🇮🇳Week of October 12

Donald Trump waived key Russia-related sanctions and tariffs before they took effect under a new law, covering the purchase of Russian oil and gas. The waiver removes the immediate legal trigger that would have imposed the measures on buyers of Russian crude.1234

The threat against India had escalated from a proposed 500% levy to 100% before the waiver was granted, according to accounts tracing the sequence of US tariff warnings over Russian oil purchases. The relief eases tariff pressure tied to India's continued buying of Russian crude.567

India's Russian crude imports are expected to stay near current levels following the waiver, with no sharp change in volumes anticipated. The Times of India framed the waiver around what it means for India's energy purchases.89

Vladimir Putin's envoy called Trump's blocking of the Russia sanctions a 'historic moment', a characterization that comes from the Russian side rather than from US or Indian officials. The remark was carried in coverage of the waiver decision.101

The Enforcement Directorate has summoned former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to appear for questioning on October 23 in the CMRL-Exalogic money-laundering case. The agency pasted the summons outside his house after he moved the Supreme Court against a Kerala High Court direction to register an FIR in the alleged bribery case.123

Vijayan's petition challenges the High Court order directing an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic matter, which his move to the top court followed as a setback in the Kerala High Court. The Supreme Court said it will try to list the plea during the Dussehra vacations.45678

The Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing on Vijayan's plea against the vigilance probe in the CMRL-Exalogic case, even as it indicated it would attempt to list the matter during the Dussehra vacations.95

A Congress leader questioned the UDF government's stand on registering an FIR in the CMRL bribery case, pressing the state government over its position as the case moved between the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Enforcement Directorate.10

The Supreme Court held that the right to access and use the internet is a fundamental right of every individual, including children, and declined to impose an age-related ban on social media access. The bench said blanket bans on internet access for children would be disproportionate and that safety and freedom are not at odds. It instead suggested a 'child mode' for social media accounts as a protective measure.12345

The court was hearing a public interest litigation seeking a framework to protect children from social media risks, and it sought replies from the Centre and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). It also directed the Centre to set up a comprehensive national database for the removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material from the internet.67

The court asked the Centre to suggest safeguards for children's online safety rather than restricting their access outright. Coverage of the ruling spanned outlets across the editorial spectrum, from centre-left NDTV and The Hindu to centre-right The Times of India and mixed outlets The Statesman and OpIndia, with the framing ranging from the fundamental-rights holding to the call for safeguards.12648

The Supreme Court has ruled on the reservation status of Dalit Christians who convert, addressing whether converts can retain backward-class benefits. The ruling has opened a political fight over caste, faith and affirmative action, with the Bharatiya Janata Party saying it strikes at the opposition's "appeasement politics."123

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin urged his state government to challenge the Supreme Court ruling on BC(M) quota, pressing for a legal challenge rather than acceptance of the judgment.4

Attributed claim: The Times of India, a centre-right outlet, frames the judgment through the BJP's claim that it exposes the opposition's "appeasement politics," while The New Indian Express, centre-left, leads instead on Stalin's call for Tamil Nadu to contest the ruling — the same judgment read as a government vindication on one side and as a grievance to be litigated on the other.24

Deccan Chronicle's editorial "Too 'Other' To Be 'Backward'?" and Hindustan Times' "Caste, faith, and affirmative action" examine the reasoning behind the ruling and its treatment of converts within backward-class reservation.53

India rejected a report by a UN human rights expert that said Indian youth face retaliation, calling the claims hearsay. New Delhi asked the rapporteur to verify her findings before publishing them, with the government's response framed as 'verify before she vilifies'.123

The government said the episode shows why the UN has lost credibility, and questioned the rapporteur's account of the condition of youth in the country. Officials described the report's assertions as unverified rather than engaging with its specific findings.456

The UN rights office separately raised concern over detentions in Delhi, and India called that an unwarranted interference in its internal affairs.7

Attributed claim: Coverage of the rejection split along editorial lines: centre-left outlets such as NDTV and The Hindu led on the government's dismissal of the report as hearsay, while the right-leaning Swarajya framed the same rejection as India pushing back on a UN expert's unverified claims about youth freedoms.428