No conflict of interest in RDI Fund, says government
The government has staunchly defended the Research, Development and Innovation Fund's comprehensive framework. Officials have emphasized that the presence of strict conflict-of-interest protocols in public funding decisions is paramount. They asserted that a basic professional relationship does not breach any regulations, and measures such as full disclosure and recusal help maintain equitable assessment of all initiatives. For decades, the Technology Development Board has upheld these essential safeguards.
This summary was generated by PolitGlobe's AI pipeline from publicly available reporting at Times of India. For the full original article, visit the source below.
Read full article at Times of IndiaRelated coverage
Tribunal reforms bill gets nod, paves way for national body
The Cabinet has approved the Tribunals Reforms Bill, which establishes a National Tribunal Commission. This independent body will oversee appointments and functioning of approximately sixteen tribunals. The Supreme Court had previously directed the government to constitute this commission. Concerns were raised about tribunals becoming a liability for the judiciary. The bill will be introduced in the Lok Sabha soon.
Supeme Court to Mahua: Freedom fighters faced bullets, you fear eggs
The Supreme Court denied Mahua Moitra's appeal for a virtual appearance in front of the police, as she expressed concerns over potential mob violence and egg-throwing incidents. In response, the court referenced the sacrifices of freedom fighters, suggesting that her fears may be unfounded. The session was overseen by Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, with the MP's legal team advocating for video conferencing.
Checks in place, in next batch only one firm with member stake: Government
Checks in place, in next batch only one firm with member stake: Government
Supreme Court seeks Bihar minister's record of appointment & nomination as MLC
The Supreme Court has requested records from Bihar regarding a minister's appointment. This minister was not an assembly member and faced a six-month deadline. He was later nominated as an MLC, which the government claims resolves the issue. The petitioner cited a 2001 judgment on non-legislator minister re-appointments. The court seeks documents on his initial appointment and subsequent re-induction.