If you fail to act against terrorists, we will get it done: US tells Pakistan

Washington: The race between Democratic leader Kamala Harris and her Republican rival Donald Trump for the White House has been truly unprecedented as it saw drama, tragedy, political comebacks, fierce rhetoric and a historically razor-tight contest.

As the fight reaches its crescendo with the big election day just a few hours away, many political observers billed the unpredictable race for the 47th President of the US as the most consequential one in decades while appearing to project a grim picture for the country’s future under a Trump presidency.

In her final days of campaign, Vice President Harris focused on a message of hope, unity, optimism and women rights whereas Trump remained fiercely combative in targeting his Democratic rival and even suggested that he may not accept the election outcome in case of a defeat.

Overall, it has been a roller-coaster ride for both 60-year-old Harris and 78-year-old Trump.

Trump received his party’s nomination in March and formally at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July — in a historic comeback after remaining in political wilderness for months following several court cases.

In effect, he became the first former president to get the nomination for the top office on the planet after being convicted of a felony.

“Trump has made one of the biggest political comebacks since Richard Nixon’s in terms of the political struggles that he has had in the last four years,” Communication Strategist Anang Mittal said.

Just days ahead of the RNC, Trump was shot at during a rally in Pennsylvania. He suffered an upper ear injury. Minutes later, a bleeding Trump raised his fist in defiance, images that drew a lot of emotional support from his die-hard supporters.

For Harris too, it has been a dramatic ride after Biden ended his re-election campaign in July, nearly weeks after he came under severe scrutiny following his incoherent performance at a televised debate with Trump.

While dropping out from the race, Biden, 81, endorsed Harris to succeed him as the Democratic candidate.

Finally in August, the Democratic National Convention formally nominated Harris as the party’s candidate for the presidential election.

The presidential election will be a chance to “move past the bitterness, cynicism and divisive battles of the past”, she said in a powerful speech at the Convention.

If Harris wins, she will become the first woman, first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to become the US President.

In the overall campaign, Harris has been projecting the election as the one to protect the country’s fundamental freedoms, safeguard constitutional values and ensure women’s rights.

On his part, Trump has maintained his signature aggressive rhetoric and promising to rebuild the economy and rid the US from illegal immigrants.

However, there has been strong criticism of the Republican leader’s roadmap to repair the economy.

"Donald Trump is offering a vision of crony rentier capitalism that has enticed many captains of industry and finance,” said Joseph E Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate economist, in a column in Project Syndicate.

"In catering to their wishes for more tax cuts and less regulation, he would make most Americans’ lives poorer, harder, and shorter,” he said.

With election day just a few hours away, there is no clarity on who has a better chance of winning the race.

"The elections are very close. They (the outcome) may change on the basis of a few thousands votes here or there. I think the big issue will be voter turnout tomorrow. That will determine the outcome in certain swing states,” said Executive Director of the US chapter of Observer Research Foundation Dhruva Jaishankar.

Kapil Sharma, a non-resident senior fellow at Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programmes, also echoed similar views.

“This election is probably one of the closest elections that I can remember. I have been working in Washington for over 30 years and I don’t recall an election being this tight,” he said.

More than 78 million Americans have already cast their votes as of Sunday, according to the University of Florida’s Election Lab that tracks early and mail-in voting across the US.

Bengaluru: In a major legal twist, an FIR has been filed against Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, his son Nikhil Kumaraswamy, and their close associate Suresh Babu. The trio is accused of threatening a senior IPS officer and making false allegations against him. The FIR, registered by the Sanjaynagar police, follows a complaint by Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) M. Chandrasekhar, who heads the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Karnataka Lokayukta.

Allegations Against Kumaraswamy
The crux of the case revolves around ADGP Chandrasekhar's investigation into Kumaraswamy's alleged illegal approval of a mining lease to Sri Sai Venkateshwara Minerals (SSVM). Kumaraswamy, currently serving as Union Minister for Steel and Heavy Industries, has been accused of bypassing legal procedures in favor of SSVM, prompting Chandrasekhar to seek the Karnataka Governor's approval to pursue legal action.

In response, Chandrasekhar claims that Kumaraswamy lashed out publicly. On September 28 and 29, the former Karnataka Chief Minister held press conferences, accusing the officer of bribery, misuse of medical records, and personal misconduct. According to the ADGP, Kumaraswamy also issued a threat of transferring him to another cadre outside Karnataka.

Nikhil and Aide Suresh Babu Involved
Kumaraswamy’s son Nikhil Kumaraswamy is also implicated in the controversy. On September 29, Nikhil allegedly echoed his father’s accusations against Chandrasekhar. The third individual named in the FIR, Suresh Babu, a close aide to Kumaraswamy, is accused of escalating the issue by writing a letter to the Karnataka Chief Secretary. This letter, containing further allegations, was made public on social media, adding to the pressure on the senior officer.

Legal Action and Charges
Though Chandrasekhar's complaint was filed in October, formal legal proceedings began on November 4 after securing approval from the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM). The charges include Section 224 (threat of injury to a public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A police source familiar with the case confirmed the charges.

ADGP Chandrasekhar's Response
In a strong rebuttal, ADGP Chandrasekhar addressed his team and the media, branding Kumaraswamy as an accused person trying to intimidate the SIT. He emphasized that these attacks were intended to undermine his officers' morale and interfere with the investigation.

“An accused, no matter how powerful, remains an accused. This attempt to instill fear in the minds of officers is meant to hinder justice," Chandrasekhar said in a written statement. Referring to Kumaraswamy, he added, "This accused, who is currently out on bail, has resorted to such tactics to shake our resolve."

Quoting Shaw to Drive the Point Home
In a dramatic conclusion, Chandrasekhar cited playwright George Bernard Shaw, saying, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it,” signaling his intent to remain unshaken in the face of public accusations and personal threats.

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.