Train accidents: Railways minister ‘offers to resign’, PM asks him ‘to wait’

In a significant escalation of hostilities, the Indian Army has reported that Pakistan targeted critical civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and school premises, in Srinagar, Awantipur, and Udhampur. This incident marks a severe breach of international norms, with Pakistan's actions drawing widespread condemnation.

Details of the Attacks

Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during a press briefing, said that Pakistan's military launched attacks on Indian Army hospitals and educational institutions in these regions. The targeted facilities are located within or near military airbases, raising concerns about the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. The attacks have resulted in significant damage to these establishments, though specific casualty figures are yet to be confirmed.

Indian Army's Response

The Indian Army has termed these actions as "unacceptable" and a direct violation of international humanitarian law. In retaliation, India has initiated "Operation Sindoor," a series of strikes targeting Pakistani military bases and terrorist infrastructure. The operation aims to dismantle terror networks operating from across the border and to send a strong message against such provocations.

The international community has expressed grave concern over the escalation. The United Nations has called for maximum restraint from both nations to prevent further deterioration of the situation. Countries like the United States, Russia, and China have urged India and Pakistan to engage in dialogue and de-escalate tensions.

As of now, the situation remains tense. Both nations have mobilized additional troops along the Line of Control (LoC), and airspace in the affected regions has been restricted. Civilians in the targeted areas have been advised to stay indoors, and emergency services are on high alert to respond to any further incidents.

This development marks a significant turning point in the ongoing India-Pakistan tensions, with the targeting of civilian infrastructure raising the stakes of the conflict. The coming days will be crucial in determining the trajectory of relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

The Ministry of Defence has urged media outlets, digital platforms, and individuals to refrain from live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and troop movements.

Citing the risks to operational success and personnel safety, the Ministry highlighted past incidents — including the Kargil War, the 26/11 attacks, and the Kandahar hijacking — where premature information disclosure had severe consequences.

"Under Clause 6(1)(p) of the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021, only authorised officials are permitted to release updates during anti-terror operations," the Ministry stressed. It called for responsible reporting and greater sensitivity towards national security concerns.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh chaired a high-level review of the country’s security situation on Friday (May 9, 2025) at South Block in New Delhi, following the foiled large-scale drone strike launched by Pakistan on Thursday.

The meeting was attended by senior military leadership, including Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Dinesh K Tripathi, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh, and Defence Secretary RK Singh.

The security review comes in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, in which Indian Armed Forces struck nine terror infrastructures across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on Wednesday, prompting Pakistan’s attempted retaliation.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, undergoing life imprisonment in connection with a 1990 custodial death case, for bail and the suspension of his sentence. While denying him the relief, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also directed that the hearing of his appeal be expedited.

“We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt on bail. However, we make it clear that the observations made herein above are restricted to the prayer for bail only and will have no bearing on the appeals of the appellant and the co-accused. The prayers sought by the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt, for the grant of bail are dismissed. Hearing of the appeal is directed to be expedited,” Justice Mehta said while reading out the order.

The case dates back to 1990 when Bhatt was posted as the additional superintendent of police in Gujarat’s Jamnagar. He had detained around 133 people under the stringent Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Act during a communal riot in Jamjodhpur town.

On November 18, 1990, one of those detained, Prabhudas Vaishnani, died in a hospital after he was released, allegedly due to torture while he was in custody. A complaint of custodial death was registered against seven policemen, including Bhatt, by Amrutlal Vaishnani, the brother of the deceased, following which the investigation was transferred to the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) branch in Gandhinagar.

In 1995, the CID investigating officer requested sanction from the government to prosecute Bhatt as is required for the prosecution of a government officer when on duty. However, the government did not grant the sanction. After that, CID filed a summary report, which is a closure report, in the court. However, the court rejected this report in December 1995 and instead took cognisance of offences alleged against Bhatt and six others.

An A-summary report was filed in this case in 1995 after the Gujarat Government refused to grant sanction for prosecuting Bhatt. However, after Bhatt’s deposition in relation to the 2002 communal riots before the Nanavati and the Mehta commissions between May and July 2011, the state government withdrew protection granted to him, and the Jamnagar court began framing charges soon after.

A Jamnagar sessions court sentenced Bhatt to life imprisonment in June 2019. This was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.