Nimisha Priya action council seeks MEA help for Yemen talks
The Action Council chairperson P.M. Jabir and general convener Jayachandran K., in a memorandum to MEA Secretary, sought a relaxation of the existing travel ban to Yemen for its five-member team. It also requested the Central government to depute two members to lead the discussions in Yemen.
Team members
The five-member team proposed to travel to Yemen comprise Supreme Court lawyer and the council's legal advisor Subhash Chandran K.R., council treasurer N.K. Kunhammed, member and Yemen returnee Sajeev Kumar, Islamic scholar and Kerala Haj Committee chairman Hussain Saqafi Chullikkode, and Yemen expert Hamid.
The council acknowledged the roles of the Central government as well as Sunni leader Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar and some Sufi scholars of Yemen in getting the July 16 execution of Nimisha Priya postponed.
The council assured that it would raise the diyah or blood money required to save Nimisha Priya once the talks are finalised with the family without seeking any government funds.
The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, recently told the Supreme Court that only Nimisha Priya's family should engage with the victim's relatives in Yemen and that intervention by any other organisation would not be effective. The Supreme Court, however, asked the action council to approach the Central government.
The council, in its memorandum to the MEA, said that Nimisha Priya's family would be unable to make any effective negotiations with the victim's family due to its socio-economic constraints. It also pointed out the recent allegations of financial fraud levelled by the victim's brother against the power of attorney holder representing Nimisha Priya's mother in Yemen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
BC Quota Ordinance: BJP hits out at Cong, flags legal loopholes and ‘political gimmickry'
1 2 3 Hyderabad: The Congress govt's push for 42% reservation for Backward Classes is drawing sharp criticism from the BJP, which is accusing the ruling party of bypassing due legislative process and indulging in political theatrics. While the Congress aims to elevate the BC quota issue into a nationwide campaign, BJP leaders are cautioning that the move could trigger significant legal challenges, particularly as the proposal threatens to breach the Supreme Court-mandated 50% cap on reservations. BJP state chief N Ramchander Rao has alleged that the Congress govt is intentionally avoiding a direct amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act in the current assembly session. Instead, it has chosen to route the proposal through an ordinance sent to the governor, a move Rao claims is a calculated attempt to dodge legislative scrutiny. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Anticipating that the Congress may try to blame the Centre for any obstacles in the implementation of reservations, the BJP has sharpened its position. "We are not opposed to the 42% BC reservation," Rao clarified, "but we strongly object to the inclusion of 10% political representation for Muslims under the BC quota. Any increased reservation must benefit only the BC communities." Within party circles, leaders have been asked to question the Congress's sincerity, especially as the ruling party continues to make lofty promises without addressing the legal complexities involved. "If they try to pin this on us, we will respond firmly. We supported the bill in the assembly, despite our reservations on Muslim inclusion," BJP leaders reiterated. As the reservation debate heats up, the BJP appears poised to frame the Congress's move as symbolic and legally untenable, while reaffirming its support for genuine, constitutionally valid BC representation, sources said. The BJP is now closely tracking the Congress govt's next steps and the governor's decision on the ordinance. Party sources have raised concerns over the lack of clarity in the ordinance, pointing out that it fails to mention specific reservation percentages. "If they were truly committed to this issue, they would have amended the Panchayat Raj Act directly through the assembly instead of taking a vague, roundabout route," a senior BJP source said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Not here to beg, it is our right: Farooq on statehood demand
Demanding that J&K's statehood be restored immediately, former CM Farooq Abdullah said Wednesday that the 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 was 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' and emphasised that the distance between Delhi and Kashmir 'has never reduced'. At a public meeting, organised by the Forum for Human Rights in J&K, in Delhi, Abdullah, who is also the NC president, said, 'Whether it is Article 370 or statehood, the basic issue is that the distance between Delhi and Kashmir has never reduced. From the day we became part of India, that distance has only grown. There is no trust — there is no trust in the Muslim.' On the demand for statehood, he said: 'We are not here to beg. It is our right as Indians. Restore our statehood. What you've done is unconstitutional. The governor himself said he didn't know the law — is this how you dismantle a state?' 'Today, we are looked at through the lens of what language we speak, which religion we belong to. This is not my India. Despite sharing a religious identity with Pakistan, we chose Gandhi. I wish those leaders could rise from their graves to see what India has become…' Abdullah said. J&K Deputy CM Surinder Choudhary described the region's current status as: 'India calls J&K its head — but that head has suffered a serious injury.' 'I still don't understand under what law a state has been turned into a municipality,' he said. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment upholding Article 370 abrogation, Congress MP Manish Tewari said, 'The SC said the proper procedure was not followed in removing Article 370, but still upheld it… This is a judgment that needs to be reviewed.' CPI(M) leader Yusuf Tarigami said, 'What is the condition of our Assembly? On July 13, the CM was locked up. The homes of elected representatives were bolted. Has such a thing ever happened anywhere else?'
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Your Honour, that's misogyny talking
We often witness flashes of patriarchy and misogyny, only to dismiss them as outliers, or view them as symptoms of a society in transition. But when those moments emanate from institutions, we seek remedy - such as the Supreme Court - then it becomes necessary to question them. On Tuesday, while hearing an alimony case, CJI B R Gavai expressed his incredulity that a 'well-educated' woman was demanding a divorce settlement from her husband. His outburst reflects a mindset that cannot fathom the possibility that a woman could have contributed to her husband's wealth and is, thus, a rightful claimant to a share upon the dissolution of their is not the first time that top court judges have made observations that reflect a skewed view. A few months ago, Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim bail to a 23-year-old man accused of rape. By their account, a 40-year-old woman 'is no baby', and her complaint - considered credible by the police - was deficient because 'a single hand can't clap'. Unfortunately, examples of such egregious gender insensitivity veering towards misogyny crop up far too often in the higher stereotypes - more so those rooted in gender - hinder the transformative project of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is guardian of the Constitution, which recognises equality as a right. Not only does the apex court guard the integrity of the Constitution, it also provides a moral compass for society. In 2023, it recognised the need for gender sensitisation, producing a booklet for the legal community with the aim of 'actively challenging and dispelling harmful stereotypes on the basis of gender'. Perhaps it's time for judges to read this publication - so that the courts can live up to their promise.
