Kin of seafarers killed in Hormuz attacks demand UN intervention, compensation, govt. jobs

Gitanjali J. Angmo speaking to reporters after the Delhi High Court hearing on plea to shift Sonam Wangchuk to another hospital in the national capital, on July 19, 2026. | On Saturday (July 1, 2026), Mr. Wangchuk was taken forcibly to Safdarjung Hospital by the Delhi Police on day 21 of his hunger strike.Sonam Wangchuk hunger strike LIVE updates - July 19, 2026Ms. Angmo said that they would file another petition on the matter on Monday (July 20, 2026).His wife asserted that Mr. Wangchuk should have free access to his doctors, adding that they went to the high vourt with the petition “that a free Indian citizen has the liberty to be treated where he wishes by doctors he’s comfortable with”. She said that a letter was submitted to the court prior to the hearing, but they are still awaiting a response.“He [Mr. Wangchuk] should have free access. His doctors should meet him. So this is a larger question to answer, does a citizen not have the right to access care of his choice? And if the government intervenes, can’t they do so democratically with family’s trust?” Mr. Angmo asked.Earlier in court, Justice Mini Pushkarna said no interim order was required at this stage on a petition by Ms.J Angmo, seeking permission to shift him to a private facility. The petition will be heard next on July 24.“The high court has not allowed it because they said they’re worried about his health. We submitted that they can send their doctors wherever he’s being treated,” Ms. Angmo said, speaking to reporters after the hearing.In a special hearing, Justice Pushkarna said Safdarjung doctors were closely monitoring the fasting activist, and it could not be said that any force was being used against him in violation of his bodily integrity. The judge also said the government’s removal of Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital cannot be called arbitrary.Later, Ms. Angmo said that they wanted to shift Mr. Wangchuk to Medanta or any other hospital in the national capital. “This is fundamental right. We were exercising right of our comfort and choice. There’s a trust deficit in this country. People don’t trust government institutions.”“Is India truly democratic and free? We asked the judge, the way police is roaming the floor and take all our belongings and his tablet... He’s not in detention like he was in the Jodhpur jail. He should have free access. His doctors should meet him,” she added. Published - July 19, 2026 05:21 pm IST

Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre and his associates were arrested for allegedly assaulting two doctors and nurses at a civic-run hospital in Dombivli on the night of July 6 after a family was advised to shift a newborn to another facility. File | The court took suo motu cognisance of the magistrate’s order.The High Court Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, noted that the magistrate’s order did not consider Mr. Mhatre’s antecedents. The court stated that the magistrate had taken the case lightly, given that the accused, accompanied by four others, attacked three doctors in a corporation hospital.The Bench observed that the police desired to interrogate Mr. Mhatre. The court noted that the magistrate’s operative order contained no direction for Mr. Mhatre to mark his presence at the police station on specific dates or to cooperate with the investigation. The Bench stated that no condition was imposed to monitor his presence for the probe agency.The Bench directed Mr. Mhatre to surrender to the Dombivli police station before 5 p.m. on July 19. The court ordered that if he does not surrender or is not reachable, authorities may initiate procedures to attach his immovable properties. The High Court also cancelled the bail granted to the four other assailants.The court’s action follows a decision by doctors across Maharashtra to abstain from work on July 22, a protest against the grant of bail to Mr. Mhatre.The Bench appealed to the doctors to reconsider their strike decision. The court stated that doctors in government and civic hospitals should reconsider the decision in the larger interest of society.Advocate Niranjan Mundargi appeared as amicus curiae. Advocate General Milind Sathe, assisted by Chief Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray, represented the State. Published - July 18, 2026 06:01 pm IST

The court refused to lay the blame for congested trains entirely on the railway. | The court refused to lay the blame for congested trains entirely on the railway. It said passengers had an equal responsibility. Despite repeated deaths and tragedies due to overcrowding, the court said, train-travelling “daredevils” refuse to reform either out of habit or due to the “economic rat race”.“People still insist on being daredevils in catching trains and making their way from one place to another. True that most of these choices are informed by one or the other practical consideration, but the risk stares one right in the face. Sometimes, practical considerations must give way to the preservation of life,” a Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol observed in a judgment.The court further asked the railway to reconsider the "second-class" nomenclature attached to passengers as an anachronism alien to the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.The judgment stems from an appeal filed by Lata, whose husband died in November 2015 after falling from a moving train. Represented by advocate Shweta Priyadarshini, Lata had previously been denied compensation by both the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court because no train ticket was recovered from her husband’s body. The Tribunal had dismissed the tragedy as an "untoward accident".The Supreme Court held that the railway was subject to a “no-fault liability” under the Railway Act of 1989. The liability existed “irrespective of a wrongful act, neglect or default on part of the railway administration” with limited exceptions in cases of suicides, intoxication and inanity.The court said the railway, although a facet of colonial inheritance, serves as the “backbone of the nation”. It is the largest civil employer in the country, and should not resort to technical approaches over compensation.Justice Karol, who authored the verdict, stated that for the railway, which has a network of 13,940 passenger trains running on 69,439 km of tracks while carrying 7,293 million passengers, the tragedy of Lata would be statistically insignificant.“But for each individual family that suffers this unspeakable tragedy, the loss and suffering is life-altering and in some cases even unsurmountable. This court must treat it as such,” Justice Karol observed.The court pointed out that the Railway manuals required passengers’ tickets to be checked. If that had been done, the widow would not have had to travel to the Supreme Court to prove her case, Justice Karol pointed out.The Supreme Court ordered the railway to pay Lata ₹8 lakh as compensation for her husband’s death. Published - July 17, 2026 09:54 pm IST

Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Mhatre being produced before a court under heavy police security after being remanded, along with his three aides, to police custody till July 13th following their arrest for allegedly assaulting two doctors and medical staff at a civic-run hospital, at Kalyan, in Thane district, Maharashtra, on July 10, 2026. | The court’s decision comes after Mr. Mhatre, who had attempted to evade arrest by admitting himself to a hospital citing chest pain, was declared fit for custody following a medical examination.The case stems from an altercation at the Shastrinagar hospital in Dombivli. According to the complaint filed by the woman doctor, the former Corporator entered the premises and assaulted her following a dispute regarding the treatment of a patient. A police case was registered against Mr. Mhatre under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.Following the registration of the case, police teams attempted to locate Mr. Mhatre for arrest. According to police sources, Mr. Mhatre approached a private hospital, CPR Hospital, and complained of chest pain. He was admitted to the facility. Police subsequently reached the hospital, and after a medical examination, the doctors at the hospital declared Mr. Mhatre medically fit. Police then took him into custody and produced him before a Magistrate’s court.In Court, the prosecution argued for police custody to investigate the motive behind the assault and the sequence of events leading to the incident. The defense counsel opposed the remand. After hearing both sides, the court ordered Mr. Mhatre to be held in police custody for four days, with a subsequent hearing scheduled for July 13.The Indian Medical Association (IMA) and other local doctors’ bodies have welcomed the court’s decision. In a statement, the organisations demanded stricter laws and their enforcement to prevent attacks on medical professionals. They have raised the question of how doctors, particularly women, can continue to work in an environment where they face such assaults. The arrest and subsequent remand, according to the organisations, serve as a warning to others.The incident has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Opposition leaders have attacked the State government, questioning the law and order situation. Aditya Thackeray, leader of the rival Shiv Sena faction, criticised the government, specifically targeting Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. He questioned why the police seemed to act with alacrity against ordinary citizens but show leniency towards members of the ruling alliance. He also criticised Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, accusing him of avoiding accountability by resorting to hospitalisation when political questions arise.The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of attacks on healthcare workers in Maharashtra. Previous incidents have led to calls from the medical fraternity for a central law to protect doctors and hospital staff. The court’s decision in this case, where a former public representative is now in police custody, has become a point of focus for debate on accountability of public figures and the application of law. Published - July 11, 2026 11:53 am IST

Rouse Avenue Court sentences BJP MLA Raju Kumar Singh to 4-year imprisonment in the death case of a woman due to celebratory firing during the New Year party on December 31, 2018, in New Delhi on Saturday (July 4, 2026). | Special Judge Vishal Gogne pronounced the substantive portion of the sentence orally."The convict is sentenced to 4 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and 2 months imprisonment under the Arms Act," he said.Judge Gogne said that Singh, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator from Bihar's Sahebganj, will also pay a compensation of ₹25 lakh to the family members of the victim.Earlier on Friday (July 3), Singh had urged the court to release him on probation, arguing that he had no intention to cause death and had an otherwise unblemished record as a public representative.Singh (56) was convicted under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with knowledge) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under provisions of the Arms Act relating to contravention of licence conditions.The case pertains to a celebratory firing at a New Year party at a farmhouse in Fatehpur Beri in Delhi, which resulted in the death of a woman.‘Celebratory firing a scourge’In a 97-page order, the court had on June 6 said, "The acts of celebratory firing during festivities are a scourge which often cause fatalities in our country.”"The present case reflects a similar tragedy where alleged acts of reckless celebratory firing by accused 1 (Raju Kumar Singh), a multiple-term MLA from Bihar, caused the death of a guest in a New Year's party on the intervening night of December 31, 2018, and January 1, 2019."Noting the evidence before it, the court had said it was established that Singh, who had been identified by multiple witnesses, fired the fatal bullet which caused the death of the victim, Archana Gupta. Published - July 04, 2026 08:26 pm IST

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrests TMC councillor Shakir Ali in the 2023 Ram Navami violence case, in Hooghly. File | Ali, a former councillor in Rishra municipality, was arrested on Tuesday (June 30, 2026) from his residence there in Hooghly district.The special court judge at Bichar Bhavan here, while granting bail to Ali, directed him to appear before the investigating agency every fortnight.He was also directed not to leave West Bengal without the court's permission.The court said that these conditions will be applicable till filling of charge sheet in the case.Ali was remanded to two days' NIA custody on July 1 following his arrest a day before in connection with its probe into violence during Ram Navami rallies in Hooghly district in 2023.Ali's lawyer, praying for bail, stated before the court that he had appeared before the investigating agency upon every summons and that he was suffering from illnesses.Opposing the bail prayer, NIA's lawyer claimed that Ali was not cooperating with the investigation.Ali is the husband of Aparupa Poddar, a former two-time TMC MP from the Arambagh constituency in Hooghly, and he was twice elected as a councillor from Ward number 4 of the Rishra Municipality. Published - July 03, 2026 05:55 pm IST

Veteran BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi | Mr. Joshi also hailed the efforts made during the NDA government led by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to encourage Indian Muslims to read the Quran in Urdu instead of Arabic.“Even Bengali, the national language of Bangladesh, originated in the Indian subcontinent,” he added.Mr. Joshi was addressing a programme organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) in participation of Kanchi Shankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswati, who announced the launch of a ‘Sanjhiwalta’ campaign in Punjab to promote Hindu-Sikh unity.The Shankaracharya also announced formation of a trust to undertake temple renovation and related activities in Punjab stating that Hindus and Sikhs shared a common spiritual heritage. The proposals include restoring and maintaining temples, conserving historic places of worship, holding larger religious events and promoting closer ties between Hindus and Sikhs. Sources said the discussions have also covered demographic trends and measures to discourage religious conversions.VHP president Alok Kumar said what he described as “cultural infiltration” was a long-term challenge. He said the erosion of traditional practices should be addressed through religious and cultural institutions, and not through politics alone. Published - July 03, 2026 07:52 am IST

Ansiba Hassan | She had filed the complaint against Ms. Lakshmipriya and the two others before the Station House Officer, Palarivattom police station. Ms. Hassan had approached the court, alleging that the police did not take effective action on her complaint. The court has asked the police to submit an explanation on July 9, 2026.In her petition before the court, she alleged that the videos contained false and sexually coloured allegations, intended to outrage her modesty and subject her to harassment and public humiliation. No effective action was taken, resulting in the continued dissemination of the impugned content and affecting her dignity and reputation.The Kadavanthra police had on July 1, 2026 registered a case against actor Tiny Tom for allegedly making defamatory and communal remarks against Ms. Hassan. He was booked a day after the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court directed the registration of an FIR based on Ms. Hassan’s complaint. Published - July 02, 2026 02:19 pm IST

Priyank Kharge, Home Minister of Karnataka | The court termed Mr. Kharge’s contention as “wholly untenable and devoid of merit” while referring to various past judicial precedents, in which the High Courts and the apex court have clearly declared that “the RSS is a definite, determinate, and identifiable body or class of persons; and consequently, where defamatory imputations are made against the RSS as an organisation, an individual member of the RSS is competent to maintain a complaint for defamation.”Sandeep Patil, judge of the special court of magistrate for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, made these observations in his June 27 order of taking cognisance of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Mr. Kharge, and Mohammed Haris Nalapad, son of Congress MLA N.A. Haris, on a defamation case filed by Bengaluru-based RSS member Tejas A.The complaint was filed arraying Mr. Kharge, Mr. Nalapad and the then Minister Dinesh Gundi Rao as accused persons for allegedly making false, baseless and derogatory remarks against the RSS, its members and their activities through various media platforms in October 2025.However, the court, after hearing the arguments on behalf of all the three accused, dropped proceedings against Mr. Rao while taking cognisance of offence only against the other two on finding that materials produced in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to constitute an office under Section 356 of BNS against them.Meanwhile, the court said that the accused cannot be permitted to “approbate and reprobate simultaneously” while pointing out that on the one hand, they justify their statements by referring to the RSS and its members using descriptions “RSS members” and “swayamsevaks” and thereby acknowledging the existence of an identifiable group, while on the other hand they deny the existence of such members of RSS for want of its registration solely to defeat the maintainability of the complaint.Relying on Section 2(26) of the BNS, the court pointed out that the definition of “person” expressly includes “any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not”, and “the statute does not prescribe any requirement of formal membership, registration, incorporation, or documentary proof of affiliation as a condition precedent for recognising a body of persons under the law”. Whether the complainant is part of such identifiable group is a matter to be established by evidence during trial, the court said.It is significant to note, the court said, that “the accused have not specifically denied the allegation that they have used or made the alleged derogatory statements and imputations against RSS and its swayamsevaks. The defence raised by the accused are not a categorical denial of the act of publication or making of the impugned statements, but is confined to the contention that the complainant has no locus standi to maintain the complaint and that there is no personal defamation against him”.However, the court clarified that at the cognisance stage, it was is not required to evaluate the truthfulness of allegations in detail, and all disputed questions — including the complainant’s membership status and the intention of the accused persons — would be determined during the trial. Published - July 01, 2026 09:24 pm IST