PAKISTANI CANADIAN businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana, sought by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, has been ruled extraditable to India by a US court in California under the extradition treaty between the two countries.
A panel of judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on an appeal filed by 63-year-old Rana. They upheld the decision of the district court in the central district of California, which had denied his habeas corpus petition.
He had challenged a magistrate judge's certification of his extradition to India for his alleged role in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Rana, currently lodged in a jail in Los Angeles, faces charges for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai attack and is known to be associated with Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the terror incident.
Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offence fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and India, which included a Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extraditability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offence for which extradition is requested”.
Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the US state department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offence” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime.
The panel of three judges concluded that a co-conspirator’s plea agreement did not compel a different result. The panel held that the Non Bis in Idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained distinct elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the US.
In its ruling, the panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes. The three panel of judges were Milan D Smith, Bridget S. Bade, and Sidney A Fitzwater.
Rana, a Pakistani national, was tried in a US district court on charges related to his support for a terrorist organisation that carried out large-scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
A jury convicted him of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organisation and conspiring to provide material support to a foiled plot to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark.
However, the jury acquitted Rana of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism-related to the attacks in India. After Rana served seven years in prison for those convictions and upon his compassionate release, India issued a request for his extradition to try him for his alleged participation in the Mumbai attacks.
Before the magistrate judge who initially decided Rana’s extraditability (the extradition court), Rana argued that the US extradition treaty with India protected him from extradition because of its Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) provision. He also argued that India did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause that he committed the charged crimes.
The extradition court rejected Rana’s arguments and certified that he was extraditable. After Rana raised the same arguments in a habeas petition in district court (the habeas court), the habeas court affirmed the extradition court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Rana has the option of appealing against this ruling. He still has not run out of all the legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at iconic and vital locations in Mumbai.
ZIA YUSUF, chairman of the Reform UK party, resigned on Thursday.
Reform UK, led by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, won five parliamentary seats in last July’s national election and had a strong showing in last month’s local elections.
The party is currently leading national opinion polls, ahead of prime minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party.
“I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office,” Yusuf said, without giving further details about his decision to step down.
Internal divisions within Reform UK have surfaced publicly in the past. In March, the party referred one of its lawmakers, Rupert Lowe, to police over allegations including threats of physical violence against Yusuf. Prosecutors later decided not to bring charges against Lowe, who was suspended by the party.
Earlier on Thursday, Yusuf criticised Reform MP Sarah Pochin’s question to Starmer in parliament about whether the government would consider banning the burqa, calling it “dumb”.
Yusuf, who is not an MP, became chairman of the party last year.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Border Security Force (BSF) personnel patrol along the borderline fence at the India-Bangladesh border in Golakganj, Dhubri district in India's Assam state on May 26, 2025.
BANGLADESH on Wednesday said Indian authorities have pushed more than 1,270 people across the border over the past month. The group includes mostly Bangladeshis, along with Indian citizens and Rohingya refugees.
Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) officials said, “Between May 7 and June 3, Indian authorities pushed in 1,272 individuals, including a few Indian citizens and Rohingya, through 19 bordering districts.” They added, “Only yesterday, they pushed 50 individuals.”
Relations between the two neighbours have become tense since a mass uprising led to the fall of the previous Bangladeshi government last year. India surrounds Bangladesh on three sides.
India’s government has described undocumented immigrants as “Muslim infiltrators”, accusing them of being a security threat. It has not commented on the recent cases of people being sent back across the border.
Jahidul Molla, a 21-year-old Bangladeshi, said he was among those sent back. He said he had lived in India’s Gujarat state since the age of 14. “They picked us up from home and put us on a plane,” Molla told AFP. He said that after spending two weeks in a camp, he was taken onboard a ship with more than 50 others, almost all men.
“For the next three days, they kept beating us, and we were starving,” he said, claiming that they were later dropped overboard in the Sundarbans mangrove swamps along the India-Bangladesh border. “They dropped us... the coast guard rescued us and handed us over to the police.”
AFP said it could not independently verify his account.
India shares a long and porous border with Bangladesh, which is Muslim-majority. The Rohingya, a mostly Muslim minority group, have faced persecution in Myanmar for decades, including a major military crackdown in 2017. Over a million fled to Bangladesh, while others went to India.
The BGB official said “some of the Rohingya” being pushed back were registered with the UN refugee agency in India.
Md Touhid Hossain, head of the foreign ministry in Bangladesh's caretaker government, said Dhaka was “putting all our efforts” into resolving the issue through dialogue.
Indian media have reported that since a four-day conflict with Pakistan last month, authorities have pushed back more than 2,000 alleged illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
In February, India’s interior minister Amit Shah said, “The issue of illegal intruders is also related to national security, and it should be dealt with strictly,” adding, “they should be identified and deported.”
(With inputs from AFP)
Keep ReadingShow less
Mahindananda Aluthgamage (centre) and Anil Fernando at Colombo court on Thursday (29)
A SRI LANKAN court last Thursday (29) sentenced two former ministers from the government of deposed president Gotabaya Rajapaksa to decades in prison in a landmark corruption case.
Ex-sports minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage and former trade minister Anil Fernando were found guilty by the Colombo high court of misappropriating 53 million rupees (£131,121) of state funds.
The pair were also fined £1,481 for using government money to donate board games – including 14,000 carrom boards and 11,000 draughts sets – in an attempt to boost the failed 2015 re-election bid of Gotabaya’s elder brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Aluthgamage was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Fernando was sentenced to 25 years.
Aluthgamage is now the most senior member of a Rajapaksa-led cabinet to be successfully prosecuted for corruption.
The cases against both men were initiated six years ago, when the Rajapaksa brothers were out of power, but the case had been making slow headway until a new government took office last year.
Aluthgamage also faces a separate investigation into allegations that he authorised in 2022 a payment of $6.09 million (£4.5m) to a Chinese supplier for a fertilizer shipment that was never delivered. He caused a stir in 2020 when he accused Sri Lanka’s national cricket team of rigging the 2011 World Cup final in favour of India, triggering a probe that ultimately failed to substantiate his claims.
Aluthgamage, who served as sports minister from 2010 to 2015, said in June 2020 that he had “not wanted to disclose” the alleged match-fixing plot at the time.
“In 2011, we were supposed to win, but we sold the match. I feel I can talk about it now. I am not implicating players, but certain sections were involved,” he said.
Keep ReadingShow less
Scottish Labour candidate for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Davy Russell arrives at a polling station to cast his vote on June 05, 2025 in Quarter, Scotland. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
VOTERS are casting ballots across Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse in Scotland to choose a new MSP following the death of Christina McKelvie.
The by-election follows the death in March of the SNP government minister, who passed away aged 57 after battling secondary breast cancer. McKelvie had served as drugs and alcohol policy minister and held the constituency since its creation in 2011.
Ten candidates are competing for the seat, with results expected in the early hours of Friday (6) after polls close at 10pm on Thursday (5). The contest represents the first Scottish Parliament by-election since 2019, offering parties a crucial test of public opinion less than a year before the next Holyrood elections in May 2026.
The late MSP had won the seat comfortably in 2021 with a majority of 4,582 over Labour, making it a key battleground for the main parties. McKelvie first entered Parliament in 2007, representing the Central Scotland region before moving to Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse when boundary changes created the constituency.
The full list of candidates standing includes Katy Loudon for the SNP, Davy Russell for Scottish Labour, and Richard Nelson for the Scottish Conservatives. Other contenders are Aisha Mir (Scottish Liberal Democrats), Ann McGuinness (Scottish Green Party), Ross Lambie (Reform UK), Janice MacKay (UKIP), Collette Bradley (Scottish Socialist Party), Andy Brady (Scottish Family Party), and Marc Wilkinson as an independent.
Voters do not need identification to cast their ballots in this first-past-the-post election, where the candidate with the most votes wins. Those who requested postal votes but haven't sent them can still hand them in at polling stations before the 10pm deadline.
The contest comes at a significant time for Scottish politics, with all parties keen to build momentum ahead of next year's crucial Holyrood elections. The result will provide the first major electoral test since the general election and could offer insights into shifting voter allegiances in Scotland.
South Lanarkshire council is overseeing the election, with counting taking place at their Hamilton headquarters once polls close. The winner will serve as MSP for less than a year before facing voters again in the scheduled May 2026 Scottish Parliament elections.
Broadcasting restrictions prevent media outlets from reporting on campaigning or election issues while polls remain open. However, comprehensive coverage of the count and result will begin once voting ends at 10pm, reports said.
Keep ReadingShow less
Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf. (Photo: Getty Images)
A PUBLIC row has erupted within Reform UK after one of their newly-elected MPs called for Britain to ban the burqa, with the party's own chairman branding the move "dumb".
Sarah Pochin, Reform's MP for Runcorn and Helsby, used her first appearance at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday (4) to ask Sir Keir Starmer whether he would follow European neighbours in banning the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women.
"Given the Prime Minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he, in the interests of public safety, follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burqa?" the former Tory councillor asked.
Her question prompted audible disquiet in the Commons, with cries of "shame" from fellow MPs. The prime minister declined to engage with the proposal, telling Pochin: "I am not going to follow her down that line."
However, the controversy deepened when Reform UK's chairman Zia Yusuf publicly distanced himself from the question on social media. "I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the prime minister if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do," he wrote on X.
Yusuf said he had "no idea" that Pochin would raise the issue and confirmed it was not party policy. "Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff," he added.
The split became more apparent when other Reform figures offered conflicting views. Lee Anderson, the party's whip, supported the ban on social media, writing: "Ban the burqa? Yes we should. No one should be allowed to hide their identity in public."
Sarah Pochin (Photo: UK Parliament)
Party leader Nigel Farage later told GB News that he believed "face coverings in public don't make sense and I think we deserve a debate about that, of which I see the burqa being part."
The debate sparked heated discussion on LBC Radio, where journalist Khadija Khan supported the ban, describing the burqa as coming with a "misogynistic ideology" that "denigrates women". She called it a security and gender equality concern, criticising the prime minister's "dismissive" response as "staggering".
However, Muslim Yemeni activist Lila Tamea strongly opposed the proposal, telling LBC that "forcing people to uncover something they don't wish to uncover is outright totalitarian". She warned it was a "dangerous move" and a "slippery slope", arguing there was "deep misunderstanding" over the meaning of the veil.
Several European countries have implemented similar bans. France introduced its prohibition in 2010 under then-president Nicolas Sarkozy, with fines of 150 euros (£126) for wearing face coverings in public spaces. Belgium followed a year later, while Denmark, Austria and Switzerland have since adopted comparable laws.
Pochin later defended her question, saying it was something "a number of people had raised" with her since her election last month.