The European Parliament has traditionally acted as a brake on hardline instincts of EU governments on migration. However, a recent vote has marked a significant shift in this approach.

On March 27, 2026, the European Parliament voted on new EU return policies in the field of migration. The vote was adopted with 389 votes in favor, 206 against, and 32 abstentions. This decisive moment has led to the approval of a law that allows for the detention of individuals without the right to stay in the EU for up to two years, an increase from the current maximum detention period of 18 months.

The new proposals also include the establishment of ‘return hubs’ outside the EU for deported individuals, a move that has been spearheaded by Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Greece, and Denmark. These changes have raised concerns among human rights advocates.

The International Rescue Committee described the vote as a historic setback for refugee rights, highlighting the potential for asylum seekers to disappear into ‘legal black holes’ beyond EU borders. Critics argue that the proposals, influenced by an alliance of mostly centre-right and far-right lawmakers, will strip individuals of rights and protections based solely on their migration status.

Charlie Weimers, a member of the European Parliament, stated, “The era of deportations has begun.” This sentiment reflects a growing concern among various stakeholders about the implications of the new policies.

Marta Welander, an advocate for refugee rights, warned that the legislation is designed to deter, detain, and deport people seeking safety. She emphasized that the return hubs will be located outside of EU territory, where policymakers cannot guarantee that people’s rights will be upheld.

Additionally, the draft law features 38 formulations proposed by the far-right ESN group, further illustrating the influence of far-right politics in shaping EU migration policy.

Human rights groups have also expressed alarm over the harsh penalties included in the proposals for those who refuse to be relocated to the return hubs.

The next step will involve negotiations between lawmakers and member states on a final legislative text, as the EU grapples with the implications of these new return policies.

The post Eu-parlament: European Parliament Votes on New Return Policies appeared first on newscri.

Before recent developments, Celina Jaitley had been actively seeking legal representation for her brother, Vikrant Jaitly, who has been detained in the United Arab Emirates since September 6, 2024. The expectation was that the Delhi High Court would support her petition, allowing her to communicate with him and ensure his legal rights were upheld.

However, the situation took a decisive turn when the Delhi High Court closed Celina Jaitley’s petition. The court noted that Vikrant Jaitly had expressed a desire not to seek legal assistance at this stage, leading to the dismissal of her request for a video conference call with him. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav remarked, “There is no reason to keep the writ petition pending. It is accordingly disposed of.” This marked a significant shift in the legal proceedings surrounding Vikrant Jaitly’s case.

The immediate effects of this decision have been profound for both Celina Jaitley and her brother. While the Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi has met with Vikrant Jaitly nine times since his arrest, he has refused to communicate with Celina. His current stance on legal representation is contingent upon decisions made by his wife, further complicating the situation.

Experts have pointed out that the court’s ruling reflects a broader context of legal autonomy, emphasizing that when an individual, like Vikrant Jaitly, chooses to forgo legal assistance, the courts may respect that choice. Justice Kaurav’s statement, “When Mr. Jaitly says something, we have to adhere to it,” underscores the judiciary’s position on personal agency in legal matters.

Despite the court’s dismissal of Celina Jaitley’s petition, the Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs to continue providing support for Vikrant Jaitly’s legal needs. This suggests that while the petition was closed, the government will still play a role in ensuring his rights are protected during his detention.

Celina Jaitly’s counsel expressed concerns for her brother’s safety, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in the region, stating, “We are concerned for his safety, especially in view of the war.” This highlights the precarious nature of Vikrant Jaitly’s situation and the potential risks involved.

As the situation develops, it remains to be seen how Vikrant Jaitly’s decisions regarding legal representation will unfold and what implications they may have for his future. Details remain unconfirmed regarding further actions that may be taken by Celina Jaitley or the Indian authorities.

The post Celina Jaitley appeared first on newscri.