Modi to get US President-like reception in Israel; terrorism, economic ties on agenda

New Delhi, Jun 11: Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot has obliquely hinted that the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is pulling out all stops to destabilise the Congress-led government by luring some of the ruling party’s members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) with Rs 25 crore each.

He alleged that the BJP’s plan is similar to that of toppling the erstwhile Kamal Nath-led government in Madhya Pradesh (MP) and some of his party lawmakers have been offered Rs 10 crore each in advance of the promised sum of Rs 25 crore.

The CM made these allegations while speaking to media persons late on Wednesday night, when the Congress took its 107 party MLAs and 13 independent lawmakers to a resort located on the outskirts of Jaipur for a meeting ahead of the upcoming Rajya Sabha polls for three seats from the desert state slated to be held on June 19.

The 120 MLAs will be shifted to the resort on Thursday.

“Our MLAs are intelligent, alert, and united. Rajasthan is the only state in the country, where 13 independent MLAs supported our government for neither exchange of any money nor post. However, the condition on which our MLAs left the party for the BJP in MP is not good,” Gehlot said.

Rajasthan government’s chief whip Mahesh Joshi in a complaint to the director-general, anti-corruption bureau (ACB), has alleged attempts to poach Congress MLAs and the independent lawmakers, who are supporting the Gehlot-led government.

“Attempts are being made to destabilise the government in Rajasthan on the lines of Karnataka and MP,” Joshi alleged.

Gehlot said that he would hold another round of meeting with the 107 Congress and 13 independent MLAs on Thursday.

The CM also targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging that the Upper House elections were postponed under pressure because the BJP could not poach an adequate number of MLAs in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

He blamed the saffron party for its lack of faith in democracy, as it has ensured the resignation of eight Congress MLAs in Gujarat since March, including three earlier this week.

Mukesh Pareek, BJP’s state spokesperson, refuted the allegations levelled by CM Gehlot against his party and asked the ruling Congress to give evidence of alleged poaching of its and independent lawmakers.

‘The Congress has failed to manage its own house. There is growing resentment in the party’s rank and file over its failed national leadership,” Pareek alleged.

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.

Kochi, Apr 24: The central government on Thursday submitted a statement in the Kerala High Court on the three petitions challenging the contract between Kerala government and US-based data analytics company Sprinklr.

Assistant Solicitor General P Vijayakumar filed the statement on behalf of the central government, which is the second respondent in the case.

The statement said that the contract between the Kerala government and Sprinklr dilutes the rights of the people. It stated the contract does not specify the amount of compensation that individuals should receive in case of breach of privacy or misuse of information.

It also said that it was not clear whether the information was collected and handed over to the data analytics firm with full consent of the patients (suspected and otherwise).

''It is always preferable to utilise the services available in the government sector for sharing sensitive data required for analytical purposes.

The Government of India has introduced the 'Aarogya Setu' application for collection of health data and about seven crore Indian citizens have already downloaded the same. All the state governments are advised to promote the said application for fighting the pandemic," the statement said.

It was further submitted that the "Government of India with the support of NIC is capable of providing all the requirements relating to data storage, processing and application which are being offered the third respondent, if a request to that effect comes from the state government."

Kerala Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala and BJP state president K Surendran had earlier approached the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the state government's agreement with Sprinklr for processing of data related to COVID-19 patients.