New Delhi: The Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman have rejected the opposition’s notice for proposal to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after “careful and objective assessment of all relevant aspects and issues”, which is bound to deepen the acrimony between the ruling NDA and its opponents amid their campaign for the five assembly elections.130 LS and 63 RS members of the opposition parties – more than required under the rules – had filed notices in their respective Houses on March 13, specifically demanding the ouster of Kumar for his alleged biased and discriminatory conduct in the SIR drive.“After due consideration of the notice of motion and careful and objective assessment of all relevant aspects and issues involved therein, the Speaker (Om Birla) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, has declined to accept the said notice of motion,” a Lok Sabha bulletin said.RS issued a similar bulletin on behalf of president CP Radhakrishnan. Although the bulletin did not specify the grounds for rejection, officials said it was a common practice.The notice, signed by members of the opposition India Bloc and some other BJP rivals like AAP, had the required support – that is at least 100 Lok Sabha and 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.Parliament is scheduled to meet for three days on April 16 to consider bills related to the implementation of women’s reservation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from the 2029 general elections, and the rejection of the opposition’s move against the CEC is expected to trigger a fresh round of confrontation between the two sides.While Congress’s Jairam Ramesh in a cryptic post said, “We know what happened to the previous Rajya Sabha Speaker who accepted the petition filed by opposition MPs”, TMC’s Derek O’Brien said, “Ah! I told you so. Notice for removal of CEC ‘Vanish Kumar’ rejected by Rajya Sabha MPs. Reason? No reason given. BJP keeps making mockery of our great Parliament.”If the opposition party, especially TMC which was at the forefront in garnering support for the notice, raises this issue in its election campaign to press its claim of constitutional institutions being allegedly compromised under the BJP, then the ruling party will mark the issue as a sign of support to the functioning of the CEC from the Speakers of Parliament.Following the move by Congress to file a notice for Birla’s removal, which was accepted and defeated by voice vote in the Lok Sabha, TMC is believed to have prompted the main opposition party to join it in taking a similar step against Kumar.

New Delhi: In the debate on faith and belief versus fundamental rights arising from the removal of the traditional ban on entry of menstruating women into the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, Justice BV Nagarathna on Tuesday criticized the previous social practice of treating women as ‘untouchable’ for three days every month.Part of the nine-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, which promised to give a thorough but interesting clarification on constitutional and legal principles on equality, religion, religious practices, faith and belief, Justice Nagarathna said, “As a woman, I do not agree.”Expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in September next year, she questioned the social practice of isolating menstruating women and said, “Women cannot have three days of untouchability in a month, after which they are treated normally.”The remarks came when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was questioning the rationality of the Supreme Court’s September 28, 2018 judgment in the case ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association vs Kerala’, which had tested the practice of barring entry of women in the 10-50 age group. Sabarimala Temple On the test of Article 17, which abolished untouchability and made its practice a punishable offence.She said that women are worshiped in India, and “we have women presidents, prime ministers, governors and constitutional post holders”. Equality for women is the cornerstone of government policies, she said, and therefore, applying the Article 17 test to declare the practice at Sabarimala unconstitutional appears to stretch far beyond the scope of jurisprudence.He said all Ayyappa temples admit women of all ages, but the practice of barring entry of menstruating women in Sabarimala is unique as devotees consider the Lord Ayyappa deity in the temple as a “gnostic celibate”.“This unique attribute of God cannot be tested by the Supreme Court,” Mehta said. He complained that the jurisprudence of testing every issue with the litmus paper of gender equality has unfortunately been confined to constitutional benches in the last few decades. “Women are equal in every aspect and should be treated equally,” she said.Justice MM Sundaresh said it is the Centre’s contention that since the attributes of the deity are intrinsically linked to the faith and belief of the devotees and followers of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala, the court cannot test the validity of such faith and belief.Mehta said the Sabarimala temple practice is ‘sui generis’ (of its own kind) and similar features can be found in other religious institutions as well. “One may feel that one’s right to freedom of expression to keep one’s hair open is being violated when one is forced to cover one’s head while entering a shrine or a gurudwara,” he said.

PATNA: Movement of trains started, crowd gathered on the platforms. Migrant families from Bihar descended on Patna Junction with bedding, steel containers, plastic sacks – returning from cities where cooking has become impossible. There was a decision driven by tiredness on the faces and empty cylinders and the search for a flame that cost less than a day’s wages. The sting of LPG shortage.“LPG sellers are charging Rs 500 per kg. This lasts for two days,” said Manoj, a construction worker from Punpun in Patna district, who arrived from New Delhi with his wife and two children. “We couldn’t continue.”Ramu, a Chennai factory employee going to Saharsa, did mathematics. “Two days’ wages for gas to cook one meal. It is better to be unemployed at home than dying of hunger in the big city.”Officials said about 2,500 workers have returned so far, many of whom cited the cost of cooking gas. An estimated 48 lakh migrants in Bihar work in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Delhi-NCR, Bengaluru and Mumbai. Labor department teams have started panchayat-level surveys to track the returns.The Magadh Express from New Delhi stopped around 12.30 pm on Tuesday, increasing the number of workers going home. By 2.20 pm, Brahmaputra Mail brought another wave. Gujarat to Azimabad Express. Ernakulam Express from the south. Each arrival added to the churning.Danapur reflected the flow – Sanghamitra Express from Bengaluru, Udhna Express from Gujarat – unloading passengers who have been driven away from jobs by rising fuel costs.Many of the returnees are from Siwan, Gopalganj, Madhubani, Darbhanga and Saharsa. The remaining work is spread across construction sites, factories, dhabas and housing complexes. Sonu, a security guard who earns Rs 6,000 per month in Noida, said he ran out of options when his cylinder became empty. “We ate on the streets for a few days. Carrying coal or wood is not allowed in the residential area,” he said.Domestic help Nishi Devi, returning to Bhojpur with three children, counted several days for proper food. “The employer helped first. Then they faced the same crisis. We cannot afford black-market rates and rent. At home, I will cook on cow dung cakes,” she said.The trains kept coming. Vikas, who has been a porter at the station for 12 years, noticed the change in the number of passengers. “Not like the pandemic rush, but the numbers have been going up in the last two weeks,” he said.

Chennai: Over the past two months, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited Tamil Nadu thrice, campaigning for the BJP and its allies, and is scheduled to visit the state again on April 15 and seek votes for NDA candidates in Nagercoil. On the contrary, Congress’s Rahul Gandhi Till now he has not campaigned even once in the state.Due to his absence, there is a strong discussion that all is not well in the Congress-DMK alliance. Election watchers compare this with the last assembly elections, when he started his campaign with a three-day visit to Tamil Nadu in January 2021.Congress officials in the state said Rahul’s campaign schedule has not been decided yet, but as per the tentative plan, he will visit Assam, Kerala and Puducherry after the first phase of voting.Rahul visited Puducherry on Monday, the last day of the election campaign. And, even when he sought support for “Congress candidates and alliance candidates”, he carefully avoided mentioning alliance partner DMK and its incumbent MK Stalin.Stalin was also in Puducherry on the same day, but their campaign schedules were planned in such a way that they did not clash with each other. While Rahul campaigned in the morning, Stalin visited in the evening.A DMK functionary said, “Rahul did not even mention Stalin’s name in his speech. Nor did Stalin mention them. Political observers said this could be a result of friction between the two parties during seat-sharing talks.A DMK functionary said that no effort was made by the DMK for a meeting between Rahul and Stalin. DMK’s organizational secretary, RS Bharathi, said the two allies had already planned their public meeting and it could not be changed at the last minute to hold a joint meeting. However, he said that the two will be promoting together soon.A senior Congress functionary said Rahul planned to visit Tamil Nadu after April 10.

KOLKATA: “Motaab Sheikh and Motab Herul are the same person,” the appellate tribunal ruled on April 5 in its first SIR appeal, accepting the candidature of Congress’ Farakka candidate. Aadhar card As proof of identity after Election Commission No reason was given for his exclusion.Retired judge TS Sivagnanam, while delivering the verdict on Motab’s appeal, said that the tribunal has sought specific reasons to be recorded by the judicial officer for excluding Motab’s name. However, the Election Commission failed to provide any information citing “technical reasons”.In earlier proceedings in the Supreme Court regarding the SIR in West Bengal, Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that the software included a specific column designed to record the “reason” for each voter’s inclusion or exclusion.Justice Bagchi had said: “The architecture of the software provides a field for comments, where the concerned authorities have to give reasons while deciding whether the logical inconsistency justifies deletion or warrants inclusion.”Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the Election Commission, had assured the bench that the entire digital record would be made available to the appellate tribunal.The controversy arose from discrepancies between Motab’s name in the 2002 voter list and the first list after the SIR on December 16 last year.The tribunal examined the entire records placed before AERO, where Motab’s Aadhaar card proved crucial. While Aadhaar is not a document proving citizenship, it serves as a document of identity. In fact, after the Supreme Court judgment in the Bihar SIR case on September 8, 2025, Aadhaar was included as a “supporting” document by the EC.Applying that reasoning to Motab’s appeal, the tribunal held that its basis reflected his name as Motab Sheikh. “This would be sufficient to accept the case of the appellant,” it said.The tribunal also took note of his passport (issued in 2018) and driving license (issued in 2001), both of which identified him as Motab Shaikh, son of Izabul Shaikh.The tribunal also considered the affidavit filed for rectification after the 2002 SIR recorded his name as ‘Motab Herul’ instead of ‘Motab Sheikh’.In addition, he also presented the birth certificates of his four children; The name of the eldest, born in 1993, was recorded as ‘Motab Sheikh’. Interestingly, all six of Motab’s siblings had cleared the SIR process, with their names appearing in the voting list, while Motab’s sole name was excluded.

Kannur/Tipuram/Kottayam: Political rhetoric has intensified across the state in this election, heated exchanges are taking place between the Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan and their Telangana counterparts Revanth Reddy Last day of campaigning for the April 9 elections.At a press conference in Kannur on Tuesday, responding to a question on Reddy’s earlier comments, Vijayan said a CM should maintain basic standards of conduct. “Such language is inappropriate for a CM. However, he has made the allegations publicly, so I will also respond publicly,” he said. Kerala CM Then replied, “At this moment, my response is ‘dash… mone revantha’; your reply is coming soon.”Vijayan’s jibe, which was widely criticized for being offensive, was in response to Reddy’s words, “Nee po mone Vijaya” (Go away, Vijaya) – invoking a dialogue from actor Mohanlal’s character from the 2000 film ‘Narasimham’ – while speaking at a UDF road show in the Nemom constituency of Thiruvananthapuram on April 2. Reddy had said that Vijayan’s “time is up” and “his expiry date has passed”.Responding to Vijayan’s taunt Telangana CM Compared him to PM Narendra Modi and repeated his comment, “Nee Po Mone Vijaya”. Speaking at an election rally in Pathanapuram, Reddy said that though he respects Vijayan as a senior and experienced politician, he cannot respect his ‘devil’s rule’ in Kerala.“Today he abused me. It doesn’t matter to me because he is an elderly man. I will take his abuses as a blessing,” Reddy said. “But he cannot misuse the power or the people of Kerala. He cannot be under Modi,” he said.Reddy commented, “One Modi sits in New Delhi and the other in Thiruvananthapuram.” He alleged that Vijayan has the support of BJP and communal forces.Reddy reiterated his remarks against Vijayan during an election rally of the UDF candidate in Mavelikkara.Later, in an apparent attempt to defuse the acrimony, Vijayan posted a letter on Twitter addressed to “Dear Sri Revanth Reddy”, outlining Kerala’s development achievements in detail. The letter concluded with a message emphasizing the continued progress of the state through the vision of a ‘New Kerala’.

Srinagar: Holding two shrines and their associated properties in Kishtwar district as waqfs, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled in a nearly five-decade-old case that the petitioners claiming to be hereditary custodians of the tombs have no ownership rights. The court said that ownership of property should be decided on the basis of evidence and not on public history.A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, in its judgment last week, said, “It is clear that it is only in matters of public history that the court can rely on appropriate books or documents of reference. Whether a person has ownership of a particular property or not cannot be a question of fact of public history.” The petitioners had relied on history books and records to support their claim.The case, which the court described as having a “long-checked history”, dates back to 1979, when the petitioners had approached the high court claiming to be the ‘Sajjada Nasheen’ or hereditary caretakers of the shrines of Ziarat Farid-ud-Din Sahib and Ziyarat Asrar-ud-Din Sahib, and claimed exclusive ownership over the shrines and the properties attached to them. In 1978, he moved the High Court after the Deputy Commissioner of Doda declared religious places as Waqf property.In 1998, a single bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition, and in 2003 a division bench upheld it. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court set aside the division bench’s decision and referred the case to the HC for fresh consideration.In his judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar highlighted the history of Kishtwar and the two pilgrimage sites. Kishtwar was an independent state before its annexation by Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1821. Around 1681, its ruler Raja Kirat Singh converted to Islam.Shah Farid-ud-din Sahib and his son Shah Asrar-ud-din Sahib, who arrived in Kishtwar in the 17th century, were revered saints whose mausoleums became major temples and still attract large numbers of devotees.The petitioners claimed hereditary rights over the shrines, saying that 20 kanals of land had been given by Kirat Singh to his granddaughter, who was married to one of his ancestors. He argued that the properties on which he built the houses were private and not waqf, as no such formal dedication had been made by its owner Raja Kirat Singh.Justice Dhar, however, said: “The petitioners have not placed on record any solid and concrete material to refute the presumption attached to the entries in the ‘Jamabandhi’ (revenue records). Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners or their ancestors were the owners of Ziyarat and the lands adjoining it.”On the history books referred to by the petitioners in support of their claims, the court said that the facts relating to the properties mentioned in those books “cannot be used to prove the ownership of the petitioners”.The petitioners also cited a 1969 report by a Waqf officer recognizing the hereditary role of Sajjada Nasheen, but the HC said the officer had no authority to decide ownership.While the HC upheld the inclusion of religious sites under Waqf, the petitioners were allowed to continue occupying residential premises on the land as lessees under the applicable Waqf rules.