The Evening Wrap: AAP gets national party status while Trinamool, NCP, CPI lose

The Election Commission of India (ECI) on April 10 granted the status of a national party to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), while also withdrawing this status from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) party, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and the Communist Party of India (CPI) This move comes only days after the ECI informed the Karnataka High Court that it will decide on the AAP’s application for the grant of ‘national party’ status before April 13, when the gazette notification of the Karnataka Assembly polls will be issued. AAP had filed an application for the grant of national party status in December 2022. The Commission said the AAP has been named as a national party based on its electoral performance in four States — Delhi, Goa, Punjab and Gujarat. The Arvind Kejriwal-led party is in power in Delhi and Punjab. To earn a national party status, a political outfit needs to be recognised as State party in four States and have at least two members in the respective Legislative Assemblies, according to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) order, 1968. In an order issued on Monday, the Commission also revoked the state party status granted to RLD in Uttar Pradesh, BRS in Andhra Pradesh, PDA in Manipur, PMK in Puducherry, RSP in West Bengal and MPC in Mizoram. With the latest move, the number of national parties in India has come down to six — Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress, CPI(M), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), National People’s Party (NPP) and the AAP The Commission said that NCP and Trinamool Congress will be recognised as State parties in Nagaland and Meghalaya respectively based on their performance in the recently concluded Assembly elections. It also granted “recognised state political party” status to the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) in Nagaland, Voice of the People Party in Meghalaya and the Tipra Motha in Tripura. Gujarat encounter killings | Supreme Court to hear State government’s objections on sharing Bedi committee report on July 1 The Supreme Court on April 10 said it will hear in detail the Gujarat Government’s objections to sharing a report filed by an apex court-appointed committee led by its former judge, Justice H.S. Bedi, who investigated several police encounters which happened in the State during the chief ministerial era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul listed the case on July 1 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Gujarat, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for three Gujarat Police officers allegedly involved in the encounters, objected to the circulation of the copies of the Justice Bedi report to petitioners led by lyricist Javed Akhtar and others representing the late journalist BG Varghese. The petition was filed way back in 2007. On Monday, Mehta said this was a “selective PIL” filed by people who were “strangers” to Gujarat. He also questioned the need to implement the report. The report, submitted confidentially to the apex court in 2018, had investigated 17 police encounters which occurred between 2002 and 2007 in Gujarat. The Justice Bedi committee was constituted by the apex court in 2012. The committee had reportedly recommended the prosecution of police officers in three out of the 17 cases probed by it. In its final report, Justice Bedi had reportedly said three persons — Sameer Khan, Kasam Jafar and Haji Haji Ismail — were prime facie killed in “fake” encounters. In January 2019, the apex court refused the State Government’s request to keep the Bedi report under wraps. The court had ordered copies to be shared with the petitioner side and Gujarat. However, on Monday, advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, said nothing like that had happened so far. “We have received letters from the officers that these were investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code and nothing should be shared with anyone other than the potential accused, the court and the public prosecutor… The petitioners are people from other States who have never come to Gujarat. They have identified a particular period during which they allege encounters took place in Gujarat… The State where they were staying also had encounters, but they were not bothered about… There is a serious doubt about their locus standi and motive,” Mehta countered. Justice Kaul pointed out that the committee was appointed by none other than the Supreme Court on the basis of the petitions. “The enquiry was held by a former Supreme Court judge… What is your stand? Is it your stand that the report should not be implemented?” Justice Kaul asked Gujarat. “We have to say something on the report also,” Mehta replied. “You are opposing the report… Therefore we have to hear you on whether the report has to be implemented or not,” Justice Kaul surmised. But Mehta said the first point of discussion would be whether or not the report should be shared with “strangers”. Rohatgi intervened to argue that the petitioners’ role was over. “They cannot continue to be my prosecutors now… The evidence and statements of witnesses contained in the report cannot be shared with the petitioners. It is now between the court, the State and me,” he submitted. Bhushan referred to a Supreme Court judgment in PUCL versus Maharashtra which had issued guidelines in cases of “fake” police encounters. “In such cases, the court had directed FIRs to be registered immediately and the cases to be investigated by an independent agency. Here, the Supreme Court had gone one step forward by appointing a committee under a former apex court judge to investigate the encounters. Justice Bedi’s report fortifies our petition,” Bhushan argued. “The report by Justice Bedi was obtained under the direction of this court… But they have reservations about sharing the report, that has to be heard,” Justice Kaul told Bhushan. “If law does not take its course when policemen run amok, this is what will happen,” Ramakrishnan submitted. The court listed the case on July 1 for addressing the objections raised by Gujarat and the police officers represented by Rohatgi about circulating the report copies to the petitioners. In his petition, Verghese had alleged that the encounter killings spanned a range of persons that included migrant workmen to suspected terrorists, all aged between 22 and 37. “There is a need to investigate this pattern and there must be a system in place to ensure that armed personnel do not easily do away with lives of citizens,” he had submitted. The court had earlier made it clear that the cases investigated by the Justice Bedi committee did not include those already probed by the CBI or SIT as per Supreme Court or High Court orders. This would mean the Sohrabuddin-Kauser Bi,Tulsiram Prajapati and Ishrat Jahan cases were outside its purview. Unruly passengers: DGCA issues advisory to airlines, reiterates norms to deal with such incidents Aviation regulator DGCA on April 10, 2023 issued an advisory to airlines reiterating the existing provisions in place to deal with unruly passengers. The advisory comes against the backdrop of rising incidents of unruly passengers onboard flights and also on a day when a male passenger was deboarded by Air India from a Delhi-London flight for causing physical harm to two cabin crew members. In an advisory, DGCA said there are provisions under the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) for action to be taken by the airline to deal with unruly passengers. Besides, it said the responsibilities of pilots, cabin crew members and the director of inflight services are also mentioned in the CAR. DGCA said that in the recent past, it has noticed a few incidents such as smoking in aircraft, consumption of alcoholic beverages resulting in unruly behaviour, altercations between passengers, and sometimes inappropriate touching or sexual harassment by the passengers onboard an aircraft during the flight, wherein “post holders, pilots and cabin crew members have failed to take appropriate actions”. “Such incidents have potential of compromising the safety of aircraft operations,” the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said. The watchdog has advised the heads of operations of all airlines to sensitise their pilots, cabin crew and post holders on handling of unruly passengers through appropriate means. The measures can be “but not limited to training programme for ensuring effective monitoring, maintenance of good order and discipline on board the aircraft so that safety of aircraft operations is not jeopardised in any manner,” the advisory said. DGCA regulations provide for classifying unruly passenger behaviour into three levels and such people can face flying ban for varying periods. Unruly behaviour such as physical gestures, verbal harassment and unruly inebriation are classified as Level 1 while physically abusive behaviour like pushing, kicking or sexual harassment will be classified as Level 2. Life threatening behaviour such as damage to aircraft operating systems, physical violence like choking and murderous assault will be considered as Level 3. Depending on the level of unruly behaviour, an internal committee set up by the airline concerned can decide on the duration for which an unruly passenger can be banned from flying. On Monday, Air India deboarded an unruly male passenger who caused physical harm to two cabin crew members onboard a Delhi-London flight, which returned to the national capital shortly after departure. The passenger was handed over to the security personnel after the flight AI 111 landed at the Delhi airport and an FIR has also been lodged with the police, the airline said in a statement. In a written reply to Rajya Sabha on April 3, Minister of State for Civil Aviation V K Singh said as many as 63 persons were put in the ‘No Fly List’ by airlines in 2022. Nationwide COVID mock drill underway to take stock of preparedness Amid a spike in COVID-19 cases, mock drills to take stock of hospital preparedness are being held in several public and private facilities across the country on Monday. Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya visited the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in the city to review the mock drill there. India logged 5,880 new coronavirus cases, while the active cases have increased to 35,199. The death toll has increased to 5,30,979 with 14 deaths, according to the health ministry data updated on Monday. In a review meeting held on April 7, Mandaviya had urged State Health Ministers to visit hospitals and oversee the mock drills on April 10 and 11. In the meeting with State Health Ministers, and principal and additional chief secretaries held virtually, Mandaviya had stressed the need to identify emergency hotspots by monitoring trends of influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) cases, ramping up testing and vaccination, and ensuring readiness of hospital infrastructure. Besides enhancing genome sequencing and ramping up whole genome sequencing of positive samples, he had laid stress on creating awareness about following COVID-appropriate behaviour. During the meeting, States and Union Territories were informed that currently the World Health Organisation (WHO) is closely tracking a variant of interest (VOI), XBB.1.5, and six other variants (BQ.1, BA.2.75, CH.1.1, XBB, XBF and XBB.1.16). It was highlighted that while Omicron and its sub-lineages continue to be the predominant variants, most of the assigned variants have little or no significant transmissibility, disease severity or immune escape. The prevalence of XBB.1.16 increased from 21.6% in February to 35.8% in March. However, no evidence of an increase in hospitalisation or mortality has been reported, the ministry had said in a statement. During the meeting, it was observed that 23 States and Union Territories have testing rates that are lower than the current national average of 100 tests per million people. Mandaviya had said that irrespective of the new variants, the five-fold strategy of ‘Test-Track-Treat-Vaccinate and adherence to COVID-Appropriate Behaviour’ continues to remain the tested strategy for COVID management. States and Union Territories were also requested to expeditiously increase the rate of testing and increase the share of RT-PCR in tests. China criticises Amit Shah’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh China on April 10 said it firmly opposes a visit by Home Minister Amit Shah to Arunachal Pradesh, adding that the official’s activities in the area violated China’s territorial sovereignty. Shah, in his first visit to the northeastern State as Home Minister, is scheduled to launch the ‘Vibrant Villages Programme’ (VVP) in Kibithoo, a village along the India-China border. During the two-day visit, he will also inaugurate Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) projects to augment infrastructure at Likabali (Arunachal Pradesh), Chapra (Bihar), Nooranad (Kerala) and Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), officials said. The Home Minister’s visit to the region comes amid tension between China and India. China on April 2 announced it would “standardise” the names of 11 places in Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs released a list of 11 places on a map that show regions in Arunachal Pradesh as those inside the southern Tibetan region, which China calls “Zangnan”. In response to a question on Shah’s visit, spokesperson Wang Wenbin told Reuters that “Zangnan is China’s territory,” adding that “the Indian official’s visit to Zangnan violates China’s territorial sovereignty, and is not conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the border situation.” The Indian Government on April 4 outrightly rejected China’s sovereignty over the region. In a statement, Ministry of External Affairs official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi reiterated that Arunachal Pradesh remains an internal part of India. “We have seen such reports. This is not the first time China has made such an attempt. We reject this outright,” he said. The White House has also expressed “strong opposition” against China’s move to rename the region. “The United States, as you know, has recognised that territory for a long time and we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance a territory claim by renaming localities. And so, again, this is something that we have long stood by a few things,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. Supreme Court seeks Bar Council of India’s reply on plea challenging ‘exorbitant’ enrolment fees for aspiring lawyers The Supreme Court on April 10 sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) in a petition challenging the “exorbitant and oppressive” fees charged by State Bar Councils for “young and aspiring” lawyers to register with them as legal professionals. A Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud issued a formal notice to the BCI in the petition filed by Gaurav Kumar, who said the registration fee charged in States like Odisha, Kerala, Jharkhand, etc, was violative of Article 14 (fundamental right to equality and equal treatment) of the Constitution. “Financially poor young lawyers find it difficult to pay the enrolment fee which run into thousands of Rupees,” Kumar submitted. He said such enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils were also in violation of Section 24 of the Advocates Act. Section 24(1)(e) provides that State Bar Councils should charge ₹600 and ₹150 by BCI by way of bank draft. A member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities needs to pay only ₹100 and ₹25 for enrollment into State Bar Councils and BCI, respectively. “This is a significant issue... The petitioner says it is ₹42,000 in Odisha whereas ₹21,000 in Kerala... and thus denies aspiring young persons who do not have the resources the opportunity,” the court noted. In Brief: The Supreme Court on Arpil 10 granted four weeks to the Centre to file its reply to a plea seeking debarment of those against whom charges have been framed in serious offences from contesting elections. A Bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and B. V. Nagarathna also said the Union Government first needed to identify what constituted serious offences. Noting that the Centre has not filed its response in the matter the Bench asked Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain to do the needful. “First you need to identify what are serious offences. It has to be defined. We will have it in July,” the Bench said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 10 April 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]( Election Commission grants national party status to AAP, withdraws national tag of Trinamool Congress, CPI, NCP The [Election Commission of India (ECI) on April 10 granted the status of a national party to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), while also withdrawing this status from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) party, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and the Communist Party of India]( (CPI) This move comes only days after the ECI informed the Karnataka High Court that it will decide on the AAP’s application for the grant of ‘national party’ status before April 13, when the gazette notification of the Karnataka Assembly polls will be issued. AAP had filed an application for the grant of national party status in December 2022. The Commission said the AAP has been named as a national party based on its electoral performance in four States — Delhi, Goa, Punjab and Gujarat. The Arvind Kejriwal-led party is in power in Delhi and Punjab. To earn a national party status, a political outfit needs to be recognised as State party in four States and have at least two members in the respective Legislative Assemblies, according to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) order, 1968. In an order issued on Monday, the Commission also revoked the state party status granted to RLD in Uttar Pradesh, BRS in Andhra Pradesh, PDA in Manipur, PMK in Puducherry, RSP in West Bengal and MPC in Mizoram. With the latest move, the number of national parties in India has come down to six — Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress, CPI(M), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), National People’s Party (NPP) and the AAP The Commission said that NCP and Trinamool Congress will be recognised as State parties in Nagaland and Meghalaya respectively based on their performance in the recently concluded Assembly elections. It also granted “recognised state political party” status to the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) in Nagaland, Voice of the People Party in Meghalaya and the Tipra Motha in Tripura. Gujarat encounter killings | Supreme Court to hear State government’s objections on sharing Bedi committee report on July 1 The [Supreme Court on April 10 said it will hear in detail the Gujarat Government’s objections to sharing a report filed by an apex court-appointed committee led by its former judge, Justice H.S. Bed]( who investigated several police encounters which happened in the State during the chief ministerial era of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul listed the case on July 1 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Gujarat, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for three Gujarat Police officers allegedly involved in the encounters, objected to the circulation of the copies of the Justice Bedi report to petitioners led by lyricist Javed Akhtar and others representing the late journalist BG Varghese. The petition was filed way back in 2007. On Monday, Mehta said this was a “selective PIL” filed by people who were “strangers” to Gujarat. He also questioned the need to implement the report. The report, submitted confidentially to the apex court in 2018, had investigated 17 police encounters which occurred between 2002 and 2007 in Gujarat. The Justice Bedi committee was constituted by the apex court in 2012. The committee had reportedly recommended the prosecution of police officers in three out of the 17 cases probed by it. In its final report, Justice Bedi had reportedly said three persons — Sameer Khan, Kasam Jafar and Haji Haji Ismail — were prime facie killed in “fake” encounters. In January 2019, the apex court refused the State Government’s request to keep the Bedi report under wraps. The court had ordered copies to be shared with the petitioner side and Gujarat. However, on Monday, advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, said nothing like that had happened so far. “We have received letters from the officers that these were investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code and nothing should be shared with anyone other than the potential accused, the court and the public prosecutor… The petitioners are people from other States who have never come to Gujarat. They have identified a particular period during which they allege encounters took place in Gujarat… The State where they were staying also had encounters, but they were not bothered about… There is a serious doubt about their locus standi and motive,” Mehta countered. Justice Kaul pointed out that the committee was appointed by none other than the Supreme Court on the basis of the petitions. “The enquiry was held by a former Supreme Court judge… What is your stand? Is it your stand that the report should not be implemented?” Justice Kaul asked Gujarat. “We have to say something on the report also,” Mehta replied. “You are opposing the report… Therefore we have to hear you on whether the report has to be implemented or not,” Justice Kaul surmised. But Mehta said the first point of discussion would be whether or not the report should be shared with “strangers”. Rohatgi intervened to argue that the petitioners’ role was over. “They cannot continue to be my prosecutors now… The evidence and statements of witnesses contained in the report cannot be shared with the petitioners. It is now between the court, the State and me,” he submitted. Bhushan referred to a Supreme Court judgment in PUCL versus Maharashtra which had issued guidelines in cases of “fake” police encounters. “In such cases, the court had directed FIRs to be registered immediately and the cases to be investigated by an independent agency. Here, the Supreme Court had gone one step forward by appointing a committee under a former apex court judge to investigate the encounters. Justice Bedi’s report fortifies our petition,” Bhushan argued. “The report by Justice Bedi was obtained under the direction of this court… But they have reservations about sharing the report, that has to be heard,” Justice Kaul told Bhushan. “If law does not take its course when policemen run amok, this is what will happen,” Ramakrishnan submitted. The court listed the case on July 1 for addressing the objections raised by Gujarat and the police officers represented by Rohatgi about circulating the report copies to the petitioners. In his petition, Verghese had alleged that the encounter killings spanned a range of persons that included migrant workmen to suspected terrorists, all aged between 22 and 37. “There is a need to investigate this pattern and there must be a system in place to ensure that armed personnel do not easily do away with lives of citizens,” he had submitted. The court had earlier made it clear that the cases investigated by the Justice Bedi committee did not include those already probed by the CBI or SIT as per Supreme Court or High Court orders. This would mean the Sohrabuddin-Kauser Bi,Tulsiram Prajapati and Ishrat Jahan cases were outside its purview. Unruly passengers: DGCA issues advisory to airlines, reiterates norms to deal with such incidents [Aviation regulator DGCA on April 10, 2023 issued an advisory to airlines reiterating the existing provisions in place to deal with unruly passengers](. The advisory comes against the backdrop of rising incidents of unruly passengers onboard flights and also on a day when a male passenger was deboarded by Air India from a Delhi-London flight for causing physical harm to two cabin crew members. In an advisory, DGCA said there are provisions under the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) for action to be taken by the airline to deal with unruly passengers. Besides, it said the responsibilities of pilots, cabin crew members and the director of inflight services are also mentioned in the CAR. DGCA said that in the recent past, it has noticed a few incidents such as smoking in aircraft, consumption of alcoholic beverages resulting in unruly behaviour, altercations between passengers, and sometimes inappropriate touching or sexual harassment by the passengers onboard an aircraft during the flight, wherein “post holders, pilots and cabin crew members have failed to take appropriate actions”. “Such incidents have potential of compromising the safety of aircraft operations,” the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said. The watchdog has advised the heads of operations of all airlines to sensitise their pilots, cabin crew and post holders on handling of unruly passengers through appropriate means. The measures can be “but not limited to training programme for ensuring effective monitoring, maintenance of good order and discipline on board the aircraft so that safety of aircraft operations is not jeopardised in any manner,” the advisory said. DGCA regulations provide for classifying unruly passenger behaviour into three levels and such people can face flying ban for varying periods. Unruly behaviour such as physical gestures, verbal harassment and unruly inebriation are classified as Level 1 while physically abusive behaviour like pushing, kicking or sexual harassment will be classified as Level 2. Life threatening behaviour such as damage to aircraft operating systems, physical violence like choking and murderous assault will be considered as Level 3. Depending on the level of unruly behaviour, an internal committee set up by the airline concerned can decide on the duration for which an unruly passenger can be banned from flying. On Monday, Air India deboarded an unruly male passenger who caused physical harm to two cabin crew members onboard a Delhi-London flight, which returned to the national capital shortly after departure. The passenger was handed over to the security personnel after the flight AI 111 landed at the Delhi airport and an FIR has also been lodged with the police, the airline said in a statement. In a written reply to Rajya Sabha on April 3, Minister of State for Civil Aviation V K Singh said as many as 63 persons were put in the ‘No Fly List’ by airlines in 2022. Nationwide COVID mock drill underway to take stock of preparedness Amid a spike in COVID-19 cases, [mock drills to take stock of hospital preparedness are being held in several public and private facilities across the country]( on Monday. Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya visited the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in the city to review the mock drill there. India logged 5,880 new coronavirus cases, while the active cases have increased to 35,199. The death toll has increased to 5,30,979 with 14 deaths, according to the health ministry data updated on Monday. In a review meeting held on April 7, Mandaviya had urged State Health Ministers to visit hospitals and oversee the mock drills on April 10 and 11. In the meeting with State Health Ministers, and principal and additional chief secretaries held virtually, Mandaviya had stressed the need to identify emergency hotspots by monitoring trends of influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) cases, ramping up testing and vaccination, and ensuring readiness of hospital infrastructure. Besides enhancing genome sequencing and ramping up whole genome sequencing of positive samples, he had laid stress on creating awareness about following COVID-appropriate behaviour. During the meeting, States and Union Territories were informed that currently the World Health Organisation (WHO) is closely tracking a variant of interest (VOI), XBB.1.5, and six other variants (BQ.1, BA.2.75, CH.1.1, XBB, XBF and XBB.1.16). It was highlighted that while Omicron and its sub-lineages continue to be the predominant variants, most of the assigned variants have little or no significant transmissibility, disease severity or immune escape. The prevalence of XBB.1.16 increased from 21.6% in February to 35.8% in March. However, no evidence of an increase in hospitalisation or mortality has been reported, the ministry had said in a statement. During the meeting, it was observed that 23 States and Union Territories have testing rates that are lower than the current national average of 100 tests per million people. Mandaviya had said that irrespective of the new variants, the five-fold strategy of ‘Test-Track-Treat-Vaccinate and adherence to COVID-Appropriate Behaviour’ continues to remain the tested strategy for COVID management. States and Union Territories were also requested to expeditiously increase the rate of testing and increase the share of RT-PCR in tests. China criticises Amit Shah’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh [China on April 10 said it firmly opposes a visit by Home Minister Amit Shah to Arunachal Pradesh]( adding that the official’s activities in the area violated China’s territorial sovereignty. Shah, in his first visit to the northeastern State as Home Minister, is scheduled to launch the ‘Vibrant Villages Programme’ (VVP) in Kibithoo, a village along the India-China border. During the two-day visit, he will also inaugurate Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) projects to augment infrastructure at Likabali (Arunachal Pradesh), Chapra (Bihar), Nooranad (Kerala) and Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), officials said. The Home Minister’s visit to the region comes amid tension between China and India. China on April 2 announced it would “standardise” the names of 11 places in Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs released a list of 11 places on a map that show regions in Arunachal Pradesh as those inside the southern Tibetan region, which China calls “Zangnan”. In response to a question on Shah’s visit, spokesperson Wang Wenbin told Reuters that “Zangnan is China’s territory,” adding that “the Indian official’s visit to Zangnan violates China’s territorial sovereignty, and is not conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the border situation.” The Indian Government on April 4 outrightly rejected China’s sovereignty over the region. In a statement, Ministry of External Affairs official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi reiterated that Arunachal Pradesh remains an internal part of India. “We have seen such reports. This is not the first time China has made such an attempt. We reject this outright,” he said. The White House has also expressed “strong opposition” against China’s move to rename the region. “The United States, as you know, has recognised that territory for a long time and we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to advance a territory claim by renaming localities. And so, again, this is something that we have long stood by a few things,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. Supreme Court seeks Bar Council of India’s reply on plea challenging ‘exorbitant’ enrolment fees for aspiring lawyers The [Supreme Court on April 10 sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) in a petition challenging the “exorbitant and oppressive” fees charged by State Bar Councils for “young and aspiring” lawyers to register with them]( as legal professionals. A Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud issued a formal notice to the BCI in the petition filed by Gaurav Kumar, who said the registration fee charged in States like Odisha, Kerala, Jharkhand, etc, was violative of Article 14 (fundamental right to equality and equal treatment) of the Constitution. “Financially poor young lawyers find it difficult to pay the enrolment fee which run into thousands of Rupees,” Kumar submitted. He said such enrolment fee charged by State Bar Councils were also in violation of Section 24 of the Advocates Act. Section 24(1)(e) provides that State Bar Councils should charge ₹600 and ₹150 by BCI by way of bank draft. A member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities needs to pay only ₹100 and ₹25 for enrollment into State Bar Councils and BCI, respectively. “This is a significant issue... The petitioner says it is ₹42,000 in Odisha whereas ₹21,000 in Kerala... and thus denies aspiring young persons who do not have the resources the opportunity,” the court noted. In Brief: The [Supreme Court on Arpil 10 granted four weeks to the Centre to file its reply to a plea seeking debarment of those against whom charges have been framed in serious offences from contesting elections](. A Bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and B. V. Nagarathna also said the Union Government first needed to identify what constituted serious offences. Noting that the Centre has not filed its response in the matter the Bench asked Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain to do the needful. “First you need to identify what are serious offences. It has to be defined. We will have it in July,” the Bench said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[Understanding the Status of Policing in India Report 2023 | In Focus podcast] Understanding the Status of Policing in India Report 2023 | In Focus podcast]( [[As the Ukraine war grinds on, Russia, India seek ways to keep defence trade afloat] As the Ukraine war grinds on, Russia, India seek ways to keep defence trade afloat]( [[Police: 4 killed in shooting at downtown Louisville building] Police: 4 killed in shooting at downtown Louisville building]( [[A punch in the face for Xi caricature: Taiwan Air Force badge goes viral] A punch in the face for Xi caricature: Taiwan Air Force badge goes viral]( Copyright @ 2023, 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](