The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday remanded former media baron Peter Mukerjea in five days custody for his alleged connection in the INX Media case.

Mukerjea was produced before a Delhi court earlier in the day.

Mukerjea-owned INX Media Ltd had allegedly paid bribes to get a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval which was facilitated by former finance minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram.

However, on Friday, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Karti in connection with the case, on a surety of Rs 10 lakh.

Earlier, the CBI identified a senior journalist who introduced then INX media owner Indrani Mukerjea to P Chidambaram for Foreign Investment Promotion Board and also to question him. Sources said he works in a leading newspaper and for a brief period was associated with INX media but left after Mukerjea asked him to leave.

 Earlier, the Delhi HC granted a conditional bail to him in connection with the INX Media case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Karti has been granted bail on a surety of Rs 10 lakh.

However, he cannot travel out of the country or cannot influence witnesses or close bank accounts.

On March 15, the Supreme Court gave interim protection to Karti from arrest in connection with the case. He now cannot be arrested until March 26 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Karti is being investigated by the CBI and ED for his alleged role in the INX Media case.

Karti was arrested on his return from the UK at the Chennai airport on February 28 and later sent to the probe agency's custody.

Karti is accused of receiving kickbacks a decade back to clear foreign investment into INX Media group, using the influence of his father P. Chidambaram, who was then the Union finance minister.

In his plea, Karti claimed that he had never attempted to influence witnesses, tamper with documentary evidence, pollute or obstruct the judicial process as was alleged by the probe agency.

Earlier, he sought bail from the court alleging that the CBI was acting at the behest of the Centre to malign the reputation of his father during whose tenure Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance was granted to the INX Media group.

The CBI had lodged an FIR on May 15 last year alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when P Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.

SOURCE BY

As widely expected, Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections for February fell to Rs 85,174 crore, down from Rs 86,318 crore collected in January and Rs 88,929 crore in December. The collection is a bit on the lower side, thanks to the rationalisation of GST rates for various categories of goods and services in January 2018. March figure is expected to be higher on account of year-end accruals and sales push.

The budgeted GST collection in 2018-19 is much higher than the current trend of revenue collection. The government is however likely to achieve Rs 10 lakh crore in 2017-18. With the introduction of the e-way bill from April 1, the compliance and collections are likely to grow going forward.

Analysts believe that the collections are bound to improve in the first quarter of next financial year with the GSTN systems being stabilised to a large extent and compliance level increasing. The anti-evasion measures taken by the government currently are also likely to beef up tax collection. The total numbers of returns filed for February are still around 69% of total dealers required to file monthly returns. While there is a marginal improvement in returns filed month on month, the low level of compliance will continue to bother the government.

SOURCE BY DNA INDIA

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its concerns over misuse of Aadhaar data by private firms. The apex court felt that UIDAI may not be sufficient to deal with the problem as there is no data protection law in the country and in a situation like this data collected under Aadhaar might be porne to danger. 

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked Ajay Bhushan Pandey, the CEO of UIDAI, about the safeguards employed to restrain private entities from parting with sensitive information of citizens for commercial gains while conducting the authentication of Aadhaar.

"There are two ends of authentication. You say that you do not know the purpose of authentication and the data at your (UIDAI) end is safe. AUA may be a private entity, what are the safeguards, if AUA parts with the sensitive information," the bench asked the UIDAI CEO.

"Let us have a robust law to protect the data of citizens. There is no such law in India," the bench, comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.

Authentication User Agency (AUA) is an entity, engaged by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), to provide Aadhaar enabled services to Aadhaar number holders by using the authentication.

Justice Chandrachud, during the hearing, gave an illustration and said if, he orders pizza from a pizza chain on regular basis and if that chain shares the information with his health insurance firm, then it will have some bearing because, the lifestyle is one of the key factors.

"This is a commercially sensitive information," the judge said and added that there was no "enforceable protection against others" even if the CIDR (data repository of UIDAI) was fully secure.

Such sharing is prohibited under the Aadhaar Act, the CEO said, adding that however, there was no control over such sharing of information by private entities, working as AUAs.

The bench asked the CEO not to bother the court with operational aspects, but to satisfy it as to whether any breach of data was possible.

The CEO said that breaches, if any, might take place from others' end as the UIDAI's CIDR was safe and not connected to the Internet.

"In last seven years, not a single breach of biometric details has taken place," he said, adding that now it has been directed that only the last 4 digits of Aadhaar number would be put in public domain.

"Aadhaar biometrics is shared only for 'national security' reasons. The consent is required at the level of the Cabinet secretary and so far, not a single request has so far come to us," he said.

He said that UIDAI gets a lot of requests from IT department seeking Aadhaar data, he said, adding, "We tell them we don't have 'a lot of data'." Sharing of information, except core biometrics, would require permission of the district court concerned, the UIDAI CEO said.

He said the possibility of surveillance with Aadhaar was not there, because the UIDAI did not keep any data that can be misused.

The UIDAI CEO referred to the point raised by the apex court that why the government could not think of giving ID cards as done in Singapore to ensure that the authorities do not aggregate the data of citizens.

In Singapore, there is a smart card with online authentication to enhance security, he said, adding that even they had authentication records.

Moreover, Singapore was also planning to move to biometrics, he said, adding that having too much information on the smart card was risky.

"It's frozen in time. If a new technology develops, you will have to be replace all cards," he said.

SOURCE BY