Shiv Sena calls for ban on burqa across India

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"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 tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.

Dubai, Apr 26: Families were shattered as the three dead bodies of UAE-based Indian expats were returned to the country from New Delhi, India.

Family members waited outside the Indira Gandhi International Airport for hours, but they were later told to go back home as the remains of expats Jagsir Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Kamlesh Bhatt were flown back to Abu Dhabi, following a new order implemented by India's Ministry of Home Affairs.

Inderjeet, brother-in-law of Sanjeev based in Al Ain, said their family in Punjab was devastated.

"This is a non-coronavirus death. We had a death certificate as proof and all necessary documents from Indian Embassy. But the body was returned while our family members waited outside the airport. This is very shocking," Inderjeet said.

"The body shouldn't have been returned. It's difficult to travel across states due to Covid-19 restrictions and also to arrange the ambulance," he added.

"Now the embassy has told me to come on Sunday. They said hopefully things will be sorted out in a day or two."

Meanwhile, the family of Kamlesh resides in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. This means, with existing travel restrictions, they had to secure permits from different states to reach New Delhi.

Dubai-based social worker Girish Pant, who is in touch with the family, said they are all depressed with the unfortunate turn of events.

"His brother Vimlesh had to return home without the remains. They are all clueless and in pain. With the new order from the Ministry of Home Affairs, I have informed the family that the body will reach them within 48 hours. I am also coordinating with the Indian Embassy," Pant said.

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.