The Evening Wrap: SC refers electoral bonds case to Constitution Bench, to start hearing on Oct. 31

In a quick of turn of events, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on October 16 referred the challenge to the validity of the electoral bonds scheme, which facilitates anonymous donations to political parties, to a Constitution Bench of five judges. During the oral mentioning hour, the Chief Justice said the court had received a plea to refer the case from the current three-judge Bench to a larger Bench of at least five judges. He said the case would now go before a five-judge Bench due to “importance of the issue”. The court said the case would, as scheduled in an earlier hearing on October 10, be listed before a five-judge Bench on October 31. By refusing to delay the hearing for the formation of a five-judge Bench, the court has sent a clear message to the government that it does not intend to delay the hearing any more. The case has been pending in the Supreme Court for over eight years now. “We are here to decide the case,” Chief Justice Chandrachud had observed in the October 10 hearing. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, had pressed the court to hear and decide the electoral bonds issue before the Lok Sabha election in 2024. The court has agreed to the petitioners’ urging to focus primarily on two issues concerning the electoral bonds scheme, that is, the legalisation of anonymous donations to political parties, and the violation of citizens’ right to information about the funding of political parties, promoting corruption. The two issues concern violation of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The five-judge Bench may also not wade into the legal question concerning the passage of the electoral bonds scheme as a Money Bill. It may, instead, wait for a seven-judge Bench to deliver an authoritative pronouncement on “when a Bill could be designated a Money Bill”. The electoral bonds scheme was passed as a Money Bill, circumventing the Rajya Sabha. Advocate Shadan Farasat, for a petitioner, said the scheme had completely “anonymised” and “sanitised” political donations, giving scant information to the public. He said even amendments were introduced in the Companies Act by which a company could throw a cloak of anonymity to its donations to political parties via purchase of electoral bonds. Advocate Bhushan had argued that amendments made via Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017, both passed as Money Bills, had through the electoral bonds scheme, “opened the floodgates to unlimited political donations”. “The amendments have removed the caps on campaign donations by companies and have legalised anonymous donations. The Finance Act of 2017 has introduced the use of electoral bonds which are exempt from disclosure under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, opening doors to unchecked, unknown funding to political parties,” Bhushan had argued. The Finance Act, 2016, had also amended the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, to allow foreign companies with subsidiaries in India to fund political parties in India, effectively, “exposing Indian politics and democracy to international lobbyists,” the petitioners contended. CJI agrees to look into NewsClick founder’s plea for early listing of his petition against arrest, remand The Supreme Court agreed on October 16 to list early a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court order dismissing petitions filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its human resources head Amir Chakraborty against their arrest by the Delhi Police under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). In an oral mentioning before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, said Purkayastha was over 70 years old and had been in remand for several days. Chief Justice Chandrachud said he would look at the case papers later in the day and fix a date for hearing. Earlier in October, the High Court had refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of Purkayastha and Chakraborty under the anti-terror law. Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 pursuant to a First Information Report (FIR) registered on August 17. The Delhi Police, in the FIR, have named Purkayastha, activist Gautam Navlakha, who is under house arrest in another terror case, and U.S.-based businessman Neville Roy Singham. The duo had challenged their arrest in the High Court saying that the grounds of arrest were not conveyed to them in writing either at the time of arrest or even till date. They had challenged the order of remand given by a Special Judge on October 4, saying it was passed in the absence of their lawyers. The High Court had rejected their contention saying there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order. “In the present case...the offences which are alleged, fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security,” the High Court had remarked. The High Court had further said the recent Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing investigating agencies to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases would not apply to UAPA cases. Multiple journalists’ collectives from across the country had a few days ago written to Chief Justice Chandrachud to take cognisance and check the “inherent malice” behind the raids at the homes of 46 journalists, editors, writers and professionals connected to online portal NewsClick and seizure of their electronic devices. The collectives said that “journalism cannot be prosecuted as terrorism”. The letter said the invocation of the UAPA was “especially chilling”. The letter said the police had only so far provided “vague assertions of some unspecified offence” as a pretext to question journalists about their coverage of the farmers’ movement, the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. “Intimidation of the media affects the democratic fabric of society. Subjecting journalists to a concentrated criminal process because the government disapproves of their coverage of national and international affairs is an attempt to chill the press by threat of reprisal,” the letter had noted. It had said that journalists arrested under the UAPA end up spending months, if not years, in jail. Indonesia’s top court rules against lowering age limit of presidential, vice-presidential candidates Indonesia’s top court on October 16 ruled against lowering the minimum age of presidential and vice-presidential candidates as the country gears up for election in 2024. The court’s decision is final and can’t be appealed. In August, seven politicians — including from the Indonesian Solidarity Party chaired by the youngest son of current President Joko Widodo — filed a petition against the current age limit for candidates, asking it to be lowered to 35 instead of 40, arguing it was discriminatory. The 7-to-2 decision by the nine-judge panel of the Constitutional Court rejected the arguments, saying it wasn’t the court’s role to change the age limit for candidates and that it was up to the Parliament to set such laws. Two judges argued that while the court should uphold the age limit as is, it could add a special exception to those who “served or been elected as regional leaders”. Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, currently serves as Mayor of Surakarta and has not announced that he would run, but politicians publicly backing former general Prabowo Subianto running for the 2024 presidential election have called for Gibran to become his running mate. Gibran is currently 36. Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, is set to vote in simultaneous legislative and presidential elections in February 2024. U.S.-based minority advocacy groups blocked on X in India The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), two U.S.-based non-profits that frequently criticise Indian political leaders’ record on minority and caste rights issues in India, have had their accounts on X withheld in India, with the blocking taking place on Sunday. X is the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. A message on the platform says that their handles were suspended following a “legal demand”. It is unclear who issued the order at this time. The Hindu has reached out to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for comment. The two non-profits’ Facebook pages continue to be accessible from India. While X is fighting a case in the Karnataka High Court on what it says is the Indian government’s excessive Internet blocking orders, it has largely complied with most blocking orders from the IT Ministry. The IAMC and Hindus for Human Rights were not immediately available for comment. “The mighty Modi Rashtra is afraid of a tiny organization speaking truth to power,” the latter said in a post on X, adding that it would issue a longer statement on the blocking later. The New Delhi-based Internet Freedom Foundation hit out at the government’s methods. “Of late, we have seen an increase in the instances of entire accounts being blocked on Twitter in India,” the IFF said in a statement. “This is a disproportionate measure, and may be potentially unconstitutional. Further, in nearly all cases, copies of the blocking orders are not made available publicly or even to the owners of the Twitter account. This lack of transparency is illegal, and perpetuates an environment of zero accountability.” The IAMC frequently shares reported instances of violations of Indian Muslims’ rights, such as incendiary speeches by politicians, violence against places of worship, and police abuses. HfHR has been one of the organisations advocating for an explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of caste, resulting in a Bill that was vetoed by the State (California) Governor, Gavin C. Newsom. BJP leaders have reacted to IAMC and HfHR’s advocacy with accusations of foreign interference. For instance, Minister of Women and Child Development Smriti Irani raised former Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s “links” with HfHR during his U.S. visit, saying that the organisations receive funding from George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist whose progressive Open Societies Foundations has been a frequent target of the Indian right. Israel matters more than Manipur for PM Modi: Rahul in poll-bound Mizoram Israel’s war with Hamas matters more to Prime Minister Narendra Modi than the ethnic conflict in adjoining Manipur, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said in poll-bound Mizoram on October 16. Elections to the 40-member Mizoram Assembly are scheduled on November 7. Slamming the Prime Minister for not visiting Manipur after the ethnic clashes between the non-tribal Meitei and the tribal Kuki people broke out on May 3, Gandhi said the BJP-led Centre appeared to be more interested in Israel than in Manipur. “Some months ago, I went to Manipur and I could not believe what I saw… People have been murdered, women molested, and babies killed but the PM does not find it important to travel there. It amazes me that the PM and his government are interested in what is happening in Israel but not Manipur,” he told a gathering in Mizoram’s capital Aizawl, after taking part in a padayatra as part of the Congress’ Bharat Jodo Yatra programme. “I simply cannot understand why the PM has not visited Manipur. It is something to be ashamed of that the leader of our Union has not travelled to Manipur after what happened there,” Gandhi said. More than 12,000 Kuki people from Manipur have taken shelter in Mizoram since fleeing ethnic violence. The Kuki, Zomi, Hmar, Chin (Myanmar) and Kuki-Chin (Bangladesh) communities are ethnically related to the dominant Mizos of Mizoram. Belonging to the Zo community, these communities share the same ancestry, culture, and tradition. Gandhi’s attack on Modi for his “handling” of the Manipur crisis assumes significance ahead of the Mizoram polls as the violence in Manipur is an emotional issue for the Zo people. Alleging that the BJP has been oppressing the people of India, he said the violence in Manipur was just a “symptom” of the problem “seen in a smaller form” in many parts of the country where minority communities, tribals, and Dalits are feeling uncomfortable, the Congress leader said. “So, what happened in Manipur is not just an attack on the people, it is also an attack on the idea of India in Manipur. It is the duty of every single Indian to protect every single religion, culture, language, and tradition of this country. That is what the Bharat Jodo Yatra is about,” he said. Gandhi also slammed the ruling Mizo National Front (MNF) for its alliance with the BJP, stating that while the saffron party “attacks your culture, religion and tradition, the MNF supports them in Delhi”. He criticised the government of Chief Minister Zoramthanga on issues such as drugs, unemployment, and underdevelopment. “I would like you to consider what the government has done over the last five years. Drugs are spreading rampantly among the future generation,” he said, attributing Mizoram’s drug problem to joblessness. “Over the last five years, the MNF government created only 2,000 jobs. Your infrastructure and roads are in a shambles and they are destroying the economic future of the State,” Gandhi said. In Brief: A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is scheduled on October 17 to pronounce its judgment in a series of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The case was reserved on May 11 for judgment. The other four judges on the Bench are Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha. Justice Bhat is scheduled to retire on October 20. The judgment is eagerly awaited as the government had stiffly objected to the idea of a judicial declaration giving legal status to same-sex relationships, saying that would result in confusion and encroach into the legislative domain. Five sports, including cricket and squash, were included in the 2028 Los Angeles Games on October 16 after gaining the approval of the International Olympic Committee. Cricket makes its return to the Olympics after more than 100 years after the sport was approved for inclusion at the 2028 Los Angeles Games by the International Olympic Committee’s executive board. IOC president Thomas Bach, speaking after the second day of an executive board meeting in Mumbai on October 13, said officials had accepted a proposal by LA organisers for Twenty20 cricket to be included as one of five new sports together with baseball/softball, flag football (non-contact American football), squash and lacrosse. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 16 October 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]( Supreme Court refers electoral bonds case to 5-judge Constitution Bench, to start hearing on Oct. 31 In a quick of turn of events, [Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on October 16 referred the challenge to the validity]( of the electoral bonds scheme, which facilitates anonymous donations to political parties, to a Constitution Bench of five judges. During the oral mentioning hour, the Chief Justice said the court had received a plea to refer the case from the current three-judge Bench to a larger Bench of at least five judges. He said the case would now go before a five-judge Bench due to “importance of the issue”. The court said the case would, as scheduled in an earlier hearing on October 10, be listed before a five-judge Bench on October 31. By refusing to delay the hearing for the formation of a five-judge Bench, the court has sent a clear message to the government that it does not intend to delay the hearing any more. The case has been pending in the Supreme Court for over eight years now. “We are here to decide the case,” Chief Justice Chandrachud had observed in the October 10 hearing. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for petitioner NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, had pressed the court to hear and decide the electoral bonds issue before the Lok Sabha election in 2024. The court has agreed to the petitioners’ urging to focus primarily on two issues concerning the electoral bonds scheme, that is, the legalisation of anonymous donations to political parties, and the violation of citizens’ right to information about the funding of political parties, promoting corruption. The two issues concern violation of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The five-judge Bench may also not wade into the legal question concerning the passage of the electoral bonds scheme as a Money Bill. It may, instead, wait for a seven-judge Bench to deliver an authoritative pronouncement on “when a Bill could be designated a Money Bill”. The electoral bonds scheme was passed as a Money Bill, circumventing the Rajya Sabha. Advocate Shadan Farasat, for a petitioner, said the scheme had completely “anonymised” and “sanitised” political donations, giving scant information to the public. He said even amendments were introduced in the Companies Act by which a company could throw a cloak of anonymity to its donations to political parties via purchase of electoral bonds. Advocate Bhushan had argued that amendments made via Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017, both passed as Money Bills, had through the electoral bonds scheme, “opened the floodgates to unlimited political donations”. “The amendments have removed the caps on campaign donations by companies and have legalised anonymous donations. The Finance Act of 2017 has introduced the use of electoral bonds which are exempt from disclosure under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, opening doors to unchecked, unknown funding to political parties,” Bhushan had argued. The Finance Act, 2016, had also amended the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, to allow foreign companies with subsidiaries in India to fund political parties in India, effectively, “exposing Indian politics and democracy to international lobbyists,” the petitioners contended. CJI agrees to look into NewsClick founder’s plea for early listing of his petition against arrest, remand The [Supreme Court agreed on October 16 to list early a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court]( order dismissing petitions filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its human resources head Amir Chakraborty against their arrest by the Delhi Police under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). In an oral mentioning before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, said Purkayastha was over 70 years old and had been in remand for several days. Chief Justice Chandrachud said he would look at the case papers later in the day and fix a date for hearing. Earlier in October, the High Court had refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of Purkayastha and Chakraborty under the anti-terror law. Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 pursuant to a First Information Report (FIR) registered on August 17. The Delhi Police, in the FIR, have named Purkayastha, activist Gautam Navlakha, who is under house arrest in another terror case, and U.S.-based businessman Neville Roy Singham. The duo had challenged their arrest in the High Court saying that the grounds of arrest were not conveyed to them in writing either at the time of arrest or even till date. They had challenged the order of remand given by a Special Judge on October 4, saying it was passed in the absence of their lawyers. The High Court had rejected their contention saying there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order. “In the present case...the offences which are alleged, fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security,” the High Court had remarked. The High Court had further said the recent Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing investigating agencies to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases would not apply to UAPA cases. Multiple journalists’ collectives from across the country had a few days ago written to Chief Justice Chandrachud to take cognisance and check the “inherent malice” behind the raids at the homes of 46 journalists, editors, writers and professionals connected to online portal NewsClick and seizure of their electronic devices. The collectives said that “journalism cannot be prosecuted as terrorism”. The letter said the invocation of the UAPA was “especially chilling”. The letter said the police had only so far provided “vague assertions of some unspecified offence” as a pretext to question journalists about their coverage of the farmers’ movement, the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. “Intimidation of the media affects the democratic fabric of society. Subjecting journalists to a concentrated criminal process because the government disapproves of their coverage of national and international affairs is an attempt to chill the press by threat of reprisal,” the letter had noted. It had said that journalists arrested under the UAPA end up spending months, if not years, in jail. Indonesia’s top court rules against lowering age limit of presidential, vice-presidential candidates [Indonesia’s top court on October 16 ruled against lowering the minimum age of presidential and vice-presidential]( candidates as the country gears up for election in 2024. The court’s decision is final and can’t be appealed. In August, seven politicians — including from the Indonesian Solidarity Party chaired by the youngest son of current President Joko Widodo — filed a petition against the current age limit for candidates, asking it to be lowered to 35 instead of 40, arguing it was discriminatory. The 7-to-2 decision by the nine-judge panel of the Constitutional Court rejected the arguments, saying it wasn’t the court’s role to change the age limit for candidates and that it was up to the Parliament to set such laws. Two judges argued that while the court should uphold the age limit as is, it could add a special exception to those who “served or been elected as regional leaders”. Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, currently serves as Mayor of Surakarta and has not announced that he would run, but politicians publicly backing former general Prabowo Subianto running for the 2024 presidential election have called for Gibran to become his running mate. Gibran is currently 36. Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, is set to vote in simultaneous legislative and presidential elections in February 2024. U.S.-based minority advocacy groups blocked on X in India The [Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), two U.S.-based non-profits]( that frequently criticise Indian political leaders’ record on minority and caste rights issues in India, have had their accounts on X withheld in India, with the blocking taking place on Sunday. X is the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. A message on the platform says that their handles were suspended following a “legal demand”. It is unclear who issued the order at this time. The Hindu has reached out to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for comment. The two non-profits’ Facebook pages continue to be accessible from India. While X is fighting a case in the Karnataka High Court on what it says is the Indian government’s excessive Internet blocking orders, it has largely complied with most blocking orders from the IT Ministry. The IAMC and Hindus for Human Rights were not immediately available for comment. “The mighty Modi Rashtra is afraid of a tiny organization speaking truth to power,” the latter said in a post on X, adding that it would issue a longer statement on the blocking later. The New Delhi-based Internet Freedom Foundation hit out at the government’s methods. “Of late, we have seen an increase in the instances of entire accounts being blocked on Twitter in India,” the IFF said in a statement. “This is a disproportionate measure, and may be potentially unconstitutional. Further, in nearly all cases, copies of the blocking orders are not made available publicly or even to the owners of the Twitter account. This lack of transparency is illegal, and perpetuates an environment of zero accountability.” The IAMC frequently shares reported instances of violations of Indian Muslims’ rights, such as incendiary speeches by politicians, violence against places of worship, and police abuses. HfHR has been one of the organisations advocating for an explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of caste, resulting in a Bill that was vetoed by the State (California) Governor, Gavin C. Newsom. BJP leaders have reacted to IAMC and HfHR’s advocacy with accusations of foreign interference. For instance, Minister of Women and Child Development Smriti Irani raised former Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s “links” with HfHR during his U.S. visit, saying that the organisations receive funding from George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist whose progressive Open Societies Foundations has been a frequent target of the Indian right. Israel matters more than Manipur for PM Modi: Rahul in poll-bound Mizoram [Israel’s war with Hamas matters more to Prime Minister Narendra Modi than the ethnic conflict in adjoining Manipur]( Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said in poll-bound Mizoram on October 16. Elections to the 40-member Mizoram Assembly are scheduled on November 7. Slamming the Prime Minister for not visiting Manipur after the ethnic clashes between the non-tribal Meitei and the tribal Kuki people broke out on May 3, Gandhi said the BJP-led Centre appeared to be more interested in Israel than in Manipur. “Some months ago, I went to Manipur and I could not believe what I saw… People have been murdered, women molested, and babies killed but the PM does not find it important to travel there. It amazes me that the PM and his government are interested in what is happening in Israel but not Manipur,” he told a gathering in Mizoram’s capital Aizawl, after taking part in a padayatra as part of the Congress’ Bharat Jodo Yatra programme. “I simply cannot understand why the PM has not visited Manipur. It is something to be ashamed of that the leader of our Union has not travelled to Manipur after what happened there,” Gandhi said. More than 12,000 Kuki people from Manipur have taken shelter in Mizoram since fleeing ethnic violence. The Kuki, Zomi, Hmar, Chin (Myanmar) and Kuki-Chin (Bangladesh) communities are ethnically related to the dominant Mizos of Mizoram. Belonging to the Zo community, these communities share the same ancestry, culture, and tradition. Gandhi’s attack on Modi for his “handling” of the Manipur crisis assumes significance ahead of the Mizoram polls as the violence in Manipur is an emotional issue for the Zo people. Alleging that the BJP has been oppressing the people of India, he said the violence in Manipur was just a “symptom” of the problem “seen in a smaller form” in many parts of the country where minority communities, tribals, and Dalits are feeling uncomfortable, the Congress leader said. “So, what happened in Manipur is not just an attack on the people, it is also an attack on the idea of India in Manipur. It is the duty of every single Indian to protect every single religion, culture, language, and tradition of this country. That is what the Bharat Jodo Yatra is about,” he said. Gandhi also slammed the ruling Mizo National Front (MNF) for its alliance with the BJP, stating that while the saffron party “attacks your culture, religion and tradition, the MNF supports them in Delhi”. He criticised the government of Chief Minister Zoramthanga on issues such as drugs, unemployment, and underdevelopment. “I would like you to consider what the government has done over the last five years. Drugs are spreading rampantly among the future generation,” he said, attributing Mizoram’s drug problem to joblessness. “Over the last five years, the MNF government created only 2,000 jobs. Your infrastructure and roads are in a shambles and they are destroying the economic future of the State,” Gandhi said. In Brief: A [Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is scheduled on October 17]( to pronounce its judgment in a series of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The case was reserved on May 11 for judgment. The other four judges on the Bench are Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha. Justice Bhat is scheduled to retire on October 20. The judgment is eagerly awaited as the government had stiffly objected to the idea of a judicial declaration giving legal status to same-sex relationships, saying that would result in confusion and encroach into the legislative domain. [Five sports, including cricket and squash, were included in the 2028 Los Angeles Games]( on October 16 after gaining the approval of the International Olympic Committee. Cricket makes its return to the Olympics after more than 100 years after the sport was approved for inclusion at the [2028 Los Angeles Games by the International Olympic Committee’s executive board](. IOC president Thomas Bach, speaking after the second day of an executive board meeting in Mumbai on October 13, said officials had accepted a proposal by LA organisers for Twenty20 cricket to be included as one of five new sports together with baseball/softball, flag football (non-contact American football), squash and lacrosse. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[Jury member denied invitation to National Film Awards ceremony, accuses KSFDC of having a role] Jury member denied invitation to National Film Awards ceremony, accuses KSFDC of having a role]( [[Basic norms of collecting evidence brazenly violated: Allahabad HC on Nithari killings] Basic norms of collecting evidence brazenly violated: Allahabad HC on Nithari killings]( [[First bird survey conducted in Nallamala forests in Andhra Pradesh] First bird survey conducted in Nallamala forests in Andhra Pradesh]( [[Two labs in India take on the bulk of testing for cough syrup samples for export] Two labs in India take on the bulk of testing for cough syrup samples for export]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](