mMaharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar’s political career has rarely been without controversies – be it allegations of corruption in irrigation contracts, irregularities in the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank, coalition rifts, or dividing the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). The latest challenge has come from a controversial land deal worth crores of rupees in Pune involving his son Parth.

New Delhi: Invoking special Article 142 powers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the setting up of a tribunal comprising retired Chief Justice and former judges of Calcutta and neighboring high courts to decide appeals against orders of judicial authorities rejecting claims for inclusion in the Bengal voter list after special intensive vetting.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi stuck to its order that no bureaucrat acting as an ERO would sit in appeals against the decisions of judicial officers drawn up to scan documents of 60 lakh voters in ‘logical anomaly’ and ‘unmapped’ category.Cal HC CJ will nominate former CJs, judges: Supreme Court The Supreme Court gave a free hand to the Calcutta HC CJ to nominate former CJs and judges and directed the EC to notify the tribunal in consultation with HC CJs and retired CJs.The CJI-led bench took exception to several applications from TMC supporters and private individuals related to the SIR work and process, rejected the applications and warned of contempt action if such attempts were made in future.The Supreme Court was also unhappy over the delay by the EC in creating secure IDs for judicial officers and said, “A situation has arrived where we have doubts about the credibility of both the state government and the EC.” It asked the Election Commission to ensure that there is no delay in making the IDs to allow judicial officers to function without any delay.The CJI said the Calcutta HC CJ had informed the Supreme Court that more than 500 judicial officers from Bengal and 200 from Jharkhand and Odisha were working seven days a week and had disposed of more than 10 lakh claim applications.At the beginning of the hearing, senior lawyer Maneka Guruswamy attempted to press for the applications in the absence of an appellate forum for voters whose claims have been rejected by the judicial authorities. The Supreme Court said, “As CJI, I will not let anyone dare to question the work of judicial officers. I am issuing a warning.”It was advocate Kalyan Banerjee who expressed the grievances and said that when 10 lakh claims have been adjudicated, why is the Election Commission not publishing the supplementary voter list, as directed by the SC, which includes the names of those whose claims have been accepted?Banerjee also said that rejection of claims should be accompanied by reasons so that the aggrieved person can appeal against it before a designated forum. The bench asked both the state government and the Election Commission to provide facilities to the judicial officers, who are acting as agents of the SC, so that they can do their work smoothly.“We have taken a lot of risk in handing over the work of SIR to the judicial officers, who are working tirelessly. But the risk is worth it because it (preparing the voter list) is very important for free and fair elections. Citizens have a constitutional right to be included in the voter list, but not infiltrators and illegal immigrants,” the CJI said.

TeaOne-year-old Nitin Rathod from Kota is the kind of student the government had in mind when it envisioned the Prime Minister’s Internship Scheme (PMIS). A graduate in Business Administration from Career Point University and the first person in his business-owning family to look for a job, he has been working in the HR department of an Indian multinational company for the past few months. Considering a one-year internship as a stepping stone to a secure career, he says, “I am giving my 100 per cent in it so that they give me a pre-placement offer.”

In Bingwadi, a small village nestled within the Pauri district of Uttarakhand, the silence begins long before the houses are visible. “There are only empty houses and hanging locks to welcome you here,” says Pratap Singh, 85, a retired sub-inspector of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, who lives alone. Of his two brothers, one has settled in Pauri city, the other in Dehradun. His three daughters and one son all live outside the state. “There’s no one left,” he says quietly. “People come back only when there is a wedding or some ritual that must take place here.” Village head Manvendra Rawat says that out of 392 registered voters of the village, 125 live elsewhere. “Even the public works of MNREGA are incomplete. There is no one left to do it,” says Rawat.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the veracity of the Bombay HC’s judgment striking down amendments to the Information and Technology Rules that had allowed the Center to set up fact-checking units to flag fake social media content, making it mandatory for intermediaries to remove content or lose ‘safe harbor’ protection. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Center does not intend to block social media platforms but to limit the damage caused to individual, institutional and national reputation through fake social media posts, which can be prevented through the FCU.

Fake news can harm the country’s reputation: CJI

Opposing the Centre’s argument, senior lawyer Arvind Datar told a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi that the government is already empowered to issue takedown orders and a social media platform or intermediary is bound to remove or remove such content within 48 hours of receiving the notice.CJI Kant said that if a fake post destroying the reputation of a person is allowed to remain active for 48 hours, the dignity and reputation of that person will be so tarnished that it cannot be repaired.“Look at how some of these platforms are behaving. Some examples placed on record by the government show how dangerous they are. Such fake news can also harm the reputation of the country and institutions. We will examine all these issues,” the CJI-led bench said. And petitioners before the HC Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild, News Broadcasters and Digital Association and Association of Indian Magazines were asked to respond to the Centre’s appeal in four weeks.However, the bench refused to accept the SG’s plea to stay the Bombay HC decision, which would have revived the FCUs.CJI said that there is no question of staying the decision. “It is better to hear the petition and decide the matter at once,” the bench said. It also rejected the SG’s request to issue notice on the Centre’s application seeking stay on the HC decision.A Bombay HC division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale had delivered a split verdict, with Justice Patel striking down the FCU while the latter upheld the validity of the rules. It was referred to the umpire judge – Justice AS Chandurkar, now a Supreme Court judge, who agreed with Justice Patel.In its appeal, the Center said, “The rule is in compliance with Article 19 and, in fact, strengthens the right of the public to have access to true and accurate information about the functioning of the Central Government. Article 19 does not confer any right to engage in knowingly spreading misinformation and as such, the regulation of such misinformation by the rule has no adverse impact on freedom of expression.”It said that the rule struck down by the HC needs to be examined from this angle also.

New Delhi: Decision NDA Strongly defended the Lok Sabha Speaker on Tuesday Om Birla During the debate on a motion seeking his removal, opposition parties accused him of acting under government pressure and failing to conduct the House proceedings impartially.The debate began when opposition members moved a motion to remove Birla from the post of Speaker, accusing him of bias and claiming that he made “baseless” allegations about some women MPs and did not allow opposition leader Rahul Gandhi to speak on important issues.

Birla did not attend the proceedings, although the Constitution allows the Speaker to be present and defend himself during such debates. The discussion is expected to end on Wednesday, when Union Home Minister Amit Shah will respond to the proposal.

Opposition accused the speaker of bias

Initiating the debate, Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said that the opposition has brought the resolution to protect parliamentary democracy.He said the motion was necessary to “save the Constitution” and “the dignity of the House”.“The expectation was that the Asana would be neutral. But research into the uncorrected versions will reveal how many times the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) was interrupted. When the LoP was on his feet, another member was called (to speak),” Gogoi said.Quoting former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s comments, Gogoi said the Speaker is a symbol of the independence and dignity of the House.“Where is the freedom of speech now?” he asked.Gogoi said the opposition members personally have cordial relations with Birla, but he felt compelled to bring the motion.“But it is our responsibility to protect the dignity of the House and save the Constitution. This is to protect people’s faith in democracy,” he said.Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant also questioned the conduct of the speaker.Sawant said, “Please introspect why we had to bring the no-confidence motion. The House cannot function on anyone’s wish. We respect their right. But they should not behave under pressure and compromise on independence.”Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra described it as “divine deed” that she was supporting the motion to remove Birla from the post of Speaker, alleging that he was “wrongfully” expelled from the Lok Sabha in 2023.He said the Speaker has set “less than graceful standards” while presiding over the House.DMK leader TR Baalu ​​called Birla a “gentleman” but criticized what he described as “harsh” action against opposition members and urged him to take corrective steps.

NDA says the speaker acted impartially

Members of the ruling party rejected the allegations and defended Birla’s conduct, arguing that inappropriate behavior led to disciplinary action against opposition MPs.Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju accused the Congress of targeting constitutional institutions since it lost power in 2014.He said that this proposal is an attempt to weaken the authority of the Speaker.Rijiju said Birla remained impartial and gave ample opportunity to the opposition to speak in the House.Quoting former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi, he stressed that the decisions of the Speaker are final and must be respected by all members.The minister claimed that several opposition MPs had privately expressed discomfort over the proposal.According to Rijiju, 50 opposition members told him personally that they were unhappy with the move but were supporting it due to political pressure.During his intervention, Rijiju also criticized Rahul Gandhi’s conduct in Parliament and said that he often does not participate in the proceedings or leaves the House after giving his speech.He said that Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra could be a better leader of the opposition.Responding to Rijiju’s remarks, Priyanka Gandhi said she found it ironic that ruling party members were quoting Nehru.“He said that I was laughing. I wanted to clarify that I was laughing because the person whom he keeps criticizing day and night, Nehru ji, he used a quote from Nehru ji for his argument.”“They have suddenly started respecting Nehruji and he strengthened democracy and gave such a speech,” he said.

NDA allies supported Birla

NDA allies also supported the Speaker and criticized the opposition’s move.TDP MP Lavu Srikrishna Devarayalu praised Birla’s way of running the Lok Sabha since 2019 and said parliamentary productivity has increased under his leadership.He said the proposal was brought “not to be successful but to make great headlines”.JDU leader and Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh called this proposal an attempt to put pressure on the Speaker.Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde attacked Rahul Gandhi and said the opposition leader would face obstacles if he promoted an “anti-India” agenda in Parliament.The debate on this proposal is expected to continue in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday also.

Between repeated adjournments and a Heated debate in Lok Sabha Above Excerpts from former Army Chief General MM NaravaneAccording to his unpublished memoir, the political confrontation boils down to one unresolved question: Was Rahul Gandhi referring to Doklam or Galwan?

What Rahul Gandhi said inside the House was clear. He named it Doklam.

He said the episode he was referring to involved Chinese tanks entering Indian territory and attempting to capture a hill in Doklam, which he described in an excerpt from General Naravane’s memoir quoted in a magazine article.

On that statement the Treasury Bench took sharp objection not only to the parliamentary rules but also to the source. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and Home Minister Amit Shah objected that an unpublished book could not be cited. Chairman Om Birla upheld the objections and repeatedly directed Gandhi not to read the memoir.

Despite the rulings, Gandhi persisted, arguing that the excerpts had already appeared in a published magazine article and asking why the government was “so uncomfortable” with reading them.

However, a separate debate took hold outside Parliament.

A section of social media users questioned whether Gandhi had said the wrong thing. His argument hinged on deadlines. Manoj Mukund Naravane served as the Army Chief from 2019 to 2022, while the Doklam standoff took place in 2017, two years before Naravane took charge.

In contrast, the article Gandhi cited refers to events in 2020 during the eastern Ladakh crisis following the Galwan Valley conflict. The article describes the advance of Chinese tanks towards Rechin La and Indian positions on the Kailash Range, developments related not to Doklam but to the Galwan-era standoff.

“Rahul Gandhi says Doklam instead of Galwan,” wrote one

The magazine itself has said that its article is taken from Naravane’s memoir and is based on 2020, the year of the Galwan conflict. An excerpt shared online describes a tense night in eastern Ladakh when Chinese armor came closer to Indian positions, forcing urgent military decisions at the highest levels.

The BJP seized on this discrepancy and accused Gandhi of misrepresenting facts and dragging a former army chief into politics. BJP leaders said Naravane has publicly said that China “did not lose even an inch of ground” during the standoff.

Amid the uproar, the House was adjourned for the day, but the parliamentary dispute over procedure formally persisted. However, politically and publicly, the focus shifted elsewhere – whether Rahul Gandhi’s words match the historical record.

But outside Parliament, the discussion continued: In the debate to thank the President, was Rahul Gandhi referring to Doklam, or did he accidentally fall into the Galwan debate?

Another user on Twitter accused Rahul Gandhi of misusing General MM Naravane’s name and questioning the bravery of the Indian Army, saying, “The difference between truth and lies became clear in Parliament.”

While one user said that Rahul Gandhi was attempting to quote from an unpublished and unverified book by former Army chief MM Naravane, he questioned why he did not instead mention videos and interviews that are already in the public domain.

General MM Naravane served as the Army Chief from December 2019 to April 2022, a period marked by several major military and political decisions.

He was at the helm during the clash with Chinese troops in Galwan Valley in June 2020, in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed.

– ends

tune in