The Evening Wrap: Opposition to move no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha

In an attempt to force Prime Minister Narendra Modi to speak in the Parliament on the Manipur issue, the INDIA (Indian National Developmental, Inclusive Alliance) parties, in their morning meeting on July 25, 2023, decided to move a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. “Despite our various pleas, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has refused to make a statement detailing the developments in Manipur post May 3 and what are the measures taken by the government to contain it. This is the only parliamentary tool available to us to force the PM to comment on the situation,” a senior Opposition leader said. Though in the Lok Sabha, the Opposition is clearly outnumbered, the parties felt that it would be the right forum to raise the issue. The INDIA parties remain adamant that Parliament can function only when the Prime Minister makes a statement followed by a debate on Manipur. In the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition moved 51 notices under Rule 267, which requires suspension of the business of the day to have a debate on Manipur, the subject at hand. The government on its part insists that it are ready for a debate on Manipur, but only under a softer rule that it does not require answers from the Prime Minister. Earlier, tempers both outside and inside the Parliament were high on Tuesday morning. Inside the Rajya Sabha, Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, and Leader of the House Piyush Goyal, sparred with each other, with Kharge demanding a debate on violence in Manipur and Goyal batting for a debate on atrocities against women in Congress-ruled Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. In the Lok Sabha, meanwhile, a meeting with floor leaders was convened by Speaker Om Birla, but it failed break the logjam. Outside, suspended AAP MP Sanjay Singh, sat in protest along with other colleagues from the INDIA parties. Opposition parties moved 51 notices under Rule 267 on the Manipur situation. The rule requires suspension of business to debate the subject on hand. From the Treasury Benches, three notices were moved on a lesser Rule 176 to discuss atrocities against women in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha questioned the way his colleague Singh had been suspended, and demanded a division on his suspension, which was declined by the Chair. The opposition vociferously protested, drowning the voices from the Treasury Benches with loud chants of “Manipur, Manipur”. The House was adjourned till 12 noon. The Rajya Sabha reconvened at 12 p.m. with the opposition chanting “Manipur, Manipur” again, but ignoring the sloganeering, Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar carried on with the Question Hour. The questions were answered in the din. Kharge flagged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s continued absence in the House and, referring to his comment made at the BJP parliamentary party meeting, said, “When so many people want to talk about this [referring to the 51 notices under Rule 267], why are they not ready to talk? Why Modi sahab does not come here and explain the situation? Outside, he talks about East India Company, but he is not ready to talk about Manipur in the House.” At this, the Leader of the House, Goyal, countered him by saying Union Home Minister Amit Shah was ready to have a discussion on the issues related to atrocities on women in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and West Bengal. He said that the Home Minister was ready give a statement on the issue. Goyal accused the opposition of being insensitive in not allowing for a debate on atrocities against women in other State. “This is a sensitive issue and show some sincerity on this. Be sensitive towards women. You are not sensitive towards women,” Goyal alleged. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj K. Jha raised a point of order against Goyal’s comments. “Leader of the House is equating Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh with Manipur, where there is a genocidal intent,” Jha said. His point of order was not accepted and pandemonium broke in the House, following which it was adjourned till 2 p.m. Opposition alliance will rebuild idea of India in Manipur: Rahul hits back at PM Modi Hitting back at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his remarks on the Opposition alliance, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on July 25 said “call us what you want”, but “we are INDIA” and “will rebuild the idea of India in Manipur”. PM Modi slammed the Indian National Developmental, Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) as the most directionless the country has ever seen and cited reviled names, such as East India Company and Indian Mujahideen (IM), to assert that people cannot be misled merely by the use of the country’s name. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi said the Prime Minister told a BJP Parliamentary Party meeting that the conduct of the Opposition has been such that as if it has decided to stay in the Opposition for long. Hitting back at Modi, Gandhi tweeted, “Call us whatever you want, Mr. Modi. We are INDIA. We will help heal Manipur and wipe the tears of every woman and child. We will bring back love and peace for all her people.” “We will rebuild the idea of India in Manipur,” the former Congress chief said. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ramesh Bidhuri said the Prime Minister said even those with a design to divide the country had names like East India Company and Indian Mujahideen (IM), but people will not be misled by these gimmicks. Former Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said PM Modi told the BJP leaders that Indian National Congress and the East India Company were founded by foreigners. He said people were also using names, such as Indian Mujahideen and Popular Front of India, and their realities were quite different from what they tried to project. Listen to today’s episode of the In Focus podcast Drinking in moderation is good for the health: myth or fact? | In Focus podcast It’s World Hepatitis Day this week, on July 28, and perhaps an apt time to look at conditions associated with the liver. One of the first things that comes to mind is alcohol and the liver. Across the world, people have believed for decades now that a moderate amount of alcohol consumption may be good for you – that it could potentially protect you against heart disease. A study published earlier this year however, by Canadian researchers, disputes this. The analysis, of more than 100 studies covering about 4.8 million people pointed out that all the older studies, which linked moderate alcohol use with better health, had failed to to take into consideration, the fact that moderate drinkers had other healthy habits – they were more likely to exercise and had better diets. Once this was corrected for, the researchers said the health benefits of drinking, dramatically decrease. The finding ties in with the World Health Organisation’s warning early this year that when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health. What does the latest research into alcohol conclusively point to? How does India fare when it comes to alcohol and liver disease? Can any amount of drinking be considered safe? Manipur partially withdraws ban on broadband while mobile Internet remains suspended The Manipur government on July 25 lifted the suspension on broadband Internet conditionally in a “liberalised manner”, nearly three months after it was banned due to the ethnic violence in the State. However, mobile Internet will remain suspended, the Home Department said in a notification. Connection will be only through static IP and that the subscriber concerned shall not accept any other connection other than allowed for the time being [TSP/ISP shall be held responsible for non-compliance of this condition],” it said. “No Wifi Hotspots shall be allowed from any of the routers and systems using the connection at any cost by the subscriber concerned,” it said. The government has considered the suffering of the people as the internet ban affected offices and institutions, and people working from home, besides mobile recharge, LPG cylinder booking, payment of electricity bills, and other online services, the order said. It said the suspension on broadband internet has been lifted in a liberalised manner, subject to fulfilment of several terms and conditions. Supreme Court acknowledges political parties’ fear of RTI to disclose internal decision making Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Tuesday orally observed that political parties may “have a point” when they fear that accountability under Right to Information (RTI) Act may stretch to even disclosure of internal decisions, including why they chose a particular candidate. The Chief Justice, leading a three-judge Bench, was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a declaration that national and regional political parties were “public authorities” under the RTI Act. Several parties, including the Congress and the BJP, are arraigned as respondents in this case. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by advocate P.V. Dinesh, said it supported the cause of financial transparency of political parties in the area of financial matters, but was against parties being compelled to reveal confidential information like “which candidate was selected for what reasons and what discussions happened within the political party, etc”. They have a point. They say, don’t ask us to disclose how we chose our candidates… I don’t think you can do that,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners. “Basically they want to know how parties function,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, intervened. But Sankaranarayanan countered that the top court had passed multiple orders in the past, directing political parties to publish/advertise/tweet the criminal antecedents of their candidates. “This has not been done,” he submitted. The court scheduled the case for a detailed hearing on Tuesday. Bhushan argued that political parties got considerable benefits from the government, including bungalows. They had a role in governance as they controlled the opinions of their legislators through whips. The petitions, including the one filed by NGO Association for Democratic Rights, said the Central Information Commission (CIC), in 2013 and 2015, had declared national and regional political parties to be public authorities. However, parties have reacted with a layered response to the CIC findings. They have argued that opening up to RTI may lead to an undemocratic infringement into their confidential discussions, including their respective attitude to the government and plans to organise agitations against the “wrong policies of the government”. The Union government has also opposed the petitions, reasoning that parties cannot be compelled to disclose their internal functioning and financial information under the RTI Act as this would hamper smooth internal working and fester into a weak spot for political rivals with malicious intentions to take advantage of. “The CIC has made a very liberal interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, leading to an erroneous conclusion that political parties are public authorities under the RTI Act. Political parties are not established or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by the Parliament,” the Centre’s affidavit had said in 2016. It had argued that there were already provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Representation of the People Act, 1951, demand “necessary transparency regarding financial aspects of political parties”. The Centre had submitted that the registration of a political party under the 1951 Act was not the same as the establishment of a government body. It said information about a political body was already in public domain on the website of the Election Commission. Besides Section 75 A of the 1951 Act mandated the declaration of assets and liabilities of each elected candidate. Modi and Xi reached consensus at Bali, claims China as NSA Doval delivers tough message on LAC Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached a “consensus” to restore bilateral ties during their meeting in Bali last year, claimed China, the first time either side has suggested that the Bali meeting between the two leaders at a dinner had included any substantial conversation. The claim was made in a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement issued after a meeting between National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval and his counterpart Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China Wang Yi in Johannesburg, where both advisers are attending the BRICS meeting of NSAs. The Indian statement on the Doval-Wang meeting did not include any reference to the claim, and instead focused on the continuing Line of Actual Control (LAC) standoff that Doval said had “eroded” the “public and political basis” of the India-China relationship. “NSA conveyed that the situation along the LAC in the Western Sector of the India-China boundary since 2020 had eroded strategic trust and the public and political basis of the relationship,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) press release said on Tuesday about the meeting that took place on Monday. “NSA emphasised the importance of continuing efforts to fully resolve the situation and restore peace and tranquillity in the border areas, so as to remove impediments to normalcy in bilateral relations,” it said, adding that both agreed that the India-China bilateral relationship was significant “not only for the two countries but also for the region and world”. The meeting between Doval and Wang, who was formerly Chinese Foreign Minister, came days after Wang Yi met External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar accompanied by delegations for talks in Jakarta on July 14 on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit (EAS) and ASEAN Regional Forum’s Foreign Minister’s meeting. The meetings have increased speculation over whether Modi and Xi will meet at the BRICS summit in Cape Town in August or at the G20 Summit in Delhi, although none of the appearances by the leaders have been confirmed yet. Modi and Xi have not spoken since the beginning of the LAC standoff in April 2020 that led to the killings of soldiers in Galwan. However, at a dinner for G20 leaders in Bali last November, Modi was seen walking over to Xi and holding a conversation that lasted a few minutes. The MEA had brushed off the encounter at the time. However, in its statement, the Chinese MFA claimed that the Bali meeting the leaders had spoken in more detail. “At the end of last year, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi reached an important consensus on stabilizing China-India relations in Bali,” said the Chinese MFA statement. “ The two sides should adhere to the strategic judgment of the leaders of the two countries that “they do not pose a threat to each other, and they are each other’s development opportunities”, “ it added, urging an “early” return of bilateral relations to the “track of healthy and stable development “. The MEA declined to comment on the Chinese contention. In a briefing on November 16 last year, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra had only said that the two leaders had “exchanged courtesies at the conclusion of the dinner” hosted by the Indonesian President at G20. Centre withdrew DNA Bill to ‘avoid safeguards’, says Jairam Ramesh Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh on July 25 said the Centre withdrew the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 from Parliament on Monday to avoid incorporating “elaborate safeguards” recommended by a parliamentary committee. The Bill aimed to regulate the use of DNA profiling particularly for criminal offences. It also sought to establish a DNA data bank at the national level, with regional centres, to “store and maintain” DNA profiles, and a DNA regulatory board that would advise the Centre and the State governments on issues surrounding the use of DNA in laboratories. Civil society organisations and MPs had raised privacy concerns, following which the Bill was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology for analysis. Ramesh is the Chairman of the committee. The Department of Biotechnology, which drafted the Bill which was sent to the Cabinet for approval, has maintained that DNA profiles from all living individuals would be stored only after obtaining informed consent. The DNA profiles to be stored were not for an entire population but for specified categories of individuals such as convicts, suspects of major crimes, and relatives of missing persons. The information to be stored in the DNA data bank would not reveal any of the traits (race, caste, facial features, and so on) of an individual. There were provisions in the Bill to remove the DNA profiles once the case was resolved. There were stringent safeguards, including penal provisions, to ensure that the DNA data bank information was accessed and used for defined purposes, and only so with appropriate authorisation. However, in a statement explaining why the Bill was being withdrawn, the Science Ministry on Monday said that most of the clauses of the DNA Technology Bill were covered in The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and that DNA testing was now the universally accepted as the “gold standard of forensic investigation”. “Actually the real reason is that the Modi government did not want the elaborate safeguards recommended by the Standing Committee and decided to just ignore it after having pressed for early submission of the report,” Ramesh tweeted. In January, 2021, as part of the parliamentary committee’s deliberations, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen president Asaddudin Owaisi and CPI leader Binoy Viswam filed dissent notes to the committee’s report on the Bill on the grounds that it did not consider concerns over privacy violations and targeted Dalits, Muslims, and Adivasis by way of DNA sample collection and indefinite storage of genetic information. Ramesh had then differed with Owaisi’s argument on possible privacy violations by the Bill and pointed out that even eminent jurists were divided on the issue. More safeguards should be added, he said “as we gain further experience with the use of technology”. The committee, in its report, said that while it supported the Bill’s attempt to create an ecosystem that benefited from scientific evidence like DNA, and thus aiding the legal system “...widespread and extensive training was of paramount importance”. It suggested several modifications, additions and deletions to clauses in the Bill, including restricting the use of the Bill only to judicial matters, doing away with the ‘regional data banks’, and specifying that the proposed DNA regulatory board would be independent and professional and not have a Secretary to the Government of India as the Chairperson. In Brief: The Indian Space Research Organisation has successfully completed the fifth and final orbit-raising manoeuvre (Earth-bound perigee firing) of the Chandrayaan-3 mission. It was performed successfully from ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) in Bengaluru. The spacecraft is expected to attain an orbit of 1,27,609 km x 236 km. This means that Chandrayaan-3 is now in an orbit, which, when closest to earth is at 236 km and when farthest is at 1,27,609 km. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 25 July 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]( Opposition to move no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha In an attempt to force Prime Minister Narendra Modi to speak in the Parliament on the Manipur issue, the INDIA (Indian National Developmental, Inclusive Alliance) parties, in their morning meeting on July 25, 2023, [decided to move a no-confidence motion]( in the Lok Sabha. “Despite our various pleas, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has refused to make a statement detailing the developments in Manipur post May 3 and what are the measures taken by the government to contain it. This is the only parliamentary tool available to us to force the PM to comment on the situation,” a senior Opposition leader said. Though in the Lok Sabha, the Opposition is clearly outnumbered, the parties felt that it would be the right forum to raise the issue. The INDIA parties remain adamant that Parliament can function only when the Prime Minister makes a statement followed by a debate on Manipur. In the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition moved 51 notices under Rule 267, which requires suspension of the business of the day to have a debate on Manipur, the subject at hand. The government on its part insists that it are ready for a debate on Manipur, but only under a softer rule that it does not require answers from the Prime Minister. Earlier, tempers both outside and inside the Parliament were high on Tuesday morning. Inside the Rajya Sabha, Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, and Leader of the House Piyush Goyal, sparred with each other, with Kharge demanding a debate on violence in Manipur and Goyal batting for a debate on atrocities against women in Congress-ruled Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. In the Lok Sabha, meanwhile, a meeting with floor leaders was convened by Speaker Om Birla, but it failed break the logjam. Outside, suspended AAP MP Sanjay Singh, sat in protest along with other colleagues from the INDIA parties. Opposition parties moved 51 notices under Rule 267 on the Manipur situation. The rule requires suspension of business to debate the subject on hand. From the Treasury Benches, three notices were moved on a lesser Rule 176 to discuss atrocities against women in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha questioned the way his colleague Singh had been suspended, and demanded a division on his suspension, which was declined by the Chair. The opposition vociferously protested, drowning the voices from the Treasury Benches with loud chants of “Manipur, Manipur”. The House was adjourned till 12 noon. The Rajya Sabha reconvened at 12 p.m. with the opposition chanting “Manipur, Manipur” again, but ignoring the sloganeering, Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar carried on with the Question Hour. The questions were answered in the din. Kharge flagged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s continued absence in the House and, referring to his comment made at the BJP parliamentary party meeting, said, “When so many people want to talk about this [referring to the 51 notices under Rule 267], why are they not ready to talk? Why Modi sahab does not come here and explain the situation? Outside, he talks about East India Company, but he is not ready to talk about Manipur in the House.” At this, the Leader of the House, Goyal, countered him by saying Union Home Minister Amit Shah was ready to have a discussion on the issues related to atrocities on women in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and West Bengal. He said that the Home Minister was ready give a statement on the issue. Goyal accused the opposition of being insensitive in not allowing for a debate on atrocities against women in other State. “This is a sensitive issue and show some sincerity on this. Be sensitive towards women. You are not sensitive towards women,” Goyal alleged. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj K. Jha raised a point of order against Goyal’s comments. “Leader of the House is equating Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh with Manipur, where there is a genocidal intent,” Jha said. His point of order was not accepted and pandemonium broke in the House, following which it was adjourned till 2 p.m. Opposition alliance will rebuild idea of India in Manipur: Rahul hits back at PM Modi Hitting back at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his remarks on the Opposition alliance, [Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on July 25 said]( “call us what you want”, but “we are INDIA” and “will rebuild the idea of India in Manipur”. PM Modi slammed the Indian National Developmental, Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) as the most directionless the country has ever seen and cited reviled names, such as East India Company and Indian Mujahideen (IM), to assert that people cannot be misled merely by the use of the country’s name. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi said the Prime Minister told a BJP Parliamentary Party meeting that the conduct of the Opposition has been such that as if it has decided to stay in the Opposition for long. Hitting back at Modi, Gandhi tweeted, “Call us whatever you want, Mr. Modi. We are INDIA. We will help heal Manipur and wipe the tears of every woman and child. We will bring back love and peace for all her people.” “We will rebuild the idea of India in Manipur,” the former Congress chief said. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ramesh Bidhuri said the Prime Minister said even those with a design to divide the country had names like East India Company and Indian Mujahideen (IM), but people will not be misled by these gimmicks. Former Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said PM Modi told the BJP leaders that Indian National Congress and the East India Company were founded by foreigners. He said people were also using names, such as Indian Mujahideen and Popular Front of India, and their realities were quite different from what they tried to project. Listen to today’s episode of the In Focus podcast Drinking in moderation is good for the health: myth or fact? | In Focus podcast It’s World Hepatitis Day this week, on July 28, and perhaps an apt time to look at conditions associated with the liver. One of the first things that comes to mind is alcohol and the liver. Across the world, people have believed for decades now that a moderate amount of alcohol consumption may be good for you – that it could potentially protect you against heart disease. A study published earlier this year however, by Canadian researchers, disputes this. The analysis, of more than 100 studies covering about 4.8 million people pointed out that all the older studies, which linked moderate alcohol use with better health, had failed to to take into consideration, the fact that moderate drinkers had other healthy habits – they were more likely to exercise and had better diets. Once this was corrected for, the researchers said the health benefits of drinking, dramatically decrease. The finding ties in with the World Health Organisation’s warning early this year that when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health. What does the latest research into alcohol conclusively point to? How does India fare when it comes to alcohol and liver disease? [Can any amount of drinking be considered safe?]( Manipur partially withdraws ban on broadband while mobile Internet remains suspended The Manipur government on July 25 [lifted the suspension on broadband Internet]( conditionally in a “liberalised manner”, nearly three months after it was banned due to the ethnic violence in the State. However, mobile Internet will remain suspended, the Home Department said in a notification. Connection will be only through static IP and that the subscriber concerned shall not accept any other connection other than allowed for the time being [TSP/ISP shall be held responsible for non-compliance of this condition],” it said. “No Wifi Hotspots shall be allowed from any of the routers and systems using the connection at any cost by the subscriber concerned,” it said. The government has considered the suffering of the people as the internet ban affected offices and institutions, and people working from home, besides mobile recharge, LPG cylinder booking, payment of electricity bills, and other online services, the order said. It said the suspension on broadband internet has been lifted in a liberalised manner, subject to fulfilment of several terms and conditions. Supreme Court acknowledges political parties’ fear of RTI to disclose internal decision making  Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Tuesday [orally observed that political parties may “have a point”]( when they fear that accountability under Right to Information (RTI) Act may stretch to even disclosure of internal decisions, including why they chose a particular candidate. The Chief Justice, leading a three-judge Bench, was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a declaration that national and regional political parties were “public authorities” under the RTI Act. Several parties, including the Congress and the BJP, are arraigned as respondents in this case. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by advocate P.V. Dinesh, said it supported the cause of financial transparency of political parties in the area of financial matters, but was against parties being compelled to reveal confidential information like “which candidate was selected for what reasons and what discussions happened within the political party, etc”. They have a point. They say, don’t ask us to disclose how we chose our candidates… I don’t think you can do that,” Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners. “Basically they want to know how parties function,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, intervened. But Sankaranarayanan countered that the top court had passed multiple orders in the past, directing political parties to publish/advertise/tweet the criminal antecedents of their candidates. “This has not been done,” he submitted. The court scheduled the case for a detailed hearing on Tuesday. Bhushan argued that political parties got considerable benefits from the government, including bungalows. They had a role in governance as they controlled the opinions of their legislators through whips. The petitions, including the one filed by NGO Association for Democratic Rights, said the Central Information Commission (CIC), in 2013 and 2015, had declared national and regional political parties to be public authorities. However, parties have reacted with a layered response to the CIC findings. They have argued that opening up to RTI may lead to an undemocratic infringement into their confidential discussions, including their respective attitude to the government and plans to organise agitations against the “wrong policies of the government”. The Union government has also opposed the petitions, reasoning that parties cannot be compelled to disclose their internal functioning and financial information under the RTI Act as this would hamper smooth internal working and fester into a weak spot for political rivals with malicious intentions to take advantage of. “The CIC has made a very liberal interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, leading to an erroneous conclusion that political parties are public authorities under the RTI Act. Political parties are not established or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by the Parliament,” the Centre’s affidavit had said in 2016. It had argued that there were already provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Representation of the People Act, 1951, demand “necessary transparency regarding financial aspects of political parties”. The Centre had submitted that the registration of a political party under the 1951 Act was not the same as the establishment of a government body. It said information about a political body was already in public domain on the website of the Election Commission. Besides Section 75 A of the 1951 Act mandated the declaration of assets and liabilities of each elected candidate. Modi and Xi reached consensus at Bali, claims China as NSA Doval delivers tough message on LAC Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached a “consensus” to restore bilateral ties during their meeting in Bali last year, [claimed China]( the first time either side has suggested that the Bali meeting between the two leaders at a dinner had included any substantial conversation. The claim was made in a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement issued after a meeting between National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval and his counterpart Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China Wang Yi in Johannesburg, where both advisers are attending the BRICS meeting of NSAs. The Indian statement on the Doval-Wang meeting did not include any reference to the claim, and instead focused on the continuing Line of Actual Control (LAC) standoff that Doval said had “eroded” the “public and political basis” of the India-China relationship. “NSA conveyed that the situation along the LAC in the Western Sector of the India-China boundary since 2020 had eroded strategic trust and the public and political basis of the relationship,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) press release said on Tuesday about the meeting that took place on Monday. “NSA emphasised the importance of continuing efforts to fully resolve the situation and restore peace and tranquillity in the border areas, so as to remove impediments to normalcy in bilateral relations,” it said, adding that both agreed that the India-China bilateral relationship was significant “not only for the two countries but also for the region and world”. The meeting between Doval and Wang, who was formerly Chinese Foreign Minister, came days after Wang Yi met External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar accompanied by delegations for talks in Jakarta on July 14 on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit (EAS) and ASEAN Regional Forum’s Foreign Minister’s meeting. The meetings have increased speculation over whether Modi and Xi will meet at the BRICS summit in Cape Town in August or at the G20 Summit in Delhi, although none of the appearances by the leaders have been confirmed yet. Modi and Xi have not spoken since the beginning of the LAC standoff in April 2020 that led to the killings of soldiers in Galwan. However, at a dinner for G20 leaders in Bali last November, Modi was seen walking over to Xi and holding a conversation that lasted a few minutes. The MEA had brushed off the encounter at the time. However, in its statement, the Chinese MFA claimed that the Bali meeting the leaders had spoken in more detail. “At the end of last year, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi reached an important consensus on stabilizing China-India relations in Bali,” said the Chinese MFA statement. “ The two sides should adhere to the strategic judgment of the leaders of the two countries that “they do not pose a threat to each other, and they are each other’s development opportunities”, “ it added, urging an “early” return of bilateral relations to the “track of healthy and stable development “. The MEA declined to comment on the Chinese contention. In a briefing on November 16 last year, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra had only said that the two leaders had “exchanged courtesies at the conclusion of the dinner” hosted by the Indonesian President at G20. Centre withdrew DNA Bill to ‘avoid safeguards’, says Jairam Ramesh Congress spokesperson [Jairam Ramesh on July 25 said]( the Centre withdrew the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 from Parliament on Monday to avoid incorporating “elaborate safeguards” recommended by a parliamentary committee. The Bill aimed to regulate the use of DNA profiling particularly for criminal offences. It also sought to establish a DNA data bank at the national level, with regional centres, to “store and maintain” DNA profiles, and a DNA regulatory board that would advise the Centre and the State governments on issues surrounding the use of DNA in laboratories. Civil society organisations and MPs had raised privacy concerns, following which the Bill was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology for analysis. Ramesh is the Chairman of the committee. The Department of Biotechnology, which drafted the Bill which was sent to the Cabinet for approval, has maintained that DNA profiles from all living individuals would be stored only after obtaining informed consent. The DNA profiles to be stored were not for an entire population but for specified categories of individuals such as convicts, suspects of major crimes, and relatives of missing persons. The information to be stored in the DNA data bank would not reveal any of the traits (race, caste, facial features, and so on) of an individual. There were provisions in the Bill to remove the DNA profiles once the case was resolved. There were stringent safeguards, including penal provisions, to ensure that the DNA data bank information was accessed and used for defined purposes, and only so with appropriate authorisation. However, in a statement explaining why the Bill was being withdrawn, the Science Ministry on Monday said that most of the clauses of the DNA Technology Bill were covered in The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and that DNA testing was now the universally accepted as the “gold standard of forensic investigation”. “Actually the real reason is that the Modi government did not want the elaborate safeguards recommended by the Standing Committee and decided to just ignore it after having pressed for early submission of the report,” Ramesh tweeted. In January, 2021, as part of the parliamentary committee’s deliberations, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen president Asaddudin Owaisi and CPI leader Binoy Viswam filed dissent notes to the committee’s report on the Bill on the grounds that it did not consider concerns over privacy violations and targeted Dalits, Muslims, and Adivasis by way of DNA sample collection and indefinite storage of genetic information. Ramesh had then differed with Owaisi’s argument on possible privacy violations by the Bill and pointed out that even eminent jurists were divided on the issue. More safeguards should be added, he said “as we gain further experience with the use of technology”. The committee, in its report, said that while it supported the Bill’s attempt to create an ecosystem that benefited from scientific evidence like DNA, and thus aiding the legal system “...widespread and extensive training was of paramount importance”. It suggested several modifications, additions and deletions to clauses in the Bill, including restricting the use of the Bill only to judicial matters, doing away with the ‘regional data banks’, and specifying that the proposed DNA regulatory board would be independent and professional and not have a Secretary to the Government of India as the Chairperson. In Brief: The Indian Space Research Organisation has [successfully completed the fifth and final orbit-raising manoeuvre]( (Earth-bound perigee firing) of the Chandrayaan-3 mission. It was performed successfully from ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC) in Bengaluru. The spacecraft is expected to attain an orbit of 1,27,609 km x 236 km. This means that Chandrayaan-3 is now in an orbit, which, when closest to earth is at 236 km and when farthest is at 1,27,609 km. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[IMF projects Indian economy to grow at 6.1% in 2023] IMF projects Indian economy to grow at 6.1% in 2023]( [[China appoints Wang Yi as its new Foreign Minister, replacing Qin Gang] China appoints Wang Yi as its new Foreign Minister, replacing Qin Gang]( [[Cells with bare minimum genes can still evolve as fast as normal cells: study] Cells with bare minimum genes can still evolve as fast as normal cells: study]( [[Geological era: What is it?] Geological era: What is it?]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](