‘Modi govt will not tolerate this’: HRD minister to universities against CAA

New Delhi, Mar 9: A war of words broke out between the BJP and the Congress on Sunday over the Yes Bank crisis with the ruling party seeking to link it with the Gandhi family, while the opposition wondered if the prime minister and finance minister were "complicit" as the bank's loan book grew manifold.

Posting on Twitter a clip of a news channel report that Rana Kapoor, the arrested Yes Bank founder, had bought a painting from Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, BJP's information and technology wing in-charge Amit Malviya alleged that every financial crime in India has "deep links" with the Gandhis.

The Congress dismissed the charge "fake" and called it a "diversionary" tactic.

It said Priyanka Gandhi had sold an M F Hussain painting of her father Rajiv Gandhi to Kapoor for Rs 2 crore, and the entire amount was disclosed in her income tax return of 2010.

Malviya tweeted, "Every financial crime in India has deep link with the Gandhis. Mallya used to send flight upgrade tickets to Sonia Gandhi. Had access to MMS (Manmohan Singh) and PC (P Chidambaram). Is absconding. Rahul inaugurated Nirav Modi’s bridal jewellery collection, he defaulted. Rana bought Priyanka Vadra’s paintings."

Congress' chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala asked how does an M F Hussain painting of Rajiv Gandhi sold 10 years ago by Priyanka Gandhi to Yes Bank owner Rana Kapoor and disclosed in her tax returns connect with unprecedented giving of loans of Rs 2,00,000 crore in five years of the Modi government.

"More so, when (Kapoor's) proximity to BJP leaders is well known," he said.

Rubbishing the BJP's allegation, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi at a press conference said it was a "diversionary" tactic by the government.

He noted that the bank's loan book rose from Rs 55,633 crore in March 2014, the year Narendra Modi became prime minister, to Rs 2,41,499 crore in March 2019.

"Why did the loan book rise by 100 per cent in two years after demonetisation i.e from Rs 98,210 cr in March 2016 to Rs 2,03,534 ar in March 2018? Were PM and FM sleeping, ignorant or complicit?" he asked.

The entire amount Priyanka Gandhi had received was in cheque and was fully disclosed in the income tax return, Singhvi said.

Surjewala, taking to Twitter, said instead of diverting from the real issue of people's money sinking into a bad bank, should not the government answer questions like how did loans given by Yes Bank rise from Rs 55,633 crore in March 2014 to Rs 2,41,499 crore in March 2019, an increase of almost Rs 2,00,000 crore in fiver years of the Modi government.

Why did the loans given by Yes Bank rise by a whopping 100 per cent in just two years after demonetisation, he asked.

Surjewala also questioned why did the prime minister address a conference sponsored by Yes Bank on March 6 despite the RBI moratorium.

"Why did the Haryana BJP government deposit over Rs 1,000 crore in Yes Bank a month ago, knowing that it was sinking? Is this figure Rs 3,000 cr? Did Fadnavis government in Maharashtra make similar deposits?" Surjewala asked.

"Of course, the government's media proxies won't dare to ask these questions. But the nation wants to know!" he said in a series of tweets.

Kapoor, 62, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in Mumbai after charges of alleged financial irregularities and mismanagement in the bank's operations surfaced and the RBI and Union government initiated action to control its affairs.

Jaipur, Jan 27: Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said that if the Citizenship Amendment Act leads to the implementation of the NPR and the NRC, it would be a complete victory for Pakistan's founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

He said that Jinnah's idea of a country was already winning in India with the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) coming into effect, but asserted that there was still a choice available.

"I would not say Jinnah has completely won, but I would say Jinnah is winning. There is still a choice available to the nation between Jinnah's idea of a country and Gandhiji's idea of a country," he said on the sidelines of the Jaipur Literature Festival on Sunday.

The CAA came into force in India in December amid protests across the country and around the world.

The MP from Thiruvananthapuram said that the amended Citizenship Act took Jinnah's logic by declaring that religion shall be the basis of nationhood, reaffirming that Gandhi's idea is that all religions are equal .

"The CAA is, if you are talking Tennis, you would say one set up or big first set lead for Jinnah. But the next step would be if the CAA would lead to the National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). If that happens, then you would consider that Jinnah's victory is complete," he said.

The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

On the BJP's defence that the NPR was carried out during the UPA regime, Tharoor said that the Congress government had utilised a decision of the NDA government led by former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"It never asked where were your parents born. It never authorised the enumerators to note on the margin 'dubious citizenship', a term used in the NPR rules crafted by this government. That is purely BJP's invention," he said.

If we go around this country authorising people to interview all the citizens, or identify some who have 'dubious citizenship', you can be pretty sure which Indians are going to be found on the 'dubious citizenship', he said.

"That will principally be one community that is not mentioned in the CAA. And if that happens, then it is indeed Jinnah's victory.

"From wherever he is, he can point to this place and say, 'see I was right in the 1940. We are separate nations and Muslims deserved their own country because Hindus cannot be just'," Tharoor said.

Speaking about the Delhi election, the three-time MP said that the maximum development in the national capital happened under the Congress government.

"What Sheila Dikshit did in her 15 years as Chief Minister of Delhi, no other leader could do it before or after her," he said.

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.