Goa court grants bail to 2 managers of fire-hit nightclub
Panaji (PTI): A Goa court on Tuesday granted bail to two managers of the 'Birch by Romeo Lane' nightclub who were arrested in connection with the fire that killed 25 people at the entertainment hotspot earlier this month.
District Judge D V Patkar granted bail with certain conditions to Rajveer Singhania and Priyanshu Thakur, both managers of the club, while it rejected a similar application of a third manager, Vivek Singh.
All three were arrested on December 7, a day after a devastating fire ripped through the nightclub at Arpora village in North Goa.
Advocate Vinayak Parab, representing Singhania (Bar Manager) and Thakur (Gate Manager), said that while granting bail, the court ruled that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
The court made it clear the duo shall not leave India without its prior written permission.
According to Parab, the court directed that the accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (IO) as and when required and co-operate in the ongoing probe.
"The applicants shall report before the IO or the PI Anjuna Police Station, once a month, preferably, on first Wednesday, until the filing of a chargesheet/final report," the bail order said.
Twenty-five persons -- 20 staff members and five tourists -- were killed in the major blaze at the nightclub around midnight on December 6.
So far, eight persons have been arrested in connection with the case, including two co-owners of the club -- Gaurav Luthra and his brother Saurabh -- who were deported from Thailand.
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.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda
Washington (AP): The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centres on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.
The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.
The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess,' as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.
The tariffs decision doesn't stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump's actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court's emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.
The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in US history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.
Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women's cycling apparel.
The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn't even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's USD 500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
The economic impact of Trump's tariffs has been estimated at some USD 3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than USD 133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.
