Drop conspiracy against Siddaramaiah or face wrath of Kurubas, seer warns BSY

New Delhi: The Ministry of Home Affairs of Government of India today clarified to the Lok Sabha in a written reply that the so called “Love Jihad” is not defined under the extant laws and no such cases have been reported by any central agency.

It was ministry’s formal response to questions about whether the central government is aware of the observation of Kerala High Court that there is no case of Love Jihad in Kerala.

“The term ‘Love Jihad’ is not defined under the extant laws. No such case of ‘Love Jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies. However, two cases from Kerala involving interfaith marriages have been investigated by the NIA,” said the reply.

Communal and anti-Muslim political outfits backed by a section of media often use the term “Love Jihad” to accuse Muslims of marrying Hindu and Christian girls and then forcing them to change religion. Dr Hadiya’s conversion was also termed ‘love jihad’ by the BJP and media. The Supreme Court finally ruled that it wasn’t.

In January 2020, an influential Catholic Church in Kerala had said that “love jihad is a reality” and alleged that scores of women from Christian community from the southern state were being lured into the trap of Islamic State and used in terror activities.

The Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had welcomed the Church statement and called for a united fight against ‘Love Jihad’ in Kerala Society.

The response comes weeks after the MHA, responding to an RTI query, said it has "no information" concerning the 'Tukde Tukde Gang' -- a term that has been used a number of times by PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to attack opponents.

The RTI application was filed by activist Saket Gokhle on December 26 last year. In his RTI application, Saket Gokhle said Home Minister "Amit Shah addressed a public event in New Delhi, and in his address said, 'The Tukde Tukde Gang of Delhi needs to be taught a lesson and punished'." Gokhle's RTI asked for details of the 'Tukde Tukde Gang'.

The home ministry, in its reply to Saket Gokhle's RTI application, said, "Ministry of Home Affairs has no information concerning tukde-tukde gang."

Bengaluru, Apr 14: Karnataka Labour Department has issued an order instructing public and private establishments not to cut salaries or lay off employees during the lockdown imposed to counter Coronavirus.

In view of Covid-19, there may be incidents where services of employees or workers may be dispensed with on the pretext of the disease or employees may be forced to go on leave without pay, the Ministry of Labour and Employment said.

Legal action will be initiated if any establishment violates this advisory, Labour Department Secretary P Manivannan said in a statement issued here on Tuesday.

Bengaluru, Feb 19: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Karnataka High Court, seeking a stay on Anand Singh functioning as Minister of Forests, Environment and Ecology contending that there are criminal cases filed against him by the Ministry.

"A stay be granted prohibiting Anand Singh from functioning as the Cabinet Minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology. Any other order that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity," the PIL prays.

The petition, filed by advocate Vijay Kumar, said that the Chief Minister has allocated the portfolio of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology to Singh without considering the fact that there are several criminal faces filed against him by the Ministry.

It said that the allocation of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology portfolio to Singh is in the conflict of interest.

"The holding of the post of Cabinet minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology is against public interest and completely in conflict of interest as he has business for which the subject Ministry is the overseeing authority and further he will also have access to the case files which again is in conflict of interest," the PIL said.

PIL adds that "it is pertinent and absolutely necessary" to deny the incumbent from accessing files related to his cases and from taking any decisions which may provide him with pecuniary benefits through his businesses.