Muslim organisations protest in Mysuru against Wakf Act
AIMPLB
's call against the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 saw massive participation in Mysuru on Saturday. The protest at Eidgah grounds in Tilaknagar, Mysuru, was heavily secured by police following a protest rally convention by Muslims.
Thousands of participants, including women, children, and people of all ages from various parts of the city and district, joined the protest expressing their opposition to the Union govt. The assembled protesters, including religious leaders and politicians, collectively urged the Union govt to withdraw the Act, citing nationwide opposition from the Muslim community.
Protesters carried placards and posters opposing the
Waqf Amendment Act 2025
, stating it violates the Constitution and harms community interests. They held placards with messages: Protect Waqf Act, Save Constitution, Save Nation, Struggle for Justice.
The protesters chanted Inquilab Zindabad, Hindustan Zindabad, Jai Bheem Zindabad, Unity of India Zindabad, Constitution Zindabad while waving tricolour flags. They denounced the politicisation and communalisation of the Waqf Amendment Act. Participants arrived from Muslim-populated areas including Udayagiri, Ghousianagar, NR Mohalla, Shanthinagar, Tilaknagar, Rajeevnagar, Kalyangiri, Azeez Sait Nagar, Subasnagar, T Narasipura, Nanjangud, Hunsur, Bannur, and other district locations.
In his address, Janab Akbar Ali said the protest aimed to oppose the Act and preserve the Constitution in Tippu Sultan's land. He emphasised that donors from various faiths, including Muslims, had logical reasons for donating land to the Waqf Board. The event began with reading the Indian Constitution's Preamble and observing silence for 26 Pahalgam terror attack victims.
Sir Khazi of Mysuru Hazrat Moulana Mohammed Usman Sheriff, Moulana Zakaulla, Moulana Ayub Ansari, Moulana Khaleem Ur Rehaman, and Moulana Ibrahim Sab were present. MLAs Tanveer Sait, K Harishgowda, KEA chairman Ayub Khan, KPCC spokesperson M Lakshman, SDPI state unit president Abdul Majeed, and former Waqf Board president Shabeer Ahammed Khan participated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Madras HC presses ECI on AIADMK symbol decision delay
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its 'hesitation' in deciding on representations seeking freezing of AIADMK's poll symbol 'Two Leaves' and election of Edappadi K Palaniswami as the general secretary of the party. There are multiple civil suits pending in courts regarding the issues. When the petitions filed by EPS seeking a direction to the ECI for speedy disposal of the representations, which were submitted by expelled AIADMK party men including former MPs P Ravindranath, KC Palanisamy and Surya Moorthy, came up for hearing, the ECI's counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan told the HC that the commission would take a decision 'as expeditiously as possible' and time frame need not be set by the court. The bench of Justices R Subramanian and K Surender said it could see 'hesitation' on the part of the ECI and asked its counsel whether he wanted the bench to disclose why there is such a 'hesitation'. Making an oblique reference to the timeline set by the Supreme Court to the President regarding granting of assent to bills passed in State Assemblies in the Tamil Nadu Vs Governor RN Ravi case, the bench said, 'If the President can be set a timeline, why can't the Election Commission?" It also asked, 'Is the Election Commission above the President? The ECI counsel responded, 'Everyone is equal in the Constitution.' The two-judge bench directed the counsel to file written instructions by July 21 on the time period by which it can take a decision on the representations and adjourned the hearing.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Judge orders Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops, arrests in California
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles. Immigrant advocacy groups filed the lawsuit last week accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during its ongoing immigration crackdown. The claimants include three detained immigrants and two US citizens, one of whom was held despite showing agents his identification. The filing in US District Court asked a judge to block the administration from using what they call unconstitutional tactics in immigration raids. Immigrant advocates accuse immigration officials of detaining individuals based on their race, carrying out warrantless arrests, and denying detainees access to legal counsel at a holding facility in downtown LA. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said in an email that 'any claims that individuals have been targeted by law enforcement because of their skin colour are disgusting and categorically FALSE.' McLaughlin said 'enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence' before making arrests. Judge Maame E. Frimpong also issued a separate order barring the federal government from restricting solicitor access at a Los Angeles immigration detention facility. Frimpong issued the orders the day after a hearing during which advocacy groups argued that the government was violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Immigrants and Latino communities across Southern California have been on edge for weeks since the Trump administration stepped up arrests at car washes, Home Depot car parks, immigration courts and a range of businesses. Tens of thousands of people have participated in rallies in the region over the raids and the subsequent deployment of the National Guard and Marines. The order also applies to Ventura County, where busloads of workers were detained on Thursday while the court hearing was underway, after federal agents descended on a cannabis farm, leading to clashes with protesters and multiple injuries. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the recent wave of immigration enforcement has been driven by an 'arbitrary arrest quota' and based on 'broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity.' When detaining the three day labourers who are claimants in the lawsuit, all immigration agents knew about them was that they were Latino and were dressed in construction work clothes, the filing said. It goes on to describe raids at swap meets and Home Depots where witnesses say federal agents grabbed anyone who 'looked Hispanic.' ACLU solicitor Mohammad Tajsar said Brian Gavidia, one of the US citizens who was detained, was 'physically assaulted … for no other reason than he was Latino and working at a tow yard in a predominantly Latin American neighbourhood.' Tajsar asked why immigration agents detained everyone at a car wash except two white workers, according to a declaration by a car wash worker, if race wasn't involved. Representing the government, solicitor Sean Skedzielewski said there was no evidence that federal immigration agents considered race in their arrests, and that they only considered appearance as part of the 'totality of the circumstances', including prior surveillance and interactions with people in the field. In some cases, they also operated off 'targeted, individualised packages', he said. 'The Department of Homeland Security has policy and training to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment,' Skedzielewski said. Solicitors from Immigrant Defenders Law Centre and other groups say they also have been denied access to a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in downtown LA known as 'B-18' on several occasions since June, according to court documents. Solicitor Mark Rosenbaum said in one incident on 7 June, solicitors 'attempted to shout out basic rights' at a bus of people detained by immigration agents in downtown LA when the government drivers honked their horns to drown them out and chemical munitions akin to tear gas were deployed. Skedzielewski said access was only restricted to 'protect the employees and the detainees' during violent protests and it has since been restored. Rosenbaum said solicitors were denied access even on days without any demonstrations nearby, and that the people detained are also not given sufficient access to phones or informed that solicitors were available to them. He said the facility lacks adequate food and beds, which he called 'coercive' to getting people to sign papers agreeing to leave the country before consulting a solicitor. Attorneys general for 18 Democratic states also filed briefs in support of the orders. US Customs and Border Protection agents were already barred from making warrantless arrests in a large swathe of eastern California after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in April.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SHRC demands action as custodial violence cases highlight need for reform
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on June 24, 2025, directed the TN government to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to V Priyadharshini, a complainant, and recover it from K Santhamoorthi for violating her human rights when he was the Inspector of C2 Race Course police station in Coimbatore. The order passed by SHRC member V Kannadasan, which directed the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Santhamoorthi, quoted Section 58 of the Police Act, 2006, on the social responsibilities of the police. Priyadharshini had approached the police with a complaint against her father and brother of criminal intimidation and use of filthy language. Instead of conducting an impartial inquiry, the Inspector sided with the accused and intimidated her. The mandate of the police is to protect and uphold the dignity of people. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures every person the right of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises right to life, liberty and security of everyone and says, 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The Supreme Court and the various high courts have repeatedly issued guidelines to the police on how to treat people humanely. Yet, we read and, now with the visual media, see how brutal the police force is in its day-to-day duties.
