Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Underlining its support for a law against money laundering, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its verdict upholding key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005.
And flagged, for reconsideration, issues that have been criticised as possible violations of due process: reversal of the presumption of innocence and disclosure of information.
Having heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent, prima facie, we are of the view that at least two of the issues raised in the instant petition requires consideration, the order of a bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana. “At least two” suggests that the court’s order may not restrict the review to just these two grounds.
“We are in full support of the prevention of black money. The intention is noble and the country cannot afford such offences. But when you read the judgment…we feel there are two aspects that require a relook,” the bench observed during the hearing.
On July 27, a three-judge bench, comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar (who has since retired), Dinesh Maheshwari, and C T Ravikumar, had ruled on a batch of over 240 petitions challenging the special law against money laundering.
That bench had accepted the government’s arguments on virtually every aspect that was challenged by the petitioners: from reversing the presumption of innocence while granting bail; retrospective operation of the law; to passing the amendments as a Money Bill under the Finance Act and defining the contours of the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Crucially, apart from CJI Ramana — who retires Friday — the bench that allowed the review Thursday included Justices Maheshwari and Ravikumar who were part of the bench that delivered the verdict.
The bench said that “prima facie view can be taken” that the verdict’s underlining that the ED is not mandated to share a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report with the accused and the upholding of the stringent bail provisions that reverse the presumption of innocence of an accused need to be revisited.
No evidence, Govt didn’t cooperate: SC panel on Pegasus (Page no. 3)
(GS Paper 3, Science and Technology)
The Supreme Court-appointed committee, which probed allegations of unauthorised use of Israeli NSO Group’s Pegasus software for surveillance, found no conclusive evidence on use of the spyware in phones examined by it but noted that the Central Government “has not cooperated” with the panel.
“They (the panel) observed that the Government of India has not cooperated. Whatever stand you have taken here (in the court earlier), you have taken the same stand, it appears, before the committee also,” the CJI, heading a three-judge bench that perused the report by the committee, told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Mehta replied, “I am not aware. I will not be able to respond.” The CJI said, “We are also not aware. Let’s examine the report.”
Mehta urged the court to “kindly go through the report”, saying the Government may have answered leading questions put to it on the issue. “That’s right. That’s why we do not want to make any comment without looking into the report,” the CJI said.
The bench also said that the committee examined 29 phones but did not find any conclusive evidence of Pegasus being used in any of them. “…inconclusive evidence…In five phones they found some malware, but it doesn’t mean it is malware of Pegasus. That’s what the finding appears,” the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and HimaKohli, said after perusing the report.
“Based on the above, it is concluded that 5 of the 29 phones may have had some infection due to a malware or due to poor cyber hygiene and data available is limited and hence inconclusive to determine…”, the CJI said, citing the report.
In its order, the court stated: “…the Technical Committee and the Overseeing Judge have submitted their reports in sealed covers. The same are taken on record.
The sealed covers were opened in the Court and we read out some portions of the said reports. Thereafter, the reports were re-sealed and kept in the safe custody of the Secretary General of this Court, who shall make it available as and when required by the Court”.
It also directed that the matters be listed after four weeks for further hearing.The three-member technical committee comprised Dr Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Dean of National Forensic Sciences University in Gandhinagar; Dr PrabaharanP, Professor at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham in Kerala; and Dr Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor at IIT-Bombay. The panel was supervised by former Supreme Court judge Justice R V Raveendran.
Express Network
PM; Make research innovation way of life (Page no. 4)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the culture of innovation in India would grow on the back of social and institutional support, and emphasised that research and innovation must be turned into a “way of living”.
Addressing the finale of the Smart India Hackathon 2022, Modi said innovators were the flag bearers of “Jai Anusandhan (research and innovation)”, a slogan he put forth during his Independence Day speech.
The recognition of innovation as a profession is growing in society. Research and innovation must be transformed from a way of working to a way of living.
Launched in 2017, Smart India Hackathon is a nationwide initiative to provide students a platform to offer out-of-the-box ideas to solve problems in governance.
During the event, the Prime Minister interacted virtually with groups of students who made presentations on their projects that ranged from the translation of texts in ancient temples into devanagari to a mobile game that seeks to help in cognitive improvement of dementia patients.
Modi said the National Education Policy contains a roadmap for creating a strong foundation for innovation. The country is working on big resolutions about how India will be in the 100th year of Independence. You are the innovators who are the flag-bearers of the slogan ‘Jai Anusandhan’ for the fulfillment of these resolutions.
UK study visa: India surpasses china’s share (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
India now accounts for the largest share of study visas issued by the United Kingdom, overtaking China, according to the latest UK immigration statistics.
According to the statistics, which pertains to the period between July 2021 and June 2022, Indians also obtained the most visitor visas and skilled worker visas issued by the UK.
The overall number of visas, taking into account other countries as well, have overshot pre-pandemic figures and shows more than just a recovery from a Covid-induced dip, according to the UK government.
In the year ending June 2022, the UK issued 4,86,868 sponsored study visas, of which Indian nationals accounted for 1,17,965 — an 89 per cent increase from the previous year. Chinese nationals, meanwhile, were granted 1,15,056 study visas.
Compared to 2019, the increase in the number of study visas granted to Indians amounts to 215 per cent, while those granted to Chinese students have dipped by 4 per cent. The report did not go into the reasons behind the rise and fall of the share of Indian and Chinese nationals in this category.
Students of Indian and Chinese nationality comprise 48 per cent of all sponsored study visas granted by the UK.British High Commissioner to India, Alex Ellis, said the numbers show that the UK is experiencing an unprecedented demand for visas.
The number of sponsored study visas granted in the year ending June 2022 is the highest on record since this time series began in 2005. Before 2022, the highest number of student visas granted was 3,07,394 in the year ending June 2010.
The summary of the statistics shows that the UK also remains a popular holiday destination for Indians, who accounted for 28 per cent of visitor visas granted in the year ending June 2022.
More than 2,58,000 Indian nationals received visit visas in the year ending June 2022 – a 630% increase compared to the previous year (when travel restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic were still in place.Indians nationals also accounted for 46 per cent of all skilled work visas granted by the UK.
Contract ended, China firm claims damages, Indian Railways replies with counter (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, International Institutions)
Two years after the Railways terminated aRs 471-crorecontract of the Chinese Railway’s signalling and telecom arm for its works in Uttar Pradesh, the Chinese firm has locked Indian Railways in international dispute and claimed Rs 279 crore compensation.
The company, China Railway Signalling and Communication (CRSC) Research and Design Institute, recently instituted arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules in Singapore.
Playing hardball, the Indian side — the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL), under the Railways — has issued a counter-claim of Rs 71 crore on the Chinese major. The matter is headed for a showdown in the international tribunal, sources in the Railways said.
In 2020, DFCCIL terminated CRSC’s contract for installation signalling and telecom systems on the 417-km stretch between Kanpur and Mughalsarai (now DeenDayalUpadhyay) stations in UP for the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor.
The contract was terminated at the peak of the border dispute between the neighbours in Ladakh. The DFCCIL had cited non-performance by the contractor as the reason behind the move.
The Chinese company had dragged the matter to Delhi High Court at the time, but to no avail.It has now raised claims regarding works it affirms to have executed under the contract but was not paid for; return of its forfeited bank guarantee; interest on various forfeited amounts; and claims for various overheads and contractual deployment.
The Chinese company contends that termination of the contract was illegal, as the Indian side did not comply with the procedure set out for termination in the contract.
In response, DFCCIL has raised a counter-claim on the basis of recovery of mobilisation advance; retention money and balance under the termination clauses, apart from regularisation of forfeiture of the bank guarantee.
Faced with claims and counter-claims, the international tribunal has called for various submissions, which are “in the process of being complied with by the parties as per procedural orders.
One of the reasons why the contract was terminated was that the Chinese side was “reluctant to furnish technical documents such as logic design of electronic interlocking.
The Railways has said that the Chinese company did not do any work, and even after four years made only around 20 per cent progress.
Asked about the progress of the contract now, a DFCCIL official said that the balance work was re-tendered and is progressing under a different contractor.
Delhi, Dhaka discuss sharing river water (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
India and Bangladesh have finalised the text of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on interim water sharing of Kushiyarariver, the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti.
The text was finalised during the 38th meeting of the ministerial-level Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) of India and Bangladesh, held in Delhi on Thursday, the ministry stated.
The two sides were led by Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat and his Bangladesh counterpart, ZaheedFarooque.
In a statement, the ministry said, “Discussions…were held on a number of ongoing bilateral issues of mutual interest, including water-sharing of common rivers, sharing of flood data, addressing river pollution, conducting joint studies on sedimentation management, river bank protection works, etc.”
The ministry stated that the two sides “finalised the text of MoU on Interim Water Sharing of Kushiyara river (and) welcomed finalisation of the design and location of water intake point on Feni river to meet drinking water needs of Sabroom town in Tripura as per the October 2019 India-Bangladesh MoU…”
According to the Jal Shakti Ministry, the JRC meeting assumes significance since it was held after a “long gap” of 12 years, although technical interactions under the framework of JRC have continued in the interim.
The ministry said India and Bangladesh share 54 rivers, of which seven have been identified earlier for developing the framework of water-sharing agreements on priority. The neighbours agreed to include eight more rivers for data exchange, it stated.
In a statement, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “The JRC meeting, held in a cordial and friendly atmosphere, discussed the whole gamut of issues related to common rivers between the two countries, especially the Ganges, Teesta, Manu, Muhuri, Khowai, Gumti, Dharla, Dudhkumar and Kushiyara.
Apart from this, exchange of flood-related data and information, riverbank protection works, common basin management, and also Indian river interlinking project were discussed in detail.”
Explained Page
One year of Taliban 2.0 (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
A year after the Taliban returned to power in Kabul, The Indian Express travelled to Afghanistan to report on what has changed on the ground since the time they were last in power, what’s on their minds and that of the Afghan people, and where India and China stand in the country today — and for the foreseeable future.
The first time the Taliban took Kabul, in 1996, Afghanistan was in ruins, much of its infrastructure destroyed by a raging civil war over the previous years.
Over the last two decades, foreign powers including India helped rebuild roads, dams, government offices, hospitals, rural infrastructure, the economy, and education.
In 2021, the Taliban took over a readymade country. But administering a nation of 32 million requires capacity and finances. And the Taliban are short on both.
Many wealthy people, and those of the middle class with means and education, including civil servants, have fled the country, not wishing to be part of the Taliban regime.
The international community has not yet recognised the regime formally, and sanctions, including travel bans on many Taliban, remain in place. Their access to international banking and finances are limited.
Still, the Taliban are striving to present the semblance of a functioning system. The regime’s two top priorities are getting a grip on the economy and on security, say those who are familiar with its internal working.
In May, the Taliban presented an annual budget based entirely on domestic revenue. It projected an expenditure of 231.4 bn Afghani ($2.6 bn), and a revenue of 186.7 bn Afghani ($2.1 bn). No details were given about spending, or how the gap with revenue would be bridged.
“We have created a budget that is solely reliant on the revenues generated by the Afghan government. There is no foreign aspect to our budget,” foreign ministry spokesman Abdul QaharBalkhi told The Indian Express in Kabul earlier this month.
Afghanistan is the heart of Asia, Balkhi said, and countries in the region that want to trade with each other have to go through Afghanistan. Most of Afghanistan’s revenues are now being raised through customs duties. It is also exporting coal to Pakistan, he said.
“Our exports to all countries, including India, have doubled,” Balkhi said. The regime is also leasing out small mines to local investors, which, the spokesman said, was generating jobs and helping the economy.
The regime has been paying employees, though salaries have been slashed. Municipal workers sweep the streets of Kabul every morning, sanitation workers clean out drains, the gardens department maintains the parks. Banks are functioning, except for international transfers. Schools and hospitals are open.
The Editorial Page
August 25 in court (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, Judiciary)
It has for long been a lament of the academic community that India’s Supreme Court has gradually dissolved into an ordinary appellate forum, a far cry from the high constitutional authority that it was envisaged to be. Lawyers have also added their voices to this concern, albeit in a muted manner, because it is after all the bread-and-butter of appellate practice that keeps them at work, rather than the involved perambulations of fundamental rights jurisprudence.
However, in a country which will shortly overtake China to sit at the top of the population tables, and one where the fomenting of litigation is now a diurnal pastime, it seems difficult to confine the apex court to mere issues of the Constitution. Bear in mind that Article 136 of the Constitution allows anybody to file a challenge to the Supreme Court against any order or judgment of any court.
This explains why we have over 71,411 cases pending at the moment, of which a paltry batch of 53 are Constitution Bench cases (where at least five judges sit together to answer important questions on the Constitution).
Many of these have been pending for several years, some for three decades like the one concerning the rent control laws of Bombay.
Since the turn of the century, it was customary that the convening of the five-judge benches (or larger combinations) would happen from time to time so that a balance was struck between marmalade and bread-and-butter.
Nearly every two months, judgments would be pronounced which would have far-reaching implications, as every Constitution Bench ruling allows several pending petitions both before the Supreme Court and the various high courts to be disposed of following the final declaration of law.
Just over the last five years, such benches have delivered verdicts on Aadhaar, privacy, reservations, judicial appointments, temple entry, gubernatorial powers and land acquisition.
Of course, they are all important and most of them have been warmly welcomed, but equally, they have been prioritised for hearing over cases that have been languishing for decades to be considered.
The Court has been roundly criticised for its selective manner of listing, and this is rightly seen an institutional failure. Thus, the developments over the past few days have come as a pleasant surprise.
By a notice of August 24, the Supreme Court has announced a list of 25 out of the 53 Constitution Bench cases that will be taken up for hearing from August 29, which would be the first day of Justice U ULalit presiding as Chief Justice of India.
Stepping to the world (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
A critical assessment of India’s foreign policy during 1947–2022 should begin with the changing perceptions of this nation, internally and internationally.
A young state with an uninterrupted 5,000-year-old civilisation, India began its political journey with ideals of equity stemming from its unique freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru’s insistence that the country’s independence would be incomplete without the liberation of Asia and Africa.
The journey was also marked by the pain of Partition and the trauma of the war with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. From an economy that faced the challenge of feeding its population until the 1960s, India has emerged as the fifth largest economy.
India’s ties with countries across regions — in the South Pacific, through Southeast and South Asia, in other parts of Asia, Europe, the Indian Ocean region, Africa, North America and Latin America — show it to be an aspiring, as well as a major player on the world stage.
A leading member of the UN, an oft-invitee to the G7, a founding member of the BRICS, and a pivotal part of the G20 now ready to take over as its chair, India has become a major stakeholder in the comity of nations.
National interest drives foreign policy, but more is at stake here: It is realpolitik plus. The policy is anchored in a nuanced balancing of interests and values. National security remains the key driver.
In addition to it is the belief that external relationships accelerate the country’s economic progress. Other motivations include the desire to enhance the nation’s standing externally and the impulse to do good for the world — India did not hesitate to share Covid medicines and vaccines with over 90 countries within a month of their launch.
In the past, South Block accorded the highest priority to India’s immediate neighbours, given the history of conflicts with Pakistan and China, the liberation of Bangladesh and the military interventions in Sri Lanka and Maldives. In the post-Cold War period, India has moved more time and resources to careful nurturing of relations with the major powers — the US, EU, especially France and Germany, the UK, Japan, Russia and China.
Though the doors of permanent membership of the UN Security Council remain shut, India’s enhanced GDP and its IT prowess have positioned it in parallel with the apex group of leaders.
The World
In a first, India votes against Russia in UNSC during procedural vote on Ukraine (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
India for the first time voted against Russia during a “procedural vote” at the United Nations Security Council on Ukraine, as the 15-member powerful UN body invited Ukrainian President VolodymyrZelenskyy to address a meeting through a video tele-conference.
This is for the first time that India has voted against Russia on the issue of Ukraine, after the Russian military action began in February. So far, New Delhi has abstained at the UN Security Council on Ukraine, much to the annoyance of the Western powers led by the United States.
Western nations, including the US, have imposed major economic and other sanctions on Russia following the aggression.
India has not criticised Russia for its aggression against Ukraine. New Delhi has repeatedly called upon the Russian and Ukrainian sides to return to the path of diplomacy and dialogue, and also expressed its support for all diplomatic efforts to end the conflict between the two countries.
India currently is a non-permanent member of the UNSC for a two-year term, which ends in December.UNSC held a meeting to take stock of the now six-month-old conflict on the 31st anniversary of Ukraine’s independence.
As the meeting began, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations VassilyANebenzia requested a procedural vote concerning Ukrainian President’s participation in the meeting by video tele-conference.
Following statements by him and FeritHoxha of Albania, the Council extended an invitation to Zelensky to participate in the meeting via video tele-conference by a vote of 13 in favour to one against. Russia voted against such an invitation, while China abstained.
Nebenzia insisted that Russia does not oppose Zelensky’s participation, but such participation must be in-person. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council decided to work virtually, but such meetings were informal and, after the pandemic’s peak, the Council returned to the provisional rules of procedure.