Liberal `Hindutva' will be ideology of new party: Keshubhai

Mumbai, Jan 12: Thousands of citizens on Sunday congregated in Mumbai's suburban Jogeshwari to oppose the new citizenship law, the proposed NRC and NPR.

They also condemned last Sunday's violence on the JNU campus in Delhi, where masked men ran riot and attacked students. Leftist organisations had claimed RSS-affiliated ABVP's role in the attack, a charge denied by the students' body.

Former Tata Institute of Social Science (TISS) general secretary Fahad Ahmed told PTI that they assembled under the aegis of 'Hum Bharat Ke Log' in Millat Nagar area.

"Prime minister Narendra Modi should call 56 students from across the country to debate on the CAA, NRC and NPR," Ahmed said in an apparent jibe at Modi's "56 inch chest" remark, which the latter had made ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.

"Why the PM is not talking to us? Why is he not communicating? Even the Britishers used to talk to Indians whom they ruled, but our PM is not talking to poor people," he alleged.

Bollywood actor Sushasht Singh also spoke on the occasion.

"We are people of this country and such acts (CAA) are tarnishing the image of our country," he said.

At the gathering, people waved banners with slogans like "I Am From Gujarat, My Documents Burned in 2002", "No CAA, Boycott NRC, Stop Dividing India, Don't Divide us", "Save Constitution", written on them.

A large number of police personnel were present at the venue.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which was notified on January 10, grants Indian citizenship to non-Muslim minorities migrated to India from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh till December 31, 2014, following persecution over their faith.

Massive protests were witnessed against the CAA, mainly by the student community, since its passage by Parliament in December last year.

Opposition parties have been dubbing the CAA an "anti-Muslim" legislation, a charge being debunked by the government.

The Congress and other parties like the TMC have also opposed the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR).

Union home minister Amit Shah has said that the government won't rest until persecuted refugees are granted Indian citizenship.

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.