29 April 2025: Canada Resets Ties with India, India-Pakistan Tensions Escalate, Vaibhav Suryavanshi Makes IPL History
India Today Podcasts Desk
UPDATED: Apr 29, 2025 18:47 IST
In today's episode of News @ 7 with Vaishnavi Bhardwaj: A diplomatic reboot as new Canadian PM Mark Carney eyes stronger India ties; India clamps down on Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack; the Supreme Court denies bail to ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt; fugitive Mehul Choksi faces legal hurdles in Belgium; and 14-year-old Vaibhav Suryavanshi stuns IPL fans with a record-breaking century. Catch all the top headlines in under 10 minutes.
Produced by Prateek Lidhoo
Sound mix by Suraj Singh
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Why did you invite Modi for G7 Summit?': UK PM Carney replies, ‘India should be…'
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Friday said that it 'made sense' to have India, the fifth largest largest economy, at the G7 Summit. Carney was responding to a question on extending an invitation for the Summit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He added that G7 countries will hold discussions on important issues, including security and energy, in their upcoming summit, adding that India's presence at the intergovernmental political and economic forum is essential. 'There are certain countries that should be at the table for those discussions in my capacity as G7 chair consultation,' he said. 'India is the fifth largest economy in the world, effectively the most populous in the world central to a number of supply chains, so it makes sense. And in addition, bilaterally, we have now agreed importantly to continued law enforcement dialogue so there's been some progress… I extended the invitation to Prime Minister Modi in that context and he has accepted,' Carney added. PM Modi on Friday confirmed he would attend the G7 Summit in Canada after an invitation from newly elected Carney. "Glad to receive a call from Prime Minister Mark J Carney of Canada. Congratulated him on his recent election victory and thanked him for the invitation to the G7 Summit in Kananaskis later this month. As vibrant democracies bound by deep people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigour, guided by mutual respect and shared interests. Look forward to our meeting at the Summit," PM Modi said in a post on X. The announcement comes after a period of severely strained relations between the two countries, triggered by Canadian allegations that Indian 'agents' were involved in the June 2023 murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar – a Canadian citizen and prominent pro-Khalistan activist – outside a Sikh temple in Vancouver. India strongly denied the claims, and both nations expelled senior diplomats in a tit-for-tat escalation. 1. The South African high commission told The Canadian Press that Canada invited President Cyril Ramaphosa to attend the summit. 2. According to CBC news, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on May 4 that Canada invited him to the summit and he will attend. 3. Canada also invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to attend and he confirmed again this week he will be there. 4. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Canada had invited her nearly two weeks prior but she had not yet decided whether she'll attend. (With inputs from agencies)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Killer stampede: Anticipation, top weapon to keep death away
Twenty-six men were killed in Baisaran Meadows near Pahalgam in Jammu & Kashmir on April 22, 2025. They were killed by terrorists, most of them on being asked which community they belonged to, and selectively targeted on being given an answer that weighed in favour of pulling the trigger. Terror killed these men. Forty-three days later, on June 4, 2025, eleven young lives – those of four women, five men and two minors, a girl aged 14 and a boy aged 17 – were snuffed out when massive crowds, estimated to be about 2.5 lakh to 3 lakh, converged on Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, trying to gain entry into the premises to be a part of the celebrations planned by Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), which won the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 title for the first time in its 18th edition. Stampede killed them. It may not be fair to compare the two, but what is common in these two horrific incidents is 'Death'. And both these incidents have evoked intense shock and anger – the first, leading to targeting terror bases in Pakistan as part of 'Operation Sindoor', ahead of a 'mini-war' with the neighbouring country – understood to be a major terror-sponsor – lasting three days; and the second, in which action is still unfolding with leaders in the state government, the opposition, the police, RCB, Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and DNA Entertainment Ltd, the event organisers, locked in a blame-game with no clue yet where the case is heading until an impartial, thorough probe does justice. Blame is another common factor when such deaths occur; when life is cut short in its prime; when we desperately start looking out for those responsible for the deaths; when we hunt high and low for what caused the deaths; and when it gets us to hurriedly fix the blame on someone or the other in an attempt to come out clean. But all these are post-catastrophe scenarios, a kind of reactive exercise that, any which way you see it, will not get the dead back among their loved ones.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
