Masood was a handler of Pathankot attackers: India to UN

April 5, 2016

New Delhi, Apr 5: India has told the UN that Jaish-e- Mohammed chief Masood Azhar was one of the handlers of the terrorists who attacked the Pathankot airbase and his outfit received arms training from Taliban.

In its failed bid to have Masood designated as terrorist by the UN, India has conveyed to the world body that he and his terrorist group JeM have continuously engineered terror attacks against India, the latest instance being the strike on Pathankot airbase on January 2.

The attack was engineered by terrorists belonging to JeM and credible evidence has emerged that the handlers of the terrorists were senior leaders of JeM, including Masood Azhar, according to the Draft List Entry submitted in the UN.Further, incriminating material has also been recovered from the dead terrorists disclosing their links to the terrorist organisation, it said.

Masood had a meeting with Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed and Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin and decided to "avenge" the hanging of Afzal Guru, who was convicted for the 2001 attack on Parliament.

"A decision was taken in the meeting for possible cooperation with the Taliban to train terrorists for this purpose. There are credible intelligence reports that elements of JeM have actually received training in tactics, use of weapons and psychological warfare from the Taliban," the draft said.

At the behest of Pakistan, China had blocked India's bid to have Azhar designated as terrorist by the UN in the aftermath of the Pathankot strike.

Pushing its case for incorporating Masood's name in the al Qaeda Sanctions List, India has told the UN that Masood is a Pakistan-based international terrorist and a leader of JeM and its chief financier, recruiter and motivator.

The JeM chief has been "participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of supplying, selling or transferring arms and related material to recruiting for and otherwise supporting acts or activities of al Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Mujahidin and JeM", the draft said.

In 1993, Masood first came to the notice of the Indian authorities when he came into contact with leaders of Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiya, an al Qaeda-aligned Somali terror group which had requested money and recruits from Harkat-ul- Mujahidin, a terrorist group based in Pakistan with which Masood was closely associated.

Masood had visited Somalia during that time and facilitated recruitment of Yemeni mercenaries to Somalia.

In 1994, Masood surfaced in Jammu and Kashmir to mediate between various feuding factions of terrorist groups active in the state. He was arrested in February 1994.

However, in 1999, Masood had to be released after his brother Abdul Rauf along with a few others hijacked an Indian Airlines plane and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was then under the control of Taliban

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com 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.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments