Ma­haraja flies king, who’s down to earth in the air

Re­jected PM’s of­fer ‘to work to­gether’, claims Pawar Swedish Roy­als Get Off Car­ry­ing Their Own Bags

The Times of India (New Delhi edition) - - FRONT PAGE - DELHI TIMES Sau­rabh.Sinha Swe­den’s king Carl XVI Gustaf and queen Sil­via on ar­rival at IGI

Hint­ing at BJP’s at­tempts to form gov­ern­ment with his party in Ma­ha­rash­tra, NCP chief Sharad Pawar said on Mon­day PM Naren­dra Modi had ex­pressed a de­sire to “work to­gether”, but that he had de­clined the of­fer. Pawar said he met the PM in Par­lia­ment House on Novem­ber 20 to dis­cuss the agrar­ian cri­sis. “Af­ter our dis­cus­sion was over, he called me back, say­ing, ‘I will be happy, if we work to­gether’. I re­jected the of­fer, say­ing, ‘our per­sonal re­la­tions are ex­cel­lent and in fu­ture too, they will be ex­cel­lent, but po­lit­i­cally, it’s not con­ve­nient for me’,’’ Pawar said at a TV in­ter­view.

New Delhi: An Air In­dia Dream­liner flight from Stock­holm touched down in Delhi on Mon­day with two royal guests trav­el­ling like nor­mal pas­sen­gers as if to the man­ner born: King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Sil­via of Swe­den.

Shorn of the trap­pings of high-fly­ing roy­alty be­cause of a last-minute snag in the of­fi­cial air­craft that was to bring them here, nei­ther the king nor the queen made a fuss. If any­thing, the royal cou­ple aboard the Ma­haraja flew into the hearts of co-pas­sen­gers and the crew with their down-to-earth de­meanour through­out the flight.

AI sources said the king rel­ished the In­dian meal served on board and, on alight­ing from the Dream­liner, took ev­ery­one by sur­prise when he in­sisted on car­ry­ing his cabin bags from the plane through the aer­o­bridge.

Air In­dia, which op­er­ates its twin class (busi­ness and econ­omy) Boe­ing 787 Dream­liner be­tween Delhi and Stock­holm thrice a week, had heard from the palace about tick­ets for the royal cou­ple and their en­tourage only a few hours be­fore the flight.

Re­view pe­ti­tions, nor­mally, get ad­ju­di­cated in cham­ber by the same bench which ren­dered the judg­ment and without as­sis­tance of lawyers from lit­i­gat­ing sides.

“In the judg­ment, the SC has ac­knowl­edged a few of sev­eral il­le­gal­i­ties com­mit­ted by Hindu par­ties — dam­age of the domes of Babri Masjid in 1934, plac­ing of idols sur­rep­ti­tiously in­side the in­ner court­yard to des­e­crate the mosque in the in­ter­ven­ing night of December 22-23, 1949, and de­mo­li­tion of the mosque in 1992. How­ever, the SC pro­ceeded to con­done these very il­le­gal acts and has awarded the dis­puted site to the very party which based its claims on noth­ing but a se­ries of il­le­gal acts,” Rashidi said in his 217-page pe­ti­tion, in­clud­ing


sup­port­ing doc­u­ments.

The pe­ti­tioner also ques­tioned the bal­anc­ing act done by the SC, us­ing its in­her­ent pow­ers un­der Ar­ti­cle 142 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, to award five acres of land at a prom­i­nent place in Ay­o­d­hya to the Sunni Waqf Board. Rashidi said this came as con­don­ing the il­le­gal­i­ties of Hindu par­ties over decades. He said five acres to the Waqf Board was “nei­ther pleaded (dur­ing the ar­gu­ments) nor prayed for (in the ap­peals chal­lengBoard.

ing Al­la­habad HC ver­dict)”.

Re­spon­dents in the re­view pe­ti­tion in­clude ‘Bhagwan Sri Ram Vi­ra­j­man at Sri Ram Jan­mab­hoomi Ay­o­d­hya’. The Al­la­habad HC had in its Septem­ber 30, 2010, judg­ment di­vided the dis­puted land into three equal parts and given one each to Ram Lalla, Nir­mohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board. The SC by its Novem­ber 9 judg­ment gave the en­tire dis­puted land to Ram Lalla’s tem­ple, re­ject­ing claims of both Nir­mohi Akhara and Waqf How­ever, it al­lot­ted five acres at an al­ter­na­tive place to the board.

Rashidi did not seek re­view of the SC judg­ment on sev­eral points — re­jec­tion of Nir­mohi Akhara’s suit as barred by lim­i­ta­tion; Ram Jan­mas­than not be­ing a ju­ris­tic per­son; de­ity not a per­pet­ual mi­nor for the pur­pose of lim­i­ta­tions; Vishnu Hari in­scrip­tions were not re­cov­ered from the dis­puted site; Waqf Board’s suit was not barred by lim­i­ta­tion; courts can­not cor­rect his­tor­i­cal wrongs; ASI report’s in­abil­ity to an­swer whether a pre­ex­ist­ing struc­ture was de­mol­ished to con­struct Babri Masjid; find­ing of ti­tle can­not be based on ar­chae­o­log­i­cal ev­i­dence; Places of Wor­ship (Special Pro­vi­sion) Act, 1991, is in­trin­si­cally re­lated to obli­ga­tion of a sec­u­lar state and re­flects com­mit­ment to equal­ity of all reli­gions.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.