Kodagu: A day after killing teenage boy, 'man-eater' tiger kills his grandfather; father critically injured in attack

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of certain parts of the contentious Waqf law, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards and council, till the next date of hearing on May 5. The Chief Justice-led bench also said that the 'waqf by user' provision should not be denotified till then.

The Centre assured the Supreme Court that no appointments would be made to Waqf boards. The new law tweaks the composition of Waqf boards, making it compulsory to include non-Muslims as its members.

"SG (Tushar) Mehta assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to board and councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that the status of waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, shall not be changed," the court said in its order.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought 7-days' time to file a response. The court allowed the petitioners to file their rejoinder within five days after that.

Details awaited.

Dammam, April 26: Chaos and frustration gripped King Fahd International Airport, Dammam, after Air India Express Flight IX484, scheduled to depart for Bengaluru at 8:30 PM on 25 April 2025, was delayed indefinitely due to repeated “technical issues,” leaving over 150 passengers stranded.

According to affected passengers, after an overnight delay, airline officials informed them the technical problems had been “temporarily fixed” and instructed them to board at 1:30 PM (KSA time) on 26 April. However, the situation deteriorated further when the aircraft taxied to the runway — only to halt abruptly on the runway itself, with passengers once again left without clear communication or resolution.

Several passengers provided live updates, expressing grave concerns over safety standards, poor crisis management, and a lack of transparency by the airline’s ground staff.

 “This is not just mismanagement; it is sheer negligence. Passenger lives are being put at serious risk,” said one distressed traveler.

Adding to the growing alarm, Dr P.A. Hameed Padubidri, a noted pro-bono lawyer and social worker who has resided in Saudi Arabia for over two decades, commented:

“I have been in continuous contact with the stranded passengers and am coordinating with the concerned authorities to address this alarming pattern of delays and mismanagement by Air India Express. Passenger rights and safety must be treated with utmost seriousness.”

Dr. Hameed further emphasized: “This marks the third major disruption involving Air India Express flights within a month, raising serious questions about the airline’s operational reliability, aircraft maintenance practices, and overall crisis preparedness.”

He added: “If an aircraft continues to suffer ‘technical issues,’ it clearly indicates systemic negligence. Operating such flights puts the lives of passengers at unacceptable risk. It is deeply shocking and unacceptable.”

Frustrated passengers also pointed out that if this incident had involved other Gulf carriers, passengers would have been promptly provided with food, hotel accommodation, and alternative flight arrangements.

“This exposes a glaring gap in passenger care and service standards,” one stranded traveler noted.

The incident has triggered widespread outrage, with urgent calls for immediate investigation and action by India’s aviation authorities. 

Dr Hameed has appealed to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and Union Civil Aviation Minister Shri Ram Mohan Naidu to take action against these recurring failures by Air India Express.

As of the latest update, passengers remain stranded at Dammam Airport, awaiting further instructions, with no clear communication regarding the revised flight schedule.

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.