3 children die of suffocation inside parked car in Tamil Nadu

Riyadh, April 12: In a welcome move for Indian expatriates and other foreign residents in Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom has introduced a new online service that allows residents to update their passport information without visiting the General Directorate of Passports (Jawazat). The service is available through the widely used Absher platform.

This initiative comes as a major time-saver for Indian expats, especially those renewing their passports, as it eliminates the need for lengthy in-person appointments and physical document submissions at Jawazat offices.

Who Can Use the Service?

The online update feature is available to expatriates aged 18 and above. Once a passport is renewed, Indian expats can log in to Absher (via their employers account), navigate to My Services, select Passport, and then access Resident Identity Services to update the relevant information.

A clear photo of the new passport must be uploaded. The system automatically extracts the passport number and expiry date using advanced digital recognition tools.

Before submitting, users are required to pledge that:

• The old passport has not been lost.
• There are no reports of absence from work.
• There are no pending traffic violations linked to the resident's Iqama.
• There are no security-related restrictions on the expat or the employer.

Important for Indian Families

If family members previously listed on the old passport have been issued individual passports, the online service cannot be used. In such cases, a personal visit to Jawazat is necessary to complete the update.

Likewise, if the passport is lost, the expat must report the loss and update information directly at the Jawazat office. Any misuse or incorrect submission will result in accountability under Saudi law, including potential charges of forgery.

Fee Details

To avail this convenience, a nominal fee of SR69 (including VAT) is applicable for each passport update request.

Why It Matters

With over 2 million Indians living and working in Saudi Arabia, this digital service is expected to ease the bureaucratic burden and save time for thousands of individuals who previously had to navigate crowded offices and long wait times. It also enhances accuracy and ensures smoother processing for both employees and employers.

Indian community associations have welcomed the move, calling it a step forward in digital convenience and administrative efficiency for expatriates.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain petitions filed by the NIA against the bail granted to 17 Popular Front of India members in the 2022 murder case of RSS leader Srinivasan in Kerala's Palakkad district.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the Kerala High Court order granting bail to the accused is one-year-old and the HC has the power to cancel bail if the conditions are violated.

"Our attention is invited to observation made in the last part of the impugned order by which high court has reserved liberty to the petitioners to apply to special court for cancellation of bail.

"Therefore, the petitioners can always apply to the special court for cancellation of bail on the grounds which are set out in the affidavits filed in these petitions. In fact the special court will be the more appropriate court," the bench said.

The top court said the agency can satisfy the special court about the breach of terms and conditions of grant of bail by producing materials against the accused.

"Therefore, at this stage we decline to entertain the special leave petitions with liberty to the petitioners to move the special court/high court for cancellation of bail. Needless to say that if the prayer made by petitioner does not succeed before the special court/high court remedies of the petitioners remain open.

"We make it clear that as and when application is made for cancellation of bail the special court or high court should not be influenced by the fact that this court has declined to entertain the present special leave petitions," the bench said.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, appearing for the NIA, sought cancellation of the bail and submitted that the accused have violated the bail conditions and have contacted the witnesses.

The Kerala High Court on June 25, 2024 granted bail to the 17 accused PFI members, who are also facing trial for allegedly instigating communal violence in the state and other parts of the country.

Granting bail to 17 of the 26 accused, the high court imposed stringent conditions, which include sharing their cellphone numbers and real-time GPS locations with the investigating officer.

Aside from that, the accused were ordered not to leave Kerala, surrender their passports and keep their cellphones charged and active round-the-clock.

It had directed the 17 to "present themselves before the special court which shall enlarge them on bail on such conditions as the special court may deem necessary".

Initially, 51 persons were arraigned as accused in connection with the murder of Srinivasan on April 16, 2022. One among those held died while seven others are absconding.

Chargesheets against the remaining persons were filed in two phases in July and December, 2022.

While police was investigating the murder, the Centre received information that the office bearers and cadres of the Popular Front of India and its affiliates in Kerala had conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise its cadres to commit terrorist acts in Kerala and other parts of the country, the high court noted in its order.

Therefore, the Centre in September, 2022 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up and probe the case against the accused.

On December 19, 2022, the Centre, referring to Srinivasan's death, opined there was a larger conspiracy hatched by the leaders of the PFI "which has grave national and international ramifications" that needed to be "thoroughly investigated to unearth the wider conspiracy and to identify the other accused".

The Centre directed the NIA to take up the probe in the murder case as well, and the agency filed its consolidated chargesheet in 2023 with two supplementary chargesheets later.

Immediately after the respective NIA chargesheets were filed before the special court, the accused moved for bail.