News UpdatesPlea In Delhi HC Challenges Appointment Of 11 Special Public Prosecutors For Riots Cases Karan Tripathi21 Oct 2020 8:59 AMShare This – xA plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the appointment of eleven Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases pertaining to the riots that took place in the northeast districts of Delhi. Moved by Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association, the writ petition challenges the notification dated 24/06/20 issued by the Delhi Government whereby eleven Special Public…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the appointment of eleven Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases pertaining to the riots that took place in the northeast districts of Delhi. Moved by Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association, the writ petition challenges the notification dated 24/06/20 issued by the Delhi Government whereby eleven Special Public Prosecutors were appointed for conducting cases pertaining to the Delhi riots.The notification challenged in the petitionThe petition also seeks a direction to be issued to the Delhi Government to appoint independent Special PPs, respecting the principles of fairness and impartiality. It is the case of the Petitioner that the current cohort of Special PPs have been appointed on the recommendation of the Delhi Police, which violates both section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court.It is contended that the impugned notification is unsustainable as it has been issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi without the aid and advise of the Delhi Government. The petitioner argues that as per the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Article 239AA of the Constitution, the L-G of Delhi cannot take a unilateral decision for the appointment of prosecutors. It is further argued by the Petitioner that these appointments violate Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees free and fair trial to every accused person.The appointment of the 11 SPPs on the recommendations of Delhi Police “is a divergence from the principles of free and fair trial which is part of Article 21 of the Constitution”, stated the plea.According to the petition, the proposal of Delhi Police to appoint SPPs was rejected by the Delhi government which decided to appoint SPPs from the empanelled advocates. A revised proposal forwarded by the police was also rejected by the Delhi government, adding that subsequently, the Lt Governor intervened in the issue and decided to proceed with the names recommended by the police.It said that this led to a difference of opinion between the LG and the Delhi government and the issue was referred to the President who approved the names suggested by the police.In view of the Presidential approval, Delhi government issued the June 24 notification appointing the SPPs recommended by the police, the petition states.The plea claims that the association sent a representation to the Delhi government against the appointment of the SPPs, but no action was taken. The present petition has been moved through Advocates Aditya Kapoor, Kushal Kumar, and Manika Goswami.Understanding The ‘Tug of War’ As To Who Should Represent Delhi Police In Delhi Riots CasesOn July 31, the LG had appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and five Additional Solicitor Generals as Special Public Prosecutors to conduct court proceedings arising out of 85 FIRs registered in relation to protests against Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 and the riots which occurred in North East Delhi in the last week of February.The appointment of Special Prosecutors in cases related to Delhi riots has been a bone of contention between the Delhi Government and the Delhi-LG. The peculiar situation arose as the Delhi Police is reporting to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.In February, the appearance of Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, in Delhi High Court in a case seeking investigation into Delhi riots had created a controversy, after Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel of Delhi Government, objected to it by saying that appointment of Prosecutors was the sole preserve of Delhi Government. The objection was on the ground that LG can appoint Prosecutors only on the aid and advise of the Delhi Government.Following that, on February 27, the Lieutenant General of Delhi passed an order appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to represent Delhi Police in the case filed by Harsh Mander.On May 29, the Home Department of Delhi Government approved the appointment of Solicitor General, ASG Maninder Acharya, ASG Aman Lekhi, Standing Counsel (UOI) Amit Mahajan, and Advocate Rajat Nair, as Special Prosecutors in a case related to Delhi riots(Aqil Hussain vs State of NCT of Delhi). Next Story
The emerging risks and new threats of the 21st century are very different from the traditional threats that we have been used to dealing with in past decades. Currently, they are embodied by hybrid dynamism and advanced technology, which makes them difficult for government agencies to predict and detect. Across the various expressions of Brazil’s national power, complex issues have risen, posing a direct threat to social stability, such as international terrorism, cybercrime, the growth of global markets and of national and transnational criminal organizations, the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, climate change, drug trafficking, piracy and bio-piracy, economic and industrial espionage, dual-use technology, and others considered sensitive. This range of subjects has become part of the area of interest of the intelligence services, resulting in a pressing need for a larger number of people to process them and for professional and technical preparation to evaluate their potential, or lack thereof, to become a crisis. In the same way, this has demanded constant reformulation of counter-intelligence doctrine, with the reorientation of its objectives, positions, and principles. Two points have been brought up as crucial. The first is the protection of sensitive information against virtual attacks or cyber terrorism, attacks which take place daily, targeting military personnel, in different countries, from different sources. The second point involves leaks or the systematic compromising of confidential matters by sources originating within the intelligence community itself, as recently occurred on the Wikileaks website. This process of transformation is still underway in the majority of intelligence services, and it is slow because it entails the rupture of paradigms present since the creation of these agencies, in large part, following the end of World War II. As far as doctrine is concerned, it remains practically the same, especially with regard to the collection, search, and analysis of data and the methodology used to produce knowledge. The major difference for the 21st-century intelligence community is in technical and professional preparation and changes in the mindset of its personnel (field agents, analysts, and managers), plus the use of new technologies. These new technologies assist in reducing risk and considerably increase the degree of assurance about certain events, in addition to their specific nature, providing the analyst with a variety of data that allows a more accurate view of the situation in real time, and consequently higher quality in the knowledge produced. Another important issue is moving away from the “secret-focused perspective” that characterized activity during the Cold War. With today’s diversity of sources and modes of access, a great deal of information is no longer classified as secret. A clear example of this statement is provided by open-source intelligence (OSINT), which collects 80 to 90 percent of its information on the web and on social networks. It is the knowledge generated from this data after it undergoes the process of analysis that may be classified as secret, and not the data itself. This Cartesian vision, still predominant in some organizations and agencies, ends up hampering greater cooperation between them when it comes to redirecting the analytical process toward other peer agencies in the governmental sphere and greater coordination and effective collaboration among them, especially in data sharing, since there is an enormous amount of collected material that remains in storage due to personnel shortages. The most damaging consequence is internal competition for information hegemony, bringing with it the possible execution of threats that at first were only a probability. In fact, this was one of the problems noted by the federal commission that investigated the causes of the September 11 attacks, one that more than a decade later continues to be present in various agencies around the world. Still, despite telling victories, which do not become public knowledge in most occasions, and resounding failures broadcast in the media in a sensationalist manner, this activity has come to be recognized by the international community as a vital area for practically all expressions of national power, notably in the military, economic, scientific, and technological fields, with direct consequences for international politics. In view of the emergence of new non-state actors, the current perception is that the development and progress of any society necessarily entails the efficient provision of advice to the decision-making process at its highest level on sensitive matters involving wide-ranging and complex issues, such as security, defense, and sovereignty. In this context, it is natural that controversies and uncertainties should arise in different quarters, in some cases due to lack of knowledge about this activity and its mechanisms of control by the state. Among the most convincing is the position that defends the thesis that excessive power given to intelligence services must result in curtailment of freedom and a decrease in individual rights and guarantees in the name of a hybrid enemy, as described in George Orwell’s classic work 1984. This fear is especially felt in Latin American countries, where between the decades of 1960 and 1980, information services emphasized the domestic field of operations, detecting and imprisoning members of the communist movement, a period during which some abuses were perpetrated. Currently, the threats are more complex, all-encompassing, and lethal. In conclusion, intelligence activity will always be a source of fascination for people due to their need to solve mysteries and the unknown, or even due to the secret classification attributed to its content, which will continue to nourish the widest possible variety of paranoia and conspiracy theories. However, the great lesson that history teaches us with respect to this activity is that from pre-history until our own day, it has become ever more firmly established as an indispensable tool for the survival of societies in a world that has always been highly competitive and in which new risks and threats appear every day. Lieutenant Colonel (retired) André Luís Woloszyn holds a diploma in strategic intelligence from the Brazilian Army War College (Escola Superior de Guerra do Brasil) and is a specialist in terrorism. By Dialogo October 01, 2012
Florida Department of Health confirms a 67-year-old Broward County man has tested presumptive positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) Sunday. This brings the total to three reported coronavirus patients in the county.The health department tweeted, the patient is currently in isolation. Two patients in Broward county were confirmed presumptive positive for COVID-19 Friday. FDOH announced those cases during the same time it confirmed a COVID-19 patient in Lee County.Palm Beach County Department of Health Director Dr. Alina Alonso, County Administrator Verdenia Baker, county commissioners and representatives from emergency management announced Sunday evening that the Pennsylvania Department of Health had recently advised the Florida Department of Health that a man who traveled to West Palm Beach for a convention Feb. 28 has tested positive for COVID-19. The man has since flown back to Pennsylvania.According to the Florida Department of Health, there is a total of 17 positive cases of the coronavirus connected to Florida. Of those cases, 11 patients are Florida residents, one patient is an out-of-state resident and five are repatriated cases.The CDC is also advising the elderly to not board crew ships or take cruises at this time.IF YOU FEEL SICK:The Florida Department of Health has opened a 24-hour COVID-19 Call Center at 1-866-779-6121. Questions may also be emailed to [email protected] Email responses will be sent during call center hours.Gov. Ron DeSantis met with Vice President Mike Pence, Florida’s two U.S. senators and cruise line officials Saturday afternoon in Fort Lauderdale asthe state Department of Health announced more presumptive cases of the disease — this time in Charlotte, Okaloosa, Volusia and Manatee Counties.Just after 9:30 p.m. Saturday the Florida Department of Health tweeted about a new presumptive positive case in Manatee County where it said the patient is in isolation and being cared for.The Department of Health also announced cases in Volusia and Okaloosa counties in a tweet just after 7 p.m. Saturday. The post affirmed both individuals are now isolated but had recently traveled on a Nile River Cruise in Egypt.A press release issued by the department reported the patient in Volusia county is a 66-year-old woman and the patient in Okaloosa County is a 61-year-old woman.As a result of the cases, the department is now advising individuals who traveled on the Nile River Cruise from Feb. 4 to 18 to isolate themselves for 14 days upon returning home after multiple passengers tested positive for the virus.FIU infectious diseases expert Dr. Aileen Marty joins Jen and I’ll Monday morning at 7:05 for the latest on COVID-10. She is featured in this interview on Sunday in Miami.For more information On COVID-19 from the CDC click here.