New twist in Rafale scam: Papers show Indian agencies ignored kickbacks

In an era where digital distractions are the primary rival to academic excellence, the Karnataka Education Department is taking the fight directly to the living room. As the SSLC (Class 10) annual examinations loom, officials have launched a localized "digital strike" to ensure students aren't losing their competitive edge to scrolling or soap operas.

The 7-to-9 Lockdown

The department has issued a formal directive urging—and in some cases, enforcing via home visits—a total blackout of mobile phones and television sets between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM. This two-hour window is being designated as "sacred study time" across the state until the examinations conclude on April 2.

Key Pillars of the Initiative:

•    Doorstep Advocacy: Teachers are transitioning from classrooms to living rooms, meeting parents to explain the psychological benefits of a distraction-free environment.

•    Parental Accountability: The campaign shifts the burden of discipline from the student to the household, asking parents to lead by example and switch off their own devices.

•    The Timeline: The focus remains sharp on the upcoming exam block, scheduled from March 18 to April 2.

"The objective is simple: uninterrupted focus. We are reclaiming the evening hours for the students, ensuring their environment is as prepared as their minds," stated a senior department official.

Student vs. Reality

While the student community has largely welcomed the "forced focus"—with many admitting they lack the willpower to ignore notifications—the move has sparked a debate on enforceability. Without a "TV Police," the success of this initiative rests entirely on the shoulders of parents and the persuasive power of visiting educators.

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed grave concern over digital frauds, noting that more than ₹54,000 crore has been siphoned off through cyber crimes, and described the scale of the fraud as “absolutely robbery or dacoity”.

A bench of the apex court sought swift and coordinated action from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), banks and other agencies to curb the rising menace of digital fraud. Observing that such large-scale losses could not occur without serious lapses, the court said the frauds “may be due to collusion or negligence of bank officials”.

The bench directed inter-departmental agencies to prepare a draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) within four weeks to strengthen coordination and effectively tackle digital frauds.

Taking note of an existing standard operating procedure (SOP) framed by the RBI, which prescribes immediate steps such as temporarily blocking debit cards to prevent cyber-enabled fraud, the court directed the Centre to formally adopt and implement the RBI’s SOP across the country.

“We direct the Centre to ensure pan-India implementation of the RBI SOP for inter-agency coordination in dealing with digital frauds. We also direct the CBI to identify cases of so-called ‘digital arrest’,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court further asked the Gujarat and Delhi governments to grant sanction for investigation in identified cases. It also directed the RBI, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and other concerned authorities to jointly hold a meeting to evolve a framework for compensation to victims of digital arrest frauds.

Emphasising victim relief, the court said a “pragmatic and liberal approach” is required while considering compensation for those affected by digital arrest scams.

If you want it sharper, more dramatic, or more neutral (wire-style), tell me which tone you’re aiming for.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.