The Evening Wrap: Is there a way to curb ‘irrational freebies’, Supreme Court asks Centre

The Supreme Court on July 26 orally asked the Centre to find out from the Finance Commission whether there is a way to curb political parties from promising and distributing “irrational freebies” during election campaigns. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana flagged the issue as “serious” and asked for means to control the promise of “freebies” to entice votes. The court did not receive a clear-cut answer from Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj on the Centre’s position. “You take a stand whether freebies should continue or not,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed Nataraj. The Election Commission of India (ECI), on the other hand, chose a hands-off approach, as was evident from their affidavit which said “whether such policies are financially viable or its adverse effect on the economic health of the State is a question that has to be considered and decided by the voters of the State”. The court finally turned to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was present in the courtroom waiting for another case. “Mr. Sibal, you are an experienced Parliamentarian and a lawyer… Can you suggest something here. How to control these freebies?” Chief Justice Ramana asked. The senior lawyer came forward and said freebies was a “serious issue” and had to be tackled at the level of the States. He said it would be unfair to put the liability on the Centre. He suggested tapping into the expertise of the Finance Commission. “The Finance Commission is an independent body. The Commission, while making allocations to the States, can take into account the debts of each individual States and examine whether offers of freebies would be viable for them,” Sibal suggested. The Bench promptly turned to Nataraj and asked him to explore this avenue and get instructions from the government. It scheduled the next hearing for August 3. The hearing came on a writ petition filed by BJP leader and lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who had argued that the offer and distribution of “irrational freebies” amounted to bribery and unduly influencing voters. It vitiated free and fair elections in the country. Upadhyay claimed that States in total had debts of over ₹70 lakh crore. He suggested that the Law Commission of India should be asked to examine the statutes to control the giving away of unreasonable freebies. In its affidavit, the ECI had however disagreed with Upadhyay’s plea to seize the election symbols of parties which promise gifts. The lawyer had wanted an additional condition that “political party shall not promise/distribute irrational freebies from the public funds before election” to be inserted in the Election Symbols Order of 1968. The recognition and continuation of State and national parties were based on one touchstone — electoral performance, the ECI had countered. “Barring parties from promising/distributing freebies from public fund before election may result in a situation where parties will lose their recognition even before they display their electoral performance in elections,” the ECI had reasoned. The poll body had also objected to the lawyer’s proposal to the court to direct the ECI to de-register parties which offer or distribute irrational freebies. It said parties can be de-registered only if they had registered through fraud or forgery or if they were declared illegal by the Centre or if they stopped abiding by the Indian Constitution. “There is no provision for de-recognising a political party for distribution of irrational freebies,” the ECI had said. Sonia Gandhi leaves ED office after 6 hours of questioning in National Herald money laundering case The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday questioned Congress president Sonia Gandhi for over six hours on the second day of her appearance in a money laundering case linked to the National Herald newspaper, officials said. Officials said she has been asked to appear again on Wednesday. She left the agency’s office in central Delhi just before 7 p.m. on Tuesday after recording her statement. The Congress leader had reached the ED office around 11 a.m. with her Z+ armed security cover, and accompanied by her children Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra. While Ms. Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra stayed back at the ED office, Mr. Rahul Gandhi left soon after. Ms. Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra was in another room at the ED office so she could meet her mother to provide her medicines or medical assistance if necessary, officials said. The Congress president once left the ED office around 2 p.m. and returned around 3.30 pm in what is understood to be a lunch break. The questioning and recording of statements of the 75-year-old Congress president began at 11.15 a.m. after initial formalities, including the verification of summons and signing the attendance sheet. She was questioned for over two hours on July 21 when she replied to 28 questions put forth by the agency. Karnataka High Court notice to Centre on Twitter petition challenging content and account ‘blocking orders’ The High Court of Karnataka ordered issue of notice to the Central Government on a petition filed by micro-blogging platform Twitter challenging the legality of a series of ‘blocking orders’ issued by authorities under provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, either to block Twitter accounts or identified content of the accounts. On July 26, the petition came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit, who adjourned further hearing till August 25 while allowing Twitter to submit, in a sealed cover, copies of the ‘blocking orders’, which are treated as confidential documents as per the law. The designated officer of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had issued several ‘blocking orders’ since February 2021 asking Twitter to block tweets or accounts. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Twitter, has said that the blocking orders are contrary to the right to freedom of expression and the entire business of the company will come to an end due to the nature of a blocking order. The counsel for the Central Government said that the Solicitor General of India, who will argue on behalf of the government, is infected with COVID-19, and he requires at least 15 days to recover from the infection. Hence, the bench adjourned the hearing while accepting August 25 as the date for hearing the petition, on Rohatgi’s request. The petition was filed after the designated officer of the MeitY, following a series of meeting with the Compliance Officer of Twitter on the issues raised on correctness of several ‘blocking orders’, issued a notice on June 27, 2022 informing that penal action would be initiated against Twitter for not complying with the ‘blocking orders’. Twitter, which has complied with the ‘blocking orders’ under protest, has contended in the petition that the ‘blocking orders’ are manifestly arbitrary, procedurally and substantially not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The ‘blocking orders’ are also contrary to the procedures and safeguards prescribed in the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the petitioner claims. In 34 cases, it has been claimed in the petition, Twitter was told to block the entire account even though Section 69A allows only blocking of ‘information’. The authorities, since February 2021, have told Twitter to block 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, it has been stated in the petition while contending that the ‘blocking orders’ are illegal as authorities have not issued notices to the originators of the accounts under Rule 8 (1) of the 2009 rules, and the ‘blocking orders’ do not conform to the ‘least intrusive test’ as recognised by the apex court. “Several of the URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) contain political and journalistic content. Blocking of such information is gross violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizen-user of platform of Twitter,” it has been claimed in the petition while pointing out that no proper reason is assigned in the ‘blocking orders’. “A perusal of content available in the accounts of politicians, activists and journalists would show that authorities have not show how content disrupts public order, as contemplated in Section 69A of the Act,” it has been claimed in the petition. Jagdeep Dhankar withdraws from SC lawyers’ chambers allotment list Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, on Tuesday wrote to the apex court to exclude the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) Vice Presidential candidate and senior advocate Jagdeep Dhankar’s name from the top court lawyers’ chambers allotment list. The letter highlighted that Dhankar, keeping the interest of the Bar at heart, has “conveyed his wish to voluntarily withdraw from the process of chamber allotment so that other lawyers in need of a chamber may be allotted the same”. Chambers are allotted within the Supreme Court to apex court lawyers to meet litigants conveniently. Many lawyers have been waiting in line for chamber space for years together. Allotments are made under the Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules. The allotments are made by a committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India and is subject to the top judge’s approval. The Rules say that allotments would be made to advocates of the Supreme Court who are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who regularly practice in the apex court and reside in the Capital. Supreme Court’s advocates-on-record, junior advocates and senior advocates who regularly and mainly practice in the apex court are eligible for allotments. Singh’s letter about Shankar’s wish to be excluded from the list to give room to other lawyers comes even as a row has erupted over the allotment of the court’s newly constructed chambers on twin-sharing basis. On Monday, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was heading the Bench hearing the plea against the twin-sharing allotment to lawyers, said the arrangement would help more lawyers to get space. The judge had urged for the withdrawal of the petition. “Whatever you do will hurt members of the Bar. There are lawyers waiting since 1975. When you say single allotment, automatically the lawyers are cut to half. You must also look at how difficult this will be as opposed to people sitting outside in the Delhi heat,” Justice Chandrachud had said during the hearing. The judge also recounted how he had functioned out of a 120 sq. ft. chamber in Mumbai. Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, who is the SCBA vice president, tweeted on Tuesday that “we had written a letter to exclude those names from chamber list who have become judges or occupying constitutional chairs. Like HE Mr Dhankhar, Hon’ble Mr Justice P.S. Narsimha, Mr. Justice Aniruddh P Mayee who has become #SupremeCourt & HC justice respectively”. ‘Big Brother’ always listening to politicians’ phone calls in ‘New’ India: VP candidate Margaret Alva Opposition Vice Presidential candidate Margaret Alva has alleged that politicians’ calls are being monitored by the ‘Big Brother’, an apparent reference to the government. Alva had earlier said she has been unable to make or receive calls after she spoke to some “friends in the BJP”. Since then, Alva alleged, calls to her mobile were being diverted and she was unable to make or receive them. “The fear that ‘Big Brother’ is always watching & listening permeates all conversations between politicians across party lines in ‘new’ India. MPs & leaders of parties carry multiple phones, frequently change numbers & talk in hushed whispers when they meet. Fear kills democracy,” she said in a tweet. Last night, she posted a tweet addressed to the two government-owned telecom companies. “Dear BSNL/ MTNL, After speaking to some friends in the BJP today, all calls to my mobile are being diverted & I’m unable to make or receive calls. If you restore the phone. I promise not to call any MP from the BJP, TMC or BJD tonight,” she said. Alva will be pitted against former West Bengal governor Jagadeep Dhankhar for the post of Vice President. The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress, which governs West Bengal, has announced it will abstain from the election. In Brief The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday suspended 19 MPs for a week after unending protests that have hampered transaction of business in the Parliament’s Monsoon session so far. Suspended MPs include TMC members Dola Sen, Sushmita Dev, Nadimul Haque, Mausam Noor, Santunu Sen, Shanta Chhetri, Abir Ranjan Biswas, DMK’s M.H. Abdulla, R. Girirajan, N.R. Elango, S. Kalyanasundaram, M. Shanmugam and Kanimozhi NVN Somu, TRS MPs Damodar Rao and B.L. Yadav, CPI(M)‘s V. Sivadasan and A.A. Rahim, and CPI’s P. Sandosh Kumar. Russia to opt out of International Space Station after 2024 Russia will opt out of the International Space Station after 2024 and focus on building its own orbiting outpost, the country’s newly appointed space chief said Tuesday. Yuri Borisov, who was appointed earlier this month to lead the state-controlled space corporation Roscosmos, said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia will fulfill its obligations to other partners at the International Space Station before it leaves the project. “The decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made,” Borisov said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow [logo] The Evening Wrap 26 JULY 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Is there a way to curb promises of ‘irrational freebies’ to influence voters, Supreme Court asks Centre The Supreme Court on July 26 orally [asked the Centre to find out from the Finance Commission]( whether there is a way to curb political parties from promising and distributing “irrational freebies” during election campaigns. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana flagged the issue as “serious” and asked for means to control the promise of “freebies” to entice votes. The court did not receive a clear-cut answer from Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj on the Centre’s position. “You take a stand whether freebies should continue or not,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed Nataraj. The Election Commission of India (ECI), on the other hand, chose a hands-off approach, as was evident from their affidavit which said “whether such policies are financially viable or its adverse effect on the economic health of the State is a question that has to be considered and decided by the voters of the State”. The court finally turned to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was present in the courtroom waiting for another case. “Mr. Sibal, you are an experienced Parliamentarian and a lawyer… Can you suggest something here. How to control these freebies?” Chief Justice Ramana asked. The senior lawyer came forward and said freebies was a “serious issue” and had to be tackled at the level of the States. He said it would be unfair to put the liability on the Centre. He suggested tapping into the expertise of the Finance Commission. “The Finance Commission is an independent body. The Commission, while making allocations to the States, can take into account the debts of each individual States and examine whether offers of freebies would be viable for them,” Sibal suggested. The Bench promptly turned to Nataraj and asked him to explore this avenue and get instructions from the government. It scheduled the next hearing for August 3. The hearing came on a writ petition filed by BJP leader and lawyer, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who had argued that the offer and distribution of “irrational freebies” amounted to bribery and unduly influencing voters. It vitiated free and fair elections in the country. Upadhyay claimed that States in total had debts of over ₹70 lakh crore. He suggested that the Law Commission of India should be asked to examine the statutes to control the giving away of unreasonable freebies. In its affidavit, the ECI had however disagreed with Upadhyay’s plea to seize the election symbols of parties which promise gifts. The lawyer had wanted an additional condition that “political party shall not promise/distribute irrational freebies from the public funds before election” to be inserted in the Election Symbols Order of 1968. The recognition and continuation of State and national parties were based on one touchstone — electoral performance, the ECI had countered. “Barring parties from promising/distributing freebies from public fund before election may result in a situation where parties will lose their recognition even before they display their electoral performance in elections,” the ECI had reasoned. The poll body had also objected to the lawyer’s proposal to the court to direct the ECI to de-register parties which offer or distribute irrational freebies. It said parties can be de-registered only if they had registered through fraud or forgery or if they were declared illegal by the Centre or if they stopped abiding by the Indian Constitution. “There is no provision for de-recognising a political party for distribution of irrational freebies,” the ECI had said. Sonia Gandhi leaves ED office after 6 hours of questioning in National Herald money laundering case The [Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday questioned Congress president Sonia Gandhi for over six hours]( on the second day of her appearance in a money laundering case linked to the National Herald newspaper, officials said. Officials said she has been asked to appear again on Wednesday. [Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her daughter Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra leave the Enforcement Directorate office in New Delhi on July 26, 2022.] She left the agency’s office in central Delhi just before 7 p.m. on Tuesday after recording her statement. The Congress leader had reached the ED office around 11 a.m. with her Z+ armed security cover, and accompanied by her children Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra.  While Ms. Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra stayed back at the ED office, [Mr. Rahul Gandhi left soon after](  Ms. Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra was in another room at the ED office so she could meet her mother to provide her medicines or medical assistance if necessary, officials said. The Congress president once left the ED office around 2 p.m. and returned around 3.30 pm in what is understood to be a lunch break. The questioning and recording of statements of the 75-year-old Congress president began at 11.15 a.m. after initial formalities, including the verification of summons and signing the attendance sheet. She was questioned for over two hours on July 21 when she replied to 28 questions put forth by the agency. Karnataka High Court notice to Centre on Twitter petition challenging content and account ‘blocking orders’ The [High Court of Karnataka ordered issue of notice to the Central Government]( on a petition filed by micro-blogging platform Twitter challenging the legality of a series of ‘blocking orders’ issued by authorities under provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, either to block Twitter accounts or identified content of the accounts. On July 26, the petition came up for hearing before a bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit, who adjourned further hearing till August 25 while allowing Twitter to submit, in a sealed cover, copies of the ‘blocking orders’, which are treated as confidential documents as per the law. The designated officer of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had issued several ‘blocking orders’ since February 2021 asking Twitter to block tweets or accounts. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Twitter, has said that the blocking orders are contrary to the right to freedom of expression and the entire business of the company will come to an end due to the nature of a blocking order. The counsel for the Central Government said that the Solicitor General of India, who will argue on behalf of the government, is infected with COVID-19, and he requires at least 15 days to recover from the infection. Hence, the bench adjourned the hearing while accepting August 25 as the date for hearing the petition, on Rohatgi’s request. The petition was filed after the designated officer of the MeitY, following a series of meeting with the Compliance Officer of Twitter on the issues raised on correctness of several ‘blocking orders’, issued a notice on June 27, 2022 informing that penal action would be initiated against Twitter for not complying with the ‘blocking orders’. Twitter, which has complied with the ‘blocking orders’ under protest, has contended in the petition that the ‘blocking orders’ are manifestly arbitrary, procedurally and substantially not in consonance with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The ‘blocking orders’ are also contrary to the procedures and safeguards prescribed in the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009, the petitioner claims. In 34 cases, it has been claimed in the petition, Twitter was told to block the entire account even though Section 69A allows only blocking of ‘information’. The authorities, since February 2021, have told Twitter to block 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, it has been stated in the petition while contending that the ‘blocking orders’ are illegal as authorities have not issued notices to the originators of the accounts under Rule 8 (1) of the 2009 rules, and the ‘blocking orders’ do not conform to the ‘least intrusive test’ as recognised by the apex court. “Several of the URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) contain political and journalistic content. Blocking of such information is gross violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizen-user of platform of Twitter,” it has been claimed in the petition while pointing out that no proper reason is assigned in the ‘blocking orders’. “A perusal of content available in the accounts of politicians, activists and journalists would show that authorities have not show how content disrupts public order, as contemplated in Section 69A of the Act,” it has been claimed in the petition. Jagdeep Dhankar withdraws from SC lawyers’ chambers allotment list Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, on Tuesday [wrote to the apex court]( to exclude the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) Vice Presidential candidate and senior advocate Jagdeep Dhankar’s name from the top court lawyers’ chambers allotment list. The letter highlighted that Dhankar, keeping the interest of the Bar at heart, has “conveyed his wish to voluntarily withdraw from the process of chamber allotment so that other lawyers in need of a chamber may be allotted the same”. Chambers are allotted within the Supreme Court to apex court lawyers to meet litigants conveniently. Many lawyers have been waiting in line for chamber space for years together. Allotments are made under the Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules. The allotments are made by a committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India and is subject to the top judge’s approval. The Rules say that allotments would be made to advocates of the Supreme Court who are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who regularly practice in the apex court and reside in the Capital. Supreme Court’s advocates-on-record, junior advocates and senior advocates who regularly and mainly practice in the apex court are eligible for allotments. Singh’s letter about Shankar’s wish to be excluded from the list to give room to other lawyers comes even as a row has erupted over the allotment of the court’s newly constructed chambers on twin-sharing basis. On Monday, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was heading the Bench hearing the plea against the twin-sharing allotment to lawyers, said the arrangement would help more lawyers to get space. The judge had urged for the withdrawal of the petition. “Whatever you do will hurt members of the Bar. There are lawyers waiting since 1975. When you say single allotment, automatically the lawyers are cut to half. You must also look at how difficult this will be as opposed to people sitting outside in the Delhi heat,” Justice Chandrachud had said during the hearing. The judge also recounted how he had functioned out of a 120 sq. ft. chamber in Mumbai. Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, who is the SCBA vice president, tweeted on Tuesday that “we had written a letter to exclude those names from chamber list who have become judges or occupying constitutional chairs. Like HE Mr Dhankhar, Hon’ble Mr Justice P.S. Narsimha, Mr. Justice Aniruddh P Mayee who has become #SupremeCourt & HC justice respectively”. ‘Big Brother’ always listening to politicians’ phone calls in ‘New’ India: VP candidate Margaret Alva Opposition Vice Presidential candidate [Margaret Alva has alleged that politicians’ calls are being monitored]( by the ‘Big Brother’, an apparent reference to the government. Alva had earlier said she has been unable to make or receive calls after she spoke to some “friends in the BJP”. Since then, Alva alleged, calls to her mobile were being diverted and she was unable to make or receive them. “The fear that ‘Big Brother’ is always watching & listening permeates all conversations between politicians across party lines in ‘new’ India. MPs & leaders of parties carry multiple phones, frequently change numbers & talk in hushed whispers when they meet. Fear kills democracy,” she said in a tweet. Last night, she posted a tweet addressed to the two government-owned telecom companies. “Dear BSNL/ MTNL, After speaking to some friends in the BJP today, all calls to my mobile are being diverted & I’m unable to make or receive calls. If you restore the phone. I promise not to call any MP from the BJP, TMC or BJD tonight,” she said. Alva will be pitted against former West Bengal governor Jagadeep Dhankhar for the post of Vice President. The Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress, which governs West Bengal, has announced it will abstain from the election. In Brief [Opposition members protest in the Rajya Sabha on July 26, 2022. Photo: Sansad TV via PTI] The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday [suspended 19 MPs for a week]( after unending protests that have hampered transaction of business in the Parliament’s Monsoon session so far. Suspended MPs include TMC members Dola Sen, Sushmita Dev, Nadimul Haque, Mausam Noor, Santunu Sen, Shanta Chhetri, Abir Ranjan Biswas, DMK’s M.H. Abdulla, R. Girirajan, N.R. Elango, S. Kalyanasundaram, M. Shanmugam and Kanimozhi NVN Somu, TRS MPs Damodar Rao and B.L. Yadav, CPI(M)‘s V. Sivadasan and A.A. Rahim, and CPI’s P. Sandosh Kumar. Russia to opt out of International Space Station after 2024 [Russia will opt out of the International Space Station]( after 2024 and focus on building its own orbiting outpost, the country’s newly appointed space chief said Tuesday. Yuri Borisov, who was appointed earlier this month to lead the state-controlled space corporation Roscosmos, said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia will fulfill its obligations to other partners at the International Space Station before it leaves the project. “The decision to leave the station after 2024 has been made,” Borisov said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow  Today’s Top Picks [[Defence Ministry approves arms procurement proposals worth ₹28,732 crore] Defence Ministry approves arms procurement proposals worth ₹28,732 crore]( [[EU countries to reduce gas use by 15% over threats of further supply cuts from Moscow] EU countries to reduce gas use by 15% over threats of further supply cuts from Moscow]( [[Neeraj Chopra to miss Birmingham Commonwealth Games due to injury] Neeraj Chopra to miss Birmingham Commonwealth Games due to injury]( [[Death toll in Gujarat hooch tragedy rises to 28] Death toll in Gujarat hooch tragedy rises to 28]( Copyright @ 2022, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](