[ad_1]
DNI Avril Haines also noted significant impacts from the recent leak of classified Pentagon documents.
[ad_2]
#Avril #Haines #told #Senate #panel #certainty #China #Russia #U.S #debt #default #demonstrate #chaos #United #States
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Tag: default
Avril Haines told a Senate panel it’s “almost a certainty” China and Russia would use a U.S. debt default to demonstrate “chaos” in the United States.
Absence of sanction in charge sheet under UAPA no ground for default bail: SC
[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that an accused in an UAPA case cannot seek default bail on the ground that the charge sheet filed within the stipulated time period was incomplete due to absence of valid sanction from competent authority.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, noted that the maximum period of 180 days, which is being granted to the investigating agency to complete the investigation for prosecution for an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is not something in the form of a package that everything has to be completed, including obtaining of sanction, within this period of 180 days.
It said the investigating agency has nothing to do with sanction and sanction is altogether a different process — accorded, based on the materials collected by the investigating agency which forms the part of the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
“The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation. To say that obtaining of sanction and placing the same along with the charge sheet should be done within the period of 180 days is something which is not only contrary to the provisions of law…. but is inconceivable,” said Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench said the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the form of charge sheet is thoroughly looked into and thereafter, the recommendations are made. The investigating agency gets a full 180 days to complete the investigation and file its report before the competent court in accordance with Section 173(2) of the CrPC, it said.
Justice Pardiwala said: “If we accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants, it comes to this that the investigating agency may have to adjust the period of investigation in such a manner that within the period of 180 days, the sanction is also obtained and placed before the court. We find this argument absolutely unpalatable.”
The bench observed that this court was of the firm view that if on either the 61st day or the 91st day, an accused makes an application for being released on bail in default of charge sheet having been filed, the court has no option but to release the accused on bail.
“However, once the charge sheet was filed within the stipulated period, the right of the accused to statutory/default bail came to an end and the accused would be entitled to pray for regular bail on merits,” it noted.
The apex court dismissed a plea by Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, rejecting their contention for default bail due to absence of valid sanction in the charge sheet.
The bench said it is evident that the order of sanction passed by the competent authority can be produced and placed on record even after the filing of the charge sheet. It said that it may happen that the inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the special court may lead to delay in trial because the competent court will not be able to take cognisance of the offence without a valid sanction on record.
“In such an eventuality, at the most, it may be open for the accused to argue that his right to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. This may at the most entitle the accused to pray for regular bail on the ground of delay in trial. But the same cannot be a ground to pray for statutory/default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC,” said Justice Pardiwala.
He said that Rule 3 of the Rules 2008 makes it explicitly clear that the authority under sub section (2) of Section 45 of the UAPA is obliged in law to apply its mind thoroughly to the evidence gathered by the investigating officer and thereafter, prepare its report containing the recommendations to the Central government or the state government for the grant of sanction.
“The grant of sanction is not an idle formality. The grant of sanction should reflect proper application of mind,” he said.
The bench noted that according sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all and in case, the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court.
“Section 173 of the CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section 167 of the CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognisance by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order,” said the bench.
[ad_2]
#Absence #sanction #charge #sheet #UAPA #ground #default #bail( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
HC rejects ‘love jihad’ claim, says interfaith relations can’t have religious angle by default
[ad_1]
Mumbai: A relationship cannot be dubbed as a form of ‘love jihad’ just because the boy and the girl belong to different religions, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has said while granting pre-arrest bail to a Muslim woman and her family.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay Waghwase in the order passed on February 26 granted anticipatory bail to the accused who were denied relief by a local court in Aurangabad.
The woman’s former lover had alleged she and her family forced him to convert to Islam and undergo circumcision.
The man’s lawyer, while opposing the pre-arrest bail applications of the woman and her family members, also argued that it was a case of `love jihad’.
‘Love jihad’ is a term used by Hindu right-wing organisations to claim, without evidence, that there is a widespread conspiracy to lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam through marriage.
Here, though, the accuser was a man.
The high court rejected the love jihad argument, pointing out that the man, in the First Information Report (FIR), had admitted he was in a relationship with the woman and did not end the relationship despite having several opportunities.
“Merely because the boy and girl are from different religions, it cannot have a religious angle. It can be a case of pure love for each other,” the court said.
“It appears that now the colour has been tried to be given of love jihad, but when love is accepted then there is less possibility of the person being trapped just for converting him into the other’s religion,” it added.
As per the prosecution case, the man and the woman were in a relationship since March 2018. The man belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, but did not disclose this to the woman.
Later, the woman began insisting he should convert to Islam and marry her, after which the man disclosed his caste identity to her parents. They did not object to his caste identity and convinced their daughter to accept it.
But the relations later turned sour, following which the man lodged a case against the woman and her family in December 2022.
The HC, while granting pre-arrest bail to the woman and her family, said the probe into the case was almost over and hence their custody would not be necessary.
[ad_2]
#rejects #love #jihad #claim #interfaith #relations #religious #angle #default( With inputs from www.siasat.com )
US could default this summer unless $31.4tn debt ceiling is raised, CBO warns
[ad_1]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Wednesday said the US treasury department will exhaust its ability to pay all its bills sometime between July and September, unless the current $31.4tn cap on borrowing is raised or suspended.
In a report issued alongside its annual budget outlook, the non-partisan CBO cautioned that a historic federal debt default could occur before July if revenue flowing into the treasury in April – when most Americans typically submit annual income tax filings – lags expectations.
The pace of incoming revenue, coupled with the performance of the US economy in the coming months, makes it difficult for government officials to predict the exact “X-date”, when the treasury could begin to default on many debt payments without action by Congress.
“If the debt limit is not raised or suspended before the extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government would be unable to pay its obligations fully,” the CBO report said. “As a result, the government would have to delay making payments for some activities, default on its debt obligations, or both.”
Separately, the CBO said annual US budget deficits will average $2tn between 2024 and 2033, approaching pandemic-era records by the end of the decade – a forecast likely to stoke Republican demands for spending cuts.
Meanwhile, the CBO estimated an unemployment rate of 4.7% this year, far above the current 3.4%.
CBO director Phillip Swagel attributed the rise to higher interest rates that particularly are hitting the housing industry, coupled with slowing business investment.
The sobering analysis reflects the full impact of recent spending legislation, including investments in clean energy and semiconductors and higher military spending, along with higher healthcare, pension and interest costs. It assumes no change in tax and spending laws over the next decade.
“Over the long term, our projections suggest that changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the rising costs of interest and mitigate other adverse consequences of high and rising debt,” Swagel said in a statement.
The need to raise the debt ceiling is driven by past spending laws and tax cuts, some enacted under Joe Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump.
Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, want to withhold a debt limit increase until Democrats agree to deep spending cuts. Democrats in turn say the debt limit should not be “held hostage” to Republican tactics over federal spending.
After hitting the $31.4tn borrowing cap on 19 January, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the treasury can keep up payments on debt and federal benefits and make other outlays at least through 5 June using cash receipts and extraordinary cash management measures.
Year of the debt limit
So far in 2023, not a day has gone by on Capitol Hill without lawmakers jousting over the debt limit, as Democrats press for a quick, clean increase in treasury borrowing authority and Republicans insist on first nailing down significant reductions in future government spending.
Social security and Medicare, the government’s popular pension plan and its healthcare program for Americans ages 65 and older, are at the center of the debt limit and government funding debate, as both parties also jockey to define the contours of the 2024 presidential and congressional election campaigns.
“There has been a Republican drumbeat to cut social security and Medicare,” Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday.
Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has labored, without much success so far, to smother such talk.
“Let me say one more time. There is no agenda on the part of Senate Republicans to revisit Medicare or social security. Period,” he said at a news conference.
Most Americans do not closely follow Washington’s debt-ceiling saga, but they still worry it could hurt their finances, according to a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll conducted between 6-13 February.
In that poll, 55% of US adults said they have heard little or nothing about the debate, but three-quarters of respondents said Congress must reach a deal because defaulting would add to their families’ financial stress, largely through potentially higher borrowing costs.
[ad_2]
#default #summer #31.4tn #debt #ceiling #raised #CBO #warns
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
