&w=3840&q=100)
LIVE news updates: PM Modi embarks on 5-nation visit, says India committed to Brics
Former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is launching a Republican primary bid against Senator Lindsey Graham, criticizing the senator as insufficiently conservative for the state.
Bauer, a wealthy real estate developer and staunch Trump supporter, positions himself as a genuine "America First" conservative. His run sets up a midterm clash with the four-term senator, whose ties with Trump have fluctuated but who currently has Trump's backing for reelection.
A lawyer representing Elon Musk's X told an Indian court that an excessive number of government officials — "every Tom, Dick, and Harry" — had been empowered to issue content takedown orders, prompting a sharp response from the government's counsel.
X has frequently clashed with Prime Minister Modi's administration over takedown demands. The statement came during a hearing on the platform's legal challenge to a government website it claims operates as a 'censorship portal.' Indian authorities maintain the site is only intended to facilitate compliance notifications for online platforms.
Connect with us on WhatsApp
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
Non-compete clauses blocking job switch are not enforceable, says Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling that could have widespread implications, the Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that non-compete clauses restricting an employee's right to work after leaving a company are unenforceable under Indian law. The judgment came in the appeal of Varun Tyagi, a software engineer, against his former employer, Daffodil Software Private Limited, which had sought to block him from joining a key client after resigning from the was the case?Varun Tyagi, an IT engineer, joined Daffodil Software in January 2022 and was later assigned to a government project run by Digital India Corporation, a business associate of Daffodil. Tyagi rose to a leadership position on the project, receiving specialised training and working closely with resigning from Daffodil in January 2025 and serving a three-month notice period, Tyagi accepted a job offer from DIC, which was to be effective from April 2025. Soon after, Daffodil, citing a non-compete and non-solicitation clause in Tyagi's employment contract with them, filed a suit before the court to restrain him from joining DIC. The company argued that this move could potentially harm their business interests and lead to the disclosure of proprietary employment agreement between Tyagi and Daffodil included a sweeping clause that prohibited Tyagi from soliciting or working with any business associates of Daffodil for three years after leaving the company and associating with any business associate he had interacted with during his trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of Daffodil, restraining Tyagi from joining DIC and from disclosing any confidential information. The court said there was a prima facie case in favour of the company and there existed a real risk of irreparable harm to Daffodil. Tyagi then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the injunction and the non-compete clause violated his right to work and were void under Indian through his counsel, argued that non-compete clauses were a blanket prohibition, not just on competitors but also on clients and business associates. He further said that such a clause, which imposes a post-employment restraint, cannot be legally permitted under Indian law. Daffodil, on the other hand, argued that the non-compete was necessary to protect the company's interests, investments and intellectual property. They further argued that Tyagi had access to confidential information and proprietary knowledge that could potentially harm Daffodil's business did the High Court say?Justice Tejas Karia, who heard Tyagi's appeal, examined whether there was any legal foundation of non-compete clauses in India. The Court said that Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that any agreement that restrains anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, except in the case of the sale of goodwill, shall be court clarified that Indian law, unlike English law, does not recognise the validity of 'partial' or 'reasonable' restraints. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the court held that any post-employment restriction, no matter how limited, should be considered void unless it falls under the narrow exception for the sale of the High Court also found that Daffodil did not own the intellectual property or confidential information in question; rather, it belonged to DIC, the client. Most importantly, the court held that the non-compete clause, as drafted, was an impermissible restraint on Tyagi's right to work and was thus void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract have the courts said earlier?Indian courts have consistently held that non-compete clauses restricting an employee after they leave employment are void and unenforceable. Such clauses are seen as a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, as they may deprive individuals of their fundamental right to earn a livelihood. This is, however, for enforcement of non-compete clauses post-employment only. Restrictions that apply during the period of employment are generally valid. Employers can prohibit employees from working with competitors or starting a competing business while still employed, provided the restrictions are reasonable and protect legitimate business there are certain exceptions that have evolved over time through judicial interpretations, in which a non-compete clause may be upheld. For example, courts may uphold non-compete clauses if they are specifically designed to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential data, provided the restrictions are reasonable in scope and duration. Additionally, as stated in Section 27, non-compete agreements that are part of a sale of business or goodwill may be enforceable to protect the buyer's the case of Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Murgai (1981), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that any agreement restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business would generally be void, except with the limited exception to the sale of goodwill. 'The right to livelihood and to pursue any occupation is paramount and cannot be curtailed by such contractual restrictions' the top court the case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) the Supreme Court held that negative covenants or restrictions during the period of employment are valid if they are reasonable and necessary to protect the employer's interests, such as trade secrets or confidential information. However, restraints that operate after the termination of employment are generally void under Section 27. The court struck a balance, stating that while protecting trade secrets is legitimate, post-employment restrictions on an employee's right to work are not recently, in the case of Manipal Business Solutions v. Aurigain Consultants (2022), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on associating with a business associate or client post-employment are void under Section 27. The Court also held that such clauses, even if agreed upon, cannot be enforced after the employment relationship ends, as they amount to a restraint of trade and violate the right to livelihood.- Ends
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
26 minutes ago
- First Post
Lunch at White House, hunger at home: Asim Munir's NY trip show what's wrong with Pakistan
When the US establishment engages directly with the Pakistan Army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it proves that the country's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality read more In a diplomatic spectacle that could only be described as 'deliciously ironic', Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, was invited to the White House for a tête-à-tête with President Trump. A prime example of irony, this meeting arrived at a time when the very foundations of civilian authority in Pakistan were under siege. A prime minister who can barely finish a term, and a military leader who holds more sway than any elected official. It is a display so spectacular that even the most cynical observer would be tempted to applaud the audacity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But this wasn't just a polite exchange of pleasantries; it was a statement. The optics were impeccable, two powerful men sharing a meal while the rest of the world watched, wondering if they were discussing strategy or simply reminiscing about the good old days of military coups. The message was clear: the US wasn't just engaging with Pakistan, it was engaging with the Pakistani military as its de facto representative. A military that doesn't just play a supporting role in Pakistan's governance, but increasingly becomes the lead actor. This was not Pakistan being celebrated in Washington; it was the Pakistani military being reinforced as the permanent sovereign. A state of affairs where civilian leadership is increasingly sidelined in favour of military power. A true diplomatic win? Hardly. More of a political indictment of a system that can't seem to find a way to empower its people through democratic institutions. The Disappearing State: When Civilians Are Optional The absence of Pakistan's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister from this historic meeting wasn't just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a glaring testament to the sidelining of civilian authority. The message was loud and clear: Pakistan's real leader is in uniform, not in a suit. This isn't just about who gets to share the spotlight in Washington. It's about who gets to make the decisions at home. The concept of the 'disappearing state' is rooted in the idea that state visits used to reflect a sovereign hierarchy, where heads of state would meet heads of state. But in Pakistan's case, that chain of command has been brutally ruptured. When the US military or political establishment engages directly with Pakistan's army chief while bypassing its elected leadership, it doesn't just reflect a diplomatic trend; it exacerbates the perception that Pakistan's democracy is nothing more than a decorative formality. The US engagement with General Munir further highlights this, reinforcing the message that military-led governance is acceptable, even preferable, to civilian-led democracy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For a country already plagued by a fractured political class, co-opted, humiliated, and frequently sidelined, the result is nothing short of disastrous. Every time a foreign power, particularly the United States, plays along with this narrative, it chips away at the legitimacy of Pakistan's civilian institutions. What's worse, this serves to further marginalise the political class, transforming elected officials into mere figureheads, ornamental but without any real power. This is not just a diplomatic faux pas; it's a death by a thousand photo ops. The Illusion of Strength: Posturing in a Global Theatre While General Munir's invitation to Washington may appear to project strength to domestic audiences in Pakistan, this is a brittle, borrowed form of strength. It's the kind of strength that only appears powerful from a distance. The paradox is unsettling: the more powerful Pakistan's military seems at home, the more dependent it becomes abroad. Far from promoting strategic autonomy, this is strategic theatre, a show designed to distract from the reality of Pakistan's political and economic dependence on foreign powers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD American engagement with Pakistan's military has historically been less about partnership and more about utility. Whether during the Cold War, the War on Terror, or in the current climate of strategic alliances in the region, the pattern has been unmistakable: when the US needs something, be it military bases, transit routes, or leverage over Afghanistan, it reaches out to Rawalpindi, not Islamabad. This has always been a transactional relationship, not one based on mutual interests or respect. General Munir's visit to Washington follows this exact script. It's a carefully choreographed engagement designed to serve the interests of both parties, but primarily those of the US. What's worse, every such engagement further entraps Pakistan in a cycle of conditional aid, military-to-military cooperation, and silent compliance. As long as Pakistan's military establishment remains the face of the state, it becomes easier for foreign powers to treat Pakistan not as a multifaceted democracy but as a monolithic security apparatus. And in this regard, the US is complicit, not just in supporting Pakistan's military dominance, but in ensuring that civilian power remains an afterthought. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Timing of the Lunch and Shared Dessert General Munir's invitation to the White House raised questions about its true intent. While President Trump framed the meeting as a thank-you for preventing a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan, the timing and context suggested deeper motives. The meeting came at a time of rising tensions with Iran, underscoring Munir's growing influence in Pakistan's power politics. The lunch symbolised a diplomatic gesture that excluded Pakistan's elected leaders, reinforcing the military's dominance in foreign policy. While Munir met with Trump, Pakistan rejected Iran's request for support during its attacks, a move that aligned with Israel's interests. US officials made it clear that no support would come from the broader Islamic world, isolating Iran. Trump's praise of Munir's insight into Iran further highlighted the military's central role, as the civilian government was sidelined. Additionally, Munir's reported attendance at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting fuelled concerns over Pakistan's increasing alignment with US and Israeli interests. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This meeting reflected a return to Cold War-era dynamics between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan reportedly offered rare earth materials and potential crypto council partnerships, benefiting both nations. For Pakistan, it was a way to shift from China to the US, while Trump secured vital resources. However, this deal reinforced the transactional nature of US-Pakistan relations, with the military continuing to dominate foreign policy, sidelining civilian institutions. India Watches, Unbothered! The entire spectacle of General Munir's visit and the subsequent media frenzy in Pakistan might lead some within Pakistan's strategic circles to believe that this is a victory in the ongoing geopolitical rivalry with India. After all, when Pakistan's army chief is feted by the world's most powerful nation, surely it must be a step toward restoring the balance of power, right? Wrong. The truth is far less flattering. From India's perspective, the situation is a source of reassurance rather than concern. India's strategic calculus regarding Pakistan has always been shaped by one key observation: Pakistan's military dominance is its Achilles' Heel. Pakistan's inability to fully embrace civilian rule and forge a truly democratic identity has been a point of pride for India's strategic thinkers for decades. General Munir's trip to Washington only confirms what India has long suspected, that Pakistan is still a security state masquerading as a democracy. And as long as the US continues to treat Pakistan as such, India's concerns about its geopolitical standing are minimal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This isn't just about who gets invited to Washington; it's about the deeper dynamics of regional power. While the US-Pakistan military relationship may serve specific American interests, it doesn't fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Pakistan-India rivalry. Instead, it highlights the deepening chasm between Pakistan's civilian institutions and its military-dominated reality. As far as India is concerned, Pakistan's internal dysfunction is less a threat and more a confirmation of its own stability and growing influence in the region. What's Lost in the Optics? The optics of General Munir's luncheon in Washington are not what they seem. While the Pakistani military may read this as an endorsement, a validation of its central role in the state, the deeper reality is far more cynical. The US is not empowering Pakistan's military to make it stronger; it's engaging with it to keep it compliant. The handshake at the White House is not about strengthening Pakistan's sovereignty; it's about ensuring Pakistan doesn't stray too far from the US's strategic orbit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By endorsing the military as the primary interlocutor, Washington effectively sidesteps the messy, unpredictable nature of democratic governance. Elections, public dissent, and popular opinion all complicate diplomatic engagement. But by dealing exclusively with the military, the US gets the kind of stability it craves, centralised power that can be easily influenced. The military becomes the puppet, and the US pulls the strings. This dynamic is particularly dangerous because it consolidates Pakistan's place in a cycle of military dominance, foreign dependency, and institutional decay. Pakistan's sovereignty is sacrificed on the altar of strategic convenience, and the long-term health of its democratic institutions is jeopardised in the process. What does this mean for Pakistan's Future? Every state must choose the architecture of its legitimacy, and in Pakistan, that choice has been made again and again: uniforms over ballots. But this form of legitimacy is inherently unstable. Legitimacy built on coercion and foreign validation is always temporary. It erodes slowly, until it collapses suddenly. General Munir's lunch at the White House may satisfy egos and silence critics for a few news cycles, but its strategic cost is enormous. It does nothing to address the underlying tensions between Pakistan's military and its civilian institutions. Instead, it institutionalises the military's role as the face of the nation, an institution that is increasingly less accountable to the people it purports to represent. This is not just a short-term setback for Pakistan's democratic prospects. It is a long-term erosion of the democratic norms that Pakistan once aspired to. And unless something changes, the future of Pakistan looks increasingly like a military-led state, where the voices of its people are drowned out by the noise of military parades and diplomatic dinners. Conclusion: A Meal Served Cold General Munir's luncheon at the White House was more than just a diplomatic event. It was a symbol of Pakistan's ongoing struggle between military dominance and democratic governance. While the world watched, the real question remained: who truly holds the reins of power in Pakistan? The military, cloaked in ceremonial grandeur, seems to be making a play for the throne, one handshake at a time. Until that question is answered, the nation risks remaining a republic in name only. A republic that, like the lunch served at the White House, has grown cold, stale, and increasingly irrelevant to the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Chitra Saini holds a PhD from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and currently serves as an Assistant Professor (Guest) at the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, University of Delhi. Amit Kumar is a Senior Research Fellow at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ideabaaz signs up Yaap Digital as integrated marketing partner
Ideabaaz , India's platform celebrating grassroots entrepreneurship , has appointed Yaap Digital as its integrated marketing partner . The collaboration aims to amplify Ideabaaz across digital and offline mediums, establishing it as a cultural and entrepreneurial movement that resonates across every corner of the country. Co-founded by media entrepreneur Jeet Wagh , Ideabaaz is a stage for dreamers, doers and disruptors from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities - inviting them to pitch their ideas in any Indian language, free from the filters and gatekeeping often associated with mainstream startup showcases. With a mission to democratise opportunity, the platform features real founders, real investors and real impact. As integrated marketing partner, Yaap will drive the brand's strategy, storytelling and go-to-market execution across digital platforms, on-ground activations and strategic partnerships, ensuring Ideabaaz captures national attention and cultural relevance from the outset. Atul Hegde, founder of Yaap, shared his thoughts on the collaboration, 'We're always excited to collaborate with new-age founders - and with Ideabaaz, we have a clean slate to bring an IP alive from inception. It's rare to find a property so culturally rooted and yet so forward-looking. I'm genuinely looking forward to creating something memorable with Jeet and his team, something that not only scales but leaves a lasting imprint on India's startup narrative.' Jeet Wagh, founder partner of Ideabaaz, added, 'Ideabaaz is built on the belief that ambition doesn't need a pin code or a pedigree. It just needs a platform. With YAAP's strategic and creative firepower, we're confident this show will not just reach audiences - it will inspire them. This partnership is about building something iconic, together.'
