English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court to hear plea against appointment of Rao as interim CBI boss, no urgent hearing

Published

on

M Nageswara Rao

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Refusing an urgent hearing on a petition challenging the appointment of IPS officer M Nageshwar Rao as interim CBI Director, the Supreme Court today (Wednesday, Jan 16) agreed to hear the matter next week.

As the matter came up, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, in an oral mentioning, declined an urgent hearing of the petition filed jointly by the NGO, Common Cause and activist Anjali Bhardwaj. He, however, indicated that the petition may be listed next week.

The petition seeks quashing of the January 10 order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet that named Rao as the acting CBI chief for a second time. It contends that the government has “completely bypassed” the statutory requirement to consult the high-powered selection committee of the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and the Chief Justice of India before appointing the CBI Director.

The plea argues that the procedure laid down in Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 should be followed for the appointment of the CBI director.

The petitioners also argued that Rao’s earlier appointment as interim CBI Director following the ouster of Alok Verma on October 23 was quashed by the Supreme Court in a judgment on January 8. Yet the January 10 order has stated that the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet approved the appointment of Rao “as per the earlier arrangement”.

“The October 23 order making Mr. Rao interim CBI Director was quashed by the Supreme Court on January 8 for violating the procedure for appointment of CBI Director as defined in the DSPE Act… However, the government still invoked its earlier order which had been quashed, to once again make Shri Nageshwar Rao Interim Director of the CBI even though it was not the competent authority and did not have any powers to make the appointment,” the petition said.

Lack of transparency in the appointment of the CBI Director allows the government to exercise undue influence in the appointment process especially at the stage of short-listing of candidates, the petition said.

M Nageswara Rao, a 1986-batch Odisha cadre IPS officer, was first appointed as interim chief under dramatic circumstances on October 23, around 2 am, when the then CBI Director Alok Verma was divested of his powers and sent on forced leave.

After the removal of former CBI chief Alok Verma for the second time, this time by the committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on January 10 – barely 48 hours after he was reinstated by the Supreme Court – Rao was again named as the interim chief of the agency.

Rao then reversed all decisions taken by Verma, including the order for probe against a secretary in PMO in coal scam, in the previous two days.

Verma was transferred as Director General of Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards, an offer which he refused and subsequently resigned from the Indian Police Services (IPS) instead.

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge termed the appointment of Rao as interim chief as ‘illegal’ and in a letter to the PM Modi urged that a meeting of the selection committee should be called immediately to choose a new CBI Director ‘without further delay’.

Kharge had voted against the removal of Verma as the CBI chief and has since asked that the findings of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Justice AK Patnaik’s report on Verma should be available on public domain so that the people can draw their own conclusions in the matter.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Assam clears Uniform Civil Code bill, becomes third state after Uttarakhand and Gujarat

Assam has officially become the third state in India to pass the Uniform Civil Code bill. The legislation was cleared by the state assembly on Wednesday despite strong objections raised by opposition lawmakers who claimed it impacts minority rights.

Published

on

himanta

The Assam Legislative Assembly on Wednesday passed ‘The Uniform Civil Code, Assam, 2026 Bill’, making it the third state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to adopt a uniform legal framework after Uttarakhand and Gujarat.

Opposition flags concerns over rights during house debate

The bill was taken up for final passage in the state assembly on Wednesday, sparking a heated discussion among lawmakers. During the legislative floor debate, opposition MLAs strongly voiced their concerns regarding the proposed law, stating that the legislation will hurt and compromise the fundamental rights of a certain section of society.

Despite objections from the opposition benches, the treasury benches cleared the passage of the bill, cementing Assam’s position as the latest state to move away from diverse personal laws in favor of a uniform code. Media reported that the legislative move follows extensive political discussions in the state surrounding civil regulations. With this enactment, Assam joins Uttarakhand and Gujarat, which have previously passed their respective uniform civil codes.

Continue Reading

India News

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

on

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com