BJP questions Akhilesh Yadav's silence on cleric's remark about Dimple Yadav
The man poised to become New York City's next mayor, Zoran Mamdani, held a three-day, high-security wedding in Uganda. The 33-year-old married 27-year-old Syrian artist Rama Duwaji at his family's estate on Buziga hill, overlooking Lake Victoria. The celebration featured over 20 special forces guards and cell phone jammers. However, the event has drawn criticism from netizens and Ugandan locals, with some questioning the timing of such opulence during a national period of mourning for a top Supreme Court judge. The backlash has centered on the perception that the lavish festivities were insensitive. As one report noted, some felt the timing 'hit a sour note.' The son of filmmaker Meera Nair and academic Mehmood Mamdani, this celebration marks a significant personal milestone for the progressive firebrand as the world watches his political rise.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
43 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Certified Anti-National": BJP After Top Court Raps Rahul Gandhi Over Army Remarks
New Delhi: As the Supreme Court slammed Rahul Gandhi over his remarks about the Indian Army, the BJP on Monday tore into the Congress leader and alleged that he has vowed to "weaken India and strengthen China". Calling the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha a "certified anti-national", the BJP claimed that the "China guru" (Gandhi) and his party also "hate" the Indian armed forces and that he is being "remote controlled by foreign forces". The ruling party also demanded an apology from him and the Congress for his remarks. The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings against Gandhi before a Lucknow court over his remarks about the Army during his December 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. The top court, however, censured Gandhi, saying if he is a true Indian, he would not say such a thing. Citing observations made by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, Union minister Dharmendra Pradhan said that for the first time in the parliamentary history of the country, the Supreme Court had to make such a "stern remark" against a leader of the opposition. In a post in Hindi on X, Pradhan said, "Rahul Gandhi and the Congress have a history of insulting the army, whether it is the surgical strike or Operation Sindoor. They have questioned the sacrifices of our brave soldiers at every opportunity." Their loyalty is not to the nation but only to one family, which is why respect for the nation is not even part of their "fundamental thinking", he charged. "Today, the entire country is hurt by this anti-national mentality and expects an apology from Rahul Gandhi and the Congress," the senior BJP leader said. Latching on to the apex court's observations, BJP national spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia alleged that Gandhi keeps making "immatured, irresponsible and anti-India comments" even though he has been rapped by various courts for such remarks in the past. "Today when the Supreme Court's comment has come, it won't be wrong to say that Rahul Gandhi has certainly vowed to weaken India and strengthen China," Bhatia told a press conference at the BJP headquarters here. In a post on X, BJP IT department head Amit Malviya said, "The Supreme Court has once again reprimanded 'China Guru' Rahul Gandhi for making irresponsible statements concerning India's national security and territorial integrity." "Imagine, a leader of the opposition being repeatedly rebuked for speaking such recklessly," he said. "Rahul Gandhi is now a certified anti-national," the BJP leader charged in another post on X. Showing a purported picture of Rahul Gandhi signing some document in the presence of Sonia Gandhi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, BJP spokesperson Bhatia claimed that the Congress leader had signed a party-to-party memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Communist Party of China. "That's why Rahul Gandhi was saying that our soldiers were thrashed by Chinese soldiers, be it (in) Doklam or Galwan, while every Indian was standing by India and brave soldiers of India," he charged. They never tell the people of India what was there in the Congress' party-to-party MoU with the Communist Party of China, he said. "It seems Rahul Gandhi has love for China and Pakistan in his veins, but no love for India," he added. Bhatia termed the apex court's observations as "very serious" and said with this, Gandhi's credibility has gone down to "zero". "Does India deserve a more responsible and a better Leader of Opposition (LoP)? As the LoP who has taken oath under the Constitution to protect the sovereignty of our country, is he destroying the sovereignty of our country? Is he helping nations that are inimical to our country? Is he demoralising the brave Indian armed forces?" he asked. Rahul Gandhi's credibility is "at stake", Bhatia said. Malviya also took on the Congress leader over his recent "dead" economy remark, calling it "a diplomatic disaster on multiple fronts". "His recent 'dead economy' jibe is just the latest in a long series. In doing so, he implicitly admitted that Russia, a long-standing ally, is struggling, while bizarrely endorsing a hostile state like Pakistan as having a robust economy," he said. Echoing US President Donald Trump's criticism of the Indian economy, Gandhi said on August 1 that everybody except Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman know that the country's economy is "dead". Referring to Gandhi's remarks on the surgical strike and Operation Sindoor, another BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla alleged that the Congress leader and his party "hate" Indian armed forces. "Sena ka Apman Congress ki pehchan (Insulting the Army is the hallmark of the Congress)," Poonawalla said in a post on X. "Rahul and Congress hate Indian Armed Forces," he charged, adding, "Today SC has slammed him." Another BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said on X that the Supreme Court's poser to Gandhi about his claim exposed him. He said, "Supreme Court asks Rahul Gandhi - 'How did you know that China had occupied land?'" This question by the Supreme Court has not only "exposed" Gandhi, but further got the attention back on the "secret MoU that Gandhi-Vadra family had with China", he said. "Rahul is working under the remote control of foreign forces," Bhandari charged.
NDTV
43 minutes ago
- NDTV
"This Is The New Trend": Top Court On "Affluent Persons" Approaching It Directly
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday censured the practice of affluent persons coming to it directly seeking reliefs in criminal cases as it asked former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel and his son to go to the high court in cases probed by central investigating agencies. The matters relate to the alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh and other cases. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the father and son duo why should the top court go into their pleas against FIR, arrest and remand and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provisions. The top court asked why did the petitioners not move the high court, which too were constitutional courts and could adjudicate the issue. "This is the problem we are facing. Why can't the high court decide the issue otherwise what is the use of having those courts? This is the new trend, when an affluent person approaches the Supreme Court, we start changing our directions. If this keeps on happening, then ordinary persons and their ordinary lawyers will not have a space in the Supreme Court," the bench said. Bhupesh Baghel and Chitanya Baghel in separate pleas moved the top court challenging coercive action by probe agencies and provisions of the PMLA. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said "this phenomenon of arrest" was happening across the country and investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate was filing piecemeal chargesheets and implicating anybody and arresting everybody. "This cannot go on. People are not named in the FIR or initial chargesheets but suddenly their names crop up in supplementary chargesheet and the person is arrested," Sibal, representing the former chief minister, said. Singhvi, appearing for Baghel's son, said his client was not named in two-three chargesheets but his house was raided all of a sudden in March and he was subsequently arrested after his name featured in one of the supplementary chargesheets. Sibal argued the ED was acting in violation of the law laid down by the top court in its 2022 verdict, which upheld its power to arrest. As a result, Sibal said, the plea challenged the validity of Section 50 and 63 of the PMLA dealing with power of authorities to summon persons, compel the production of documents and record evidence during investigations and punishment for giving false statements. The bench asked if ED was not following the law or deviated from the procedure, did anyone bring it to court's notice or challenge the actions of the probe agencies. The bench said the apex court has previously held that further probe after filing of the chargesheet could only happen with the permission of the court. "There are instances where law can be valid but the action can be invalid," the bench said and asked both the petitioners to bring the facts to the notice of the high court. The bench pointed out the "intertwined" nature of facts in the pleas, making it difficult to segregate them. On the challenge to Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA, the bench said both petitioners could file fresh writ petitions and the court would hear them with the pending matters. The top court then allowed them to move the high court, which was asked to accord them expeditious hearing. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said the former CM was no body to the litigation as he was not named in the FIR or the chargesheet in any of the cases but he still moved the apex court. When Justice Bagchi asked Raju to make a statement that he wouldn't be booked or arrested in future, Raju refused to make any such statement at the moment and said everything depended on the investigation. Justice Bagchi told Raju, "Then you are not clear. We cannot leave a citizen's liberty at lurch. He has a right to challenge the provisions." Investigation agencies including the CBI and ED are probing several cases including coal scam, liquor scam, Mahadev betting app cases, Rice mills cases and DMF scam cases, which allegedly happened during the tenure of Bhupesh Baghel as the chief minister. In July, Chaitanya was arrested in a money laundering case related to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court seeks State's response to PIL plea seeking to initiate process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for T.N. DGP post
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday sought response of the State government to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the direction to the Central and the State governments to immediately initiate the process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for the post of Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete sought response from the State on the procedure it would be adopting. The court also sought response regarding the Supreme Court guidelines in the Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia case, Supreme Court clarifications to the directions, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) guidelines and the Single Window System. The court was hearing the PIL petition filed by K. Yasar Arafath of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district who sought appropriate directions regarding appointment of the Tamil Nadu DGP in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia judgment. The incumbent DGP Mr. Shankar Jiwal is set to retire on August 31. However, till date the State government has not taken steps to initiate the mandatory process of empaneling eligible IPS officers and forwarding the names to UPSC for preparation of a panel, as directed by the Supreme Court, he said. He claimed there were credible reports indicating the possibility of appointing an in-charge or acting DGP or seeking an extension for the current DGP without following the prescribed process. It amounts to contempt of the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case, which require a merit based transparent selection of the DGP from a panel prepared by the UPSC in consultation with the State government, he said. The petitioner claimed in view of the upcoming Tamil Assembly Elections in 2026, the State government had planned to keep the Head of the Police Force as per their choice to get the support of the Police Department till the upcoming election. The Supreme Court has taken a serious note of the violation of its directions by several States, including the appointment of in-charge DGP and expressed grave concern over the continued non-compliance, he said. The petitioner sought a direction to restrain the State from appointing any officer as in-charge or acting DGP or granting extension to the retiring DGP, without following due process and UPSC panel recommendation pending disposal of the petition. The failure of the authorities to comply with the binding judicial directions undermines the rule of law and the independence and the professionalism of the police force, which has serious consequences for public administration and governance, he said. The court has ordered notice and posted the matter for hearing on August 11.
