The court took this stand after making it clear that for now it was not going into the allegations and counter-allegations involving Verma and Asthana.
Migration in North India isn’t just due to lack of development today. It was shaped by the evolution of labour markets under Sher Shah, Mughals, and the East India Company.
December oil imports from Russia may drop nearly 50%, but Indian buyers already shifting to non-designated Russian entities and opaque trading channels to keep Russian oil flowing.
New Delhi is interested in firming up bilateral agreements for increased trade, mobility, upgrade of Su-30 MKI fighters and the increased range of BrahMos supersonic missiles.
The India-South Africa series-defining fact is the catastrophic decline of Indian red ball cricket where a visiting team can mock us with the 'grovel' word.
This is an important issue of law that needs to be settled. My sense, as a layperson, is that the Committee’s role is limited to ensuring an impartial selection. A fixed tenure of two years ensures continuity and a degree of independence / insulation from the political executive. However, if just cause arises – like the hypothetical question put by the Court, of someone being caught in flagrante delicto – the government has the right to act immediately against the Director. It would be then expected to inform the other two members of the Committee of its decision. Should the member(s) feel the government has not acted in good faith, they could probably make an issue of it. The CJI, donning his judicial robes, could review the decision if it is challenged before him. 2. Whatever the Court’s finding on the point of law, Director Alok Verma’s sun, sadly, is setting. If – under Justice Patnaik’s supervision – he has not been found blameless, that validates the government’s move to divest him of his powers, although it could have waited for him to change from his night suit to a business suit. Unlikely that the process could be completed before 31st January. 3. The process of selecting the next Director could be taken in hand in good time.
This is an important issue of law that needs to be settled. My sense, as a layperson, is that the Committee’s role is limited to ensuring an impartial selection. A fixed tenure of two years ensures continuity and a degree of independence / insulation from the political executive. However, if just cause arises – like the hypothetical question put by the Court, of someone being caught in flagrante delicto – the government has the right to act immediately against the Director. It would be then expected to inform the other two members of the Committee of its decision. Should the member(s) feel the government has not acted in good faith, they could probably make an issue of it. The CJI, donning his judicial robes, could review the decision if it is challenged before him. 2. Whatever the Court’s finding on the point of law, Director Alok Verma’s sun, sadly, is setting. If – under Justice Patnaik’s supervision – he has not been found blameless, that validates the government’s move to divest him of his powers, although it could have waited for him to change from his night suit to a business suit. Unlikely that the process could be completed before 31st January. 3. The process of selecting the next Director could be taken in hand in good time.