Modi govt slams UN for opposing its decision to deport helpless Rohingyas

The Manipur Kuki MLAs have released a statement calling out Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's 'lies' in the Supreme Court. In a joint statement, the MLAs, including those from the Bharatiya Janata Party, said they had not had any meeting with the Chief Minister since May 3, 2023, nor did they intend to meet him in the future as “he was the mastermind behind the violence”.

As per the MLAs, the SG lied about state CM N Biren Singh speaking to Kuki MLAs to control the situation there, in order to halt a Supreme Court probe into the leaked tapes which allege that Singh has been complicit in the violence that broke out between Kukis and Meitis there.

"We...clarify that we have never had any meeting with Chief Minister, Shri N. Biren Singh since May 3, 2023, nor have any intention to meet him in future as he is the mastermind behind the violence and ethnic cleansing of our people from the Imphal valley, which is continuing till today, the latest being the brutal killing and burning of Mrs Zosangkim Hmar on November 7, 2024," the letter read, while condemning the recent 'barbaric' killing of the woman there, and noting the SG's assertion is 'tantamount' to misleading the top court.

“We, the undersigned ten MLAs, have come to know that during the Supreme Court hearing held on November 8, 2024, the Solicitor General of India submitted that ‘CM is meeting all Kuki MLAs and trying to bring the situation down to get peace’. In this connection, we hereby categorically state that this submission is a blatant lie and tantamount to misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition by a Kuki organisation, asked that it submit audio tapes to substantiate its claim that the Chief Minister was instrumental in inciting and organising violence in the northeastern State.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta orally informed the court that the Chief Minister was meeting all the Kuki-Zo MLAs and that peace in the State had come at a huge cost.

In his victory speech, President-elect Donald Trump showered praise on Elon Musk, calling him an "amazing guy" and "super genius." The SpaceX CEO’s satellite internet project, Starlink, received special attention for its role in providing critical connectivity after Hurricane Helene. With Starlink’s success making waves, speculation grows: will Musk bring his revolutionary tech to India’s vast, underserved areas?

In India, Musk’s increasing proximity to Trump and the President-elect’s endorsement has sparked curiosity and anticipation. Although regulatory barriers have delayed Starlink’s entry since 2021, recent policy shifts by India’s Communications Ministry could turn the tide. Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia recently announced plans to allocate satellite spectrum administratively, a move welcomed by Musk, who pledged to "serve the people of India" through Starlink.

What Makes Starlink Unique?
Unlike traditional broadband reliant on cables, Starlink uses thousands of low-earth orbit satellites to provide high-speed internet. This innovative approach bypasses the need for miles of overhead or underground wiring, making it ideal for remote and rural areas. Launched in 2019, Starlink now serves over 4 million users globally, and its entry into India could be transformative in bridging the digital divide.

Starlink’s India Journey So Far
Musk’s ambitions for India began in 2021 with pre-order invitations, but the government halted progress, citing licensing requirements. However, with Scindia’s recent announcement, Starlink may soon navigate the regulatory landscape, potentially setting the stage for a significant market entry.

Showdown with India’s Telecom Titans
If Starlink is allowed in, it could mean intense competition for Indian telecom leaders Mukesh Ambani’s Jio and Sunil Bharti Mittal’s Airtel. Both companies argue that satellite spectrum should be auctioned to maintain a level playing field, especially if Starlink expands to urban areas, challenging their established services.

While Starlink advocates for affordable, widespread access, Indian telecom giants claim global players often leverage rural connectivity narratives for favorable conditions, potentially overshadowing local providers in urban markets. As the government’s decisions unfold, a tech-driven tug-of-war could reshape India’s telecom landscape, with Musk’s Starlink poised as a powerful new player.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.