CBI Director Praveen Sood gets one year's extension
The Centre has granted a one-year extension to Praveen Sood's tenure as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), effective beyond May 24, 2025. Sood, an IPS officer from the 1986 Karnataka cadre, assumed the CBI directorship on May 25, 2023, for an initial two-year term.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Centre on Wednesday extended the tenure of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Praveen Sood by one year. Sood took over as the CBI director on May 25, 2023 for a two-year term.The Appointments Commitee of the Cabinet (ACC), based on the recommendations of the selection committee, approved Sood's extension for a period of one year beyond May 24."The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, based on the recommendations of the Committee, has approved the extension in tenure of Shri Praveen Sood, IPS (KN:1986) as Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a period of one year beyond 24.05.2025," a government notice said.Sood, an IPS officer of 1986 Batch (Karnataka Cadre), before joining, he was serving as Director General of Police, Karnataka.Sood is a graduate (B. Tech) in Civil Engineering from IIT, Delhi; Post Graduation in Public Policy & Management form IIM, Bengaluru and the Maxwell School of Governance, Syracuse University, New York.Praveen Sood has been decorated with the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service in 2011 and the Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 2002. He has been awarded the Chief Minister's Gold Medal for Excellence in Service in 1996; the National e-Governance Gold Award for "Most innovative use of technology for Traffic Management in the year 2011; and the Prince Michael International Road Safety Award in the year 2006 for contribution towards road safety and traffic management.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka to ask Centre, apex court to ensure justice to farmers cultivating forest land
CHIKKAMAGALURU: The state government is vested with powers to drop lands sanctioned prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1963. But to ensure justice to farmers who have been cultivating such lands with houses on them for the past 40 years after the notification, a proposal will be submitted to the Centre and the Supreme Court, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre said on Friday. At a meeting with MLAs, forest and revenue officers from Chikkamagaluru district at Vikas Soudha in Bengaluru, he said the Centre and the Supreme Court will be urged not to clear human settlements and cultivated lands within the deemed forests. Instead, compensatory land should be given to the forest department, the minister added. In some cases, provisions under Section 17 have not been implemented even after 70 years of the notification issued under Section 4. This has become a hurdle in dropping such lands in the forest limits after the enforcement of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. Therefore, it has become inevitable to submit the appeal to the Centre and the Supreme Court, Khandre said.
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Kamal Haasan urges voluntary language learning, opposes Hindi imposition in South
Kamal Haasan has addressed the issue of Hindi imposition in the south while promoting his new film, 'Thug Life'. Despite being involved in a controversy over his comments on Kannada, the actor made his stance clear. He emphasised that learning should happen without imposition and that education must take the shortest route without faced backlash after stating that Kannada was born out of Tamil. His film 'Thug Life' was not released in Karnataka following his refusal to apologise. Now, in an interview with PTI, Haasan said, "I am the actor from 'Ek Duuje Ke Liye'. Without imposition, we will learn. Don't impose, because this is ultimately education and we must take the shortest route to education and not put hurdles in its way.'advertisementThe ruling party in Tamil Nadu has strongly opposed the three-language policy introduced under the National Education Policy (NEP), accusing the BJP-led NDA government of attempting to impose Hindi - a claim the Centre has denied. Actor Kamal Haasan echoed the concerns raised by states like Punjab, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, stating that imposing a particular language hinders the learning process. Haasan further argued that for global opportunities, students should be encouraged to learn international languages such as English, Spanish, or Chinese. He emphasised that English education has a deep-rooted history in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, and abruptly replacing it with Hindi could render many people functionally illiterate. He also questioned the government's commitment to protecting language rights and voiced concerns over the push for Haasan added, "And English seems to be fair enough. You can do Spanish also, or Chinese. But I think the most practical thing where the shortest route to that is that we have 350 years of English education, slowly but steadily. So when you suddenly replace it, it's all over again. You make unnecessarily many people illiterate, especially in Tamil Nadu."advertisementHe continued, "You suddenly force all through Hindi and you tell them that you will not get your job beyond the Vindhyas, then you start wondering, what about the promises? What about my language? Am I not one of the 22 (official languages)? These are the questions that are coming."Meanwhile, 'Thug Life' faced backlash in Karnataka after a controversy over his remarks about the Kannada and Tamil languages. The film hit theatres on June 5 and also features Silambarasan TR and Trisha InMust Watch
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Water dispute: HC dismisses Punjab's plea seeking recall or modification of May 6 order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the Punjab government's plea seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order which asked it to release water to Haryana. Punjab had sought a recall or modification of the high court's order pertaining to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana. The high court had directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary. Punjab had alleged concealment of "material facts" by the Centre, Haryana and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) which led to the May 6 high court order. In the order that came out on Saturday, the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the Punjab government's plea. Referring to the state of Punjab's assertion that disputes relating to water between two or more states emanate from Article 262 of the Constitution, pursuant to which Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the court said, "Merely because this court held that Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is a manifestation of Article 262 (1) of the Constitution, does not help the stance of State of Punjab in any manner in its attempt to seek re-calling/ modification of the order, unless the State of Punjab can show that because of this error, any prejudice has been caused to it, which is certainly not the case herein." The major thrust of Punjab's argument is as regards material concealment on the part of BBMB and Haryana by contending that the April 29 letter of Haryana, requesting the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the Centre was not brought to the notice of the court. "Taking up the ground of non-disclosure of the letter, it is obvious from reading of the said letter that the extraordinary meeting of the BBMB dated April 28 was held to execute the resolution dated April 23 of the Technical Committee of BBMB. However, this letter clearly reveals that the State of Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of resolution of BBMB, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana. "Contents of letter April 29 further elicit that stance taken therein was that the BBMB was being monopolised by Punjab. Thus, the State of Haryana under Explanation - II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, requested the Chairman of the BBMB to refer the matter to Centre for implementation of earlier resolution," said the order. A close scrutiny of Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, along with both the explanations, reveals that in case of difference of opinion among the members on any question of policy or the rights of any of the participating states, the chairman shall refer the matter to the central government, which shall decide the same, it said. The court further stated that the April 29 letter does not relate to any dissent by Haryana but contains a request to the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the central government for the execution of the minutes of the April 28 meeting. Thus, in essence, the letter dated April 29 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of Haryana but merely seeks implementation of the April 28 resolution of the Technical Committee of the Board. As such, this letter cannot be treated as a reference to the Centre, the court held. Consequently, the April 29 letter of Haryana does not fall within the realm of "material fact", non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential, it said. Regarding the ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to the government of India is concerned, the order said since this court has held the April 29 letter not to be a reference to the government of India, the question of reference being pending with the government of India does not arise and, thus, BBMB was free to act in accordance with law. Referring to its May 6 order, the court mentioned that it disposed of the matter in the backdrop of an emergent situation that had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. On May 20, Haryana, BBMB and the Centre had filed their replies to Punjab's plea which sought a review or modification of the high court's May 6 order. Haryana had earlier submitted that the application filed by Punjab is "complete abuse of the process of the court with an ulterior motive to wriggle out from the proceedings of contempt." Punjab and Haryana had been at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from Bhakra Dam, saying the neighbouring State has already utilised its share of water.
