T.N. CM Stalin condemns action by Assam Police against journalists Siddharth Varadarajan, Karan Thapar of The Wire
In a post on X, Mr. Stalin said the summons have been issued despite the Supreme Court granting protection in a related matter only days earlier. No copy of the FIR and no particulars of the case have been furnished, leaving only the threat of arrest, he said.
Sedition redux: On trampling on press freedom
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is being misused as a substitute for the repealed sedition law to suppress independent journalism. A democracy cannot survive if asking questions is treated as sedition, he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
A timeline of the Menendez brothers' double-murder case
LOS ANGELES — After serving nearly 30 years in prison for killing their parents, the Menendez brothers will plead their case in front of a panel of California state parole board commissioners starting Thursday. A timeline of the Menendez brothers' double-murder case Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison for fatally shooting their father, Jose Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion in August 1989. They were 18 and 21 at the time. For years after their convictions, the brothers filed petitions for appeals of their cases that were denied. But the brothers became eligible for parole after a Los Angeles judge in May reduced their sentences from life in prison without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, marking the closest they've been to freedom since their convictions. Even if the board grants their parole, it could still be months before the brothers walk free — if at all. If the board grants each brother's parole, the chief legal counsel has 120 days to review the case. Then, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to affirm or deny the parole. Here's a look at their case over the last three decades: March 1990: Lyle Menendez, then 21, is arrested. A few days later, Erik Menendez, 18, turns himself in. They are charged with first-degree murder. July 1993: The Menendez brothers go on trial, each with a separate jury. Prosecutors argued that they killed their parents for financial gain. The brothers' attorneys don't dispute the pair killed their parents, but argued that they acted out of self-defense after years of emotional and sexual abuse by their father. January 1994: Both juries deadlock. October 1995: The brothers' retrial begins, this time with a single jury. Much of the defense evidence about alleged sexual abuse is excluded during the second trial. March 1996: Jurors convict both brothers of first-degree murder. July 1996: The brothers are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. February 1998: A California appeals court upholds the brothers' conviction, and three months later, the state Supreme Court agrees. October 1998: The brothers file habeas corpus petitions with the California Supreme Court. After they are denied the next year, they file petitions in federal district court, which are also denied. September 2005: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denies their habeas corpus appeal. May 3: Attorneys for the Menendez brothers ask the court to reconsider the convictions and life sentences in light of new evidence from a former member of the boy band Menudo, who said he was raped by Jose Menendez when he was 14. In addition, they submit a letter that Erik wrote to his cousin before the killings about his father's abuse. Sept. 19: Netflix releases the crime drama ' Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, ' a nine-episode series about the killings. Oct. 4: Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón says his office is reviewing new evidence in the case. Oct. 16: Multiple generations of family members of the Menendez brothers hold a news conference pleading for their release from prison. The relatives say the jurors who sentenced them to life without parole in 1996 were part of a society that was not ready to hear that boys could be raped. Oct. 24: Prosecutors say they will petition the court to resentence the brothers, and that it could lead to their release. Nov. 18: California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he would not decide on granting the brothers clemency until after the newly elected district attorney has a chance to review the case. Nov. 25: A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge holds a hearing regarding the request for resentencing but says he needs more time to make a decision, delaying the resentencing hearings. Dec. 3: Nathan Hochman is sworn into office as the new district attorney of LA County. Feb. 21: Hochman says his office will oppose a new trial for the Menendez brothers. He cast doubt on the evidence of sexual abuse. The following week, Newsom orders the state parole board to conduct a 'comprehensive risk assessment' to determine whether the brothers have been rehabilitated and if they would pose a danger to the public if released. March 10: Hochman says his office won't support resentencing the brothers because they have repeatedly lied about why they killed their parents. April 11: A judge denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition. The following week, resentencing hearings scheduled are delayed due to disputes among prosecutors and the brothers' lawyers, who say they will ask to remove Hochman's office from the case. May 9: Hochman's office remains on the case as the judge again denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition. May 13: Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduces the brothers' sentences from life without parole to 50 years to life. They are immediately eligible for parole because they committed the crime under the age of 26. The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison. Aug. 21 and 22: Erik and Lyle Menendez are scheduled to have their hearings with the California state parole board. They will take place virtually. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
State will be at whim of Governors if bills held up: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong reservations over the Union government's interpretation of the governor's powers under the Constitution, observing that if a governor could permanently withhold assent to bills passed by an elected state legislature, it would effectively leave the state government at the 'whims and fancies' of a nominated office-bearer. Tushar Mehta insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances' The remarks came on the second day of hearings before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, with justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, on a presidential reference under Article 143. The reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu in May, seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling that had, for the first time, prescribed timelines for governors and the President to decide on bills pending before them. At the heart of Wednesday's arguments was the Centre's reading of the word 'withhold' in Article 200, which solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued empowers a governor to reject a bill outright, leaving it to 'fall through' without the option of being sent back to the legislature. Article 200 entails options for the governor to either grant assent to a bill passed by the state legislature, 'withhold' assent, return it for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President's approval 'This power has to be exercised sparingly and rarely, but this power is there with him,' submitted Mehta, adding that to deny such authority would reduce the governor to 'a mere post office'. The bench, however, pushed back. 'If he does not send the bill again, he can still withhold a bill for time immemorial,' the court pointed out, citing instances such as Tamil Nadu where bills re-enacted by the assembly had remained in limbo without any declaration from the governor. 'Will we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeal over the decisions of an elected government? Then, a government elected with majority will be at the whims and fancy of the governor,' it added. The bench also underscored that constitutional interpretation cannot remain 'frozen in time' and must be informed by experience. 'When the laws were made originally, ideal situations were contemplated…But interpretation is a process and it takes into account how these constitutional functionaries are working today.' The bench cited the example of the anti-defection law under the 10th Schedule, where the speaker was originally seen as the best adjudicator, but decades of litigation had forced courts to re-examine that assumption. 'The validity of a constitutional vision comes by its performance and experience,'said the bench, adding that the absence of legislative impact assessments during framing had left provisions such as Article 200 vulnerable to 'complications and disputes'. Mehta, however, insisted that the governor's power to withhold assent must be preserved in 'exceptional circumstances', including on matters implicating national security or where a bill may violate fundamental rights. 'His oath of defending the Constitution will require him to exercise this power in the rarest of rare cases,' he said, while cautioning the court against turning the governor into a ceremonial figure. The bench repeatedly pressed the solicitor general on whether the power to 'withhold' could be read as an indefinite veto, pointing out that the proviso to Article 200 itself prohibits a governor from withholding assent once a bill has been re-passed by the assembly. 'If the meaning of withhold is to kill a bill, then how do we reconcile this with the proviso?' the court asked. During the daylong hearing, SG Mehta referred extensively to the Constituent Assembly debates to reinforce his point. The bench, however, posed a pointed question on whether governors in practice have lived up to the vision articulated by the framers of the Constitution, which emphasised harmony between the governor and the elected state government. 'The first part of this speech you are reading says there should be harmony between the governor and the elected government. The second part says that the provincial government would be consulted for the appointment of the governor. Is it done? Whether the expectations expressed during the Constituent Assembly debates have been really realised?' it said. At one point, the bench maintained that the governor must 'declare' or communicate his decision of withholding a bill to the state assembly, adding the central points of debate would be around the meaning of the term 'withhold' and the timeline. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the President when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. While making clear on Tuesday that it is only rendering an advisory opinion and not sitting in appeal over its April decision, the Constitution Bench has indicated that the meaning of 'withhold' under Article 200, and whether such discretion can amount to an absolute veto, will be central to its opinion.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will the new Online Gaming Bill spell disaster for India's betting platforms?
The government's new online gaming bill may halt online betting. It follows a pattern of stifling industries instead of regulating them. Earlier, commodity futures and forex markets faced similar fates. The move comes before a Supreme Court ruling on gaming legality. The court will decide on skill versus chance and GST issues. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads We have done it again. All the king's men have come together to exorcise an old ghost, another spectre of 'foreign influence', that could have been tamed, harnessed and used to our advantage. Instead, we let it haunt us for years. And then in one fell swoop, we break in to cleanse and lustrate ourselves, treading the familiar path of least resistance with righteous claims to protect the poor, the Indian culture and the moral fabric of the the leitmotif of a governance style: kill it, if you cannot regulate it. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill has again brought it to the the Bill becomes a law, it would mark the end of the road for online betting on games like poker or rummy, or wagers on various outcomes - from what could be the bitcoin price in the next 24 hours to a wicket in the next what if it is 'game over' for some betting platforms that hire cricketers and actors to lure people with little money, clueless about what they are betting on? Perhaps no big deal. What, however, is startling is the way New Delhi moved in to crush an industry after letting it grow, attract investments and hire thousands, without trying to find a way to discipline the trade. Like cryptocurrencies, GoI, while shy to regulate gaming, has been nonetheless vocal in taxing rush to squeeze a complex business without sensing its potential is not confined to gaming. Commodity futures were clamped down out of fear it would raise grain prices, for decades, India behaved like the proverbial ostrich as betting on the rupee flourished in Singapore, London and Dubai, and, more recently, a regulatory paranoia killed the forex futures market. Today, stifling taxes and reluctant bankers are pushing crypto trades overseas. We either tactlessly drove markets underground or 'exported' them to other countries. And while this went on, various stock options products were floated to entice retail investors who routinely lose real-money gaming (RMG) story could have played out differently. No gov should ignore reports of farmers ending their lives or the poor, led up the garden path with glitzy ads and deceptive promises, falling into debt traps. But these harrowing incidents could have been avoided with rules and gatekeepers: persons below a minimum income or net worth could have been shunned from the gaming wonderland, sizes of bets could have been lowered, and the number of bets a person can place in a month could have been capped by improvising the platform Nadu, Karnataka, Sikkim, Nagaland and other states with gaming frenzy could have come together with GoI, burying their differences, to decide the rules of the game and find common ground to address painful social everyone dug in their heels. Like many issues, gaming too turned political. States clung to their right as gaming - whether gambling, entertainment or digital sport - is a 'state subject'. GoI kept it in a limbo for a long time. And a fragmented, cut-throat world of gaming companies, fuelled by private equity money, turned greedy, refusing to settle for lower volumes and player India could have housed an RMG hub in the GIFT City, inviting foreigners and residents to bet. We may want to be another Singapore and not Macau, but there's no harm if we can be both, and it would be a pity if we are neither. While the Bill wants to foster 'social games' and 'e-sports', these benign pastimes may not transform into a vibrant, bankable Bill's timing was impeccable: a day before the current Parliament session ends and well before the Supreme Court verdict expected before the House resumes in winter. The apex court would rule on multiple matters: whether poker and rummy are a game of 'skill' or 'chance', the huge retroactive GST claim on the industry, and the fate of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts' decisions that thwarted the two state Bills - similar to the one drafted by GoI - to curb SC sets aside the HC rulings, it would squash any hope the industry harbours. If it upholds HC rulings, or rules out a blanket ban on RMG, it could put a question mark on the new Bill and come as a glimmer of hope to the trade. Either way, the Bill may be challenged on expected grounds: GoI's legislative competence to act on a state subject, restricting the right to trade, and arbitrarily bundling the games of skill and chance. What would the top court do? Well, that is an outcome no gamer has the skill to predict - it's an unmixed game of ambush Bill tailed by a guessing game over a future court ruling can liven up conversations and enthral viewers of the 9 o'clock news. But does it bode well for business?
