The Evening Wrap: Centre says appointment of 5 pending Supreme Court judges to be cleared soon

The Supreme Court on Friday recorded a submission by Attorney General R. Venkataramani that warrants of appointment of five judges to the apex court will be likely issued by February 5. “It is happening… The five warrants of appointment are being issued… It goes to the President by evening. They will be issued,” Venkataramani said. The Collegium had recommended Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur High Court Chief Justice P V Sanjay Kumar, Patna High Court judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Allahabad High Court judge Manoj Misra to the Supreme Court on December 13, 2022. They have been pending with the government for nearly two months. The Collegium had further proposed Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Rajesh Bindal and Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Aravind Kumar to the government for appointment as apex court judges on January 31. The appointment of all seven would see the court function with its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. “The five recommendations were made in December, we are in February… You are saying, and we have faith in you, that the warrants will be issued. That ‘it is happening’... ‘When’ is the next question,” a Bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka asked the top law officer. “By Sunday, they will be issued… it is happening,” Venkataramani said, hesitant to be pinned down to a specific day as the court hearing progressed. “’Happening, happened, will happen’... When things have not been happening for years together, we do not want you to give a date, but tell us in how many days it will happen… two days, three days, four days? There may be an ‘unexpected delay’. I am asking you on the judicial side. How many days should we record in our order? Can we say five days… You said by Sunday, we are giving you a longer leeway,” Justice Kaul asked. “With a sense of responsibility I am saying, the five warrants will be issued. It is happening,” Venkataramani said. “Happening ‘shortly’ then?” Justice Kaul asked. The court further put the government on an ultimatum, giving it 10 days to clear Supreme Court Collegium recommendations on transfer of High Court judges and High Court appointments, especially pending appointments of High Court Chief Justices. “Mr. Attorney, something has greatly disturbed us, if the transfer order of judges is not implemented… what do you want us to do? If you keep them pending… you will make us take some very, very difficult decisions,” Justice Kaul said. Venkataramani urged the court to give him more time. The court told the government not to compel it to take judicial or administrative action and make things “uncomfortable”. “One of the Chief Justices is demitting office in 19 days, you want him to go without becoming a Chief Justice?” Justice Kaul asked. Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted cases in which the government has not appointed judges despite repeated reiterations by the Collegium. When advocate Amit Pai pointed to the “attack” made by public authorities on the judiciary, the Bench said the court is not affected beyond a particular stage by these remarks. It said the focus should be on the more important issue of filling up judicial vacancies in the courts. Pai was referring to disparaging comments made by Law Minister Kiren Rijiju about the Collegium system of judicial appointments upheld by the court in the NJAC judgment of 2015. “We are used to handling this from all sides… It is for authorities to see what they say is appropriate or inappropriate,” Justice Kaul said. Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, conveyed the Bar’s approval of the Collegium’s four-page resolution on January 31 in which it gave no room for the government to tinker with seniority of recommended names by either bifurcating them or by appointing one over the other. “The names [five judges to the apex court] recommended earlier by the Collegium by its resolution dated December 13, 2022 shall have precedence over the two names [Justices Bindal and Kumar] recommended presently for appointment to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appointments of five judges recommended on December 13, 2022 should be notified separately and earlier in point of time before the two judges recommended by this resolution,” the five-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and including Justices Kaul, K.M. Joseph, M.R. Shah and Ajay Rastogi, had clarified in its January 31 resolution. The court scheduled the next hearing on February 13. Vodafone Idea: Centre approves conversion of ₹16,133 crore interest dues into equity The government has approved conversion of over ₹16,133 crore interest dues of debt-ridden Vodafone Idea into equity, the company said in a regulatory filing on Friday. Equity shares of face value of ₹10 each will be issued to the government at the same price. “Ministry of Communications... passed an order today i.e. 3 February, 2023... directing the Company to convert the NPV of the interest related to deferment of spectrum auction instalments and AGR Dues into equity shares to be issued to the Government of India,” the filing said. The relief for the company comes as part of the reforms package announced by the government in September 2021. “The total amount to be converted into equity shares is ₹16,133,18,48,990. The Company has been directed to issue 1613,31,84,899 equity shares of the face value of ₹10 each at an issue price of ₹10 each,” the filing added. Earlier, VIL had said that with conversion of dues into equity, the government will get around 35% stake in the company. Shares of VIL closed at ₹6.89 apiece on Friday at the BSE, up by 1.03% compared to previous close. The filing came after market hours. Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PILs challenging the censoring of BBC documentary The Supreme Court on February 3, 2023 directed the government to produce the original records on a decision to block the screening of a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary series titled ‘India: The Modi Question’. A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh issued formal notice to the Union of India through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Twitter Communications India Private Limited and Google India Private Limited. The court listed the case in April. It did not however issue any interim orders on the petitions filed by senior journalist N. Ram, Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra and advocate Prashant Bhushan, which highlighted the citizens’ “fundamental right to view, form an informed opinion, critique, report on and lawfully circulate the contents of the documentary as right to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the right to receive and disseminate information”. The documentary is believed to be critical of the role of then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots. Senior advocate CU Singh, for the petitioners, cited cases “where officials more loyal than the king,” have blocked screening in university campuses and even rusticated students for watching the film. The students of RajasthanCentral University in Ajmer were suspended for watching the film. The Jawaharlal Nehru University administration had issued an advisory to cancel a screening to maintain “peace and harmony” in the campus. The petitioners referred to reports about detention of students and presence of riot police at Jamia Milia Islamia campus in Delhi. “We have asked them to produce the records. If they are not doing it, we will see what should be done. Let them file their reply and you can file your rejoinder,” Justice Khanna addressed Singh. The senior lawyer said the blocking order, kept “secret” as of now, is required to be put up in the public domain in a time-bound manner, in 48 hours, according to the law. He asked the court to advance the date of the hearing. “April is the shortest date we can give. The government can file its reply in three weeks and you (petitioners) can file your rejoinder in two weeks after that,” Justice Khanna said. The court also issued notice in a separate petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma and tagged it along with Ram’s petition. The petition filed by the senior journalist and the others argue that the Ministry, under Rule 16(3) of the Information Technology Rules of 2021 and Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act 2000, had on January 20, sent a legal request to Twitter India to block 50 tweets concerning and even containing links to the documentary. The tweets of Bhushan and Moitra were among those taken down. YouTube links of the video were blocked, the petition said. The petitioners have referred to reports of how the series is reported to be critical about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots. Modi was Gujarat Chief Minister at the time of the violence in the State. The petition noted that Kanchan Gupta, senior advisor of the Ministry, had tweeted that the documentary was blocked on YouTube and Twitter following the orders of the Secretary of the Ministry on January 20 under emergency powers in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. The petitioners have urged the court to call for and quash orders directly or indirectly censoring the documentary. They said that the January 20 order and subsequent proceedings were not in the public domain. “The government has chosen expediency over necessity and proportionality in their response to the documentary… The contents of the BBC documentary and tweets of Moitra and Bhushan are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The contents of the documentary series do not fall under any restriction on free speech or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act,” the petition said. It referred to apex court judgments which had held that the right of a filmmaker to make and exhibit his film was part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Petitioners have submitted that censoring free speech through opaque orders is manifestly arbitrary and curtailed the fundamental right to seek judicial review. SC removes “insurmountable obstacles” for implementation of advanced medical directives of terminally-ill patients A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has removed “insurmountable obstacles” for the implementation of advanced medical directives of terminally-ill patients, who are beyond cure or hope, to withdraw medical treatment and die with dignity. The treating doctor and the hospital caring for the patients play central roles in the court order. The five-member Bench led by Justice KM Joseph had broadly outlined the order in court on January 24. The final order was published on February 3, 2023. The court simplifies certain directions of an earlier Constitution Bench, while allowing passive euthanasia, on how to implement advanced medical directives. The case had come back to the court after pleas were made that the directions in the 2018 judgment were near impossible to implement on the ground. For one, an advanced medical directive (AMD), according to the 2018 judgment, required not only the signatures of two independent witnesses, but had also to be counter-signed by a Judicial Magistrate. In its current order authored by Justice Joseph, the court said it needed to be signed by the executor/patient and independent witnesses in the presence of a notary or gazetted officer who would record his/her satisfaction that the AMD was voluntary and executed without coercion. Copies of the AMD would be handed over to the close relatives, the family physician and a competent officer of the municipal corporation or panchayat concerned. The AMD, if the executor chooses, may be made part of the digital health records. At the time of its implementation, that is when the executor is terminally ill with no hope of cure or recovery after a prolonged treatment, the treating doctor at the hospital would ascertain the genuineness of the AMD, compare it with the copy in the digital health records, consult with the relatives about the option that withdrawal of care would be the “best choice”. The hospital would then form a primary medical board with the treating doctor and two specialists who would verify the condition of the patient within 48 hours. Then a secondary medical board would be constituted with the Chief Medical Officer of the district nominating the members. This board would again re-ascertain the patient’s condition within 48 hours and give its findings on whether or not to withdraw medical care or life support. The hospital would then have to convey the findings of both the primary and secondary board along with the consent of the relatives to the Judicial Magistrate before giving effect to the AMD. In case, the boards refuse to give effect to the AMD, the person named in it or the treating doctor or the hospital could approach the High Court concerned. The Chief Justice of the High Court would constitute a Division Bench, which can set up an independent committee of expert medical doctors in the fields of general medicine, nephrology, neurology, oncology, radiology and critical care. The court has also provided for cases in which there is no AMD. In such cases, the treating doctor could inform the hospital, which would constitute a primary medical board. The board would meet with the patient’s family or next friend or guardian and discuss consent. The meeting should be recorded in writing. Then the same course of action as followed in cases in which there is an AMD would follow. The court has directed its order to be circulated to all the Health Secretaries, Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Medical Officers in States and union Territories. In Brief:Railways to ramp up booking capacity from 25,000 to 2.25 lakh tickets a minute The passenger reservation and ticketing systems of the Indian Railways will be revamped to improve capacities, Union Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on Friday in a post-budget press briefing. Currently, the IT systems of the Railways can process bookings for 25,000 tickets in one minute. “The plan is to augment this capacity to 2.25 lakh tickets per minute. This will require a revamp of servers at the back end. The IT infrastructure, including software, will have to be upgraded to ensure that the website runs on a faster speed,” Vaishnaw said. The upgradation is expected to be complete by September this year. Congress suspends Patiala MP Preneet Kaur The Congress disciplinary committee on Friday suspended the party’s Lok Sabha MP Preneet Kaur and asked her to explain within three days why she should not be expelled for anti-party activities. The Congress’ disciplinary panel member secretary Tariq Anwar said the action follows complaints against her from Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Raja Warring and other state leaders that she was helping the BJP in the northern state. Former Union minister Preneet Kaur is the wife of former chief minister Amarinder Singh, who was ousted from the party, after which he joined the BJP. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 03 FEBRUARY 2023 [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]( Appointment of 5 judges recommended by Collegium likely in two days, Centre tells Supreme Court The [Supreme Court on Friday recorded a submission by Attorney General R. Venkataramani that warrants of appointment of five judges to the apex court will be likely issued by February 5](. “It is happening… The five warrants of appointment are being issued… It goes to the President by evening. They will be issued,” Venkataramani said. The Collegium had recommended Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur High Court Chief Justice P V Sanjay Kumar, Patna High Court judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Allahabad High Court judge Manoj Misra to the Supreme Court on December 13, 2022. They have been pending with the government for nearly two months. The Collegium had further proposed Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Rajesh Bindal and Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Aravind Kumar to the government for appointment as apex court judges on January 31. The appointment of all seven would see the court function with its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. “The five recommendations were made in December, we are in February… You are saying, and we have faith in you, that the warrants will be issued. That ‘it is happening’... ‘When’ is the next question,” a Bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka asked the top law officer. “By Sunday, they will be issued… it is happening,” Venkataramani said, hesitant to be pinned down to a specific day as the court hearing progressed. “’Happening, happened, will happen’... When things have not been happening for years together, we do not want you to give a date, but tell us in how many days it will happen… two days, three days, four days? There may be an ‘unexpected delay’. I am asking you on the judicial side. How many days should we record in our order? Can we say five days… You said by Sunday, we are giving you a longer leeway,” Justice Kaul asked. “With a sense of responsibility I am saying, the five warrants will be issued. It is happening,” Venkataramani said. “Happening ‘shortly’ then?” Justice Kaul asked. The court further put the government on an ultimatum, giving it 10 days to clear Supreme Court Collegium recommendations on transfer of High Court judges and High Court appointments, especially pending appointments of High Court Chief Justices. “Mr. Attorney, something has greatly disturbed us, if the transfer order of judges is not implemented… what do you want us to do? If you keep them pending… you will make us take some very, very difficult decisions,” Justice Kaul said. Venkataramani urged the court to give him more time. The court told the government not to compel it to take judicial or administrative action and make things “uncomfortable”. “One of the Chief Justices is demitting office in 19 days, you want him to go without becoming a Chief Justice?” Justice Kaul asked. Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted cases in which the government has not appointed judges despite repeated reiterations by the Collegium. When advocate Amit Pai pointed to the “attack” made by public authorities on the judiciary, the Bench said the court is not affected beyond a particular stage by these remarks. It said the focus should be on the more important issue of filling up judicial vacancies in the courts. Pai was referring to disparaging comments made by Law Minister Kiren Rijiju about the Collegium system of judicial appointments upheld by the court in the NJAC judgment of 2015. “We are used to handling this from all sides… It is for authorities to see what they say is appropriate or inappropriate,” Justice Kaul said. Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, conveyed the Bar’s approval of the Collegium’s four-page resolution on January 31 in which it gave no room for the government to tinker with seniority of recommended names by either bifurcating them or by appointing one over the other. “The names [five judges to the apex court] recommended earlier by the Collegium by its resolution dated December 13, 2022 shall have precedence over the two names [Justices Bindal and Kumar] recommended presently for appointment to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appointments of five judges recommended on December 13, 2022 should be notified separately and earlier in point of time before the two judges recommended by this resolution,” the five-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and including Justices Kaul, K.M. Joseph, M.R. Shah and Ajay Rastogi, had clarified in its January 31 resolution. The court scheduled the next hearing on February 13. Vodafone Idea: Centre approves conversion of ₹16,133 crore interest dues into equity The [government has approved conversion of over ₹16,133 crore interest dues of debt-ridden Vodafone Idea into equity]( the company said in a regulatory filing on Friday. Equity shares of face value of ₹10 each will be issued to the government at the same price. “Ministry of Communications... passed an order today i.e. 3 February, 2023... directing the Company to convert the NPV of the interest related to deferment of spectrum auction instalments and AGR Dues into equity shares to be issued to the Government of India,” the filing said. The relief for the company comes as part of the reforms package announced by the government in September 2021. “The total amount to be converted into equity shares is ₹16,133,18,48,990. The Company has been directed to issue 1613,31,84,899 equity shares of the face value of ₹10 each at an issue price of ₹10 each,” the filing added. Earlier, VIL had said that with conversion of dues into equity, the government will get around 35% stake in the company. Shares of VIL closed at ₹6.89 apiece on Friday at the BSE, up by 1.03% compared to previous close. The filing came after market hours. Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PILs challenging the censoring of BBC documentary The [Supreme Court on February 3, 2023 directed the government to produce the original records on a decision to block the screening of a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary]( series titled ‘India: The Modi Question’. A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh issued formal notice to the Union of India through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Twitter Communications India Private Limited and Google India Private Limited. The court listed the case in April. It did not however issue any interim orders on the petitions filed by senior journalist N. Ram, Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra and advocate Prashant Bhushan, which highlighted the citizens’ “fundamental right to view, form an informed opinion, critique, report on and lawfully circulate the contents of the documentary as right to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the right to receive and disseminate information”. The documentary is believed to be critical of the role of then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots. Senior advocate CU Singh, for the petitioners, cited cases “where officials more loyal than the king,” have blocked screening in university campuses and even rusticated students for watching the film. The students of RajasthanCentral University in Ajmer were suspended for watching the film. The Jawaharlal Nehru University administration had issued an advisory to cancel a screening to maintain “peace and harmony” in the campus. The petitioners referred to reports about detention of students and presence of riot police at Jamia Milia Islamia campus in Delhi. “We have asked them to produce the records. If they are not doing it, we will see what should be done. Let them file their reply and you can file your rejoinder,” Justice Khanna addressed Singh. The senior lawyer said the blocking order, kept “secret” as of now, is required to be put up in the public domain in a time-bound manner, in 48 hours, according to the law. He asked the court to advance the date of the hearing. “April is the shortest date we can give. The government can file its reply in three weeks and you (petitioners) can file your rejoinder in two weeks after that,” Justice Khanna said. The court also issued notice in a separate petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma and tagged it along with Ram’s petition. The petition filed by the senior journalist and the others argue that the Ministry, under Rule 16(3) of the Information Technology Rules of 2021 and Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act 2000, had on January 20, sent a legal request to Twitter India to block 50 tweets concerning and even containing links to the documentary. The tweets of Bhushan and Moitra were among those taken down. YouTube links of the video were blocked, the petition said. The petitioners have referred to reports of how the series is reported to be critical about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots. Modi was Gujarat Chief Minister at the time of the violence in the State. The petition noted that Kanchan Gupta, senior advisor of the Ministry, had tweeted that the documentary was blocked on YouTube and Twitter following the orders of the Secretary of the Ministry on January 20 under emergency powers in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. The petitioners have urged the court to call for and quash orders directly or indirectly censoring the documentary. They said that the January 20 order and subsequent proceedings were not in the public domain. “The government has chosen expediency over necessity and proportionality in their response to the documentary… The contents of the BBC documentary and tweets of Moitra and Bhushan are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The contents of the documentary series do not fall under any restriction on free speech or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act,” the petition said. It referred to apex court judgments which had held that the right of a filmmaker to make and exhibit his film was part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Petitioners have submitted that censoring free speech through opaque orders is manifestly arbitrary and curtailed the fundamental right to seek judicial review. SC removes “insurmountable obstacles” for implementation of advanced medical directives of terminally-ill patients A [Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has removed “insurmountable obstacles” for the implementation of advanced medical directives of terminally-ill patients]( who are beyond cure or hope, to withdraw medical treatment and die with dignity. The treating doctor and the hospital caring for the patients play central roles in the court order. The five-member Bench led by Justice KM Joseph had broadly outlined the order in court on January 24. The final order was published on February 3, 2023. The court simplifies certain directions of an earlier Constitution Bench, while allowing passive euthanasia, on how to implement advanced medical directives. The case had come back to the court after pleas were made that the directions in the 2018 judgment were near impossible to implement on the ground. For one, an advanced medical directive (AMD), according to the 2018 judgment, required not only the signatures of two independent witnesses, but had also to be counter-signed by a Judicial Magistrate. In its current order authored by Justice Joseph, the court said it needed to be signed by the executor/patient and independent witnesses in the presence of a notary or gazetted officer who would record his/her satisfaction that the AMD was voluntary and executed without coercion. Copies of the AMD would be handed over to the close relatives, the family physician and a competent officer of the municipal corporation or panchayat concerned. The AMD, if the executor chooses, may be made part of the digital health records. At the time of its implementation, that is when the executor is terminally ill with no hope of cure or recovery after a prolonged treatment, the treating doctor at the hospital would ascertain the genuineness of the AMD, compare it with the copy in the digital health records, consult with the relatives about the option that withdrawal of care would be the “best choice”. The hospital would then form a primary medical board with the treating doctor and two specialists who would verify the condition of the patient within 48 hours. Then a secondary medical board would be constituted with the Chief Medical Officer of the district nominating the members. This board would again re-ascertain the patient’s condition within 48 hours and give its findings on whether or not to withdraw medical care or life support. The hospital would then have to convey the findings of both the primary and secondary board along with the consent of the relatives to the Judicial Magistrate before giving effect to the AMD. In case, the boards refuse to give effect to the AMD, the person named in it or the treating doctor or the hospital could approach the High Court concerned. The Chief Justice of the High Court would constitute a Division Bench, which can set up an independent committee of expert medical doctors in the fields of general medicine, nephrology, neurology, oncology, radiology and critical care. The court has also provided for cases in which there is no AMD. In such cases, the treating doctor could inform the hospital, which would constitute a primary medical board. The board would meet with the patient’s family or next friend or guardian and discuss consent. The meeting should be recorded in writing. Then the same course of action as followed in cases in which there is an AMD would follow. The court has directed its order to be circulated to all the Health Secretaries, Registrar Generals of High Courts and Chief Medical Officers in States and union Territories. In Brief: Railways to ramp up booking capacity from 25,000 to 2.25 lakh tickets a minute The [passenger reservation and ticketing systems of the Indian Railways will be revamped to improve capacities, Union Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said]( on Friday in a post-budget press briefing. Currently, the IT systems of the Railways can process bookings for 25,000 tickets in one minute. “The plan is to augment this capacity to 2.25 lakh tickets per minute. This will require a revamp of servers at the back end. The IT infrastructure, including software, will have to be upgraded to ensure that the website runs on a faster speed,” Vaishnaw said. The upgradation is expected to be complete by September this year. Congress suspends Patiala MP Preneet Kaur The [Congress disciplinary committee on Friday suspended the party’s Lok Sabha MP Preneet Kaur]( and asked her to explain within three days why she should not be expelled for anti-party activities. The Congress’ disciplinary panel member secretary Tariq Anwar said the action follows complaints against her from Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Raja Warring and other state leaders that she was helping the BJP in the northern state. Former Union minister Preneet Kaur is the wife of former chief minister Amarinder Singh, who was ousted from the party, after which he joined the BJP. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. First Day First Show Stay up-to-date on all things cinema with the "First Day First Show" cinema & entertainment newsletter. Every week, we bring you movie reviews, news from regional cinema, Bollywood, Hollywood, and beyond, as well as updates from the streaming platforms. Whether you're a cinephile or just looking for your next great binge-watch, we've got you covered. [Subscribe Now!]( [[‘BJP used Tripura as its lab of hatred for the country’] ‘BJP used Tripura as its lab of hatred for the country’]( [[MGNREGA budget cut will not affect the programme: Rural Development Ministry] MGNREGA budget cut will not affect the programme: Rural Development Ministry]( [[Only ₹4 lakh crore of country’s savings are in tax-saving schemes: Revenue Secretary] Only ₹4 lakh crore of country’s savings are in tax-saving schemes: Revenue Secretary]( [[Watch | Data Point: Which State consumes more vegetables and which eats a lot of fried foods?] Watch | Data Point: Which State consumes more vegetables and which eats a lot of fried foods?]( 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](