English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Four IB men caught outside residence of CBI Director Alok Verma’s residence

Published

on

Four IB men caught outside residence of CBI Director Alok Verma’s residence

Four men, identified as Intelligence Bureau (IB) operatives, were rounded up today (Thursday, October 25) morning from outside the residence of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Alok Verma, a day after the government sent him on ‘compulsory leave’.

Verma has described as “patently illegal” in a petition before the Supreme Court which would hear the case tomorrow.

The men were observed loitering in two motor cars outside the perimeter and were confronted by Verma’s official security detail, said media reports. They were handed over to Delhi Police.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Madhur Verma, however, denied that the police had detained the four men and were questioning them.

Media reports quoting sources said the four men, who were stationed outside Verma’s 2, Janpath residence from Wednesday night, were questioned and then taken away by the police.

There was speculation in some circles that the men could be looking for ways to plant listening devices or were keeping an eye on visitors to the residence.

This follows a search and raid of the CBI headquarters on Wednesday that was carried out by unidentified intelligence and police officials. While some explained that the search was to secure sensitive documents, others said that, on the contrary, the search was to find and remove documents that could prove troublesome or embarrassing for the Narendra Modi government.

While there was no word from Home Minister Rajnath Singh on the Thursday affair, Intelligence Bureau sources claimed that the presence of personnel at a “high security zone” like the area surrounding Verma’s residence is part of routine practice.

According to IB sources, the agency is responsible for collecting “intelligence on situations” that could affect “public order” and “internal security.” IB units are deployed on a regular basis in sensitive areas and while in some cases “this is done in association with local law enforcement agencies”, other times an element of surprise “is also built in.”

“Among other things, its units are routinely deployed on a regular basis in sensitive areas. At times, this is done in association with local law enforcement agencies and at other times, a surprise element is also built in. This also enables LEAs to respond immediately to developing situations,” the sources said, according to a report in The Hindustan Times (HT).

They added that since such officials are on routine duties, they carry their identity cards. This is unlike surveillance which is done covertly, without any visible appurtenances, they said.

“One such unit, in early hours of today, halted on Janpath, where there was an unusual collection of people. This was with a view to check the reason why people had collected at the location. This is a high-security zone where several protectees reside. Unfortunately, their presence was projected otherwise,” the sources said.

The episode fuelled the opposition campaign that the Modi government acted against Verma because of its fears over what steps the CBI may take on crucial investigations.

Main opposition party the Congress has attacked the government alleging that the men were “snooping” on Alok Verma, who was stripped of powers as CBI chief on Wednesday.

“After making CBI as ‘Central Burial of Investigation’, the (Narendra) Modi government now stoops to a ‘new low’ – Snooping on ‘forcibly removed’ CBI Director through IB,” Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said. “Let everyone be forewarned – IB is heading the CBI way!” Congress Randeep Singh Surjewala tweeted.

In the wee hours of Wednesday, the government in a late night move, sent the two top officials of CBI, Director Alok Verma and his deputy special director Rakesh Asthana on compulsory leave and appointed joint director M Nageshwar Rao as acting CBI chief. There has been a running feud between Verma and Asthana, with Verma questioning the decision to appoint Asthana to CBI, citing corruption cases two years ago.

The CBI then filed a FIR against Asthana and some others, one of whom was arrested. The government finally woke up on Tuesday when Verma relieved Asthana of his responsibilities and acted overnight, a move that has invited speculation as well as criticism.

Verma has moved the Supreme Court against the government decision, calling it patently illegal. The case would be heard tomorrow.

According to the Indian Express, Verma was dealing with seven sensitive cases when the Narendra Modi government minister decided to pull the plug on him:

* A complaint against alleged irregularities in the Rafale fighter deal with France: The verification process of the complaint was on in the agency and, sources said, “a decision was to be taken”. The 132-page complaint was received by Verma on October 4, and had been filed by former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

* The CBI has been probing the role of highly-placed individuals in the Medical Council of India (MCI) bribery case, which implicated retired High Court judge I M Quddusi. The chargesheet against Quddusi, sources said, had been prepared and was ready for Verma’s signature.

* The case of Justice SN Shukla of Allahabad High Court, who was sent on leave following allegations of corruption in medical admissions, had been identified as fit for investigation. Sources said a PE had been prepared and was awaiting Verma’s signature.

* Another case being looked at by the CBI was BJP MP Subramanian Swamy’s letters to the CBI, complaining against Finance and Revenue Secretary Hasmukh Adhia.

* The alleged role of IAS officer Bhaskar Khulbe, Secretary to the Prime Minister, is being investigated by the CBI in a case of allocation of coal mines.

* In another case, a Delhi-based middleman was raided in the first week of October. An alleged pay-off list and Rs 3 crore in cash were found and the CBI was told he had a role in bribing politicians and officials for “senior Public Sector Unit appointments”.

* The CBI probe into Sandesara and the Sterling Biotech case was nearing completion, and the alleged role of Asthana was being investigated.

Question over govt action against CBI director – Supreme Court to hear it tomorrow

There are questions about the legality of government action against the CBI Director – whether it has the authority to divest him of his powers and send him on compulsory leave. The Supreme Court, while hearing Verma’s plea, is expected to deal with the question. At a press conference on Wednesday, Union finance minister Arun Jaitley argued that the decision to send the two top officials on leave was due to a recommendation by the Central Vigilance Commission – a recommendation that is not in the public domain. “It was absolutely essential to restore the agency’s institutional integrity and credibility,” Jaitley said.

However, under the law, the chief of the CBI enjoys a fixed two-year term. It is argued that the government cannot even transfer him, much less divest him of his powers and send him on leave. In the 1998 Vineet Narain & Others vs Union of India Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court defines the powers of a selection committee to choose the CBI chief. The judgment is clear: “The transfer of an incumbent director, CBI, in an extraordinary situation, including the need for him to take up a more important assignment, should have the approval of the selection committee.”

Since 2013, as per the terms of the Lokpal Act, this selection committee is to consist of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him. No selection committee recommended Verma’s forced leave. It was done on the orders of the Union government alone.

Moreover, the role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in the CBI only comes in to play when there is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. No such case exists against Verma. Hence, the Union government’s argument that it was acting on the advice of the CVC does not hold water either.

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

India News

Yogi Adityanath’s do namoone remark sparks Akhilesh Yadav’s jab on BJP infighting

Yogi Adityanath’s ‘do namoone’ comment in the UP Assembly has been countered by Akhilesh Yadav, who termed it a confession of BJP’s internal power struggle.

Published

on

Yogi Adityanath

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s recent “do namoone” comment in the state Assembly has triggered a sharp political exchange, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav turning the remark into an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s alleged internal discord.

The comment was made during a heated Assembly discussion on allegations of codeine cough syrup smuggling in Uttar Pradesh. Opposition members had accused the state government of inaction, claiming that timely steps could have saved the lives of several children. Rejecting the allegation outright, Adityanath said that no child in the state had died due to consumption of the cough syrup.

While responding to the opposition benches, the Chief Minister made an indirect jibe, saying there were “two namoone”, one in Delhi and one in Lucknow. Without naming anyone, he added that one of them leaves the country whenever there is a national debate, and suggested that a similar pattern applied to the Samajwadi Party leadership. The remark was widely interpreted as being aimed at Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, a former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and current Lok Sabha MP

Akhilesh Yadav calls remark a ‘confession’

Akhilesh Yadav responded swiftly on social media, calling Adityanath’s statement a “confession” that exposed an alleged power struggle within the BJP. He said that those holding constitutional posts should maintain decorum and accused the ruling party of bringing its internal disputes into the public domain. Yadav posted his response shortly after the Chief Minister shared a video clip of the Assembly remarks online.

The Samajwadi Party has, on several occasions, claimed that there is a tussle between the Uttar Pradesh government and the BJP’s central leadership. Party leaders have cited the appointment of deputy chief ministers and certain bureaucratic decisions as evidence of attempts to curtail the Chief Minister’s authority.

Adityanath has consistently dismissed these claims, maintaining that he holds the post because of the party’s trust in him. The latest exchange has once again brought the narrative of BJP infighting into political focus, even as both sides continue to trade barbs ahead of key electoral contests

Continue Reading

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com