Kiren Rijiju Backs Dalai Lama After China's Objection Over Successor, To Join Birthday Event
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju said the decision on the Dalai Lama's successor rests solely with the spiritual leader or the Gaden Phodrang Institution
Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Rajiv Ranjan Singh, popularly known as Lalan Singh, are set to attend the Dalai Lama's birthday celebrations in Dharamshala. Rijiju will travel to Dharamshala on Friday, ahead of the official ceremony, amid heightened attention on the sensitive issue of the Tibetan spiritual leader's succession.
While the Dalai Lama's birthday falls on July 6 as per the Gregorian calendar, festivities began on June 30 in accordance with the Tibetan calendar.
'This is not about politics, it's about religious belief," Rijiju said ahead of his visit. 'No one has the right to interfere or decide who the successor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be. Only he or the institution has the authority to make that decision. His followers believe that deeply. It's important for disciples across the world that he decides his succession."
The choice of Lalan Singh is being seen as significant, with sources noting the Buddhist connection to Nalanda in Bihar—an ancient centre of learning and faith—located in Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's constituency. His inclusion underscores the government's sensitivity to the religious and cultural dimensions of the issue.
Government sources also said the Centre is acutely mindful of the sensitivities involved, especially given China's repeated attempts to control the narrative around the Dalai Lama's succession.
The Dalai Lama recently reaffirmed that only the Gaden Phodrang Trust holds the legitimate authority to identify his reincarnation, openly rejecting China's claim to appoint a successor.
First Published:
July 03, 2025, 12:35 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: Karnataka asked to justify ACP's suspension, Patanjali to halt ‘disparaging' ads and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. The Delhi High Court restrained yoga guru Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved from running allegedly disparaging advertisements about consumer goods company Dabur's Chyawanprash product. The court passed the interim order on a plea filed by Dabur, which alleged that Patanjali Ayurved was disparaging its product by claiming that no other manufacturer had the knowledge to prepare it. Dabur argued that it was misleading and harmful to label other brands as 'ordinary'. The statements misrepresented Patanjali Ayurved's own formulation, questioned Dabur's adherence to Ayurvedic tradition and branded Dabur's product as inferior, the petition alleged. Dabur also claimed that Patanjali Ayurved was a habitual offender, citing earlier orders in contempt proceedings against the Ramdev-led company for similar advertising conduct. Read on. The Karnataka High Court asked the state government to justify the continued suspension of Bengaluru's Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash after the June 4 stampede outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium, which killed 11 persons. The government had suspended Vikash and four other police officers, accusing them of dereliction of duty. Vikash had challenged the suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On Tuesday, the tribunal quashed the order, saying that the officer had been suspended without sufficient grounds. It had also directed the state government to reinstate Vikash immediately. The state government moved the High Court challenging the tribunal's order. On Thursday, the High Court asked whether transferring the police officer would have been a sufficient measure instead. Read on. The successor to the 14th Dalai Lama will be chosen by the current spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists himself, India has said. 'Nobody else has the right to decide it except him and the conventions in place,' said Union minister Kiren Rijiju. This came after China on Wednesday said that the Dalai Lama's reincarnation needed to be approved by the Chinese government. Beijing said that the succession must follow Chinese laws as well as 'religious rituals and historical conventions'. The statement was in response to the 14th Dalai Lama stating that the Gaden Phodrang Trust held the sole prerogative to decide on his successor, and that no one else had the authority to interfere in the matter. The trust is a non-profit organisation set up by the current Tibetan spiritual leader in 2015 to support the institution of the Dalai Lama. Read on. The Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that there was no foul play in the death of Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. Disha Salian had died by suicide on June 8, 2020, reportedly after jumping from the 14th floor of a building in Mumbai. The police had closed the case in 2021 and said that no evidence of foul play had been found in her death. However, the celebrity manager's father, Satish Salian, moved the High Court in March seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into her death and the filing of a first information report against Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader Aaditya Thackeray. Claiming that his daughter had died under suspicious circumstances, Satish Salian alleged that she was gangraped and murdered. He claimed that there had also been a politically-driven cover-up to shield 'influential persons'. The police demanded that the petition should be dismissed. Thackeray on Thursday refused to comment on the matter, saying that he had chosen silence despite attempts to defame him. Read on.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India's legal system avoids sweeping lower court injunctions recently curtailed by US Supreme Court
Written by Swapnil Tripathi President Donald Trump's second term has seen a surge in executive orders, including the withdrawal of diversity and inclusion mandates and a recent order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. To date, he has signed 164 executive orders. Several of these orders have been subject to legal challenge, with federal district courts granting interim relief in the form of nationwide stays on their implementation. Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled on this practice in Trump vs CASA, holding that lower federal courts cannot grant universal stays prohibiting the enforcement of executive orders and must confine relief to the parties before them. This development raises an important question: Could a district court in India exercise similar powers? The US Constitution establishes a federal structure where powers are divided between the federal and state governments, each with its own constitution, legislature, executive, and judiciary. Disputes arising from federal executive action or legislation are adjudicated in the federal courts. These courts follow a three-tier hierarchy: District courts, courts of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. District courts, at the base of this structure, have the authority to review executive actions for their conformity with the Constitution and federal law. They can grant interim injunctions, including nationwide stays, and may ultimately strike down the action as unconstitutional. In contrast, India's constitutional architecture provides for a single, unified judiciary. While India adopts a quasi-federal model with a division of powers between the Union and the states, the judiciary remains integrated. It comprises district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court, functioning within a hierarchical framework. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian district courts are confined to civil and criminal matters under statutory law and lack the authority to entertain constitutional challenges to executive action or legislation. This power lies exclusively with the Supreme Court and the high courts. Under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, both courts can directly hear petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and issue writs or interim orders, including staying or striking down executive and legislative action. Although high courts have fixed territorial jurisdiction, they can entertain challenges to the central government's actions if the cause of action arises within their territory. This ensures that litigants need not approach the Supreme Court in the first instance for relief against Union's action. Since the adoption of the Constitution, high courts have often acted as first responders in constitutional litigation. Within the first year itself, laws abolishing the zamindari system were challenged before multiple High Courts, with the Patna High Court striking down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Similarly, in Tara Singh vs State, the Punjab High Court struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code — the erstwhile sedition provision — as violative of the right to freedom of speech. The importance of empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court to review executive action became particularly evident during the Emergency (1975–77). When the President suspended the right to approach courts for enforcing key fundamental rights, including the right to life, thousands were detained. Despite this suspension, nine high courts entertained habeas corpus petitions and held them maintainable where detention orders were contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. Although these decisions were later overruled by the Supreme Court in the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, the episode highlights the value of concurrent constitutional forums. The availability of multiple judicial avenues meant that, even when the Supreme Court ruled against the detainees, the high courts had, at least for a time, provided a measure of protection. This capacity for different forums to reach different conclusions highlights why constitutional powers were vested in both levels: To ensure multiple judicial voices and, in moments of institutional failure, offer alternative avenues for relief. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian courts are generally reluctant to stay the operation of legislation or executive action. In Bhavesh Parish vs Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise judicial restraint and intervene only where the provisions are 'manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional'. This high threshold reflects the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation. Among recent challenges, the Court has declined to stay the operation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and its rules, the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and the Waqf (Amendment) Act. However, this institutional design creates the possibility of conflicting decisions across high courts. It is common for a central government action to be challenged simultaneously before multiple High Courts, resulting in inconsistent rulings — one court staying or striking down the action, while another upholds it. A contemporary example is the challenge to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, governing online intermediaries, where some courts granted stay orders while others declined to do so. In such situations, parties often approach the Supreme Court, which typically adopts one of two approaches: First, transferring all proceedings to a single high court to ensure uniformity, as it did in the challenges to the IT Rules by designating the Delhi High Court as the exclusive forum; or second, transferring the proceedings to itself, as seen in the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. India's system, by design, avoids the kind of sweeping trial-court-level injunctions recently curtailed by the US Supreme Court. By reserving these powers to the constitutional courts, it maintains a clear appellate structure and prevents conflicting orders from subordinate forums. At the same time, by empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court, it preserves multiple avenues for citizens to challenge government action, even if that occasionally results in divergent rulings across high courts. The writer is a lawyer currently pursuing a DPhil in law at the University of Oxford
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Gangs, Guns And City On Edge: How Organised Crime Is Governing Delhi's Streets
New Delhi: Beneath the gleaming surface of Delhi's urban sprawl lies a dark undercurrent, one carved up by bullets, extortion calls, and social media threats. The capital's organised crime network is not just alive, it's thriving, evolving, and expanding its grip over the city's economic and social fabric. The city, which is often called the seat of political power and the face of modern India, now also bears another identity, as a capital carved up by gang warfare. Behind the glass towers and political corridors, the city's streets are being quietly and systematically redrawn, not by planners, but by gangsters. This isn't just hyperbole. According to reports, the Centre recently informed the Supreme Court that Delhi hosts 95 active gangs, a stark indicator of the crisis' scale. The city's criminal landscape has evolved over decades, shifting from older groups like the Kishan Pehalwan and Anoop-Balraj gangs of Najafgarh to modern networks such as the Bishnoi and Sangwan gangs. These groups have grown beyond local thuggery; many now coordinate operations internationally. The result is a metropolis plagued by turf wars, extortion rackets, and targeted killings, with law enforcement frequently playing catch-up. Their influence spans Rohini, Najafgarh, outer Delhi, Gurgaon, and even parts of Noida and Ghaziabad, forming a loose but deadly confederacy across the NCR. Why Delhi is fertile ground for crime But a strong question that shoots up is, why does Delhi breed gangs like this? Because the city makes it easy. Reports indicate that Delhi's fractured borders with Haryana and Uttar Pradesh provide criminals easy escape routes and logistical depth. Dense jhuggi clusters offer foot soldiers anonymity, while under-policed areas provide space to operate. In a city of over 30 million, invisibility has become a weapon, one that the state has yet to neutralize. According to police dossiers and court filings, over 1,100 gangsters are facing trial in more than 5,000 criminal cases. Leading groups like the Lawrence Bishnoi and Hashim Baba gangs run rackets in land, liquor, arms, cyber fraud, and extortion, targeting builders, businessmen, and social media influencers. Despite arrests, these syndicates thrive, using encrypted calls, WhatsApp threats, and social media 'status videos' to intimidate, becoming digital-age dons. Operation Kavach and policing challenge Faced with this spiraling menace, the Delhi Police have intensified multi-agency offensives, such as Operation Kavach. The latest Operation Kavach 8.0, a narcotics-plus crackdown conducted on June 18–19, 2025, led to 139 arrests in 24 hours across all 15 districts, involving over 350 teams. This resulted in 133 NDPS cases and multiple arrests under the Excise and Arms Acts, underscoring the force's commitment to dismantling organised crime. Cases registered under MCOCA and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions have also strengthened legal tools to tackle syndicates. Yet, experts caution that arrests alone are insufficient. Gangs often reconstitute faster than law enforcement can dismantle them, calling for faster trials, community policing, and enhanced tech-driven intelligence to support police efforts. This crisis didn't emerge overnight; it is the result of years of systemic neglect, weak policing, and political indifference. Despite the visible escalation, Delhi Police have made significant efforts against organised crime through coordinated multi-agency operations and legal reforms. However, limitations in manpower, resources, and coordination, compounded by the transnational nature of many gangs, continue to hamper effective enforcement. While the police may arrest local foot soldiers, the masterminds still call the shots from Dubai, Canada, and the UK, mocking the very idea of law and order in the national capital. What was once a street-level turf war has now metastasised into a full-blown parallel economy, with extortion, arms trafficking, contract killings, cyber-rackets, and real estate muscle forming the backbone of operations. From college politics to contract killings If we dig deeper, we find that the roots of some of Delhi's most notorious gangs trace back to college politics and local street feuds. Reports reveal that the decade-old, infamous Gogi–Tillu rivalry was born in the corridors of Swami Shraddhanand College and has since escalated into a deadly conflict, with over 150 members booked for crimes ranging from extortion to murder. Inside Tihar: Prisons becoming gang HQs What makes Delhi's underworld uniquely dangerous is the control gang leaders continue to exert from inside Tihar Jail. On the morning of May 2, 2023, infamous gangster Sunil Balyan, aka Tillu Tajpuriya, leader of Delhi's Tillu gang, was brutally murdered by four members of the rival Gogi gang inside the high-security ward of Central Jail No. 8, Tihar Prison. This chilling incident exposed how gangs have transformed prisons into their operational headquarters. Delhi vs Mumbai's Underworld Delhi's gang landscape is far more fragmented and volatile than Mumbai's old underworld. Unlike the centralized D-Company model, Delhi's gangs operate without a clear hierarchy, where even small groups of four can be classified as organised units. This fluidity leads to constant shifting alliances, with gangsters moving between networks for profit or revenge. Hotspots like Najafgarh, Narela, and Rohini have become infamous not only for turf wars but also for illegal arms trafficking and contract killings. Conclusion: Battle ahead What does it say about a city where the judiciary is hearing reports of 95 active gangs, and where teenagers are lured into becoming hitmen for Rs 30,000 and an Instagram shoutout? This isn't just about crime. It's a mirror to Delhi's governance vacuum, where politics, policing, and social neglect collide. Delhi's gang crisis is no longer hidden; it's in court filings, jail corridors, Instagram feeds, and broad daylight shootouts. If India's capital, with all its political power and legal machinery, can't rein in its underworld, what hope remains for the smaller towns that feed into its bloodstream? The statistics are chilling, the faces are getting younger, and the silence is turning deadly. This isn't just a crime wave, it's a collapse of governance. Where policing falters, politics looks away, and opportunity disappears, violence takes root. The battle ahead isn't only about arrests; it's about restoring trust, law, and dignity to a city whose underworld now threatens to overshadow its democracy.
