Bengaluru stampede case: CAT quashes senior police officers' suspension
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Tuesday quashed the June 5 order suspending former additional police commissioner (west), Bengaluru, Vikash Kumar Vikash, and suggested that the Karnataka government similarly revoke the suspension of former police commissioner B Dayananda and deputy commissioner of police (central) Shekhar H Tekkannavar, in what appeared to be a strong rebuke to the government's action following the stampede outside the M Chinnaswamy Stadium.Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah said the government would decide on appealing against the CAT order.The CM had on June 5 announced the suspension of police officers, holding them responsible for the stampede that occurred during Royal Challengers Bengaluru's IPL victory celebrations on June 4 which left 11 persons dead and dozens of fans injured.A CAT bench of justice BK Shrivastava and member Santosh Mehra, while asking the government to reinstate Vikash Kumar immediately, said that the suspensions of police officers had been done "in a mechanical manner" and that there was no convincing material showing the "default or negligence" of the officers concerned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Is Trump gambling with America's future?
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel From Iran to Capitol Hill, President Trump is governing as if he believes all the constraints that limited him during his first term have may be right in that assessment. But if he is, both he and his party could ultimately regret his decision last week to bomb Iran. The problem of Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon has vexed presidents for decades. Yet Vice President JD Vance, reflecting the courtier mindset that has come to dominate Trump's White House,insisted that other presidents hadn't bombed Iran only because they were 'dumb.'Actually, as I was told in conversations last week with several former senior national security officials from the Joe Biden and Barack Obama administrations, those presidents also seriously considered bombing Iran. But both concluded that military action might only slow, not stop, Iran's nuclear effort — and could ultimately increase its determination to secretly build a bomb for deterrence. They recognized that even an attack that initially met its military goals could trigger unintended consequences and ultimately hurt America's long-term because Trump has spent a lifetime dodging accountability in the legal system, the idea that his actions could have unintended consequences seems foreign to him. He has especially good reason to feel unbound now. The institutions that might have restrained him — and usually did restrain other presidents — are buckling under his relentless drive to centralize more presidential events over just the past week have captured the breadth of this capitulation. The six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices signaled again that they see themselves less as hindrances than handmaidens to Trump's accumulation of power when they voted to essentially bar lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against his policies. Two of the tiny handful of Congressional Republicans who have maintained a degree of independence — Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina — announced that they would not seek reelection, showing the president's success at eradicating dissent within his party. Congressional Republican leaders again demonstrated that they will not defend the institution's authority when they justified Trump's refusal to consult Congress (or even inform Democrats) before he bombed Iran. The decision by the University of Virginia's president to resign under pressure from the administration underscored how many institutions in civil society are surrendering to Trump's unprecedented incursions on their was just one is nothing if not a student of human weakness. And he has clearly taken note of how many institutions are splintering under his assaults. In response, Trump is indulging his most aggressive instincts and taking political and policy gambles that might have seemed too reckless during his first term. On issue after issue, he is treating an extremely confrontational position as merely his opening ante — before immediately doubling down with even more extreme tendency was evident from his first day back in office when he pardoned not only the Jan. 6 defendants who broke into the Capitol, but also those who violently assaulted police officers. He's not only dropped federal investigations against political allies, but has directed his administration to launch investigations of individuals he considers adversaries — most recently saying he would consider deporting friend-turned-foe Elon Musk. In Los Angeles, Trump went beyond federalizing the state National Guard over the objection of California Governor Gavin Newsom and also deployed active-duty Marines into the city. Then, he not only used troops to defend federal buildings in LA, but also to provide security for federal immigration and drug enforcement agents on raids. The 'one big beautiful bill' staggering through Congress not only extends the tax cuts he passed in 2017, but would cause nearly as many people to lose health insurance as his failed first-term attempt to repeal the Affordable Care has been equally unconstrained in international affairs. He hasn't applied punishing tariffs only to China, but to close allies including Canada and Mexico. He has moved from America-first isolationism to threatening to seize territory from friendly nations. And as noted above, he not only acquiesced as Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, but joined the attack with the biggest non-nuclear bombs in America's arsenal. The former senior Biden and Obama national security officials told me any administration would have considered a military strike after Israel opened a window of opportunity by degrading Iran's air defenses and disabling its key regional proxies. But the officials also said that the continuing uncertainty over how much the attack actually set back Iran's nuclear program validated the conclusion in those prior administrations that a diplomatic agreement offered a better chance of lasting common thread linking Trump's second-term choices is that he appears to view himself as both infallible and invulnerable. ('I run the country and the world,' he has declared.) He partially retreated when bond markets rebelled against his tariffs, but no other external force has cowed him. And unlike his first term, he's filled his government with loyalists more prone to flatter than challenge him. Business executives and international leaders have followed suit, sacrificing their independence (and in some cases self-respect).That lack of pushback appears to be encouraging him to take yet more gambles. None have entirely blown up on him yet. But he is rushing onto so many ledges that any could crumble beneath him. Iran eventually could respond to his attack with a destabilizing act of terrorism or a sprint toward a bomb; his National Guard deployments into blue cities could trigger a Kent State moment when civilians are killed; trade wars could derail the economy; voters could recoil from a budget bill that cuts taxes for the top 0.1% by over $230,000 annually while revoking health insurance from more people than any previous University political scientist Corey Brettschneider points out that when other presidents have sought to aggrandize their power and undermine Constitutional freedoms, the system's supposed checks from Congress and the Supreme Court have usually failed. According to Brettschneider, who explored that history in his powerful recent book The Presidents and The People, what has slowed those presidents (from John Adams through Woodrow Wilson) is 'citizens pushing back' and building 'a coalition in opposition' when rights and liberties are history points to the real danger of Trump's towering overconfidence. It has emboldened him to take serial risks that may ultimately hurt the American people and provoke a public backlash, particularly among the swing voters that he — and more immediately his party in 2026 —need to retain is repeatedly raising his bets as if he believes he can draw only aces from the deck. He might do well to remember that back in Atlantic City, his ventures into the casino business more than once ended in bankruptcy.(The article is an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Ronald Brownstein.)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump gives deportation threat to Elon Musk. But US President's latest target might have an exit plan
Can Trump deport Elon Musk? Live Events Elon Musk's Canadian citizenship (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk re-ignited this week with the blowup centered around Musk's opposition to Trump's signature tax bill. Musk posted escalating attacks against Trump's sweeping spending bill on his social media platform X, calling the legislation 'insane' and vowing to form a new political party if it passed late Monday."It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!," Musk posted Monday afternoon. In political terms, "pork" generally refers to spending in lawmakers' response, Trump told reporters Tuesday his administration will "have to take a look" at deporting Elon Musk after the billionaire reignited the feud with the president over his spending bill. The President pushed back on his Truth Social media platform, claiming Tesla CEO Musk was upset about the bill eliminating the electric vehicle (EV) mandate and that "Elon would have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa." When asked by reporters later in the morning if he would deport Musk, Trump said, "We'll have to take a look."Trump likely got the idea of deporting Elon Musk after the President's advisor Steve Bannon in July had called for Musk to be deported from the United States. Also known as 'Trump's brain', Bannon claimed Musk, who is originally from South Africa, was in America illegally. He also claimed that Musk's reported drug use should be probed and that his high-level clearances should be Trump to deport Elon Musk, he would first have to be legally stripped of his citizenship. Musk, originally from South Africa, became a U.S. citizen in 2002 through the naturalization process after several years of living and working in the country. Prior to that, he was a citizen of came to the US to study on a J-1 visa. Musk was reportedly an illegal immigrant when he began his career in the United States. He entered the US on a student visa in 1995. Though he said he would enroll at Stanford University, he never did he founded his company Zip2 – a software firm which was later bought by Compact for over $300 Washington Post reported that Musk in a 2005 email used in a defamation lawsuit said that he applied to Stanford because he otherwise had 'no legal right to stay in the country.'US law states that citizenship gained through naturalization can be revoked if it was "procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."Elon Musk has the citizenship of three countries: South Africa, Canada and the United States. He gained the citizenship of Canada at birth, when he was born in Pretoria, South Africa. Musk's mother, Maye Musk, was born a Canadian citizen in Regina, Saskatchewan, so Musk automatically inherited Canadian citizenship by descent, according to CIC current Canadian law states that children born outside of Canada can inherit Canadian citizenship from their parents, but only for one generation. This means that if a parent is a Canadian citizen—whether by birth or naturalization—their child will also be a citizen, even if born February, more than 200,000 people from Canada signed a parliamentary petition calling for their country to strip Elon Musk's Canadian citizenship because of the tech billionaire's alliance with Donald Trump. The petition accused Musk of having 'engaged in activities that go against the national interest of Canada' by acting as an adviser to petition asserted that Musk's alignment with Trump makes him 'a member of a foreign government that is attempting to erase Canadian sovereignty'. It asked the then Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, to take away Musk's Canadian passport and revoke his citizenship with immediate to the petition, the billionaire wrote on X: "Canada is not a real country." The post was later according to Canadian laws, citizenship of a person can be revoked only if someone has committed fraud, misrepresented themselves or knowingly hid information on an immigration or citizenship the petition's widespread support, immigration lawyers by and large said the document is unlikely to affect Musk's Canadian citizenship. Citizenship in Canada can only be revoked if it can be proven that fraud or misrepresentation was committed to obtain it."Before they could move to do this, they would need to introduce legislation, there would have to be amendments to the current Citizenship Act," Ramo, former chair of the Canadian Bar Association's immigration section, was quoted as saying by the CBS News."There's no provision that would allow them to pursue revocation of citizenship of a Canadian birth, by virtue of his birth to a Canadian mother." Ramo said it is "fairly rare" for Canadian citizenship to be revoked."A person's citizenship can be revoked if the person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances," Larivière said. He said the process includes several steps and a decision by a Federal Court judge unless the citizen in question asks the immigration minister to make the decision.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
After Indus Deal Suspension, India Looks To Change Ganga Water Treaty With Bangladesh. What Is It?
The Ganges Water Sharing Treaty between India and Bangladesh is set to expire in 2026 after 30 years since its implementation and renewal would require mutual agreement. After the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, India is reportedly eyeing to modify and renegotiate the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with Bangladesh, related to the distribution of Ganga waters, according to a report. The Ganges Water Sharing Treaty is set to expire in 2026 after 30 years since its implementation. Although renewal would require mutual agreement, India is eyeing a fresh treaty that would address its present developmental requirement, sources told the Economic Times. What Is The Ganges Water Sharing Treaty? The treaty was implemented between India and Bangladesh on December 12, 1996, after Sheikh Hasina became the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for the first time. The agreement governs the sharing of the waters of the Ganges River at the Farakka Barrage, located in West Bengal near the Bangladesh border. The main goal of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty is to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the Ganges water. The dispute had arisen following the activation of the Farakka barrage, which channeled water from the Ganges to Hooghly river to ensure navigation at the Calcutta Port. The agreement established the teams for sharing the water at Farakka, in which 35,000 cusecs of water is allocated alternatively to both nations for 10-day periods during the dry season from March 11 to May 11. Successive governments in West Bengal have argued that the central government had not adequately consulted the state before signing the 1996 treaty. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has expressed opposition to both the Ganges and Teesta water sharing agreements. Notably, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 tourists were gunned down. First Published:
