“Banks were created during the Congress regime, but are sold during Modi’s rule,” Rahul Gandhi lashed out at IDBI Bank’s privatization, offering support to employees.
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has targeted the central government over the privatization of IDBI Bank. He sarcastically said, “Banks were created during the Congress regime, but are sold during Modi’s rule.” He also expressed support for the bank employees’ protest and pledged his support. New Delhi: Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has targeted the Narendra Modi government over the privatization of IDBI Bank. He alleged that the government first called for bids to purchase the bank and then fixed its price. Rahul Gandhi said that during the Congress regime, banks were created for the country’s industrial development, whereas under the Modi government, public sector banks are being sold. He has pledged his support for IDBI Bank employees. On Friday, Rahul Gandhi posted on the social media platform X, writing, “IDBI was created during the Congress regime to build the country’s industry.” During Modi’s tenure, bids were first reviewed, then the price was finalized. Banks were created during Congress’s tenure. They are sold during Modi’s tenure. I stand with the employees of IDBI Bank. Rahul Gandhi writes a letter to IDBI employees Rahul Gandhi has written a letter addressing the employees of IDBI Bank. In the letter, Rahul Gandhi explained that in March last year, a delegation of bank employees met him in Parliament. The employees questioned why the government was selling the bank he had brought to profit. According to Rahul Gandhi, “He raised this issue in the Lok Sabha, asking the government why a profitable public sector bank needed to be sold and how the interests of its employees and depositors would be protected. He alleged that the government failed to provide a satisfactory answer to this question. Now, the decision has been made to sell the bank to the Canadian company Fairfax.” ‘The bank went from losses to profits of ₹9,000 crore in 7 years’ Rahul Gandhi, in his letter, highlighted IDBI Bank’s performance, saying it began as a development bank. The subsequent transition to a commercial bank wasn’t easy, but the employees overcame the challenges. He claimed that about seven years ago, IDBI Bank was incurring losses, but last year, the bank earned profits of over ₹9,000 crore. Rahul Gandhi credited the bank’s employees for this turnaround, saying it was the result of their hard work. Objection raised to the reduction of government stake The Congress MP also questioned the change in the bank’s ownership. He said that currently, the government and LIC hold approximately 95% of IDBI Bank. After privatization, this stake will be reduced to approximately 34%. Rahul Gandhi also referred to the promise made in Parliament in 2003, in which the government had pledged to retain at least a 51% stake in IDBI Bank. He said that even if this promise is not enshrined in law, a promise made in Parliament is a promise made to the people of the country. He expressed concern that reservations for SC, ST, and OBC categories could be eliminated after the bank goes into private hands. He assured IDBI Bank employees that he stands with them in their struggle and fully supports all their legitimate demands. Why is IDBI Bank in the news? The IDBI Bank privatization issue involves selling the government’s stake and transferring control of the bank to a private foreign company. The central government has approved the sale of 60.72% of IDBI Bank’s stake to Canadian company Fairfax. This deal is worth approximately ₹52,878 crore. When was IDBI Bank established? IDBI Bank was established in 1964 to boost the country’s industrial development. Its purpose was to provide loans to companies and large projects. The bank was established in 1964 when it was formerly owned by the RBI. Its ownership was transferred to the Central Government in 1976. Why are bank employees protesting? Reservation issue: Whether the reservation system for SC, ST, and OBC categories in public sector banks will continue after becoming private banks is a major question. Employees are vocal about this issue. Job security: There is a fear that service conditions, promotions, and job security will be affected after private management comes into place. Public control: Employees believe that public sector control should remain over banks built with public money. Authored by: Abhishek Pandey About the author Abhishek Pandey is a digital journalist at Navbharat Times. He joined Navbharat Times, the digital wing of the Times of India Group, in July 2025. He currently covers news for the National and Delhi desks. I have 4 years of experience in journalism, working as a reporter and on the desk. Courtesy: Hindi News
Supreme Court cancels bail of expelled JD(U) leader Anant Singh in Dularchand Yadav murder case
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday cancelled the bail granted to expelled JD(U) leader Anant Singh in the murder case of Dularchand Yadav and directed him to surrender before the authorities on or before December 1, 2026. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PV Varale observed that the Patna high court had erred in granting bail to Singh without considering the nature of the offence and his criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court suspended the high court’s order and cancelled the bail granted to Singh, directing him to surrender within the stipulated deadline. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Yet to test legality of logical discrepancy in SIR: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that even though the validity of SIR in Bihar was upheld, the court had no occasion to test the legality of the ‘logical discrepancy’ criterion as it was not used during the Bihar exercise. When EC’s counsel referred to smooth conduct of Bihar and West Bengal elections after SIR, the bench said, “Logical discrepancy (mode for deletion) was first resorted to in West Bengal. We are yet to examine its validity. We will go into logical discrepancy in detail later.” When petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj’s counsel claimed that lakhs of voters were deleted from the draft Delhi rolls on grounds of ‘logical discrepancy’, the bench asked how EC could reopen entries in the 2003 voter list and issue notices for logical discrepancy.“In a voter enumeration exercise like SIR, EC has taken the 2003 voter list as the base. If that is so, how could it classify those whose names figured in that list as ineligible on grounds of logical discrepancy? Can EC go beyond the list and reopen it?” the bench asked. During the last hearing, the bench had suggested that EC examine putting additional filters to avoid mechanical issuance of notices under ‘logical discrepancy’. SC: Can EC go beyond 2003 list to scrutinise logical discrepancy? In a voter enumeration exercise like SIR, EC has taken the 2003 voter list as the base. If that is so, how could it classify those whose names figured in that list as ineligible on grounds of logical discrepancy? Can EC go beyond the list and reopen it?” the bench asked. During the last hearing, the bench had suggested that EC examine putting additional filters to avoid mechanical issuance of notices under ‘logical discrepancy’. Opposition INDIA bloc functionaries, led by Rahul Gandhi, have filed a joint petition challenging many issues, including the SIR process, and questioned the allegedly arbitrary non-inclusion of names because of ‘logical discrepancy’. In its May 27 judgment, SC had examined the following questions — whether EC had the power to conduct SIR; whether SIR had a legitimate purpose and the process was proportionate to the object to be achieved; and whether the SIR procedure was contrary to Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Registration of Electors Act, 1960 — and found that there was nothing amiss in the conduct of SIR or the process adopted to achieve the object of weeding out voters who had died, shifted house or had duplicate entries. SC had categorically ruled that the SIR exercise “neither stands in direct conflict with RP Act and 1960 Rules, nor does it detract from the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections”. It had said, “The impugned SIR exercise, as conducted, satisfies the requirements of proportionality. The measures adopted bear a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, are not manifestly excessive, and are accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary exclusion. “We are equally satisfied that, in its object and design, the impugned SIR bears a direct nexus to the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. Free and fair elections do not rest merely upon the mechanics of polling. They equally depend upon the integrity, accuracy and purity of the electoral roll which forms the foundation of the democratic process.” Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Already hate all of you’: Rahul Gandhi’s 4-point reply to Nirmala Sitharaman’s advice
NEW DELHI: Leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday hit back at finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman over the Tata Group controversy, questioning the alleged meeting between Tata Trusts and Tata Sons representatives and Union home minister Amit Shah. In a post on X, Rahul asked when “crony number 1” would enter the picture and which parts of the Tata Group he would get. “Dear Mrs Sitarama. 1. Which “legal and commercial matter” required Tata Trusts and Tata Sons to be hosted at Amit Shah’s residence?” “2. When is crony number 1 going to appear in the game and which pieces of Tata is he going to get?” he said. “Finally, all India’s businesses except 3-4 of your cronies, already hate all of you and don’t need any incitement,” he added. His remarks came after Sitharaman accused the Congress leader of politicising the Tata Group dispute and urged him to “refrain from seeing ghosts everywhere”. The exchange followed Rahul’s earlier post accusing the government of “criminally destroying” the Tata Group and questioning business leaders’ silence over the matter. “Being the LoP RahulGandhi, I suggest you refrain from politicising every issue. Also, casually labelling commercial and legal matters as criminal is unacceptable,” Sitharaman wrote on X. The finance minister alleged that Rahul had “repeatedly decried” the achievements of Indian industry and its entrepreneurs. She also accused him of trying to “incite” business leaders to join him in “spreading distrust and toxicity”. Sitharaman contrasted the Congress’s economic record with the BJP-led government’s approach, accusing the former of suppressing entrepreneurs through its “stifling Licence-Quota Raj”. “For decades, your party had smothered the spirit of Indian entrepreneurs under the stifling ‘Licence-Quota Raj’ and inflicted poverty on crores of Indians. On the other hand, our government led by PM Narendramodi values Indian industry as a creator of jobs and a driver of economic growth. Our policies have been tailored to enable enterprise, support industry and encourage investment,” she added. She urged Rahul to engage constructively with the government rather than make allegations for what she described as “narrow political motives”. “The Constitution of India ensures justice to all its citizens and our Honourable Courts are entrusted with upholding it. History is witness to the shoddy manner in which you, your party and the PMs belonging to your party have demeaned the judiciary. So Rahul ji, refrain from seeing ghosts everywhere,” Sitharaman said. Earlier, Rahul had targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Amit Shah over the dispute, alleging that the Tata Group was being undermined and that business leaders were reluctant to speak out. “Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word. How long will you stay silent? Until they own you? Indian business is not Modi and Shah’s plaything. You lack courage. We don’t. We will ensure justice for these crimes,” he wrote on X. The remarks came amid a dispute over the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as executive chairman of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group. Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata has challenged the decision to reappoint Chandrasekaran, alleging procedural irregularities and questioning the validity of the resolution. In a letter dated October 26 to Tata Sons’ company secretary, Noel Tata argued that the reappointment was invalid because it lacked a recommendation from the Selection Committee and did not meet requirements under the company’s Articles of Association. He also sought recordings and minutes of the board meeting, along with voting details, and asked the company to inform regulators that the resolution’s validity was disputed. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Tata is being criminally destroyed’: Rahul Gandhi targets PM Modi, Amit Shah amid boardroom feud
NEW DELHI: Congress leader and Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday accused the Modi government of allowing the Tata Group to be “criminally destroyed”, amid an escalating dispute between Tata Trusts and Tata Sons over the reappointment of N Chandrasekaran as chairman.In a post on X, Rahul Gandhi criticised business leaders for remaining silent over the developments and accused the government of treating Indian businesses as its own. “Tata is being criminally destroyed, and no business leader dares say a word. How long will you stay silent? Until they own you? Indian business is not Modi and Shah’s plaything. You lack courage. We don’t. We will ensure justice for these crimes,” Rahul wrote on X. Rahul Gandhi’s remarks come after Noel Tata, chairman of Tata Trusts, challenged the resolution to reappoint Chandrasekaran as Tata Sons chairman for another five years beyond February 2027. The resolution was passed at a board meeting on September 17. According to people familiar with the matter, Noel wrote to Tata Sons company secretary Suprakash Mukhopadhyay on Monday, arguing that the reappointment was void because it was not included in the meeting’s agenda. The meeting was reportedly meant to discuss a briefing from the nomination and remuneration committee. Noel, who heads Tata Trusts, which owns around two-thirds of Tata Sons, had opposed Chandrasekaran’s reappointment during the board vote. Venu Srinivasan, the other Tata Trusts nominee on the Tata Sons board, supported the resolution alongside the majority. The dispute between Tata Sons and Tata Trusts has also extended to the proposed listing of Tata Sons on the stock market. Noel has opposed the move, arguing that a listing could dilute the philanthropic mission of Tata Trusts and expose the group to market volatility. Tata Sons’ board has favoured a listing in line with guidance from the Reserve Bank of India for systemically important non-banking financial companies. The disagreement has prompted both sides to examine their directors and officers liability insurance coverage in anticipation of possible legal proceedings. However, neither side has filed a lawsuit against the other or made a claim under the policies so far. Emails sent to Tata Sons and Tata Trusts seeking comments on the reappointment dispute did not receive an immediate response. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Bound to be ‘tamasha’ over my book: Sonia Gandhi
NEW DELHI: Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi Tuesday said her upcoming autobiography ‘Belonging’ is set to kick up public drama, since people have their views about her. In an Instagram post, she said, “There is bound to be tamasha when this book comes out. After all, others have spent decades telling my ‘story’, now it’s my turn.” She said a lot has been written about her that was either invented or exaggerated. “So, it gave me the feeling of being able to now put down my story and describe facts and things as they really were… People have different views, some may change their views about me and some people’s views may become worse. But it is what it is. That’s what happens when you write a book or when you are in public life.” Sonia also left a teaser: “When my husband was asked to become PM, which I was totally against…” Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Leader Is Bulldozing’: Kharge, Nadda Lock Horns Over TMC MP’s Speech In Rajya Sabha
A heated argument erupted in the Rajya Sabha after TMC MP Dola Sen raised the Home Affairs Ministry’s directive to rename all Raj Bhavans as Lok Bhavans. Sen claimed neither Parliament nor state governments had been consulted. Tensions rose when she began mentioning other issues, including MGNREGA, leading the Chair to intervene and rule that off-topic remarks would not be recorded. Leader of the House JP Nadda objected to the deviation, insisting only comments related to the Lok Bhavan issue should remain on record. Chairman CP Radhakrishnan supported this view. Opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge defended Sen, arguing she had not spoken anything unparliamentary and accusing the government of “bulldozing” and suppressing debate. Nadda denied the accusation, maintaining he sought only procedural discipline.Rea Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Mahua Moitra defends Kharge’s remarks against PM, accuses BJP of double standards
Sharing a video of Amit Shah’s remark that Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother cannot stop the Citizenship Amendment Act, she accused the BJP of double standards in its response to political attacks. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Monday backed Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge over his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Sharing a video of Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remark that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother cannot stop the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), she accused the BJP of double standards in its response to political attacks. A controversy erupted after Kharge, at an event in Patna on Sunday, said, “Modi ka baap bhi jayega, baap bhi jayega (Even Modi’s father would go),” while responding to an audience member who said Modi would not go. Moitra posted a series of messages on X. “Why only the father? Even the father’s father will go. Well said, Kharge ji. We assure you that we will fight this till the end,” she wrote in a post. Taking a swipe at the BJP’s slogan, she wrote further, “BJP: Modi will come to power. India: Modi and his father will go.” The Trinamool Congress MP also shared a video in which Amit Shah is heard saying that Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother could not stop the CAA. “The BJP and Godi media loved it. Today Kharge said Modi’s father will also go (and yes, Adani will go). Accept it, folks. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Moitra said. In another post apparently directed at Shah, she said, “Go and steal some more votes and come back. You’ll remember.” Courtesy : TNIE Note: This news is originally published on https:/thenewindianexpress.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
UP Police constitute SIT to probe accident involving vehicles in Rahul Gandhi’s convoy
The investigation will examine the circumstances and causes of the accident and determine whether there was any negligence or lapse in security, escort arrangements or traffic management The Uttar Pradesh Police on Monday constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the accident involving vehicles trailing the convoy of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during his visit to Sultanpur. The investigation will examine the circumstances and causes of the accident and determine whether there was any negligence or lapse in security, escort arrangements or traffic management, a statement said. The SIT has been directed to conduct a comprehensive probe into all aspects of the incident and submit a detailed report to the police headquarters at the earliest. The probe team will be headed by Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Kiran S. Additional Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, Brij Narayan Singh, and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Sultanpur, Ram Krishna Chaturvedi, will also be part of the SIT. The SIT was constituted on the directions of UP Director General of Police Rajeev Krishna to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident, officials said. The team has also been tasked with suggesting measures to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, the statement said. Some vehicles in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s convoy collided on the Purvanchal Expressway on Monday while he was on his way to Sultanpur for a court hearing in a defamation case against him, a police officer said. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha was safe, the officer said, adding that the incident was not serious and no major injuries were reported. The incident occurred around 10.15 am when a private vehicle at the front of the convoy, belonging to local Congress leaders, suddenly applied the brakes for an unspecified reason, causing vehicles behind it to collide with one another, the officer told PTI. The vehicles involved in the pile-up had joined the convoy midway with passengers, including Congress workers from neighbouring Amethi district, police said. Courtesy : The Tribune Note: This news is originally published on https:/thetribune.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
June 2025 decision to hold SIR taken unanimously, EC tells SC
NEW DELHI: The Election Commission Monday filed an affidavit in SC that the chief election commissioner and the two election commissioners had unanimously taken the decision on June 24, 2025 to conduct nationwide SIR of electoral rolls and that there was no difference of opinion. The affidavit by deputy EC Bhanu Prakash Yeturu came with an unusual declaration that it was being filed with the approval of the CEC and the two ECs. “At the very outset, I state that the present affidavit has been approved for filing before the SC by a unanimous decision of the three members of the Election Commission, that is the 2 election commissioners and the chief election commissioner,” the affidavit said. The assertion contradicts the charge that CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at Modi government’s instance, unilaterally decided to conduct SIR of electoral rolls — the mainstay of the opposition’s “vote chori” campaign. The affidavit was filed in response to petitions, including one filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders, following a news report that the two ECs — S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — had approached the cabinet secretary because of their differences with the CEC over SIR-related issues. “Allegations based on the communication between ECs and the cabinet secretary are misconceived,” the EC said, adding that the letters by Sandhu and Joshi pertained to administrative matters. No substance in claim that Form 6 was amended by SIR orders: EC An office order came to be issued on July 28 by an IAS officer of the rank of additional secretary who had been posted on deputation to the commission pertaining to internal work allocation. On July 29, the two election commissioners wrote separate letters to the cabinet secretary in relation to this order and the conduct of the officer. In view of the joint direction of July 30 by the two ECs, the order of July 28 was never implemented,” the commission said. Responding to the petitions by Rahul and other INDIA bloc netas, the EC said all the petitions were based on a news article alleging that the commission had not been functioning in accordance with the procedure mandated in law, and allegations were also made questioning the integrity of the commission. It also issued a strong denial of the allegation, another key plank of the opposition’s offensive, that Form 6, as provided under Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, was amended by the commission by the SIR orders of June 24 and Oct 27 last year and May 14 this year. “There is no substance in the contention that Form 6 has been amended by the commission vide the SIR orders.” EC said Form 6 could be amended only by the Centre and what was changed was the introduction of a declaration to “enable the person seeking registration as a voter to dispense with the need for filing documents during the claims and objections period”. The ‘declaration’ was a document provided by the SIR orders and was not a part of Form 6, which was the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral rolls, it said, adding there was no significant change in the earlier and present declaration. The declaration that the affidavit was approved by the two ECs is significant because of the charge that the CEC’s “unilateral” calls on SIR-related issues were violative of the law, which required the poll body to take decisions unanimously or, when not possible, by majority. The opposition has demanded removal and prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar for violating the law. Denying the charge, the affidavit said that while the CEC, the ECs and even other officers may have expressed different views during deliberations, the decisions were taken in accordance with law. “The views by ECs/CEC of the commission during the decision-making process on the subjects before them are considered for arriving at the decision. It is upon consideration of all the views placed before the commission that the decision is taken and the orders are issued in accordance with the process,” the EC said. Explaining the process of decision-making in which views of all divisions concerned with the subject are considered in detail, the EC said, “In any such decision-making process, any suggestion, observation or query by the CEC or ECs either to the ECs or CEC or to any officer of the commission does not constitute a decision of the commission under Section 18 of the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.” It said the statute prefers a decision by unanimity but also provides for decision-making by majority in the three-member EC. The commission said the CEC and ECs had taken a unanimous decision on June 29 that “in case any person to whom notice has been issued during the ongoing SIR, for being unmapped and/or logical discrepancies, BLOs will visit the homes of such persons for collection of documents and thereafter upload them in the ECINet, for decision by the ERO”. “Such person shall not be called for hearing to the ERO/AERO officer. Only in exceptional circumstances, as defined by the ERO/AERO, will the hearing be held, preferably online. Any adult member of the family can be authorised by the elector to attend the hearing on their behalf,” EC said. Referring to the allegation relating to deletion of 97 voters in Goa, the commission said it had directed that no eligible voter should be left out of the rolls and pursuant to this, the BLOs conducted a house-to-house visit and found that 88 of the 97 had already filled Form 6 for inclusion of their names. Of the remaining nine, six were out of the country and three were Portuguese passport holders. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights