PM Modi lays the foundation stone for Ram Mandir in the presence of RSS chief

August 5, 2020


Ayodhya, Aug 5: After laying the foundation stone for the Ram temple in Ayodhya on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi termed the 'bhoomi pujan' event as an "emotional moment" for the entire country and added that "every heart is illuminated today".

"Every heart is illuminated; it is an emotional moment for the entire country... A long wait ends today... A grand temple will now be built for our Ram Lalla who had been living under a tent for many years," said Prime Minister Modi at foundation stone-laying ceremony of the Ram temple.

"With the construction of this temple, not only history is being made, but is being repeated. 

The way boatmen to tribals helped Lord Ram, the way children helped Lord Krishna lift Govardhan mountain, similarly, with everyone's efforts temple construction will be completed," he added.

Earlier today, Prime Minister Modi conducted 'bhoomi pujan' for the construction work of Ram temple.


Add new comment

  • reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
September 27,2020


New Delhi/Madurai, Sept 27: The CBI has chargesheeted nine Tamil Nadu policemen for murder, conspiracy and other offences in the custodial death case of the father-son duo who were arrested on a "fake" charge of violating the lockdown and tortured in Sathankulam police station in June this year, officials said Saturday.

The policemen have also been accused of destruction of evidence in the charge sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Madurai on Friday in the alleged torture and murder of shopkeepers J Benniks and his father RP Jeyaraj, who ran a mobile phone shop in Thoothukudi district.

The ghastly crime had triggered a massive outrage prompting the chief minister to seek a CBI probe in the matter.

In its charge sheet, the CBI has named the then Inspector and SHO S. Sridhar, Sub Inspectors K. Balakrishnan, P. Raghuganesh, Head Constables S. Murugan, A. Samadurai, and Constables M. Muthuraja,  S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis and, S. Veilumuthu posted at the police station.

The CBI rushed to file the charge sheet as the three-month custody of the accused is getting over on September 30 making them eligible for bail, sources said.

The agency has alleged that after the torture of the two victims in the police station which led to their death, the police officials destroyed evidence and filed "fake" charges against them of violating the coronavirus lockdown by keeping their shops open beyond the permitted time, they said.

When asked what was the motive behind the incident, the officials said the probe is being kept open.

During the investigation, nine CBI officers contracted COVID-19 while one of the accused sub-inspector died.

All the remaining accused police personnel are under judicial custody, they said.

"A CBI team camped continuously at Madurai and worked untiringly in the cases, even through the odds of COVID 19 pandemic," CBI Spokesperson RK Gaur said.

"The CBI investigation revealed that the father-son duo were arrested in the evening of 19.06.2020 and allegedly tortured at the Sathankulam Police Station by the accused in the evening as well as in the intervening night, consequent to which both of them succumbed to the injuries and died in the intervening night of June 22, 2020 and June 23, 2020," he said.

After investigation, a combined charge sheet in both the cases has been filed, he said.

"Further investigation is continuing to look into the role of other persons in the case," he said.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Magistrate probing the incident had told the Madras High Court that the policemen thrashed the deceased father-son the whole night in the police station. "Lathis were used" for allegedly assaulting them and a table carrying bloodstains bears testimony to the grisly crime.

The findings were based on a statement of a woman police personnel attached to the police station where the alleged crime took place.

After the alleged torture, Jeyaraj and Benniks were sent to sub-jail under remand at around 2.30 AM on June 20 where they were kept as prisoner number 3636 and 3635 respectively.

In the morning at around 7.45 am, Benniks complained of a wheezing problem and was taken to Kovilpatti government hospital in an autorickshaw. The doctors declared at 9 AM that he could not survive, the FIR had alleged.

Two days later at around 10.20 PM on June 22, Jeyaraj complained of fever and was taken to the government hospital.

In the morning at around 5.40 AM the next day, doctors told the authorities that treatment failed and Jeyaraj too had died, it said.


Add new comment

  • reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
September 26,2020


New Delhi, Sept 26: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday said that it has filed a case against then Joint Secretary, two Assistant Secretaries, and one more official of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on charges of alleged irregularities in recruitment.

CBI officials said that the case was registered against four former officers of CBSE on charges of misusing their official position, circumventing reservation provisions, and using forged and fake documents to get jobs in the CBSE. One of the accused is also charged with paying a consultant Rs 26.92 lakh for which no contract document could be located.

The CBI named S.P. Rana, a Joint Secretary, who retired while on suspension, dismissed Assistant Secretary Babita Rani, Assistant Secretary Shikha Tomar and Assistant Programmer Ruchin Tomar in the case.

According to the FIR, Rana is accused of appointing Rani and Shikha Tomar, who belong to the Jat community, between 2012 and 2014 under the OBC quota though the community was not eligible for reservation at that time.

The FIR alleged that Rana facilitated the selection of Shikha Tomar, the daughter-in-law of his brother, as Assistant Secretary on the basis of a fake and invalid experience certificate.

The FIR also charges Rana with allowing overpayment of Rs 26.92 lakh to KPMG for its outsourced services for processing of an application for affiliation and upgradation of schools.

"During enquiry, the CBSE was not able to provide the original file for the payments," it said.

The case was registered after a preliminary inquiry by the CBI revealed that Rana made repeated recommendations for Rani's appointment in 2012. "Rani was selected under the OBC category despite the fact that she was not a bonafide OBC candidate," the FIR said adding that the government had included the 'Jat' community in the OBC list only in March 2014.

"At the time of the interview, Rana was holding the charge of Joint Secretary (Administration and Legal), CBSE under whose supervision, the selection was made. Rana further facilitated Rani by approving the request made by her for not verifying her credentials i.e. caste certificate, experience certificate, etc," the FIR said.

Rani was dismissed from service on January 31 this year.

The CBI FIR also alleged that Shikha Tomar was appointed as Assistant Secretary in 2013 on the basis of a fake experience certificate issued from Ozark Global Information Services (OGIS), whose Director Atul Goel said that she never worked with the organisation and the certificate issued to her is a forged one.

A charge sheet dated November 12, 2018 for major penalty proceedings has been issued by the CBSE but she has not joined duty for long and not responding to the CBSE's correspondence.

Meanwhile, Ruchin Tomar is accused of producing a forged and fake degree certificate and mark sheets of Bachelor of Engineering in 2014 to land a job in the CBSE. He was also terminated from the job after he did not provide the original mark sheets.


Add new comment

  • reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 28,2020


Lucknow, Sep 28: Two days after a civil suit was filed in a Mathura court, seeking ownership of the entire 13.37 acres of Krishna Janambhoomi land in the temple town and removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid, politics has begun in right earnest on the issue.

Former BJP MP and founder of Bajrang Dal, Vinay Katiyar, welcomed the civil suit and said that a massive movement like the one for Ayodhya should be built to ‘liberate’ the Krishna Janambhoomi.

“It has been our resolve to free the three shrines at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. Now that the way for Ram temple has been cleared, we will work towards liberating the Krishna Janambhoomi. It would be better if Muslims voluntarily give up their claim on the land which is the birthplace of Lord Krishna,” he said.

BJP MP Harnath Singh Yadav echoed similar sentiments and said that Muslim should give up their claim on the Krishna Janambhoomi because Islam does not permit worship on any land that has been forcibly occupied.

Iqbal Ansari, the plaintiff in the Babri title suit case, meanwhile, said, that there should be an end to this kind of politics and Hindus and Muslims should now be allowed to live together in peace and harmony.

“There are some with vested interest who want to keep fueling the Hindu-Muslim feud but this is not in the interest of the nation. The Ayodhya dispute is over and Muslims have gracefully accepted the court verdict. There is no need to rake up other issues,” he said.

Senior counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya dispute, Zafaryab Jilani said that such issues were being deliberately raked up for political gains.

“A compromise had already been made on the issue in 1951 but a fresh suit has been filed in court to revive the dispute. If this is not politics, then what is?” he asked.

It may be recalled that the suit was filed by the ‘Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mauja Mathura Bazaar City’ through the ‘next friend’ Ranjana Agnihotri and six other devotees.

Agnihotri, a Lucknow-based lawyer, had represented the Hindu Mahasabha in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in various courts, including the Supreme Court.

Despite the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, being in place, the civil suit was filed in the Mathura court.

The Act bars courts from entertaining litigation that would alter the status quo of a religious place as it existed in 1947. However, the Act had exempted the litigation over the ownership of the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land.

It may be noted that when the Supreme Court, in November 2019, had pronounced its verdict for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, one of the parties was Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, who had filed a civil suit in Ayodhya in 1989 through his ‘next friend’ Triloki Nath Pandey.

The fresh suit filed by Sri Krishna Virajman through Agnihotri said, “UP Sunni Waqf Board, Trust Masjid Idgah or any member of Muslim community have no interest or right in the property of Katra Keshav Dev over an area measuring 13.37 acres and entire land vests in the deity Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman.”

“This suit is being filed for removal of encroachment and superstructure illegally raised by committee of management of alleged Trust Masjid Idgah with the consent of Sunni Central Board of Waqf on land Khewat No.255 at Katra Keshav Dev, city Mathura belonging to deity Srikrishna Virajman,” said Agnihotri.

The site in Mathura is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Along with Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya and Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi, it’s one of the three sites which Hindu outfits, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) want to be restored to Hindus.

The main litigant, advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, told reporters that her petition had already been admitted by the Mathura court.

Over the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which may be a stumbling block in the adjudication of the suit, Agnihotri said she was confident that the said Act would not be a problem in the adjudication of the suit filed by her.

“I have drafted the suit after studying the provisions of the 1991 Act and it will not hamper my case. As it is, my petition has already been admitted by the court,” she added.


Add new comment

  • reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.