Indians among 300 US deportees held in Panama seen crying for help

New Delhi: In the wake of the deadly terror strike in Pahalgam that claimed 26 lives, Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Friday personally reached out to the Chief Ministers of all states, instructing them to take immediate action to identify and deport Pakistani nationals who are overstaying in India beyond the newly imposed visa deadlines, according to official sources.

During the calls, Shah emphasized the urgency of locating any Pakistani nationals still residing in their respective states and ensuring their departure in compliance with the fresh directives. He also made it clear that while overstayers must be deported, Hindu Pakistani nationals holding valid long-term visas are exempt from these measures and should not face any action.

This directive follows India’s sweeping decision to revoke all visas issued to Pakistani nationals from April 27 onwards. Medical visas, however, will remain valid only until April 29. The government has also urged all Indian citizens currently in Pakistan to return home at the earliest.

Furthermore, as part of its comprehensive response to the April 22 terror incident, India has withdrawn Pakistani access to the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES). Pakistani nationals currently in India under SVES were given a 48-hour deadline—until Friday—to leave the country.

The Home Minister had just returned from a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir and attended a high-level Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting in Delhi, where key decisions were taken, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan.

Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri briefed foreign envoys about the nature of the Pahalgam attack and the measures India is undertaking in its aftermath.

Addressing a public gathering in Bihar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack and asserted that India will "identify, track, and punish" every terrorist and their "backers," vowing to pursue the perpetrators to the "ends of the earth."

The government has also begun consultations with both ruling and opposition political parties, seeking unity on national security even as questions were raised regarding potential lapses that led to the attack.

A controversy has erupted in Karnataka after two Brahmin students were allegedly asked to remove their sacred thread (Janivara) and religious wristbands before entering the Common Entrance Test (CET) examination halls. The incident reportedly occurred on Thursday in Shivamogga and Bidar districts, drawing sharp criticism from community groups and prompting a swift response from state ministers.

Videos and complaints shared by parents and community organizations brought the matter to public attention on Friday. Several Hindu groups condemned the action as insensitive and discriminatory.

Investigation

Reacting to the incident, Karnataka’s Higher Education Minister Dr. M.C. Sudhakar called the alleged directive “unacceptable” and assured a thorough inquiry. “It is an excessive act. If this happened at any examination center, we will take it seriously. We must respect the traditions of all castes and religions. I do not support such actions,” the minister told PTI.
He added, “I will seek a report from the concerned officials and consider appropriate steps. This is not about politics or gaining political mileage. We have no intention of hurting the sentiments of any community.”

Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa, whose home district is Shivamogga, also addressed the issue. “There is no legal provision that permits such actions. Although this matter doesn’t fall directly under my ministry, I will coordinate with the concerned department. Since the incident happened in my home district, I will instruct officials to initiate appropriate action,” he said.

Hindutva Organizations Condemn

Community bodies such as the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Maha Sabha and Vishwa Sanghatane strongly condemned the alleged directive, stating that enforcing such measures under the guise of examination protocols was a violation of religious rights.

Members of the Bhramina Sanghagala Okkuta submitted a formal complaint on Thursday to Shivamogga Deputy Commissioner Gurudatta Hegde, according to a report.

Broader Context

The controversy comes amid ongoing debates over religious expression in Karnataka’s educational institutions. Notably, the previous BJP-led state government had banned students from wearing hijabs in classrooms—a move upheld by the Karnataka High Court and currently under review by the Supreme Court.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.