Nimisha Priya death row: Kerala CM writes to PM Modi urging ‘urgent intervention'
The CM took to X to share his letter seeking PM Modi's intervention after the Centre told the Supreme Court it could not 'do much' regarding the execution of the Kerala nurse.
'Wrote to Hon'ble PM Shri @narendramodi Ji urging urgent intervention to secure the release of Nimisha Priya, who remains imprisoned in Yemen. The Govt of Kerala stands firmly with all those working towards her exoneration and safe return,' Pinarayi Vijayan posted.
The CM also submitted a formal appeal to the Prime Minister, citing the imminent threat to Priya's life.
In his letter dated Sunday, the Kerala CM wrote, 'Kindly find enclosed my letter dated March 24, 2025, to the Union Minister for External Affairs. It is learnt from the Media that the execution of Smt. Nimisha Priya Tomy Thomas has been fixed for July 16, 2025. Considering the fact that this is a case deserving sympathy, I appeal to the Hon'ble Prime Minister to take up the matter and intervene with the authorities concerned to save the life of Nimisha Priya.'
According to reports, the 37-year-old Indian nurse is currently on death row for the murder of a Yemeni national. Her conviction by a Yemeni trial court was upheld by the country's Supreme Judicial Council in November 2023.
Supreme Court hears plea on government intervention
The Supreme Court of India on Monday heard a plea seeking directions to the Centre for diplomatic intervention in Priya's case.
During the hearing, her counsel informed the bench that the only possible way to save her now is through a 'blood money' arrangement — a financial settlement permissible under Yemeni law — subject to the consent of the victim's family.
The Attorney General of India (AGI), appearing on behalf of the government, told the court that 'every possible effort' is being made to help Priya. He said that discussions are ongoing with Yemeni authorities, including the public prosecutor, to delay the execution and explore a negotiated resolution.
However, the AGI acknowledged that the government's role is constrained. 'This is a very complex issue,' he said.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, who presided over the hearing, expressed serious concern over the situation, observing that 'it would be very unfortunate if Priya were to lose her life.'
The Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for Friday, July 18.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's order to end birthright citizenship still blocked as federal lawsuits press forward
Former President Donald Trump's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants remains blocked, as federal court rulings hold firm and legal challenges continue nationwide. Despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting immigration policy, lower courts have kept injunctions in place, preventing the controversial order from taking effect for now. read more Hannah Liu, 26, of Washington, holds up a sign in support of birthright citizenship, May 15, 2025, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. File image/ AP President Donald Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants likely stay stalled, as an injunction from one court went into effect Friday and another appeared to follow suit. US District Judge Joseph LaPlante of New Hampshire had postponed his own ruling to allow the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeals filed in the last week, his order took effect. Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump's restrictions, said, 'The judge's order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also added, 'The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.' The Trump administration may still appeal or request that LaPlante's order be restricted but the move to abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal or temporary residents of the United States cannot go into force for the time being. The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment. In the meanwhile, over a dozen states argued before a judge in Boston that Trump's birthright citizenship order is clearly unlawful and that it jeopardises millions of dollars for necessary services. The case is anticipated to quickly return before the nation's top court. They asked US District Judge Leo Sorokin to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed inclined to side with the states. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
Terrorists vanish and probes stay ‘inconclusive': Pakistan sees ‘no link' as investigation stalls in familiar fog
Pakistan says its probe into the April 22 Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians remains inconclusive, even as the US designates the suspected group, The Resistance Front, as a terrorist proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Islamabad denies any current links and accuses India of politicising terror listings. read more Pakistan on Friday said that its investigation into the April 22 killing of 26 civilians in India's Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam remains inconclusive even as the United States designated the suspected group behind the killings a global terrorist entity. Pakistan's foreign office's statement added to a pattern of stalled probes and denied links, even as the international community points fingers at groups long linked to Pakistan's militant networks. The group in question- The Resistance Front (TRF) also known as Kashmir Resistance was formally blacklisted by the US on Thursday as a 'foreign terrorist organisation' and a 'specially designated global terrorist.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a statement issued by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, it was acknowledged that TRF claimed responsibility for the terror attack that claimed the lives of 26 people and triggered the 4-day military escalation between India and Pakistan. In light of this, the US accorded the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). Pakistan's foreign ministry rejected the allegations, stating that any link between TRF and LeT 'belies ground realities' and insisting that LeT was 'a defunct group' that had already been banned in Pakistan. 'Pakistan has a zero-tolerance policy for militancy,' the statement said, while acknowledging that investigations into the Pahalgam attack remain inconclusive. The ministry also claimed Pakistan had dismantled all relevant organisations, prosecuted their leaders, and de-radicalised their cadres. At the same time, it accused India of manipulating such global terror designations to drive 'anti-Pakistan propaganda'. Indian authorities, however, maintain that TRF is simply LeT by another name, and was directly responsible for the coordinated and brutal assault in April. They argued that the group's quick claim of responsibility — later deleted — was consistent with a longstanding pattern where militant outfits try to obscure operational footprints while receiving support from across the border. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The April attack sparked heavy fighting between nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry. New Delhi blamed the attack on Pakistan, which denied responsibility while calling for a neutral investigation. Washington's TRF designation signals support for New Delhi Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based South Asia analyst and writer for Foreign Policy magazine, said in designating TRF, 'Washington is flagging its concern about the terrorist attack that provoked the recent India-Pakistan conflict, and siding with New Delhi's view that the group is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba." He added: 'This can be a shot in the arm for a U.S.-India relationship looking to rebound after a few tough months." On May 7, Indian jets bombed sites across the border that New Delhi described as 'terrorist infrastructure,' setting off an exchange of attacks between the two countries by fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery that killed dozens until a ceasefire on May 10. The ceasefire was first announced by Trump on social media after Washington held talks with both sides, but India has differed with Trump's claims that it resulted from his intervention and his threats to sever trade talks. India's position has been that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve their problems directly and with no outside involvement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India is an increasingly important U.S. partner in Washington's effort to counter China's rising influence in Asia, while Pakistan is a U.S. ally. Both Hindu-majority India and Islamic Pakistan claim Muslim-majority Kashmir in full while ruling only parts of the Himalayan territory, over which they have also fought wars. With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Indian Super League: Caught in offside trap, waiting for SC to resume play
A major decision has rocked Indian football. The 14-team Indian Super League (ISL) has been put on hold for the 2025-26 season due to uncertainty surrounding the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the league's organisers, the Football Sports Development Ltd (FSDL) and the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and the clubs. Last month, FSDL, a joint venture between Reliance and Star, which runs the league and are commercial partners of AIFF, met club owners and told them that the league will not kick off unless there is clarity over the 15-year MRA that ends on December 8 this year. Now, those words have been put on record, setting the proverbial cat among the pigeons. The Supreme Court is set to hear the matter on the AIFF's Constitution on July 18. Former general secretary of the AIFF Kushal Das says the situation is critical and unprecedented. 'If you read the FSDL letter carefully, it states that unless there is clarity on the way forward, including renewal of the MRA, the ISL is kept on hold. Now if you look at the timelines, the SC will first have to approve the new Constitution and then may even order elections since they have orally mentioned that this was an interim committee. Assuming the Constitution is approved by August, elections might not happen before December and then the new Committee will decide on the renewal. So I can't see how ISL can happen this season. The AIFF could have foreseen this and requested the SC to allow ISL for this season even if it went beyond the contract,' he said. According to sources, the matter stems from disagreement around the structure of the ISL, which the two parties haven't been able to reach a consensus on. 'There were meetings in February and March. The AIFF got back on April 21 and the FSDL reverted on April 24. Both sides can expedite the matters. This won't be a straightforward negotiation. Both the parties are looking at the right way to go forward commercially and competitively. Overhaul of the structure is needed,' the aforementioned people said. FSDL has reportedly proposed a new holding company to govern, operate, commercialise and fund the ISL, with ownership split between clubs (60 per cent), FSDL (26 per cent) and AIFF (14 per cent). AIFF, however, proposed an all-cash deal of ₹50 crore annually with a 5 per cent yearly hike, which FSDL rejected. Business Standard reached out to AIFF but queries didn't elicit responses till press time. Suspension or putting on hold a top-tier football league isn't common, especially over contractual reasons. The English and French premiere leagues were suspended from 1939-1946 because of the World War. In India, the Calcutta Football League, the oldest football league in Asia and one of the oldest in the world, was suspended in 1930 because of the Salt Satyagraha. In recent times, competitions were put on hold because of the pandemic. A number of former players have said that this hasn't happened out of the blue and the way football was being run in the country saw its culmination in this incident. Former India player Bhaichung Bhutia told Business Standard that it started with FIFA's suspension of the AIFF in 2022. 'The government wanted to host the FIFA Under-17 Women's World Cup to get the ban lifted. Because of the rush, a temporary body was elected. The Constitution wasn't made for a long time and the election should have been held after the world cup. But it wasn't and it all boils down to bad timing,' he said. The development also brings to light the turbulent relationship corporations have with sports. While some companies across the globe have been at the forefront of investing in the sports, mainly as CSR, others have been accused of using these investments as means to sportswashing, a practice of using sports to improve the reputation of a country, organisation, or individual. 'This is unavoidable and is happening in every sport across the world. Look at cricket in this country. Many federations have marketing partners. AFC has a marketing partner. FIFA used to have a marketing partner but now they do it in-house. But can AIFF do it in-house? I don't think so. So the question is to clearly define the roles of the marketing partner and the federation. Now that clearly depends on the commercial value of the property and is a matter of negotiations. BCCI could do it in house as could FIFA on their terms because they have highly valuable sporting properties,' says Das. 'Corporations are important to help the sport grow. But no matter who comes in, the priority should always be upliftment of the sport. Taking the country's football forward should be the ultimate goal,' says Bhutia. Timeline of Indian football's administrative woes 1996: The AIFF launches country's first national league, the 12-team National Football League (NFL) 2006: AIFF signs 10-year agreement with Zee Sports to help popularize the game 2007: I-League launched with a more traditional approach, with teams playing home and away matches 2010: AIFF terminates contract with Zee due to differences 2011: Signs 15-year agreement worth ₹700 cr with Reliance and International Management Group (IMG) 2013: With Reliance's backing, AIFF launches Indian Super League (ISL) in October 2016: Indian Womens League launched with six teams 2017: India hosts FIFA Under-17 World Cup but fails to qualify beyond group stage 2019: ISL granted premiere league status in India with I-League being relegated as second rung competition 2022: India hosts FIFA Women's Under-17 World Cup but fails to qualify beyond group stage again 2024: Indian men's football team ended the year winless after playing 11 matches
