Hindu seers welcome Malegaon blast case verdict, demand apology from Congress
The court acquitted the accused, including former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, citing a lack of sufficient evidence under charges filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Seers alleged that the case was part of a political plot during the tenure of the UPA government to vilify Hindus using terms like "Hindu terrorism (Bhagwa atankwad)".
Swami Jitendranand Saraswati, General Secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, told IANS, "Where there is righteousness, victory is bound to happen. The Malegaon blast case was extremely complex. During the UPA tenure, under Sonia and Rahul Gandhi's leadership, several honourable saints of the Hindu community were jailed for years."
"They suffered for 17 long years. This was a conspiracy hatched by the Congress against the Hindus of the nation. Congress should apologise. Hindus can never be terrorists," he added.
Mahant Raju Das, priest of Shri Hanuman Garhi temple in Ayodhya, said, "This incident deeply hurt Hindu sentiments because the term 'Bhagwa atankwad' was used to defame us. With today's court verdict, all seven have been acquitted. Congress has been disgraced. Will Sonia Gandhi and other Congress leaders apologise for defaming seers and using such terminology?"
"Will they apologise for the 17 years these innocent people lost, for the torture they endured? We demand an apology from the Congress to all Hindus," he added.
Speaking to IANS, former Union Minister Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti said, "This was bound to happen because truth always triumphs. But the Congress, in its attempt to shield terrorists and shed tears over their deaths, dared to label a sacred part of Indian culture -- saffron -- as terrorism. In a way, the court's verdict is a self-inflicted slap on Congress."
Saints in Haridwar also welcomed the judgment and expressed gratitude towards the judiciary.
A saint said, "The verdict delivered by the NIA court is very good and impartial. We thank the NIA court. Today, on Tulsidas Jayanti, all seven innocent people, including our Sadhvi Pragya, have attained freedom after years of hardship. Hindus can never be terrorists and can never act against the country."
Another seer remarked, "This verdict is appropriate. It has exposed a long-running conspiracy against Hindus. We appreciate the court's judgment."
The verdict was announced in a packed courtroom, with all accused present as directed earlier by the court. The court also ordered compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the families of each of the six deceased and Rs 50,000 to every injured victim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Use RTI to seek reasons for public employment and policy deviations
Recently, an RTI questioner from Coimbatore sought some very useful information. The query was built around RTI's utility in questioning the re-employment order by the Department of Higher Education, with a focus on the use of RTI queries as a tool for public accountability. In a compelling example of how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to challenge administrative decisions, a former professor and RTI activist has raised critical questions about a recent order issued by the Department of Higher Education in Tamil Nadu, which allows re-employment of certain college-level administrative officers beyond the age of superannuation. On July 31, the department issued an order permitting the re-employment of those engaged in administrative functions, even after crossing the age of 60 years. This move, based on a request from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, sparked concern over its legality and consistency with existing government norms. RTI activist seeks answers: N R Ravisankar, an RTI activist and former Head of the Mathematics Department at CBM College, Coimbatore, submitted a formal representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, raising a red flag on the order. He cited Government Order (G.O.) 192 dated November 12, 2024, which had categorically barred re-employment for such positions beyond the age of 60. Prof. Ravisankar argues that the new order contradicts this amendment to G.O. 92, which states: 'Every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.' Questions raised under RTI: The activist's move highlights how RTI can be effectively used to demand transparency and rationale behind policy reversals or deviations. Through RTI applications and petitions, the following key questions can be posed to the Department of Higher Education and relevant authorities: Did the Higher Education Department consult the Law Department before issuing this July 31 G.O.? If yes, provide copies of such legal opinions. Has any review committee or expert panel been constituted to examine the impact of re-employment on governance, recruitment opportunities for younger candidates, and institutional autonomy? How many officials have been re-employed under this new order? Please provide a district-wise list with names, designations, and dates of reappointment. Was the re-employment order placed before the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly or its relevant committee for oversight, especially in light of its policy implications? Is there any provision under existing UGC regulations or the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules that permits administrative staff to continue beyond superannuation age, specifically in aided colleges? What was the rationale behind cancelling re-employment in an earlier instance—such as the case of a government-aided college in Coimbatore where a new principal was directed to be appointed upon the previous incumbent's retirement? Does the July 31, 2025 G.O. apply to government-aided institutions as well? If yes, how does this comply with the statutory and financial norms applicable to such institutions? Legal and ethical dilemma: Prof Ravisankar underscores that such re-employment orders not only defy the retirement age rule but also block opportunities for younger aspirants in the education sector. 'If the rule is clear that retirement is mandatory at 60, how can administrative exceptions be allowed selectively? It defeats the very purpose of uniformity and public interest in service rules,' he said in his representation. His RTI-based challenge exemplifies how citizens and professionals can act as watchdogs over executive discretion, especially in sectors like education, where transparency and accountability are vital for fair governance. An administrative question: Whether the Department of Higher Education will issue a clarification or revoke the July 31 order remains to be seen. To reinforce the utility of the Right to Information (RTI) in questioning government re-employment policies post-superannuation, we can refer to a landmark decision by this author (Prof. (Dr.) M. Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner (CIC)). This answer underscored citizens' right to seek reasons and file queries regarding public employment and policy deviations, especially those affecting transparency and equal opportunity. In File No: CIC/SA/A/2016/001978, the CIC ruled that: 'Public authorities are bound to give reasons for selection, extension, or re-employment of public servants, especially when there is a departure from standard procedure or existing policy.' This judgment arose in the context of an RTI applicant seeking details about the re-employment of a retired officer in a central government department. The Central Information Commission directed the public authority to: Disclose the note sheets and file notings showing the rationale for re-employment. Provide copies of approval orders, correspondence, and minutes of meetings that led to the decision. Clarify whether any rules were relaxed or amended to allow such re-employment. In his detailed reasoning, he emphasised: 'When a government servant is re-employed post-retirement, especially when young and qualified aspirants are awaiting regular appointments, the authorities must place on record the compelling public interest that justified such a move.' This principle is directly relevant to the July 31, 2025 re-employment order issued by the Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education. Based on that ruling, the following implications arise: Citizens can question: Activists like Prof Ravisankar can seek: 1. The file notings, justifications, and correspondence from the Higher Education Department and Collegiate Education Commissioner-On whether any rules under G.O. 92 or G.O. 192 were amended or bypassed. 2. Lack of transparency violates the RTI mandate-If the July 31 order does not disclose public interest justifications, it could be seen as arbitrary or opaque, inviting challenge under RTI as well as judicial review. 3. Re-employment must serve public interest, not individual continuity-As noted in the order: Public offices are not meant for the convenience of individuals but for the service of the public. 4. RTI is a tool to uphold equality and fair opportunity-Re-employment of individuals beyond 60, without open recruitment or advertisement, raises serious concerns about denial of opportunity to eligible younger candidates, which can be pursued through RTI. Activists or citizens can file RTIs asking for: Copy of the July 31 G.O. with background file notes and recommendations; Details of consultation with the Law Department, if any. This judgment of CIC affirms that RTI is a powerful legal mechanism to challenge arbitrary re-employment, demand transparency in administrative decisions, and protect the rights of deserving aspirants. In the current Tamil Nadu case, this precedent strengthens the position of public-spirited individuals like Prof Ravisankar in ensuring that public policy does not become a tool for preferential or non-transparent governance. (The writer is a former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
White House preps order to punish banks that discriminate against conservatives
The White House is preparing to step up pressure against big banks over perceived discrimination against conservatives and crypto companies with an executive order that threatens to fine lenders that drop customers for political reasons. A draft of the executive order, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, directs bank regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. Violators could be subject to monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures, according to the draft. The order could be signed as soon as this week, according to people familiar with the matter. It is possible the order could get delayed or that the administration's plans will change. The draft order doesn't name any specific banks but appears to refer to an instance where Bank of America was accused of shutting down the accounts of a Christian organization operating in Uganda based on the organization's religious beliefs. The bank has said it shut down the accounts because it doesn't serve small businesses operating outside the U.S. The draft order also criticizes the role that some banks played in an investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. Banks have been on edge about potential action by the Trump administration. The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration was considering an executive order in June. Conservatives for years have accused banks of denying them services on political or religious grounds, and cryptocurrency companies have said they were shut out of banking services under the Biden administration. Banks, for their part, have said their decisions are driven by legal, regulatory or financial risks, including those stemming from the U.S.'s anti-money-laundering laws. They have blamed regulatory pressure for prior decisions to largely steer clear of the crypto industry. A Bank of America spokesman said the bank welcomed the administration's efforts to provide regulatory clarity. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework," he said. Over the past several months, banks have moved to head off action by the federal government, meeting with Republican attorneys general and updating their policies to clearly state they don't discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. The draft of the order viewed by the Journal directs regulators to strike any policies they have that might have contributed to banks dropping certain customers. It also directs the Small Business Administration to review the practices of banks that guarantee the agency's loans. Under Trump, banking regulators have said they would stop assessing banks for the so-called reputational risk posed by their customers—a practice that banks have cited for their decisions to avoid certain customers or industries. The draft order also calls for regulators to refer potential violations to the attorney general in some cases. The Justice Department in April said it was launching a task force in Virginia, to examine allegations of banks refusing customers access to credit or other services based on 'impermissible factors." Write to Dylan Tokar at and Alexander Saeedy at
India.com
10 minutes ago
- India.com
Karnataka Dy CM D K Shivakumar Calls For Rahul Gandhi To become PM In 2029, Praises Congress Role
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Saturday called upon Congress workers to work towards making Rahul Gandhi the Prime Minister in 2029 and praised the party's role in keeping the country united. Addressing the All India Congress Committee (AICC) Annual Legal Conclave at Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi, Shivakumar said the conclave was not just a political event but a platform to bring the country 'back on track'. 'This conclave is not just a political agenda; it is a call for all of you to come together and work towards bringing the country back on track by 2029. By 2029, you should ensure that Rahul Gandhi becomes the Prime Minister of this country. This should be your commitment,' Shivakumar said. This conclave is not just a political agenda; it is a call for… — DK Shivakumar (@DKShivakumar) August 2, 2025 The eight-time MLA from Karnataka said India has remained united because of the Congress party, and the Gandhi family has played a key role in keeping the party together. He urged party workers to join hands and work as a team to ensure the exit of the BJP in the next Lok Sabha elections. Shivakumar also appealed to the legal fraternity to protect the right to vote of every Indian by setting up 'legal banks' in every constituency, as suggested by Rahul Gandhi. 'The Congress' history is the country's history, and the Congress' strength is the country's strength. The Gandhi family has kept the Congress Party united, and the Congress Party has kept the country united,' he said. He further lauded Sonia Gandhi's 'sacrifice' in choosing Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister.
