Muslim community observes Bandh in Bhatkal over remarks against Prophet Mohammed
Bhatkal: Following the massive protest organised by Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem on Monday, the Muslim community in Bhatkal observed a complete bandh on Tuesday, expressing their resentment over the blasphemous remarks made by Yati Narsinghanand against Prophet Mohammed.
In response to the call for the bandh, all Muslim-owned shops and businesses in the city remained closed from Tuesday morning and is expected to remain closed till Wednesday morning. The shutdown was a unified show of protest, as the community voiced their demand for immediate action against Narsinghanand.
While the markets in Muslim-dominated areas and main market remained quiet, shops and businesses owned by non-Muslims were seen operating normally. The bandh call, made by the Tanzeem during Monday's protest, aimed to intensify pressure on authorities to act against Narsinghanand, who has a history of making offensive remarks and has been accused of spreading communal hatred.
On Monday, Maulana Abdul Aleem, along with other leaders, had strongly condemned the statements made by Narsinghanand, calling him an "anti-social element" who is against the pluralistic and democratic values of India. He emphasized that Prophet Mohammed was a symbol of peace and harmony and that insulting him disrupts societal peace. Other leaders, like Mohammed Kunhi of Shanti Prakashan and Tanzeem President Inayathullah Shabandri, also demanded strict legal action, warning that the protests would escalate if the government failed to take appropriate steps.
The bandh was observed peacefully across the city, with no reports of incidents or confrontations. The memorandum submitted on Monday, demanding Narsinghanand be charged under stringent laws such as the UAPA, continues to be the focal point of the community’s demands.
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.
Kerala HC sets aside Sabarimala airport land acquisition process
Kochi (PTI): The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, holding that the state failed to properly assess the minimum land actually required for the project.
On December 30, 2022, the state government issued an order granting sanction for the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land, comprising the Cheruvally Estate and an additional 307 acres located outside it.
Justice C Jayachandran, delivering the judgment on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose, ruled the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was legally flawed.
The court, in its December 19 order, directed the state to restart the process by conducting a fresh social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land requirement, followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and reconsideration by the government.
The petitioners had challenged several government actions, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the expert committee appraisal, the state government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.
The land in question, mainly the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, is proposed to be acquired for building a new airport intended to serve Sabarimala pilgrims.
The court found that while the state is entitled to acquire land for public purposes, the law clearly mandates that only the "absolute bare minimum" extent of land required for a project can be acquired.
According to the court, this mandatory requirement under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act was not properly complied with.
Justice Jayachandran observed that the authorities had shown "manifest non-application of mind" in assessing how much land was genuinely necessary.
As a result, the SIA report, the Expert Committee report and the government order were declared invalid to the extent they failed to address this crucial requirement.
Since the Section 11 notification could only be issued after a valid completion of these steps, it too was quashed.
On the petitioners' allegation of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court did not give a final finding. It held that this issue is closely linked to determining the minimum land required and can only be examined after that exercise is properly completed.
Before concluding, the court suggested that for technically complex projects like airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and lawful decision-making.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, keeping other issues raised by the petitioners open for future consideration.
