Proving assistance to Indians on death row in Indonesia: Centre to Delhi HC
Justice Sachin Datta was assured by the Centre's counsel that the authorities would continue with the assistance.
The court, hearing a petition by the spouses of three Indians convicted in Indonesia, asked for a status report and posted the hearing on August 4.
Raju Muthukumaran, Selvadurai Dinakaran and Govindasamy Vimalkandhan, all hailing from Tamil Nadu, were arrested in July 2024 for allegedly smuggling 106 kilogram of crystal meth aboard the Legend Aquarius cargo vessel.
They were awarded the death penalty by Tanjung Balai Karimun District Court, Indonesia on April 25 for violation of narcotics law.
On May 2, the high court directed the Indian consulate in Indonesia to ensure the Indian nationals were given adequate legal aid to pursue remedies.
On Tuesday, the Centre's lawyer said even prior to the directions, the embassy took steps towards availing the legal remedies and adequate assistance to the convicts.
The vice consul of the Indian embassy in Indonesia on his own filed the "intent to appeal" against the conviction of the petitioners' spouses on May 2 as the families were unable to do so, and the appeal would also be filed in a few days, the counsel added.
"The embassy is in the process of engaging a lawyer. In a few days, we will give details. We are in touch with the authorities diplomatically also," the lawyer said.
The Centre's lawyer further revealed that consular access was granted and the embassy was in touch with the Indonesian authorities since July 2024.
The wives of the three men said their spouses were bread winners who worked at the shipping company in Singapore and they were of limited means.
They pointed out the limitation period for pursuing the appellate remedy was very stringent and requisite steps were required to be taken immediately in addition to appropriate assistance to the death row convicts.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Stalin urges centre's intervention for release of 7 fishermen held by Sri Lanka
Madurai: Chief minister M K Stalin has urged the Union government to take urgent diplomatic steps to secure the release of seven Rameswaram fishermen apprehended by the Sri Lankan navy in the early hours of Sunday. In a letter to Union external affairs minister S Jaishankar, Stalin expressed concern over the recurring arrests of Tamil Nadu fishermen and called for immediate measures to end the continued harassment of those operating in the Palk Strait. "I urge the Union government to engage all available diplomatic channels to bring an end to these continued apprehensions. I further request that urgent and effective steps be taken to secure the release of all detained fishermen and their boats at the earliest," he said. Stalin also highlighted that 50 fishermen and 232 Tamil Nadu fishing vessels remain in Sri Lankan custody this year, compounding the economic and emotional hardship faced by their families. The latest incident occurred around 2 am on Sunday when a mechanised trawler (IND-TN-10-MM-746), owned by V Isaac Paul of Thangachimadam, was intercepted near Neduntheevu by the Sri Lankan navy. The boat, which had left Rameswaram with valid fishing tokens issued by the fisheries department, was reportedly operating close to the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) when it was seized. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Is a Family Trust, and How Do You Set One Up? SmartAsset Learn More Undo The arrested fishermen were identified as B Ruther, 40, P Edison, 48, K Anbalagan, 45, M Jegadeesh, 42, all from Thangachimadam; A Shanmugam, 56, F Dalvin Raj, 42 from Rameswaram; and M Sakthivel, 43, from Keerathurai in Madurai. They were initially detained at Kankesanthurai port and later remanded to judicial custody in Jaffna prison. In a separate incident, the same morning, another mechanised boat (IND-TN-10-MM-1040), owned by Maria Seeron of Rameswaram, reportedly sustained significant damage after being hit by a Sri Lankan navy patrol vessel between Katchatheevu and Neduntheevu. However, the seven fishermen on board, Stalin, Muneeswaran, Viyakulam, Columbus, Nagesh, Stephen, and Sarath Kumar, escaped unhurt and returned safely to the Rameswaram jetty. In the past two weeks alone, aside from this latest arrest, 15 Indian fishermen have been remanded to judicial custody in two separate incidents, with their custody extended after initial hearings. J R Jesu Raja, leader of the Rameswaram Fishermen Association, condemned the arrests, stating, "The fishermen had no intention to violate international boundaries. The Sri Lankan navy is harassing them under the pretext of enforcement. One of the boats was even damaged while being chased." He appealed to both the Union and state governments to take a firm stand to ensure the safety of Indian fishermen. MSID:: 122420464 413 |
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Ulfa-I claims 3 cadres dead in drone strikes on Myanmar camps; Army denies
1 2 Guwahati: The banned insurgent group, United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (Ulfa-I), claimed that three of its cadres were killed in a targeted drone attack in at least three waves on its mobile camps in Myanmar's Sagaing region near the India-Myanmar border by the Indian Army early Sunday morning. The Ulfa-I said between 2am and 4am, over 150 drones of Indian Army, manufactured in Israel and France, struck several mobile camps of Ulfa-I, and Revolutionary People's Front (RPF), the political wing of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of Manipur along the India-Myanmar international border region between Longwa (Nagaland) and Pangsau Pass (Arunachal Pradesh). The group claimed that attack resulted in the death of senior Ulfa-I leader Nayan Asom and injuries to 19 other members. In a subsequent statement, it claimed that two more senior leaders — Ganesh Asom and Pradip Asom — were killed in a second wave of attack during Nayan Asom's funeral rites. The Indian Army has officially denied involvement in the alleged drone stricks. Defence ministry PRO Lt Col Mahendra Rawat told TOI in Guwahati, "There are no inputs with the Indian Army on such operation." In another statement later, Ulfa-I dismissed the Indian Army's denial, saying people in Arunachal Pradesh's border area are witness to the three waves of drone attacks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Assam's chief minister and state police also denied any involvement or knowledge of operations, stating that further clarity is expected as more information surfaces. A security source confirmed that there were losses of life at the Ulfa-I camp in Myanmar, but it emphasised that, given the current crisis in Myanmar — where the military junta is embroiled in a widespread civil war with numerous ethnic armed groups and insurgents — the cause of the incident could be internal to Myanmar itself. "The ongoing civil war in Myanmar has led to frequent clashes, shifting alliances, and a general breakdown of state control in many areas, particularly near international borders. In this environment, attacks on insurgent camps — including those used by Ulfa-I — could plausibly originate from Myanmar's own ethnic armed organisations or even from the Myanmar military, rather than from Indian forces," the source said. Since the late 1980s and 1990s, Indian insurgent groups began establishing camps in Myanmar's border areas to escape Indian security operations. The porous border and ongoing conflict have made the region a hotspot for cross-border militant activity. Indian security agencies have expressed concern over the use of Myanmar's territory by insurgents for launching attacks in northeast India. There have been previous instances of Indian military action or alleged cross-border strikes, but official confirmation is rare and often denied by both Indian and Myanmar authorities. Ulfa's main camps are reportedly in the dense forests of Sagaing, with key bases at Waktham Basti, Hoyat Basti, and Hakiyot (opposite Longding district, Arunachal Pradesh). Some camps are said to be near the Pangmi Naga area and along the China-Myanmar border. Manipur-based groups, including PLA, KYKL, and PREPAK, also operate from these areas. The NSCN-K(YA) faction has set up its headquarters and camps in Naga-inhabited regions of Sagaing, often within a 6 to 10 km radius of other Indian groups camps. These camps have been used continuously, with their locations shifting in response to military pressure. The Sagaing region and Naga-inhabited areas of Myanmar remain the primary strongholds for these Indian insurgent groups, often with support or tolerance from local armed factions or, at times, the Myanmar military. The ongoing civil war in Myanmar has further complicated the security landscape, with insurgent groups sometimes shifting allegiances or moving camps to avoid detection or attacks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
The curious case of demotion of executive director at a public-sector bank
On June 24, the finance ministry's Department of Financial Services notified the following: The central government hereby cancels the appointment of A* [name withheld] as executive director, Union Bank of India, made vide Department of Financial Services' notification no 4/3/2023-BO.1 dated 27.03.2024, with immediate effect, by reverting him to his previous post, ie, general manager in Punjab & Sind Bank. Besides A, this notification was copied to the Reserve Bank of India governor, chairman of the State Bank of India, managing directors and chief executive officers of all public sector banks (PSBs), the chief executive of Indian Banks' Association, among others. We have seen many disciplinary actions against senior PSB officials. Investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Intelligence Bureau hounding them for allegedly abetting frauds and/or tacitly supporting fraudsters, too, aren't unheard of. Instances of PSB chiefs being arrested and sent to Tihar Jail are also not rare. But this case appears unique. What exactly happened? Here is a reconstruction of what led to this action. I am just stating facts and not getting into who is right and who isn't. The story had begun much earlier, in the financial year 2016-17 (FY17), but the latest trigger for the action is a public interest litigation filed in the Delhi High Court in August 2024 (WP 11590/2024) by a woman employee of Punjab & Sind (P&S) Bank, challenging A's appointment. She raised a question: How could someone be appointed ED of a PSB without proper due diligence? Ahead of this, she had sought all relevant information about A's appointment as an ED under the Right to Information Act. I understand that she did not succeed in getting the information. Once the Delhi High Court started probing, the Chief Vigilance Commission (CVC) stepped in and denied vigilance clearance. The denial came after A's appointment — after he had been in the position of executive director for 14 months. This brings to light the role of the chief vigilance officer (CVO) and senior management of P&S Bank. In a bank, the CVO is responsible for overseeing the vigilance function, and ensuring ethical conduct and compliance with regulations. The CVO is the nodal point for interaction with the CVC and CBI. Typically, a bank's CVO focuses on preventive vigilance. In FY17, the woman [let's call her B], who was the chief manager at P&S Bank's PY Road branch in Indore, reported alleged irregularities and corruption by A, who was then the bank's central India zonal manager based in Bhopal. On December 14, 2017, B received a transfer order to Saraswan in Kundam tehsil, Jabalpur. Claiming that the transfer order was issued with 'mala fide intentions' and by an 'incompetent authority', she challenged it vide a writ petition (9048/2018) at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Before that, in February 2018, B had approached the bank's management, accusing A of sexual harassment. After waiting for 11 months, she went to the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) on January 8, 2019. Such a committee is mandatory under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — also referred to as the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act. The LCC addresses complaints of workplace harassment within the jurisdiction of a district. It has advisory and recommending powers, but limited enforcement authority. Any organisation that has 10 or more employees is bound by law to form an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), headed by a senior woman employee and with one external member as part of it. While the LCC proceedings were on, the bank formed an ICC in Delhi, where P&S Bank is headquartered. The ICC report, on February 26, 2019, gave A a clean chit. However, the LCC report, on June 17, 2019, rejected the ICC's finding that the complaint was false. The LCC recommended a ₹50,000 penalty on the bank for not having an ICC in Indore and for violating POSH provisions. It also advised disciplinary action against A according to service rules and recommended reconsidering B's non-promotion on merit. It found A guilty of sexual harassment, and the bank of supporting him, creating a hostile work environment, and humiliating a woman employee, which affected her health and safety. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled B's transfer order on April 17, 2018. It was a single Bench judgment. The bank filed an appeal (377/2019) at the division bench of the High Court. It was dismissed on March 18, 2019, affirming the order of the single bench and cancelling B's transfer order. At this stage, P&S Bank moved the Supreme Court with a civil appeal (1809/2020). The apex court dismissed the appeal on February 25, 2020, and upheld the order passed by the division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court also came down heavily on the bank on the matter of constituting the ICC. It took note of the alleged sexual harassment against B. The bank and A filed writ petitions against the LCC order (23858 of 2019 and 25127 of 2019) at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. There was also another writ petition challenging the LCC order. All three writ petitions argued that the ICC order should be taken as final, and that there was no need for an LCC when there was a provision to constitute an ICC. B's counsel, Prashant Bhusan, argued that the LCC order was final and that it could be challenged only at the appellate authority under Section 2 of the Industrial Employment [Standing Orders] Act and not before a high court. While the high court proceedings were on, in March 2024, A was appointed ED in Union Bank. In August 2024, B filed a fresh writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the appointment. The Delhi High Court questioned the grounds of vigilance clearance given to the 'offender' of moral turpitude and his subsequent appointment as ED. While the petition challenging the appointment was in the Delhi High Court, the writ petitions filed by P&S Bank, A and another person at the Madhya Pradesh High Court were dismissed on April 8, 2025. The court directed the bank and A to appeal to an appropriate forum against LCC's decision. Finally, the government stepped in. It cancelled A's appointment as ED and sent him back to the bank as a general manager. The case raises some questions: How could the officer concerned get his promotion from a zonal manager (who is of the rank of a deputy general manager) to a general manager? And, of course, to the post of ED? Does sexual harassment not fall under the jurisdiction of vigilance? Indeed, an ED of a public sector bank losing his job this way is rare, but rarer is an ED returning to the position of general manager. EDs are central government appointees, while general managers are employees of a bank. Of course, it is possible for an ED to return to a GM's post. Through a notification in 2012, the government ensured continuation of service in the case of elevation of a wholetime director (such as ED and MD). Earlier, a GM had to retire before taking up the higher position. This is possibly a case of 'Doctrine of Relation Back' — a legal principle where an act, though performed later, is legally treated as if it occurred earlier. This means that a later event can be deemed to have happened at an earlier, specified date, often to validate a previous action or right. The doctrine essentially gives a retroactive effect to certain actions or rights, making them effective from a date prior to their actual occurrence. The question is: If someone is deemed unfit for the post of ED, can that person be considered fit to be general manager? I am aware of at least one other instance in a PSB, where a deputy general manager facing criminal charges for moral turpitude in a chief judicial magistrate's court was recently promoted as general manager. Will he become an ED?
