Residents in several areas of Bhopal will experience power outages on April 4, 2025, due to scheduled maintenance work. The disruptions will occur at different times in various locations. Here are the details: Residents in these areas are advised to prepare for temporary power cuts during the specified hours. It is recommended to charge essential devices and adjust plans accordingly.
After the government successfully passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha through a midnight vote, it was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, with officials emphasizing that the Bill does not seek to undermine the rights of Muslims. While the Opposition parties accused the government of targeting the Muslim community, a fissure appeared within the ranks of the opposition. The Biju Janata Dal (BJD), which had initially stated its intention to oppose the Bill, chose not to issue a party whip, allowing its members the freedom to vote according to their individual beliefs just hours before the vote. Presenting the Bill in the Rajya Sabha, Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju clarified that the “inclusive” legislation was designed to empower Muslim women and safeguard the rights of all Muslim sects. He reassured that the management and creation of Waqf properties would be handled by Muslims, with only Muslims as beneficiaries, waqifs, and mutawallis. He stressed that there was no intention of involving non-Muslims in these matters. Rijiju also emphasized that the Bill seeks to bring “transparency, accountability, and efficiency” and does not have any religious agenda. He added that concerns regarding the ‘Waqf by user’ issue would not affect properties already properly registered, as there would be no retrospective actions. However, any disputes or sub-judice matters would still be subject to court decisions. Leader of the House J.P. Nadda, supporting the Bill, rejected claims that the government was rushing the legislation through without due process. He pointed out that the Joint Parliamentary Committee formed in 2013 under the previous UPA government had only 13 members, while the committee under the Modi administration had 31 members, demonstrating a more democratic approach. Nadda argued that the Bill was merely designed to introduce “checks and balances” in the management of Waqf properties, similar to practices in Muslim-majority countries globally. He also reiterated the government’s position that amendments made to the Waqf Act in 2013 had led to negative consequences for Muslims, benefiting land mafias instead. In response, Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain from Karnataka initiated the debate on behalf of the Opposition, criticizing the Bill for allegedly treating Muslims as second-class citizens. He questioned the government’s claim that people could not appeal Waqf tribunal decisions in court, pointing out the high number of cases still pending in the High Court and Supreme Court. Hussain, who had served on the Waqf board in Karnataka, argued that the assertion was misleading.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India expressed shock over the Uttar Pradesh government’s swift demolition of houses in Prayagraj within just 24 hours of issuing a notice to the occupants. The court found this action to be highly problematic, stating that it “shocks the conscience” of the judiciary. The two-judge bench, led by Justice A S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing an appeal challenging a 2021 Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a petition against the demolition. The petitioners, which included a professor, a lawyer, and three other individuals, argued that they had not been given adequate time to challenge the demolition. The case stems from the demolition of houses on a Nazool plot, a government-owned land leased in 1906. The lease expired in 1996, and applications for freehold conversion were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The Uttar Pradesh government argued that the land was reserved for public use, and the petitioners had no legal rights to the property due to the lack of district collector approval for their transactions. Justice Oka, while delivering the judgment, criticized the manner in which the notices were served. He pointed out that the demolition was carried out just a day after the notice was delivered, without giving the residents a reasonable opportunity to appeal. The court emphasized that the state must act fairly and provide adequate time for individuals to challenge such decisions before taking any drastic action. Although the state’s Attorney General R Venkatramani defended the government, stating that prior notices were served in 2020 and early 2021, the court was unconvinced by the argument. The bench noted that only one of the three notices was delivered via registered post, while others were simply affixed to the premises. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that the affected residents should be allowed to reconstruct their homes at their own cost. However, the court also warned that if the appeal fails, the properties must be demolished at the appellants’ expense. The court concluded by stressing that such actions by the state should not be supported, as it would set a dangerous precedent if tolerated. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the fair treatment of citizens in legal matters related to property rights.
