The Evening Wrap: SC says States to file counter-affidavits in 3 weeks in anti-conversion law cases

The Supreme Court on Friday gave States three more weeks to file counter-affidavits to petitions challenging their anti-religious conversion laws, even as senior advocate Dushyant Dave said that 40 people are on the run and missionaries catering to the needs of the poor in Uttar Pradesh have been shut down owing to these statutes. Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate C.U. Singh, for petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace, said that more States are trying to “jump into the bandwagon” even while the court is hearing the case. “While the court is dealing with laws enacted by nine States, the tenth and the eleventh States are trying to jump into the bandwagon by citing love jihad, forcible conversion, etc,” Singh submitted, urging the court to hear the case without delay. Chief Justice Chandrachud said that his Bench does not keep a case pending for long and gave the petitioners two weeks to submit their rejoinders after the States have filed their counter-affidavits. The court said that States which have been made parties in multiple petitions in the case need to only file a common counter-affidavit in order to save time. The case concerns the anti-conversion enactments of nine States, including Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. The Supreme Court had previously refused to refer to the Law Commission of India the question of whether “forcible conversion” should be made a separate offence relating to religion under the Indian Penal Code. The government had earlier opposed the locus standi of Citizens for Justice and Peace, an NGO associated with activist Teesta Setalvad, in approaching the apex court against these religious conversion laws. Singh had, however, argued that these State laws amounted to undue interference in a person’s right of choice of faith and life partner. He said that each State’s law was used by the other as a “building block” to make a more “virulent” law for itself. The religious conversion laws under challenge mandate a person proposing to convert or a priest who would preside over the ceremony to take prior permission from the local District Magistrate. Besides, the burden of proof was on the convert to prove that he or she was not forced or “allured” to change faith. The petitioners have argued that these State laws have a “chilling effect” on the right to profess and propagate one’s religion, enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Congress’ K.C. Venugopal moves privilege motion against PM Modi for his ‘derogatory, distasteful and defamatory’ remarks against Sonia, Rahul Congress leader K.C. Venugopal on March 17 wrote to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, seeking privilege proceedings against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for making ‘derogatory, distasteful and defamatory’ remarks against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Venugopal, in his letter to the Chairman, has cited the Prime Minister’s February 9 speech during the reply to the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. In response to the Congress accusing him of not mentioning Pandit Nehru in his speeches, Modi had noted that none of his descendants used the Nehru surname. While Modi had avoided specific mentions of the Adani-Hindenburg issue in his speech then, he had said that the keechad (dirt) flung against him would actually help the kamal (lotus) to grow, referring to the BJP’s election symbol. During his speech the Opposition had stormed the well of the House shouting slogans about Adani throughout. The Congress move is a clear attempt to counter BJP’s aggressive stance against Gandhi for ‘democracy under threat’ remark that he made in London. The Parliament’s functioning continued to be disrupted on Friday with the ruling BJP unrelenting in its demand for an apology from Congress leader, whose remarks that democracy is under attack has drawn the BJP’s ire. Meanwhile, the Opposition has also refused to shift focus from calling for a Joint Parliamentary probe into the Adani Group controversy. On Thursday, several MPs from the Opposition organised a human chain in the Parliament premises. Opposition MPs write to President for action against social media trolling of CJI Chandrachud Several opposition MPs have petitioned President Droupadi Murmu for immediate action over social media trolling of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud while he was deliberating on a case related to the governor’s role in Maharashtra during the last government formation. In a letter to the President, the Congress’ Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha termed such online trolling a “brazen case of interference with the course of justice” and has called for immediate action against the culprits. Tankha was supported by several opposition MPs, including Congress’ Digvijaya Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Shaktisinh Gohil, Akhilesh Prasad Singh, Amee Yajnik, Ranjeet Ranjan, Imran Pratapgarhi, Shiv Sena(UBT)’s Priyanka Chaturvedi, AAP’s Raghav Chadha, SP’s Ram Gopal Yadav and Jaya Bachchan. A copy of the complaint has also been sent to the Minister of Law, Minister of IT and the Police Commissioner of Delhi. In a similar complaint to the Attorney General of India, Tankha has demanded strict action against those accused of trolling. Urging the President for immediate action against the troll army defaming the administration of justice and the Chief Justice of India, the complaint said the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud is seized of and hearing an important Constitutional issue in the matter of government formation and the governor’s role in Maharashtra. “While the matter is subjudice, the troll army, presumably sympathetic to the interest of the ruling party in Maharashtra, has launched an offensive against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The words and contents are filthy and deplorable, which has garnered views in lakhs on social media platforms. “In a matter which is subjudice and before the Supreme Court, such despicable conduct is only possible if such people enjoy the support of the ruling dispensation. Your excellency and the constitutional and statutory authorities in India are duty bound to protect the dignity and decorum of the Indian judiciary,” the MPs’ letter said. It cited Justice J S Verma’s remark in the Vineet Narain case: “Be you ever so high, the law is always above you”. “This also is a brazen case of interference with the course of justice. We expect immediate action not only against the persons indulging in trolling but also against the people behind it, i.e., supporting and sponsoring it. As law-abiding Parliamentarians, we expect immediate action against the culprits,” the MPs said in their petition to the President. The issue of trolling judges has been raised several times in the top court with former CJIs also expressing concern over the issue. Earlier this month, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the problem of trolling in an age “when people are short on their patience and tolerance”. “Every little thing that we do... in everything that you do, you face the threat of being trolled by someone who doesn’t share your point of view,” the CJI said at an event recently. The Supreme Court has cited the issue of trolling several times and had favoured regulation on it in 2017. Land for lawyers’ offices space: Supreme Court prefers talks over judicial power Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on March 17, 2023 said the Supreme Court preferred talks with the government for more land to provide lawyers office space over using its judicial power, which may lead to “disquiet”. The flexing of judicial powers by the top court may convey the impression that the judiciary was trying to “bulldoze” the government to expand its own needs. A Special Bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha said it would be better for the administrative side of the top court to approach the government for land rather than involve the judicial arm through formal court orders. The Bench was hearing a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for more land for office space in the vicinity of the Supreme Court complex. SCBA president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, even referred to how alternate land has been given to the nearby Foreign Correspondents Club. Chief Justice Chandrachud reacted by asking Singh “how can we take over the different institutions around us? Yes, lawyers are part of our institution. If we start using our own orders to protect our own institution, it will lead to disquiet. It will give an impression that the Supreme Court is using its judicial powers to expand its own needs”. Justice Kaul said the SCBA’s needs can be put forward as an administrative proposal. “Yes, lawyers have a need. But trust the court to take up this matter on the administrative side… We cannot use our judicial power to bulldoze the government,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed. Justice Narasimha said it would be more beneficial for lawyers to allow administrative dialogue to happen rather than insist on judicial orders from the court. “The government takes our proposals on the administrative side very seriously. For example, in the e-courts project, the government gave ₹7,000 crore without a single culling. We engage constantly with the government on the administrative side,” the Bench informed the lawyers. It finally reserved the case for orders. Glossary to stop use of inappropriate gendered terms in legal discourse to be unveiled soon: CJI Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud has announced that a legal glossary to guide judges against the use of inappropriate gendered terms in the legal discourse will be unveiled in the near future. Speaking at an event organised by the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee on Wednesday to celebrate International Women’s Day, the CJI talked about the ongoing exercise to come up with the legal glossary. He said there is a need to ensure zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour and improper use of language against women. “For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship,” Justice Chandrachud said, adding, “This glossary is nearing completion and will be unveiled in the very near future.” The CJI said the legal glossary is being prepared by a committee chaired by Calcutta High Court judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. He highlighted certain developments in the legal profession, including the increasing number of women judges in the country. Revealing the plan for coming up with a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms, the CJI said this was a mission he undertook a few years ago and it is nearing fruition now. He said it would contain a list of words and terms that judges must refrain from using in verdicts as well as in court proceedings. “Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” Justice Chandrachud said. Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push Protesters disrupted traffic in Paris on Friday as angry critics, political opponents and labour unions around France blasted President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to force a bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 through parliament without a vote. Opposition parties were expected to start procedures later Friday for a no-confidence vote on the government led by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne. The vote would likely take place early next week. Macron ordered Borne on Thursday to make use of a special constitutional power to push the highly unpopular pension bill through without a vote in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament. His calculated risk infuriated opposition lawmakers, many citizens and unions. Thousands gathered in protest Thursday at the Place de la Concorde, which faces the National Assembly building. As night fell, police officers charged the demonstrators in waves to clear the Place. Small groups then moved through nearby streets in the chic Champs-Elysees neighborhood, setting street fires. Similar scenes repeated themselves in numerous other cities, from Rennes and Nantes in eastern France to Lyon and the southern port city of Marseille, where shop windows and bank fronts were smashed, according to French media. French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told radio station RTL on Friday that 310 people were arrested overnight. Most of the arrests, 258, were made in Paris, according to Darmanin. The trade unions that had organised strikes and marches against a higher retirement age said more rallies and protest marches would take place in the days ahead. “This retirement reform is brutal, unjust, unjustified for the world of workers,” they declared. Macron has made the proposed pension changes the key priority of his second term, arguing that reform is needed to make the French economy more competitive and to keep the pension system from diving into deficit. France, like many richer nations, faces lower birth rates and longer life expectancy. Macron decided to invoke the special power during a Cabinet meeting a few minutes before a scheduled vote in the National Assembly, where the legislation had no guarantee of securing majority support. The Senate adopted the bill earlier Thursday. Opposition lawmakers demanded the government to step down. If the expected no-confidence motion fails, the pension bill would be considered adopted. If it passes, it would also spell the end of Macron’s retirement reform plan and force the government to resign, a first since 1962. Macron could reappoint Borne if he chooses, and a new Cabinet would be named. Macron’s centrist alliance has the most seats in the National Assembly, where a no-confidence motion also requires majority support. Left-wing and far-right lawmakers are determined to vote in favour. Leaders of the The Republicans have said their conservative party would not back the motion. While some party lawmakers might stray from that position, they are expected to be a minority. In Brief: As many as 4,999 YouTube links have been blocked by the Union Government so far, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said in a written Rajya Sabha response on Friday. These include individual YouTube videos and entire channels. These orders were passed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules, 2009, and do not include channels and videos taken down in response to court orders. Until March 10, 974 “social media URLs, accounts, channels, pages, apps, web pages, websites, etc” have been blocked in 2023 under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the IT Ministry said in response to another query on Friday. Starting in 2014, there were 471, 500, 633, 1385, 2799, 3635, 9849, 6118, and 6935 such orders passed until 2022. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 17 March 2023 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( States must file counter-affidavits in anti-conversion law cases in three weeks: Supreme Court The [Supreme Court on Friday gave States three more weeks to file counter-affidavits to petitions challenging their anti-religious conversion laws]( even as senior advocate Dushyant Dave said that 40 people are on the run and missionaries catering to the needs of the poor in Uttar Pradesh have been shut down owing to these statutes. Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate C.U. Singh, for petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace, said that more States are trying to “jump into the bandwagon” even while the court is hearing the case. “While the court is dealing with laws enacted by nine States, the tenth and the eleventh States are trying to jump into the bandwagon by citing love jihad, forcible conversion, etc,” Singh submitted, urging the court to hear the case without delay. Chief Justice Chandrachud said that his Bench does not keep a case pending for long and gave the petitioners two weeks to submit their rejoinders after the States have filed their counter-affidavits. The court said that States which have been made parties in multiple petitions in the case need to only file a common counter-affidavit in order to save time. The case concerns the anti-conversion enactments of nine States, including Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. The Supreme Court had previously refused to refer to the Law Commission of India the question of whether “forcible conversion” should be made a separate offence relating to religion under the Indian Penal Code. The government had earlier opposed the locus standi of Citizens for Justice and Peace, an NGO associated with activist Teesta Setalvad, in approaching the apex court against these religious conversion laws. Singh had, however, argued that these State laws amounted to undue interference in a person’s right of choice of faith and life partner. He said that each State’s law was used by the other as a “building block” to make a more “virulent” law for itself. The religious conversion laws under challenge mandate a person proposing to convert or a priest who would preside over the ceremony to take prior permission from the local District Magistrate. Besides, the burden of proof was on the convert to prove that he or she was not forced or “allured” to change faith. The petitioners have argued that these State laws have a “chilling effect” on the right to profess and propagate one’s religion, enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Congress’ K.C. Venugopal moves privilege motion against PM Modi for his ‘derogatory, distasteful and defamatory’ remarks against Sonia, Rahul Congress leader K.C. Venugopal on March 17 wrote to Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, seeking [privilege proceedings against Prime Minister Narendra Modi]( for making ‘derogatory, distasteful and defamatory’ remarks against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Venugopal, in his letter to the Chairman, has cited the Prime Minister’s February 9 speech during the reply to the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. In response to the Congress accusing him of not mentioning Pandit Nehru in his speeches, Modi had noted that none of his descendants used the Nehru surname. While Modi had avoided specific mentions of the Adani-Hindenburg issue in his speech then, he had said that the keechad (dirt) flung against him would actually help the kamal (lotus) to grow, referring to the BJP’s election symbol. During his speech the Opposition had stormed the well of the House shouting slogans about Adani throughout. The Congress move is a clear attempt to counter BJP’s aggressive stance against Gandhi for ‘democracy under threat’ remark that he made in London. The Parliament’s functioning continued to be disrupted on Friday with the ruling BJP unrelenting in its demand for an apology from Congress leader , whose remarks that democracy is under attack has drawn the BJP’s ire. Meanwhile, the Opposition has also refused to shift focus from calling for a Joint Parliamentary probe into the Adani Group controversy. On Thursday, several MPs from the Opposition organised a human chain in the Parliament premises. Opposition MPs write to President for action against social media trolling of CJI Chandrachud Several opposition MPs have petitioned President Droupadi Murmu for [immediate action over social media trolling of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud]( while he was deliberating on a case related to the governor’s role in Maharashtra during the last government formation. In a letter to the President, the Congress’ Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha termed such online trolling a “brazen case of interference with the course of justice” and has called for immediate action against the culprits. Tankha was supported by several opposition MPs, including Congress’ Digvijaya Singh, Pramod Tiwari, Shaktisinh Gohil, Akhilesh Prasad Singh, Amee Yajnik, Ranjeet Ranjan, Imran Pratapgarhi, Shiv Sena(UBT)’s Priyanka Chaturvedi, AAP’s Raghav Chadha, SP’s Ram Gopal Yadav and Jaya Bachchan. A copy of the complaint has also been sent to the Minister of Law, Minister of IT and the Police Commissioner of Delhi. In a similar complaint to the Attorney General of India, Tankha has demanded strict action against those accused of trolling. Urging the President for immediate action against the troll army defaming the administration of justice and the Chief Justice of India, the complaint said the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud is seized of and hearing an important Constitutional issue in the matter of government formation and the governor’s role in Maharashtra. “While the matter is subjudice, the troll army, presumably sympathetic to the interest of the ruling party in Maharashtra, has launched an offensive against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The words and contents are filthy and deplorable, which has garnered views in lakhs on social media platforms. “In a matter which is subjudice and before the Supreme Court, such despicable conduct is only possible if such people enjoy the support of the ruling dispensation. Your excellency and the constitutional and statutory authorities in India are duty bound to protect the dignity and decorum of the Indian judiciary,” the MPs’ letter said. It cited Justice J S Verma’s remark in the Vineet Narain case: “Be you ever so high, the law is always above you”. “This also is a brazen case of interference with the course of justice. We expect immediate action not only against the persons indulging in trolling but also against the people behind it, i.e., supporting and sponsoring it. As law-abiding Parliamentarians, we expect immediate action against the culprits,” the MPs said in their petition to the President. The issue of trolling judges has been raised several times in the top court with former CJIs also expressing concern over the issue. Earlier this month, CJI Chandrachud highlighted the problem of trolling in an age “when people are short on their patience and tolerance”. “Every little thing that we do... in everything that you do, you face the threat of being trolled by someone who doesn’t share your point of view,” the CJI said at an event recently. The Supreme Court has cited the issue of trolling several times and had favoured regulation on it in 2017. Land for lawyers’ offices space: Supreme Court prefers talks over judicial power Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on March 17, 2023 said the [Supreme Court preferred talks with the government for more land to provide lawyers office space over using its judicial power]( which may lead to “disquiet”. The flexing of judicial powers by the top court may convey the impression that the judiciary was trying to “bulldoze” the government to expand its own needs. A Special Bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha said it would be better for the administrative side of the top court to approach the government for land rather than involve the judicial arm through formal court orders. The Bench was hearing a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for more land for office space in the vicinity of the Supreme Court complex. SCBA president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, even referred to how alternate land has been given to the nearby Foreign Correspondents Club. Chief Justice Chandrachud reacted by asking Singh “how can we take over the different institutions around us? Yes, lawyers are part of our institution. If we start using our own orders to protect our own institution, it will lead to disquiet. It will give an impression that the Supreme Court is using its judicial powers to expand its own needs”. Justice Kaul said the SCBA’s needs can be put forward as an administrative proposal. “Yes, lawyers have a need. But trust the court to take up this matter on the administrative side… We cannot use our judicial power to bulldoze the government,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed. Justice Narasimha said it would be more beneficial for lawyers to allow administrative dialogue to happen rather than insist on judicial orders from the court. “The government takes our proposals on the administrative side very seriously. For example, in the e-courts project, the government gave ₹7,000 crore without a single culling. We engage constantly with the government on the administrative side,” the Bench informed the lawyers. It finally reserved the case for orders. Glossary to stop use of inappropriate gendered terms in legal discourse to be unveiled soon: CJI Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud has announced that a [legal glossary to guide judges against the use of inappropriate gendered terms]( in the legal discourse will be unveiled in the near future. Speaking at an event organised by the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee on Wednesday to celebrate International Women’s Day, the CJI talked about the ongoing exercise to come up with the legal glossary. He said there is a need to ensure zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour and improper use of language against women. “For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship,” Justice Chandrachud said, adding, “This glossary is nearing completion and will be unveiled in the very near future.” The CJI said the legal glossary is being prepared by a committee chaired by Calcutta High Court judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. He highlighted certain developments in the legal profession, including the increasing number of women judges in the country. Revealing the plan for coming up with a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms, the CJI said this was a mission he undertook a few years ago and it is nearing fruition now. He said it would contain a list of words and terms that judges must refrain from using in verdicts as well as in court proceedings. “Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” Justice Chandrachud said. Protests erupt in France over Macron’s retirement age push [Protesters disrupted traffic in Paris on Friday]( as angry critics, political opponents and labour unions around France blasted President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to force a bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 through parliament without a vote. Opposition parties were expected to start procedures later Friday for a no-confidence vote on the government led by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne. The vote would likely take place early next week. Macron ordered Borne on Thursday to make use of a special constitutional power to push the highly unpopular pension bill through without a vote in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament. His calculated risk infuriated opposition lawmakers, many citizens and unions. Thousands gathered in protest Thursday at the Place de la Concorde, which faces the National Assembly building. As night fell, police officers charged the demonstrators in waves to clear the Place. Small groups then moved through nearby streets in the chic Champs-Elysees neighborhood, setting street fires. Similar scenes repeated themselves in numerous other cities, from Rennes and Nantes in eastern France to Lyon and the southern port city of Marseille, where shop windows and bank fronts were smashed, according to French media. French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told radio station RTL on Friday that 310 people were arrested overnight. Most of the arrests, 258, were made in Paris, according to Darmanin. The trade unions that had organised strikes and marches against a higher retirement age said more rallies and protest marches would take place in the days ahead. “This retirement reform is brutal, unjust, unjustified for the world of workers,” they declared. Macron has made the proposed pension changes the key priority of his second term, arguing that reform is needed to make the French economy more competitive and to keep the pension system from diving into deficit. France, like many richer nations, faces lower birth rates and longer life expectancy. Macron decided to invoke the special power during a Cabinet meeting a few minutes before a scheduled vote in the National Assembly, where the legislation had no guarantee of securing majority support. The Senate adopted the bill earlier Thursday. Opposition lawmakers demanded the government to step down. If the expected no-confidence motion fails, the pension bill would be considered adopted. If it passes, it would also spell the end of Macron’s retirement reform plan and force the government to resign, a first since 1962. Macron could reappoint Borne if he chooses, and a new Cabinet would be named. Macron’s centrist alliance has the most seats in the National Assembly, where a no-confidence motion also requires majority support. Left-wing and far-right lawmakers are determined to vote in favour. Leaders of the The Republicans have said their conservative party would not back the motion. While some party lawmakers might stray from that position, they are expected to be a minority. In Brief: As many as [4,999 YouTube links have been blocked by the Union Government so far]( the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said in a written Rajya Sabha response on Friday. These include individual YouTube videos and entire channels. These orders were passed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules, 2009, and do not include channels and videos taken down in response to court orders. Until March 10, 974 “social media URLs, accounts, channels, pages, apps, web pages, websites, etc” have been blocked in 2023 under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the IT Ministry said in response to another query on Friday. Starting in 2014, there were 471, 500, 633, 1385, 2799, 3635, 9849, 6118, and 6935 such orders passed until 2022. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. First Day First Show Stay up-to-date on all things cinema with the "First Day First Show" cinema & entertainment newsletter. Every week, we bring you movie reviews, news from regional cinema, Bollywood, Hollywood, and beyond, as well as updates from the streaming platforms. Whether you're a cinephile or just looking for your next great binge-watch, we've got you covered. [Subscribe Now!]( Today’s Top Picks [[Godhra train burning case | Supreme Court to hear pleas of Gujarat government, convicts on March 24] Godhra train burning case | Supreme Court to hear pleas of Gujarat government, convicts on March 24]( [[What caused the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and is there a danger of ‘contagion’? | In Focus podcast] What caused the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and is there a danger of ‘contagion’? | In Focus podcast]( [[Delhi Capitals joins hands with Satya Nadella to own Major League Cricket team in U.S.] Delhi Capitals joins hands with Satya Nadella to own Major League Cricket team in U.S.]( [[China appeals for fair treatment after latest TikTok bans] China appeals for fair treatment after latest TikTok bans]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](