Delhi High Court orders permanent commission for women in Navy

Hyderabad, Feb 26: Hyderabad Police on Tuesday registered a case against well-known poet Imran Pratapgarhi for his statement asking why there was "no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad".

According to Charminar Police, the complaint was registered by Sub-Inspector S Guruswamy, who was on duty at the QQ Stadium on February 24 where an Ehtaji Mishaira (Poetry Program) against the Citizenship Amendment Act, National Register Commission and National Population Register was held.

Permission for the said event was granted by Hyderabad Additional Commissioner of Police to the program organisers with certain guidelines including that poetry program should be held on February 24 from 6 pm to 9 pm, and no speaker should give provocative speeches in the program.

However, police said that the program was started by the organisers at 6 pm and continued till 9:48 pm even after police officers asked them to end the event by 9 pm. The program was attended by around 3,000 members at QQ stadium.

According to police, while addressing the meeting Pratapgarhi said: "Mujhe hairath hai us Hyderabad mein koi Shaheen Bagh kyu nahi hai (I am surprised why there is no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad)", which is "provocative" and may cause fear to any section of the public.

In this regard, a case has been registered against organisers for disobeying public servants' orders and the poet has been booked for delivering provocative statements under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Further investigation is underway.

Meanwhile, Congress leader Mohammed Ali Shabbir took to Twitter to condemn the police action.

"Hyderabad Police booked a case against poet Imran Pratapgarhi for expressing surprise on why there is no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad. For police, this sentence is provocative. Is Shaheen Bagh not a part of India?," Shabbir tweeted.

"Shame on TRS Government and Hyderabad Police for targeting a poet for no-fault," he added.

New Delhi, Jan 22: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has assets worth Rs 3.4 crore, an increase of Rs 1.3 crore from 2015, according to his election affidavit.

Kejriwal's total assets were worth Rs 2.1 crore in 2015.

The cash and fixed deposits of Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal increased from Rs 15 lakh in 2015 to Rs 57 lakh in 2020.

A party functionary said Rs 32 lakh worth cash and fixed deposits have been received by Sunita Kejriwal as voluntary retirement benefits while the rest are savings.

The cash and fixed deposits of the chief minister increased from Rs 2.26 lakh in 2015 to Rs 9.65 lakh in 2020.

There was no change in the value of immovable assets of his wife while Kejriwal's immovable assets' worth increased from Rs 92 lakh to Rs 177 lakh.

The party functionaries said increase in Kejriwal's immovable assets' worth is due to the increased valuation of the same asset as in 2015.

London, Feb 14: Liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya once again asked the Indian banks to take back 100 per cent of the principal amount owed to them at the end of his three-day British High Court appeal on Thursday against an extradition order to India.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to an alleged Rs 9,000 crores in unpaid bank loans, said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are fighting over the same assets and not treating him reasonably in the process.

“I request the banks with folded hands, take 100 per cent of your principal back, immediately,” he said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

“The Enforcement Directorate attached the assets on the complaint by the banks that I was not paying them. I have not committed any offenses under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) that the Enforcement Directorate should suo moto attach my assets," he said.

"I am saying, please banks take your money. The ED is saying no, we have a claim over these assets. So, the ED on the one side and the banks on the other are fighting over the same assets,” he added.

Asked about heading back to India, he noted: “I should be where my family is, where my interests are.

"If the CBI and the ED are going to be reasonable, it’s a different story. What all they are doing to me for the last four years is totally unreasonable.”

Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-member bench presiding over the appeal, concluded hearing the arguments in the case and said they will be handing down their verdict at a later date after considering the oral as well as written submissions in the “very dense” case over the next few weeks.

On a day of heated arguments between Mallya’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) counsel Mark Summers, arguing on behalf of the Indian government, both sides clashed over the prima facie case of fraud and deception against Mallya.

“We submit that he lied to get the loans, then did something with the money he wasn’t supposed to and then refused to give back the money. All this could be perceived by a jury as patently dishonest conduct,” said Summers.

“What they [Kingfisher Airlines] were saying [to the banks] about profitability going forward was knowingly wrong,” he said, as he took the High Court through evidence to counter Mallya’s lawyers’ claims that Westminster Magistrates Court Judge Emma Arbuthnot had fallen into error when she found a case to answer in the Indian courts against Mallya.

Mallya, who remains on bail on an extradition warrant, is not required to attend the hearings but has been in court to observe the proceedings since the three-day appeal opened on Tuesday. A key defence to disprove a prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation on his part has revolved around the fact that Kingfisher Airlines was the victim of economic misfortune alongside other Indian airlines.

However, the CPS has argued that “there is enough in the 32,000 pages of overall evidence to fulfil the [extradition] treaty obligations that there is a case to answer”. “There is not just a prima facie case but overwhelming evidence of dishonesty… and given the volume and depth of evidence the District Judge [Arbuthnot] had before her, the judgment is comprehensive and detailed with the odd error but nothing that impacts the prima facie case,” said Summers.

At the start of the appeal, Mallya’s counsel claimed Arbuthnot did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment. The High Court must establish if the magistrates’ court had in fact fallen short on a point of law in its verdict in favour of extradition.

Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well as the Indian High Commission in London, have been present in court to take notes during the course of the appeal hearing.

Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.

At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found “clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds” and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.

Mallya remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017 involving a bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.