Home Ministry asks for report Into PM effigy burning at JNU

Patna, Feb 21: The country is paying the price for failure to send Muslims to Pakistan and bring Hindus to India after the Islamic state came into being at the time of Independence, Union minister Giriraj Singh has said, triggering a fresh controversy.

The BJP leader made the remark in Purnea district in the Seemanchal region of Bihar which has a sizeable Muslim population and where the Begusarai MP was canvassing in favor of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Highlighting the need for such a legislation, he told reporters late Thursday "when our forefathers were fighting for Independence from British rule, Jinnah was pushing for the creation of an Islamic state".

"Our forefathers, however, committed a mistake. Had they ensured that all our Muslim brothers were sent to Pakistan and Hindus brought here, the need for such a move (CAA) would not have arisen. This did not happen and we have paid a heavy price for it," the outspoken BJP leader said.

The CAA, which seeks to fast-track granting citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who might have fled their home countries because of religious persecution, has become a major bone of contention since it is feared that a country-wide National Register for Citizens (NRC) may follow.

The Narendra Modi government, which had formerly hinted that a country-wide NRC was on the anvil, seems to have put it on the backburner though a section of citizens across the country, especially Muslims, have been organizing protests out of fear that, if implemented, the NRC may result in a large number of people becoming stateless.

Singh has often been in the crosshairs of the opposition for placing his foot in the mouth. This time, however, his words were frowned upon even by NDA ally Lok Janshakti Party, founded by his cabinet colleague Ram Vilas Paswan and now headed by his son Chirag Paswan.

The young LJP chief, who kicked off a state-wide "Bihar First-Bihari First" yatra here Friday morning, to project the NDAs progressive face ahead of the assembly polls due later this year, expressed strong disapproval of Singh's utterance and noted the coalition had to suffer in the Delhi polls because of "divisive" remarks by BJP leaders.

"We are an NDA constituent but many times our coalition partners say things which the LJP does not at all agree with. This one (Giriraj Singhs statement) is such an example. Had a person of my party spoken in this fashion, I would have taken responsibility and acted," Paswan said.

He said he had placed his view repeatedly on record that the coalition had to suffer on account of divisive remarks, Paswan said in apparent reference to inflammatory speeches by BJP leaders like Union minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Parvesh Verma, among others.

"The people of Delhi voted on the basis of performance. We wish they do so again in Bihar and real issues don't get drowned in political cacophony.

"The Nitish Kumar government has accomplished a lot, though much more needs to be achieved. We wish to reach out to people with our vision for the future, said Paswan, before he embarked on the yatra on a customized bus decorated like a chariot in front of which he offered prayers and smashed a coconut.

Meanwhile, Giriraj Singh who loves to wear his Hindu nationalism on the sleeves was busy joining issue with Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM which has been under attack for controversial remarks by its leader Waris Pathan.

Sharing video of an old speech by Owaisis brother Akbaruddin which had landed him in jail, besides Pathan's recent remark, Singh asked the opposition RJD-Congress combine in Bihar and the "tukde tukde gang" whether they wanted to "convert India into Pakistan".

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

New Delhi, Jun 22: The Delhi Police Monday urged the Delhi High Court to grant them a day’s more time for seeking instructions on a plea by Jamia student Safoora Zargar, who was pregnant and arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA--, seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, allowed the request after Zargar’s counsel said she has no objection to it and listed the matter for Tuesday.

Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought a day’s time to take instructions on the issue and said it will be in “larger interest” if he is given indulgence.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi also joined Mehta and said they are ready with the arguments on merits of the case but they do not intend to proceed on merits at this stage.

Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Zargar, said the woman is in a delicate state and is in a fairly advanced stage pregnancy and if the police need time to respond to the plea, she be granted interim bail for the time being.

The high court asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to come back with instructions on Tuesday.

The police has also filed a status report in response to the bail plea.

Jamia Coordination Committee member Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged in the high court the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.

The hearing in the high court also witnessed exchange of words between Mehta, Lekhi on one side and Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra who objected the appearance of the two senior law officers on behalf of Delhi Police in the case.

Mehra contended that unlike another North East Delhi violence matter in which requisite approval was sought by the Delhi Police to be represented by a team of lawyers led by the Solicitor General, no such procedure was followed in this case.

"They know that my view in such cases will be more humanitarian and not as per their whims and fancies. I am not supposed to be the mouth piece of the Delhi Police, I am an officer of the court," he said.

Lekhi shot back "a client chooses the lawyer and a lawyer cannot impose himself on the client.

He said this controversy would deviate the court from the issue in hand and Mehra's objection can be kept aside in this case.

The high court concluded the hearing, asking the counsel for Delhi Police to sort out their battles by tomorrow.

 The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima facie evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.

The trial court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.

The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.

It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.