Hours after returning to Kuwait from newly built house in Kerala, NRI family of 4 charred to death as flat catches fire

Indore: Two Army officers were thrashed and one of their two women friends was allegedly gang-raped by armed miscreants when they were out on a picnic in Madhya Pradesh's Indore district in the wee hours of Wednesday.

Additional SP Rupesh Dwivedi said on Wednesday night that six suspects had been identified, two of whom have been detained from the jungles.
Both Army officers were injured in the mob attack. One of them managed to dial his senior officers but by the time police arrived from Mhow, 30km away, the woman had already been gang-raped.

The two Armymen are undergoing the Young Officers course at Infantry School, Mhow, SP Rural Hitika Vasal said.

According to the complaint filed by one of the lieutenants, the four of them had driven to Ahilya Gate near Jam Gate on Mhow-Mandleshwar road on Tuesday night. Built in 1791 by Rani Ahilyabai Holkar, Jam Gate is a popular picnic spot for its stunning views of the valley below, and the temple near Ahilya Gate draws a lot of devotees.

Around 2.30am, one of the officers and his female friend were in the car when 6-7 men attacked them. The other pair was atop a nearby hillock then and rushed down on hearing the confrontation.

The complaint says that the attackers held the pair they had attacked in the car hostage at gunpoint. They asked the other officer to bring Rs 10 lakh in ransom. This gave the officer - who was accompanied by the other woman - a chance to inform his seniors at Mhow, who in turn alerted police.

A large police force was dispatched to the spot but the attackers had escaped into the forest by then. All four of them were brought to Mhow Civil Hospital around 6.30am where a medical examination confirmed one of the women had been gang-raped. As per the duty doctor, there were injuries on both officers' bodies. "The complainant has alleged that the woman who was with him was raped, and they were looted as well," SP Vasal said.

Badgonda police registered a case under BNS sections 70 (gang-rape), 310-2 (dacoity), 308-2 (extortion) and 115-2 (voluntarily causing hurt), plus sections of Arms Act.

Forces from four police stations combed the jungles near Chhoti Jaam village and picked up two suspects.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday, September 17, said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 will be passed in the Parliament in the coming days. He said the Bill is committed to the management, preservation and misuse of Waqf properties.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf Bill will meet from September 18 to 20. The JPC is scrutinising the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 which seeks to amend the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013.

On September 14, a Muslim organisation headed by Congress MP Tariq Anwar demanded the rejection of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The organisation alleged that the proposed legislation is an "indirect attempt to seize control of Muslim religious properties".

The All India Qaumi Tanzeem submitted 14 pages of suggestions and objections to the bill to the JPC through the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 8.

On September 11, a Rajya Sabha panel summoned Minority Affairs Ministry officials to explain reasons for the delay in completing the process for framing subordinate legislation under the 2013 Waqf law.

The new bill seeks to change the registration process for Waqf properties through a centralised portal. It proposes several things, including establishing a Central Waqf Council alongside state Waqf Boards with representation to Muslim women and non-Muslim representatives.

A contentious provision of the Bill is the proposal to designate the district collector as the primary authority in determining whether a property is classified as Waqf or government land.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill also aims at renaming the act to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.