RSS leader shot by bike-borne gunmen in Ludhiana

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 20:  Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that the government would revoke the order, which allowed the opening of barbershops and restaurants in the State.

The development comes after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) objected to the move.
When asked about the letter issued by the MHA terming certain decisions as to the dilution of guidelines, Chief Minister Vijayan said: "There is no confrontation between the State government and the Centre."

"Kerala is following all directions issued by the Centre. Barbershops will not be opened and restaurants will only provide online delivery," he told the reporters, adding that public transport would not be allowed.

"There was a decision to open barbershops but many experts have pointed out against the decision. So the Kerala government is withdrawing the decision," he said.

Earlier, Chief Secretary Tom Jose said that if needed, then the State government will make necessary modifications to the lockdown guidelines in the wake of a communication received from the Central government.

The MHA had objected to the decision of Kerala government to allow services like barbershops, local workshops, restaurants, etc., and had urged the State government to revise its lockdown guidelines.

The Government of India had said that violation to lockdown measures reported posed a serious health hazard to the public and risk the spread of COVID-19.

Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla wrote to all Chief Secretaries and a separate letter had been sent to the Kerala Chief Secretary asking them not to dilute lockdown guidelines in any manner.

In his letter to the Kerala Chief Secretary, Bhalla had stated that the consolidated revised guidelines on the measures to be taken by the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India has been circulated on April 15 for containment of COVID-19.

Kerala Minister Kadakampally Surendran had said that relaxations have been given abiding by the direction issued by the Central government. He had added that the Centre may have asked for an explanation due to some misunderstanding.

India is under a nation-wide lockdown that came into force on March 25 to contain the spread of coronavirus, which has claimed 559 lives in the country. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the extension of lockdown till May 3.

New Delhi, Jun 22: The Delhi Police Monday urged the Delhi High Court to grant them a day’s more time for seeking instructions on a plea by Jamia student Safoora Zargar, who was pregnant and arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA--, seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, allowed the request after Zargar’s counsel said she has no objection to it and listed the matter for Tuesday.

Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought a day’s time to take instructions on the issue and said it will be in “larger interest” if he is given indulgence.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi also joined Mehta and said they are ready with the arguments on merits of the case but they do not intend to proceed on merits at this stage.

Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Zargar, said the woman is in a delicate state and is in a fairly advanced stage pregnancy and if the police need time to respond to the plea, she be granted interim bail for the time being.

The high court asked Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to come back with instructions on Tuesday.

The police has also filed a status report in response to the bail plea.

Jamia Coordination Committee member Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged in the high court the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.

The hearing in the high court also witnessed exchange of words between Mehta, Lekhi on one side and Delhi government standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra who objected the appearance of the two senior law officers on behalf of Delhi Police in the case.

Mehra contended that unlike another North East Delhi violence matter in which requisite approval was sought by the Delhi Police to be represented by a team of lawyers led by the Solicitor General, no such procedure was followed in this case.

"They know that my view in such cases will be more humanitarian and not as per their whims and fancies. I am not supposed to be the mouth piece of the Delhi Police, I am an officer of the court," he said.

Lekhi shot back "a client chooses the lawyer and a lawyer cannot impose himself on the client.

He said this controversy would deviate the court from the issue in hand and Mehra's objection can be kept aside in this case.

The high court concluded the hearing, asking the counsel for Delhi Police to sort out their battles by tomorrow.

 The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima facie evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.

The trial court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.

The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.

It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.

Kathmandu, Jul 14: After staking claim to Indian territories of Lipulekh-Kalapani in  a new controversial map,  Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Monday claimed that Ayodhya, the birthplace of Lord Rama, is in Nepal and Lord Rama was Nepali.

“Although real Ayodhya lies at Thori, city in the west of Birgunj, India has claimed that Lord Rama was born there. Due to these continuous claims, even we have believed that deity Sita got married to Prince Rama of India. However, in reality, Ayodhya is a village lying west of Birgunj,” Oli claimed at an event organised at Prime Minister's residence in Kathmandu.

The Prime Minister also blamed India of cultural encroachment by “creating a fake Ayodhya.”

“Balmiki Ashram is in Nepal and the holy place where King Dashrath had executed the rites to get the son is in Ridi. Dashrath’s son Ram was not an Indian and Ayodhya is also in Nepal,” he claimed.

In an attempt to save self from criticism, Oli questioned how Lord Rama could come to Janakpur to marry Sita when there were "no means" of communication. He further said that it to be impossible for Lord Rama to come to Janakpur from present Ayodhya that lies in India.

“Janakpur lies here and Ayodhya there and there is talk of marriage. There was neither telephone nor mobile then how could he know about Janakpur,” Oli said.