The Hindu Editorial Analysis : 12th July 2024

The Hindu Editorial Analysis

We understand the significance of reading The Hindu newspaper for enhancing reading skills, improving comprehension of passages, staying informed about current events, enhancing essay writing, and more, especially for banking aspirants who need to focus on editorials for vocabulary building. This article will delve into today’s editorial points along with practice questions and key vocabulary.

“West Bengal’s lawsuit challenging CBI investigations has validity”

The Supreme Court has ruled that an original suit filed by West Bengal, accusing the Centre of ‘constitutional overreach,’ is maintainable. The plea raises ‘questions concerning the wider ramifications of federalism,’ the Bench observes, dismissing the Centre’s claim that the CBI is ‘independent.’ The State argues that the agency acted on the Centre’s directions, registering 12 cases without consent.

• The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the maintainability of an original suit filed by West Bengal, accusing the Centre of “constitutional overreach” and violating federalism by unilaterally employing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) without the State’s prior consent.
• A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Union government’s preliminary objection that it was incorrectly named as a defendant in the suit, arguing that it does not control the CBI, which is an “independent agency.” Justice Gavai, who authored the verdict, stated, “The establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, and superintendence of the DSPE [Act] all rest with the Government of India.”
• The court reminded the Centre that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act requires the State’s prior consent for a CBI investigation within its jurisdiction.
• The judgment highlighted that the Union government had a significant stake in the CBI, emphasizing that only offenses designated by the Centre could be investigated by the CBI under the DSPE Act, the statute governing this premier investigative agency.
• Justice Gavai observed that, under Section 4 of the DSPE Act, the oversight of the DSPE in all matters, except for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, rests with the Central government.
• Justice Gavai specified that these remarks were intended solely to address the initial objections raised by the Union government and would not influence the substantive aspects of the case.
• The Bench set August 13 for the hearing to delineate the issues pertaining to West Bengal’s lawsuit.
• The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the CBI could not be made a defendant in the suit since the agency is not the ‘Government of India.’ Mehta reasoned that original suits filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution exclusively address disputes involving the Union and the States.
• The law officer urged the court to dismiss the West Bengal suit based on these preliminary grounds without delving into its merits. However, the Bench stated on Wednesday that the suit raised “significant questions regarding the broader implications of federalism.”
• West Bengal, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, contended that the CBI had operated under the directives of the Centre. The state had revoked its general consent for CBI investigations as early as November 16, 2018. Despite this, with the approval of the Centre, the CBI proceeded to register 12 cases in West Bengal without obtaining consent from the state government. This prompted the state to file a suit in the Supreme Court, as explained by Mr. Sibal.
• Another Supreme Court Bench is addressing a similar legal issue concerning the State of Tamil Nadu in the case of Ankit Tiwari, an Enforcement Directorate officer who faces a criminal prosecution for bribery initiated by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

Mihir Shah has been placed in police custody for seven days in connection with a hit-and-run case; his father has been removed from his position in the Sena party

• On Wednesday, a court in Sewri ordered 24-year-old Mihir Shah, the primary suspect in a hit-and-run case in Mumbai, to be held in police custody for seven days until July 16th.
• Mihir was apprehended in Virar on July 9, following an incident where his luxury car reportedly collided with a two-wheeler. The accident led to the death of Kaveri Nakha-wa, who was the pillion rider, and caused injuries to her husband, Pradeep.
• The prosecution stated in court that the accused had altered his appearance to evade arrest.
• Amid mounting pressure from opposition parties, Shiv Sena secretary Sanjay More announced that the accused’s father, Rajesh Shah, has been removed from his position as deputy leader of the party’s Palghar unit. This decision was made on the orders of Chief Minister and party chief Eknath Shinde.
• The order did not specify Mr. Rajesh’s removal from the party’s primary membership. He was arrested in connection with the case on July 7 and was granted bail the following day.
• Shinde promised strict action against those responsible and announced ₹10 lakh in aid for the victim’s family from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, along with legal support.
• Concerning the delay in ousting Mr. Rajesh from his position, he remarked, “The government will not support the guilty. We have taken action in this case. What is more important? Sacking him or providing support to the family and taking action against the accused?”
• Meanwhile, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation demolished alleged unauthorized construction and alterations at Vice-Global Tapas Bar in Juhu, where Mr. Mihir reportedly met his friends on the night of July 6, hours before the accident. It is claimed that he was driving the car while intoxicated, with Rajrishi Bidawat, the driver, sitting beside him. Mr. Bidawat was arrested on the day of the accident and is currently in police custody.
• On Tuesday, the State Excise Department, acting on orders from the District Collector, sealed the bar for serving alcohol to individuals under the age of 25.
• Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Worli legislator Aaditya Thackeray visited the victim’s family and called for “bulldozer justice.”
• “In the Pune accident case, the accused received lenient treatment due to political connections. The government should ensure no leniency in this case, as the accused is affiliated with Shinde’s party,” said Clyde Crasto, spokesperson for NCP (SP).

CBI has filed chargesheets against former Kerala Police and IB officials in the ISRO case

The espionage case created a political controversy in Kerala in 1994. According to the chargesheet, former police officer Vijayan, who played a significant role in falsely implicating the victims, has been charged with assaulting and using criminal force against a woman.

• The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed chargesheets against former Kerala Police officers S. Vijayan, Siby Mathews, K. Joshua, and P.S. Jayaprakash, as well as former Intelligence Bureau official R.B. Sreekumar. They are implicated in the alleged framing of space scientist Nambi Narayanan and Maldivian nationals Marian Rasheeda and Fausia Hassan in the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) espionage case.
• Details of the chargesheet, filed last month, became public knowledge on Wednesday when various parties obtained copies of the court document. The case originated on September 20, 1994, when Mr. Vijayan filed a case against Ms. Rasheeda, sparking a political controversy in Kerala. Certain Congress leaders, loyal to A.K. Antony, leveraged this incident to force the resignation of Chief Minister K. Karunakaran, who was accused of protecting a senior police officer.
• The accused were charged with conspiracy, a public servant intentionally creating a false document to cause harm, fabrication of false evidence, voluntarily causing harm, causing harm to extort a confession, and wrongful confinement.
• According to the CBI, Vijayan, the primary accused, has also been charged with assault and using criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
• The CBI began the case based on a report from the D.K. Jain Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee was established after a petition filed by former space scientist Nambi Narayanan, who claimed he was falsely implicated and tortured in the case. The Supreme Court, which awarded him ₹50 lakh as compensation, also instructed that the findings of the Jain committee should remain confidential.
• According to the chargesheet, the CBI investigation found that Mr. Vijayan significantly contributed to falsely implicating the victims. It alleges that he molested Ms. Rasheeda in a hotel room, confiscated her travel documents without documenting it, and prevented her from returning to Male.
• Sashikumaran, K. Chandersekhar, Mr. Narayanan, and K.S. Sharma were arrested on orders from Mr. Mathews without any evidence against them. The chargesheet alleges that Mr. Mathews permitted the illegal interrogation of the victims by Intelligence Bureau officials, who subjected them to physical and mental torture. It also states that false records were created under his watch. Mr. Sreekumar is accused of being directly involved in the physical and mental torture of the arrested victims.

Important questions

1. What are the main constitutional arguments raised by West Bengal in its lawsuit against the Centre regarding the use of the CBI?
2. How did the Supreme Court respond to the Centre’s objections about the CBI’s independence in relation to West Bengal’s suit?
3. What actions did Shiv Sena take against Rajesh Shah after Mihir Shah’s involvement in the hit-and-run case?
4. How did authorities respond to alleged violations at Vice-Global Tapas Bar, and what measures were taken against the establishment?
5. How did the Supreme Court’s D.K. Jain Committee become involved in the ISRO espionage case, and what were its findings?

Important vocabulary

1. Maintainable: Capable of being maintained or upheld, especially in a legal context
2. Superintendence: The action or power of overseeing or directing a particular activity or institution
3. Preliminary Objection: An initial objection raised in legal proceedings, often before the main arguments or trial begins, addressing procedural or jurisdictional issues
4. Revoked: To officially cancel or withdraw
5. .Remanded: Placed in police custody or detained, typically pending further legal proceedings.
6. Evade: To escape or avoid
7. Unauthorized: Not officially permitted or approved
8. Lenient: Showing tolerance or mercy, often in the context of punishment or treatment
9. Chargesheet: A formal document presented in court outlining the charges against someone accused of a crime.
10. Implicate: To imply or indicate that someone is involved in a crime or wrongdoing.

Download Online Mock Test Mobile APP

• Join Official Telegram Channel
• Join Official Whatsapp Group

Recommended PDF’s for 2024:

• Computer Capsule 2024 : Download PDF
• Banking Awareness (Theory+MCQ’s) Complete PDF : Download Now
• Get FREE Study Materials & PDFs for IBPS , RBI, SBI, LIC AAO , LIC Assistant, NIACL & Other Exams Over the mail and Whatsapp