NewsClick case: Delhi HC grants pre-arrest bail to Prabir Purkayastha
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also granted him a similar relief in the money laundering case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The court pronounced the order on Purkayastha's pleas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Harvard to comply with Trump administration demand to turn over employment forms
Harvard University said on Tuesday (July 29, 2025) it will comply with the demands of President Donald Trump's administration to turn over employment forms for thousands of university staff, but for the time being was not sharing records for those employed in roles only available to students. In an email to university employees sent on Tuesday, Harvard said that earlier this month it received a notice of inspection and a related subpoena from the Department of Homeland Security, seeking to inspect the I-9, or Employment Eligibility Verification, forms and supporting documentation for university employees. The I-9 forms, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, are used to verify the identity and employment authorisation of individuals hired for work in the U.S., according to the agency's website. Harvard said federal regulations entitle the government to access a U.S. employer's paperwork, including information on employment eligibility. Harvard has been embroiled in a legal fight with the Trump administration to have its billions of dollars of frozen federal funds restored. It sued the Trump administration earlier this year. The President has threatened universities with federal funding cuts over pro-Palestinian protests against U.S. ally Israel's war in Gaza, climate initiatives, transgender policies and diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Rights advocates have raised concerns over free speech, due process and academic freedom. Harvard said that, for now, it was not sharing records with the government for people employed in roles only available to students as it was determining if such a request complied with privacy protection requirements. The New York Times reported on Monday that Harvard was open to spending up to $500 million to end its dispute with the government. That amount was more than twice what Columbia University agreed to pay last week to resolve federal probes. The newspaper said negotiators were still discussing the financial details of the Harvard deal and that Harvard opposed allowing an outside monitor to oversee the deal. On Monday, the government initiated a probe into Duke University and the Duke Law Journal to determine if the journal's selection of its editors gave preferences to candidates from minority communities. On Tuesday, the government said it notified Duke of a freeze of $109 million in federal funds. Separately it alleged that the University of California, Los Angeles violated federal civil rights law. Both Duke and UCLA had no immediate comment.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Justice Shah is right: Don't threaten investigative journalism with data laws
Any democracy thrives on an informed citizenry. The freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), is not just the right to speak, but also to seek, receive, and disseminate information. Judicial observations in support of Article 19 and RTI: The Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) and Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) emphasized that freedom of the press and citizens' right to information are essential to democracy. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, by making it easier to deny access to information, indirectly curtails this fundamental right. This has deep implications not only for journalists but also for whistle-blowers, civil society watchdogs, researchers and citizens participating in public life. Several courts have reiterated the primacy of the RTI Act in ensuring good governance: In the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), the Supreme Court held that even the office of the Chief Justice of India is not beyond the scope of the RTI Act, showing the judiciary's support for transparency. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), the Supreme Court laid down that personal information can be denied under RTI only if it does not serve any public interest—a standard that may now be diluted. AP Shah writes to Govt: Recently, in a letter addressed to the attorney-general, minister of law and justice, and the minister for electronics and information technology, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, A.P. Shah said Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, should be immediately repealed. Shah was the chairman of the group of experts on privacy in 2011-2012 and served as the former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court from May 2008 to February 2010. Harmonising privacy and transparency: The conflict privacy and the right to know is not a matter of choosing one over the other. Both are fundamental rights. The real challenge lies in harmonizing them, rather than letting one eclipse the other. For a democracy like India, where public trust in institutions is fragile, the RTI Act is not just a tool but a lifeline for participatory governance. Section 44(3), in its current form, threatens to break that lifeline. The government must reconsider the amendment. It should restore the public interest test, clearly define personal data and ensure that the Right to Information remains strong and enforceable, even in a privacy-conscious digital age. Only then can India truly uphold the values enshrined in its Constitution—transparency, accountability, freedom and dignity. The country stands at the constitutional crossroads, where the Right to Privacy and the Right to Information (RTI)—both integral to a democratic society—are increasingly in conflict. Although this is not a new development, the fact is that it has gained sharp focus after the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, especially with its controversial Section 44(3). This provision amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, tipping the delicate balance in favour of privacy, at the cost of transparency and citizen empowerment. Not a shield for opacity: Justice A.P. Shah's letter rightly points out that privacy cannot become a shield for opacity, especially in a country where misuse of power is rampant and the demand for accountability is growing. Similarly, citizens must not be made powerless in the face of expanding state control. While the objective of protecting personal data in the digital age is legitimate and constitutionally backed by the Supreme Court's landmark Puttaswamy judgment (2017), legal experts, retired judges, and civil society groups are sounding the alarm. Justice A P Shah, who was the chairperson of the Expert Committee on Privacy (2011-12) has gone on record urging the government to repeal Section 44(3). This author, in earlier articles, consistently cautioned against the dilution of RTI provisions and examined the advantages and disadvantages of this legal development, as well as the impact of the tension between privacy and information access on India's democratic landscape. Pros of Section 44(3)-A case for privacy: 1. Strengthens Data Protection Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act must be seen in the context of a growing global concern for individual privacy. In the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case, the Supreme Court declared that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment stressed that in a digitally networked world, individuals need constitutional safeguards against the misuse of their personal data. By amending the RTI Act to restrict access to what is deemed 'personal information,' the DPDP Act aligns Indian law with global data protection norms like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union. 2. Prevents misuse of personal information The amendment seeks to protect public servants and private individuals from the unnecessary exposure of personal details—such as health records, income data, or family information—that may not have any bearing on their public roles. Misuse of such data can lead to identity theft, harassment or reputational damage. 3. Ensures data sovereignty India is increasingly moving toward a data-sovereign digital framework, where data is not just seen as private but as a national asset. By ensuring that sensitive data does not fall into unauthorized hands, the DPDP Act contributes to this vision. Cons of Section 44(3)-Blow to transparency and accountability: 1. Weakens RTI and citizen empowerment The RTI Act, passed in 2005, has been one of the most transformative laws in India's democratic history. It has empowered ordinary citizens to ask questions of the government and access information that holds public authorities accountable. Over the years, it has been instrumental in exposing scams, corruption, inefficiencies, and arbitrariness. Section 8(1)(j) of the original RTI Act allowed information to be withheld only if it was unrelated to public activity or interest, unless a larger public interest justified its disclosure. However, the amended provision under the DPDP Act omits the balancing test of public interest and allows a blanket denial of personal data. This could include even data on civil servants' performance, misuse of office, or conflict of interest, effectively shielding public functionaries from scrutiny. 2. Threat to investigative journalism Journalists often rely on RTI to gather information on government functioning, irregularities, and decisions affecting the public. Limiting access to information under the cover of 'personal data' will impair the media's ability to investigate, report, and question those in power. This directly undermines Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including the right to know. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court clearly stated that the right to know is derived from the right to free speech, reinforcing the idea that information is the currency of democracy. 3. Vague and overbroad definitions The DPDP Act does not clearly define the boundaries of what constitutes 'personal data' that must be protected, leaving the door open to arbitrary interpretation. For instance, details like travel expenditure of a minister, foreign trips of officials, or performance appraisals can now be termed personal, despite being directly tied to public office. As this author earlier articles pointed out, such legislative ambiguity makes it easier for bureaucrats to stonewall legitimate RTI queries and undermines the very culture of openness that the Act sought to instill. 4. Undermines the public interest doctrine One of the core safeguards in the original RTI Act was the public interest override, where information otherwise exempt could be disclosed if it served a larger public cause. The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) effectively removes this test, thereby shifting the balance of power back to government authorities, weakening public oversight. (The writer is a Former CIC and Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Asian shares mixed at open before Fed's meeting
With the Fed's benchmark rate holding at a target range of 4.25% to 4.5% since December, the business world is looking for any clue that officials are moving toward a rate reduction in the fall. Asian equities displayed mixed performance ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy decision, with limited impact from US-China trade talks. The US and China are continuing negotiations regarding a tariff truce, while Trump hinted at potential tariffs on India. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Asian equities struggled for direction ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy decision, while a modest progress in US-China trade talks did little to boost in Japan fluctuated at the open while those in South Korea and Australia were flat Wednesday after the S&P 500 snapped a six-day rally. Treasuries were steady in early Asian trading after jumping the most in a month in the prior session. Oil held its biggest gain in six weeks after President Donald Trump's reiteration that further levies on Russia remained on the table without a Ukraine and China will continue talks over maintaining a tariff truce before it expires in two weeks and Trump will make the final call on any extension. Adding an extra 90 days is one option, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent like the muted response to the US-EU tariff deal, the latest signs of progress with Beijing did little to shift investor mood. There are also other market-moving factors on the horizon. Those include Wednesday's Fed decision — where policy makers are expected to keep rates on hold — and key data including Friday's jobs report. Four tech giants will also report earnings over a two-day stretch.'The market is getting better at pricing this behavior - that is, extension, as long as you say it's positive development,' said Billy Leung, investment strategist at Global X ETFs. 'Previously, this lack of development could have caused much larger negative reaction.'The Stockholm negotiations marked the third round of US-China trade talks in less than three months. They wrapped up ahead of an Aug. 12 deadline to resolve differences during a 90-day suspension of tariffs that had threatened to cut off bilateral trade between the world's largest news emerged that China's delegation had indicated a 90-day extension of the two economies' trade-war truce was agreed, Bessent said, his Chinese counterparts have 'jumped the gun a little.''While there is disappointment that nothing material was agreed, the mood seems to be constructive and optimistic about future potential deals,' said Kelvin Lam, senior China economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics in London. 'In the medium term, the extension is basically relaying the uncertainty of trade policies, and it will weigh on the Chinese economy in the second half.'Meanwhile, Trump said that India may be hit with a tariff rate of 20% to 25% but cautioned the final levy had still not been finalized as the two countries negotiate on a trade deal ahead of an Aug. 1 the economic front, US consumer confidence increased as concerns eased about the outlook for the broader economy and the labor market. While job openings fell, they hovered at a level that indicates generally stable demand for workers.'Overall, it was a mixed round of data that has done little to materially challenge the price action or macro narrative,' said Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital a rare occurrence, policymakers will convene in the same week that the government issues reports on gross domestic product, employment and the Fed's preferred price anticipate the heavy dose of data will show economic activity rebounded in the second quarter, largely due to a sharp narrowing of the trade deficit, while job growth moderated in July. The third marquee report may show underlying inflation picked up slightly in June from a month the Fed's benchmark rate holding at a target range of 4.25% to 4.5% since December, the business world is looking for any clue that officials are moving toward a rate reduction in the Chair Jerome Powell could face dissent from one or more colleagues arguing it's time for the central bank to provide more support to a slowing labor market.'We believe the Fed wants to maintain flexibility on when to deploy further rate cuts. In our view, the Fed will remain on hold until 'hard data' begins to confirm the slowdown story,' said Luis Alvarado at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. 'The Fed will have the opportunity to cut rates later in the year if the economy slows and as long as inflation allows.'
