Commenting on Navalny's death for first time, Putin says he supported prisoner swap for his foe
Moscow (AP/PTI): Russian President Vladimir Putin said early Monday that he supported an idea to release late opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a prisoner exchange just days before the man who was his biggest foe died.
In his first comments to address Navalny's death, Putin said of the dissident's demise: "It happens. There is nothing you can do about it. It's life."
The remarks were unusual in that he repeatedly referenced Navalny by his name for the first time in years and that they came at a late-night news conference as results poured in from a presidential election that is certain to extend his rule.
Early returns showed him leading with over 87 per cent of the votes in a race with no competition, after years of ruthlessly suppressing the opposition and crippling independent media.
Navalny's allies last month also said that talks with Russian and Western officials about a prisoner swap involving Navalny were underway. The politician's longtime associate Maria Pevchikh said the talks were in their final stages just days before the Kremlin critic's sudden and unexplained death in an Arctic penal colony.
She accused Putin of "getting rid of" Navalny in order not to exchange him, but offered no evidence to back her claims, and they could not be independently confirmed.
Putin said Monday, also without offering any evidence, that several days before Navalny's death, "certain colleagues, not from the (presidential) administration" told him about "an idea to exchange Navalny for certain people held in penitentiary facilities in western countries". He said he supported the idea.
"Believe it or not, but the person talking to me didn't even finish their sentence when I said: I agree,'" Putin said in response to a question from a journalist about Navalny's death. He added that his one condition was that Navalny wouldn't return to Russia.
"But unfortunately, whatever happened, happened," Putin said.
Navalny, 47, Russia's best-known opposition politician, died last month while serving a 19-year sentence on extremism charges that he rejected as politically motivated. His allies, family members and Western officials blamed the death on the Kremlin, accusations it has rejected.
The politician's associates said officials listed "natural causes" on paperwork Navalny's mother was shown when she was trying to retrieve his body.
Navalny had been jailed since January 2021, when he returned to Moscow of his own accord after recuperating in Germany from nerve agent poisoning he blamed on the Kremlin. He was immediately arrested. The Kremlin has vehemently denied it was behind the poisoning.
Pevchikh claimed that there was a plan to swap Navalny and two US citizens held in Russia for Vadim Krasikov. He was serving a life sentence in Germany for the 2019 killing in Berlin of Zelimkhan "Tornike" Khangoshvili, a 40-year-old Georgian citizen of Chechen descent. German judges said Krasikov acted on the orders of Russian authorities.
She didn't identify the US citizens that were supposedly part of the deal. There are several in custody in Russia, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, arrested on espionage charges, and Paul Whelan, a corporate security executive from Michigan, convicted of espionage and serving a long prison sentence. They and the US government dispute the charges against them.
German officials have refused to comment when asked if there had been any effort by Russia to swap Krasikov.
Putin had earlier said that the Kremlin was open to negotiations on Gershkovich. He pointed to a man imprisoned in a "US-allied country" for "liquidating a bandit" who had allegedly killed Russian soldiers during separatist fighting in Chechnya. Putin didn't mention names but appeared to refer to Krasikov.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
