Court rejects Uttar Pradesh BJP’s bid to drop Akhlaq lynching case, orders day-to-day trial
Lucknow: A court in Surajpur refused the Uttar Pradesh government’s request to withdraw prosecution in the 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq and directed that the case be taken up for expedited trial with daily hearings.
Additional District Judge Saurabh Dwivedi categorised the matter as “most important” and ordered the prosecution to begin recording evidence without delay. To ensure complete protection of all evidence, the court also directed on Tuesday, that letters be sent to the Police Commissioner of Gautam Buddha Nagar and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida. The next hearing has been scheduled for January 6.
Following rumours that he had slaughtered a cow and stored beef at his residence, Mohammad Akhlaq, 50, was lynched by a mob on September 28, 2015, in Bisada village of Dadri in Gautam Buddha Nagar district. Akhlaq and his son Danish were dragged out of their home and assaulted after an announcement was allegedly made from a temple loudspeaker. Akhlaq later died at a hospital in Noida, while Danish survived after sustaining critical head injuries. Akhlaq’s killing had sparked nationwide protests under the banner “Not In My Name."
All 18 accused villagers were released on bail by September 2017, after the BJP-led government under Chief Minister Adityanath assumed office. One of the accused is the son of a local BJP leader. While the accused returned to the village, Akhlaq’s family moved away citing fear and hostility.
The accused were charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation.
On October 15, the Uttar Pradesh government moved an application seeking withdrawal of the case. The petition cited alleged inconsistencies in statements by Akhlaq’s family, the absence of recovered firearms or sharp weapons, and the lack of prior enmity between the accused and the victim.
The court’s order comes amid a legal challenge by Akhlaq’s wife before the Allahabad High Court. She has contested the state government’s decision to withdraw the prosecution and the related application filed by the public prosecutor. Her appeal also challenged a series of administrative orders issued between August and September 2025 that resulted in the withdrawal plea, according to Maktoob Media.
The petition argues that under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any withdrawal from prosecution requires the court’s consent and must be assessed independently to ensure it does not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Reacting to the court’s decision, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said the order reaffirmed the primacy of judicial scrutiny and described it as a significant step towards justice.
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 strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
Washington (AP): The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women's cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn't even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's USD 500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some USD 3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than USD 133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
