Two coaches of Bangalore-Chennai mail derail; no casualties

Mumbai, Feb 5: Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray on Wednesday said there was no need to fear the Citizenship Amendment Act, but asserted his government will not allow the proposed National Register of Citizens to be implemented as it would "impact people of all religions".

Throwing out Bangladeshi and Pakistani migrants out of the country was an old demand of the Shiv Sena, the chief minister said in the third and concluding part of his interview to party mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

"I can confidentally say the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) is not meant to throw Indian citizens out of the country. But, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is going to impact Hindus as well," the Sena president said.

India has the right to know the number of minorities from neighbouring nations who applied for Indian citizenship after being persecuted in their home countries, he said.

"When they come here, will they get homes under the 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana'? What about employment and education of their children? All these issues are important and we have the right to know," hesaid in the interview to Saamana's executive editor and Sena MP Sanjay Raut.

"As chief minister, I should know where will these people be relocated in my state. Our own people don't have adequate housing. Will these people go to Delhi, Bengaluru or Kashmir, since Article 370 is now scrapped?" he wondered.

Several Kashmiri Pandit families are staying like refugees in their own country. The CAA is not to throw citizens out of the country, Thackeray said.

"However, the NRC will impact Hindus and Muslims and the state government will not allow it to be implemented," he asserted.

Under the NRC, all citizens will have to prove their citizenship. In Assam, 19 lakh people could not prove their citizenship. Of these, 14 lakh are Hindus, Thackeray claimed.

In a veiled attack on his cousin and MNS chief Raj Thackeray, who will lead a rally in support of the CAA and NRC in Mumbai on February 9, the chief minister said the NRC is not yet a reality and there is no need for a 'morcha' in support of or against it.

"If the NRC is enforced, those who are supporting it will also be affected," he said.

Under the NRC, even Hindus will have to prove their citizenship. "I will not allow the law to be enacted. Whether I am chief minister or not, I will not allow injustice to anybody," he said.

The chief minister also took a veiled dig at the Centre's decision to give the Padma Shri award to Pakistani-origin musician Adnan Sami.

"A migrant is a migrant. You can't honour him with the Padma award. Throwing out illegal migrants was the stand of (late Shiv Sena supremo) Balasaheb Thackeray," he said without naming anyone.

New Delhi, Feb 3: Union minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had called himself an "anarchist" and there is not much of a "difference between an anarchist and a terrorist".

His remarks come a few days after the Election Commission issued a show cause notice to BJP MP Parvesh Verma for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

Addressing a press conference here, Javadekar raked up the issue of Kejriwal "staying a night at the Moga residence of Khalistan Commando Force chief Gurinder Singh during the Punjab Assembly polls".

"You knew it was a militant's house. Still, you stayed there. How much more evidence do you need?" he said.

"Kejriwal is now asking with a sad face, 'am I a terrorist?' You are a terrorist and there is a lot of evidence to prove that. You yourself had said you are an anarchist. There is not much of a difference between an anarchist and a terrorist," the senior BJP leader said.

Flanked by Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari and Union minister Anurag Thakur, Javadekar said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was supporting Shaheen Bagh, where slogans of "Assam ko azadi", "Jinnah wali azadi" were being raised. "Supporting such slogans is also terrorism".

He alleged that Kejriwal stood with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where "anti-India slogans were raised, and did not grant sanction to prosecute (those who raised the slogans)".

"On January 26, you threatened that you would stop their prosecution. How much more proof do you need? The people of Delhi now know that you are the chief of liars, you are an anarchist and sympathise with terrorists.

"You are supporting Shaheen Bagh, JNU, the slogans being raised there and all such anarchists...then you are definitely a terrorist. This is your identity, no matter how innocent face you make," he said.

On Thursday, the Election Commission had issued a show cause notice to Verma, the BJP MP from West Delhi, for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

He was earlier barred from campaigning for 96 hours (four days) for making controversial remarks at a poll meet recently.

An emotional Kejriwal had later said it was for the people of Delhi to decide whether they consider him their son, brother, or a terrorist.

"How have I become a terrorist? I've arranged for medicines...did so much for the needy. I've never thought of myself or my family... am ready to give my life for the nation," he had said at a press conference.

Jan 1: The ban on the practice of instant triple talaq, making it a penal offence and the increase in the strength of Supreme Court judges were two of the major achievements of the law ministry in 2019.

In July, Parliament gave its nod to The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019. The new law makes talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband void and illegal.

It makes it illegal to pronounce talaq three times in spoken, written or through SMS or WhatsApp or any other electronic chat in one sitting.

According to the new law, any Muslim who pronounces the illegal form of talaq upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

During the year, four new judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in September, taking its strength to 34, the highest-ever.

However, vacancies in high courts and lower courts are on the rise and convincing state governments and the 25 high courts to come on board to create an all-India judicial service to recruit judges for the subordinate courts tops the agenda of the Law Ministry in 2020.

Besides creating a consensus on setting up the All-India Judicial Services, the ministry will also have to focus on filling up vacancies in the high court. On an average, the vacancies stood at 400 throughout this year.

With more than 5,000 positions of judicial officers in district and subordinate courts lying vacant, the Law Ministry has pitched for setting up all-India judicial services.

The sanctioned strength of the judicial officers in district and subordinate courts was 22,644. The number of judicial officers in position and vacant posts is 17,509 and 5,135, respectively.

The government has proposed that while states and high courts can recruit judicial officers, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) can hold pan-India entrance tests.

The ministry has made it clear that such services would not encroach on the powers of the states.

As of now, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate courts is the responsibility of the high courts and state governments concerned.

The Narendra Modi government has given a fresh push to the long-pending proposal to set up the new service to have a separate cadre for the lower judiciary in the country.

But there is a divergence of opinion among state governments and respective high courts on the constitution of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS).

One of the problems cited is that since several states have used powers under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to declare that the local language would be used in lower courts even for writing orders, a person say selected from Tamil Nadu may find it difficult to hold proceedings in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The other point of opposition is that an all India service may hamper the career progression of state judicial services officers.

Another key issue the ministry has to handle in 2020 is vacancies in the 25 high courts.

Throughout 2019, on an average, the high courts faced a shortage of 400 judges.

According to Law Ministry data, as on September 1, the high courts had 414 vacant positions as compared to the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges. The figure was 409 in August and 403 in July, as per the data.

A three-member Supreme Court collegium recommends the names of candidates for appointment as high court judges. In case of appointments to the Supreme Court, the collegium consists of five top judges of the top court.

High court collegiums shortlist candidates for their respective high courts and send the names to the law ministry.

The ministry, along with background check reports by the Intelligence Bureau, forwards it to the Supreme Court collegium for a final call.

The government has maintained that appointment of judges in the high courts is a "continuous collaborative process" between the Executive and the Judiciary, as it requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional authorities.

Vacancies keep arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of judges and increase in judges' strength. In June last year, the vacancy position stood at 399, while it was 396 in May.

In April, 399 posts of judges were vacant, while the figure was 394 in March. The vacancy position in February stood at 400 and in January, it was 392, according to the data collated by the Department of Justice.

Over 43 lakh cases are pending in the 25 high courts.

Another priority would be the finalisation of the memorandum of the procedure to guide the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and high court judges. The issue had now been pending for over two years now with the SC collegium and the government failing to reach a consensus.

Successive governments have also been working on making India a hub of international arbitration. It has taken several steps to change laws dealing with commercial disputes.