Rahul Gandhi accuses PM Modi of silence as Trump repeats India-Pakistan ceasefire claim
New Delhi: Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday launched a sharp attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of being “scared” of US President Donald Trump and failing to refute his repeated claims of mediating peace between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor.
Addressing a joint rally in Bihar’s Darbhanga constituency, Gandhi said, “Next time when Modi comes to Bihar, he must tell the people that the US President is lying about stopping the India-Pakistan conflict.” He alleged that Trump had “insulted” Modi by making the same claim repeatedly in various countries, most recently at the APEC summit in South Korea.
“Trump is insulting Modi in country after country. Latest is South Korea. Don’t be scared, Modi ji — find the courage to respond,” Gandhi said, highlighting Trump’s remarks that he had “used trade to frighten Modi into stopping Operation Sindoor.”
Trump, during his speech in Seoul, reiterated that he had threatened both India and Pakistan with trade restrictions and “200% tariffs” to halt their hostilities, claiming credit for preventing a potential “nuclear war.” He even remarked that seven planes had been shot down during the four-day conflict before the ceasefire.
Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7 against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam on April 22, which killed 26 people. The ceasefire understanding was reached on May 10 after Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations contacted his Indian counterpart.
India has consistently maintained that no third-party mediation was involved in the ceasefire process. The Ministry of External Affairs has clarified that the understanding was entirely bilateral, with no external interference.
This is not the first time Gandhi has challenged Modi to respond directly to Trump’s statements. During a parliamentary debate in July, he had demanded that the Prime Minister publicly state that “Donald Trump is lying.”
Despite Trump’s repeated assertions, Prime Minister Modi has avoided direct comments on the matter. India’s official stance remains firm that the truce with Pakistan was initiated through direct military communication, independent of any foreign mediation.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
