II PU paper leak: CID hunts for key suspect; results likely to be delayed

New Delhi, Mar 3: Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kapil Mishra, who instigated violence in northeast Delhi by provoking mobs, has now been provided with 24x7 security. After he claimed threat to his life, he has been provided with “Y” category security — which entitles him to six security personnel round-the-clock to guard him in and outside the city.

He had fought the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections by giving inflammatory remarks around the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act in Shaheen Bagh, and lost to Aam Aadmi Party candidate. But he continued to issue provocative remarks.

While there is clear evidence of his scandalous statements just a day before the violence was unleashed on Muslims in Delhi last week where around 50 people were killed, no action has been taken against him so far. Instead, he is being treated as a hero in his party.

As per sources, Mishra complained that he got life threats over the past week in wake of the violence and based on his request, the Delhi Police has provided the security cover.

Mishra had taken to social media platform Twitter and alleged that he was receiving threats via WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook, from Indian and foreign accounts.

“I am constantly being threatened with murder on the phone, on WhatsApp, on email. Hundreds of threats are being given continuously from the country and abroad. I don’t fear this hate campaign against me,” he had said on Twitter on March 1.

Mishra had on February 23 made an incendiary speech, following which North-East Delhi witnessed anti-Muslim violence.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it will on Wednesday (March 4) hear a plea that sought immediate FIRs against Kapil Mishra, Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and other leaders for their recent hate speech, which allegedly triggered the violence in Delhi. The plea was filed by Delhi violence survivors.

The apex court bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, listed the matter for hearing after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is appearing on behalf of the survivors told the SC that the Delhi High Court had last week adjourned the matter for six weeks even as “people are dying every day”.

Mangaluru, Jul 1: Sudarshan Moodbidri, president of Dakshina Kannada district unit of Bharatiya Janata Party escaped unhurt after the car in which he was travelling met with an accident today on the outskirts of the city. 

The car’s front portion was completely damaged in the accident. It is not yet known who was driving the car. Sources said that Sudarshan did not suffer any injury. 

The mishap occurred when the driver lost control while trying to avoid hitting a pedestrian at Mijar near Moodbidri. The car collided with an oncoming vehicle before it veered off the road and entered the roadside sludge.

Sleuths from Moodbidri station police visited the spot as part of investigation.

New Delhi, Jan 19: Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday asserted that every state assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek the amended Citizenship Act's withdrawal, but if the law is declared constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it.

His remarks came a day after he had said there is no way a state can deny the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) when it is already passed by the Parliament.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal said in a tweet.

His remarks on the CAA at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) on Saturday had caused a flutter as several non-BJP governments, including Kerala, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, have voiced their disagreement with the CAA as well as National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR).

"If the CAA is passed no state can say 'I will not implement it'. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.

"But constitutionally saying that I won't implement, it is going to be problematic and going to create more difficulties," said the former minister of law and justice.