NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the West Bengal government over its objection to the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate’s plea alleging obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during a January 8 raid at I-PAC, asking what remedy ED officers would have if their rights were allegedly violated.As per news agency PTI, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said some ED officers had also moved the court in their individual capacity, raising the issue of whether they cease to be citizens merely because they serve in the agency.

Court asks state to focus on ED officers’ rights

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that a petitioner invoking Article 32 must clearly show which fundamental right has been violated.He submitted that the ED officer who filed the writ petition had not specifically pleaded any violation of fundamental rights and said the ED itself was not even a “person” for the purpose of such a petition.At this stage, Justice Mishra told the state to look beyond the agency as an institution and focus on the officers who had also approached the court.“Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers of the ED with whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You can’t forget the second petition which is preferred by individual officers who are the victims of the offence. You will be in difficulty, I am telling you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” Justice Mishra observed, as quoted by Bar and Bench.Bar and Bench similarly reported that the court asked whether ED officers cease to be citizens of India merely because they are officers of the agency.The Court further said “different political parties govern centre and states. If some chief minister of the other side does this in 2030 and 2031 and you come in power in central government and their chief minister does this, what will be your reaction?”

Kapil Sibal says obstruction of statutory duty is not a fundamental rights issue

Sibal argued that obstruction in the performance of a statutory duty cannot automatically be treated as a violation of a fundamental right.He said, “If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a petition under Article 32. He also can’t file a 226 petition. There will be a prosecution launched for the obstruction of violating his right to discharge his functions.”As quoted by Bar and Bench, Sibal also told the court, “Any obstruction in performance of a statutory duty is not in violation of a fundamental right. If someone obstructs a police officer, he can’t file a 32 petition. There is a statutory remedy. Otherwise every police officer will file a 32. We can’t interpret a law in the context of a particular situation and then open a Pandora’s box inconsistent with the basic features of criminal law.”He further argued that an ED officer has only a statutory right to investigate, not a “fundamental right” to do so. “He (ED officer) only has a right under a statute to investigate. And violation of that right is not a violation of fundamental right,” Bar and Bench quoted him as saying.

Bench questions whether ED should seek remedy from CM-led state

The Bench also raised a sharp question over the practical consequence of the state’s argument.“If the CM barges into an ED investigation and commits an offence, your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek remedy?” Justice Mishra asked.Sibal responded that the court was presuming the Chief Minister had committed an offence. “Your lordships are assuming that the chief minister has committed an offence,” he said, according to PTI.Justice Mishra clarified that the Bench was not making any finding and was only referring to the allegations in the plea.“We are not assuming anything. That is the allegation. Do not mistake us. Every allegation is based on some facts, if there are no facts, there is no need to be investigated. That is what they are praying for, for CBI to investigate,” the judge said.Sibal also argued that if ED officers came across another offence while investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they should inform the concerned agency — in this case the state government — under Section 66 of PMLA.

Court rejects suggestion to defer hearing due to elections

The Supreme Court also firmly pushed back against a suggestion that the case be postponed because of the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.According to Bar and Bench, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Banerjee, referred to an earlier instance where a judge had declined to hear a matter due to elections.The Bench, however, made it clear it would not entertain such a request.“We don’t want to be party to election, we don’t want to be party to any crime also. We know the timing of the court. We know the timing of the decision,” Justice Mishra said, as reported by Bar and Bench.Kalyan Banerjee also argued that the state’s consent is required for a CBI investigation, though constitutional courts have the power in appropriate cases.

Hearing remains inconclusive, next date on April 14

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on April 14.The matter centres on the ED’s plea alleging interference and obstruction by the West Bengal government, including Mamata Banerjee, during its January 8 search at the I-PAC office and the premises of its director Pratik Jain in connection with an alleged coal-pilferage scam.The agency has sought a CBI probe and also challenged the FIRs lodged in West Bengal against its officers.

Case stems from January 8 I-PAC raid in coal smuggling probe

Banerjee allegedly entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder while ED officers were conducting searches in connection with a money laundering investigation and allegedly removed documents and electronic devices from the premises.She reportedly claimed the material related to her political party. I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.The ED has said the searches were linked to its probe into a 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, accused of involvement in coal smuggling.The agency alleged that a coal smuggling syndicate led by Majee illegally excavated coal from Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) leasehold areas in West Bengal and sold it to various factories and plants in the state, with a large part allegedly sold to the Shakambhari Group of companies.

Earlier, SC had termed obstruction allegations ‘very serious’

On January 15, the top court had described the allegations against the Chief Minister as “very serious” and agreed to examine whether a state’s law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency’s investigation into a serious offence.It stayed the FIRs filed against ED officials who carried out the raid and directed the West Bengal Police to preserve the CCTV footage of the operation.The court had also issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former DGP Rajeev Kumar and senior police officials on the ED’s petitions seeking a CBI probe.Tthe Bench also questioned where the ED would go if it could not move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226, observing that “there cannot be a vacuum.”

State says ED plea under Article 32 is not maintainable

The West Bengal government has consistently opposed the ED’s move under Article 32.The state argued the searches at I-PAC were not obstructed, and that the ED’s own panchnama showed this.It also contended that an Article 32 petition can be filed only by citizens alleging a violation of fundamental rights, and therefore the ED’s petition against a state government is not maintainable.The state warned allowing a central government department to file a writ petition against a state government could be dangerous to the federal structure.

If children prefer to spend time on smartphones rather than inter‑ acting with others in a social set‑ ting, they are just phub‑ bing. Are they just talking to friends or doom scrolling the content in social media platforms? What happens if phubbing continues? A recent study*, published in the Current Psychology journal, sheds light on the psy‑ chological and behavioural as‑ pects of phubbing, and reveals its profound impact on inter‑ personal communication and well‑being.Smartphones are an indispensable part of our daily lives. Even as they help us stay connected and productive, smart‑ phone use has given rise to troubling social behaviour: Phubbing or the act of ignoring people around us, focusing on our phone.The study surveyed 938 undergrad‑ uate students in the US, 48.4% men and 51.6% women, to explore how social media addiction, Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) and personality traits contrib‑ ute to phubbing. Social media addiction emerged as the strongest predictor of phubbing behavior.Students who scored high on the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) — a tool used to assess social media habits — were more likely to engage in phubbing, underscoring the addictive pull of platforms that thrive on constant en‑ gagement.FOMO also played a notable role. Defined as the persistent anx‑ iety that others are enjoying rewarding experiences without us, FOMO drives individuals to com‑ pulsively check their phones. This need for digital connectedness often comes at the ex‑ pense of real‑world relationships. While FOMO was less pre‑ dictive than social media addiction, it still contributes to phub‑ bing tendencies.Personality traits added another layer of complexity. Students who were more conscientious, organised, disciplined, and mindful, were less likely to dis‑ rupt conversations with phone use. Similarly, extroverts, who thrive on face‑to‑face interactions, showed lower levels of phubbing compared to their in‑ troverted peers.Conversely, lower emotional stabili‑ ty correlated with higher phone obsession, suggest‑ ing that individuals strug‑ gling with social isolation or anxiety may turn to their devices as compensa‑ tory tools.Men reported high‑ er phubbing scores than women. This may be linked to broader patterns of ad‑ dictive behaviours, which tend to be more prevalent among men.The implications are clear. Phub‑ bing is not a trivial annoyance, but a behaviour rooted in psychological vul‑ nerabilities and digital dependencies. It undermines communication, weakens trust and erodes the quality of relation‑ ships. In social contexts, the act of diverting attention to phone signals disengagement, leaving companions feeling undervalued and ignored. Phubbing is clearly a paradox of modern connectivity: While smart‑ phones promise closeness, they often fos‑ ter isolation.This study confirms that social media addiction is the most powerful driver of phubbing, with FOMO and certain per‑ sonality traits amplifying the risk. As so‑ ciety grapples with the costs of constant connectivity, recognising and curbing phubbing may be essential to promote genuine human interactions. (The phubbing phenomenon: A cross-sectional study on the relationships among social media addiction, fear of missing out, personality traits, and phubbing behavior, by Li-Chiu Chi, Tseng-Chung Tang & Eugene Tang)

NEW DELHI: India’s state-run refiners are holding back from purchasing US-permitted Iranian oil cargoes despite a fresh sanctions waiver, as logistical, financial and regulatory uncertainties outweigh the short-term opportunity.According to a Bloomberg report, the hesitation comes after the United States issued a one-month waiver on Friday, allowing countries to buy Iranian crude already “on the water”, in a bid to ease global oil prices. However, state-owned refiners are sceptical of this purchase. Unresolved issues around shipping, insurance and payment mechanisms have collectively prevented any deals from materialising.At the core of the reluctance is the waiver’s tight timeline.In oil trade terms, a 30-day window is widely viewed as insufficient to negotiate contracts, complete due diligence, arrange financing, secure insurance, and execute delivery. Refiners fear that any delay could push shipments beyond the waiver period, exposing them to sanctions risk.Compounding this is a logistics bottleneck. Marine insurance—critical for cargoes worth millions of dollars—remains a grey area.Most global insurers operate within Western regulatory frameworks and may be unwilling to underwrite shipments tied to Iran, given the risk that the waiver could lapse mid-voyage. Without indemnity cover, tankers may also face rejection at ports, adding another layer of uncertainty.Financial channels present an equally significant hurdle. Iran’s limited access to the global banking system, particularly the SWIFT network, has left refiners unclear about viable payment mechanisms. Questions remain over which currency to use, which intermediary banks are compliant, and whether transactions could trigger future scrutiny. This has slowed due diligence—the verification process required before entering such trades—especially after a five-year gap in dealings.“Issues like shipping and insurance are unclear, and refiners are uncertain about payment mechanisms, currency, insurance and even whether Iran-linked vessels would ultimately be accepted at Indian ports,” Bloomberg reported citing sources familiar with the matter.The lack of a formal government framework from New Delhi has further reinforced caution. Refining executives have indicated that official guidance or a policy shield would make such purchases more viable. In its absence, companies are left to independently assess legal and operational risks, encouraging a risk-averse approach.This caution mirrors sentiment in other major Asian markets. China’s state-owned Sinopec has also indicated it would avoid Iranian shipments, citing the narrow delivery window under the waiver.India’s stance contrasts sharply with its earlier response to Russian oil waivers. There, established trade routes, payment systems and shipping arrangements allowed refiners to move quickly. With Iran, those commercial “plumbing” systems have largely been dormant since 2019, when US sanctions halted imports.Historically, Iran was a significant supplier to India, accounting for as much as 11.5% of total crude imports at its peak, according to Kpler data. However, years of disengagement have eroded operational readiness, making a rapid re-entry into the trade difficult.While Iranian sellers and intermediaries have approached Indian refiners with offers of crude and liquefied petroleum gas—an important cooking fuel currently in short supply—there has been little progress even on pricing or delivery timelines.The broader takeaway is that while the US waiver provides a theoretical opening, the practical barriers—legal ambiguity, logistical constraints and financial friction—are proving decisive. For Indian refiners, the risk of getting entangled in sanctions complications currently outweighs the benefit of discounted barrels.Unless the waiver is extended or backed by clearer government-to-government arrangements, industry participants expect India to remain on the sidelines, allowing this brief window for Iranian oil to pass largely unused.

You don’t have permission to access “http://www.ndtv.com/education/rbse-10th-result-2026-dungarpurs-ishwar-patidar-scores-99-5-aims-to-become-ias-officer-11260155” on this server.

Reference #18.14092017.1774358051.1661dbcd

https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.14092017.1774358051.1661dbcd