Resumption of passenger trains provides relief to people stranded due to lockdown

Hyderabad, Feb 26: Hyderabad Police on Tuesday registered a case against well-known poet Imran Pratapgarhi for his statement asking why there was "no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad".

According to Charminar Police, the complaint was registered by Sub-Inspector S Guruswamy, who was on duty at the QQ Stadium on February 24 where an Ehtaji Mishaira (Poetry Program) against the Citizenship Amendment Act, National Register Commission and National Population Register was held.

Permission for the said event was granted by Hyderabad Additional Commissioner of Police to the program organisers with certain guidelines including that poetry program should be held on February 24 from 6 pm to 9 pm, and no speaker should give provocative speeches in the program.

However, police said that the program was started by the organisers at 6 pm and continued till 9:48 pm even after police officers asked them to end the event by 9 pm. The program was attended by around 3,000 members at QQ stadium.

According to police, while addressing the meeting Pratapgarhi said: "Mujhe hairath hai us Hyderabad mein koi Shaheen Bagh kyu nahi hai (I am surprised why there is no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad)", which is "provocative" and may cause fear to any section of the public.

In this regard, a case has been registered against organisers for disobeying public servants' orders and the poet has been booked for delivering provocative statements under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Further investigation is underway.

Meanwhile, Congress leader Mohammed Ali Shabbir took to Twitter to condemn the police action.

"Hyderabad Police booked a case against poet Imran Pratapgarhi for expressing surprise on why there is no Shaheen Bagh in Hyderabad. For police, this sentence is provocative. Is Shaheen Bagh not a part of India?," Shabbir tweeted.

"Shame on TRS Government and Hyderabad Police for targeting a poet for no-fault," he added.

New Delhi, May 31: Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Sunday questioned the Prime Minister on how much money has been given to labourers from the PM-CARES Fund.

"I would like to ask Prime Minister Modi, 'Can you tell us how much money did you give to labourers from your PM-CARES Fund?' I request him to answer this question. Many people died during this period, some died while walking, some died in the train, some died of hunger," Sibal said while addressing a virtual press conference.

The senior Congress leader further asked how much ex gratia did the Prime Minister give to the labourers who died in the corona crisis while negotiating the lockdown.

"I refer you to Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act. It says that ex gratia assistance on account of the loss of life and also assistance for the restoration of livelihood should be provided by the government. Did the government give ex gratia assistance to people who died in the crisis? The act also mentions special provisions for widows and orphans. The government should clarify how much assistance they gave to such people," he said.

Sibal said that the government should keep aside its agenda for the last six years and concentrate on making pro-poor policies.

"In the coming days, our economy is going to go into the negative territory as also confirmed by RBI. There are 45 crore labourers in our country. What will be their state? We have to look at our future. That is why we want to request the government that the agenda that they have run over the last six years should be kept aside and that government should care about the poor and draft policies for them," the Congress leader said.

New Delhi, Jan 19: Reacting to a tweet by ace lawyer Indira Jaising urging her to forgive the four men on death row for brutally raping that finally took her life, Nirbhaya's mother said on Saturday: "Even if God asks me, I won't forgive them."

Speaking to news agency, over the phone, the mother who had been fighting for seven long years to send her daughter's killers to the gallows, said, "...even if god comes and asks me to forgive them, I will not. People like these (Jaising) are a blot on the society."

Commenting on Jaising's tweet, she said: "Who is she to tell or suggest to me to forgive them. What relation does she have with me. I have nothing to do with such people. She can be a relative of those (the convicts) that she is having a soft corner for."

"She is an insult to women. She is running a business in the name of human rights. She is a veteran, she should give a message to the society. But she instead will go against her own kind," she added.

Earlier in the day, Jaising had requested Nirbhaya's mother to follow the example of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who had moved for the clemency of a woman, Nalini Murugan convicted for the assassination of her husband and former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

"While I fully identify with the pain of Nirbhaya's mother I urge her to follow the example of Sonia Gandhi who forgave Nalini and said she didn't want the death penalty for her. We are with you but against death penalty," Jaising tweeted on Friday.

A Delhi Court on Friday issued fresh death warrants against the four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Mukesh and Vinay in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Satish Kumar Arora fixed 1 February as the date of execution of the four death row convicts. They will be hanged at 6am.

The move came after the prosecution moved an application seeking issuance of fresh death warrants following the rejection of the mercy plea of one of the convicts Mukesh by President Ram Nath Kovind.

The 23-year-old victim was brutally gang-raped and tortured on December 16, 2012, which later led to her death.

All the six accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accused was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court, while another accused committed suicide in Tihar Jail.

Four of the convicts were sentenced to death by a trial court in September 2013, and the verdict was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014 and upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2017, which also dismissed their review petitions.