Not told about event, says police after Umar Khalid claims attack on him

Agencies
August 14, 2018

New Delhi, Aug 14: The Delhi Police on Monday claimed it was not informed about the event at the Constitution Club which JNU student Umar Khalid had gone to attend when he was attacked by an unidentified gunmen.

Questions were raised about security in Lutyens's Delhi after the attack on Mr Khalid, who escaped unhurt.

 "We were not aware about the programme since we were not intimated about it. As soon as we were informed about the incident, our team reached the spot since a police station is also nearby," said Ajay Chaudhary, Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi range.

The event, 'Khauff Se Azaadi' (Freedom from Fear), was organised by United Against Hate and featured speakers such as lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Delhi University professor Apoorvanand and the late Rohith Vemula's mother Radhika Vemula, among others.

Former Rajya Sabha MP Anwar Ali, who was one of the speakers at the event, raised concerns over the security in Lutyens' Delhi.

"Even Lutyens' Delhi is not safe anymore. Today, Umar Khalid was attacked right here in the Constitution Club. This could have happened with anyone of us anywhere," he added.

Activist Shabnam Hashmi also expressed similar concerns.

"The politics of violence is responsible for it along with certain media houses maligning him. When violence is encouraged in the society by those in power this is bound to happen irrespective of security zone or not," she added.

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.
News Network
December 21,2025

hadith.jpg

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

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.