RSS leader shot by bike-borne gunmen in Ludhiana

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.

Jun 23: The U.S. government on Monday restricted charter flights from India, accusing the nation of "unfair and discriminatory practices" by violating a treaty governing aviation between the two countries.

Air India Ltd. has been making flights to repatriate its citizens during the travel disruptions caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, but also has been selling tickets to the public, the Transportation Department alleged.

At the same time, U.S. airlines have been prohibited from flying to India by aviation regulators there, the DOT said in its order. The situation "creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. carriers," the agency said in a press release.

Air India is advertising a schedule that is more than half of pre-virus operations, the department said. "The charters go beyond true repatriations, and it appears that Air India may be using repatriation charters as a way of circumventing" that nation's flight restrictions, the U.S. agency said.

The order becomes effective in 30 days, the department said.

Indian airlines must apply to the DOT for authorization before conducting charter flights so that it can scrutinize them more closely, it said. The department will reconsider the restrictions once India lifts restrictions on U.S. carriers.

The action against India follows weeks of DOT restrictions against Chinese airlines after the U.S. agency accused that nation of unfairly banning American carriers in the wake of the virus. On June 15, the U.S. announced it would agree to allow four flights a week from China after it allowed the same number by U.S. carriers.

Attempts to reach Air India and the Indian embassy in Washington after business hours were unsuccessful.

Jan 27: The Andhra Pradesh Cabinet passed a resolution on Monday setting in motion the process for abolishing the state Legislative Council.

A similar resolution will now be adopted in the Legislative Assembly and sent to the Centre for necessary follow-up action.

With just nine members, the ruling YSR Congress is in minority in the 58-member Legislative Council. The opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP) has an upper hand with 28 members and the ruling party could get a majority in the House only in 2021 when a number of opposition members will retire at the end of their six-year term.

The move by the Andhra Pradesh cabinet came after the Y S Jaganmohan Reddy government last week failed to pass in the Upper House of the state legislature two crucial Bills related to its plan of having three capitals for the state.

Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Chairman M A Sharrif on January 22 referred to a select committee the two bills -- AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020, and the AP Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) Act (Repeal) Bill -- for deeper examination.

The chairman had said that he was using his discretionary powers under Rule 154 while referring the Bills to the select panel in line with the demand of the TDP.

Following this, the chief minister had told the Assembly, "We need to seriously think whether we need to have such a House which appears to be functioning with only political motives. It is not mandatory to have the Council, which is our own creation, and it is only for our convenience."

"So let us discuss the issue further on Monday and take a decision on whether or not to continue the Council," he had said.

In fact, the YSRC had on December 17 first threatened to abolish the Council when it became clear that the TDP was bent on blocking two Bills related to creation of a separate Commission for SCs and conversion of all government schools into English medium.

As the Legislature was adjourned sine dine on December 17, no further action was taken. But last week, the issue cropped up again as the TDP remained firm on its stand on opposing the three-capitals plan.

The YSRC managed to get two TDP members to its side, but the government failed to get the three capitals Bills passed in the Council.

"What will be the meaning of governance if the House of Elders does not allow good decisions to be taken in the interest of people and block enactment of laws? We need to seriously think about it… Whether we should have such a House or do away with it," the chief minister had said in the Assembly.