BJP faced more adversities in independent India than Cong under British: Modi

New Delhi, Mar 3: Delhi's Tihar Prison authorities had made all necessary preparations for the hanging of four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape-and-murder case which was scheduled for Tuesday, officials said Monday.

However, on Monday evening, a city court deferred the hanging till further orders.

Postponing the execution, Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana said the hanging cannot be carried out pending disposal of Pawan Gupta's mercy plea before the President, observing any condemned convict must not meet his "Creator" with grievance against courts for not acting fairly on the opportunity to exhaust legal remedies.

"We had made all the necessary arrangements for the execution of the four convicts which was scheduled for Tuesday at 6 AM. Now, the execution has been postponed and we are waiting for the further order by the court," a senior jail official said.

The hanging of the four men -- Mukesh Kumar Singh (32), Vinay Kumar Sharma (26), Akshay Kumar Singh (31) and Pawan -- who are lodged in Tihar jail, was fixed for March 3 in Tihar jail on a court order.

"We had checked the ropes. Hangman was called and dummy executions were carried out," another senior jail official said.

Barring Pawan, the other three had in the previous weeks moved curative petitions and mercy pleas which were all dismissed.

The first date of execution -- January 22 -- fixed on January 7 was postponed by the court to February 1. But on January 31, the court indefinitely postponed the hanging. On February 17, the court again issued fresh date for execution of death warrants for March 3 at 6 AM.

The court in its orders observed that the four convicts cannot be hanged since a mercy plea of one or the other convict was pending.

New Delhi, Jun 29: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Central government to find out the facts related to blacklisting and canceling of visas of foreign nationals who attended the congregation of Tablighi Jamaat in Nizamuddin area here.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar and also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to find out the facts related to the matter and fixed it for further hearing on July 2.

The apex court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta "if visas of these foreigners are canceled, then why are they still in India?"

"You (Centre) can deport them. If visas are not canceled, then, it is a different situation," the court said. The top court was hearing a number of petitions challenging blacklisting and cancellation of visas filed by few foreigners.

Mehta sought more time to file a reply on the matter, after which the court posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

The petitions, filed by the foreign nationals from 35 countries, have sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to remove their names from the blacklist, reinstate their visas and facilitate their return to their respective countries.

The petitions sought to declare the decision of the MHA of blacklisting the foreign nationals who attended the Tablighi Jamaat congregation as "arbitrary".

"Unilateral blacklisting of 960 foreigners by the Home Ministry vide press release dated April 2, 2020, and the subsequent blacklisting of around 2500 foreigners as reported on June 4, 2020, is in violation of Article 21. Therefore, it is void and unconstitutional as the petitioners have neither been provided any hearing nor notice or intimation in this regard," the plea said.

One of the petitioners named Fareedah Cheema, a Thai national in the seventh month of her pregnancy, said she was quarantined in March, like other foreign nationals but was released from quarantine only in late May and is still at a facility under restricted movements, without the avenue to go back to her home nation and experience the birth of her child with security and dignity, with her loved ones.

These foreign nationals presently in India were blacklisted for a period of 10 years from traveling to India for their alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities.

The Home Ministry had said that foreign Tablighi Jamaat members, who were staying in India in violation of visa rules during the nationwide lockdown implemented to combat the COVID-19 spread, have been blacklisted.
A large congregation organised by Tablighi Jamaat in the national capital in March had emerged as a major COVID-19 hotspot in the country.

The government had said the decision of banning the foreign Tablighi Jamaat members was taken after details of foreigners found illegally living in mosques and religious places emerged from various states across the country.

Mumbai, Jun 22: After downgrading India's outlook to negative from stable, Fitch Ratings on Monday revised the outlook on nine Indian banks to negative.

The outlook on the Long-Term Issuer Default Ratings (IDR) was revised to negative from stable due to the banks' high dependence on the Centre to re-capitalise them.

Accordingly, the IDR outlook of the Export-Import Bank of India, the State Bank of India, the Bank of Baroda, the Bank of Baroda (New Zealand), the Bank of India, the Canara Bank, the Punjab National Bank, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank Ltd have been downgraded to negative.

"At the same time, Fitch has affirmed IDBI Bank Limited's (IDBI) IDR while maintaining the outlook at negative," Fitch said in a statement.

The rating actions follow Fitch's revision of the outlook on the 'BBB-' rating on India to negative from stable on June 18, due to the impact of the escalating coronavirus pandemic on India's economy.

"The IDRs for all the above Indian banks are support-driven and anchored to their respective SRFs," the statement said.

"They are based on Fitch's assessment of high to moderate probability of extraordinary state support for these banks, which takes into account our assessment of the sovereign's ability and propensity to provide extraordinary support."

According to the statement, the negative outlook on India's sovereign rating reflects an increasing strain on the state's ability to provide extraordinary support, due to the sovereign's limited fiscal space and the significant deterioration in fiscal metrics due to challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The rating action does not affect the banks' Viability Rating (VR). EXIM does not have a VR as its role as a policy bank makes an assessment of its standalone credit profile less meaningful."