An Indian-origin doctor in San Jose has come under scrutiny for encouraging birth tourism.

Dr. Athiya Javid of San Jose has come under government investigation over allegations of encouraging birth tourism. James Comer (R-Ky.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Representative Brandon Gill (R-Texas) alleged that Dr. Javid and three other organizations were advertising for birth tourism on their websites. Letters have been sent to Doctores Para T, Have My Baby in Miami, International Maternity Services and Dr. Athiya Javid asking for documents. Dr. Athiya Javid studied medicine in Hyderabad, India.“The benefits of U.S. citizenship are a unique privilege. However, as foreign expectant mothers traveling for this purpose come primarily from China and Russia, there are concerns that the birth tourism industry poses potential national security and election integrity threats that threaten U.S. interests,” the letter said.“In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order limiting birthright citizenship by limiting the eligibility for citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are present in the United States illegally or are lawfully present, but only temporarily reside in the country at the time of birth such as under the visa waiver program or on a foreign visit on a nonimmigrant visa. A federal court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2025, “The executive order has been halted from taking effect, and will remain in place pending a final decision by the US Supreme Court,” the letter said.Dr Javid is accused of saying that his website shows that the company is engaged in birth tourism. “Although specific pricing for the maternity package is not publicly listed, interested clients should contact the firm directly through their online portal or via phone or email to receive personalized travel planning options, price quotes and information on additional fees – including registration costs, extended hospital stays and medical tests and examinations. “In addition to antenatal and postnatal care, the company provides a wide range of services to foreign expectant mothers, including logistics assistance, temporary accommodation assistance and legal counsel, provided either directly or through affiliated third-party providers,” it said.

New Delhi: In a fresh twist in the ongoing CBI appeal hearing against the acquittal of all the accused in the excise policy case, Delhi High Court judge Swarn Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the former chief minister. Arvind KejriwalAAP officials Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bhardwaj and others abstained from hearing the main case.“Can’t surrender to a powerful litigant,” Justice Sharma said while initiating contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, saying he “launched a defamatory campaign” against him on social media instead of challenging the adverse orders against him in the higher court.She said she would now hear only the contempt case and transferred the appeal, so that the “defendants” would not later claim that she was biased against them. The judge said that while the hearing in the excise policy case was going on inside, “a parallel narrative was being constructed outside… and aspersions were being leveled on this court by contemporaries armed with political powers.”

Justice Sharma took exception to social media posts shared by Kejriwal and other AAP office-bearers which ascribed their “political allegiance” and targeted them by posting a misleading “edited” video of a speech delivered by them at an educational institution in Varanasi.Justice Sharma said, “After I refused to withdraw from the case, Arvind Kejriwal tried to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies and this deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the court under the guise of free speech cannot be allowed.”He said Kejriwal wanted to sow “seeds of distrust”, but warned that “judicial silence cannot afford to threaten judges into silence”.

Gandhiji’s Satyagraha won: Kejriwal

She said she would now hear only the contempt case and transferred the appeal, so that later the “defendants” would not claim that she was biased. The judge said that while the hearing in the excise policy case was going on inside, “a parallel narrative was being constructed outside… and aspersions were being leveled on this court by contemporaries armed with political powers.”Justice Sharma took exception to social media posts shared by Kejriwal and other AAP office-bearers which ascribed their “political allegiance” and targeted them by posting a misleading “edited” video of a speech delivered by them at an educational institution in Varanasi.Justice Sharma said, “After I refused to withdraw from the case, Arvind Kejriwal tried to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies and this deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the court under the guise of free speech cannot be allowed.”He said Kejriwal wanted to sow “seeds of distrust”, but warned that “judicial silence cannot afford to threaten judges into silence”.Referring to Kejriwal’s conduct, the judge said that hopefully the matter will be put to rest once his plea is decided.Justice Sharma said, “The plaintiff could have gone to the Supreme Court for challenge, but he did not, instead he released a video and repeated the same allegations and grounds which were rejected by this court.” He also referred to Kejriwal’s letter on X where he had announced his decision to boycott the hearing in his court.“The tone, tenor and manner of the criticism were not those of fair criticism. They have launched a campaign and social media campaigns have raised questions about the integrity, impartiality of this court,” the HC said. Detailed copy of the order is awaited. The judge read out parts of his order in a special sitting at around 6.30 pm and lasted for about 1.5 hours.Justice Sharma clarified that she is not recusing herself from the case but is transferring the matter to another bench as she has initiated contempt proceedings. “By selectively editing the letters and videos, the respondents tried to intimidate the court and tried to cast aspersions on my family members by dragging them in,” the judge said. He said they were intended as a “thoughtful insult”.Undeterred by Justice Sharma ordering contempt proceedings against him, the AAP chief lauded his decision to withdraw from the excise case. “Truth has won, Gandhiji’s Satyagraha has won,” Kejriwal said in his first reaction on social media platform X.

Jaipur: The shadow of the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak investigation has now fallen on the entire family, as investigators found that several members of the Biwal family are linked to all the three arrested accused. CBISecured admission in medical colleges and are currently pursuing MBBS course in Rajasthan and other parts of the country.CBI on Wednesday arrested Dinesh Biwal, his brother Mangilal Biwal and Mangilal’s son Vikas Biwal in the paper leak case.Police sources said investigators became suspicious “from day one” when it was revealed that four members of the same family had cracked NEET and entered medical colleges.Investigators are now probing whether the confessions of the family members had any connection with the alleged leak racket.According to preliminary findings, Vikas Biwal is a first-year student at Sawai Madhopur Medical College, while his sister is enrolled at Dausa Medical College. Another relative, the daughter of Mangilal’s deceased brother Ghanshyam, is a student at SMS Medical College in Jaipur, while Ghanshyam’s other daughter is studying in a medical college in Mumbai. Sources said another member of the family may be studying in a medical college, but the CBI took over the case before the information could be confirmed by state agencies.The scrutiny around the family has intensified after some people allegedly exposed old social media posts of Dinesh Biwal in which he had claimed that five children of his family have secured admission in medical colleges. However, the agencies said they were still verifying the claim.Investigators found that they all studied at the same coaching institute in Sikar, although sources later claimed that they were enrolled only for the mock test series. Officials said that all three had appeared in the NEET-UG examination of 2025.“There is no direct evidence yet that they cleared the exam using leaked question papers, but the fact that five members of the same family secured admission to MBBS in the same period naturally raises questions, especially when the family is now linked to an alleged paper leak syndicate,” a senior official said on condition of anonymity.Sources said investigators suspect that Dinesh paid money to another accused, Gurgaon-based Yash Yadav, to obtain the leaked NEET-UG 2026 question paper to benefit his son. Sources said that another member of the family was also preparing for NEET, whose identity has not been disclosed.CBI has already taken Dinesh, Mangilal and Vikas to New Delhi for further questioning. In connection with the investigation, a CBI team also reached the family’s house in Jamwa-Ramgarh near Jaipur.As television crews and journalists gathered outside the residence following the arrest on Thursday, family members strongly denied the allegations. Speaking to local media, the wives of Dinesh and Mangilal insisted that their children had secured the seats through hard work and claimed that the allegations were baseless.

New Delhi: Raising questions over the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner/Election Commissioners, where a panel of the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition selects the candidate. Supreme Court Thursday said the current system allows the government to appoint a person of its choice as long as two out of three members are in favor of it and asked the government why it is “pretending about independence” in the appointment process. It was said that instead of the minister, an independent person should be made a part of the panel.Citing the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that the panel should include the PM, CJI and the LOP, a bench of Justices Dipankar Gupta and Satish Chandra Sharma said it was not necessary that the CJI participate in the process, but an independent person would have to be a part of it or the presence of the LOP would become merely decorative. It said that when a CBI Director is appointed by an independent panel comprising the PM, CJI and LOP, why should not the same practice be followed for the CEC/EC, which is all the more important as the institution is involved in maintaining democracy and ensuring free and fair elections in the country.Although Attorney General K Venkataramani said that the neutrality and independence of the CEC/EC arises from their functioning after their appointment, the bench said that it started with the appointment process itself. The court said that the Election Commission should not only act neutrally but also appear neutral.“Why should a cabinet minister be a part of this? Let’s assume the ruling party has 300 MPs. The PM picks 25 of his best. Now you micromanage it again and bring in one of the 25. Why? Then why do you include the leader of the opposition in it? He is decorative. A minister will never go against the PM. It will always be decided by 2:1. Why this show of independence in the body?”The court is probing the validity of the law – the CEC and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act – which was enacted after the apex court passed orders that appointments would be made by a panel of the PM, CJI and the LOP to bring independence in the process. Several petitions were filed, including by MP Congress functionary Jaya Thakur, alleging that the new law amounts to abrogation of the Supreme Court order and paves the way for the government to appoint people from its “neighborhood” to this important post.Deliberations on the search, selection and appointment of Gyanesh Kumar (now CEC) and SS Sandhu as election commissioners in 2024 came under question, with the petitioner alleging it was done in haste just a day before a crucial apex court hearing, with the bench asking the Center to produce the original records before it. Kumar appointed election commissioner Election Commission of India on March 15, 2024, after his retirement on January 31.The court further explained that it is the executive government which is in a position of control in taking decisions on appointments to the election panel. It said the CJI is part of the panel to appoint the CBI director who also works to maintain law and order and maintain the rule of law. The court said that the role of the Election Commission is more important than that of the CBI as it is involved in maintaining democracy. “We do not say that the CJI should be there. But why not have an independent member? Why should it be from the ministry? Let us be very clear. Today the Prime Minister chooses a name. And LoP chooses the second one. There is disagreement. Then whose side will the third member take?” the bench said.Arguing that the court should refrain from venturing into legislative territory while deciding the validity of a law, the AG said there has never been any allegation on the CEC/EC of compromising and joining hands with the government. He said the country has never seen such a devastating or tragic experience when an Election Commissioner has failed to advance the rule of law and there is no reason to doubt the existing system.