BJP backward class morcha chief hails caste survey
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
What do the Epstein files reveal about Donald Trump? Here's the latest
In Washington, U.S. lawmakers have escalated pressure on the Justice Department over the Jeffrey Epstein files following multiple emerging developments: Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informed Donald Trump in May that his name appears in internal Epstein records; Republicans ended a House session early amid internal conflict over a vote on pressing DOJ disclosures; and Justice Department officials met with imprisoned Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell to explore possible leads. Against this backdrop, bipartisan calls have intensified for Bondi to testify before Congress Also Read: Republican rumblings: on Trump and the Epstein files What is the background of the Jeffrey Epstein case? Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died by suicide in a federal jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. He was previously convicted in 2008 in Florida for soliciting a minor, serving a controversial sentence that allowed him work release. Epstein's re-arrest in 2019 reignited public scrutiny over how he operated an alleged trafficking ring for years, often involving underage girls, with little accountability. Since his death, questions have remained about the extent of his connections, including to prominent global figures, and whether U.S. authorities have withheld critical information. In February 2025, the DOJ released an initial batch of declassified documents, including redacted flight logs and Epstein's contact book. However, many of these materials were already public. What are the latest developments in the Epstein files investigation? Congressional subpoena: On July 23, the House Oversight Subcommittee formally subpoenaed the DOJ, demanding the release of all Epstein-related records, including sealed files, internal DOJ communications, and evidence not yet made public. Maxwell to testify: Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend of Epstein, is expected to testify before Congress on August 11. A closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has already taken place. Trump's name in files: U.S. President Donald Trump was told in May 2025 that his name appears 'multiple times' in the Epstein files. The White House has acknowledged the inclusion but emphasised that it is based on unverified references. Court rejects file unsealing: A Florida judge has blocked the DOJ's request to unseal grand jury records, citing legal protections. A similar petition remains under review in New York. $1.5 billion in suspicious transactions: Senator Ron Wyden has alleged that Treasury Department documents indicate over $1.5 billion in wire transfers tied to Epstein's network. He claims the DOJ has withheld these suspicious activity reports (SARs) from Congress. What do the Jeffrey Epstein files contain? According to the DOJ, the Epstein files include over 300 gigabytes of digital content and tens of thousands of images and videos, many involving minors and explicit content. The seized physical materials include flight manifests, photo albums, architectural plans of Epstein's residences, cash bundles, and contact directories. Authorities say that most of these materials remain sealed due to their illicit nature and the need to protect the victims' identities. What happens next in the Epstein investigation? The US House Oversight Subcommittee's subpoena may require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release more documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, unless blocked by the courts. Ghislaine Maxwell is expected to testify before Congress in August. Her closed-door meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in Florida was part of the DOJ's ongoing efforts to respond to calls for transparency. Mr Blanche said on social media that President Donald Trump had asked officials to 'release all credible evidence'. He added that the FBI and DOJ would review any information Maxwell provides on crimes involving victims. Also Read: Pam Bondi | Bonding for cover Meanwhile, lawmakers Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna have introduced the 'Epstein Files Transparency Act'. If supported by 218 members of the House of Representatives, it would direct the Attorney General to release all unclassified DOJ records related to Epstein. The outcome will influence how much more information becomes public in the coming months.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC allows Kerala govt to withdraw pleas against guv over assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Kerala government to withdraw its pleas against Governor over the delay in approving bills passed by the state assembly. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar passed the order after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the Kerala government, sought withdrawal of the plea and said the issue had turned infructuous in view of the recent judgment passed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the submission and urged the court to await the top court's decision on the reference of President under Article 143 of the Constitution over the grant of assent to bills. On April 22, the top court said it would examine whether the recent judgement on a plea of Tamil Nadu, fixing timelines for the grant of assent to bills, covered the issues raised by the Kerala government in its pleas. Acting on a plea of Tamil Nadu government, an apex court bench on April 8 set aside the reservation of the 10 bills for President's consideration in the second round holding it as illegal, erroneous in law. The bench, for the first time, also prescribed a time limit for President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by Governor. It set a three-month timeframe from the date on which such reference was received. Kerala sought similar directions in its petition. In 2023, the top court expressed displeasure over then Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan "sitting" for two years on bills passed by the state legislature. Khan is currently Governor of Bihar. The top court, on July 26, last year, agreed to consider the plea of opposition-ruled Kerala alleging the denial of assent to bills passed by the legislative assembly. The Kerala government alleged that Khan referred certain bills to President Droupadi Murmu and those were yet to be cleared. Taking note of the pleas, the top court issued notices to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the secretaries of Kerala Governor. The state said its plea related to the acts of Governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations, it argued. The bills were pending with the Governor for as long as two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose", the state added. "The bills include public interest bills that are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them 'as soon as possible', as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. The state government had said the home ministry informed it that President had withheld assent to four of the seven bills -- University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021; Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022; University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022; and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The Constitution is silent on how much time the President can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Article 361 of the Constitution says the President, or Governor of a state, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Hans India
16 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court rejects plea to increase Assembly seats in Andhra, Telangana
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue a direction to the Centre to increase the number of Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with pleas seeking implementation of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provided for delimitation of Assembly seats in the two successor states. In its judgment, the Justice Kant-led Bench refused to direct delimitation in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, observing that Article 170 of the Constitution allows delimitation only after the first census conducted post-2026. Delimitation under Article 170 has been frozen until the first census after 2026, as per the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments. The apex court rejected the contention that the Centre's decision to carry out delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, raising the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 based on the 2011 census, while excluding Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, was arbitrary and discriminatory. Highlighting the constitutional distinctions, it opined that J&K, having been reconstituted as a union territory, is regulated by parliamentary legislation and provisions of the Constitution under Chapter III of Part VI will not apply. In a related development, the Telangana Assembly, in a resolution passed in March this year, urged the Centre to increase the number of seats from 119 to 153, pursuant to the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and as per the latest census. The state Assembly urged the Union government to introduce necessary Constitutional amendments for this purpose in order to strengthen representative democracy. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy pointed out that the Centre, in reply to his question when he was a member of the previous Lok Sabha, had stated that the delimitation of Assembly constituencies would be done only after the 2026 census. Reddy slammed the Centre for its double standards on the issue. He said the Centre increased the number of Assembly constituencies from 83 to 90 as per the 2011 census in Jammu and Kashmir, and, in Sikkim, a resolution was passed in the Cabinet in 2018, and the process of delimitation of constituencies is currently underway.
