate neighbours Pakistan and Sri Lanka where the imposition of a single language has been a cause for division and deadly conflict rather than unity. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) report of 2008 stated: 'The resolution of linguistic conflicts was one of the major achievements after Independence… Continuance of a common language has provided the basis for administrative unity and efficiency within the State. Interestingly, the three major movements for secession in independent India, namely those in Nagaland, in Punjab in the 1980s, and in Kashmir, were organised around the issue of historical ethnicity, religion and territory and not around language'. Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC's lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues. ... Read More
Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
Except Modi, everybody knows India is a ‘dead economy': Rahul
New Delhi: Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi slammed the NDA government on Thursday, saying everybody except Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman knows that India is a 'dead economy'. The Congress leader's remark came after US President Donald Trump announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian imports and then went on to call India and Russia 'dead economies'. Reacting to Donald Trump's post, Rahul Gandhi told reporters, 'Yes, he is right. Everybody knows this except the Prime Minister and the finance minister. Everybody knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy. I am glad that President Trump has stated a fact... The entire world knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy. The BJP has finished the economy to help Adani.' Taking to the social media platform X, Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of killing the Indian economy. "THE INDIAN ECONOMY IS DEAD. Modi killed it. 1. Adani-Modi partnership 2. Demonetisation and a flawed GST 3. Failed 'Assemble in India' 4. MSMEs wiped out 5. Farmers crushed. Modi has destroyed the future of India's youth because there are no jobs," the Congress leader posted. Rahul Gandhi's comments come amid growing opposition criticism of the government's economic policies following Trump's 25% tariff announcement on Indian imports.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Mahayuti leaders welcome Malegaon blast verdict, slam Congress for coining term ‘saffron terror'
Mumbai: Leaders of the ruling Mahayuti alliance in Maharashtra welcomed a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court's decision on Thursday to acquit all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, with chief minister Devendra Fadnavis slamming the previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for allegedly coining the term 'saffron terrorism'. As soon as the verdict was out, Fadnavis posted his reaction on social media: 'Terrorism was never saffron, is not, and never will be!' (PTI) The Congress, meanwhile, alleged that the investigation was botched due to political pressure. Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal also asked the Mahayuti government if it would approach a higher court to challenge the Malegaon verdict, just like it did recently when the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Thursday's verdict was delivered nearly 17 years after a bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded near a mosque in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Nashik district in September 2008, killing six people and injuring over 100. Seven people were charged in the case, including Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, a serving Army officer at the time. However, the court acquitted them after flagging several loopholes in the prosecution's case, saying there was no 'reliable and cogent' evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. As soon as the verdict was out, Fadnavis posted his reaction on social media: 'Terrorism was never saffron, is not, and never will be!' Later, speaking to reporters, Fadnavis said the Congress-led UPA government at the time was responsible for the entire case, alleging it was a conspiracy to create the narrative of 'Hindu terrorism' as a counter to Islamic terrorism, which had been globally recognised after the 9/11 terror attacks. 'More than the police, the then UPA government was responsible for the case. They had conspired to appease a certain community and extremist ideology. The court verdict has exposed the conspiracy, and the entire country is now condemning it. Congress leaders must now publicly apologise to Hindus for defaming them by associating them with so-called saffron terrorism and the conspiracy to coin a new term—Hindu or saffron terrorism,' he said. Fadnavis added that his government will look into the details of the verdict, checking what exactly the court has brought on record. A decision over the next course of action would be taken after this, he added. Senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar also blamed the previous Congress-led government for the bungled investigation, saying, 'The ruling parties at the time tried to indict innocent people in the case to appease certain communities. There was a political motive behind it, as was said after the case was registered. The verdict has ratified the doubt raised.' Shiv Sena president and deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde alleged that using the term 'saffron terrorism' was part of the Congress's conspiracy to defame the Hindu community. 'Hindus can never engage in anti-national activities, because patriotism is a sacred duty for those who follow Hinduism. The absurd term 'Hindu terrorism' was coined by conspiratorial Congress leaders. What answer do they have now for such blatant falsehoods?' he said. Adding that the court's verdict has ended a dark chapter, he said, 'The stigma on the Hindu community has been wiped off. The slogan 'Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain' (Say with pride we are Hindus) will now resonate across the country with a hundredfold louder voice. Truth may be troubled, but can never be defeated.' The Congress hit back at the Mahayuti, with state party chief Sapkal saying that terrorism has no religion or colour, and the state government should ensure justice is delivered in the case. 'As soon as the verdict of the 2006 [Mumbai train] bomb blasts was announced, the state government challenged it in the Supreme Court. Will the state government show the same will in this case, as both were acts of terrorism and the perpetrators of the cases should face justice,' he said, adding that the state government should not be double-faced. The 12 acquitted accused in the train blasts case were all Muslims. Congress spokesperson Sachin Sawant said, 'These people even view terrorism through a political lens. Those associated with the BJP and RSS had, for their political gain, labelled martyr Hemant Karkare a traitor. Wasn't it the same political mindset that led to [special public prosecutor] Rohini Salian being asked to take a lenient stand against the accused and slow down the investigation? Witnesses were enticed with offers. A witness like Randhir Singh was even given a ministerial position in Jharkhand.' Karkare, the former chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), led the team that initially investigated the blast and arrested 11 suspects, including Thakur and Purohit. He was killed in action during the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Sawant also said that the central government should express sorrow that individuals responsible for such a major terrorist incident are now roaming free. 'Honestly, this verdict did not come as a surprise because the NIA had already given them a clean chit. The government should consider renaming this investigative agency the NaMo Investigation Agency,' he said. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant said the fact that the investigation agencies had failed to gather evidence properly and the real culprits were still not known was a serious matter. 'The remarks by the court, which said there is no evidence, was a serious matter. If there was no evidence against Sadhvi Pragya and others, why did they suffer all these years? It was an injustice to them. But the incident took place, so someone must be involved in it. Who are they? Why can't investigation agencies catch them?' he said. Former MP Imtiyaz Jalil from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, meanwhile, maintained that the blast was aimed at 'creating communal division' in the country. 'An Army officer and a religious figure were accused in the case, which was being investigated by one of the finest officers, Hemant Karkare. The BJP has tried to derive political advantage from the case,' he said.
