Latest news with #Article3
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Vijay Mallya relates how he told Arun Jaitley he was flying to the UK before he left India
TOI correspondent from London: Fugitive liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has told a podcast, in a rare interview, that he told the late former finance minister Arun Jaitley that he was about to fly out of India to London before he left for the airport in March 2016. At the time there was supposed to be a CBI lookout circular (LOC) issued against him. Mallya told 'Figuring Out with Raj Shamani' he was not aware of any LOC against him, nor that it had been downgraded by the CBI from detaining him to informing immigration of authorities of his travel plans. He told Shamani that certain TV anchors and the Indian govt want to see him in 'jail clothes, eating jail food' in Tihar and spending the rest of his life behind bars. 'If that is what is inevitable, what options do I have? It might be inevitable, I'm not an astrologer. I will fight my way in court.' He said: 'I told FM Arun Jaitley before leaving for the airport and then I flew from Delhi to London on the way to Geneva for a meeting which was fixed months ago. I told the then finance minister because I went from Parliament to Delhi airport. When this news hit the media, once again, it created a storm. People went running to Mr Jaitley. He denied meeting me. A Congress MP saw us and then said to the media 'No, I saw them together'. Mr Jaitley had to retract his statement and say 'Yes, yes I met him but only while walking — it was a fleeting meeting'.' 'I never said I went to Mr Jaitley's office, sat in front of him, had tea with him. All I said is I told the finance minister while leaving, I'm going to London and going to Geneva for a meeting, please tell the banks to sit across the table and settle with me. How long does this once sentencetake? You see the way he denied it, and then when a Congress MP pointed out his mistake that he saw us, he quickly changed.' He also said he had always planned to go back to India but his Indian passport was revoked. In the four-hour podcast Mallya also said he would be prepared to return to India. 'If I have the assurance of a fair trial and assurance of dignified existence in India, I will think about returning to India seriously. ' He then reminded Shamani of the judgment in the Sanjay Bhandari case which found 'Indian detention conditions a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)', which may mean he could not be extradited now. When asked why he had not gone already as he had lost his extradition battle in the courts, the 69-year-old said: 'My stay in England is fully legitimate. There is more than the particular case you are referring to. There are ongoing proceedings in this country. It's one of the legal battles I am fighting,' he said. This suggests he may have applied for asylum.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
‘Call me a fugitive… but I am not a chor': Vijay Mallya addresses charges against him
Vijay Mallya, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering involving over ₹9,000 crore, spoke about the cases against him in a four-hour podcast conversation with entrepreneur Raj Shamani. The former Kingfisher Airlines chief addressed his controversial exit from India, legal battles, the downfall of his airline and his problem on being called a 'chor'. 'Call me a fugitive for not going to India post-March (2016). I didn't run away, I flew out of India on a prescheduled visit. Fair enough, I did not return for reasons that I consider are valid, so if you want to call me a fugitive, go ahead, but where is the 'chor' coming from… where is the 'chori'?' Mallya said on the podcast. Mallya, who has lived in the UK since 2016, also commented on whether staying abroad worsened his legal troubles. 'If I have assurance of a fair trial and a dignified existence in India, you may be right, but I don't,' he said. When asked directly if he would return to India under assurances of fairness, Mallya replied, 'If I am assured, absolutely, I will think about it seriously.' He also cited a UK High Court of Appeal ruling in another extradition case, stating that Indian detention conditions had been found to violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore they can't be sent back,' Mallya said, implying that he had similar concerns. The Indian government has not yet responded to Mallya's comments made during the interview. Revisiting the downfall of Kingfisher Airlines, Mallya said the 2008 global financial crisis was a major trigger. 'You ever heard of Lehman Brothers? You ever heard of the global financial crisis, right? Did it not impact India? Of course, it did,' he told Shamani, adding, 'Every sector was hit. The money stopped. It got dry. The value of the Indian rupee also took a hit.' According to Mallya, he approached then-finance minister Pranab Mukherjee with a restructuring plan. 'I went to Shri Pranab Mukherjee... and said I have a problem. Kingfisher Airlines needs to downsize, cut the number of aircraft, and lay off employees, as I can't afford to operate under these depressed economic circumstances,' he said. However, he claimed he was advised against downsizing and was promised support from banks. 'I was told not to downsize. You continue, banks will support you. That is how it all started. King Fisher Airlines has been forced to suspend all of its flights. King Fisher Airlines has been struggling. At the time when you asked loan, the company was not doing that great,' Mallya recounted. Mallya's legal troubles continue to mount. On April 9 this year, he lost an appeal against a bankruptcy order issued by a London High Court in connection with a ₹11,101 crore debt to a consortium of Indian lenders, including the State Bank of India. In February, Mallya approached the Karnataka High Court, arguing through his legal counsel that banks have already recovered ₹14,000 crore - well above the ₹6,200 crore originally due. He requested the court to direct lenders to provide a detailed breakdown of the recovered amount. Acting on the plea, a bench led by Justice R Devadas issued notices to the concerned banks and debt recovery officers. Despite this, Indian authorities continue to pursue Mallya's extradition to face trial for financial crimes related to Kingfisher Airlines, which ceased operations in 2012.
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
White House says Donald Trump is eyeing habeas corpus suspension. What would it mean for migrants?
President Donald Trump is considering suspending habeas corpus as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration, according to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday, Miller said the administration is 'actively looking at' the option and suggested that it may be justified under the Constitution. 'Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,' Miller said. 'So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' Miller's remarks are the clearest indication yet that Trump may invoke the clause in Article I of the Constitution which permits the suspension of habeas corpus 'unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Operation Sindoor PM Modi meets NSA, chiefs of armed forces amid spike in tensions with Pak India's air defence systems shoot down Pak drones in J&K, Punjab & Rajasthan Several airports in India to be closed till May 15 - check list Miller argued that current immigration challenges amount to an 'invasion' and said the courts have repeatedly overstepped their authority in immigration matters. 'Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped Article 3 courts. .. of jurisdiction over immigration cases,' he said. 'The courts are at war – these radical rogue judges – with the legislative branch as well, too. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Only a transplant will give my son a chance at living a life Give Hope India Donate Now Undo So all of that will inform the choice that the President ultimately makes.' What is habeas corpus? Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of legal protections in the United States, requiring authorities to justify the detention of individuals before a judge. Migrants frequently use it to challenge deportations and prolonged detentions. The Constitution allows for its suspension only in extraordinary circumstances, such as rebellion or invasion. Legal experts have warned that any unilateral move by Trump to suspend habeas corpus would be unconstitutional. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote, 'The near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus – and that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional.' He added that 'suggesting the administration would suspend habeas corpus if it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases' is not a viable constitutional argument, as reported by The Hill. The writ has only been suspended four times in US history: during the Civil War, Reconstruction in South Carolina, a 1905 insurrection in the Philippines, and following the attack on Pearl Harbor. In each case, the government cited a clear and immediate national security emergency. The Trump administration has already tested the limits of executive power by invoking the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members from Venezuela. But federal judges, including a Trump appointee, ruled those actions unlawful, stating the administration had not proven the US was under invasion.
Newsweek
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Florida National Guard to Become Immigration Judges Under Proposal
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is seeking President Donald Trump's approval to deputize the National Guard to serve as immigration judges. "We're ready, willing and able to take it to the next level. We have submitted plans to DHS to say if this is approved, we will go off to the races. And we will be able to do really from soup to nuts, from apprehension to detention, even putting some of our people in the National Guard in line to serve as immigration Judges to process this. We can do it," DeSantis said on Thursday. Newsweek has contacted the office of Governor DeSantis for further comment via email outside of normal office hours. Why It Matters At a Thursday press conference, DeSantis appeared alongside Department of Homeland Security officials to promote Operation Tidal Wave. The Florida-led initiative partnered with federal, state, and local law enforcement to apprehend immigrants without legal status in the state. Florida has experienced broad collaboration between federal immigration authorities and local state agencies, as the administration mobilizes all available resources to carry out mass deportations—a key pledge of President Trump's return to the White House. Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a press conference about a recent immigration enforcement operation, at the South Florida office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Enforcement and Removal Operations, Thursday, May 1, 2025, in... Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a press conference about a recent immigration enforcement operation, at the South Florida office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Enforcement and Removal Operations, Thursday, May 1, 2025, in Miramar, Florida. More Rebecca Blackwell/AP What To Know DeSantis is seeking to expand the state's role beyond making arrests to include adjudication, proposing the use of National Guard members as immigration judges—pending approval from the Trump administration. "These are not Article 3 judges. They are executive branch employees, basically. We can absolutely deputize judge advocates from our National Guard units to serve as immigration judges," he added. The Governor brushed aside concerns about due process, claiming there are "tens of thousands of illegal aliens in Florida at a minimum that have already been issued final orders of removal, and there's hundreds of thousands of them throughout the United States of America." "So they've had a lot of process. They've been ordered to be removed," DeSantis said. "They have not complied with those removal orders, and that's a very, very high priority for our state efforts to continue to identify those individuals and make sure that they return to their country of origin." Immigration courts are facing significant strain, with a backlog surpassing 3.7 million cases, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Asylum-seekers frequently endure years of waiting for a decision. There is widespread political backing for increasing the number of judges and staff to help alleviate the workload. DeSantis explained that the appointees would not be federal judges, who are appointed by the president under Article III of the Constitution. Instead, he plans to designate Judge Advocate Generals from the Florida National Guard, who already hold their positions, to serve as immigration judges. Immigrant rights advocates hit back at DeSantis over the plans, saying his proposals would violate constitutional rights and due process protections. "To Governor DeSantis, we would remind that, yes, the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to all individuals, regardless of immigration legal status. And no, immigration hearings are not 'O.J. Simpson trials' as he hyperbolically but very seriously claimed during today's pantomime," Adriana Rivera, of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said in a statement shared with Newsweek. It comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced Thursday that 1,120 individuals were arrested during a weeklong enforcement operation carried out with the help of the state of Florida, 13 local sheriff's departments, and other federal agencies, including the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Among those taken into custody were 378 immigrants with final orders of removal. The operation also targeted known suspected gang members, including members of notorious crime syndicates such as MS-13, Tren de Aragua (TDA), Barrio Azteca, and the 18th Street Gang. What People Are Saying DeSantis said at a press conference on Thursday: "If we get the sign-off from DHS, we can expand detention space very quickly in Florida. I mean, just think about it. I mean, you guys who are Florida based, you know when we have hurricanes, we end up setting up locations for tens of thousands of linemen, right? Do that very, very quickly. So we have the capacity to set it up quickly, but we're not going to do that without the approval of the Department of Homeland Security." Rivera said in a statement: "Notable moments of today's theater included the judicial branch being blamed for upholding the U.S. Constitution. This is par for the course and taken out of the same autocratic handbook that Trump is reading from when their plans run into the obvious constitutional checks and balances masterfully crafted by our founders. "As anyone who ever studied civics knows, due process is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It protects people against arbitrary government decisions and ensures fairness in legal matters. Both citizens and noncitizens in the U.S. have the right to due process, a chance to defend their rights and to have a fair hearing. Eric Daugherty, Assistant News Director at Florida's Voice said in a post on X: "This would help swiften the process of deportations." What Happens Next Governor DeSantis's proposal to have National Guard members serve as immigration judges is unprecedented and would likely face legal challenges. However, the move aligns with President Trump's hard-line agenda and it could help expedite the Republican's plot to carry out mass deportations.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Migrant won't be deported because of his ‘Covid trauma'
A Ghanaian asylum seeker has won a human rights claim to remain in the UK because of his 'trauma' from contracting Covid. Winfred Kwabla Dogbey, 52, claimed he could not be returned to Ghana because the effects of the virus on his health had been so severe that he would not get the necessary treatment in his home country. He was diagnosed with PTSD after he was hospitalised with the virus in 2020 and was part of a rehabilitation programme in the UK to treat his 'post Covid-19 syndrome'. An immigration tribunal was told the type of treatment that he needed was 'practically non-existent' in Ghana and the available psychiatric care was 'insufficient' to meet demand. After hearing of how Mr Dogbey would likely experience a 'rapid and severe decline in his mental health' if he were to return to Ghana, the upper tier tribunal backed his claim to stay in the UK. The tribunal accepted it would be a breach of his Article 3 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which bars persecution, inhuman treatment and torture. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations. There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which Labour has pledged to clear by halving the time it takes for them to come to court to 24 days. Mr Dogbey came to the UK in April 2013 on a visa and claimed asylum in June 2016 but was refused. This was followed by a 'protracted history of lodging further submissions' for asylum, according to the tribunal. He was hospitalised and required critical care after contracting Covid-19 in May 2020, which resulted in 'very severe' pneumonia and associated multi-organ failure. Doctors confirmed he was left with 'post Covid-19 syndrome', 'moderately severe' PTSD and moderate depression. After a further asylum claim was rejected in Dec 2023, Mr Dogbey argued that there would be 'very significant obstacles' to his integration in Ghana, if he were to be returned. The tribunal heard he was taking part in a 'Covid-19 rehabilitation programme' and was receiving physiotherapy appointments. The upper tribunal Judge Khan and deputy Judge Gill said they were 'satisfied' that Mr Dogbey's health conditions persisted and agreed he was a 'seriously ill person'. Lawyers representing the Home Office argued that both treatment and medical care was available to Mr Dogbey in Ghana. They said there were psychiatric hospitals in the West African country. But the panel noted that the Home Office had ''conceded' that there was insufficient psychiatric care to meet the demand. Mr Dogbey's lawyers referred to a report that stated he would be 'highly unlikely' to receive professional mental and physical health services in Ghana. The tribunal heard that 0.6 per cent of Ghanaians with a major depressive disorder were able to receive treatment. It was said that even those patients who were able to access mental health treatment received 'poor quality of care'. The judgment said: 'Ghanaians with severe mental health illnesses are referred to psychiatric hospitals and prayer camps. They experience 'human rights abuses in both' where they suffer further trauma.' His lawyers referred to evidence which stated that in hospitals, patients were 'forcibly coerced, including sedated and beaten, into taking the prescribed mental health medication, and are given electroconvulsive therapy without use of anaesthesia'. Judge Gill said: 'Given the severe and systemic problems identified in the provision of mental health services, and with no evidence before us to suggest that the position is likely to change, we determine that mental health treatment is not reasonably likely to be accessible or become available to [Mr Dogbey] for his mental health conditions. 'We therefore find... that [Mr Dogbey] would face a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his state of health resulting in intense suffering.' The judge said he is allowed to stay on the grounds of Article 3 of the ECHR. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
