Kharge Rahul Gandhi

Let’s See In How Many Hours Rahul Is Reinstated: Kharge

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Friday hailed the Supreme Court’s stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a 2019 defamation case and called it a victory of democracy and the Constitution, adding that it will be seen how long will it take to reinstate him after the Supreme Court relief.

“Satyameva Jayate….we all are happy and welcome the judgement of the Supreme Court. It is not only the victory of Rahul Gandhi but a victory of democracy and the Constitution…It’s a victory of people. Rahul Gandhi was disqualified within 24 hours. Let’s see in how many hours is he reinstated,” Kharge said while addressing a press conference in the national capital.

The Congress said the apex court judgment “is a strong vindication of truth and justice”.

Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said he will write to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to revoke the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi from the House following the apex court order.

“It’s a happy day…I will write and speak to Lok Sabha Speaker today itself,” Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury told ANI.

“This is the victory of truth. This will prove costly for Prime Minister,” he said.

Chowdhury sought to raise the demand for revocation of Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification in Lok Sabha on Friday.

He said he will also make the demand on Monday.

“We were overjoyed when the SC pronounced its decision. Rahul Gandhi’s absence from the Parliament was felt. Through Point Of Information, I told the Chairman in the Parliament about the SC’s decision & said that his membership should be reinstated at the earliest…Truth won today…,” he added.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said Rahul Gandhi has “refused to bend” despite the relentless efforts of the BJP.

“The Supreme Court judgment is a strong vindication of truth and justice. Despite the relentless efforts of the BJPs machinery, @RahulGandhi has refused to bend, break or bow, choosing instead to place his faith in the judicial process,” Jairam Ramesh said in a tweet.

After his conviction in the case, Gandhi was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24 following notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The apex court, while granting relief to Gandhi, said the ramifications of the trial court’s order are wide.

Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him, the bench said.

Congress leader was sentenced to two years in jail on March 23 under sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case filed by Purnesh Modi.

At a rally in Karnataka’s Kolar in April 2019, Rahul Gandhi, in a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”(ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Rahul Gandhi

Allow Me To Participate In Ongoing LS Sessions, Rahul Tells SC

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi while maintaining that he was not guilty in the ‘Modi surname’ remark case, on Wednesday requested the Supreme Court to stay his two-year conviction, enabling him to participate in the ongoing sittings of the Lok Sabha and the sessions thereafter.

At a rally in Karnataka’s Kolar in April 2019, Rahul Gandhi, in a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”.
Gandhi, filing an affidavit before the top court said that he has always maintained that he is not guilty of the offence and that the “conviction is unsustainable” and if he had to apologise and compound the offence, “he would have done it much earlier”.

The complainant, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, in his reply before the apex court, used slanderous terms such as ‘arrogant’ to describe him only because he has refused to apologise, stated Gandhi’s affidavit.

Using the criminal process and the consequences under the Representation of Peoples Act to “arm twist” Gandhi into apologising for no fault, is a gross abuse of the judicial process and ought not to be countenanced by this court, he added.

The affidavit further stated that Gandhi has an ‘exceptional’ case considering the offence being a trivial offence, and the irreparable harm that accrues to him as an elected MP.

“On the other hand, there is no prejudice caused at all to the complainant. It is therefore prayed for that the conviction of Gandhi be stayed, enabling him to participate in the ongoing sittings of the Lok Sabha and the sessions thereafter,” Gandhi said.

The complainant in the Rahul Gandhi’s criminal defamation case in which he was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail by the Surat court over the ‘Modi surname’ remark, on Monday told the Supreme Court that the attitude of the Congress leader reveals arrogant entitlement and he doesn’t deserve any relief in form of stay on his conviction.

Gandhi has shown arrogance rather than being apologetic over his remarks and his attitude shows insensitivity to an offended community and contempt for the law, according to the complainant.

“At the time of sentencing before the Trial Court, the Petitioner far from being repentant or contrite, displayed arrogance. He said he did not seek any mercy from the court and would not apologise for any harm to the reputation of the persons he had defamed. Subsequent to the order of conviction and sentence, in a press conference, the petitioner said that he would never apologise in this case as he was not a Savarkar, but a Gandhi,” stated the affidavit filed by complaint Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi.

Seeking dismissal of Gandhi’s appeal, the complainant said, the Congress leader maligned a totally blameless class of persons by his reckless and malicious words.

Earlier, the apex court sought a response from the Gujarat Government and the complainant on an appeal of Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court order which declined to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case.

After his conviction in the case, Gandhi was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24 following notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Gandhi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment which disqualified him as an MP under the rigours of the Representation of People Act.

Approaching the top court, Gandhi also sought a stay of the Gujarat High Court verdict which upheld his conviction. He said the High Court verdict “has no parallel or precedent in the jurisprudence of the law of defamation”.

He contended that it was “not only curious but extremely significant, indeed sinister, that all earlier cases, including the one regarding the present speech, were filed by members and office bearers of the ruling party”.

It was submitted that the surname ‘Modi’, in different parts of the country, encompassed different communities and sub-communities, which usually have no commonality or uniformity at all. The Modi surname belonged to various castes.

The complainant, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi who simply has a ‘Modi’ surname, did not prove that he was prejudiced or damaged in any specific or personal sense, the plea filed in the apex court added.

Gandhi’s plea said, “Unprecedentedly, in a case of criminal defamation, a maximum sentence of two years has been imposed. This itself is a rarest of rare occurrence.”

The High Court on July 7 affirmed the decision of a Gujarat Sessions court, which had refused to put on hold a magisterial court order on March 23 convicting Gandhi and handing out the maximum punishment provided for criminal defamation under the Indian Penal Code.

Rejecting Gandhi’s plea, the High Court has said that he has been seeking a stay on his conviction on “absolutely non-existent grounds” and a stay on conviction is not a rule but an exception.

In March, the magisterial court had convicted Gandhi for his remarks ahead of the 2019 national polls about the ‘Modi’ surname.

After the magisterial court convicted Gandhi, he approached the Sessions court, which rejected his plea for a stay on his conviction on April 20. Thereafter, he approached the High Court.

The Congress leader was sentenced to two years in jail on March 23 under sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case filed by Purnesh Modi. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

nuh notices to Uttar Pradesh Haryana and Delhi governments

SC Issues Notice To UP, Haryana, Delhi Govts Amid Nuh Protests

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi governments, amid protest marches and demonstrations being organised against the violence in Haryana’s nuh on July 31.

The court issued the notices on a plea over the Haryana violence and set the next hearing on August 4.
An apex court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti took up the plea for hearing on Wednesday.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, arguing for the applicant, apprised Supreme Court that 23 protests against the Haryana violence were being organised in Delhi.

The Supreme Court bench, while hearing the matter, stated, “There should be no hate speech, no violence if required, deploy additional forces, CCTV cameras to be installed and everything recorded to be preserved.”

Meanwhile, Members of Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Wednesday staged protests in several parts of the national capital against the violence that broke out in the Nuh district of neighbouring Haryana.

The protestors hit the streets near East Delhi’s Nirman Vihar Metro station and Ghonda Chowk, raising slogans.

Receiving word of the prostests, Delhi Police swung into action and ensured heavy security deployment in the area.

Apart from these two places, demonstrations were also held near Subhash Nagar Chowk.

Tension gripped the Nuh district on July 31 after two groups clashed during a procession. Following the clashes, security was tightened in the adjoining districts of Faridabad, Palwal, and Gurugram.

Earlier, on Wednesday, Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar informed reporters that a total of 116 people have been arrested in connection with the violence in Nuh, which has, so far, claimed 6 lives — 2 police home guards and 4 civilians.

“Six people — 2 home guards and 4 civilians — have died in the violence so far. A total of 116 people have been arrested in connection with the violence. They have been taken on remand. Those found guilty will not be spared. We are committed to ensuring order and public safety,” Khattar said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

SC Refuses To Stay delimitation Exercise Underway In Assam

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the ongoing delimitation exercise underway in Assam but agreed to hear a challenge made to it by opposition leaders of the state.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice to the Centre on the plea and asked Centre to file affidavit within three weeks.
Refusing to stay the delimitation process of Election Commission initiated in Assam, the bench said it wouldn’t issue any order restraining poll panel to take any further steps regarding delimitation exercise in the state.

“At this stage when delimitation has commended having due regard to issuance of the draft proposal on June 20, 2023, it would not be proper to interdict the process at this stage. Hence, while reserving the constitutional challenge, we are not issuing any orders restraining the Election Commission to take any further steps”, the apex court stated in its order.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by ten opposition leaders from Assam challenging the recent draft proposal of the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the delimitation of Assam’s 126 Assembly constituencies and 14 Lok Sabha constituencies.

The petition also challenged Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 as per which the Election Commission is exercising its power in conducting the delimitation process.

The petitioners filing the petition through advocate advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi challenged the provision on the grounds of the same being arbitrary and opaque apart from also being discriminatory to the State of Assam.

The petitioners who have filed the petition are Lurinjyoti Gogoi (Assam Jatiya Parishad), Debabrata Saikia (INC), Rokibul Hussain (INC), Akhil Gogoi (Raijor Dal), Manoranjan Talukdar (CPI(M)), Ghanakanta Chutia (Trinamool Congress), Munin Mahanta (CPI), Diganta Konwar (Anchalik Gana Morcha), Mahendra Bhuyan (Nationalist Congress Party), and Swarna Hazarika (Rashtriya Janata Dal).

The petitioners have challenged recent proposals of the ECI readjusting the extent of 126 Assembly and 14 Lok Sabha Constituencies in Assam by a draft order issued on June 20.

The petition challenged the methodology adopted by the ECI by taking different Average Assembly Size for different districts and argues that population density or populous-ness has no role to play in the process of delimitation.

“While the Constitution of India envisages an exercise whereby Constituencies are to be readjusted so as to ensure that all constituencies are comprised of an almost equal population, by relying on 2001 census figures, the Election Commission has created three categories of districts and has taken different yardstick for the three categories resulting in possible deviation of up to 33 per cent between the population of largest and smallest constituency,” the petition stated.

Petition contended that delimitation for the rest of the country has been conducted by a high powered body headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge and the same Commission was formed for Jammu and Kashmir as well.

“However, the provision of Section 8A discriminates against Assam and three North-Eastern States, for which the Election Commission has been prescribed as the authority to conduct delimitation,” it further stated.

The petition has also highlighted certain statements of the Chief Minister of Assam who has publicly stated that the present exercise will be beneficial to one party i.e., BJP while being damaging to other opposition parties.

Such statements, the petition submitted, while do not inspire any confidence in the exercise, also give rise to apprehensions that the ECI exercise has not been independent and has been heavily dictated by the State government, it added.

The apex court is also seized of two PILs regarding the delimitation of four North-Eastern States including Assam.

In December of last year, the Election Commission began the delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in Assam by using 2001 Census as per Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Yasin Presence In Supreme Court

Yasin’s Presence In SC Was Serious Security Lapse: Solicitor General

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Friday expressed his concern at Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) chief Yasin Malik’s presence in the Supreme Court today and wrote a letter to Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla, flagging the issue of security to Malik.

Yasin Malik, who is serving a life sentence in Tihar Jail after being convicted in a terror funding case, was presented before the top court for a hearing on a CBI plea against Jammu court order.
Stating that Yasin Malik’s presence in Supreme Court was a serious security lapse raising apprehension that he could have escaped, forcibly taken away or could have been killed, Mehta said, “It is my firm view that this is a serious security lapse. A person with a terrorist and secessionist background like Mr Yasin Malik who is not only a convict in a terror funding case but has known connections with terror organisations in Pakistan could have escaped, could have been forcibly taken away or could have been killed.”

In his letter to Bhalla, Mehta further said that even the security of the Supreme Court also would have been put at serious risk if any untoward incident were to happen.

“In any view of the matter so long as the order under section 268 of CrP Code subsists, jail authorities had no power to bring him out of jail premises nor did they have any reason to do so,” the SG said.

The Solicitor General further said that considering this to be a matter serious enough to once again bring it to your personal notice so that suitable action and steps can be taken at your end.

In the letter, it was mentioned about an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to the said Yasin Malik under section 268 Criminal Code of Procedure which prevents the jail authorities to bring the said convict out of the jail premises for security reasons.

“Everyone was shocked when news was received that the jail authorities are bringing Yasin Malik personally to appear before the Supreme Court as per his desire to appear as party in person,” he said.

The letter also mentioned about SG had telephonically intimated Home Secretary about this fact, however, by that time Yasin Malik had already reached the precincts of the Supreme Court of India.

Neither the Court had summoned his personal presence nor was any permission taken from any authority of the Supreme Court of India in this regard.

“When I enquired from the officer who was in charge of the security of Mr Yasin Malik in the Supreme Court, the only thing he could show me was a printed notice in a general format of the Supreme Court which is sent with regard to every party to any matter in the Court. The said printed notice informs the recipients of the notice to appear before the Court either in person or through an authorised Advocate,” SG said.

He also said that printed notice in a general format of the Supreme Court is not either the permission of the Supreme Court to bring a convict facing an order under section 268 of CrP Code to come out of jail nor it is requiring mandatory personal presence of the recipient of the order. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

SC Issues Notice On Rahul’s Plea, Next Hearing On August 4

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Gujarat government and complainant on an appeal of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court order which declined to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case in which he was sentenced to two years in jail by Surat court over ‘Modi surname’ remark.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra, issuing notice to the government and complainant Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, granted ten days time to them to file their responses through affidavit. It has posted the matter on the stay of his conviction for hearing on August 4.
At the outset of the hearing, the lead judge of the bench Justice BR Gavai said his father was a politician and had been an MLA and MP with the support of the Congress party and had a close association for more than 40 years.

Justice Gavai offered to recuse from the case saying his father and brother have association with the Congress party.

“It is my duty to disclose. everyone should know. My father had been a politician and had been closely associated with Congress for more than four decades. Though he was not a Congress member, he was elected with the help of Congress. My brother is in active politics. If any party had an objection, then I would recuse,” Justice Gavai said.

However, both parties said they don’t have any objection to Justice Gavai hearing the matter.

During the brief hearing, Singhvi argued that Gandhi has already lost 111 days as an MP from the Wayanad constituency and apprehended that Election Commission may announce a bypoll soon in the constituency.

“He could not attend the last Parliament session and now stands to be out of ongoing session. Please consider granting an interim stay on conviction,” Singhvi told the bench.

After his conviction in the case, Rahul Gandhi was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24 following notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Gandhi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment which disqualified him as an MP under the rigours of the Representation of People Act.

Approaching the top court, Gandhi also sought a stay of the Gujarat High Court verdict which upheld his conviction. He said the High Court verdict “has no parallel or precedent in the jurisprudence of the law of defamation”.

He contended that it was “not only curious but extremely significant, indeed sinister, that all earlier cases, including the one regarding the present speech, were filed by members and office bearers of the ruling party”.

It was submitted that the surname ‘Modi’, in different parts of the country, encompassed different communities and sub-communities, which usually have no commonality or uniformity at all. The Modi surname belonged to various castes.

The complainant, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi who simply has a ‘Modi’ surname, did not prove that he was prejudiced or damaged in any specific or personal sense, the plea filed in the apex court added.

Gandhi’s plea said, “Unprecedentedly, in a case of criminal defamation, a maximum sentence of two years has been imposed. This itself is a rarest of rare occurrence.”

The High Court on July 7 affirmed the decision of a Gujarat Sessions court, which had refused to put on hold a magisterial court order on March 23 convicting Gandhi and handing out the maximum punishment provided for criminal defamation under the Indian Penal Code.

Rejecting Gandhi’s plea, the High Court said he has been seeking a stay on his conviction on “absolutely non-existent grounds” and a stay on conviction is not a rule but an exception.

In March, the magisterial court convicted Gandhi for his remarks ahead of the 2019 national polls about the ‘Modi’ surname.

After the magisterial court convicted Gandhi, he approached the Sessions court, which rejected his plea for a stay on his conviction on April 20. Thereafter, he approached the High Court.

Congress leader was sentenced to two years in jail on March 23 under sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case filed by Purnesh Modi.

At a rally in Karnataka’s Kolar in April 2019, Rahul Gandhi, in a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

cheetah death Supreme court

SC Expresses Concern On Issue Related To Cheetahs Death

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its concern on the death of cheetahs in Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh and asked the Centre to take some positive steps regarding this. However, Centre apprised the top court that 50 percent deaths on translocation is normal.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra made these observations while hearing the issue related to the death of cheetahs.
Taking note of the deaths of two cheetahs last week, the court asked the Centre why were they making it a prestige issue.

The court also questioned why the cheetahs are put in one place. The court suggested the Centre take some positive steps.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the government, responded to the court that they are doing their best efforts for the project. She apprised the court that 50 per cent of deaths on translocation are normal.

The court sought to know the issue of whether they are suited to the climate or facing Kidney or respiratory issues or not. ASG replied that the infections were leading to the deaths.

The court remarked that one of the sanctuaries in Rajasthan is known for leopards and suggested the court consider this aspect.

Twelve cheetahs from South Africa arrived on February 18 in Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park after South Africa signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the re-introduction of Cheetahs in India to establish a viable cheetah population in the Asian country.

Earlier, eight cheetahs brought from Namibia were released by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Kuno National Park on the occasion of his birthday on September 17, 2022. One Cheetah died due to illness recently.

The MoU on the reintroduction of cheetahs to India facilitates cooperation between the parties to establish a viable and secure cheetah population in India, promotes conservation and ensures that expertise is shared and exchanged, and capacity is built, to promote cheetah conservation. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Adani Group on hidenbrug report

SC Report Helped Rebuild Confidence In Group: Adani

Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani on Tuesday once again slammed the US-based short seller Hindenburg Research report terming it was “a combination of targeted misinformation and discredited allegations.”

Addressing the company’s 31 st Annual General Meeting (AGM) 2023 today, Adani told investors that in January this year the US-based group had published a report to short the company’s stocks just as they were planning to launch the largest Follow-on Public Offering in India’s history.
“The report was a combination of targeted misinformation and discredited allegations, the majority of them dating from 2004 to 2015. They were all settled by the appropriate authorities at that time. This report was a deliberate and malicious attempt aimed at damaging our reputation and generating profits through a short-term drive-down of our stock prices,” Adani said in a video message.

“Subsequently, despite a fully subscribed FPO, we decided to withdraw and return the money to our investors to protect their interests. While we promptly issued a comprehensive rebuttal, various vested interests tried to exploit the claims made by the short seller. These entities encouraged and promoted false narratives across various news and social media platforms,” the industrialist said.

The Hindenburg report, which came out this January 24, alleged stock manipulation and fraud, among other charges, by the conglomerate.

The Adani Group had then termed Hindenburg as “an unethical short seller”, stating that the report by the New York-based entity was “nothing but a lie”. A short-seller in the securities market books seeks to gain from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares.

SEBI and a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee were tasked to probe the matter. The SC committee had made its report public in May this year.

Addressing shareholders today, Adani said that the apex court-appointed expert committee’s report helped rebuild confidence in the Adani group.

“The (SC-constituted) expert committee did not find any regulatory failure. The committee’s report not only observed that the mitigating measures undertaken by your company (Adani Group) helped rebuilt confidence but also cited that there were credible charges of targetted destablisation of Indian markets,” Gautam Adani told investors at the AGM.

“It also confirmed the quality of our Group’s disclosures and found no instance of any breach. While SEBI is still to submit its report we are confident of our governance and disclosure standards. It is my committment that we will continue to strive to keep improving this every single day. Our track record speaks for itself.”

Supreme Court-appointed expert committee constituted to look into the Adani-Hindenburg row, in May, had said it would not be possible for it to conclude that there has been a regulatory failure around the allegation of price manipulation in stocks.

“At this stage, taking into account the explanations provided by SEBI, supported by empirical data, prima facie, it would not be possible for the Committee to conclude that there has been a regulatory failure around the allegation of price manipulation,” the expert committee had said in its report submitted to the apex court.

On March 2, Supreme Court set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies. The committee was headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months.

Referring to the then volatility in the stocks and stating the interest of the investors as paramount and to insulate them from any potential financial losses, the Board had decided not to go ahead with the fully-subscribed FPO. A follow-on public offering (FPO) is the issuance of shares to investors by a company listed on a stock exchange after its initial public offerings.

Adani Enterprises had filed a red herring prospectus with the markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for the Rs 20,000 crore follow-on public offer (FPO), the largest ever in India.

Meanwhile, Gautam Adani also told stakeholders in his address today  that even after the Hindenburg episode, the group continued to raise several billions from global investors and pointed out that no rating agencies, both in India or abroad, have cut its ratings.

The industrialist also extolled the growth prospects for India.

“While economic cycles are getting increasingly hard to forecast, there is little doubt that, India – already the world’s 5th largest economy – will become the world’s 3rd largest economy well before 2030 and, thereafter, the world’s second largest economy by 2050,” Adani said.

“Following our independence, it took us 58 years to get to our first trillion dollars of GDP, 12 years to get to the next trillion and just 5 years for the third trillion. I anticipate that within the next decade, India will start adding a trillion dollars to its GDP every 18 months. This puts us on track to be a 25 to 30 trillion-dollar economy by 2050 and will drive India’s stock market capitalization to over 40 trillion dollars – approximately a10X expansion from current levels,” he said. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Rahul Gandhi Gujarat High Court

SC To Hear Rahul’s Plea Against Gujarat HC Order In Modi Case On July 21

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, agreed to hear on July 21 the plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court’s order that declined to stay his conviction and a two-year-jail term in the ‘Modi’ surname defamation case.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before the Supreme Court.
Rahul Gandhi had on Saturday approached the apex court challenging the Gujarat High Court order which declined to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case in which he was sentenced to two years in jail by Surat court over ‘Modi surname’ remark.

After his conviction in the case, Gandhi was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24 following a notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Gandhi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment which disqualified him as an MP under the rigours of the Representation of People Act.

In March, the magisterial court had convicted Gandhi for his remarks ahead of the 2019 national polls about the ‘Modi’ surname.

After magisterial court convicted Gandhi, he approached the Sessions court, which rejected his plea for a stay on his conviction on April 20. Thereafter, he approached the High court. (ANI)

Read more: http://13.232.95.176/

India Has to do Much More to Attract Global Investment

Last week the Taiwanese electronics manufacturers and prominent supplier to Apple announced that it was pulling out of India and shelving its plans to set up a plant to make semiconductors jointly with Indian conglomerate, Vedanta. It was a big setback. The Foxconn project, envisaged with an investment of nearly $20 billion, was touted as a big breakthrough to India’s Make in India and Self-reliant India drives, both pet missions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to boost manufacturing in India and the country’s value-added exports. 

Foxconn, which is the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer, was to have set up its joint venture plant in Modi’s home state of Gujarat and once up and running it would have employed an estimated 100,000 people.

Why Foxconn decided to pull out of the project is not known in detail. However, media reports suggest that the decision has to do with the quantum of incentives that the project was supposed to receive.

Foxconn’s about-face shows that India’s ambitious objective of emerging as a globally relevant manufacturing base will not be easy to achieve. A lot more needs to be done. And they need to be done fast. 

Opportunities have opened up for potential manufacturing locations in the world after the West and multinational corporations have begun rethinking their China strategy. China and the US are in the midst of a face-off that has economic and commercial implications for both countries. Western companies are also peeved at the increased restrictions and controls that the Chinese government has been imposing on their activities in China. 

However, if India wants a piece of the action by attracting big investments in manufacturing, it will have to go the extra mile. 

In the Foxconn instance, the concerns may have been about delays by the Indian government to approve incentives that the project was entitled to. Apparently, the government agencies had raised questions about the cost estimates of the project. These values determined the quantum of incentives that the project was to receive.

India is coming late to the global manufacturing game and although China might be losing its sheen as a favoured player there, the competition is by no means a cakewalk. Tiny Vietnam has scored more points when it comes to attracting investment that is looking for destinations other than China. India, simply, has to do much more.

Furore over an extension for India’s ED

India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a domestic law enforcement and economic intelligence agency responsible for enforcing economic laws and fighting economic crime in India. As part of the finance ministry’s department of revenue, the directorate, headed by the Enforcement Director, is a powerful body that investigates and prosecutes cases involving foreign exchange law violations, money laundering, and other economic offences. By definition the ED needs to be fair and unbiased, not swayed by political pressure nor used with motivation other than the offences and violations that it is deemed to deal with.

However, the controversy right now is that the ED has been accused of being biased and politically motivated in its actions and investigations against some opposition leaders, activists, journalists, and businessmen. 

The controversy’s latest twist is that the current director, S.K. Mishra, has been given three extensions of his term by the central government since his appointment in October 2018. His original term was supposed to end in November 2020, but he was given a one-year extension till November 2021, and then another one-year extension till November 2022, and finally a third one-year extension till November 2023. 

The third extension was recently struck down by India’s Supreme Court as being illegal and invalid in law because it violated an earlier judgment that has directed the government not to extend Mishra’s term further. 

Instances where the government interferes or influences investigating agencies such as the ED, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and other bodies, are not uncommon in India. Neither are such instances of misuse related to any particular government or regime in power. Such biased “use” of agencies meant to act objectively have occurred during the tenure of successive governments in India, regardless of their political stripe. 

Curiously, hours after the Supreme Court struck down the third extension for Mishra, the home minister Amit Shah said in a tweet that “those rejoicing over the Hon’ble SC decision on the ED case are delusional for various reasons: The amendments to the CVC Act, which were duly passed by the Parliament, have been upheld. Powers of the ED to strike at those who are corrupt and on the wrong side of the law remain the same”. He added that the “ED is an institution which rises beyond any one individual”.

Some wondered why the home minister, whose ministry is responsible for the maintenance of internal security and domestic policy in the country, was commenting on the ED whose office is under the finance ministry.

Hearing to begin on Kashmir’s revoked autonomy

In 2019, in a quick decision, the Modi government revoked the Indian Constitution’s Article 370 in Kashmir. The Article gave the northern Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir a special status, which forbade Indians outside the state from permanently settling, buying land, holding local government jobs and securing education scholarships.

The Modi regime revoked the Article and split the state into two union territories, Kashmir and Jammu.

Last week, however, it was announced that the Supreme Court would begin hearing arguments related to an appeal against the abrogation of the Article. Opponents of the ruling regime believe the abrogation was unconstitutional in Kashmir, which is India’s only Muslim-majority region. But the move by the Centre to revoke the special status was seen as part of the Modi government’s attempt to consolidate its rule over the territory. The proceedings in the Supreme Court begin shortly and will be watched keenly

The floods in Delhi are not only because of rain

Last week as rains pounded north India, Delhi witnessed floods of a magnitude that had not occurred in 45 years. The levels of the River Yamuna rose, breached an all-time high and overflowed into the city flooding key roads. 

The authorities had to evacuate thousands of people in flood-prone areas and major traffic diversions had to be put in place. Nearly 100 people died because of the floods. TV footage showed flooded streets in the city, including the street outside Delhi’s chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s home. Because of the floods, three water-treatment plants in the city have had to be closed down and Kejriwal said that water would have to be rationed–that means Delhi could face water shortages for a few days. 

Although the rainfall in Delhi has been heavy–Delhi, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh have received 112%, 100% and 70% more rainfall than average so far–the floods are not all because of the rains. Systematic ecological degradation is to blame. The warnings have been coming in for a number of years now. 

Experts say large-scale encroachment of floodplains, the absence of wetlands and the presence of 25 bridges on the Yamuna River have contributed to the deluge. The rains are only the tipping point. In addition, the infrastructure, such as drainage systems, which is required to handle flooding, is in need of serious overhauling. 

Sadly, the red flags are raised only when the floods occur and when the rains subside, no one worries about them any longer.

Will Wagner Group get a new boss?

Not so long ago, all eyes were on Yevgeny Prigoshin, the head of Russia’s most prominent mercenary army, which played a crucial role in the country’s offensive against Ukraine. Prighozin led a sort of mutiny against the Kremlin when he led his troops towards Moscow–a move that was construed as a challenge to President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

The so-called attempted coup was defused and the troops retreated. Prigozhin is believed to be in St. Petersburg but his group of soldiers, recruited mainly from prisons, is no longer believed to be active in the ongoing war that has been going on for more than 500 days. 

Now, reports have emerged that Putin has proposed to the Wagner Group’ fighters that a senior mercenary, Andrey Troshev, be appointed as their new commander. According to reports emanating from mostly state-controlled media in Russia, Putin is attempting to create a split between Prighozin and his erstwhile fighters. 

Would this be a fresh lease on life for the Wagner Group and its involvement in Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine? The unfolding events will tell.