Demolish Delhi Jama Masjid, hang me if idols are not found: Sakshi Maharaj

New Delhi, Mar 2: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Sunday hit out at Union Home Minister Amit Shah for his comments that no one from the minority community will be affected by amended Citizenship Act and asked why then was the community excluded from the law in the first place.

Addressing a rally in Kolkata, Shah assured people of the minority community that not a single person will lose citizenship due to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).

"The Home Minister says that no minority will be affected by CAA. If this is correct, they should tell the country who would be affected by CAA. If no one would be affected by CAA, as it currently is, why did the government pass the law?

"If the CAA aims to benefit all minorities (no one will be affected, says HM), then why are Muslims excluded from the list of minorities mentioned in the Act?," the former finance minister asked in a post on Twitter.

At his first public rally in Kolkata after the 2019 general elections, Shah said, "The opposition is terrorising the minorities. I assure every person from the minority community that the CAA only provides citizenship, does not take it away. It won't affect your citizenship."

"The opposition parties are spreading canards that refugees will have to show papers but this is absolutely false. You don't have to show any paper. We will not stop until all refugees are granted citizenship," Shah told the public.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".