Mughal emperors were Traitors; Taj Mahal a blot on Indian culture: BJP MLA Sangeet Som

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.

Mangaluru, Apr 4: The mother and grandmother of the 10-month-old baby boy, under treatment at a private hospital in Deralakatte here for COVID-19 infection, tested negative.

Doctors at the hospital said the condition of the infant, who was admitted with an acute respiratory infection, was stable and there had been a good response to the treatment being given in isolation.

The child, hailing from Sajipanadu Village in Bantwal Taluk was admitted to a hospital at Deralakatte in Mangaluru for treatment on March 23 as it had developed respiratory problems. 

On March 24, the child’s condition worsened and hence his throat swabs was sent for COVID-19 testing. On March 27, reports of the tests confirmed that the child was infected with COVID-19.

Health authorities are of the view that the baby might have contracted the disease when the family travelled recently to Kasaragod in Kerala, a district identified as a hotspot for Coronavirus.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.