Why question LoP when PM spends half of his working time outside country: Priyanka
New Delhi (PTI): Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Wednesday hit back at the BJP for its criticism of Rahul Gandhi over his visit to Germany next week, asking why are they raising questions on the leader of opposition when Prime Minister Narendra Modi spends "almost half of his working time outside the country".
Rahul Gandhi will visit Germany from December 15 to 20 during which he will engage with the Indian diaspora and meet German ministers, according to the Indian Overseas Congress.
The BJP took a swipe at Gandhi over his visit, saying, "Rahul is LoP -- leader of Paryatan."
ALSO READ: Approval of registered housing societies must to operate liquor shops on their premises: Ajit Pawar
"Once again Videsh Nayak is doing what he does best! Going for a foreign tour! Parliament is on till 19th Dec but Reports suggest Rahul Gandhi to visit Germany from Dec 15-20! Rahul is LoP - leader of paryatan," BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said in a post on X.
"During Bihar elections too he was abroad and then in Jungle Safari," he added.
Asked about BJP's attack on Gandhi, Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi told reporters, "Modi ji spends almost half of his working time outside the country... Why are they raising questions on the leader of opposition (in Lok Sabha) travelling?"
Earlier, Balwinder Singh, president of Indian Overseas Congress, Germany, said, "The Member of Parliament and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi will visit Germany from December 15 to 20. He will be accompanied by Indian Overseas Congress Chairperson Sam Pitroda."
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.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
