Gauri Lankesh murder case: accused Naveen refused narco test in Gujarat
BENGALURU: K T Naveen Kumar, the only arrested accused in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh case, has strongly refused to undergo a narco-analysis test after agreeing to it earlier.
According to reports, when Naveen, who is believed to have links with Hindutva outfits, was taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Gujarat, threatened to commit suicide if he was subjected to the test. Now, the SIT will be bringing him back without subjecting him to the test.
Naveen was arrested by the SIT in March. As he was not co-operating with the investigations, the SIT had sought permission to subject him to a narco-analysis. It even sought his consent in the presence of a magistrate, as it is mandatory. Accordingly, Kumar told the court that he had no issues if the test did not impact his health. The court had then ordered the test following which the SIT arranged for it at the FSL in Gujarat. Kumar was taken into custody on April 14 and was taken to the FSL.
Kumar was supposed to undergo the test on Friday. But when the FSL staff asked him to sign the documents giving his consent to undergo the test, he created high drama and started shouting that he had been forced to give his consent earlier by the SIT. He even threatened to commit suicide.
When the accused said “police have brought him for the narco test without his content”, the FSL staff said “It is inappropriate to subject him for the test without his content. In case we conduct his test also, it does not yield true result.”
With no other go, the SIT team is bringing him back to the city.
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.
AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan moves SC against Waqf Bill
New Delhi, Apr 5 (PTI): Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
In his plea, Khan sought that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill be declared as "unconstitutional and being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300-A of the Constitution" and sought direction for striking it down.
"The Bill violates fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300-A of the Constitution. It curtails the religious and cultural autonomy of Muslims, enables arbitrary executive interference, and undermines minority rights to manage their religious and charitable institutions," Khan's plea said.
On Friday, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi moved the apex court, challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, saying it violated the constitutional provisions.
Jawed's plea alleged the Bill imposed "arbitrary restrictions" on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
The petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, said the proposed law discriminated against the Muslim community by "imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments".
The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 128 members voting in favour and 95 opposing it. It was passed in the Lok Sabha early April 3 with 288 members supporting it and 232 against it.
Jawed, a Lok Sabha MP from Kishanganj in Bihar, was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Bill and has alleged in his plea that the Bill "introduces restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of one's religious practice".
"Such a limitation is unfounded in Islamic law, custom or precedent and infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25," it said.
In his separate plea, Owaisi said the Bill takes away from Waqfs various protections which were accorded to Waqfs and Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable endowments alike.
Owaisi's plea, filed by advocate Lzafeer Ahmad, said, "This diminishing of the protection given to Waqfs while retaining them for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion."
The plea argued the amendments "irreversibly dilute" the statutory protections afforded to Waqfs and their regulatory framework while giving "undue advantage" to other stakeholders and interest groups, undermining years of progress and pushing back Waqf management by several decades.
"Appointing non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards disturbs this delicate constitutional balance and tilts it to the detriment of the right of Muslims as a religious group to remain in control of their Waqf properties," Owaisi said.
