The Lucknow bench of the High Court, led by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea against a summons issued over his Army comment case. A detailed order will be released by Monday.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL for a separate Gujjar Regiment in the Indian Army, emphasizing equal recruitment policies without caste distinctions. The judges criticized the demand as unconstitutional, reaffirming the Army’s commitment to national unity through integrated regiments. The petitioner withdrew the case after the court’s observations.
A Sonepat court has placed Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad in judicial custody following his Facebook post about India’s Operation Sindoor, provoking public outrage over perceived free speech violations. Arrested after police custody due to complaints, his case raises critical questions regarding the boundaries of free expression in national security discussions.
Minister Vijay Shah faced an FIR initiated by the Indore police under High Court directives for controversial comments regarding Colonel Sofia Qureshi. The Supreme Court criticized Shah and urged him to apologize, which he did through a social media video, stressing his respect for the armed forces. He is now challenging the High Court’s ruling.
Madhya Pradesh Tribal Welfare Minister Vijay Shah has petitioned the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that ordered an FIR for his controversial remarks about Army officer Colonel Sofia Qureshi. Following this, an FIR was registered against him, prompting calls for his removal, despite his public apology and respect for Qureshi.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police to initiate a criminal case against BJP minister Vijay Shah following his controversial remarks about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. His comments, perceived as offensive and communal, triggered nationwide criticism, prompting calls for accountability and reflection on the impact of leaders’ statements on national unity and security.
The Supreme Court of India has expressed concerns over gender bias in the Army’s JAG recruitment, highlighting the insufficient vacancies for women despite their higher merit. Justices questioned the rationale behind the 50:50 selection ratio and the government’s gender-neutral claims while directing necessary actions for women officers’ inclusion in training.
