BJP MP Satish Gautam says he will send AMU's Jinnah portrait to Pakistan

Agencies
May 25, 2019

Aligarh, May 25: Two days after being re-elected as BJP MP, Satish Gautam said that his first priority will be to send the portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) to Pakistan.

"The right place for Jinnah's portrait is not at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), but in Pakistan. There is no change in our stand and it will be sent by whatever means possible," said the newly elected MP.

It may be recalled that it was Satish Gautam who had kicked up the Jinnah controversy storm last year when he sought the removal of the portrait from the AMU.

The BJP MP has written a letter to AMU Vice Chancellor Tariq Mansoor, seeking the status of the Jinnah portrait at AMU.

The issue had surfaced when the portrait came in the open during an exhibition organised at AMU in October, 2018 to mark Gandhi Jayanti.

Gautam had raised objections at that time too and the university administration had to removed the portrait from the exhibition and had served a show-cause notice to the librarian for the "lapse".

Thanking his party organisation and voters for giving him a second term from Aligarh, Gautam said: "We are also committed to reservation for SC/ST and OBC students at the AMU, an issue we had been raising time and again. The AMU has to give reservation to these students."

Meanwhile, a section of students in AMU had demanded construction of a temple on the campus for Hindu students.

Replying to a question in this regard, Gautam extended full support to student leader Ajay Singh, who was suspended by the AMU administration after an incident of violence on the campus in February. Gautam also assured to help out the suspended student leader.

Comments

Peacelovers
 - 
Sunday, 26 May 2019

Elected 99% bjp mp of rss will repeat same attitude than developments. Pradan sevak will silent n never comment or take action. But the nation will fully object this time.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 18,2020

New Delhi, Mar 18: As many as 276 Indians have been infected with coronavirus abroad, including 255 in Iran, 12 in UAE and five in Italy, the government informed the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.

In a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for External Affairs V Muraleedharan said the total number of Indians infected by coronavirus is 276 — 255 in Iran, 12 in UAE, five in Italy, and one each in Hong Kong, Kuwait, Rwanda and Sri Lanka.

A fourth batch of 53 Indians returned to India from Iran on Monday, taking the total number of people evacuated from the coronavirus-hit country to 389.

Iran is one of the worst-affected countries by the coronavirus outbreak and the government has been working to bring back Indians stranded there. Over 700 people have died from the disease in Iran and nearly 14,000 cases detected.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 21,2020

New Delhi, Jul 21: The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Finance to look into a plea which claimed a loss of hundreds of crore every day, as the public sector banks are not invoking personal guarantees of big corporates who have defaulted on loans.

A bench comprising Justice R. F. Nariman and Navin Sinha asked the petitioners, Saurabh Jain and Rahul Sharma, who filed the PIL, to move the Finance Ministry with a representation within two weeks. The top court observed that the issue is important and the ministry should respond after the petitioner has made the representation before it. The matter had come up for hearing on Monday.

"We are of the view that at page 115 of the Writ Petition it has been made clear that the Ministry of Finance itself has, by a Circular, directed personal guarantees issued by promoters/managerial personnel to be invoked. According to the petitioners, despite this Circular, Public Sector Undertakings continue not to invoke such guarantees resulting in huge loss not only to the public exchequer but also to the common man", said the bench in its order.

Senior advocate Manan Mishra and advocate Durga Dutt, represented the petitioners.

Mishra contended before the bench that the statistics establish the public sector banks incurred a loss of approximately Rs 1.85 lakh crore in a financial year, and the banks did not take action to invoke personal guarantees of the biggest corporate defaulters.

The bench observed that since the petitioners claim the public sector undertakings are not complying with this circular, "We think you should first go to the ministry," said the bench.

Mishra argued before the bench that the loans from a common man are recovered through a mechanism where officials go through even the minutest detail, but promoters, chairpersons and other senior level functionaries of the big corporates find it convenient to get away by defaulting on loans.

The bench told the petitioner's counsel that the Finance Ministry has already issued a notification on this matter, and the petitioners should seek response from the ministry, and then move the top court. Mishra submitted before the bench to issue a direction to the Finance Ministry to give a response on their representation.

The bench said, "We allow the petitioners, at this stage, to withdraw this Writ Petition and approach the Ministry of Finance with a representation in this behalf. The representation will be made within a period of two weeks from today. The Ministry of Finance is directed to reply to the said representation within a period of four weeks after receiving such representation. With these observations, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn to do the needful."

Mishra contended before the bench seeking liberty to come back after a reply from the Finance Ministry. Justice Nariman said this option is open for petitioners after a decision has been taken by the ministry. "We will hear you", added Justice Nariman.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

New Delhi, Jan 13: The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing on issues related to discrimination against women in various religions and at religious places including Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said that it was not considering review pleas in the Sabarimala case.

“We are not hearing review pleas of Sabarimala case. We are considering issues referred to by a 5-judge bench earlier,” the bench said.

The apex court had on November 14 asked a larger bench to re-examine various religious issues, including the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple and mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer religious issues to a larger bench, it gave a 3:2 split decision on petitions seeking a review of the apex court's September 2018 decision allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala.

A majority verdict by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep pending pleas seeking a review of its decision regarding entry of women into the shrine, and said restrictions on women in religious places was not restricted to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other religions as well.

The minority verdict by Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28 decision.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.