They circulated Pakistani video and claimed Indian Muslims celebrated Pak victory

CD Network
June 23, 2017

Mumbai, Jun 23: Days after Pakistan hammered a blundering India by 180 runs to lift the ICC Champions Trophy, at The Oval, a video showing hundreds of people donned in white attire with skull caps on their heads celebrating men in green’s victory has created a row on social media.

cricketThe online ‘swayamsevaks’ of Sangh Parivar went on to claim that the video was shot in a mosque in Mumbai's Mira road where according to them people celebrated Pakistan's triumph.

The video, which went viral on social media, especially on Twitter and Whatsapp, instigated much hate speech and jingoism, with some resorting to use derogatory remarks against Indian Muslims.

However, during investigation it was ascertained that no Mumbai mosque ever glorified India's defeat. "The premises or place shown in the video cannot be a mosque because TV sets will not be installed inside places of prayer," said a senior police officer in Mumbai.

When the video was monitored closely, it was established that the clip was not shot in India. Moreover, as per the clip people cheering for Pakistan were watching the match aired on PTV sports, the official broadcaster of ICC Champions Trophy in Pakistan.

The fact is that the video was shot in Pakistan where people were supporting and cheering for their team’s victory. It's a celebration of Pakistan's win by Pakistanis inside Pakistan and not by Indians as claimed by the hatemongers on social media.

When the reality came to light, the fun-mongers on social media started accusing Saffronists of granting Indian nationality to Pakistanis. “Funny Sanghis. They call Indians as Pakistanis and Pakistanis as Indians,” tweeted an Indian youth.

Comments

Ahmed K.C.
 - 
Friday, 23 Jun 2017

Saffronists may prove in future to be more deadly than ISIS.

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
July 3,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 3: Karnataka Health Department on Thursday permitted District Health Departments to appoint doctors with MBBS, on a contractual basis with permission of concerned District Health Officers and Commissioners, a statement said.

The state government has also hiked the salary of contractual doctors from Rs 45000 to Rs 60000 per month.

Earlier in the day, Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu urged contract doctors to continue offering their services amid their demand for regularisation of services.

"I request the contract doctors with folded hands to continue offering their services. With regard to their two demands, one of salary hike and the other being permanency, I assure all of them that I stand with them and their requests will definitely be fulfilled," said Mr Sriramulu.

The Chief Minister had also discussed about the two issues yesterday and agreed to facilitate the pay hike, he added.

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
July 29,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 29: The Karnataka High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice H P Sandesh today rejected an application that wanted Amulya Leona’s case to be transferred from Karnataka Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The bench, while observing that extraordinary jurisdiction can’t be exercised for transferring the case to the NIA, asked “What is so special that investigation should be transferred to NIA?”

The court, in its previous hearing, had questioned the maintainability of the petition seeking transfer of the sedition case against Leona to the NIA.

According to the petitioner, advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty, the case is a serious matter against national integration and unity and has not been investigated properly by the police. The state police also failed to file the chargesheet within 90 days, he said, and also asked for cancellation of her bail.

The bench asked the petitioner as to how a bail, already granted to a person, can be cancelled. “Is it not the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail if chargesheet is not filed within stipulated time? How can you make a prayer for cancellation of bail?”  the Court asked.

The counsel for the petitioner also stated that in cases of a cognizable offence, when the chargesheet is purposely not filed within the stipulated time, the matter will have to transferred to the appropriate authority.

The court responded to his contention by asking him how could the court override law and cancel the bail. “Where is the question of cancellation of bail? Can we override the law and say that bail should be cancelled?” said the bench.

Advocate Vishal Raghu had filed the petition for transfer of Leona’s case, who was accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park. The advocate had blamed the probe team for not filing a chargesheet on time and has asked the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Leona.

Bengaluru student Amulya Leona was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi. She was arrested by the Bengaluru police for allegedly shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans at an anti- CAA Protest in Bengaluru in February this year. On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

Her bail plea was earlier rejected by a Bengaluru court, after she had spent a three-month period in jail, stating that she may abscond if she is released. The sessions judge Vidhyadhar Shirahatti had also stated that if the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond and may involve in similar offence which affects peace at large and hence her petition is liable to be rejected. The court had also noted that Amulya Leona is an influential person who may threaten and influence the witness and hamper the case in case of the prosecution and will abscond if released on bail.

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
February 5,2020

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.

Comments

Suresh SS
 - 
Wednesday, 5 Feb 2020

We believed that only Indian Govt. ministers, MP and MLAs has this disease, now it is spreading everywhere even Indian High courts. it is certainly very harmful virus  

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.