Search Results

Despite the Delhi High Court's order, activist Sonam Wangchuk remained under strict surveillance of police officers. His wife, Gitanjali Angamo raised serious questions over his safety. By Pranjal Gupta New Delhi, July 25: Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who ended his 26-day hunger strike over the NEET-UG paper leak on Friday midnight, has claimed that her husband remains under constant police surveillance. Wangchuk is currently undergoing treatment at Medanta Hospital in Gurugram after being shifted from Safdarjung Hospital on the orders of the Delhi High Court, which upheld his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. "Police are everywhere," alleged Angmo, saying officers are stationed at the reception and outside the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where the activist is admitted. According to her, police officials also decide who is allowed to meet Wangchuk. In a post on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, Gitanjali asked, "If the Court has clarified that he is not under detention, then under what authority is this happening?" "In an enlightened democracy, is the role of the police to protect citizens and uphold the law, or to control citizens on behalf of those in power? These are questions every Indian should be asking," she added. Sonam Wangchuk's wife questions police surveillance and restricted access at Medanta despite Delhi High Court saying he is not detained. (Image Source: X/Gitanjali Angmo) How Wangchuk End His Hunger Strike Wangchuk was taken from the protest site at Delhi's Jantar Mantar on July 18 in a dramatic scene, with a white blanket covering him as police officials carried him away, citing the need for "essential medical care". Later, Gitanjali claimed that the staff at Safdarjung Hospital neither provided Wangchuk's medical reports nor allowed phones inside his room. After a three-day legal battle in the Delhi High Court, Wangchuk was permitted to be shifted to the private hospital in Gurugram. Meanwhile, Wangchuk continued his hunger strike and extended it by two more days in solidarity with the students who were allegedly subjected to police brutality during the peaceful march to Parliament on Sunday, July 20. He had said he would end the fast only after receiving written assurances from the Central government regarding the student protesters and a commitment to hold parliamentary discussions on reforms to prevent examination paper leaks. Protest Continues While Wangchuk is now recovering in hospital, the protest at Jantar Mantar continues, with representatives of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) maintaining that the agitation will end only after Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigns.

The Karnataka High Court's Dharwad Bench will make history on August 1 as all seven Benches are presided over exclusively by women judges, marking a rare milestone in the higher judiciary. The special roster also reignites the debate on gender representation in constitutional courts. By Mahima Katal In a first for the Karnataka High Court's Dharwad Bench, all seven Benches, comprising both Division and Single Benches—will be presided over exclusively by women judges on August 1, 2026. The special roster, issued under the orders of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, marks a rare and symbolic moment in the history of India's higher judiciary, where women continue to remain significantly underrepresented despite steady gains over the past few decades. The roster notification assigns all judicial work scheduled for August 1 to women judges, making it one of the few known occasions in the country where an entire High Court Bench has been constituted exclusively by women. While the arrangement is limited to a single day's sitting, it has reignited conversations around gender representation on constitutional courts and whether symbolic milestones can translate into lasting institutional change. Three Division Benches will hear a wide spectrum of appellate and writ matters. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.G. Shanthi will preside over the principal Division Bench dealing with civil and writ matters. Justice Jyoti M. and Justice P. Sree Sudha will hear miscellaneous first appeals relating to motor vehicle, employees' compensation and ESI matters, tax appeals, as well as labour and service-related writ appeals. The third Division Bench, comprising Justice Lalitha Kanneganti and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, will take up family court appeals, excise and electricity-related writ appeals, along with matters arising from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Four women judges have also been assigned Single Bench jurisdiction. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha will hear service, labour and general writ petitions, besides family court revision petitions. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has been rostered to hear education and civil procedure-related writ petitions. Justice Geetha K.B. will deal with miscellaneous first appeals, arbitration petitions and commercial suits, while Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde has been entrusted with all criminal matters as well as civil matters not assigned elsewhere. The roster has been issued by Registrar (Judicial) Ron Vasudev in accordance with the orders of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru. While the all-women roster is being widely welcomed as a significant milestone, it also highlights the continuing imbalance in judicial appointments across the country. Women constitute a substantial proportion of judges in the subordinate judiciary in several States, yet their representation drops sharply at the High Court level and remains even lower in the Supreme Court. The reasons are varied, ranging from the relatively smaller pool of senior women advocates to long-standing structural barriers in judicial appointments and career progression. The Dharwad Bench's initiative therefore carries significance beyond symbolism. It underscores the growing presence of women in constitutional courts while simultaneously reminding policymakers and the legal fraternity that isolated milestones cannot substitute for sustained institutional reform. Greater representation on the Bench is often linked to improved public confidence in the justice system and a judiciary that better reflects the diversity of the society it serves. At the same time, judicial appointments in India continue to be governed by merit, seniority and constitutional processes, making diversity one among several considerations. Although the August 1 roster is an administrative arrangement for a special sitting rather than a permanent restructuring, it marks an important moment in the evolution of India's higher judiciary. Whether such initiatives remain commemorative events or become indicators of a broader transformation in judicial representation will depend on future appointments and the sustained inclusion of women at every level of the constitutional courts.

CJP reaffirmed Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation as its non-negotiable demand after the third NEET protest meeting with the Centre. By Pranjal Gupta New Delhi, July 24: Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk concluded his hunger strike on Thursday midnight, while students' protests continued at Jantar Mantar. Following a two-hour meeting with Union Health Minister J P Nadda, representatives of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) said their primary demand remains the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, under whose tenure the NEET-UG examination paper leak occurred. They also alleged that nearly 20 students died by suicide due to the stress caused by the controversy. On Friday, CJP spokespersons reiterated that Pradhan's resignation was a "non-negotiable" demand. They also said the police administration should publicly apologise to students who they alleged were subjected to brutal treatment during the peaceful protest on July 20. Concluding the July 24 meeting, Union Minister J P Nadda said the Centre would hold another round of talks with CJP representatives. CJP reiterated that Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation remains its "non-negotiable" demand. (AI-Generated Image) "We told the Union ministers that our demand for the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan is non-negotiable," Das told reporters after the meeting. The CJP, which has been spearheading the protests at Jantar Mantar since June 20, was also represented by its spokesperson, Ashutosh Ranka. Besides seeking Rs 1 crore in compensation for the families of the students who allegedly died by suicide, Das said the CJP was also demanding that all FIRs registered against protesters be withdrawn. In a letter to the government, the CJP outlined its position. It acknowledged the "government's eagerness to find a mutually beneficial solution" and said, "Over the last few days, we have held extensive consultations with supporters and members across the country, as well as protesters at Jantar Mantar. We have arrived at a clear consensus that our demands, namely the resignation of Mr Dharmendra Pradhan, Rs 1 crore compensation for NEET victims, and no legal action against protesters, are non-negotiable." "Furthermore, the Government of India, the head of the Rapid Action Force, and the Delhi Police Commissioner ought to publicly apologise to the students who were brutally thrashed by their forces," the letter said. The organisation also urged the government to accept its demands at the earliest, warning that if they were not met, the movement would only grow bigger and spread across the country. "Further, we would appreciate the government's response to our five-point demand charter on examination reforms. The charter will prove critical in bringing about the larger structural reforms needed in the education system," the letter stated. This was the third official meeting between the CJP and the government. (With Agency Inputs)

New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) Lok Sabha proceedings were washed out for the fifth day in a row on Friday as the opposition stuck to its demand for Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, while the government said any excuse to not let a debate take place on the NEET paper leak issue would send a wrong signal to the country. When the House met at 12 noon after an earlier adjournment, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju pointed to the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and said the government has repeatedly reached out to opposition parties to let debate on the paper leak take place in Parliament. He said while several opposition MPs are of the view that debate should take place, Gandhi should make his party members understand the need for a discussion. He said making excuses and attaching pre-conditions before a debate will send a wrong message to the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also assured of a stringent law on paper leaks and holding trial of the accused in fast-track courts, he said, while also noting that activist Sonam Wangchuk has ended his hunger strike. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also assured of a stringent law on paper leaks and holding trial of the accused in fast-track courts, he said, while also noting that activist Sonam Wangchuk has ended his hunger strike. He said the Union Cabinet will take a decision on the proposed law on Friday. However, the Congress and other opposition parties continued to insist on resignation of Pradhan and shouted slogans like "Istifa Do". When Gandhi wanted to speak, Jagdambika Pal, who was presiding the House, said he will give him a chance after minister's table parliamentary documents but the House was later adjourned for the day till Monday and the Congress leader couldn't speak. For the past five days, the House has been witnessing repeated adjournments due to opposition protest over the NEET paper leak issue. Earlier as the House met for the day, Speaker Om Birla mentioned that the 27th Kargil Vijay Diwas is to be observed on Sunday and paid tributes to gallant armed forces personnel. The opposition members soon started raising slogans demanding Pradhan's resignation and Birla reminded them that he has already assured them of a debate on the issue of paper leaks in accordance with the House rules. He said the Question Hour is an important part of House proceedings where members can hold the government accountable and urged the opposition not to disrupt proceedings. The Question Hour has not been completed on any of the five days so far. The Monsoon session ends on August 13. (Except headline, the content is sourced from a syndicated feed).

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that no writ petition was filed over the Jantar Mantar student protest, calling media reports claiming he refused to hear the matter "false", "irresponsible" and "reckless". By Pranjal Gupta New Delhi, July 24: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday dismissed media reports claiming that he had refused to admit a plea challenging the police action against students protesting at Jantar Mantar and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. The CJI clarified that no writ petition had ever been filed before the Supreme Court in the matter. He said that only a letter representation had been submitted to the court, which could not be treated as a writ petition because it had not been formally filed. Expressing concern over the media coverage, the CJI termed the reports "irresponsible and reckless". "In the last two days, a completely false statement was made that a matter was filed, and the media is absolutely free from all responsibility, falsely reporting that the Chief Justice refused to list the matter. Till morning 10 AM, not a single page has been filed. It was one representation... sent by that Mishra or someone. How can I treat the representation as a writ petition? And people start recklessly reporting this," the CJI remarked. 'Irresponsible and Reckless': CJI Criticises Media Over False Reporting on Protest Plea What Had CJI Said? The observations were made after Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned another matter for listing before the court. Earlier, on July 22, Advocate Narendra Mishra had orally mentioned his letter petition addressed to the CJI regarding the police action against the student protesters. Declining to entertain the request, the CJI told him, "Don't waste our time, don't waste your time." When the advocate said he had videos of the police action, the CJI responded, "We are not interested in videos; we don't have time to watch."

The Supreme Court's proposal to establish special courts for Manipur violence cases is more than a procedural reform, it highlights persistent delays, investigative gaps, and limited victim participation within India's criminal justice system. The move raises broader questions about whether structural reforms, beyond judicial intervention, are needed to ensure timely and effective justice in cases of mass violence. By Mahima Katal New Delhi, July 24: The Supreme Court's proposal to establish special courts for criminal cases arising out of the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence is more than a procedural suggestion. It is a reflection of the extraordinary challenges involved in prosecuting mass violence and a reminder of the structural weaknesses that continue to burden India's criminal justice system. More than two years after one of the country's worst episodes of internal conflict in recent history, investigations remain incomplete, victims are still struggling to access basic case documents, and the judiciary finds itself stepping beyond adjudication to ensure the justice process moves forward. Hearing a batch of petitions relating to the Manipur violence, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana proposed the creation of special courts that could conduct day-to-day trials in criminal cases. The Court also directed investigating agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Special Investigation Teams (SITs), to expedite pending investigations. The Bench took note of another troubling aspect of the proceedings: several victims and their families had not even received copies of the chargesheets filed in their cases. Recognising that meaningful participation in criminal proceedings is impossible without access to these documents, the Court permitted legal aid counsel representing the victims to approach the offices of the Chief Justices of the Gauhati High Court and the High Court of Manipur for copies. Investigating agencies have been directed to provide the chargesheets within one week. While these directions appear administrative on the surface, they reveal a larger institutional concern. The criminal justice system is designed to investigate offences, prosecute the accused and deliver timely justice through regular trial courts. Yet, in cases involving large-scale communal or ethnic violence, that framework often struggles under the weight of hundreds of FIRs, multiple investigating agencies, displaced witnesses, political sensitivities and enormous evidentiary requirements. The Supreme Court's proposal for special courts implicitly acknowledges that ordinary criminal courts may not be equipped to handle such complex litigation within a reasonable timeframe. India's subordinate judiciary is already burdened by an enormous backlog of cases. Adding hundreds of serious criminal prosecutions arising from a single conflict risks delaying justice for years unless dedicated judicial infrastructure is created. Special courts are not a novel legal mechanism. They have been constituted in the past for cases involving corruption, sexual offences, terrorism and economic crimes where speedy disposal has been considered a matter of public interest. In the context of the Manipur violence, however, the rationale extends beyond efficiency. Delayed trials can weaken prosecutions as witnesses relocate, memories fade, evidence deteriorates and public confidence in the justice process diminishes. Equally significant is the Court's emphasis on victims' rights. Traditionally, India's criminal justice system has viewed the prosecution as a contest between the State and the accused, leaving victims with a limited procedural role. Over the past decade, however, judicial decisions and legislative reforms have increasingly recognised victims as stakeholders entitled to information, participation and protection. The inability of many victims to obtain copies of chargesheets demonstrates how these rights often remain unrealised in practice. A chargesheet is not merely a procedural document. It informs victims about the conclusions reached by investigators, the evidence collected, the offences alleged and the individuals who will face trial. Without access to it, victims remain dependent on fragmented information and have little ability to monitor the progress of their own cases. The Court's directions therefore reinforce an important constitutional principle: access to justice requires transparency as much as it requires speed. The Manipur violence has remained under the Supreme Court's close scrutiny since the ethnic conflict erupted in May 2023. The Court has repeatedly intervened on issues ranging from the transfer of investigations to the CBI, witness protection, relief measures, and allegations of sexual violence. The present order continues that pattern of judicial oversight, reflecting the Court's concern that ordinary institutional mechanisms alone have not been sufficient to ensure accountability. This growing judicial involvement also raises an uncomfortable question about the functioning of India's criminal justice institutions. Ideally, investigations should proceed efficiently, victims should receive information without judicial intervention, and trials should commence within a reasonable period after chargesheets are filed. The fact that the Supreme Court continues to supervise these processes suggests that systemic deficiencies remain unresolved. The challenge extends beyond Manipur. India has witnessed repeated instances where prosecutions arising out of communal riots, caste violence, political unrest and other mass crimes have been delayed for years. Such delays affect not only victims but also the rights of the accused, who are entitled to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Fast-tracking criminal proceedings through special courts may therefore provide immediate institutional relief, but it cannot by itself address deeper structural problems. Investigating agencies require greater capacity, forensic infrastructure needs strengthening, witness protection mechanisms must become more effective, and trial courts require adequate judicial officers and resources to handle complex litigation without extraordinary intervention. The Supreme Court's latest observations should thus be viewed as more than a response to the Manipur violence. They underline a broader reality that India's criminal justice system continues to depend on case-specific judicial supervision whenever major crises expose its limitations. Whether special courts ultimately lead to convictions or acquittals will depend on the quality of investigations and the fairness of trials. Yet the Court's message is unmistakable: justice delayed in cases of mass violence risks becoming justice denied. By seeking dedicated courts, faster investigations and greater transparency for victims, the Supreme Court is attempting to ensure that the pursuit of accountability does not become another casualty of institutional delay. The true test, however, will not be the establishment of special courts alone. It will be whether India's criminal justice system can evolve into one that delivers timely, transparent and credible justice without requiring the country's highest constitutional court to repeatedly step in and keep the process on track.

Trump renews double-digit tariffs on 60 countries, including India, citing forced labour concerns after shifting to new US trade laws. By Pranjal Gupta New Delhi, July 24: The United States will renew the global levy imposed on 60 countries immediately after the current timeline concludes at midnight on Friday. This time, the tariffs are expected to be more durable and remain in double digits. US President Donald J. Trump had imposed these charges on America's trading partners, alleging that they use forced labour to manufacture products exported to the United States. The countries affected include India. According to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the US President can impose sanctions if a country is found to be engaging in "unjustifiable", "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" trade practices. Trump's forced labour initiative came after the US Supreme Court struck down his administration's broad reciprocal emergency tariffs, which ranged from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). As a result, the US government faced nearly $166 billion in refund claims from businesses, according to US media reports. To prevent his broader tariff strategy from collapsing, Trump quickly pivoted to alternative legal provisions, including Section 122, which allows a temporary 150-day global surcharge, and newly launched Section 301 investigations into foreign trade practices. President Donald Trump invoked Section 301 after a Supreme Court setback derailed his earlier emergency tariff regime. (File Image) The 60 countries covered by the order account for approximately 99 per cent of US imports. How Much Tariff This Time? The United States will impose tariffs ranging between 10 per cent and 12.5 per cent on imports from the 60 countries. On Thursday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, acting under Trump's direction, confirmed that the duties would now take effect. "Today's action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere," Greer said in a statement, according to the BBC. Earlier this week, the Trump administration invoked a different provision, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to impose 50 per cent tariffs on products imported from Canada. On Thursday, the Office of the US Trade Representative said the latest tariffs were being imposed on trading partners "for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour". It added that the new duties apply to the top 60 US trading partners, covering 99.4 per cent of all US imports. Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Thursday that Canada is intensifying negotiations with the United States to secure a comprehensive trade agreement but is prepared to respond if President Trump's proposed 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods come into effect. The tariffs, announced by Trump on Monday, are scheduled to take effect on 19 August."If these tariffs, or other measures, come into force, there's a full range of things that we can do in that regard," Carney said after meeting Canada's premiers and territorial leaders in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. (With Agency Inputs)

Sonam Wangchuk ended his 26-day hunger strike at Medanta Hospital after Union Ministers JP Nadda and Dr Jitendra Singh conveyed government assurances on non-prosecution of protesters and NEET-related reforms. The resolution leaves the CJP's core demands, including Pradhan's resignation, unmet, shifting the contest to Parliament and, if commitments falter, potentially back to the courts. New Delhi, July 24: Sonam Wangchuk's decision to end his 26-day hunger strike at Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon late Thursday night closes, at least for now, the most visible flashpoint in a protest movement that has tested the boundaries between political mobilisation, medical intervention, and the state's constitutional obligations toward a fasting citizen. But what ended Thursday night was the fast, not the obligation it forced onto the government. Wangchuk broke his fast in the presence of Union Ministers JP Nadda and Dr Jitendra Singh, senior leaders of the Apex Body of Leh Ladakh, and his wife Gitanjali Angmo, following what he described as prolonged negotiations conducted against the backdrop of possible unrest. His own framing of the moment, an appeal to the public to remain vigilant against violence even as he claimed a negotiated resolution, is worth sitting with, since it signals an awareness that the assurances extracted from government are political rather than judicially enforceable, and that their durability will depend on public attention rather than any binding instrument. The test now shifts entirely onto the state: whether the commitments made in a hospital room survive contact with Parliament, the courts, and the ordinary machinery of governance. The events of 20 July sharpened the stakes considerably. Police used tear gas and batons against protesters marching toward Parliament to press the same demands, an episode that has since drawn a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court seeking an NIA probe. Nadda's assurance to Wangchuk, that the government would not register cases against those who protested peacefully at Jantar Mantar or participated in the 20 July march, is significant precisely because it is not a legal remedy but an executive undertaking, extended in a hospital room rather than through any statutory or judicial mechanism. This is the first and most immediate marker of the government's test: whether that undertaking translates into actual withdrawal or non-registration of FIRs, or whether protesters who were detained or booked in connection with the march are left to seek relief through litigation the assurance was meant to preempt. The government's other commitments, a parliamentary discussion on paper leaks and examination reform, and consideration of compensation for the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide, arrive alongside a quieter administrative reshuffle that has drawn less attention than it perhaps deserves. Higher Education Secretary Vineet Joshi, who had overseen the National Testing Agency during the period the leaked paper was administered and who continued to serve as acting UGC chairman despite standing questions about the legality of that arrangement under Section 5(2) of the UGC Act, 1956, has now been moved out of the Ministry of Education entirely, to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj. The timing, three days after the Parliament march and hours before Wangchuk's fast ended, invites the obvious reading that this is an accountability gesture aimed at the protest's core grievance, even though the official order does not frame it that way. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's own statements, promising fast-track courts and a legislative push against paper leaks from the second week of the Parliament session, suggest the government is trying to convert a street and hospital-room negotiation into a legislative response, which is the more durable route available to it, but also the one most exposed to the ordinary delays and dilutions of the parliamentary process. This is the second marker of the test: whether the promised Bill arrives intact, diluted, or not at all when the House convenes. What happens next will determine whether this fast produced a genuine institutional shift or simply defused an immediate crisis. The CJP's core demands, Pradhan's resignation and structural reform of the examination system, remain unmet in the form originally sought; what has been offered instead is a discussion in Parliament and a Bill still being drafted. Wangchuk's own caution, promising to detail the negotiated conditions in a separate video and urging vigilance against violence, reads as an acknowledgment that the settlement is fragile and contingent on continued scrutiny rather than self-executing. For a protest movement built around examination integrity and administrative accountability, the more consequential fight now shifts from the street and the hospital to the floor of Parliament and, if the promised Bill under-delivers or the assurances on non-prosecution are not honoured, potentially back into the courts. The fast has ended. The government's test, on FIRs, on the Bill, on compensation, is only beginning.

Dhaka, Jul 23 (PTI) Bangladesh’s President Mohammad Shahabuddin is likely to resign soon, nearly two years ahead of his tenure, political sources and media reports said on Thursday. Shahabuddin was elected to the highest office by the past parliament and happens to be the only person still holding his constitutional position long after the violent July-August 2024 student-led street protest that toppled prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government. Hasina fled to India and has been living there since August 5, 2024. “It is likely that he (Shahabuddin) will resign soon,” a senior leader of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) told PTI without further elaboration. However, reports carried by several mainstream Bangladeshi media over his resignation gained momentum in the past two days suggesting Prime Minister Rahman’s government was no longer comfortable with Shahabuddin. Newspaper Prothom Alo quoted a high-level government source as saying that the government was unhappy with reports that Shahabuddin tried to re-establish contacts with Hasina recently. Bangladesh's presidency faces renewed scrutiny as the country's post-uprising political order continues to evolve. A senior BNP leader told The Daily Star that a recently reported telephone conversation between Shahabuddin and Hasina was not the only reason behind his expected resignation and rather the issue was “more complex” as Bangladesh’s political scenario has become more sensitive with Hasina's announcement to return home. Earlier in the month, Hasina said she will return to Bangladesh in December. Bangladesh said it “welcomed” Hasina's plans to return home but asserted that she must face justice. Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) on November 17, 2025 sentenced to death Hasina and home minister of her cabinet Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal after trial in absentia for their superior role in taming the protest, now being dubbed as 'July Uprising.' A 1971 Liberation War veteran and former lower judiciary judge, Shahabuddin had taken oath in April 2023 for a five-year term. According to Bangladesh Constitution, if the president resigns, parliamentary Speaker Hafizuddin Ahmed will take the charge as the interim president until a new head of the state is elected. The ICT-BD was originally constituted in 2010 by the Hasina-led government to try hardened collaborators of Pakistani troops during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War. The Muhammad Yunus-led interim regime, which took charge three days after Hasina fled to India, amended the ICT-BD law to enable it to try the leaders and officials of the Awami League government on charges of crimes against humanity. (Except headline, the content is sourced from a syndicated feed).

Serious questions have been raised regarding production issues associated with indigenous projects like the 'Dhanush' artillery gun. By Ajay Haldar New Delhi, July 23: The Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has once again sharply reprimanded the Ministry of Defence. The PAC's 49th Report (18th Lok Sabha, 2026-27) highlights a loss of Rs 62.10 crore incurred while replacing defective ammunition supplied to the Indian Army by the Ordnance Factory, Badmal. The committee has also identified the decades-long delay in the procurement of artillery guns as a major threat to the Army's operational preparedness. Serious questions have been raised regarding production issues associated with indigenous projects like the 'Dhanush' artillery gun. The PAC has made five key recommendations, including infrastructure improvements, skill development, better decision-making processes, and timely production. This report brings to light the actual challenges involved in achieving the defence goals of 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' (Self-Reliant India). Loss of Rs 62 Crore Due to Defective Ammunition The PAC termed the Rs 62.10 crore loss—incurred while replacing defective ammunition supplied by Ordnance Factory, Badmal—as a serious matter. Such flaws not only result in a waste of funds but also cast doubt on the reliability of the Army's ammunition stocks. The committee has urged the Ministry of Defence to strengthen the supply chain through strict Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and defined timelines to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. Parliament panel flags ₹62.10 crore loss after defective ammunition supplied to the Indian Army had to be replaced. Indian Army Relies on Aging Guns amid 20-Year Delay in Artillery Procurement 155mm/39 calibre guns were procured from Bofors in 1986, a deal that included a transfer of technology. Following a ban imposed in 1989, attempts to procure new, higher-calibre guns were made in the 1990s; however, the process stalled due to an inability to finalize requirements and a poor response from vendors. According to the PAC, it took the Ministry two decades to procure and induct new artillery gun systems. This resulted in a significant shortfall within the Army, forcing continued reliance on older guns with limited firepower. The committee stated that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) should establish a robust mechanism for the regular review of stocks, identification of capability gaps, and timely procurement aligned with emerging threats. What are problems regarding the Dhanush Gun? The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) commended the indigenous 155mm/45 calibre Dhanush gun project but expressed dissatisfaction over production delays. The committee noted that the production methodology evolved gradually because such an advanced gun had never been manufactured in India before; the existing infrastructure was not aligned with the project's requirements. The PAC was not satisfied with the MoD's response. It recommended a thorough assessment of domestic capabilities and infrastructure before initiating such projects to prevent delays and cost overruns. Emphasis was placed on providing greater R&D support to domestic manufacturers. The report identified technical deficiencies—specifically regarding ballistic expertise, gun electronics, and the integration of advanced sighting systems—as major causes of the delay. Although these gaps were eventually bridged through indigenous efforts, the PAC remarked that they should have been identified at the project approval stage itself. The committee suggested introducing specialized courses in defense manufacturing at IITs and technical institutes, as well as the regular upskilling of Defense Public Sector Undertaking (DPSU) personnel, to enable India to meet global standards. The PAC acknowledged that the Dhanush gun facilitated maintenance due to the commonality of parts with the Bofors gun; however, production delays impacted the operational readiness of the artillery division. The committee called for structural changes in the MoD's decision-making process, improved supply chain management, and stricter timelines for vendors. Despite monitoring by the apex level of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and the Army's Technical Oversight Group (TOG), several deadlines for the Dhanush project were missed. The PAC urged that additional measures be taken to complete the project within the extended timeline ending in March 2027. AWEIL was advised to adopt a proactive approach and anticipate potential disruptions in advance. What are Challenges in 'Atmanirbhar Bharat'? India is emphasizing the modernization of its artillery as geopolitical challenges mount. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warned that production delays could render designs obsolete. The report noted that delays in the defense sector harm both national security and the economy.

By Mahima Katal New Delhi, July 23: The Delhi High Court's decision to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) July 20 protest has brought into focus an important legal question: when does a public protest cross the threshold from a law-and-order issue to a matter of national security? The PIL, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, a former Vice-President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, alleges that the CJP agitation was not a genuine student movement but part of a larger conspiracy backed by foreign-funded actors seeking to destabilise the country. The petition asks the High Court to direct the NIA, or another specialised agency, to investigate the protest, take over all FIRs registered by Delhi Police, and identify those allegedly responsible for violence, vandalism and obstruction of public services. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Barun Kumar Sinha argued that the protest had "made the entire Delhi hostage" by blocking roads and causing inconvenience to citizens. Accepting the request, the Bench agreed to hear the matter on Friday. The petition claims that the demonstration witnessed attacks on journalists, injuries to police personnel, damage to public and private property, obstruction of emergency services and attempts to march towards Parliament. It also refers to activist Sonam Wangchuk's alleged association with certain foreign organisations, contending that these links require investigation by competent authorities. However, at this stage, these are allegations contained in the PIL. The Delhi High Court has neither examined the evidence nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims. The significance of the petition lies less in the allegations themselves and more in the relief it seeks. The NIA is India's premier counter-terror investigation agency and ordinarily investigates offences that affect the sovereignty, security and integrity of the country. Its jurisdiction is governed by the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, under which it investigates only those offences specifically listed in the Schedule to the Act, including various terrorism-related offences. This means that every incident involving violence or public disorder does not automatically become an NIA case. Criminal offences such as rioting, unlawful assembly, destruction of public property or assault on police personnel are generally investigated by the local police unless the facts disclose offences falling within the NIA's jurisdiction or the Central Government decides that the agency should take over the investigation. The PIL attempts to bridge that gap by alleging that the protest was part of a coordinated conspiracy involving foreign funding and anti-national elements. If such allegations are backed by credible evidence and disclose offences under the laws scheduled to the NIA Act, the demand for a specialised investigation may acquire legal significance. Mere allegations, however, are unlikely to be sufficient. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that courts should exercise caution while directing investigations by specialised agencies. Such directions are generally issued only in exceptional circumstances where there is material suggesting that an independent investigation is necessary to ensure a fair and effective probe. The case also raises broader constitutional concerns. The right to assemble peacefully and protest is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, sovereignty and security. While violence, vandalism and attacks on public officials are punishable under criminal law, branding an entire protest as a national security issue requires a much higher legal threshold. This distinction becomes important because the use of anti-terror investigative mechanisms carries consequences that extend far beyond ordinary criminal investigations. Courts have therefore consistently insisted that such powers be invoked only where the statutory requirements are clearly met. When the matter comes up before the Delhi High Court, the Bench is not expected to decide whether the allegations are true. The immediate question will be whether the petition discloses sufficient grounds to warrant judicial intervention and whether the existing investigation by Delhi Police is inadequate. The Court may choose to issue notice to the Centre and Delhi Police, seek their response, or decline to entertain the PIL if it finds that the allegations do not justify the extraordinary relief sought. Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are likely to be closely watched because they touch upon a recurring legal debate in India: where should the line be drawn between a protest that is dealt with under ordinary criminal law and one that is investigated as a threat to national security? The High Court's response may offer important guidance on that question, even if it does not finally decide the controversy.

From Faiz to Munir Niyazi, poetry became the language of the NEET-UG protest, uniting students, activists, celebrities and opposition leaders. By Pranjal Gupta New Delhi, July 23: The ongoing protest over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak has revived the language of poetry and couplets. In the latest instance, Thiruvananthapuram MP and senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor took a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi by quoting a classic couplet by Pakistani poet Munir Niyazi, suggesting that the Prime Minister's response to the controversy had come rather late. "Humesha der kar deta hun mein har kaam karne mein, zaroori baat kehni ho, koi vaada nibhana ho," wrote Tharoor in a post on X, formerly Twitter. His reaction came after PM Modi announced that the Centre would set up fast-track courts to ensure swift punishment for those involved in the paper leak. "Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth! We have decided to set up fast-track courts to ensure swift and stringent punishment for those involved in paper leaks. Have directed the concerned authorities and officials to take all necessary steps in this regard. This continues our series of steps for safeguarding the interests of students. Those who try to harm the future of our youth will not be spared," PM Modi said. From Faiz to Munir Niyazi, poetry became the language of the NEET-UG protest, uniting students, activists, celebrities and opposition leaders. 'Bol Ke Lab Azad Hain Tere' Over the past month, India has witnessed a strong student-led protest across several states. A satire-driven, internet-born movement also spilled onto the streets of the national capital, with the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) organising a protest at Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. During this period, several Bollywood actors, activists and political leaders turned to Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi poetry to draw the government's attention to the recurring irregularities in major competitive examinations taken by thousands of students. Actor Shabana Azmi recited Bol Ke Lab Azaad Hain Tere ("Speak, for your lips are free"), the iconic poem by Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz. Lyricist Swanand Kirkire recited Maila Chawal, Sadi Dal by poet Suryakumar Pandey. Actor Atul Kulkarni recited Kya Ghar Ja Kar Tu Roya Kal? by contemporary Urdu poet Tehzeeb Hafi. Actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub recited Yadi Tumhare Ek Kamre Mein by celebrated poet, playwright and journalist Sarveshwar Dayal Saxena. Sonam Wangchuk Strike Enters Day 26 Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28 and remained on fast even on the 26th day of his protest. Several political leaders, activists, Bollywood personalities and supporters urged him to end his fast, but Wangchuk continued to insist on an open dialogue with the government before calling off his protest.