Several Congress MPs give notices in Parliament to discuss Pahalgam attack, Op Sindoor
New Delhi (PTI): With the Monsoon session of Parliament commencing on Monday, several MPs of the Congress and other opposition parties have given adjournment notices in both houses for a discussion on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.
The Congress and INDIA bloc parties are seeking to corner the government during this session by raising issues like the Pahalgam attack, Trump's repeated claims of mediating a ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor, and the Special Intensive Review of electoral rolls in Bihar, among others.
Congress Rajya Sabha member Randeep Surjewala gave a notice under Rule 267 to discuss in the upper house the April 22 terror attack and Operation Sindoor.
In his notice, he urged the Chairman to suspended all business of the day as well as the Question Hour to discuss the concerns regarding the attack in Pahalgam and India's response through Operation Sindoor.
Another Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury has given an adjournment notice under Rule 267.
She sough to discuss the "grave lapses" in internal security that led to the terror attack, resulting in tragic loss of innocent lives, cross-border terror emanating from Pakistan; and to deliberate on the foreign policy actions of the government following the ceasefire with Pakistan after Operation Sindoor.
"The matter becomes even more serious in light of former US President Donald Trump's repeated public statements, made 24 times so far, most recently on July 19, claiming that he personally mediated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and used trade leverage to end hostilities," she said in the notice.
"Such assertions, if true, would violate the provisions of the Shimla Agreement, which prohibits third-party mediation on India-Pakistan matters. The people of India deserve to know whether the Shimla agreement remains in place or not," she said.
Congress deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi, filed an adjournment notice, demanding a discussion on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.
"I seek to move an adjournment of the business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent national importance: the terror attack in Pahalgam, India's military response through Operation Sindoor, and the political and diplomatic developments that followed," he said.
Gogoi said the events that followed Operation Sindoor have raised serious concerns requiring immediate and detailed deliberation in the lower house.
"First, the sudden announcement of a ceasefire after the operation has created confusion about its terms, timing, and stakeholders... the President of the United States made controversial claims suggesting the ceasefire was externally brokered and that he personally intervened with Pakistan's military leadership.
"These statements, if unchallenged, risk undermining India's sovereign standing in regional security," he said in the notice.
Gogoi also said that the Chief of Defence Staff made public remarks on the nature and location of Operation Sindoor at an international forum, raising questions about the protocols governing strategic disclosures.
"A comprehensive discussion is essential to uphold democratic accountability, maintain institutional trust, and clarify India's national security and diplomatic posture. I hereby request permission to raise the matter," he said in his notice.
Meanwhile, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Naseer Hussain gave a notice to suspend all the business of the house to discuss the issue and concerns arising out of the special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the assembly elections there.
He alleged that the ECs plan to conduct a similar exercise nationwide "including disenfranchisement of a large section of the poor and marginalised, directly undermine the citizens' right to vote and erode the fairness and integrity of our electoral system".
The opposition will be seeking answers from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on all these issues.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
