Pak downgrading ties attempt to present alarming picture to world: Modi govt

Mangaluru, Dec 16: The Mangaluru City police have significantly escalated their campaign against drug trafficking, arresting 25 individuals and booking 12 cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act between November 30 and December 13. The crackdown resulted in the seizure of a substantial quantity of illicit substances, including 685.6 grams of MDMA and 1.5 kg of ganja.

The success of this recent drive has been significantly boosted by the city’s innovative, QR code-based anonymous reporting system.

"The anonymous reporting system has received an encouraging response. Several recent arrests were made based on inputs received through this system, helping police tighten the noose around drug peddlers," said the City Police Commissioner.

The latest arrests contribute to a robust year-to-date record, underscoring the police's relentless commitment to combating the drug menace.

Up to December 14 this year, the police have registered a total of 107 cases of drug peddling, leading to the arrest of 219 peddlers. Furthermore, they have booked 562 cases of drug consumption, resulting in the arrest of 671 individuals.

The scale of the seizure for the year reflects the magnitude of the problem being tackled: police have seized 320.6 kg of ganja worth ₹88.7 lakh and 1.4 kg of MDMA valued at ₹1.2 crore. Other significant seizures include hydro-weed ganja worth ₹94.7 lakh and cocaine worth ₹1.9 lakh, among others.

The Commissioner emphasized a policy of rigorous enforcement: "We ensure that peddlers are caught red-handed so that they cannot later dispute the case or claim innocence."

To counter the rising trend of substance abuse among youth, the Mangaluru City police have rolled out uniform guidelines for random drug testing across educational institutions.

As part of the drive, tests were conducted in approximately 100 institutions, screening an estimated 5,500 to 6,000 students in the first phase. 20 students tested positive for drug consumption during the initial screening.

Students who tested positive have been provided counselling and are scheduled for re-testing in the second quarter. The testing will also be expanded to students not covered in the first phase. In a move to ensure strict implementation, police personnel were deployed in mufti in some institutions. Reiterating a zero-tolerance stance, the Commissioner confirmed that random testing will continue, and colleges have also been instructed to conduct drug tests at the time of admission to deter substance abuse from an early stage.

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.

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.