On April, 22 the Modi govt had announced a special package of 15,000 crores for the fight against corona. What the govt. concealed is the fact that the entire amount has been taken as a loan from int banks.
The PM-CARES had collected more than 9,000 crores by May 20, as per an @IndiaSpend report. But that figure was only acc. to publicly available press releases. The original amount was much more than that!
Instead of spending the amount from the entirely opaque PM-CARES fund, Modi govt was keener on borrowing money from international banks like Asian Development Bank, IBRD and AIIB. I spoke to @Jayati1609, UNDP award-winning development economist and JNU professor & she said this-
She called the move "completely unnecessary and a currency risk" and since the "rupee is likely to depreciate further, and repayment will be in dollars".. it will "significantly add to repayment costs".
IHO, the package could've been financed by PM-CARES & even by central govt..
.. directly. "The package is less than 1/10th of the amount given away as tax concessions to corporates in the previous financial year, which the government did without blinking an eyelid!".
Not only this- documents reveal that on June 15, the govt rushed to ADB asking for...
... a loan of 3 million dollars (22 crores) to strengthen Point of Entry systems in airports!
Remember, Centre has fast-tracked d Central Vista project, which'll cost 20,000 crores, during a pandemic! Modi's VVIP aircraft has landed in Delhi today, costing another 8400 crores!
But for Corona, Centre has no money to spend.
The question is- If the PM-CARES is not being used for what it was meant for & govt is rushing to Int banks, increasing burden on public exchequer, then what is the fund being used for?
The many analyses explaining the Aam Aadmi Party’s poll debacle in Delhi are missing one important player – the Supreme Court. While it dilly-dallied on fixing the grave constitutional crisis, governance suffered. A thread.
It’s not that AAP has never delivered on its promises; Delhi’s health and education landscape saw great changes. But, beginning 2015, bit by bit, the elected government’s powers to govern had been taken away by the Union government, and the judiciary allowed this to happen.
It began in May 2015, with a circular that took away the newly elected @ArvindKejriwal government. What followed was a contentious battle in court. Several hurdles were posed by the bureaucrats. Read more about this in the piece.
It is rather rich of the Supreme Court to preach morality when, not too long ago, not a single Supreme Court judge publicly objected to their Chief Justice presiding over cases despite serious allegations of sexual harassment. 1/10
The condition imposed on @BeerBicepsGuy and "his associates" to not air "any shows " for the time being until further orders is a sweeping condition.
One would expect the highest court to explain why it deemed it necessary to bar someone from their profession and gag their future speech-both fundamental rights. 2/10
Yet, the Supreme Court imposed this condition arbitrarily – paternalistic, sweeping, and entirely unaccountable – emblematic of its mai-baap approach, wherein it sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all things, unburdened by the need to justify its own excesses. 3/10
#YearInReview: 2024 was profoundly meaningful. I worked on 2 long-form stories—investigating extrajudicial killings and police shootouts in Uttar Pradesh and profiling CJI DY Chandrachud—both of which took 4 months each, eventually published at 6,000 & 16,000 words.
A thread.
In January, for @AJEnglish, I reported how the three new criminal laws and the Telecom Act have the potential to turn India into a Police and Surveillance state. Concern for civil liberty continue. aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/17…
In February, for @Article14live, I reported on the blocking of hate-crime documenter @HindutvaWatchIn's X account and website. I highlighted the loopholes in existing laws that allow the govt such drastic, arbitrary measures. article-14.com/post/takedown-…
There is great confusion over DDA Tree Felling case being withdrawn from Justice Abhay Oka’s Bench. Let me break it down.
1. The issue of ridge- both forest ridge and morphological ridge in Delhi has always been a part of MC Mehta case (since 1985). This was before Oka J.
2. There is also the TN Godavarman case which is about larger forests etc. before Justice BR Gavai’s bench.
3. On 6 Dec 2023 the CEC filed Report no.36 of 2023 in MC Mehta case recommending that approval be granted to DDA for construction of approach roads to CAPFIMS in the Satbari area.
4. On 15 February 2024, in MC Mehta case before Oka, an IA was filed by the DDA requesting felling of 1051 trees for the approach roads. While this was pending, the DDA allegedly on orders of LG went ahead and cut the trees anyway.
Although Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud promised 14 opposition parties of safeguarding them against misuse of CBI and ED in April 2023, he has failed to list 3 "crucial cases" in the past 20 months of his 24-month tenure. A 🧵.
At the Oxford Union Society lecture on 4 June 2024, Chief Justice Chandrachud talked about how courts “step in” when “the State may be unwilling to balance [individual] rights against weighty purposes.”
Yet, three crucial cases pertaining the draconian PMLA linger before him.
These cases that directly challenge or raise questions about the constitutionality of various provisions of the “draconian” Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) and impact its administration have remained unheard for the past 12 to 55 months.
The 3 new criminal laws have been criticised for their potential to violate human rights. HM Amit Shah had claimed "extensive consultation" done but attempts to know details of inputs given failed at Supreme Court, HCs, Home Min.
The new laws will be effective from 1st of July. They increase police powers by increasing time period for police custody, leading to fears of custodial torture, introduce special offences like terrorism without any safeguards, and bring back sedition. Amit Shah in his speech...
...claimed to have sought views from “... all governors, chief ministers, lieutenant governors, administrators… the CJI, chief justices of all high courts, bar councils, law universities… all MPs, all MLAs… all Indian Police Service officers, and all collectorates”. 3/13