Why sale of #IDBI Bank is under scrutiny

According to former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg the dispute is not mainly over whether IDBI Bank should be privatised. It is over whether the sale process gave bidders a fair chance—and whether the bank was sold at a fair price.

The government has approved selling 60.72% of IDBI Bank to Fairfax Financial’s subsidiary for ₹52,878 crore, or ₹81 per share. The sale is not yet complete; RBI approval is still required.

As former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg argued that several bidders dropped out or did not submit bids. The initial bids reportedly came in below a ₹94.42-per-share reserve price. Critics say that, instead of ending the process, the government revised the valuation process and proceeded with what became close to a one-bidder contest—raising concerns that the benchmark was effectively lowered to make a sale to Fairfax possible.

A reported internal note has added to the scrutiny: it says officials saw Fairfax’s revised bid before fresh valuation work was ordered. Critics argue that this raises questions about the sequence and transparency of the process.

The government says the first round ended after bids failed to meet the reserve price, and that the reserve price itself was not changed. It says the revised process followed valuation review and produced a higher bid, adding ₹3,917 crore to the value discovered in the second round.

The central question is whether the process was genuinely competitive and the ₹81 price defensible—not simply whether privatisation is desirable. The public disagreement is unresolved: critics point to bidder withdrawals, the revised valuation process and limited transparency; the government says the process was reviewed and the eventual offer improved. The valuation reports have not been made public.

The earlier LIC acquisition is part of the backdrop: LIC took a 51% stake in IDBI in 2019, with the bank subsequently treated as a private-sector bank for regulatory purposes.

Rahul Gandhi has opposed the sale of IDBI Bank to Fairfax and backed employees campaigning against privatisation. His main arguments are:

Public banks serve a broader public purpose: he described them as “tools to build the nation,” rather than assets to be sold.

Why sell a profitable bank? He questioned the rationale for selling IDBI and how employees’ and depositors’ interests would be protected.

Potential impact on workers: he warned that privatisation could affect employees’ service conditions and protections, including reservation safeguards for SC, ST and OBC communities.

Political framing: he contrasted the Congress’s record of creating public banks with what he characterised as the Modi government selling them.

This is a political argument against the principle and consequences of privatisation. It is separate from the process-focused criticism discussed earlier—whether the bidding and valuation gave Fairfax an unfair advantage.

Conflict of interest:

LIC Director sat on Fairfax Co's Board While LIC Was Selling IDBI to Fairfax.

For seven mnths, G.Mahalingam sat on boards of both LIC, a seller of IDBI Bank, & the Fairfax-controlled Thomas Cook, as Fairfax bid for the bank.

Remedy for #Instagram account block is civil suit not writ under Art.226 Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition seeking restoration of an Instagram account is not maintainable against Meta Platforms [Sarthak Bhagat v Union of India & Ors]. 

Justice Amit Mahajan held that Meta does not perform a public function or discharge a public duty, which are the conditions necessary to maintain a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

Hence, blocking of Instagram account by Meta has to be challenged by way of a civil suit and not a writ petition, the Court said.

The Court explained that while Instagram plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion, its primary function is to provide a platform for expression, with public discourse being a consequence of its operations rather than a public duty. 

“Its operations remain private in nature, and no governmental mandate delegates any traditional State function to it. Respondent No. 3 [Meta] is neither obligated to provide such a platform in discharge of a public duty nor legally compelled to offer its services, which are voluntary and user-driven. The mere provision of a platform for communication and social interaction does not, by itself, constitute a governmental function or a function integral to the discharge of State responsibilities,” the Court observed in its October 27 order. 

Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court

Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court

The High Court made the observations while disposing off a plea filed by one Sarthak Bhagat, who had challenged the disabling of his Instagram accounts without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. 

Instagram informed him that his account had violated its community standards. 

Bhagat told the Court that he had sought a review through Instagram's in-app mechanism, but his accounts were not restored and no specific reasons were furnished.

He also approached the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under Rule 3A of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. His appeal, filed on September 11, remained pending beyond the prescribed 30-day period, he contended.

In a detailed order, the Court declined to issue a direction to the Central government to ensure Meta's compliance with the Information Technology Act and the 2021 Rules. 

The Court said that a writ of mandamus requires a clear demonstration of neglect of a statutory duty, which was not apparent in the case.

The Court made it clear that the remedy against Meta would be a civil suit and not a writ petition under Article 226.

However, the Court directed the GAC to decide Bhagat's appeal expeditiously.

Advocate Yash Vardhan Kaushik appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Mohit Bansal, Bhawna and Deepank Yadav represented the Union of India.

Meta was represented through advocates Amee Rana, Yash Karunakaran Nivedita Sudheer.

Supreme Court has issued notice to Centre on DPDP Act but no stay granted

Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and MeitY on a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA).
- SC refuses to stay the DPDP Act at this stage.

Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre seeking response on a plea by a group of Indian legacy media companies challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, (DPDP Act) on the ground that its application to media organisations could hamper investigative journalism, compromise journalistic sources and virtually “close down newsrooms”. 

The publishers have challenged provisions which, they said, could require journalists to obtain consent from persons they are investigating, while also imposing obligations relating to retention and deletion of personal data that could affect news reporting.

During the hearing, counsel representing the media organisations said journalists could be left at the mercy of an individual deciding whether to give consent or not; which could effectively close down newsrooms. 

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant verbally observed that the petitioner media organisations were themselves “domain experts” and could best assist the Union government in identifying potential misuse of the law, while ensuring that the rights of innocent citizens were protected. The Court said a balance had to be struck with media rights. The counsel submitted that the law was not intended to regulate journalists and its application to news organisations would create a “pre-censorship regime”

India’s controversial Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 came into effect on November 14 amid backlash from critics who say the law will increase government surveillance, restrict freedom of information, and weaken press freedom.

The implementation of the DPDP Act by India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology follows its passage through the Indian Parliament on August 9, 2023. The Act has drawn strong criticism from press freedom groups and academics, who argue it grants “arbitrary and undisputed powers” to the Indian government and weakens key privacy safeguards.

Its broad, vaguely defined exemptions allow state agencies access to personal data with minimal independent oversight, while offering individuals no clear right to prevent their data from being retained in databases. The law also amends a key provision of the Right to Information Act that previously enabled journalists to obtain and disclose information in the public interest, creating new legal hurdles for transparency and public-interest reporting

India’s biggest news publishers including Ambani's Network18, Adani's NDTV, Indian Express, Times Internet & others mount the most high-profile challenge yet to Modi’s privacy law, warning it would “render investigative journalism a benign and neutered recorder of events.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government last year announced ‌implementation of a privacy law to protect digital personal data of users, raising compliance requirements for platforms like Meta and Google. The publishers have said that since media outlets were not exempt, the law was an invasion of press freedom.

Digital News Publishers Association has taken the law to the Supreme Court. They argue it would trample investigative work and let New Delhi identify journalists’ sources.

The provisions “constitute pre-censorship which is anathema to any democracy worth its name,” the group’s 698-page filing says.

Media companies received assurances in an August meeting with the government that the law would protect press freedom, but not having a written carve-out for journalists like in the European Union, Singapore and Britain was alarming, India's Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) said in its confidential filing at the Supreme Court.

The key concerns:

 Consent: requiring a journalist to notify the subject of an investigation and seek consent “would allow that subject to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses”

 Erasure: people can withdraw consent and demand their data be erased, which the group says could force publishers to unpublish or heavily redact news reports

Sources: a “nakedly unguided” power to demand information that “can extend to privileged communications in possession of a reporter or the informant”

In a letter to the government, the group said India “has chosen to grant broad exemptions to the state, while failing to extend any corresponding protection to the press.”

The publishers are demanding that most of the law's contentious provisions, which kick in from May 2027, should be quashed. They are arguing the law could force a journalist to get prior consent from a person they want to investigate and force publishers to erase stories. They also say powers granted by the law to demand information could expose reporters' sources.

DPDP Act threatens press freedom in India : Digital News Publishers Association

India’s controversial Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 came into effect on November 14 amid backlash from critics who say the law will increase government surveillance, restrict freedom of information, and weaken press freedom.Now it is challenged by Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) in the Supreme Court of India.

The implementation of the DPDP Act by India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology follows its passage through the Indian Parliament on August 9, 2023. The Act has drawn strong criticism from press freedom groups and academics, who argue it grants “arbitrary and undisputed powers” to the Indian government and weakens key privacy safeguards.

Its broad, vaguely defined exemptions allow state agencies access to personal data with minimal independent oversight, while offering individuals no clear right to prevent their data from being retained in databases. The law also amends a key provision of the Right to Information Act that previously enabled journalists to obtain and disclose information in the public interest, creating new legal hurdles for transparency and public-interest reporting

India’s biggest news publishers including Ambani's Network18, Adani's NDTV, Indian Express, Times Internet & others mount the most high-profile challenge yet to Modi’s privacy law, warning it would “render investigative journalism a benign and neutered recorder of events.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government last year announced ‌implementation of a privacy law to protect digital personal data of users, raising compliance requirements for platforms like Meta and Google. The publishers have said that since media outlets were not exempt, the law was an invasion of press freedom.

Digital News Publishers Association has taken the law to the Supreme Court. They argue it would trample investigative work and let New Delhi identify journalists’ sources.

The provisions “constitute pre-censorship which is anathema to any democracy worth its name,” the group’s 698-page filing says.

Media companies received assurances in an August meeting with the government that the law would protect press freedom, but not having a written carve-out for journalists like in the European Union, Singapore and Britain was alarming, India's Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) said in its confidential filing at the Supreme Court.

The key concerns:

 Consent: requiring a journalist to notify the subject of an investigation and seek consent “would allow that subject to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses”

 Erasure: people can withdraw consent and demand their data be erased, which the group says could force publishers to unpublish or heavily redact news reports

Sources: a “nakedly unguided” power to demand information that “can extend to privileged communications in possession of a reporter or the informant”

In a letter to the government, the group said India “has chosen to grant broad exemptions to the state, while failing to extend any corresponding protection to the press.”

The publishers are demanding that most of the law's contentious provisions, which kick in from May 2027, should be quashed. They are arguing the law could force a journalist to get prior consent from a person they want to investigate and force publishers to erase stories. They also say powers granted by the law to demand information could expose reporters' sources.

#SBI has not informed any affected customers about their data leak

New Delhi : SBI has told the stock exchanges about its data breach, but not the customers whose data was leaked

Today, the State Bank of India told the BSE and the National Stock Exchange, in a disclosure under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, that it has experienced an incident involving the loss of customer data. On 16 October 2026 the bank received alerts from its threat intelligence service provider, the Defence Cyber Agency and CERT-In that its customers’ data was available on the dark web. Its preliminary analysis of about 3.75 lakh records found 3,897 customer records containing personal information. These include registered mobile numbers, dates of birth, names, gender, email addresses, residential addresses, branch and CIF identifiers, lead IDs and details linked to loan records. The bank says it does not yet know where the data came from, and it has engaged a CERT-In empanelled agency to find out.

SBI did not detect this breach itself and learnt of it from outside agencies after the data had already been published. On the same day, a threat monitoring account on X flagged a claim by a group calling itself “Siriusim” that it had released 3.75 lakh rows of SBI data and 2,722 PDF documents, including loan applications and account opening forms. The bank’s disclosure does not mention these documents. It also does not say what the remaining records, beyond the 3,897 it has identified, contain.

At the time of this statement, SBI has not said that it has informed any of the affected customers, and its disclosure is silent on the point. Five days passed between the alert and today’s filing. The filing assures investors that the incident has no material impact on the bank’s operations, financial performance or business continuity. However, it does not state anything to the 3,897 people whose phone numbers, dates of birth and home addresses are now with fraudsters. These customers are the most likely to receive calls from persons posing as SBI officials who can recite their account details back to them. A customer cannot guard against a fraud she has not been warned of.

The Internet Freedom Foundation calls on SBI to inform every affected customer directly and without further delay.

We regret to note that the law in force today does not compel the bank to do so. Section 8(6) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 requires a Data Fiduciary to intimate a personal data breach to the Data Protection Board and to each affected Data Principal, and Rule 7 of the DPDP Rules, 2025 prescribes how this is to be done. But the Union Government chose a staggered commencement, and these provisions will take effect only on 13 May 2027, nearly four years after Parliament enacted the law. The reporting obligations that apply today, under the CERT-In Directions of 28 April 2022 and the RBI’s cyber security framework for banks, are owed to regulators and not to customers. A listed bank is bound to keep the stock exchanges informed. No law in force clearly binds it to inform the people whose data it holds.

Internet Freedom Foundation demands

1. SBI must inform each affected customer by SMS, email and letter to the registered address, in English, Hindi and the language of the customer’s branch, stating what data was exposed and what steps they should take. It should open a dedicated helpline and an online facility for customers to check whether their data is affected.

2. SBI must state what the 3.75 lakh records and the 2,722 documents contain, how many customers they relate to, and whether they include KYC documents such as Aadhaar, PAN or passport copies.

3. When the investigation concludes, SBI must disclose how the data left its systems, including whether it came through a vendor or a direct selling agent, and publish a summary of the investigating agency’s findings.

4. The Reserve Bank of India should direct all regulated entities to notify customers of personal data breaches within a fixed period, pending the commencement of the DPDP Act.

5. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should bring Section 8(6) of the DPDP Act and Rule 7 of the DPDP Rules into force immediately.

#SBI admits leakage of its A/c. holders data on dark web

State Bank of India (SBI) confirmed a dark web data exposure flagged by CERT-In and the Defence Cyber Agency. Out of ~3.75 lakh total records analyzed, 3,897 customer records contained Personally Identifiable Information (PII). SBI activated containment protocols and stated core banking operations remain unaffected.

The exposed information reportedly included customers’ registered mobile numbers, dates of birth, names, gender, email addresses, residential addresses, branch and CIF identifiers, lead IDs, and metadata associated with loan/lead records and other related files.

"We wish to submit that this does not have any material impact on Bank’s Core business operations, financial performance or business continuity. The Bank’s core business functions continue to operate normally without disruptions,” the Bank said.

A detailed assessment is currently underway and appropriate remedial and preventive measures are being implemented as required, it added. ,

“We reassure that the Bank continues to monitor the situation closely and take all appropriate measures in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements,” SBI said.

India's IT ministry directs Meta to supress protest reporting

India's IT ministry directs Meta to supress protest reporting on Instagram and Facebook by modifying it recommendation algorithms

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory to Meta on October 10, 2026, directing it to review its recommendation algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. The government asked the platform to prevent the disproportionate exposure of users to a single set of narratives and to add better context to posts covering ongoing public events.

On 10 October 2026, the Cyber Laws Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an advisory to Meta Platforms bearing File No. 6(2)/2026-Cyberlaws. It was not published on the MEITY website and first HT and then PTI reported it on 18 October. Any such advisory is not a legal order and MEITY is not legally empowered to issue them on the basis of any statutory provision. This advisory followed, by two days, an advisory of 8 October to all social media intermediaries calling for "enhanced diligence" over content on "ongoing public events", asking platforms to "label or add context" to misleading content and to "give priority to complaints from authorised Government agencies". IFF called for the withdrawal of that advisory on 9 October. The Meta advisory was issued on the day the Delhi Police detained protesters and journalists at the demonstrations called over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The advisory states that content relating to "public-order and law and order situations" is being "prominently displayed and recommended" on Meta's platforms and, "when presented without adequate context or disproportionately amplified", "may contribute to public confusion, apprehension and disturbance of public order and social tranquillity". It singles out "unverified or misleading claims regarding the imposition of emergency, restrictions, police action or other official measures". Further, Meta is advised to review its "recommendation and content ranking mechanisms", to ensure its systems "do not result in disproportionate exposure of users to a single or limited set of narratives", and to furnish "information or assistance" to law enforcement, "with immediate effect". PTI reports that the Ministry acted on inputs from "agencies" that Meta's platforms were not promoting all "narratives" equally.

This advisory matches restrictions on META platforms related to protest content and reporting in the same timline. On 10 October, the Instagram account of Molitics India was withheld in India. On 11 October, a Mathrubhumi English reel showing a woman clinging to a pole as police officers attempted to detain her was restricted citing, "a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement", and a video report by Observer Post Hindi was restricted on Facebook by what Meta called an "automated system" acting under the IT Rules, 2021. On 12 October, the Instagram account of journalist Shubhangi Das Gupta was restricted in India for alleged non-compliance with "local IT Rules". On 13 October, the account of Journo Mirror (about five lakh followers) was withheld. The account of Fridays For Future India has since been withheld without any stated reason. Meta's notices to these users do not disclose what is unlawful about the content. 

As per notices shared by us by those who have been censored by META, they take two forms: 

1. "a notice from the Government of India/Law Enforcement under Section 79(3)(b)", and, 

2. "through an automated system implemented pursuant to legal requirements under India's Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules". 

Neither names the issuing agency, the order, the provision of law or offence the content is said to disclose, or the URL complained of. We know due to litigation that the first notice related to a Sahyog order issued by a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA), while the second one is without any legal order. At the same time, several users received no communication at all. Instagram used the same "automated system" notice against Anjali Priya, Varnika Dhawan and Sachin Gupta after the July protests, and against cartoonist Satish Acharya, who lost nine cartoons and then his account between February and September 2026. 

In April 2026, The Hindu reported that Meta automatically restricts government and police flagged content in India at scale, and seeks a separate government direction before restoring content later found to be legally unsupported. IFF objected to Meta on 4 May 2026. IFF condemns the advisory of 10 October and the restrictions imposed in its wake. An executive communication that instructs a platform to suppress "unverified" claims about "police action" and to correct a "limited set of narratives", issued on the day of a police crackdown and kept from the public, is a censorship directive in all but name. It makes the State the editor of what Indians may see of a protest against the State. IFF calls upon MeitY to withdraw it and upon Meta to disclose what it has done under it.

Key Demands of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) :- 

1. MeitY must withdraw the advisories of 8 and 10 October 2026 forthwith and publish them.

2. MeitY must abandon proposed Rule 3(4) and restrict content only by reasoned, published orders under Section 69A or notices compliant with Rule 3(1)(d).

3. Meta must disclose every takedown, account restriction and act of downranking carried out under the advisories, and its compliance report to the Ministry.

4. Meta must restore the accounts and posts of journalists, outlets and creators restricted since 8 October 2026 unless it holds a valid legal order, and must furnish that order to the person affected.

5. Meta must suspend the automated restriction of content in India and disclose on what inputs its "automated system" acts.

Any person whose account or content has been withheld in India since 8 October 2026 may write to IFF at legal@internetfreedom.in. IFF is providing assistance pro bono.

MeitY's advisory to Meta directs the suppression of protest reporting on Instagram and Facebook. It must be withdrawn immediately.

India's Nobel Peace Prize dilemma

 

New Delhi; The Narendra Modi-led Government of India faced criticism for remaining silent and not issuing an official congratulatory message after South African jurist of Indian Tamil origin Navanethem "Navi" Pillay won the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize on October 9, 2026. 

Senior Congress MP Shashi Tharoor criticised the Union government on social media, calling the lack of an official acknowledgement deplorable given her Indian ancestral roots in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay did, however, congratulate her.

Observers and reports noted that New Delhi's low profile may have been influenced by diplomatic sensitivities. Pillay chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which concluded that Israel committed genocide in Gaza—a finding rejected by Israel, with whom India has cultivated close ties. Additionally, analysts pointed to past friction between New Delhi and Pillay during her tenure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008–2014).

This year’s peace laureate Navi Pillay, dedicated her prize to "all the survivors of international crime." 

Pillay’s career has been defined by an unwavering commitment to universal legal principles and a strong moral compass. She has played a pivotal role in efforts to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Throughout her career, Pillay has held states and political leaders accountable while offering hope to victims of violence and conflict. 

Born into a family of Indian Tamil heritage, Pillay grew up under apartheid in South Africa. As a lawyer, she confronted deep structural discrimination, segregation and exclusion. In 1967, Pillay was one of only three women admitted as an attorney and became the first non-white woman to establish her own legal practice in Natal. As she later recalled, she had little choice: “No law firm would employ me because they said they could not have white employees taking instructions from a coloured person.” As a non-white lawyer under apartheid, she was also barred from entering a judge's chambers. A clear thread runs through her life’s work, from her early defence of Nelson Mandela and other anti-apartheid activists to her later service as a judge in some of the key international court cases of our time. 

Pillay has served as a judge of the High Court of South Africa, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). When the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established that rape and sexual violence could constitute a crime against humanity – as well as genocide – her influence was a significant factor. She was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, until recently, she chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today Pillay is a judge on the International Court of Justice in the case where Myanmar stands accused of genocide. 

With this year’s prize the Norwegian Nobel Committee seeks to underline that the rule of law forms the foundation of the international system for maintaining peace and resolving conflicts without violence. History has shown that a world without respect for the rule of law becomes unjust and inhumane. Judges, who safeguard the fragile line between order and chaos, deserves recognition for their vital work. Yet today these judges are increasingly under attack, and the institutions they serve face sanctions. For that reason, people like Navi Pillay are needed now more than ever. 

Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal defended the Indian government's stance, pointing to Pillay's past criticisms of India's human rights record.

Is Delhi SEM order of extending the judicial custody of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka till Oct.21 reasonable

Delhi: CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka's judicial custody extended by two days.

CJP legal head

Ratna Singh

says, "I think SEM (Special Executive Magistrate) courts should be abolished because the system is compromised. They have rejected the sureties. Advocates have pointed out that the verification process for a surety cannot be a valid ground for remanding someone to judicial custody. There is no apprehension, no threat, and there was no call to action from our side, yet they were still sent to two days of judicial custody. The authorities show no regard for personal liberty or an individual's past record; they simply seek an excuse, and we have just witnessed the kind of excuse they have offered today. I feel that while this entire system is designed to crush us, it will not succeed. The youth of this country is watching. They see how those in power are misusing the law to suppress voices, stifle these young people and prevent them from coming together to raise their concerns. I believe the authorities fail to realise that all of this is only making these individuals stronger and more powerful. They will eventually push back, and the government will be forced to provide an answer."

Abhik Chimni, representing Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das, says, "We are very disappointed. This is a matter of preventive custody and it is also a matter of fact that the Court itself said that they don't deem it necessary for the person to be sent to judicial custody. That is why they asked for the surety; once the sureties were given, they originally had a problem with it. Then there was an issue with the next surety too. Law says - release them first and then see the verification, surety and so on. Today, they produced another surety and all details required. One of the reasons they gave in the order is that one of the photos is not matching. Then they said that there is an apprehension...It is very disturbing, we will see what to do."

Questions :-

Is Delhi SEM order of extending the judicial custody of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka till Oct.21 reasonable ?

Using minor technicalities like "surety mismatches" to extend the judicial custody of peaceful protestors is not subversion of established legal process ?

Violation of Nemo Judex In Causa Sua' principle or not; SEM means Special Executive Magistrate. In Delhi it is ordinarily an ACP-rank Delhi Police officer authorised under the Delhi Police Act to exercise executive magisterial powers for preventive custody and peace bonds under BNSS. In the police hierarchy ACP sits below DCP / Addl. DCP, then Addl. CP, Joint CP, Special CP, with the Commissioner of Police at the top.

Need a pause in advance #AI development for the sake of humanity : Geoffrey Hinton

According to pioneering computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton a pause in advanced AI development would need international coordination, especially involving China—not just a U.S.-based agreement.

External auditors and regulation may be necessary because voluntary commitments from AI companies might not be enough.

Employees at major AI companies are deeply worried about the consequences of an escalating AI race, including broader instability and humanity’s future."I've been speaking to the the people that work there, and I can say that they are genuinely frightened. But, they are genuinely concerned about the fate of humanity in the next two years. When they are planning their lives, planning what to do with their lives, they are thinking about the impacts of their work, like and they you know like considering buying land somewhere because they're so scared of the instability as a result of rapid AI progress. So, the all I can say is that the people who work at these companies are completely serious when they ask for regulation because they find themselves trapped in a race and they're scared of the of the outcome of that race," said Hinton in a recent interview.

Hinton left his research role at Google in 2023 to speak more freely about AI risks.

The key point was that Hinton sees the problem not simply as one of technical safety, but as a global coordination failure: companies and countries may continue racing even when many participants recognize the dangers.

Hinton's work on artificial neural networks and deep learning helped lay the foundation for today’s AI systems. The British-Canadian computer scientist and cognitive psychologist shared the 2018 Turing Award with Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun.