Maharashtra govt must focus on governance, not squander its mandate
Indian streets are pure pandemonium. Fauja Singh's death is a reminder of lack of public safety
114-year-old marathoner Fauja Singh's death is another reminder India doesn't understand or respect road rules. What's on our streets is not traffic—it's pure pandemonium. Public safety and driving discipline are as much a part of India's image as any other geopolitical or economic indicator, but we couldn't care less.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
India warns West on energy security double standards
India can arrange alternative supplies if Russian oil exports are sanctioned, petroleum minister Hardeep Singh Puri said on Thursday in what is seen as the first official reaction to the US and EU threat of secondary sanctions for buying those barrels. "I don't feel any pressure in my mind (about sanctions on Russian oil). And I don't think my boss's (PM's) mind is wired to feel any pressure. That's where I draw my strength (from). India has diversified the sources (of oil). I am not worried at all. If something happens, we will deal with it. There is sufficient supply available," Puri said at an industry event. Separately, the ministry of external affairs said the govt's overriding priority was to secure the energy needs of its people, while also cautioning against any double standards on the issue. The comments, in response to media queries, followed NATO chief Mark Rutte's threat, echoing the US, that countries like India, China and Brazil would take a battering for buying Russian exports. "Let me reiterate, and I have said this in the past as well. Securing energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us," MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said. "In this endeavour, we are guided by what is there on offer in the markets, as also by the prevailing global circumstances. We would particularly caution against any double standards on the matter," he added. India has in the past too accused the West of having double standards on the issue, saying that European countries have themselves benefited from importing Russian energy for prolonged periods. Puri said India has built up "navigational resilience" by expanding the sourcing of oil from 40 countries against 27 countries earlier. "India has been clear that it will buy oil from wherever it has to. The PM's commitment, in the final analysis, is to the Indian consumer," he said. In addition, Puri said, more oil was coming into the global market from countries such as Brazil, Guyana and Canada that are not members of the OPEC+ grouping. "If a major source goes off the market, you diversify. The current debate in the oil market is whether prices will be in the range of $65-70 or $60-65 (per barrel)," he said. On purchase of Russian oil by Indian refiners, Puri argued that those barrels were currently subjected to a price cap of $60 and "not sanctioned".
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
PIOs are only those born in India before August 15, 1947, not after: Delhi High Court clarifies on MHA's appeal
The Delhi High Court on Monday held that an individual will be considered as a 'person of Indian origin' if they or either of their parents was born in India before August 15, 1947, and not those born in India on or after the cut-off date, unless they were born in a territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947. The ruling came on an appeal by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that had challenged a single judge's order on its interpretation of 'person of Indian origin'. Setting aside the earlier observation, the division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the single judge's finding is based on 'misreading of the provisions' of the Citizenship Act. In May last year, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court of Justice Prathiba Singh had directed the Centre to grant Indian citizenship to a 'stateless' 17-year-old girl – Rachita Francis Xavier – who was born in India to an Indian-origin US citizen couple. At the time of the girl's birth, the couple were residing in India and were Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders. Justice Singh had held that she would not qualify as an 'illegal migrant' and would be considered as a 'person of Indian origin' as her mother was born in independent India, in Andhra Pradesh in July 1958. The division bench, relying on a Supreme Court verdict, however clarified that as per the Citizenship Act, a person is to be considered of 'Indian origin' if they or either of their parents was born in India before August 15, 1947, or in a territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947 (for example Goa, Sikkim). It held that a person born in India on or after August 15, 1947, will not qualify as a 'person of Indian origin'. Under the Citizenship Act, 1955, 'persons of Indian origin' can be granted Indian citizenship subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. While the MHA had in July 2024 granted Indian citizenship to the girl, Rachita Francis Xavier, it however, moved an appeal in December 2024, challenging the single judge's 'views' on 'illegal migrant' and 'person of Indian-origin', arguing that the interpretations 'may open floodgates for many other illegal migrants in seeking Indian citizenship' and 'would have a cascading effect and would dilute the spirit of the Citizenship Act, 1955.' The ministry was not challenging the grant of citizenship to the girl but only the view that the single judge had taken on the question of 'illegal migrant' and 'PIO'. The division bench — acceding to the MHA's appeal and setting aside the interpretation by the single judge of 'person of Indian origin' – recorded in its order, '…in our opinion,…any person shall be deemed to be a person of 'Indian Origin' if the person or either of his parents were born in undivided India… It would thus mean that to acquire the status of a person of 'Indian Origin', the person concerned or either of his parents would have been born in India before 15.08.1947 and not thereafter.' 'A person who was born in a territory which became part of India after 15.08.1947, will also be deemed to be a person of 'Indian Origin'…(It) would not cover a person to be deemed to be of 'Indian Origin' if he or either of his parents was born in India on or after 15.08.1947 or in a territory which did not become part of India after 15.08.1947,' it added. Voicing its 'unambiguous opinion' that Justice Singh's observation in the case that the girl qualifies to be a 'person of 'Indian Origin' is erroneous', the bench set it aside. The single judge had reasoned that the girl was born in India and had never gone out of India, which the MHA countered in its appeal, saying that section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 clearly defines 'illegal migrant' which would include a child born in India and devoid of any valid travel documents. The single judge had relied on the fact that the term 'migrant' envisages movement from one country to another, of a foreigner.
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tablighi Jamaat Covid case: Here's what happened five years ago
More than five years after the Tablighi Jamaat was accused of spreading Covid by organising an international congregation in Delhi, the Delhi High Court Thursday quashed charges in 16 FIRs and chargesheets filed in related cases involving 70 Indian citizens. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna told the open court that the proceedings stand quashed. Arguing for quashing of the FIRs, the accused, represented by advocate Ashima Mandla, had contended that the foreign nationals who were charged were either acquitted or discharged with the state failing to prove their presence — and nothing was brought on record to prove that the Indians or foreign nationals who were charged had contracted Covid. The Indian Express takes a look at what happened in 2020 and the subsequent two years.
