The Evening Wrap: Modi, Xi direct resumption of Special Representatives Dialogue on border issue

In their first structured bilateral talks in nearly five years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday agreed that India and China can have a “peaceful and stable” relationship by displaying maturity and mutual respect and endorsed the pact on the resolution of the dragging eastern Ladakh border row. In the meeting, PM Modi underscored the need to not allow differences on boundary-related matters to disturb peace and tranquility along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The two leaders noted that the special representatives on the India-China boundary question have a critical role to play in the resolution of the issue and for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas. “PM Modi and President Xi instructed the special representatives to meet at an early date and continue their efforts,” Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said at a media briefing. “We hope to schedule the next meeting of Special Representatives at an appropriate date,” he said. The Foreign Secretary said PM Modi and President Xi reviewed the state of bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective and they were of the view that stable ties between the two countries will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity. “Both PM Modi and President Xi stressed that with maturity and wisdom, and by showing mutual respect, India and China can have a peaceful and stable relationship,” FS Misri said. He said restoration of peace and tranquility in border areas will create space for returning towards the path of normalisation of ties. “Officials will now take the next steps to discuss enhancing strategic communication and stabilising bilateral relations by utilising official dialogue mechanisms,” he said. He said restoration of peace and tranquility in border areas will create space for returning towards the path of normalisation of ties. Officials will now take the next steps to discuss enhancing strategic communication and stabilising bilateral relations by utilising official dialogue mechanisms, he said. Supreme Court upholds States’ power to regulate industrial alcohol A Constitution Bench of nine judges, in a 8:1 majority judgment, upheld the States’ right to regulate industrial alcohol. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that the phrase ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution would include industrial alcohol within its ambit. Entry 8 gives States power to regulate the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor. Multiple States had challenged the Centre’s position that it had exclusive control over industrial alcohol. The Centre had traced its power to Entry 52 of the Union List, which said “industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest”. “There is a strong possibility of denatured spirit or industrial alcohol being misused for the purpose of human consumption. The State is the guardian of public health. States are concerned about liquor tragedies happening within their jurisdictions. You [Centre], on the other hand, are a disconnected entity. A national entity. You are not going to be concerned with what happens in a district or a collectorate… Why can’t the State make regulations to prevent the misuse of industrial alcohol and its conversion into intoxicating liquor?” Chief Justice Chandrachud had asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, during a hearing in April 2024. At the crux of the case is the tussle between the Union and States over power to levy tax, manufacture, produce alcohol. The Centre had claimed that industrial alcohol was an ‘industry’ controlled by the Union government in public interest under a parliamentary law, Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951. Such an industry was covered by Entry 52 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Union government had argued that though trade and commerce, supply, distribution and production of the products of such industries were included as Entry 33(a) of the Concurrent List, this had to be read in consonance with and as an extension of the Centre’s power under Entry 52. In short, the Centre said it was in complete control of every aspect of such industries. Mehta had argued that the States’ power extended to only ‘intoxicating liquors’ fit for human consumption. This was covered under Entry 8 of the State List along with Entry 6 (public health). However, States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab and even a petition from Uttar Pradesh raised alarm about the use of industrial alcohol to make intoxicating liquor. In such cases, they had argued that States cannot remain mute spectators and wait for tragedy to strike. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the intent of Entry 8 had to be read “as broadly as possible” to include industrial alcohol within the definition of ‘intoxicating liquor’. The CJI said Entry 8 sought to regulate “everything from raw materials to production of intoxicating liquor”. The court said the phrase ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 included all alcoholic liquids which could harm public health, and not just potable alcohol. Justice B.V. Nagarathna however held that ‘industrial alcohol’ cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8. The Judge said the States did not have legislative competence to regulate industrial alcohol or denatured spirit. Byju’s insolvency case: Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT decision The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowing a ₹158 crore settlement between ed-tech firm Byju’s with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said there was “grave deviation from procedure” in bringing the case to the NCLAT itself. The Bench upheld the locus standi of U.S.-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC which had filed the appeal against the NCLAT decision. The court said Glas had raised “reasonable apprehensions”. The judgment authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud directed ₹158 crore and accrued interest in an escrow account to be shifted to the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The CoC would deposit the amount in the escrow account. The court was careful not to comment on the merits of the case. During back-to-back hearing in the case, the apex court had questioned whether the BCCI could be allowed to strike a “personal agreement” with Byju’s promoter and “walk away” with its money. The U.S. lender had said, as a major financial creditor, it should have got priority in repayments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for BCCI, had submitted that the ₹ 158 crore was offered by Riju Raveendran, Byju’s brother, from his personal assets. The money was not tainted. The NCLAT, on August 2, granted relief to the embattled ed-tech firm by setting aside the insolvency proceedings after approving a ₹158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI. Byju’s had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the BCCI in 2019. Marital rape case: CJI Chandrachud bows out of hearing, says it may not conclude in foreseeable future Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who is retiring on November 11, bowed out of hearing the marital rape exception case on Wednesday after remarking that the lawyers’ arguments will not conclude in the “foreseeable future”. What was expected to be just another day of hearing of the case started with several senior lawyers on both sides seeking a day each to make their submissions in court. Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Indira Jaising and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, informed the Bench led by the Chief Justice that they would at least take a day each to raise detailed arguments. Mehta said the case was “polycentric” and had a social impact, requiring extensive oral submissions by the government. Chief Justice Chandrachud also found that there were still more lawyers seeking time to argue in the case. The Chief Justice said the Bench could not stop anyone from putting forward their submissions. However, the CJI said he had expected the case to be reserved for judgment ahead of the Deepavali holidays. October 25 is the final working day before the court closed for Deepavali vacations. The court reopens on November 4. The Chief Justice’s last working day is November 8. “It would not be possible to conclude within the foreseeable future,” the CJI remarked orally. The three-judge Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered the case to be listed after four weeks. The mantle of constituting a fresh Bench would fall upon Chief Justice Chandrachud’s successor and current Chief Justice of India-designate, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The marital rape exception case thus ended on an inconclusive note on October 23. The petitioners have argued that protection given to non-consensual sexual acts by a man with his own wife violated women’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy and dignity. However, a recent affidavit filed by the Centre said punishment of non-consensual sexual acts in wedlock and categorising it as rape would impact conjugal relationship and lead to “serious disturbances” in the institution of marriage. The petitions seek to strike down Exception 2 of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code. The provision excludes non-consensual sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife, if the latter is over fifteen years of age, from the definition of ‘rape’. The petitions were triggered by decisions from Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, requiring an authoritative pronouncement from the apex court. The Karnataka High Court had held that a husband was liable to be charged for rape if he had forcible sex with his wife. The Karnataka government had supported the High Court judgment in an affidavit in the apex court subsequently. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had however in May last year delivered a split verdict in a separate case on the identical issue. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who headed the two-judge Bench, had struck down as unconstitutional the Exception two to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, Justice C. Hari Shankar, the associate judge on the High Court Bench, had rejected the plea to criminalise marital rape, noting that any change in the law should be carried out by the legislature since the issue required consideration of various aspects, including social, cultural and legal. In Brief:4 dead, 14 hurt in attack at Turkish defence firm Four people were killed and 14 others wounded in an attack on the headquarters of a top Turkish defence firm near Ankara, Turkish officials said Wednesday. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was holding talks in Russia with Vladimir Putin at the time, confirmed the toll, and condemned what he said was a “heinous terrorist attack” at state-run Turkish Aerospace Industries. Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said three of the injured were in critical condition and that two attackers “a woman and a man, have been neutralised”. He said work was under way to determine their identities but did not say whether there were any other attackers still at large. Hezbollah confirms Nasrallah’s likely successor Hashem Safieddine is dead Hashem Safieddine, a strongman who rose through the ranks of the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah over decades to become the second-most powerful person within the organisation, has died. Safieddine, who was about 60, was killed in early October in a series of Israeli airstrikes in a southern suburb of Beirut that shook much of the Lebanese capital, part of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah. Israel said Tuesday (October 22, 2024) that Safieddine had been killed in the strikes; Hezbollah confirmed the death Wednesday (October 23, 2024). Safieddine’s death came as he was widely expected to be elected the group’s next leader after the death of Hassan Nasrallah, one of its founders. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 23 October 2024 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [View in browser]( [More newsletters]( PM Modi, President Xi endorse patrolling agreement; instruct resumption of Special Representatives Dialogue In their first structured bilateral talks in nearly five years, [Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping]( on Wednesday agreed that India and China can have a “peaceful and stable” relationship by displaying maturity and mutual respect and endorsed the pact on the resolution of the dragging eastern Ladakh border row. In the meeting, [PM Modi underscored the need to not allow differences on boundary-related matters]( to disturb peace and tranquility along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The two leaders noted that the special representatives on the India-China boundary question have a critical role to play in the resolution of the issue and for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas. “PM Modi and President Xi instructed the special representatives to meet at an early date and continue their efforts,” Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said at a media briefing. “We hope to schedule the next meeting of Special Representatives at an appropriate date,” he said. The Foreign Secretary said PM Modi and President Xi reviewed the state of bilateral relations from a strategic and long-term perspective and they were of the view that stable ties between the two countries will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity. “Both PM Modi and President Xi stressed that with maturity and wisdom, and by showing mutual respect, India and China can have a peaceful and stable relationship,” FS Misri said. He said restoration of peace and tranquility in border areas will create space for returning towards the path of normalisation of ties. “Officials will now take the next steps to discuss enhancing strategic communication and stabilising bilateral relations by utilising official dialogue mechanisms,” he said. He said restoration of peace and tranquility in border areas will create space for returning towards the path of normalisation of ties. Officials will now take the next steps to discuss enhancing strategic communication and stabilising bilateral relations by utilising official dialogue mechanisms, he said. Supreme Court upholds States’ power to regulate industrial alcohol A Constitution Bench of nine judges, in a 8:1 majority judgment, [upheld the States’ right to regulate industrial alcohol](. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that the phrase ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution would include industrial alcohol within its ambit. Entry 8 gives States power to regulate the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor. Multiple States had challenged the Centre’s position that it had exclusive control over industrial alcohol. The Centre had traced its power to Entry 52 of the Union List, which said “industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest”. “There is a strong possibility of denatured spirit or industrial alcohol being misused for the purpose of human consumption. The State is the guardian of public health. States are concerned about liquor tragedies happening within their jurisdictions. You [Centre], on the other hand, are a disconnected entity. A national entity. You are not going to be concerned with what happens in a district or a collectorate… Why can’t the State make regulations to prevent the misuse of industrial alcohol and its conversion into intoxicating liquor?” Chief Justice Chandrachud had asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, during a hearing in April 2024. At the crux of the case is the tussle between the Union and States over power to levy tax, manufacture, produce alcohol. The Centre had claimed that industrial alcohol was an ‘industry’ controlled by the Union government in public interest under a parliamentary law, Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951. Such an industry was covered by Entry 52 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Union government had argued that though trade and commerce, supply, distribution and production of the products of such industries were included as Entry 33(a) of the Concurrent List, this had to be read in consonance with and as an extension of the Centre’s power under Entry 52. In short, the Centre said it was in complete control of every aspect of such industries. Mehta had argued that the States’ power extended to only ‘intoxicating liquors’ fit for human consumption. This was covered under Entry 8 of the State List along with Entry 6 (public health). However, States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab and even a petition from Uttar Pradesh raised alarm about the use of industrial alcohol to make intoxicating liquor. In such cases, they had argued that States cannot remain mute spectators and wait for tragedy to strike. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the intent of Entry 8 had to be read “as broadly as possible” to include industrial alcohol within the definition of ‘intoxicating liquor’. The CJI said Entry 8 sought to regulate “everything from raw materials to production of intoxicating liquor”. The court said the phrase ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 included all alcoholic liquids which could harm public health, and not just potable alcohol. Justice B.V. Nagarathna however held that ‘industrial alcohol’ cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8. The Judge said the States did not have legislative competence to regulate industrial alcohol or denatured spirit. Byju’s insolvency case: Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT decision The [Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a judgment]( of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowing a ₹158 crore settlement between ed-tech firm Byju’s with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said there was “grave deviation from procedure” in bringing the case to the NCLAT itself. The Bench upheld the locus standi of U.S.-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC which had filed the appeal against the NCLAT decision. The court said Glas had raised “reasonable apprehensions”. The judgment authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud directed ₹158 crore and accrued interest in an escrow account to be shifted to the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The CoC would deposit the amount in the escrow account. The court was careful not to comment on the merits of the case. During back-to-back hearing in the case, the apex court had questioned whether the BCCI could be allowed to strike a “personal agreement” with Byju’s promoter and “walk away” with its money. The U.S. lender had said, as a major financial creditor, it should have got priority in repayments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for BCCI, had submitted that the ₹ 158 crore was offered by Riju Raveendran, Byju’s brother, from his personal assets. The money was not tainted. The NCLAT, on August 2, granted relief to the embattled ed-tech firm by setting aside the insolvency proceedings after approving a ₹158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI. Byju’s had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the BCCI in 2019. Marital rape case: CJI Chandrachud bows out of hearing, says it may not conclude in foreseeable future Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who is retiring on November 11, [bowed out of hearing the marital rape exception case]( on Wednesday after remarking that the lawyers’ arguments will not conclude in the “foreseeable future”. What was expected to be just another day of hearing of the case started with several senior lawyers on both sides seeking a day each to make their submissions in court. Senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Indira Jaising and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, informed the Bench led by the Chief Justice that they would at least take a day each to raise detailed arguments. Mehta said the case was “polycentric” and had a social impact, requiring extensive oral submissions by the government. Chief Justice Chandrachud also found that there were still more lawyers seeking time to argue in the case. The Chief Justice said the Bench could not stop anyone from putting forward their submissions. However, the CJI said he had expected the case to be reserved for judgment ahead of the Deepavali holidays. October 25 is the final working day before the court closed for Deepavali vacations. The court reopens on November 4. The Chief Justice’s last working day is November 8. “It would not be possible to conclude within the foreseeable future,” the CJI remarked orally. The three-judge Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered the case to be listed after four weeks. The mantle of constituting a fresh Bench would fall upon Chief Justice Chandrachud’s successor and current Chief Justice of India-designate, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The marital rape exception case thus ended on an inconclusive note on October 23. The petitioners have argued that protection given to non-consensual sexual acts by a man with his own wife violated women’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy and dignity. However, a recent affidavit filed by the Centre said punishment of non-consensual sexual acts in wedlock and categorising it as rape would impact conjugal relationship and lead to “serious disturbances” in the institution of marriage. The petitions seek to strike down Exception 2 of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code. The provision excludes non-consensual sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife, if the latter is over fifteen years of age, from the definition of ‘rape’. The petitions were triggered by decisions from Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, requiring an authoritative pronouncement from the apex court. The Karnataka High Court had held that a husband was liable to be charged for rape if he had forcible sex with his wife. The Karnataka government had supported the High Court judgment in an affidavit in the apex court subsequently. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had however in May last year delivered a split verdict in a separate case on the identical issue. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who headed the two-judge Bench, had struck down as unconstitutional the Exception two to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, Justice C. Hari Shankar, the associate judge on the High Court Bench, had rejected the plea to criminalise marital rape, noting that any change in the law should be carried out by the legislature since the issue required consideration of various aspects, including social, cultural and legal. In Brief: 4 dead, 14 hurt in attack at Turkish defence firm [Four people were killed and 14 others wounded in an attack]( on the headquarters of a top Turkish defence firm near Ankara, Turkish officials said Wednesday. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was holding talks in Russia with Vladimir Putin at the time, confirmed the toll, and condemned what he said was a “heinous terrorist attack” at state-run Turkish Aerospace Industries. Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said three of the injured were in critical condition and that two attackers “a woman and a man, have been neutralised”. He said work was under way to determine their identities but did not say whether there were any other attackers still at large. Hezbollah confirms Nasrallah’s likely successor Hashem Safieddine is dead [Hashem Safieddine, a strongman who rose through the ranks]( of the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah over decades to become the second-most powerful person within the organisation, has died. Safieddine, who was about 60, was killed in early October in a series of Israeli airstrikes in a southern suburb of Beirut that shook much of the Lebanese capital, part of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah. Israel said Tuesday (October 22, 2024) that Safieddine had been killed in the strikes; Hezbollah confirmed the death Wednesday (October 23, 2024). Safieddine’s death came as he was widely expected to be elected the group’s next leader after the death of Hassan Nasrallah, one of its founders. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. Today’s Top Picks [[Watch: Odisha evacuates people as Cyclone Dana heads towards coast] Watch: Odisha evacuates people as Cyclone Dana heads towards coast]( [[How is the U.S. President elected? | Explained] How is the U.S. President elected? | Explained]( [[As Sri Lanka expresses solidarity with Palestine, Israeli tourists dominate island’s scenic Arugam Bay] As Sri Lanka expresses solidarity with Palestine, Israeli tourists dominate island’s scenic Arugam Bay]( [[YouTuber Irfan controversy: DMS withdraws Clinical Establishment Act registration of hospital for 10 days] YouTuber Irfan controversy: DMS withdraws Clinical Establishment Act registration of hospital for 10 days]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [click here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](