Author name: Shakti Sharma

New Delhi, In a significant order aimed at enhancing public safety and addressing the nationwide menace of stray animals, the Supreme Court of India has issued stringent directives for the immediate removal of stray dogs and cattle from key public infrastructure, including railway stations, bus stands, hospitals, educational institutions, and all national and state highways. The three-judge special bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N. V. Anjaria, passed the sweeping directions after noting the “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents, particularly in institutional areas, and the fatal accidents caused by stray cattle on high-speed expressways.   Key Directives: Clearing Institutional Areas and Transport Hubs   The Supreme Court’s order, delivered as part of an ongoing suo motu (on its own motion) case concerning stray dog management, focuses on insulating specific high-traffic, sensitive zones from the threat posed by strays. 1. Railway Stations and Public Premises: Immediate Removal and Relocation: All stray dogs must be forthwith removed from the premises of government and private educational institutions, hospitals, public sports complexes, bus stands, depots, and railway stations. No Release Back: Crucially, the court has directed that the dogs so picked up shall not be released back to the same location from which they were picked up. They must be relocated to a designated shelter after due sterilization and vaccination, as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. Securing Premises: Administrative heads of these institutions must ensure the premises are secured with adequate fencing, boundary walls, and gates to prevent the ingress of stray dogs. This exercise must be completed within eight weeks. Nodal Officers and Inspection: Every institution must designate a nodal officer responsible for ensuring strays do not enter the campus. Local municipal authorities and Panchayats are mandated to carry out regular inspections at least once every three months.   Zero Tolerance for Strays on Highways   The court also moved decisively to tackle the danger posed by stray cattle and other animals on the country’s road network, affirming earlier directions of the Rajasthan High Court. 2. Highways and Expressways: Mandatory Removal of Cattle: Authorities, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), must ensure the immediate removal of all cattle and other stray animals from national highways, state highways, and national expressways. Joint Coordinated Drive: A joint, coordinated drive must be undertaken to identify stretches where stray cattle are frequently found. Helpline Numbers and Patrols: All major highways must prominently display helpline numbers at regular intervals for commuters to promptly report the presence of stray animals or accidents caused by them. Dedicated highway patrol teams are to be constituted for continuous surveillance and immediate response. Shelter and Care: Removed animals must be kept in appropriate cattle pounds or shelters and provided with necessary food, water, and veterinary care in accordance with the law.   Accountability and Compliance   The Supreme Court has placed the responsibility for strict enforcement squarely on the highest authorities. Chief Secretaries Responsible: The Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories have been directed to ensure strict compliance with the order. Personal Accountability: The court explicitly warned that any “lethargy in this regard shall be viewed seriously,” and the concerned officers will be held personally accountable for non-compliance. Status Reports: States and UTs must file comprehensive status compliance reports detailing the remedial mechanisms within eight weeks before the matter is taken up for further hearing on January 13, 2026. This directive marks a major judicial push for public health and safety, signaling a shift toward more centralized and immediate action to manage the stray animal population in sensitive public areas across India.

New Delhi: On the occasion of the nationwide commemoration of the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, the national song has become the center of a fresh political controversy. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a significant historical charge, accusing India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, of committing a “historic sin” by deliberately truncating the song in 1937, specifically removing stanzas that hailed Goddess Maa Durga.   The Core Allegation: Truncating the National Song   The charge, led by BJP spokespersons and echoed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is focused on the decision taken by the Congress Working Committee (CWC) in 1937. The Claim: BJP asserts that the Congress, under the presidency of Nehru, adopted only the first two stanzas of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s original six-stanza composition, omitting the later verses that contained direct devotional references to Hindu deities like Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswathi. The Motive Cited: According to the BJP, this action was driven by a “communal agenda” to appease certain sensitivities, primarily the concerns raised by sections of the Muslim League who viewed the song’s strong idol-worshipping imagery as exclusionary. Historical Evidence: BJP leaders have cited historical documents, including letters written by Nehru to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1937, where Nehru reportedly stated that the full song’s background was “likely to irritate Muslims” and opined that the song was “not suitable as a national song.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while inaugurating the year-long commemoration, weighed in on the issue, stating that the decision to drop the important stanzas in 1937 “not only broke the song into pieces but also sowed the seeds of partition.”   The 1937 Context: The Congress Resolution   Vande Mataram, penned by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in the 1870s and published in his novel Anandamath in 1882, became the rallying cry of the Indian freedom movement. It was first sung in an Indian National Congress session by Rabindranath Tagore in 1896. The 1937 decision by the CWC followed protests from the Muslim League, especially in provinces where Congress formed governments, over the singing of the full song. The Resolution: The Congress officially adopted only the first two stanzas as the national song, arguing that these initial verses—which depict the motherland in geographical and non-deity-specific terms—were unobjectionable to any community. The later stanzas, which explicitly deified the nation as a manifestation of Goddess Durga, were the ones removed from the Congress’s official public recital. Role of Intellectuals: Historical accounts suggest the CWC resolution was influenced by advice sought from various quarters, including Rabindranath Tagore, who reportedly found the later stanzas, while harmless, potentially objectionable to those who believed in monotheism.   Congress Hits Back: ‘Proud Flagbearer’   The Congress party has swiftly rejected the BJP’s charges, labeling them a “distortion of history.” Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge asserted that the party has always been the “proud flagbearer” of Vande Mataram, which “awakened the collective soul of the nation.” Congress leaders pointed out that the 1937 decision was an attempt to maintain unity across religious lines during the freedom struggle. Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh cited historical accounts, noting that the decision was a crucial step taken to define the song’s place in public life and highlighted that the full song was one of the central symbols of the freedom movement that the Congress championed. The political exchange ensures that as India celebrates 150 years of its powerful national song, the debate over its history, original form, and symbolism will remain intensely political.

New Delhi | November 5, 2025 The upcoming release of the film ‘Haq’, starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi, is doing more than just filling cinema seats—it’s reopening one of the most consequential chapters in India’s legal and political history: the landmark Shah Bano Begum case of 1985. Scheduled for release on November 7, the courtroom drama is inspired by the battle of Shah Bano, an Indore woman whose pursuit of dignity and financial security after divorce exposed the deep fault lines between secular law, religious personal laws, and women’s rights in the country. The controversy is already building, with Shah Bano’s own daughter reportedly moving the High Court to seek a stay on the film’s release, alleging unauthorized and misrepresented depiction of her mother’s life.   The Fight for Maintenance: Why Shah Bano Went to Court The story begins in 1978, when 62-year-old Shah Bano Begum, a mother of five, was divorced by her husband, Mohammed Ahmed Khan, a prominent lawyer, after 43 years of marriage. After her husband stopped providing the promised maintenance, she took a courageous step and filed a petition in the local court. Her legal fight was not filed under Muslim Personal Law, but under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This is a secular, welfare provision that applies to all citizens, regardless of religion, and mandates that a person of sufficient means must provide maintenance to dependents, including a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself. Her husband contested the plea, arguing that under Muslim Personal Law, his financial obligation was limited to the iddat period—the mandatory waiting period of roughly three months following the divorce—and the payment of Mehr (dower).   The Landmark Verdict That Shook the Nation On April 23, 1985, the Supreme Court of India delivered a unanimous verdict that would reshape the national conversation on gender justice. The five-judge Constitution Bench ruled decisively in Shah Bano’s favor, holding that: Section 125 of CrPC is secular and applies to all citizens to prevent destitution and vagrancy. A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her former husband beyond the iddat period if she cannot maintain herself. The judgment asserted that secular law takes precedence over personal law in matters of maintenance to ensure basic human rights. The court even took the opportunity to express regret that Article 44 of the Constitution, which calls for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)—a common set of laws governing personal matters for all citizens—remained a “dead letter.”   The Political Overturn: The Act of 1986   The progressive judgment was immediately met with fierce backlash from conservative Muslim groups and clerics, who viewed it as an encroachment on Sharia law and an attack on their religious identity. Massive protests and political polarization ensued. Under immense pressure, the then-Rajiv Gandhi-led government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This Act effectively nullified the Supreme Court’s verdict, severely restricting the rights of divorced Muslim women by limiting the husband’s liability for maintenance to only the duration of the iddat period. After that, the woman was to rely on relatives or the state-run Waqf Board.   A Legacy That Endures Today   Despite the political reversal, the spirit of the Shah Bano judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Court through creative interpretation. In the Danial Latifi v. Union of India case, the court ruled that the “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance” mandated by the 1986 Act must be a one-time lump-sum payment made during the iddat period, sufficient to maintain the divorced woman for the rest of her life. This restored much of the financial protection initially granted to Muslim women. The case remains a watershed moment, not just for maintenance law, but for setting the stage for subsequent judicial reforms. It laid the groundwork for the eventual striking down of Triple Talaq (instantaneous divorce) by the Supreme Court in 2017, demonstrating the judiciary’s ongoing role in safeguarding gender equality against the rigidities of personal laws. As ‘Haq’ reaches the silver screen, it serves as a powerful reminder of the arduous fight for a uniform code of justice, where a woman’s fundamental rights stand above religious and political expediency.