India will buy oil where it gets 'best deal': Indian envoy to Russia
_vb_59.jpeg)
Moscow (PTI): Indian companies will continue buying oil from wherever they get the "best deal", India's envoy to Russia Vinay Kumar has said, asserting that New Delhi will continue taking measures which protect its "national interest".
In an interview with Russia's state-run TASS news agency published Sunday, Kumar said that New Delhi's priority is ensuring energy security of the country's 1.4 billion people.
His remarks come amid US criticism of India’s purchase of discounted Russian crude, a criticism which India has strongly rejected.
Stressing that trade takes place on a "commercial basis", Kumar said, "Indian companies will continue buying from wherever they get the best deal. So that's what the current situation is."
"...We have clearly stated that our objective is energy security of 1.4 billion people of India and India's cooperation with Russia, as of several other countries, has helped to bring about stability in the oil market, global oil market," the report quoted him as saying.
His comments come in the backdrop of the Donald Trump administration doubling tariffs on Indian goods to a whopping 50 per cent, including a 25 per cent additional duty for India's purchase of Russian crude oil.
The US has alleged that India's purchases of Russian crude oil are funding Moscow's war in Ukraine, a charge strongly rejected by India.
Calling Washington's decision "unfair, unreasonable and unjustified", Kumar said that the Indian government "will continue taking measures which will protect the national interest of the country".
India has been maintaining that its energy procurement, including from Russia, is driven by national interest and market dynamics.
Kumar said that trade between India and Russia is based on mutual interests and market factors, and added that it is done with the "overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India".
"There are other countries including the US itself and in Europe trading with Russia," he said.
On Saturday, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, responding to a question on the US criticism of India on the crude oil issue, said, “It's funny to have people who work for a pro-business American administration accusing other people of doing business.”
“That's really curious. If you have a problem buying oil or refined products from India, don't buy it. Nobody forces you to buy it. But Europe buys, America buys, so you don't like it, don't buy it,” he said.
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 declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
