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

Here are the top 5 updates of the day:

How much has the US-Iran war affected India’s oil, LPG and LNG supplies?

India meets 90 per cent of its oil requirements through imports, which also accounts for 60 per cent of LPG/LNG production. Rising tensions in West Asia and closure of the Strait of Hormuz may impact these imports, but officials have promised not to increase petrol/diesel prices as India has increased its Russian oil imports. India has also rejected the IEA’s call on strategic reserves and has given priority to domestic production.Read the full story

Middle East heat reaches Pakistan: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announces crisis measures

Amid rising crude oil prices due to the Middle East crisis and Iran war, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has announced emergency austerity measures. Fuel use for official vehicles will be cut by 50%, with 60% of government cars being discontinued. Cabinet members and MLAs will forgo 25% of their salaries for two months, while non-essential spending and foreign travel will be banned until June 2026. The government will shift to a four-day work week with 50% work from home.Read the full story

‘Don’t destroy yourself’: Iran warns Trump, rejects ‘hollow’ threats

Escalating the Israel-Iran war, Iran’s security chief Ali Larijani, posting on Twitter, dismissed President Trump’s threats to attack and destroy Iran “20 times more” if Iran blocks oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz.“Iran is not afraid of empty threats – even major powers failed to eliminate us. Be careful not to eliminate us yourself!” He said.Trump warned of “death, fire, fury” amid disruption of 20% of global oil as US-Israel strikes hit Tehran while Iran eyes retaliation.Read the full story

CJI rebukes petitioners for doubting integrity of judicial officers in West Bengal SIR

Amid lack of confidence in TMC-ECI over West Bengal voter list revision, a Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant rejected pleas questioning the cases before deputed judicial officers from Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand and said it will “not tolerate” doubt on the judiciary. The court asked the Chief Justice of Calcutta HC to form an appellate bench to appeal the claims, the expenses of which would be borne by the ECI. More than 10 lakh claims decided, 63 lakh are pending.Read the full story

ICC fines Arshdeep Singh after India’s T20 World Cup win

India fast bowler Arshdeep Singh was fined 15% of his match fee and given one demerit point for violating ICC Code of Conduct Article 2.9 during the T20 World Cup 2026 final against New Zealand in Ahmedabad. While fielding during his follow-through in the 11th over, he bowled the ball aggressively, which hit the pads of batsman Daryl Mitchell. The ICC deemed the act inappropriate and potentially dangerous, imposing Arshdeep’s first demerit point in 24 months.Read the full story

IIn the grand halls of Udaipur’s City Palace, where the rustling of silk curtains and the tinkling of medieval utensils echo the voices of Maharanas of yesteryear, a modern saga of inheritance and litigation is unfolding. Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar, the 41-year-old scion of the Mewar dynasty, is embroiled in a bitter legal battle with his own sisters over the will of their late father Arvind Singh – a dispute that threatens to tear not only the family apart, but one of Rajasthan’s most historically and economically important royal properties.

IIt started as a routine government practice. In mid-January, officials of Haryana’s Directorate of Treasury and Accounts (DTA) wrote to the Chandigarh branch of IDFC First Bank, demanding closure of several long-running accounts and transfer of the balance amount to the government’s Axis Bank account. As part of the standard reconciliation exercise before the end of the financial year, the DTA compared confirmed bank balances with the government’s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) data. Data did not match: Deposits reflected in the government books were missing from the bank statements.