The Evening Wrap: Uddhav Thackeray fights to keep control over Shiv Sena

A revolt against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray by his second-in-command and senior Minister Eknath Shinde has turned in to a battle to control the party. Mr. Thackeray on Wednesday said that he would quit the Chief Minister’s post and even the party’s top position if his party workers told him to do so to his face. Insisting that he had always overcome challenges, Mr. Thackeray said that he was ready to face more and wouldn’t mind if another Sena worker replaced him as the CM. In an emotional address to the people over Facebook, Mr. Thackeray, who has tested positive for COVID-19 said: “We joined hands with Congress and NCP (Nationalist Congress Party), but it’s not they who are telling me to quit. The sad part for me is that my own people [Shiv Sainiks] have lost trust on me. I considered them mine; I don’t know about them. I am ready to resign. But come and meet me face-to-face. Tell me that I should quit on my face and I will resign.” He stressed that instead of speaking to him from Surat in Gujarat, those with any grievances should come to meet him. Mr. Thackeray also said he would be leaving the CM’s official residence, ‘Varsha’, and moving to his personal residence ‘Matoshri’. On the other hand, Mr. Shinde, who is currently stationed at Guwahati in Assam along with the group of MLAs supporting him, has been claiming the support of the majority of Shiv Sena MLAs and demanding that the Sena ally with the BJP, for the sake of Hindutva, by cutting ties with the Congress and the NCP. Replying to Mr. Thackeray, Mr. Shinde tweeted that the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government benefited only its allies and harmed Sena workers. He tweeted with the hashtag #HindutvaForever: “While allies were getting stronger, Sena workers and Sena was systematically damaged. It is extremely important to quit from this unnatural alliance to save party and workers. It is important to take the decision now for the welfare of Maharashtra.” Earlier in the day, Mr. Shinde and his loyalists moved to Guwahati in Assam, from where he challenged the authority of the letter by Sunil Prabhu, Shiv Sena’s chief whip and Mr. Thackeray’s loyalist, in which he asked rebel MLAs to attend a meeting of party MLAs on Wednesday evening. Mr. Prabhu in his letter warned that the absence of an MLA would be considered as his voluntary decision to quit the party’s membership and he would face action under the sections to disqualify him. Demolitions were routine, lawful: U.P. tells Supreme Court The Uttar Pradesh government in the Supreme Court said the demolitions carried out in the aftermath of violence following the Prophet remarks row were not “extra legal punitive measures” targeting persons of a particular religious community linked to rioting, but routine measures taken by independent local authorities against owners of illegal structures. In a 63-page affidavit, the Uttar Pradesh government denied having done anything “extraordinary” and stuck to its portrayal of autonomous development authorities and their bulldozers going about their duties dispassionately without fear or favour. It snubbed petitioner Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’s version of “retaliatory” action as “absolutely false”. The State took offence to Jamiat’s accusations that the constitutional high-functionaries of Uttar Pradesh, with their statements, had triggered the bulldozers. “We take strong exception to the attempt by the petitioner (Jamiat) to name the highest constitutional functionaries of the State and falsely colour the local development authorities’ lawful actions strictly complying with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act of 1973 as ‘extra legal punitive measures’ against accused persons, targeting any particular religious community,” the government stated in its affidavit filed through the Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Home Department. Uttar Pradesh said rioters are already being dealt with under separate laws like UP Gangster Act, Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, UP Recovery if Damages to Public and Private Property Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. The State flatly denied allegations that local authorities were influenced by higher powers in the State, saying “development authorities are autonomous bodies that carry out enforcement proceedings independently on the facts of each case… the 1973 Act empowers them to demolish unauthorised/illegal constructions and encroachments”. Dealing separately with the demolitions in Kanpur, the State explained that the structures were illegal and non-compliant constructions. Proceedings against them were initiated long before the rioting in June 2022. Proceedings in one of the two cases dated back to August 2020, and the other, began in February 2022. It said that in these cases the builder and the owner had admitted to them being illegal constructions. On the razing down of the house of Javed Mohammed in Prayagraj on June 12, the court said the building was without sanction. It was unauthorisedly used as an office and the proceedings had started prior to rioting. The affidavit said the building had sported a board which said ‘Welfare Party of India’ and had “people coming and going at all times of the day and night and park their vehicles on the road, creating a constant problem in commuting”. Besides, none of the parties affected has approached the apex court, the State pointed out. “Demolitions were a routine effort to get rid of illegal constructions,” Uttar Pradesh government said. On June 16, the Supreme Court had told the Uttar Pradesh government that demolitions can happen only in accordance with the provisions of the law and cannot be retaliatory. “Ultimately, the rule of law should prevail… any action by you should be in accordance with the law,” the court had addressed the Uttar Pradesh government. While issuing formal notice to the State, the court had indicated its inclination to examine the legal question whether the Uttar Pradesh government had followed due process of law before demolishing the properties in places like Kanpur and Prayagraj. Courts expected to pass order at earliest in matters involving personal liberty: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has said that in a matter involving personal liberty, courts are expected to pass orders at the earliest in one way or the other taking into account the merits of the case. The apex court, while hearing a petition against a June 2 order of the Delhi High Court, observed that posting an application seeking anticipatory bail after two months cannot be appreciated. A vacation bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the petitioner’s grievance is that his application for anticipatory bail moved before the high court was posted for August 31 without granting any interim protection. “We are of the considered view that in a matter involving personal liberty, the court is expected to pass orders in one way or other taking into account the merits of the matter at the earliest. At any rate, posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated,” the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court, which noted that the application was moved on May 24, requested the high court to dispose of the plea for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three weeks after re-opening of the court. “If the main application could not be disposed of, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief sought for in the interlocutory application shall be considered on its own merits. Till such time, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein,” the bench said, while disposing of the petition. In its June 2 order, the high court had noted that the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered at a police station in New Delhi for the alleged offences, including that of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The high court had issued notice on the plea and the counsel appearing for the State had sought time to file a status report. It had listed the matter on August 31. Sonia Gandhi writes to ED seeking postponement of appearance till complete recovery Congress president Sonia Gandhi has written to the Enforcement Directorate seeking postponement of her appearance by a few weeks till she recovers completely from COVID-19 and a lung infection. The Congress president had been summoned by the agency for questioning in a money laundering case related to the National Herald newspaper on June 23. “Since she has been strictly advised rest at home following her hospitalisation on account of Covid and lung infection, Congress president Smt. Sonia Gandhi has written to ED today seeking the postponement of her appearance there by a few weeks till she has recovered completely,” Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said on Twitter. Ms. Gandhi was discharged on Monday from a private Delhi hospital where she was admitted for coronavirus-related complications. The Congress has accused the Centre of targeting Opposition leaders by misusing investigative agencies and has termed the entire action “political vendetta”. In Brief The flood situation in Assam continued to remain grim with rising water levels of the Brahmaputra and Barak rivers inundating fresh areas in the State and impacting over 55 lakh people across 32 districts, officials said on June 22. Eighty-nine people have lost their lives since mid-May due to deluge, they said. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma travelled to Nagaon by train to review the situation in flood-hit areas in the district, the officials said, adding that he was also scheduled to visit a few relief camps there. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow [logo] The Evening Wrap 22 JUNE 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Uddhav Thackeray fights to keep control over Shiv Sena A revolt against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray by his second-in-command and senior Minister Eknath Shinde has [turned in to a battle to control the party](. Mr. Thackeray on Wednesday said that he would quit the Chief Minister’s post and even the party’s top position if his party workers told him to do so to his face. Insisting that he had always overcome challenges, Mr. Thackeray said that he was ready to face more and wouldn’t mind if another Sena worker replaced him as the CM. In an emotional address to the people over Facebook, Mr. Thackeray, who has tested positive for COVID-19 said: “We joined hands with Congress and NCP (Nationalist Congress Party), but it’s not they who are telling me to quit. The sad part for me is that my own people [Shiv Sainiks] have lost trust on me. I considered them mine; I don’t know about them. I am ready to resign. But come and meet me face-to-face. Tell me that I should quit on my face and I will resign.” [Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray gestures during his Facebook live address on June 22, 2022. ] He stressed that instead of speaking to him from Surat in Gujarat, those with any grievances should come to meet him. Mr. Thackeray also said he would be leaving the CM’s official residence, ‘Varsha’, and moving to his personal residence ‘Matoshri’. On the other hand, Mr. Shinde, who is currently stationed at Guwahati in Assam along with the group of MLAs supporting him, has been claiming the support of the majority of Shiv Sena MLAs and demanding that the Sena ally with the BJP, for the sake of Hindutva, by cutting ties with the Congress and the NCP. Replying to Mr. Thackeray, Mr. Shinde tweeted that the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government benefited only its allies and harmed Sena workers. He tweeted with the hashtag #HindutvaForever: “While allies were getting stronger, Sena workers and Sena was systematically damaged. It is extremely important to quit from this unnatural alliance to save party and workers. It is important to take the decision now for the welfare of Maharashtra.” Earlier in the day, Mr. Shinde and his loyalists moved to Guwahati in Assam, from where he challenged the authority of the letter by Sunil Prabhu, Shiv Sena’s chief whip and Mr. Thackeray’s loyalist, in which he asked rebel MLAs to attend a meeting of party MLAs on Wednesday evening. Mr. Prabhu in his letter warned that the absence of an MLA would be considered as his voluntary decision to quit the party’s membership and he would face action under the sections to disqualify him. Demolitions were routine, lawful: U.P. tells Supreme Court The [Uttar Pradesh government in the Supreme Court said]( the demolitions carried out in the aftermath of violence following the Prophet remarks row were not “extra legal punitive measures” targeting persons of a particular religious community linked to rioting, but routine measures taken by independent local authorities against owners of illegal structures. In a 63-page affidavit, the Uttar Pradesh government denied having done anything “extraordinary” and stuck to its portrayal of autonomous development authorities and their bulldozers going about their duties dispassionately without fear or favour. It snubbed petitioner Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’s version of “retaliatory” action as “absolutely false”. The State took offence to Jamiat’s accusations that the constitutional high-functionaries of Uttar Pradesh, with their statements, had triggered the bulldozers. “We take strong exception to the attempt by the petitioner (Jamiat) to name the highest constitutional functionaries of the State and falsely colour the local development authorities’ lawful actions strictly complying with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act of 1973 as ‘extra legal punitive measures’ against accused persons, targeting any particular religious community,” the government stated in its affidavit filed through the Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Home Department. Uttar Pradesh said rioters are already being dealt with under separate laws like UP Gangster Act, Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, UP Recovery if Damages to Public and Private Property Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. The State flatly denied allegations that local authorities were influenced by higher powers in the State, saying “development authorities are autonomous bodies that carry out enforcement proceedings independently on the facts of each case… the 1973 Act empowers them to demolish unauthorised/illegal constructions and encroachments”. Dealing separately with the demolitions in Kanpur, the State explained that the structures were illegal and non-compliant constructions. Proceedings against them were initiated long before the rioting in June 2022. Proceedings in one of the two cases dated back to August 2020, and the other, began in February 2022. It said that in these cases the builder and the owner had admitted to them being illegal constructions. On the razing down of the house of Javed Mohammed in Prayagraj on June 12, the court said the building was without sanction. It was unauthorisedly used as an office and the proceedings had started prior to rioting. The affidavit said the building had sported a board which said ‘Welfare Party of India’ and had “people coming and going at all times of the day and night and park their vehicles on the road, creating a constant problem in commuting”. Besides, none of the parties affected has approached the apex court, the State pointed out. “Demolitions were a routine effort to get rid of illegal constructions,” Uttar Pradesh government said. On June 16, the Supreme Court had told the Uttar Pradesh government that demolitions can happen only in accordance with the provisions of the law and cannot be retaliatory. “Ultimately, the rule of law should prevail… any action by you should be in accordance with the law,” the court had addressed the Uttar Pradesh government. While issuing formal notice to the State, the court had indicated its inclination to examine the legal question whether the Uttar Pradesh government had followed due process of law before demolishing the properties in places like Kanpur and Prayagraj. Courts expected to pass order at earliest in matters involving personal liberty: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has said that in a matter involving personal liberty, courts are expected to pass orders at the earliest in one way or the other taking into account the merits of the case. The apex court, while hearing a petition against a June 2 order of the Delhi High Court, [observed that posting an application seeking anticipatory bail after two months cannot be appreciated](. A vacation bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the petitioner’s grievance is that his application for anticipatory bail moved before the high court was posted for August 31 without granting any interim protection. “We are of the considered view that in a matter involving personal liberty, the court is expected to pass orders in one way or other taking into account the merits of the matter at the earliest. At any rate, posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated,” the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court, which noted that the application was moved on May 24, requested the high court to dispose of the plea for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three weeks after re-opening of the court. “If the main application could not be disposed of, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief sought for in the interlocutory application shall be considered on its own merits. Till such time, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein,” the bench said, while disposing of the petition. In its June 2 order, the high court had noted that the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered at a police station in New Delhi for the alleged offences, including that of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The high court had issued notice on the plea and the counsel appearing for the State had sought time to file a status report. It had listed the matter on August 31. Sonia Gandhi writes to ED seeking postponement of appearance till complete recovery Congress president Sonia Gandhi has written to the Enforcement Directorate [seeking postponement of her appearance by a few weeks]( till she recovers completely from COVID-19 and a lung infection. The Congress president had been summoned by the agency for questioning in a money laundering case related to the National Herald newspaper on June 23. “Since she has been strictly advised rest at home following her hospitalisation on account of Covid and lung infection, Congress president Smt. Sonia Gandhi has written to ED today seeking the postponement of her appearance there by a few weeks till she has recovered completely,” Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said on Twitter. Ms. Gandhi was discharged on Monday from a private Delhi hospital where she was admitted for coronavirus-related complications. The Congress has accused the Centre of targeting Opposition leaders by misusing investigative agencies and has termed the entire action “political vendetta”. In Brief [A motorcyclist wades through a flooded road in Assam’s Kamrup district on June 22, 2022. ] The [flood situation in Assam continued to remain grim]( with rising water levels of the Brahmaputra and Barak rivers inundating fresh areas in the State and impacting over 55 lakh people across 32 districts, officials said on June 22. Eighty-nine people have lost their lives since mid-May due to deluge, they said. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma travelled to Nagaon by train to review the situation in flood-hit areas in the district, the officials said, adding that he was also scheduled to visit a few relief camps there. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow  Today’s Top Picks [[Business Matters | Why are so many IT employees quitting?] Business Matters | Why are so many IT employees quitting?]( [[How will the Agnipath military recruitment scheme play out? | In Focus podcast] How will the Agnipath military recruitment scheme play out? | In Focus podcast]( [[Watch | Why ketchup could be a victim of climate change?] Watch | Why ketchup could be a victim of climate change?]( [[The Period | Women Uninterrupted podcast - Episode 2] The Period | Women Uninterrupted podcast - Episode 2]( Copyright @ 2022, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](