Meet the 3 IPS officers probing Minister's remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi
A 2001-batch IPS officer, Verma currently serves as the Inspector General (IG) of Sagar Range. Known for his discipline and tough administrative style, he has extensive experience in anti-Naxal operations and cybercrime investigations. He has been awarded the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service by the Ministry of Home Affairs.Kalyan Chakravarty
advertisement
A 2010-batch IPS officer posted as DIG in the Special Armed Forces, Chakravarty operates out of the police headquarters in Bhopal. He has served on central deputation and played a key role in security arrangements during the G-20 summit. He is widely recognised for his sharp grasp of law and order management.Vahini Singh
The only female member of the SIT, 2014-batch IPS officer Vahini Singh is currently the Superintendent of Police (SP) in Dindori district. Known for her effective handling of child trafficking and drug trafficking cases, Singh also has expertise in digital evidence and its legal validation in court proceedings. Her investigative track record earned her a place on the SIT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
29 minutes ago
- India Today
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Danger of thought: on the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill
The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 follows the disturbing pattern of executive overreach in the name of security. Existing laws are often misused against political opponents and critics of the ruling party, including commentators. Charges are often vague and sweeping, and the process itself becomes the punishment in many of these cases. Given this pattern, the move by Maharashtra's Mahayuti government led by the BJP to create an entire law to criminalise a certain kind of thought portends danger to freedom and democracy. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said that the new law would only target those who try to undermine the constitutional order, but the possibility — indeed the probability — of its misuse is apparent. The State says that it is seeking to prevent Maoists from brainwashing youth, professionals, and civil servants through front organisations. As in the proposed law, which is now awaiting the assent of the Governor before coming into force, the State government can declare any suspect 'organisation' as an 'unlawful organisation'. Offences under the proposed law include membership of such organisations, fundraising on their behalf, managing or assisting them, and committing unlawful activities. The Bill's focus is on people and organisations that act as a front for Maoists, and what is unlawful is so broadly defined that anyone can be its target. Among other things, according to the Bill, 'unlawful' is 'any action taken by an individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation or otherwise, which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquility'. Offences are cognisable and the accused can be arrested without a warrant. Punishment includes jail terms of two years to seven years, along with fines ranging from ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh. The State argues that Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts and banned 48 Naxal frontal organisations. The Opposition parties offered feeble resistance to the Bill and raised some broad concerns regarding its misuse but it was passed in the Assembly through a voice vote. As an afterthought, the Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT) protested on the floor when it was taken up in the Legislative Council. The Bill had gone through a long deliberative process, but as it turns out, all parties appeared to be in agreement, barring the lone CPI (M) MLA who protested against it on the floor of the Assembly. The idea that thought and speech, howsoever unpalatable they might be to the ruling establishment, should be policed poses a grave danger for India as an open society.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
