The Evening Wrap: Siddaramaiah to take oath as Karnataka CM on May 20

Ending days of suspense, the Congress on May 18 announced Siddaramaiah as the next Chief Minister of Karnataka and D.K. Shivakumar as his only deputy in the soon-to-formed Cabinet. The two leaders, who were in a tight race for the top post, would take oath along with other Ministers on May 20 and leaders of all like-minded parties will be invited for the swearing-in ceremony. Announcing the decision taken by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge after hectic parleys ever since the party emerged victorious on May 13, General Secretary (Organisation) K.C. Venugopal said all leaders, including the top leadership, worked very hard to make Karnataka victory a reality. In the May 10 elections to the 224-member Assembly, the Congress scored an emphatic victory by bagging 135 seats, while the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda-led Janata Dal (Secular) secured 66 and 19 seats respectively. The Kerala Story: SC stays Bengal ban, asks T.N. to provide security to theatres The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the ban imposed by the West Bengal government on the screening of ‘The Kerala Story’ and recorded the producer’s submission to clarify in the movie disclaimer that the film is a “fictionalised account of events” with no “authentic data” to back the suggestion that 32,000 women were converted to Islam in Kerala. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud recorded the submission by the Tamil Nadu government that there is no ban, tacit or explicit, on the screening of the movie in the State. The court directed the State to provide adequate security measures in theatres and for moviegoers. The court said the State-wide ban on the film in West Bengal suffered from “overbreadth”. It also directed the producers to make the changes in the disclaimer by 5 pm on May 20. During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud orally observed that “32,000 is a distortion of fact”, and asked senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the film producer, “What are you doing about that?” He also remarked, “We do protect free speech, but vilifying a community…” Salve said that there was no “authentic figure” about the number of conversions made. “I will clarify in the disclaimer that there is no authentic data available,” he suggested to the court. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Tamil Nadu, reacted to the suggestion, saying, “that would be much, much worse”. He further submitted, “We are all for freedom of speech, but this is hate dramatised. Millions of people watch the film… Even an art form is subject to restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.” The petitioners urged the judges to watch the movie during the vacation and intervene if they felt there was a need for further judicial intervention. The court listed the case on July 18. Kiren Rijiju replaced as Law Minister, Arjun Meghwal takes over In a surprise move, the Narendra Modi government on May 18 moved Kiren Rijiju out of the Law Ministry and appointed Arjun Ram Meghwal as his replacement. Meghwal, a Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, has been made Minister of State with independent charge of the Law and Justice ministry in addition to his other responsibilities. A communique from Rashtrapati Bhavan announced the changes in the responsibilities of ministers, including one, announced later, of Minister of State for Law S.P. Singh Baghel being moved in the same rank to the Ministry of Health. In the case of Baghel, the move is being seen as more to do with rank, as he was serving under a Cabinet minister earlier, and Meghwal has been made minister of state with independent charge. The change of the guard at the Law Ministry comes at a time when a perception has gained ground that the Judiciary and Centre have been on a collision course. “The executive and the judiciary have a cordial relationship, and it will stay cordial and constitutional. The boundaries are already there,” Meghwal told reporters soon after taking over. Rijiju changed his Twitter bio to the newly allocated ministry, and said, “It has been been a privilege and an honour to serve as Union Minister of Law & Justice under the guidance of Hon’ble PM Shri @narendramodi ji. I thank honble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, all Judges of Supreme Court, Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, Lower Judiciary & entire Law officers for the huge support in ensuring delivering ease of Justice and providing legal services for our citizens”. There are many reasons being advanced for removing Rijiju from the crucial law portfolio, not least being the tardy progress on important legislative business like Uniform Civil Code, one of the three core ideological issues of the BJP (apart from the removal of Article 370 and construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya) that the government wants to go forward with, with just a year to spare before the next Lok Sabha polls. Rijiju has also been very critical about the existing collegium system of appointing judges to the higher judiciary. He recently courted controversy when he claimed that a section of the retired Supreme Court judges were part of the anti-India gang. While the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 had been passed unanimously by Parliament, and 17 out of 29 States had ratified it, Rijiju’s comments and other others in the government had raised suspicions in the minds of Opposition leaders whether the ruling party’s desire for control over judicial appointments was politically motivated rather than a clash over constitutional issues on which the political class could be united. Meghwal replacing Rijiju points to the fact that possibly for the first time ever, the law ministry was not being helmed by a Cabinet minister. The choice devolving upon Meghwal is said to be because of his administrative experience as an IAS officer in Rajasthan, with the State going to polls later this year. Meghwal denied that polls in Rajasthan were a consideration in his appointment, and said that his priority would be “Justice should be served to all and cases pending in courts should be as less as possible.” Supreme Court upholds laws allowing Jallikattu, Kambala The Supreme Court on May 18 upheld the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017, saying that the traditional bull-taming sport ‘Jallikattu’ has been going on in Tamil Nadu for the last century. The five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice K. M. Joseph, however, did not delve into the question whether Jallikattu was an “integral” part of the culture of Tamil Nadu. Justice Bose held that this question cannot be answered through judicial proceedings and requires greater study, representation and participation of the people. “Jallikattu”, also known as “Eruthazhuvuthal”, is a bull-taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival. The judgment, authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose, holds that the 2017 Amendment Act and Rules on Jallikattu are in time with Entry 17 (prevention of cruelty to animals) of the Concurrent List, Article 51A(g) (compassion to loving creatures) of the Constitution. The court said the Amendment Act “substantially reduced pain and cruelty” to the participating animals. The Amendment Act and Rules, passed after the Nagaraja judgment which banned Jallikattu in 2014, has to be strictly followed. The Act heralds a sea change in the way Jallikattu is conducted as an event, bringing stringent safeguards into place to avoid danger to both man and animal. The court said any violation of the statutory law, in this case, the 2017 law, in the name of “cultural tradition”, would attract the penal law. Cultural tradition will not be defence if the practice offends the law, it said. “The Amendment Act leaves little room for cruelty to the animals. It remedies the mischiefs which were in vogue before the legislation came into existence,” the top court said delivering the judgement on a batch of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing the sport. “The State law does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioners had even argued that animals to had the right to live with dignity,” it said. On the question of whether Jallikattu was a cultural heritage, the court said this was best decided in the House of the People of the State. Such a question cannot be conclusively determined by a court of law in a writ petition. Animal Welfare Board was the main petitioner. The petitions, including one filed by animal rights body PETA, challenged the State law that allowed the bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. The respondents included several individuals and organisations linked to Jallikattu events in Tamil Nadu, including the Bull Owners Association, represented by senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani and advocate Tomy Chacko. International credit card usage to come under RBI’s LRS; 20% TCS to be charged July 1 Spending in foreign exchange through international credit cards will be covered under the RBI’s liberalised remittance scheme (LRS), under which a resident can remit money abroad up to a maximum of $2.50 lakh per annum without the authorisation of the Reserve Bank, as per a Finance Ministry notification. The Ministry on May 16 notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) (Amendment) Rules, 2023, to include international credit card payments in the LRS. Any remittance beyond $2.5 lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency would require approval from the RBI. Earlier, the usage of international credit cards (ICCs) for making payments for fulfilling expenses during travel outside India was not included in the LRS limit. According to the notification, the Finance Ministry, in consultation with the RBI, has omitted Rule 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, thus effectively including Forex spending through international credit cards under the LRS. The Union Budget 2023-24 hiked TCS rates to 20%, from 5% currently, on overseas tour packages and funds remitted under LRS (other than for education and medical purposes). The new tax rates will come into effect from July 1, 2023. Nangia Andersen India Partner - Regulatory Nischal S Arora said the use of ICC by residents on a visit outside India or even for international purchases on the internet was hitherto not supposed to be included while computing the overall LRS limit of USD 2,50,000 per person per financial year. “The same now having been omitted shall offer ample clarity to stakeholders for the purposes of determining the limit of USD 2,50,000 under LRS,” Arora said. IndusLaw Partner Shreya Suri said the move will essentially require persons undertaking transactions through ICCs during their travels in India to be cognizant of the restrictions on transactions listed out in Schedule III of the Rules, which are in terms of monetary caps imposed on certain identified transactions. “Accordingly, the prior consent requirement as mentioned will kick in only if these caps are breached (and some of these limits are reasonably high as well), and it will have to be analysed how the industry reacts to these changes,” Suri added. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co Partner Yogesh Chande said deletion of Rule 7 with effect from May 16, 2023, will tighten the usage of international credit cards for making payments by a person towards meeting expenses while such person is on a visit outside India, and will specifically bring it within the purview of Schedule III of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, which deals with Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS). “This should enable the RBI to monitor the usage of credit cards for the purposes of foreign travel more closely. The deletion is to ensure that payments for foreign tours through a credit card do not escape tax collection at source (TCS),” Chande said. Grant Thornton Bharat Partner Riaz Thingna said the notification essentially means that credit card spends outside India will also get roped within the ambit of the overall cap of $2,50,000. “This is irrespective of the fact that whether such spends are for personal or business purposes and there is a consequential TCS impact,” Thingna added. SC refuses to intervene against HC stay on Bihar caste-based survey The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to immediately lift an interim stay directed by the Patna High Court on a caste-based survey in Bihar. A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal said the High Court has scheduled the main case for hearing on July 3, and the apex court should not intervene at this point. The court listed the Bihar government’s appeal against the interim stay on July 14. The Bench said it would consider the plea for interim relief in case the High Court does not take up the matter on July 3. “If the High Court does not hear the matter, we will hear it on the point of interim relief,” Justice Oka addressed senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Bihar. The Bench said the High Court has made certain prima facie observations about the exercise and was set to determine whether it was a ‘census’ or merely a ‘survey’. Divan vouches for the integrity of the survey. He said the stay order has caused irreparable loss to the public exchequer. He urged the court to intervene to the extent the State could complete the exercise. “The State has already completed more than 80% of the survey work. In some districts less than 10% of work is pending. The entire machinery is at ground level,” Divan argued. He said that over three lakh teachers and government servants were engaged in the survey. Bihar government has argued that the “time gap to complete the survey would adversely affect the survey since this would not be contemporaneous data...the stay of collection of data itself would cause a huge loss to the State since, if finally the action of the State is upheld, the State would be required to put logistics in place with additional expenditure and burden on public exchequer”. “The data would change in another nine months,” he pointed out. The High Court, in its May 4 order, had prima facie found that the proposed dissemination of the survey data to political parties would affect the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. The State government has contended that it was empowered under the Concurrent List and by Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution to collect quantifiable caste-based data to initiate welfare measures for backward classes in Bihar. In Brief: Deutsche Bank AG has agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit by women who say they were abused by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, and accused the German bank of facilitating his sex trafficking. The accord resolves claims in a proposed class action in Manhattan federal court by Epstein’s accusers, and was confirmed by their lawyers late on Wednesday. Court approval is required. Epstein had been a Deutsche Bank client from 2013 to 2018. He died in August 2019 in jail while awaiting trial for sex trafficking, in what New York City’s medical examiner called a suicide. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 18 May 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]( Karnataka government formation: Siddaramaiah to take oath as CM on May 20 Ending days of suspense, the [Congress on May 18 announced Siddaramaiah as the next Chief Minister of Karnataka and D.K. Shivakumar as his only deputy]( in the soon-to-formed Cabinet. The two leaders, who were in a tight race for the top post, would take oath along with other Ministers on May 20 and leaders of all like-minded parties will be invited for the swearing-in ceremony. Announcing the decision taken by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge after hectic parleys ever since the party emerged victorious on May 13, General Secretary (Organisation) K.C. Venugopal said all leaders, including the top leadership, worked very hard to make Karnataka victory a reality. In the May 10 elections to the 224-member Assembly, the Congress scored an emphatic victory by bagging 135 seats, while the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda-led Janata Dal (Secular) secured 66 and 19 seats respectively. The Kerala Story: SC stays Bengal ban, asks T.N. to provide security to theatres The [Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the ban imposed by the West Bengal government on the screening of ‘The Kerala Story’]( and recorded the producer’s submission to clarify in the movie disclaimer that the film is a “fictionalised account of events” with no “authentic data” to back the suggestion that 32,000 women were converted to Islam in Kerala. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud recorded the submission by the Tamil Nadu government that there is no ban, tacit or explicit, on the screening of the movie in the State. The court directed the State to provide adequate security measures in theatres and for moviegoers. The court said the State-wide ban on the film in West Bengal suffered from “overbreadth”. It also directed the producers to make the changes in the disclaimer by 5 pm on May 20. During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud orally observed that “32,000 is a distortion of fact”, and asked senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the film producer, “What are you doing about that?” He also remarked, “We do protect free speech, but vilifying a community…” Salve said that there was no “authentic figure” about the number of conversions made. “I will clarify in the disclaimer that there is no authentic data available,” he suggested to the court. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Tamil Nadu, reacted to the suggestion, saying, “that would be much, much worse”. He further submitted, “We are all for freedom of speech, but this is hate dramatised. Millions of people watch the film… Even an art form is subject to restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.” The petitioners urged the judges to watch the movie during the vacation and intervene if they felt there was a need for further judicial intervention. The court listed the case on July 18. Kiren Rijiju replaced as Law Minister, Arjun Meghwal takes over In a surprise move, the [Narendra Modi government on May 18 moved Kiren Rijiju out of the Law Ministry and appointed Arjun Ram Meghwal as his replacement](. Meghwal, a Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, has been made Minister of State with independent charge of the Law and Justice ministry in addition to his other responsibilities. A communique from Rashtrapati Bhavan announced the changes in the responsibilities of ministers, including one, announced later, of Minister of State for Law S.P. Singh Baghel being moved in the same rank to the Ministry of Health. In the case of Baghel, the move is being seen as more to do with rank, as he was serving under a Cabinet minister earlier, and Meghwal has been made minister of state with independent charge. The change of the guard at the Law Ministry comes at a time when a perception has gained ground that the Judiciary and Centre have been on a collision course. “The executive and the judiciary have a cordial relationship, and it will stay cordial and constitutional. The boundaries are already there,” Meghwal told reporters soon after taking over. Rijiju changed his Twitter bio to the newly allocated ministry, and said, “It has been been a privilege and an honour to serve as Union Minister of Law & Justice under the guidance of Hon’ble PM Shri @narendramodi ji. I thank honble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, all Judges of Supreme Court, Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, Lower Judiciary & entire Law officers for the huge support in ensuring delivering ease of Justice and providing legal services for our citizens”. There are many reasons being advanced for removing Rijiju from the crucial law portfolio, not least being the tardy progress on important legislative business like Uniform Civil Code, one of the three core ideological issues of the BJP (apart from the removal of Article 370 and construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya) that the government wants to go forward with, with just a year to spare before the next Lok Sabha polls. Rijiju has also been very critical about the existing collegium system of appointing judges to the higher judiciary. He recently courted controversy when he claimed that a section of the retired Supreme Court judges were part of the anti-India gang. While the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 had been passed unanimously by Parliament, and 17 out of 29 States had ratified it, Rijiju’s comments and other others in the government had raised suspicions in the minds of Opposition leaders whether the ruling party’s desire for control over judicial appointments was politically motivated rather than a clash over constitutional issues on which the political class could be united. Meghwal replacing Rijiju points to the fact that possibly for the first time ever, the law ministry was not being helmed by a Cabinet minister. The choice devolving upon Meghwal is said to be because of his administrative experience as an IAS officer in Rajasthan, with the State going to polls later this year. Meghwal denied that polls in Rajasthan were a consideration in his appointment, and said that his priority would be “Justice should be served to all and cases pending in courts should be as less as possible.” Supreme Court upholds laws allowing Jallikattu, Kambala The [Supreme Court on May 18 upheld the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act of 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Conduct of Jallikattu) Rules of 2017]( saying that the traditional bull-taming sport ‘Jallikattu’ has been going on in Tamil Nadu for the last century. The five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice K. M. Joseph, however, did not delve into the question whether Jallikattu was an “integral” part of the culture of Tamil Nadu. Justice Bose held that this question cannot be answered through judicial proceedings and requires greater study, representation and participation of the people. “Jallikattu”, also known as “Eruthazhuvuthal”, is a bull-taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as part of the Pongal harvest festival. The judgment, authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose, holds that the 2017 Amendment Act and Rules on Jallikattu are in time with Entry 17 (prevention of cruelty to animals) of the Concurrent List, Article 51A(g) (compassion to loving creatures) of the Constitution. The court said the Amendment Act “substantially reduced pain and cruelty” to the participating animals. The Amendment Act and Rules, passed after the Nagaraja judgment which banned Jallikattu in 2014, has to be strictly followed. The Act heralds a sea change in the way Jallikattu is conducted as an event, bringing stringent safeguards into place to avoid danger to both man and animal. The court said any violation of the statutory law, in this case, the 2017 law, in the name of “cultural tradition”, would attract the penal law. Cultural tradition will not be defence if the practice offends the law, it said. “The Amendment Act leaves little room for cruelty to the animals. It remedies the mischiefs which were in vogue before the legislation came into existence,” the top court said delivering the judgement on a batch of pleas challenging Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra laws allowing the sport. “The State law does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioners had even argued that animals to had the right to live with dignity,” it said. On the question of whether Jallikattu was a cultural heritage, the court said this was best decided in the House of the People of the State. Such a question cannot be conclusively determined by a court of law in a writ petition. Animal Welfare Board was the main petitioner. The petitions, including one filed by animal rights body PETA, challenged the State law that allowed the bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu. The respondents included several individuals and organisations linked to Jallikattu events in Tamil Nadu, including the Bull Owners Association, represented by senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani and advocate Tomy Chacko. International credit card usage to come under RBI’s LRS; 20% TCS to be charged July 1 [Spending in foreign exchange through international credit cards will be covered under the RBI’s liberalised remittance scheme]( (LRS), under which a resident can remit money abroad up to a maximum of $2.50 lakh per annum without the authorisation of the Reserve Bank, as per a Finance Ministry notification. The Ministry on May 16 notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) (Amendment) Rules, 2023, to include international credit card payments in the LRS. Any remittance beyond $2.5 lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency would require approval from the RBI. Earlier, the usage of international credit cards (ICCs) for making payments for fulfilling expenses during travel outside India was not included in the LRS limit. According to the notification, the Finance Ministry, in consultation with the RBI, has omitted Rule 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, thus effectively including Forex spending through international credit cards under the LRS. The Union Budget 2023-24 hiked TCS rates to 20%, from 5% currently, on overseas tour packages and funds remitted under LRS (other than for education and medical purposes). The new tax rates will come into effect from July 1, 2023. Nangia Andersen India Partner - Regulatory Nischal S Arora said the use of ICC by residents on a visit outside India or even for international purchases on the internet was hitherto not supposed to be included while computing the overall LRS limit of USD 2,50,000 per person per financial year. “The same now having been omitted shall offer ample clarity to stakeholders for the purposes of determining the limit of USD 2,50,000 under LRS,” Arora said. IndusLaw Partner Shreya Suri said the move will essentially require persons undertaking transactions through ICCs during their travels in India to be cognizant of the restrictions on transactions listed out in Schedule III of the Rules, which are in terms of monetary caps imposed on certain identified transactions. “Accordingly, the prior consent requirement as mentioned will kick in only if these caps are breached (and some of these limits are reasonably high as well), and it will have to be analysed how the industry reacts to these changes,” Suri added. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co Partner Yogesh Chande said deletion of Rule 7 with effect from May 16, 2023, will tighten the usage of international credit cards for making payments by a person towards meeting expenses while such person is on a visit outside India, and will specifically bring it within the purview of Schedule III of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, which deals with Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS). “This should enable the RBI to monitor the usage of credit cards for the purposes of foreign travel more closely. The deletion is to ensure that payments for foreign tours through a credit card do not escape tax collection at source (TCS),” Chande said. Grant Thornton Bharat Partner Riaz Thingna said the notification essentially means that credit card spends outside India will also get roped within the ambit of the overall cap of $2,50,000. “This is irrespective of the fact that whether such spends are for personal or business purposes and there is a consequential TCS impact,” Thingna added. SC refuses to intervene against HC stay on Bihar caste-based survey The [Supreme Court on Thursday refused to immediately lift an interim stay directed by the Patna High Court on a caste-based survey in Bihar](. A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal said the High Court has scheduled the main case for hearing on July 3, and the apex court should not intervene at this point. The court listed the Bihar government’s appeal against the interim stay on July 14. The Bench said it would consider the plea for interim relief in case the High Court does not take up the matter on July 3. “If the High Court does not hear the matter, we will hear it on the point of interim relief,” Justice Oka addressed senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Bihar. The Bench said the High Court has made certain prima facie observations about the exercise and was set to determine whether it was a ‘census’ or merely a ‘survey’. Divan vouches for the integrity of the survey. He said the stay order has caused irreparable loss to the public exchequer. He urged the court to intervene to the extent the State could complete the exercise. “The State has already completed more than 80% of the survey work. In some districts less than 10% of work is pending. The entire machinery is at ground level,” Divan argued. He said that over three lakh teachers and government servants were engaged in the survey. Bihar government has argued that the “time gap to complete the survey would adversely affect the survey since this would not be contemporaneous data...the stay of collection of data itself would cause a huge loss to the State since, if finally the action of the State is upheld, the State would be required to put logistics in place with additional expenditure and burden on public exchequer”. “The data would change in another nine months,” he pointed out. The High Court, in its May 4 order, had prima facie found that the proposed dissemination of the survey data to political parties would affect the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. The State government has contended that it was empowered under the Concurrent List and by Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution to collect quantifiable caste-based data to initiate welfare measures for backward classes in Bihar. In Brief: [Deutsche Bank AG has agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit by women who say they were abused by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein]( and accused the German bank of facilitating his sex trafficking. The accord resolves claims in a proposed class action in Manhattan federal court by Epstein’s accusers, and was confirmed by their lawyers late on Wednesday. Court approval is required. Epstein had been a Deutsche Bank client from 2013 to 2018. He died in August 2019 in jail while awaiting trial for sex trafficking, in what New York City’s medical examiner called a suicide. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[Former Russian unit resumes regular LNG supplies to India] Former Russian unit resumes regular LNG supplies to India]( [[Bring back the Koh-i-Noor diamond, parliamentary panel recommends] Bring back the Koh-i-Noor diamond, parliamentary panel recommends]( [[What to expect from the Turkey Presidential run-off on May 28 | In Focus podcast] What to expect from the Turkey Presidential run-off on May 28 | In Focus podcast]( [[Colombia says four kids found alive in Amazon after plane crash] Colombia says four kids found alive in Amazon after plane crash]( 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](