India is country of immigrants, even Dravidians, Aryans were immigrant: Justice Markandey Katju
Says Akbar was first father of nation; Lauds Tipu for sending grants to temples
Bhatkal: Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India Markande Katju on Sunday stated that India was a country of immigrants and a majority of people living in the country were from immigrant lineage.
The former judge who is known for his outspoken nature also went on to add even Dravidians and Aryans were immigrants and not natives of India.
He was speaking at the valedictory event of the Centenary Celebrations of Anjuman Hami-e-Muslimeen Bhatkal. He further added that over 90% of the people in the country are from immigrant lineage.
“India was a land that everyone wanted to come to. So people from all regions, religions, and cultures kept coming to India and that is where India diversified. That’s why we have so many languages, so many cultures, and such a diverse and vibrant population.” He said.
He also went on to add that Mughal Emperor Akbar was the original architect of modern India and was the first father of the nation.
Katju then said misinformation was being spread against Tiger of Mysore Tippu Sultan to hinder his image as a just and prolific ruler.
"Tippu Sultan sent grants to 156 Hindu temples in his kingdom, and today people are saying he was a tyrant and bigot to spoil his image. These attempts to hinder his image must be foiled.” Katju said.
He also condemned the incident from UP wherein a 10-year-old boy was thrashed for refusing to chant “Jai Shri Ram”. Katju said events like this, break the country into pieces.
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.
Mere breakup not enough for abetment to suicide: Delhi HC
New Delhi (PTI): Merely breaking up may not amount to instigation for a case of abetment of suicide under the criminal law, the Delhi High Court has said.
Justice Manoj Jain made the observation while dealing with a bail plea by a man accused of abetting the suicide of his former partner, who hanged herself five days after his marriage to another woman.
Granting bail to the accused, the court observed that the instigation should be of such a nature that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
It said only a trial would establish whether the deceased's "extreme step" was on account of provocation, instigation, "merely on account of her being hyper-sensitive girl" or for some other reason.
ALSO READ: ASHA workers threaten indefinite strike from Feb 27 over rationalisation order, pending demands
In the present case, the court noted, there was no dying declaration, and the parties were in a relationship for around eight years, during which there was no complaint from the deceased.
The court observed there was a considerable time gap between the date when the parties stopped talking and the date of the suicide.
"Apparently, it seems to be a case of a broken relationship and quite possibly, the deceased, having come to know that the applicant has got married to someone else, has chosen to finish herself," the court said in the order passed on February 24.
"Though broken relationship and heartbreaks have become common these days, mere breaking-up of relationship may not per se constitute instigation so as to make it to be a case of abetment under Section 108 BNS (abetment of suicide)," the court order read.
According to the father of the deceased, his daughter had been trapped by the accused, who pressured her to convert to his religion for marriage, and it was under such pressure that his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself with a chunni in October 2025.
The accused was arrested in November 2025.
The court observed that, according to the woman's friends, she was upset, and they never claimed anything on conversion. The accused had stopped talking to her from February 2025 onwards, it said.
According to the order, the man was let out on bail on a personal bond and surety bond of Rs 25,000 each.
The accused submitted that the parties were in a cordial relationship for around eight years, but the woman's parents were against the relationship since they belonged to different religions.
He alleged that it was her parents who forced her to sever the relationship.
