Delhi Assembly Speaker calls PAC and CAG 'watchdogs of democracy'
During the meeting, Gupta inquired about Meghalaya's demographic profile and the structure of its Public Accounts Committee. Pyngrope explained that Meghalaya was a matrilineal state, primarily inhabited by the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo tribes. He also shared that the state was governed in part by autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which are designed to protect tribal interests. The PAC in Meghalaya consists of 10 members, including a chairperson who is typically chosen from the Opposition to ensure a balanced oversight mechanism. Gupta also introduced the delegation to Delhi Assembly's Audit Para Monitoring System, a digital tool designed to enhance financial accountability by systematically tracking audit observations. The Meghalaya legislators appreciated the system and shared insights into their own procedures for financial oversight. They also discussed potential strategies for making legislative committees more effective and responsive. Vice Chairperson of the Delhi Assembly Mohan Singh Bisht and PAC chairperson Ajay Mahawar were also present during the session, which concluded with a shared commitment to strengthen legislative scrutiny and promote better governance through informed collaboration between state assemblies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
JD(U) MP: EC has no practical knowledge of Bihar, imposed SIR in monsoon
Patna: JD(U) MP from Banka Girdhari Yadav said on Wednesday the Election Commission (EC) has no practical knowledge about Bihar or its history and geography and has imposed the special intensive revision (SIR) on the state in the rainy season, when people are busy with agricultural activities. LJP (RV) chief Chirag Paswan and BJP politician and Union minister Giriraj Singh defended the process on Wednesday, The Banka MP said the one-month limit for submitting documents for voter list revision was impractical. July 25 is the deadline to submit forms along with supporting documents. JD(U) MLA from Parbatta Sanjeev Kumar, too, raised concerns and said many poor people from his constituency who are working outside Bihar were facing problems filling their enumeration forms with the documents required. Yadav said it took 10 days for him to arrange the relevant documents and asked what would happen to his son's voting right as he was in the US. He added that at least six months should be given for this process. However, he said it was his personal opinion and he did not care what the party was saying on the issue. "But this is the truth. If I cannot speak the truth, then why have I become an MP," he said. The Parbatta MLA, meanwhile, questioned the timing of SIR and said a large number of people from Bihar work in other states. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "How will they be able to participate in the SIR process in such a short time," he asked, adding that the process should have started by Holi. The ECI says SIR is necessary to remove the names of those who are either deceased or have migrated to other places, or registered twice. The opposition has alleged that the process targets voters from marginalised and poor communities who don't possess the documents ECI requires as it has excluded Aadhaar and EPIC for voter verification. However, Union minister Chirag Paswan accused the opposition of deliberately spreading misinformation about SIR to suit their political narrative. "It is beyond my understanding what the opposition really wants. Is it not correct that after the parliamentary elections they complained about the voter list? They claimed the same thing after the Maharashtra elections. Now, the solution is SIR only. It is not the first time SIR is happening," he said. Union minister Giriraj Singh accused the opposition of politicising a constitutionally mandated process. "They crush the Constitution but take Babasaheb's name. They are worried about the Rohingyas, the Bangladeshis. That's why they are scared," he alleged.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Political neutrality must guide Dhankhar's successor in VP's post
Dhankhar accepting an opposition notice for impeaching Justice Yashwant Varma over alleged corruption, at a time when the government was trying to make it a bipartisan exercise, appeared to be the last straw on the camel's back, as he had crossed the NDA red line far too often. The VP's exit drew sympathetic noises from the opposition, who ironically were gunning for his scalp just a few weeks ago. Since Dhankhar is the only VP to have departed under such circumstances—the others had left to become president—it threw up questions on the constitutional grey area on electing his successor. While the Constitution does not specify a timeline, it mandates that the vacancy be filled as soon as possible, and gives the person a full term of five years. The resignation did not create a constitutional void as the institution of the Rajya Sabha deputy chair is in place; it's a moment to remember that the position of the Lok Sabha deputy speaker is still vacant. Far too often, Dhankhar had taken confrontational positions with the judiciary on questions like 'one nation, one election', the power of judicial review, parliament's supremacy, and timelines for legislative assent—at times making the executive squirm. Both gubernatorial and vice presidential posts are titular positions that require politically neutral individuals in office. Unfortunately, they are anything but. The vice president has a larger role as the Rajya Sabha chairperson, discharging an important democratic and constitutional function. Here's hoping Dhankhar's replacement will uphold the dignity of his high constitutional office.
