Latest news with #Section111
Hindustan Times
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
UP govt issues guidelines to curb misuse of BNS section for organised crime
The Uttar Pradesh government has issued strict guidelines for implementation of Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with organised crime, to curb its misuse. The home department issued a detailed guideline in this regard on July 19. (For Representation) The guidelines aim to prevent its misuse against political opponents, ideological dissent or social activists as well as to ensure that it is used only in cases of genuine organised crime with caution and judicial discretion. The home department issued a detailed guideline in this regard on July 19 and marked it to the UP director general of police (DGP), the director general (DG), prosecution, the additional DG, law and order, the ADG, crime, and to all seven police commissioners, district magistrates and all district police chiefs across the state for its strict compliance. The HT has a copy of the guideline issued. DGP Rajeev Krishna confirmed that detailed guidelines have been received and its strict compliance will be ensured. He said the officials concerned have been asked to issue a clear and speaking order with detailed mention of organised crime, activity, structure, method of profit-making and evidence. Sharing further details, another senior police official said the key points of the guidelines included that no FIR can be registered under BNS section 111 without the approval of a deputy superintendent of police or a higher-level officer. He said a special investigation team (SIT) will be formed to investigate complaints related to organised crime and all cases registered under Section 111 will be reviewed monthly and a prosecution review will be conducted. The cop further said the home department also emphasised special training to be provided to police and prosecution officials to ensure they are aware of the provisions of this section, its legal interpretation, limitations, and procedures. He said the emphasis is to develop a clear understanding of the definition of organised crime under BNS Section 111 and impose it only in cases of genuine organised crime, with severe punishment (death penalty or life imprisonment). The police official said the guidelines also emphasised the importance of adhering to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The government will monitor the implementation of these guidelines and ensure that human rights and legal processes are respected. What is BNS Section 111 The BNS Section 111 defines organised crime as any continuing unlawful activity, including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, contract killing, economic offences, cybercrimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons, or illicit goods/services, or human trafficking. This activity must be conducted by a person or a group acting in concert, using violence, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means to obtain material benefits. The punishment under this section include imprisonment for a term not less than five years, extendable to life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₹5 lakh for members of the organised crime syndicate.
Time of India
16-07-2025
- Time of India
First FIR in Sriganganagar under BNS organised crime section filed against Bishnoi gang
Jaipur: Rajasthan police has began using tough new legal provisions to combat a surge in extortion and ransom calls targeting traders near the Punjab border. In a significant move after a recent firing at the house of a property dealer in Sriganganagar, police invoked sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to organised crime against jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, his brother Anmol Bishnoi, who is suspected to be abroad, and several local members of their network. Officials said Wednesday, this is the first case registered in Sriganganagar under Section 111 of BNS, which specifically deals with organised crime syndicates. Sriganganagar SP Gaurav Yadav, said, the new provisions allow police to take strict action against those involved in crimes such as extortion, kidnapping, land grabbing, trafficking, contract killings, cybercrime, or economic fraud if they are part of a syndicate. The law prescribes severe punishment, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty if such crimes lead to a death, along with fines ranging from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. Anyone who aids, shelters, or benefits from such networks can also face the same harsh penalties. Police said, the firing at the property dealer's home followed repeated extortion calls made in the name of the Bishnoi gang. On Monday, police arrested two alleged shooters, Manish and Rahul, who, during interrogation, revealed their links to the gang. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Write Better, Work Smarter With This Desktop App Grammarly Install Now Undo Earlier, officers arrested Pradeep, known as Golu Pandit from Agra, and others who opened fire at the dealer's residence. Investigators believe these men were hired specifically for the attack. With each arrest, police are learning more about how the syndicate functions and how its operations extend across state lines. According to officers, the Bishnoi network operates internationally, with some members believed to be hiding in Europe, America, and Gulf countries. Police said the gang's leaders maintain direct connections with arms suppliers, drug cartels, hawala operators, and gold smugglers, running extensive smuggling and extortion operations across Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Delhi, Punjab, and Maharashtra. An officer said, during questioning, it became clear that the firing was carried out on the instructions of the Bishnoi syndicate. Police have now booked everyone involved, whether in the country or abroad, under the newly introduced provisions that deal with organised crime.
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Time of India
Jaipur cops slap BNS charges on Bishnoi-Godara gang members
Jaipur: In a major crackdown on organised crime, Jaipur Police have invoked Section 111 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) to prosecute three suspected members of the Lawrence Bishnoi–Rohit Godara gang. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The accused—Suraj, Imran, and Bhawani—were arrested on July 4. Police suspect the trio to be part of a transnational run by the Godara syndicate, which is allegedly involved in a wide range of criminal activities including murder, arms and gold smuggling, drug trafficking, and extortion across several Indian states. Authorities also believe that the gang routes its extortion earnings abroad through hawala networks. DCP west Amit Kumar said Section 111 allows prosecution of gang members solely on the basis of their association with a crime syndicate, without requiring proof of recent criminal activity. "We don't need to prove a specific offence, only that they belonged to an organised gang at the time of arrest," he said. Suraj, Imran, and Bhawani were earlier held by Jawahar Nagar police in a 12kg gold smuggling case. Their latest arrest came during a Kardhani police operation to track a murder suspect, which instead led to their detention. Interrogation revealed the gang's widespread network across Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. The syndicate is reportedly being operated remotely by handlers based overseas, with funds used to procure illegal arms and invest in benami properties. Police said the FIR under Section 111 has paved the way for expanded operations against the gang and a broader plan to dismantle its national and international footprint.
New Indian Express
20-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Andhra High Court pulls up state govt over delay in setting up PCA cells
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the State government to file a counter over delay in setting up the Police Complaint Authority (PCA) cells at district level. Hearing a petition filed by a differently-abled person Tirumala Krishna of Mahanandi in Kurnool district, who claimed that 13 FIRs were filed against him across the State for a single social media post, Justice Nunepally Harinath found fault with the government for failing to set up the State and district-level PCA cells. The petitioner alleged that the 'Red Book' rule prevailed in the State, with unchecked police high-handedness. Representing the petitioner, advocate V Surender Reddy argued that the police were acting arbitrarily and unreasonably. He noted that Section 111 of BNS was invoked against his client merely for a social media post, despite the clear ruling from both the Supreme Court and the High Court against such misuse. He further emphasised that the Supreme Court had previously issued clear instructions to set up PCA cells at both the State and district levels to address grievances against police harassment, but these directives have not been implemented by the State. Later, the matter was posted to July 17.
Scientific American
12-06-2025
- Business
- Scientific American
Inside the EPA's Attempt to Roll Back Climate Regulation
CLIMATEWIRE | EPA's proposal to stop regulating power plant climate pollution is built around a bold claim that experts say could create legal stumbling blocks. The U.S. power industry is the nation's second-highest emitting sector. But in its draft rule repeal, EPA argues that the industry emits too little heat-trapping pollution to be worth regulating. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday that his agency would repeal two 2024 power sector standards: one to limit climate pollution and another to curb mercury pollution. He accused the Biden administration of enacting the rules to kill off 'baseload' coal and natural gas generation. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. 'That's not the unintended consequences of the decisions that are made by the Biden EPA,' he told an audience of reporters and industry representatives. 'That was the intended consequences.' The repeals, he said, would save fossil fuel generation and advance President Donald Trump's "energy dominance" agenda. But Zeldin also stressed at the event that the proposals could change before they are finalized, based on public comments. "That is a decision that we aren't prejudging, that I cannot prejudge at the onset of the proposed rule, but that is a decision that I will have to make at the end of this process,' he said, in response to a question from POLITICO'S E&E News. If EPA finalizes its power plant rule repeal in its current forms, experts warn it could face numerous challenges. Here's a look at EPA's legal arguments and their possible pitfalls. An about-face on the Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act provision that EPA uses to regulate power plant carbon — known as Section 111 — asks EPA to first determine whether a source category 'causes, or contributes significantly' to harmful air pollution. EPA determined in the 1970s that coal and gas power plants met that standard and began regulating them for smog, soot and other pollutants. EPA has always interpreted the statute as requiring only one so-called finding of significant contribution per regulated sector — and not separate findings for each pollutant, like carbon. But Wednesday's proposals break with that precedent. 'The EPA is proposing that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a finding that [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution, as a predicate to regulating [greenhouse gas] emissions from those plants,' states the draft rule. Jason Schwartz, legal director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, said the statutory language was 'pretty clear that you don't need pollutant-specific findings.' Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, disagreed. He said the Trump EPA is right that the Clean Air Act requires it to make a separate finding of significant contribution before regulating a new pollutant from any given sector. 'This issue, though, is separate from the question of whether CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants significantly contribute to climate change that harms public health or welfare,' he said. 'The courts could agree with EPA on this issue but still reject EPA's position that power plants do not significantly contribute to climate change.' What is 'significant' pollution? The U.S. power sector is responsible for about one-quarter of U.S. climate-warming emissions — and 3 percent of global emissions. It is the largest contributor to climate pollution in the U.S. outside of transportation. It would be difficult for EPA to argue that the U.S. power sector isn't a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, Schwartz said. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in American Lung Association v. EPA that EPA was right to decide that power plants contribute significantly to climate change 'because of their substantial contribution of greenhouse gases, under any reasonable threshold or definition.' The Supreme Court was asked to review that decision and declined. Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department attorney, said the text of the EPA power plant repeal doesn't grapple meaningfully with the D.C. Circuit's decision that power plants are significant emitters almost no matter how you look at it. But she said the agency's broader argument for why power plants shouldn't be considered significant contributors also deserved scrutiny. EPA states in the rule that U.S. power generation's share of global CO2 emissions 'is relatively minor and has been declining over time.' It notes that U.S. gas and coal plants are responsible for about 3 percent of worldwide emissions — a decline from previous years caused as much by rising emissions in developing countries as falling emissions in the U.S. The agency's draft repeal doesn't seem to propose that 3 percent as a new threshold below which source categories shouldn't be considered 'significant.' Instead, it discusses the economic impact of regulating coal and gas plants, which it claims would barely make a dent in global emissions. 'What I think is really unusual here is that they're collapsing the inquiry of whether or not the pollution is harmful into whether or not you can address it,' said Greenfield, who is now a partner at Jenner and Block. 'They're saying, 'This is too small, and regardless, we can't do anything, and so it's not bad,'' she said. 'That's kind of how I read it.' Looming litigation Environmental groups made it clear Wednesday that they will challenge the repeals in court. 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' said Manish Bapna, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Our lawyers will be watching closely, and if the EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' In order for EPA to reverse its existing rule, it has to make the case that the change is reasonable, and that means the agency has to rebut all its prior rationale for its rules, said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. Courts tend to be skeptical when an agency does an about-face, he said. "It is an uphill battle, especially where the significance threshold hasn't been evaluated or applied." Maher said. "They are changing the goal posts that basically eliminate greenhouse gas regulation." EPA's regulatory rollback announcement did not address whether the agency was still planning to undo its 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, a goal that fizzled out during Trump's first term. The question of climate costs The Biden-era power plant carbon rule that EPA proposes to repeal was supported by 405 pages of modeling and analysis on health, economic and energy impacts of that rule. But the regulatory impact analysis EPA released Wednesday with its draft rule totaled only 72 pages, compared with the hundreds that are usually devoted to weighing the costs and benefits of important rulemakings. The draft doesn't consider any costs associated with the increased carbon emissions the repeal would cause. It briefly cites 'significant uncertainties related to the monetization of greenhouse gases.' The Trump White House has directed agencies to avoid using social cost of greenhouse gases metrics in rulemakings. Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with NRDC, said the lack of detailed analysis 'definitely stood out to me.' 'Under the principles of administrative law, agencies can of course change their minds — but they do need to provide a reasoned explanation for their decision, and can't ignore significant aspects of the problem,' she said. 'The paucity of technical analysis, and total lack of climate impacts in their cost-benefit analysis certainly don't seem to lend themselves to meeting those basic standards.' Dena Adler, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, expressed skepticism that EPA would be able to make its case that U.S. power sector emissions were insignificant. "EPA will be hard-pressed to justify reversing the immense climate and public health benefits of the 2024 carbon pollution rule, and it's arbitrary for EPA to dismiss the climate benefits of the 2024 rule as zero," Adler said. Even the first Trump administration found U.S. power sector emissions were significant, she added. The legal terrain Richard Revesz, faculty director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that EPA found that its proposed rule repeal would result in greater costs than benefits. He noted that EPA for decades has considered how reducing each source of emissions contributes to solving larger pollution challenges and argued that the new approach breaks with 'rationality' and past practice. Wednesday's proposed repeal, he said, also abandons EPA's own peer-reviewed value of the social cost of greenhouse gases, which the agency has used since the George W. Bush administration. 'Greenhouse gas emissions cause extensive economic harm, and their proper valuation is certainly not zero as this proposal essentially suggests,' said Revesz, who served as administrator at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Biden administration. 'Courts have previously rejected agency analyses that undervalue or fail to value the significant and well-established damages from greenhouse gases.' Zeldin's move Wednesday was just the latest in a yearslong back and forth at EPA over how the agency should address the climate effects of the power sector. In 2015, the Obama administration set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants — only for the rule to be blocked by the Supreme Court. The first Trump administration's replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — called the Affordable Clean Energy rule — was then repealed by the Biden administration, which replaced it with the regulation EPA is now trying to unwind. The Biden rules were already being challenged by Republican-led states and industry groups. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in December but put deliberations on hold after a request from the Trump administration. The Biden-era rule relies on carbon capture and storage technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions. States and industry argued before the appeals court that the technology has not advanced enough to be applied at the scale proposed by the rule and that EPA exceeded its authority when it finalized the rule . The Biden EPA defended the regulation, as well within the agency's traditional rulemaking power to regulate pollution at its source.
