The Evening Wrap: Supreme Court’s majority view holds that it cannot legalise queer unions

A majority view on a five-judge Constitution Bench which decided the same-sex marriage case held on October 17 that non-heterosexual couples cannot claim an unqualified right to marry. Though all five judges agreed that homosexuality was neither an urban nor elitist concept, they differed on the point whether the court can obligate the State to formally recognise the relationship of queer couples by giving it the legal status of a “civil union” or “marriage. The minority views of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that constitutional authorities should carve out a regulatory framework to recognise the civil union of adults in a same-sex relationship. The minority views of the two judges held that the right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice said. The majority views of Justices S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha disagreed on the point, holding that it was for the legislature, and not the Court, to formally recognise and grant legal status to non-heterosexual relationships. But all the five judges on the Bench agreed that the Special Marriage Act of 1954 was not unconstitutional for excluding same-sex marriages. They said that tinkering with the Special Marriage Act of 1954 to bring same-sex unions within its ambit would not be advisable. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concluded, in his opinion, that the court could neither strike down nor read words into the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex members within the ambit of the 1954 law. Justice Kaul agreed that disturbing the Act, which facilitates inter-faith marriages, would have a cascading impact on other laws and the rights of others. The court was of the view that it was for the Parliament and State legislature to enact laws on marriage. In his opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the relationship of marriage was not a static one. He held that queer persons have an equal right and freedom to enter into a “union”. He said the failure of the State to recognise the bouquet of entitlements which flow from a union would result in a disparate impact on queer couples, who cannot marry under the current legal regime. Justice Kaul said heterosexual unions and non-heterosexual unions were two sides of the same coin. He said an “edifice” should be created to recognise the civil union of same sex partners and statutes should be interpreted in consonance with their right to enter into such unions. “Non-heterosexual unions are entitled to protection under a constitutional scheme… There is a necessity to recognise civil unions,” Justice Kaul said. Justice Kaul observed that the legal recognition of such unions was a step forward towards “marriage equality”. “Practice of equality necessitates protection of individual choices. The capacity of same sex couples for love is no less worthy to protect than that of heterosexual couples,” Justice Kaul noted. The view jointly authored by Justices S.R. Bhat and Hima Kohli, backed by a separate but concurring opinion by Justice P.S. Narasimha, said the court cannot give formal recognition to same-sex relationships by terming them as “civil unions”. The court cannot initiate the construction of a “parallel framework” of the institution of marriage. Such a recognition was not based on law. Justice Bhat disagreed with the Chief Justice’s interpretation that the right to form a civil union by same sex couples flowed from their right to choose a partner, right to life and free expression. Justice Bhat said there was no fundamental right to marry. The right was regulated by enacted laws and legally enforceable customs. Framing a new code for legally recognised same-sex unions was the task of the legislature and not the court. Justice Bhat said the court empathised with the desire of the LGBTQIA+ community for social acceptance and respect, but the means to arrive at that end must be legally sound, otherwise it may initiate untold consequences. “There is no unqualified right to marry except by statutes… the court cannot create a regulatory framework resulting in legal status,” Justices Bhat and Kohli held. However, these limitations on providing a legal status to same-sex relationships did not preclude partners from “celebrating their commitment to each other in whichever way they wish within the social realm”. Justice Bhat held that the apex court’s judgment decriminalising homosexuality did not automatically extend to claiming legal entitlements or legal status to same-sex unions. Justice Narasimha, in his opinion endorsing Justice Bhat’s views, said the right to marry was a statutory right and not a constitutional right as the Chief Justice had held. “The right to marry flows from legally enforceable customary practices,” Justice Narasimha said. He noted that a legally enforceable right to a civil union or legal status to an “abiding cohabitational relationship” by queer couples cannot be squeezed into the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution. The Bench nevertheless unanimously agreed that same sex couples face discrimination and harassment in their daily lives. The court urged the government to form a high-powered committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Committee to expeditiously look into genuine human concerns faced by same-sex partners. The Chief Justice suggested that the committee should look into whether queer couples could be treated as members of the same family for the purpose of ration card; succession; maintenance; opening of a joint bank account; arrangement of last rites of partners; access benefits of rights and benefits of employment, etc. Supreme Court gives Maharashtra Speaker last chance to set timeline for anti-defection proceedings against CM Shinde’s camp The Supreme Court on October 17 gave Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar a final opportunity to frame a realistic time schedule to hear and decide the anti-defection proceedings against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other MLAs. In the previous hearing, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had slammed the Speaker for reducing the proceedings to a “charade” by “merrily” deferring hearings. The court accepted Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta’s submission that he would personally intervene with the Speaker during the Dussehra vacations to finalise a firm set of modalities for the pending disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The court posted the case for its next hearing on October 30. On October 13, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the Speaker had disregarded the court’s September 18 order to prepare a schedule to complete the disqualification proceedings against the Shinde camp. The court had even warned that it may even be compelled to set a timeline of two months for the Speaker, who is acting as tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, to complete the proceedings. “Somebody has to advise the Speaker that he cannot defeat the orders of the Supreme Court like this… He is acting as an election tribunal when he is hearing disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. He is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court,” the Chief Justice had observed. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi, for petitioner and Uddhav Thackeray loyalist Sunil Prabhu, had urged the court to decide the responsibilities of the Speaker while acting as an election tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. Mehta had in turn blamed the Uddhav Thackeray camp for rushing to the Supreme Court like “school children complaining to the teacher”. The court, however, had categorically said it would not allow the Speaker to drag the disqualification proceedings till the next election, which would make the Tenth Schedule proceedings against the Shinde camp infructuous. On May 11, a five-judge Bench had directed the Maharashtra Speaker — in his capacity as tribunal under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution — to hear and decide the disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time”. A total of 56 MLAs are facing disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. There are 34 disqualification petitions pending, waiting for the Speaker to decide. Government bungalow allocation row: HC protects Raghav Chadha from eviction Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha can live in the government bungalow allotted to him for now, with the Delhi High Court Tuesday (October 17) reviving the trial court’s stay on his eviction by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed Chadha’s appeal and revived the trial court’s April 18 order which had prevented the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from evicting him. The High Court said the trial court was in error in returning Chadha’s plaint over non-compliance with the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court asked Chadha to present the plaint before the trial court again within three days, and also directed the lower court to proceed with the matter by first deciding the interim relief application which stands restored before it. Chadha’s counsel had submitted before the High Court that the MP has been served with a notice and eviction proceedings are going on. Chadha had contended before the High Court that he was a victim of “selective targeting” because he was a vocal Opposition Member of Parliament. Chadha said he was the only sitting lawmaker in the Rajya Sabha ever who was sought to be evicted from the bungalow allotted to him. He had said the allotment of accommodation is an exercise of guided discretion and is made after taking into account the circumstances peculiar to the MP concerned, and in exercise of this discretion, out of 245 sitting MPs in the Rajya Sabha, 115 have been granted accommodation above their ‘default’ entitlement. His counsel had told the High Court that the MP has been provided Z+ security in view of threats, and a large contingent of security personnel was required to be deployed at his residence. The personnel cannot be accommodated in the bungalow earlier allotted to him at Pandara Park. The AAP government in Punjab has accorded Z+ security to Chadha, who is a Rajya Sabha member from there. Chadha was on July 6 last year allotted a ‘Type 6’ bungalow at Pandara Park but he made a representation to the Rajya Sabha Chairman on August 29 requesting for a ‘Type 7’ accommodation. He was then allotted another bungalow on Pandara Road from the Rajya Sabha pool. However, in March this year, the allotment was cancelled. As a first-time MP, Chadha is entitled to a Type-5 accommodation in the normal course, according to the Rajya Sabha Members Handbook released in April 2022. The handbook says MPs who are former Union Cabinet Ministers, former Governors or former Chief Ministers, and former Lok Sabha Speakers, are entitled to Type-7 bungalows, the second largest category available to Rajya Sabha members. Justice has prevailed, says Raghav Chadha. The AAP MP welcomed the Delhi High Court decision and claimed that the cancellation of allotment was a case of “political vendetta”. In a statement on ‘X’, Chadha said, “I welcome the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to set aside the order of the trial court, which was against me. The cancellation of this allotment was a clear case of political vendetta, aimed at silencing a young, vocal parliamentarian. The decision to revoke my official accommodation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust, representing a new low in political vendetta.” The MP also said that Opposition voices were being “deliberately targeted”. Chadha said he had delivered two speeches in Parliament holding the BJP-led Centre accountable. He alleged that after his first speech, his official accommodation was cancelled. “After my second speech, my membership as a parliamentarian was suspended. No parliamentarian can function if he is made to worry about what his forthright and honest speech will cost him next,” he said. Neville Roy Singham issues statement on Newsclick funding row Neville Roy Singham, the American millionaire named by Delhi Police as one of the accused in the Newsclick terror case, he has issued a four-page rebuttal, in which he has called the NYT article misleading and an “innuendo-laden hit piece”. In his statement, he said, “On August 5, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) ran a misleading and innuendo-laden hit piece on me and others that, among other things, provoked a firestorm in India and inflamed the situation regarding the Indian news website portal NewsClick….The news of the arrests and detentions deeply shocked and saddened me. I am disappointed that this is happening in India, a country close to Sri Lanka, the ancestral home of my father, Archibald W. Singham (1932–1991), a participant in and historian of the Non-Aligned Movement.” His statement added, “The NYT intentionally chose not to publish all the factual rebuttals that I provided to them on July 22, 2023, prior to their publication date. The NYT has done a great disservice to the cause to press freedom. For this reason, I have decided to publicly address some of these points that I raised to, and were ignored by, the NYT. I categorically deny and repudiate all claims of illegality and impropriety and wish to set the record straight.” “In 2017, ThoughtWorks was sold to Apax Partners, a global private equity firm. As the majority shareholder, I received substantial proceeds from this sale…Other than ThoughtWorks – which had some government clients over the years, including the US, UK, and Australian governments (but not including China) – I have never received funding from any government or political party. I file a comprehensive tax return in the US every year and have always hired the world’s top accounting and tax firms to carefully review all aspects of my financial affairs. The provenance of all my money is without doubt.” “I was shocked to see the absurd attempt to connect me to the Chinese telecom companies, Xiaomi and Vivo, in the FIR. I have no knowledge of their activities in India. I have never had contact with, directly or indirectly received funding from, nor worked on behalf of these companies.” He also said, “I reject the allegation of fraudulent infusion of funds through a “complex web of several entities” as mentioned in the FIR and in the NYT article. I also reject any innuendo that I violate any Indian or US law by working with banned organizations. There is just no proof of such accusations because they are untrue.” ‘Dead’ for 20 years, ex-navy employee arrested by Delhi Police for triple murder A 60-year-old ex-Navy employee who faked his death for 20 years was arrested by Delhi Police Crime Branch for allegedly killing a relative and burning to death two labourers, police said on Tuesday. Balesh Kumar was arrested from a house in Najafgarh where he was staying with his family having changed his name to Aman Singh, police said. Balesh was 40 when he allegedly killed his brother-in-law, Rajesh alias Khushiram, over money in Delhi’s Bawana area in 2004. He also allegedly had an illicit relationship with Rajesh’s wife. Police in 2004 arrested Balesh’s brother Sundar Lal, who was also involved in Rajesh’s murder. However, Balesh managed to give them a slip. According to Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ravindra Yadav, Balesh, who was in a transport business then, escaped in a truck to Rajasthan. There he set his truck on fire and burned two of his workers to death. “Rajasthan Police during the course of investigation identified one of the persons as Balesh, while the other body remained unclaimed. The family members of Balesh also identified one of the bodies as his,” Yadav said. Rajasthan Police closed the case assuming the prime suspect dead. After faking his death, Balesh fled to Punjab and managed to procure forged identity proof with the help of his family members and changed his name to Aman Singh. “He remained in touch with his wife and managed to transfer his insurance claim benefits and pension from the Indian Navy to her. Also, the truck involved in the incident was registered in the name of his brother Mahinder Singh, who allowed him to claim the insurance. He got insurance claim for the truck into the account of his wife,” Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ankit Kumar said. Balesh then moved to Delhi’s Najafgarh with his family and started living with them. “On a secret tip-off, we managed to nab him from his house on Monday. During the interrogation, he confessed his involvement in the murder of his relative and two labourers from Bihar,” Kumar said. The Delhi Police has informed its counterpart in Rajasthan’s Jodhpur about Balesh’s arrest and asked them to reopen the burnt truck case. The Delhi Police claimed that Balesh had also stolen antique items in 2000 from Delhi’s Kota House and was booked for theft at Tilak Marg Police Station. Police are probing the role Balesh’s wife and other family members in his crimes and they all will be prosecuted accordingly, Kumar said. Balesh, a native of Haryana’s Panipat, studied up to class 8. In 1981, he joined the Indian Navy as a Steward and served there till 1996. “After retirement, he took a house on rent in Delhi’s Uttam Nagar,” the officer said. At the time of his arrest, Balesh was working as a property dealer in Najafgarh. In Brief: Madhya Pradesh Congress president Kamal Nath on October 17 released the party’s manifesto for the upcoming State Assembly polls, making a slew of promises including ₹25 lakh health insurance cover to all the people in MP, 27% reservation for OBCs, and to form an IPL team of the State. The Opposition Congress listed 59 promises in its 106-page manifesto, with assurances for all sections of the society, including farmers, women and government employees. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 17 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]( Same-sex marriage: Supreme Court’s majority view holds that it cannot legalise queer unions [A majority view on a five-judge Constitution Bench which decided the same-sex marriage case held on October 17]( that non-heterosexual couples cannot claim an unqualified right to marry. Though all five judges agreed that homosexuality was neither an urban nor elitist concept, they differed on the point whether the court can obligate the State to formally recognise the relationship of queer couples by giving it the legal status of a “civil union” or “marriage. The minority views of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that constitutional authorities should carve out a regulatory framework to recognise the civil union of adults in a same-sex relationship. The minority views of the two judges held that the right to enter into a union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice said. The majority views of Justices S.R. Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha disagreed on the point, holding that it was for the legislature, and not the Court, to formally recognise and grant legal status to non-heterosexual relationships. But all the five judges on the Bench agreed that the Special Marriage Act of 1954 was not unconstitutional for excluding same-sex marriages. They said that tinkering with the Special Marriage Act of 1954 to bring same-sex unions within its ambit would not be advisable. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concluded, in his opinion, that the court could neither strike down nor read words into the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex members within the ambit of the 1954 law. Justice Kaul agreed that disturbing the Act, which facilitates inter-faith marriages, would have a cascading impact on other laws and the rights of others. The court was of the view that it was for the Parliament and State legislature to enact laws on marriage. In his opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the relationship of marriage was not a static one. He held that queer persons have an equal right and freedom to enter into a “union”. He said the failure of the State to recognise the bouquet of entitlements which flow from a union would result in a disparate impact on queer couples, who cannot marry under the current legal regime. Justice Kaul said heterosexual unions and non-heterosexual unions were two sides of the same coin. He said an “edifice” should be created to recognise the civil union of same sex partners and statutes should be interpreted in consonance with their right to enter into such unions. “Non-heterosexual unions are entitled to protection under a constitutional scheme… There is a necessity to recognise civil unions,” Justice Kaul said. Justice Kaul observed that the legal recognition of such unions was a step forward towards “marriage equality”. “Practice of equality necessitates protection of individual choices. The capacity of same sex couples for love is no less worthy to protect than that of heterosexual couples,” Justice Kaul noted. The view jointly authored by Justices S.R. Bhat and Hima Kohli, backed by a separate but concurring opinion by Justice P.S. Narasimha, said the court cannot give formal recognition to same-sex relationships by terming them as “civil unions”. The court cannot initiate the construction of a “parallel framework” of the institution of marriage. Such a recognition was not based on law. Justice Bhat disagreed with the Chief Justice’s interpretation that the right to form a civil union by same sex couples flowed from their right to choose a partner, right to life and free expression. Justice Bhat said there was no fundamental right to marry. The right was regulated by enacted laws and legally enforceable customs. Framing a new code for legally recognised same-sex unions was the task of the legislature and not the court. Justice Bhat said the court empathised with the desire of the LGBTQIA+ community for social acceptance and respect, but the means to arrive at that end must be legally sound, otherwise it may initiate untold consequences. “There is no unqualified right to marry except by statutes… the court cannot create a regulatory framework resulting in legal status,” Justices Bhat and Kohli held. However, these limitations on providing a legal status to same-sex relationships did not preclude partners from “celebrating their commitment to each other in whichever way they wish within the social realm”. Justice Bhat held that the apex court’s judgment decriminalising homosexuality did not automatically extend to claiming legal entitlements or legal status to same-sex unions. Justice Narasimha, in his opinion endorsing Justice Bhat’s views, said the right to marry was a statutory right and not a constitutional right as the Chief Justice had held. “The right to marry flows from legally enforceable customary practices,” Justice Narasimha said. He noted that a legally enforceable right to a civil union or legal status to an “abiding cohabitational relationship” by queer couples cannot be squeezed into the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution. The Bench nevertheless unanimously agreed that same sex couples face discrimination and harassment in their daily lives. The court urged the government to form a high-powered committee chaired by the Union Cabinet Committee to expeditiously look into genuine human concerns faced by same-sex partners. The Chief Justice suggested that the committee should look into whether queer couples could be treated as members of the same family for the purpose of ration card; succession; maintenance; opening of a joint bank account; arrangement of last rites of partners; access benefits of rights and benefits of employment, etc. Supreme Court gives Maharashtra Speaker last chance to set timeline for anti-defection proceedings against CM Shinde’s camp The [Supreme Court on October 17 gave Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar a final opportunity]( to frame a realistic time schedule to hear and decide the anti-defection proceedings against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other MLAs. In the previous hearing, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had slammed the Speaker for reducing the proceedings to a “charade” by “merrily” deferring hearings. The court accepted Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta’s submission that he would personally intervene with the Speaker during the Dussehra vacations to finalise a firm set of modalities for the pending disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The court posted the case for its next hearing on October 30. On October 13, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the Speaker had disregarded the court’s September 18 order to prepare a schedule to complete the disqualification proceedings against the Shinde camp. The court had even warned that it may even be compelled to set a timeline of two months for the Speaker, who is acting as tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, to complete the proceedings. “Somebody has to advise the Speaker that he cannot defeat the orders of the Supreme Court like this… He is acting as an election tribunal when he is hearing disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. He is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court,” the Chief Justice had observed. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi, for petitioner and Uddhav Thackeray loyalist Sunil Prabhu, had urged the court to decide the responsibilities of the Speaker while acting as an election tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. Mehta had in turn blamed the Uddhav Thackeray camp for rushing to the Supreme Court like “school children complaining to the teacher”. The court, however, had categorically said it would not allow the Speaker to drag the disqualification proceedings till the next election, which would make the Tenth Schedule proceedings against the Shinde camp infructuous. On May 11, a five-judge Bench had directed the Maharashtra Speaker — in his capacity as tribunal under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution — to hear and decide the disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time”. A total of 56 MLAs are facing disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. There are 34 disqualification petitions pending, waiting for the Speaker to decide. Government bungalow allocation row: HC protects Raghav Chadha from eviction [Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha can live in the government bungalow allotted to him for now]( with the Delhi High Court Tuesday (October 17) reviving the trial court’s stay on his eviction by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed Chadha’s appeal and revived the trial court’s April 18 order which had prevented the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from evicting him. The High Court said the trial court was in error in returning Chadha’s plaint over non-compliance with the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court asked Chadha to present the plaint before the trial court again within three days, and also directed the lower court to proceed with the matter by first deciding the interim relief application which stands restored before it. Chadha’s counsel had submitted before the High Court that the MP has been served with a notice and eviction proceedings are going on. Chadha had contended before the High Court that he was a victim of “selective targeting” because he was a vocal Opposition Member of Parliament. Chadha said he was the only sitting lawmaker in the Rajya Sabha ever who was sought to be evicted from the bungalow allotted to him. He had said the allotment of accommodation is an exercise of guided discretion and is made after taking into account the circumstances peculiar to the MP concerned, and in exercise of this discretion, out of 245 sitting MPs in the Rajya Sabha, 115 have been granted accommodation above their ‘default’ entitlement. His counsel had told the High Court that the MP has been provided Z+ security in view of threats, and a large contingent of security personnel was required to be deployed at his residence. The personnel cannot be accommodated in the bungalow earlier allotted to him at Pandara Park. The AAP government in Punjab has accorded Z+ security to Chadha, who is a Rajya Sabha member from there. Chadha was on July 6 last year allotted a ‘Type 6’ bungalow at Pandara Park but he made a representation to the Rajya Sabha Chairman on August 29 requesting for a ‘Type 7’ accommodation. He was then allotted another bungalow on Pandara Road from the Rajya Sabha pool. However, in March this year, the allotment was cancelled. As a first-time MP, Chadha is entitled to a Type-5 accommodation in the normal course, according to the Rajya Sabha Members Handbook released in April 2022. The handbook says MPs who are former Union Cabinet Ministers, former Governors or former Chief Ministers, and former Lok Sabha Speakers, are entitled to Type-7 bungalows, the second largest category available to Rajya Sabha members. Justice has prevailed, says Raghav Chadha. The AAP MP welcomed the Delhi High Court decision and claimed that the cancellation of allotment was a case of “political vendetta”. In a statement on ‘X’, Chadha said, “I welcome the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to set aside the order of the trial court, which was against me. The cancellation of this allotment was a clear case of political vendetta, aimed at silencing a young, vocal parliamentarian. The decision to revoke my official accommodation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust, representing a new low in political vendetta.” The MP also said that Opposition voices were being “deliberately targeted”. Chadha said he had delivered two speeches in Parliament holding the BJP-led Centre accountable. He alleged that after his first speech, his official accommodation was cancelled. “After my second speech, my membership as a parliamentarian was suspended. No parliamentarian can function if he is made to worry about what his forthright and honest speech will cost him next,” he said. Neville Roy Singham issues statement on Newsclick funding row [Neville Roy Singham, the American millionaire named by Delhi Police as one of the accused in the Newsclick terror case]( he has issued a four-page rebuttal, in which he has called the NYT article misleading and an “innuendo-laden hit piece”. In his statement, he said, “On August 5, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) ran a misleading and innuendo-laden hit piece on me and others that, among other things, provoked a firestorm in India and inflamed the situation regarding the Indian news website portal NewsClick….The news of the arrests and detentions deeply shocked and saddened me. I am disappointed that this is happening in India, a country close to Sri Lanka, the ancestral home of my father, Archibald W. Singham (1932–1991), a participant in and historian of the Non-Aligned Movement.” His statement added, “The NYT intentionally chose not to publish all the factual rebuttals that I provided to them on July 22, 2023, prior to their publication date. The NYT has done a great disservice to the cause to press freedom. For this reason, I have decided to publicly address some of these points that I raised to, and were ignored by, the NYT. I categorically deny and repudiate all claims of illegality and impropriety and wish to set the record straight.” “In 2017, ThoughtWorks was sold to Apax Partners, a global private equity firm. As the majority shareholder, I received substantial proceeds from this sale…Other than ThoughtWorks – which had some government clients over the years, including the US, UK, and Australian governments (but not including China) – I have never received funding from any government or political party. I file a comprehensive tax return in the US every year and have always hired the world’s top accounting and tax firms to carefully review all aspects of my financial affairs. The provenance of all my money is without doubt.” “I was shocked to see the absurd attempt to connect me to the Chinese telecom companies, Xiaomi and Vivo, in the FIR. I have no knowledge of their activities in India. I have never had contact with, directly or indirectly received funding from, nor worked on behalf of these companies.” He also said, “I reject the allegation of fraudulent infusion of funds through a “complex web of several entities” as mentioned in the FIR and in the NYT article. I also reject any innuendo that I violate any Indian or US law by working with banned organizations. There is just no proof of such accusations because they are untrue.” ‘Dead’ for 20 years, ex-navy employee arrested by Delhi Police for triple murder [A 60-year-old ex-Navy employee who faked his death for 20 years was arrested by Delhi Police Crime Branch]( for allegedly killing a relative and burning to death two labourers, police said on Tuesday. Balesh Kumar was arrested from a house in Najafgarh where he was staying with his family having changed his name to Aman Singh, police said. Balesh was 40 when he allegedly killed his brother-in-law, Rajesh alias Khushiram, over money in Delhi’s Bawana area in 2004. He also allegedly had an illicit relationship with Rajesh’s wife. Police in 2004 arrested Balesh’s brother Sundar Lal, who was also involved in Rajesh’s murder. However, Balesh managed to give them a slip. According to Special Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ravindra Yadav, Balesh, who was in a transport business then, escaped in a truck to Rajasthan. There he set his truck on fire and burned two of his workers to death. “Rajasthan Police during the course of investigation identified one of the persons as Balesh, while the other body remained unclaimed. The family members of Balesh also identified one of the bodies as his,” Yadav said. Rajasthan Police closed the case assuming the prime suspect dead. After faking his death, Balesh fled to Punjab and managed to procure forged identity proof with the help of his family members and changed his name to Aman Singh. “He remained in touch with his wife and managed to transfer his insurance claim benefits and pension from the Indian Navy to her. Also, the truck involved in the incident was registered in the name of his brother Mahinder Singh, who allowed him to claim the insurance. He got insurance claim for the truck into the account of his wife,” Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Ankit Kumar said. Balesh then moved to Delhi’s Najafgarh with his family and started living with them. “On a secret tip-off, we managed to nab him from his house on Monday. During the interrogation, he confessed his involvement in the murder of his relative and two labourers from Bihar,” Kumar said. The Delhi Police has informed its counterpart in Rajasthan’s Jodhpur about Balesh’s arrest and asked them to reopen the burnt truck case. The Delhi Police claimed that Balesh had also stolen antique items in 2000 from Delhi’s Kota House and was booked for theft at Tilak Marg Police Station. Police are probing the role Balesh’s wife and other family members in his crimes and they all will be prosecuted accordingly, Kumar said. Balesh, a native of Haryana’s Panipat, studied up to class 8. In 1981, he joined the Indian Navy as a Steward and served there till 1996. “After retirement, he took a house on rent in Delhi’s Uttam Nagar,” the officer said. At the time of his arrest, Balesh was working as a property dealer in Najafgarh. In Brief: [Madhya Pradesh Congress president Kamal Nath on October 17 released the party’s manifesto]( for the upcoming State Assembly polls, making a slew of promises including ₹25 lakh health insurance cover to all the people in MP, 27% reservation for OBCs, and to form an IPL team of the State. The Opposition Congress listed 59 promises in its 106-page manifesto, with assurances for all sections of the society, including farmers, women and government employees. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[Why are earthquakes frequent in Afghanistan? | Explained] Why are earthquakes frequent in Afghanistan? | Explained]( [[Always stood with citizens to protect their freedoms and choices: Congress on SC’s same sex marriage verdict] Always stood with citizens to protect their freedoms and choices: Congress on SC’s same sex marriage verdict]( [[PM reviews readiness of Gaganyaan ahead of flight test vehicle abort mission-1 on October 21] PM reviews readiness of Gaganyaan ahead of flight test vehicle abort mission-1 on October 21]( [[Could ‘marine cloud brightening’ reduce coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef?] Could ‘marine cloud brightening’ reduce coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef?]( 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](