INX media case: Delhi High Court dismisses Chidambaram's bail plea

At least seven elephants were killed and one calf injured after a herd collided with the Sairang-New Delhi Rajdhani Express in Assam's Hojai on Saturday morning, leading to disruption of rail services. 

The Sairang-New Delhi Rajdhani Express struck a herd of elephants, resulting in the derailment of the locomotive and five coaches. No passenger casualties or injuries were reported, officials said.

The New Delhi-bound train met with the accident around 2.17 am, PTI reported. The Sairang-New Delhi Rajdhani Express connects Mizoram's Sairang (near Aizawl) to Anand Vihar Terminal (Delhi). 

Railway has issued helpline numbers at the Guwahati Railway Station:-

•    0361-2731621
•    0361-2731622
•    0361-2731623

The accident site is located about 126 km from Guwahati. Following the incident, accident relief trains and railway officials rushed to the spot to initiate rescue operations.

Train Services Disrupted

Sources said that due to the derailment and elephant body parts scattered on the tracks, train services to Upper Assam and other parts of the Northeast were affected.

Passengers from the affected coaches were temporarily accommodated in vacant berths available in other coaches of the train. Once the train reaches Guwahati, additional coaches will be attached to accommodate all passengers, after which the train will resume its onward journey.

The incident occurred at a location that is not a designated elephant corridor. The loco pilot, upon spotting the herd on the tracks, applied emergency brakes. Despite this, the elephants dashed into the train, leading to the collision and derailment.

Last month, an elephant was killed after being hit by a train in Dhupguri in West Bengal's Jalpaiguri district. The incident took place on November 30. 

The adult elephant was killed on the spot, and a calf was discovered lying injured beside the tracks. 

Over 70 Elephants Killed In Train Collisions Over Last 5 Years

At least 79 elephants have died in train collisions across the country in the last five years, the Environment Ministry had informed Parliament in August.

In a written reply in the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Environment Kirti Vardhan Singh had said the figure is based on reports from state governments and Union Territory administrations for the period 2020-21 to 2024-25.

He said that the ministry does not maintain consolidated data on the deaths of other wild animals on railway tracks, including in designated elephant corridors.

Singh confirmed that three elephants, including a mother and her calf, were killed on July 18 this year after being hit by a speeding express train on the Kharagpur-Tatanagar section in West Bengal's Paschim Midnapore district. The incident took place near Banstala between Jhargram and Banstala stations.

The minister said several measures have been taken jointly by the Environment Ministry and the Railways to prevent such accidents.

These include imposing speed restrictions in elephant habitats, pilot projects such as seismic sensor-based detection of elephants near tracks and construction of underpasses, ramps and fencing at vulnerable points.

The Wildlife Institute of India, in consultation with the ministry and other stakeholders, has also issued guidelines titled 'Eco-friendly Measures to Mitigate Impacts of Linear Infrastructure' to help agencies design railways and other projects in ways that reduce human-animal conflicts.

Singh added that capacity-building workshops were conducted for railway officials at the Wildlife Institute of India in 2023 and 2024 to raise awareness on elephant conservation and protection.

A detailed report titled 'Suggested Measures to Mitigate Elephant & Other Wildlife Train Collisions on Vulnerable Railway Stretches in India' had also been prepared after surveys across 127 railway stretches covering 3,452 km.

Of these, 77 stretches spanning 1,965 km in 14 states were prioritised for mitigation, with site-specific interventions suggested. 

Saudi Arabia has abolished fees on expatriate workers employed in licensed industrial establishments, signaling a strong push to empower national factories and enhance the Kingdom’s global industrial competitiveness. The move reflects the leadership’s commitment to building a sustainable and resilient industrial economy under Saudi Vision 2030.

The decision was approved by the Council of Ministers, chaired by Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following a recommendation from the Council of Economic and Development Affairs (CEDA). It forms part of a broader strategy to support, modernize, and strengthen the industrial sector.

By removing fees on foreign workers, industrial establishments gain greater operational flexibility and relief from financial pressures. This is expected to help factories expand production, improve efficiency, and compete more effectively in international markets, while reinforcing long-term sustainability.

The initiative aligns closely with Saudi Vision 2030, which identifies industry as a key pillar of economic diversification. A competitive and resilient industrial base is viewed as essential for driving innovation, attracting investment, and sustaining long-term economic growth.

Overall, the fee exemption underscores the Kingdom’s commitment to creating a supportive environment for industrial development and ensuring that Saudi factories remain globally competitive and capable of leading the nation’s economic transformation.

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.