New Delhi: Ten days after the President issued an ordinance to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court to 38, the SC collegium led by CJI Surya Kant on Wednesday recommended the Central government to appoint four HC chief justices – Sheel Nagu, Shri Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Arun Palli – and senior lawyer V Mohana as SC judges.With the appointment, Mohana will become the second woman after Justice Indu Malhotra to be appointed as an SC judge directly from the bar. The recommendations were finalized after a stormy preliminary discussion that lasted till after midnight at the CJI’s residence on May 22.However, the names were finalized on Wednesday by the collegium comprising CJI Kant and Justices Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari, BV Nagarathna and MM Sundaresh after removing those names on which there were major differences of opinion. Upon appointment of these five as judges, the strength of the Supreme Court will increase from the present 32 to 37, leaving only one vacancy.Punjab and Haryana HC Chief Justice Nagu was part of the three-member in-house investigation committee constituted by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna for the discovery of a huge amount of cash in a half-burnt state at the residence of then Delhi HC judge Yashwant Verma in March last year. Justice Verma has resigned from the post of judge of Allahabad HC.Justice Nagu was appointed as a judge of MP HC in May 2011 and then as CJ of Punjab and Haryana HC on July 9, 2024. As an SC judge, his tenure will be three and a half years and he is scheduled to retire on December 31, 2029.Mohana is a first generation lawyer and became an advocate on record in 1996. He was designated as senior counsel by the SC in April 2015. Hailing from Coimbatore, she practiced law for over 37 years after obtaining her law degree in 1988.Bombay HC Chief Justice Chandrashekhar will have less than four years’ tenure in the SC and will retire on May 24, 2030. He was part of the Judges Inquiry Committee appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha which was probing the alleged misconduct of Justice Yashwant Verma. MP HC Chief Justice Sachdeva’s tenure on appointment to the SC will be three and a half years. Chief Justice Palli of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC will have a tenure of three years and four months upon his appointment as an SC judge.

New Delhi: The Election Commission As directed by the Supreme Court, the list of deleted voters will be forwarded as part of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 13 states – primarily those classified as ‘Others’, as distinct from Absent, Transferred, Dead, Duplicate (ASDD) voters and thus, excluded from the rolls on the basis of ‘doubtful’ citizenship as well as the decision, during which they are in their mapping with the rolls from the previous SIR. Could not explain the logical inconsistencies – to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, to investigate his citizenship.Election Commission officials welcomed the decision, saying that the SIR and all its processes, including seeking further clarification from voters on the basis of logical anomalies – mismatch with father’s name, gender mismatch, being above 45 years of age but never enrolled, being one of more than six children of the same parent, age difference of less than 15 years or more than 50 years with the mapped parent and those of the mapped grandparents. including a difference of less than 40 years – and eliminating those who fail to explain the discrepancies. Validated by SC. Those challenging the SIR had previously called these logical inconsistencies an exercise in disenfranchisement.Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said, “The Election Commission was, is and will always be with the voters.”According to EC data from a dozen states covered in the second round of SIR, around 6.5 crore ASDD voters were removed. More than 12.7 lakh people were excluded from the list and classified as ‘others’, who sources said are basically “suspected illegal immigrants”. Another 63.2 lakh were removed through Form 7 and decision; These include more than 27 lakh people who were removed from the Bengal list after their appeals were rejected by the authorities.The SC’s direction to the EC to hand over ‘doubtful’ citizenship cases under the Citizenship Act to the competent authority was already in the SIR order. The order directed Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs to “forward cases of suspected foreign nationals to the ‘competent authority’ under the Citizenship Act, 1955”. Sources said the competent authority is the Foreigner Registration Office (FRO) or Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and the ERO/SDM can refer ‘suspicious’ cases to them for verification. If the citizenship is verified, the FRO/FRRO can refer the case back to the EC authorities who will include the person in the list. Otherwise, the FRO/FRRO may order the suspect to be sent to a custody or holding centre.

New Delhi: Supreme Court Validated on Wednesday Election CommissionThe decision to conduct Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar voter lists rejected the opposition’s stand that it was an arbitrary and exclusionary exercise and said the SIR was carried out in accordance with the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections, which are based on the integrity, accuracy and correctness of the voter lists.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also said that while preparing the voter list, the election panel is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry into the citizenship of a person wishing to be included as a voter as only an Indian can exercise the franchise.Writing a 124-page judgment disposing of a dozen petitions filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, social activist Yogendra Yadav, TMC’s Mahua Moitra, RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha and Congress’s KC Venugopal, among others, CJI Kant said, “The Election Commission has the power to conduct a limited inquiry of citizenship in the exercise of its constitutional mandate for the purpose of satisfying itself about the eligibility for inclusion in the electoral list. Is.“This rejects the petitioners’ stand that the Election Commission has no power to inquire into the citizenship status of voters for the purpose of inclusion or deletion from the electoral roll, although the Supreme Court clarified that such inquiry does not determine citizenship in the true sense of the term, and any subsequent action is limited to the electoral results only.Send list of removed voters to Home Ministry: Supreme Court tells Election CommissionUpholding the special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar voter list, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission to send the list of names of people removed from the voter list due to ‘doubtful citizenship’ to the competent authority (Home Ministry) within four weeks for decision on their citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.The order comes amid heightened scrutiny of citizenship claims of many people and tightening of borders, and details collected by the Election Commission could potentially help the Home Ministry trace and deport foreigners who have crossed from Bangladesh illegally.“The competent authority shall, after giving notice to the removed persons and giving them an opportunity of being heard, preferably before the next Parliamentary, Assembly, local body elections, whichever is earlier, take necessary decision in accordance with law,” the bench said. If they are found to be Indian citizens, their names will be included in the voter list, the bench said.On the need for conducting the SIR exercise in Bihar, which was raised by the petitioners, the bench said that since it is being conducted after a gap of 23 years and considering the nature of the problems and the procedural safeguards as well as the scale of the exercise, the EC cannot be held arbitrarily to carry out the mandate.The challenge to the number of documents required to be produced by voters during the SIR probe was also rejected by the CJI-led bench, which said, “The classification of documents, including the exclusion of certain categories (other than Aadhaar card, which was directed to be included by the SC on September 8 last year), is based on sensible norms having direct bearing on the objective of ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll.“

New Delhi: Indian Navy has foiled a suspected piracy attack on a merchant vessel in the western Indian Ocean.“Responding quickly to inputs of pirate activity near merchant ship MV Mashallah 1, stealth guided-missile destroyer INS Kolkata took prompt action to investigate and deter the threat,” the Navy said in a statement.Officials said the warship reached the location, monitored the activities of the suspected pirates and effectively deterred them through its operational presence. The investigation was conducted using a helicopter on board INS Kolkata. During the mission, the Navy also ensured safe passage for MV Mashallah 1 through the sensitive maritime area.“This timely intervention ensured the safety of the merchant vessel and prevented a potential piracy attack,” the statement said. This incident happened around the Gulf of Aden.Following the incident, the Indian Navy, as a preferred security partner and first responder in the region, said it is committed to protecting merchant shipping, countering piracy and ensuring safe and secure seas.The western Indian Ocean and parts of the Gulf of Aden have seen an increase in piracy-related incidents in recent years, posing serious challenges to merchant vessels, officials said. To deal with such growing threats, the Navy has deployed its frontline warships in the area to keep a check on piracy activities and maintain constant surveillance on merchant vessels.The Navy has also conducted several joint exercises and coordinated operations with friendly foreign countries in recent years to strengthen anti-piracy mechanisms.INS Kolkata, the destroyer that foiled the suspected piracy attack, was inducted into the Indian Navy by PM Modi in August 2014. It is equipped with a range of artillery and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) weapons and is the largest indigenously built warship. The ship is equipped with medium-range and short-range guns, air and anti-surface missiles, air and surface surveillance radar, as well as bow-mounted sonar. Modern navigation and communication systems have also been installed on the ship.

New Delhi: The ED does not require an FIR lodged by any enforcement agency for any scheduled offense to initiate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Lifting the stay on ED’s investigation against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), a publicly listed company of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by CMRL on the grounds that the ED’s money laundering probe is independent of the existence of a scheduled offence.A day after the Kerala High Court verdict, the ED on Wednesday began searches at nine premises in Thiruvananthapuram, including the residence of former Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan, where he was staying with his daughter Veena, one of the accused who allegedly received Rs 2.8 crore from CMRL without providing any IT services, as claimed.Justice TR Ravi of the Kerala High Court rejected petitioner CMRL’s challenge against the summons issued by the enforcement agency, saying “the issue of summons was only for the purpose of investigation and there is no need to even register an FIR”.Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra), Justice Ravi said that “non-filing of FIR in respect of a scheduled offense does not prevent the initiation of inquiry/investigation by the authorities referred to in section 48 of the PMLA for initiating civil action for provisional attachment of property.”The court further observed that “The word ‘investigation’ has been defined in Section 2(n)(a) to include all proceedings taken by the Director or the authorized authority to collect evidence. A reading of the summons issued would show that what has been initiated is merely an investigation.”The judge said, “It is not possible to tell at this stage what will be the outcome of the investigation. As the Supreme Court has already laid down the law that existence of FIR is not a pre-condition for issuing summons under Section 50 of the PML Act, the same has to be followed only by this court.”The court said that the writ petition has been filed prematurely and is not maintainable against the summons issued under Section 50 PMLA. It further said that the exemption under the Income Tax Settlement Mechanism does not bar PMLA proceedings and the powers of the ED are independent of the final report of the SFIO or prosecution.Dismissing the petition, the court said that the subsequent filing of the SFIO prosecution complaint “cured the main objection of the petitioners regarding the absence of the prescribed offence”.