'Snatching a Child's Chocolate May Enrage Him': How Sumitra Mahajan Explained SC/ST Act to BJP Workers

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday held talks with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Amman, during which the two leaders discussed ways to further strengthen bilateral relations, with the Prime Minister outlining an eight-point vision covering key areas of cooperation.

Describing the meeting as “productive”, PM Modi said he shared a roadmap focused on trade and economy, fertilisers and agriculture, information technology, healthcare, infrastructure, critical and strategic minerals, civil nuclear cooperation, and people-to-people ties.

In a post on social media platform X, the Prime Minister praised King Abdullah II’s personal commitment to advancing India–Jordan relations, particularly as both countries mark the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties this year.

“Held productive discussions with His Majesty King Abdullah II in Amman. His personal commitment towards vibrant India-Jordan relations is noteworthy. This year, we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of our bilateral diplomatic relations,” PM Modi said.

The meeting took place at the Al Husseiniya Palace, where the two leaders also exchanged views on regional and global issues of mutual interest. According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), both sides agreed to further deepen cooperation in areas including trade and investment, defence and security, counter-terrorism and de-radicalisation, fertilisers and agriculture, infrastructure, renewable energy, tourism, and heritage.

The MEA said both leaders reaffirmed their united stand against terrorism.

PM Modi arrived in Amman earlier on Monday and was received by Jordanian Prime Minister Jafar Hassan, who accorded him a formal welcome. Following the talks, King Abdullah II hosted a banquet dinner in honour of the Prime Minister, reflecting the warmth of bilateral ties.

Jordan is the first leg of PM Modi’s three-nation tour. From Amman, the Prime Minister will travel to Ethiopia at the invitation of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali, marking his first official visit to the African nation. The tour will conclude with a visit to Oman.

Mangaluru, Dec 7: A 34-year-old fruit and vegetable trader in Mangaluru has reportedly lost ₹33.1 lakh after falling victim to an online investment scam run through a fake mobile app.

Police said the scam began in September, when the victim received a link on Facebook. Clicking it connected him to a WhatsApp number, where an unidentified person introduced a high-return investment scheme and instructed him to download an app.

To build trust, the fraudster asked him to invest ₹30,000 on September 24. The trader soon received ₹34,000 as “profit,” convincing him the scheme was genuine. Over the next two months, he transferred money in multiple instalments via Google Pay and IMPS to different scanner codes and bank accounts shared by the scammers. Between September 24 and December 3, he ended up sending a total of ₹33.1 lakh.

When he later requested a refund of his investment and promised returns, the scammers demanded additional payments, claiming he needed to pay a “service tax” first. Even after he paid a small amount, no money was returned, and the scammers continued pressuring him for more.

A case has been registered at the CEN Crime Police Station.

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.