Ayen News

Author: news.ayen.in

  • Indian Economy Projected to Sustain 7% Growth Momentum Through FY27

    NEW DELHI (February 26, 2026) — India’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is forecast to grow between 6.8 percent and 7.2 percent in the 2026-27 financial year (FY27), according to the latest Economy Watch report by EY India. The projections, released on Thursday, suggest that India will maintain its trajectory as the world’s fastest-growing major economy for the fourth consecutive year, bolstered by a landmark series of bilateral trade agreements and a strengthening domestic fiscal architecture.

    Trade Breakthroughs and Medium-Term Prospects

    The report attributes the brightened economic outlook to India’s aggressive “multi-alignment” trade strategy. In early 2026, India finalised two “mega-partnerships” that have fundamentally realigned its global trade position:

    • The US-India Trade Deal: Signed on 2 February 2026, this agreement reduced “reciprocal” tariffs on Indian goods from 50 percent to approximately 18 percent.
    • The EU-India FTA: Finalised in late January 2026, the deal provides duty-free access for 99 percent of Indian exports to the European market, particularly benefiting labour-intensive sectors such as textiles and leather.

    “In the background of India’s extensive bilateral trade agreements with other major economies or economic groups, India’s medium-term prospects have brightened up,” stated D. K. Srivastava, EY India’s Chief Policy Advisor.

    Fiscal Strategy for ‘Viksit Bharat’ 2047

    To achieve the national goal of becoming a developed economy (Viksit Bharat) by 2047, the EY report emphasizes the need for a robust fiscal framework. Analysts suggest that while major structural tax reforms—such as the 2025 rationalisation of GST slabs—have already taken place, the focus must now shift toward widening the tax base.

    Key recommendations for fiscal sustainability include:

    • Enhanced Tax Compliance: Increasing the tax-GDP ratio primarily through improved enforcement and digital compliance rather than new tax hikes.
    • Expenditure Realignment: Recasting the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) architecture to prioritise high-impact capital expenditure in technology and defence.
    • Fiscal Consolidation: The report estimates that the Centre may target a fiscal deficit reduction of 40 basis points in FY27, aiming for a 4 percent target if the FY26 goal of 4.4 percent is met.

    Sectoral Performance and Salary Trends

    Complementing the GDP outlook, EY’s Future of Pay 2026 report, released earlier this week, indicates that economic normalisation is reflected in the labour market. Overall salary increments in India are projected at 9.1 percent for 2026. Global Capability Centres (GCCs) are expected to lead with 10.4 percent raises, followed by the Financial Services sector at 10 percent, highlighting the continued demand for specialised digital and AI-led skill sets.

    Sources

    • EY India Economy Watch: “Fiscal Architecture for Viksit Bharat” (February 2026)
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “India’s GDP to grow between 6.8-7.2 pc in FY27: EY Economy Watch” (February 26, 2026)
    • EY Future of Pay 2026 Report: “India Inc. projects 9.1% salary increase” (February 23, 2026)
    • Ministry of Commerce and Industry: “Update on US and EU Trade Agreements” (February 2026)

  • SEBI Overhauls Mutual Fund Categorisation: Life Cycle Funds Introduced, Solution-Oriented Category Scrapped

    NEW DELHI (February 26, 2026) — The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Thursday issued a comprehensive circular revamping the classification of mutual fund schemes. The regulator has introduced “Life Cycle Funds” as a new category whilst simultaneously discontinuing “Solution-Oriented Schemes,” which previously included children’s and retirement funds. The overhaul is designed to ensure “true-to-label” positioning and to curb exaggerated return claims, aligning the industry with evolving market opportunities and investor protection standards.

    New Five-Tier Categorisation Framework

    Under the revised framework, mutual fund schemes will now be broadly classified into five primary categories. This restructuring aims to provide greater clarity and reduce portfolio duplication across fund houses.

    1. Equity Schemes: Focused on capital appreciation through stock market investments.
    2. Debt Schemes: Investing in fixed-income instruments with clearly defined duration limits.
    3. Hybrid Schemes: Combining equity and debt to balance risk and return.
    4. Life Cycle Funds: A newly introduced goal-based category.
    5. Other Schemes: Including Index Funds, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), and Fund of Funds (FoFs).

    Introduction of Life Cycle Funds

    The “Life Cycle Fund” is defined as an open-ended scheme with a predetermined maturity and a “glide path” strategy. These funds adjust their asset allocation—across equity, debt, gold, silver, and other permitted instruments—as they approach their maturity date.

    • Tenure: Mutual funds may launch these with a minimum tenure of five years and a maximum of 30 years (in multiples of five years).
    • Capacity: A single fund house can have a maximum of six active Life Cycle Funds at any point in time.
    • Exit Loads: To encourage financial discipline, SEBI has mandated a sliding exit load: 3% for exits within the first year, 2% within the second, and 1% within the third year.

    Discontinuation of Solution-Oriented Schemes

    The “Solution-Oriented” category, which previously housed 15 children’s funds and 29 retirement funds as of late January 2026, has been scrapped with immediate effect. Existing schemes in this category are required to halt fresh subscriptions and must be merged with similar schemes or realigned into other categories, subject to regulatory approval.

    Tightening of Portfolio Overlap and Naming Norms

    To prevent “style drift” and duplication, SEBI has introduced strict portfolio overlap limits:

    • Value vs. Contra Funds: Asset managers can offer both, but the portfolio overlap between them must not exceed 50%.
    • Thematic/Sectoral Funds: These schemes cannot have more than a 50% overlap with other equity categories (excluding large-cap funds).
    • Naming Conventions: Scheme names must be identical to their category names. SEBI has prohibited phrases that emphasise only the return aspect, ensuring names accurately reflect the mandate.

    Asset Management Companies (AMCs) have been granted six months to align their existing schemes with these new requirements, although thematic funds have a three-year window to comply with the overlap limits.

    Sources

    • SEBI Circular: “Revamped Framework for Categorization of Mutual Fund Schemes” (February 26, 2026)
    • The Economic Times: “Sebi revamps mutual fund scheme categorisation and rationalisation rules” (February 26, 2026)
    • India IPO: “Sebi’s new mutual fund framework: Life cycle funds, contra rules floated” (February 26, 2026)
    • Business World: “Sebi Tightens Mutual Fund Norms; Caps Portfolio Overlap” (February 26, 2026)

  • High Court Reserves Order on AAP MLA Mehraj Malik’s PSA Detention Challenge

    JAMMU (February 23, 2026) — The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday reserved its verdict on a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Mehraj Malik under the Public Safety Act (PSA). A bench presided over by Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani concluded hearing final arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the Union Territory administration. Malik, the first sitting legislator in the region to be booked under the stringent law, has been in custody since September 2025.

    Grounds of Detention and Petitioner’s Arguments

    Mehraj Malik, who represents the Doda East constituency and serves as the AAP’s Jammu and Kashmir unit president, was detained on 8 September 2025. The official dossier prepared by the Doda district administration accused him of “habitual confrontation” with government officials and using social media to “incite unrest” and “provoke the public.” These activities were deemed prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

    During the proceedings, Malik’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, argued that the detention was “punitive rather than preventive” and motivated by political vendetta. The counsel contended that the grounds provided in the 33-page dossier were legally flimsy and lacked a “solid foundation” for curtailing the personal liberty of an elected representative. The petition also seeks 5 crore rupees in compensation for the alleged violation of Malik’s fundamental rights.

    Government’s Stance and Legal Thresholds

    The Jammu and Kashmir administration, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, maintained that Malik’s actions posed a “grave threat to peace and tranquillity” in the Doda district. The government argued that the MLA’s repeated use of derogatory language against public functionaries and his mobilisation of villagers during administrative tasks necessitated preventive action under the PSA.

    Under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, individuals can be detained without a formal charge or trial for up to two years. However, the High Court has historically quashed numerous PSA orders where the grounds of detention were found to be vague or where the procedural safeguards were not strictly followed.

    Significant Timeline of the Case

    • 8 September 2025: Malik is detained at a government guest house in Doda and subsequently moved to Kathua jail.
    • 24 September 2025: A habeas corpus petition is filed in the High Court challenging the detention order.
    • 18 December 2025: The petitioner’s side concludes over six hours of arguments over multiple sessions.
    • 5 February 2026: The High Court directs the government to continue advancing its response.
    • 23 February 2026: The court reserves its order after hearing the concluding submissions from the Union Territory administration.

    The court’s decision is expected to set a critical precedent regarding the intersection of administrative authority and the civil liberties of elected officials in the Union Territory.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “HC reserves order on MLA Mehraj Malik’s PSA case” (February 23, 2026)
    • Greater Kashmir: “Detention under PSA: J&K Govt to respond to AAP MLA’s petition” (December 18, 2025)
    • Article 14: “First J&K Legislator Held Under Draconian Detention Law” (October 30, 2025)
    • Law Trend: “J&K High Court to Continue Hearing on AAP MLA Mehraj Malik’s PSA Detention” (February 5, 2026)

    Legal Battle for AAP MLA Mehraj Malik This video provides a concise update on the High Court proceedings, featuring insights from the legal team and a summary of the arguments presented during the final hearings in February 2026.

  • Supreme Court Directs Investigation into Exclusion of 91 Displaced Residents from Voter List

    NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Lucknow District Election Officer to investigate the grievances of 91 residents of Akbar Nagar who were allegedly excluded from the Uttar Pradesh electoral rolls. The petitioners, represented by Sana Parveen and others, claim they were disenfranchised during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) following the demolition of their homes in September 2023. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the local administration must verify the claims and take remedial measures to protect the residents’ democratic rights.

    Displacement and Loss of “Identifiable Abode”

    The 91 petitioners were long-term residents of Akbar Nagar, a locality in Lucknow that saw large-scale demolitions in late 2023 as part of a riverfront development project. According to the petition, many of the affected individuals have been on the voter list since 2002, with younger family members appearing in subsequent revisions.

    The primary obstacle to their inclusion in the current SIR process is the lack of a permanent residential address. Senior Advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the residents, argued that the demolition of “unauthorised” structures—a move previously upheld by the judiciary—should not result in the loss of voting rights. The petitioners sought a directive allowing them to submit enumeration forms to Booth Level Officers (BLOs) despite their temporary lack of an “identifiable abode.”

    Judicial Directive and High Court Liberty

    Initially, the Supreme Court expressed reluctance to intervene, noting that a writ petition under Article 32 was not the ideal vehicle for resolving disputed factual matters regarding residence. However, recognizing the potential for mass disenfranchisement, the bench opted to refer the matter back to the district authorities for a factual inquiry.

    The court’s order outlined several key points:

    • Factual Enquiry: The District Collector (acting as the District Election Officer) must ascertain whether the petitioners were previously included in the voter lists and evaluate their current eligibility.
    • Remedial Action: If the grievances are found to be valid, the officer is directed to take immediate steps to include the displaced residents in the supplementary electoral rolls.
    • Legal Recourse: The bench granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court should they fail to receive effective relief from the district administration.

    Context of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    The order comes amid a broader national effort by the Election Commission of India to refine voter lists through the Special Intensive Revision process. The court has recently been involved in similar disputes elsewhere, including directing the deployment of judicial officers in West Bengal to oversee the adjudication of claims and objections.

    In the case of Akbar Nagar, the bench emphasised that administrative inquiries into voter eligibility should not be hampered by the ongoing transition of residents into rehabilitation housing provided under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY).

    Sources

    • The Hindu: “Bulldozer demolition drive: Supreme Court asks district election officer to address issue of people lacking ‘identifiable abode’” (February 23, 2026)
    • LawBeat: “Supreme Court rejects plea by Akbarnagar demolition-hit residents over UP SIR” (February 23, 2026)
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC directs Lucknow election officer to probe exclusion of 91 displaced residents from voter list” (February 23, 2026)
    • Land Conflict Watch: “1,800 structures razed in Lucknow’s Akbar Nagar for riverfront project” (Updated June 2024)

  • Supreme Court Directs Delhi High Court to Decide Leena Paulose’s Bail Plea Within Three Weeks

    NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi High Court to pass an order on the bail application of Leena Paulose, the wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, within a three-week period. Paulose is a co-accused in the 200 crore rupee extortion case involving the wives of former Ranbaxy promoters. A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directive after noting that her bail petition has remained pending before the High Court for over a year.

    Judicial Intervention Over Prolonged Delay

    The apex court’s order follows a petition filed by Paulose seeking the “expeditious hearing” of her bail application. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite regular listings, the matter had not reached a conclusion in the High Court.

    While the Supreme Court had previously expressed reservations about litigants approaching the top court to “arrange the board” of High Courts, the bench acknowledged the significant duration of the pendency in this instance. The directive aims to ensure a timely judicial decision on Paulose’s custody status, which has continued since her arrest in September 2021.

    Background of the Extortion Case

    The case originates from an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police. Authorities allege that Sukesh Chandrasekhar, while lodged in Rohini Jail, operated an organised crime syndicate to extort 200 crore rupees from Aditi Singh and Japna Singh, the spouses of Malvinder and Shivinder Singh.

    Key allegations against Leena Paulose include:

    • Syndicate Facilitation: The prosecution contends that Paulose was not merely an abettor but an active member of the syndicate, helping to manage and park the proceeds of crime.
    • Financial Irregularities: Investigators allege the couple utilised hawala routes and shell companies to move funds. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) previously seized 16 luxury vehicles from Paulose’s Chennai residence, which were prima facie linked to the extortion money.
    • MCOCA Charges: Due to the organised nature of the alleged crimes, the police invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), which carries a higher threshold for the granting of bail.

    Concurrent Legal Proceedings

    In July 2023, the Delhi High Court had previously rejected a bail plea from Paulose, citing the “sensitive nature” of the case and the rigorous requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The current proceedings relate to a fresh application for bail. Both Paulose and Chandrasekhar remain in judicial custody as they face multiple trials across various jurisdictions, including money laundering charges brought by the Enforcement Directorate.

    Sources

    • Verdictum News Desk: “Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Decide Bail Plea Of Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s Wife Within Three Weeks” (February 23, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “Rs 200 crore extortion case: SC asks Delhi HC to decide bail plea of conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s wife” (February 23, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Supreme Court raps Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s wife plea seeking expeditious hearing” (September 3, 2025)
    • SCC Online: “Delhi High Court refuses bail to Leena Paulose in 214 crore extortion case” (July 13, 2023)

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Reopening Land Acquisition Compensation Claims

    NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that land acquisition cases finalised prior to 2018 cannot be reopened for the purpose of granting interest on compensation to farmers. A special bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, clarified that whilst solatium remains a right under the principle of parity, the payment of interest cannot be applied to cases where proceedings reached finality years before recent judicial shifts. The observation came during the commencement of an open-court hearing regarding a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

    Judicial Balancing of Parity and Finality

    The hearing focused on the NHAI’s challenge to a 2019 Supreme Court verdict in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act. That section had previously denied farmers solatium and interest, a distinction the court had found discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

    Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that while the court previously rejected the NHAI’s plea to apply the Tarsem Singh ruling strictly prospectively, there must be a cut-off to prevent judicial chaos. “Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those matters which were pending in 2008 continue. If someone in the early 2020s filed an application saying they are entitled to parity on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as to solatium but not interest,” the Chief Justice remarked.

    Financial Implications and the 32,000 Crore Rupee Burden

    The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that a blanket retrospective application of the 2019 judgment would impose an insurmountable financial burden on the public exchequer. According to reports from Business Standard and The Hindustan Times, the Solicitor General stated the potential liability is estimated at approximately 32,000 crore rupees.

    The Solicitor General argued that earlier judicial impressions—which suggested a smaller impact of around 100 crore rupees—had been surpassed by a flood of new claims. He emphasized that reopening long-disposed cases would contravene the doctrine of immutability, which ensures that once a judgment attains finality, it remains unalterable.

    Background and Statutory Context

    The legal dispute centers on the period between 1997 and 2015, during which the National Highways Act operated without the provision for solatium (an additional 30 percent compensation) or interest on delayed payments.

    • The 2019 Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the exclusion of these benefits unconstitutional, ruling that landowners under the NHAI Act should receive parity with those covered by the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
    • The NHAI Review: The authority is now seeking to limit the scope of this retrospective relief, specifically to prevent the revival of claims where land acquisition was completed and compensation was accepted without protest before 2018.

    The bench has directed the parties to file written submissions and has listed the review plea for a detailed hearing in two weeks.

    Sources

    • The Hindustan Times: “Pre-2018 land acquisition cases can’t be reopened for grant of compensation with interest: SC” (February 23, 2026)
    • Business Standard: “Pre-2018 Nhai land cases can’t be reopened for interest claims: SC” (February 23, 2026)
    • Lawtext: “Solatium and Interest Entitlement – Retrospective or Prospective Application of Law” (February 15, 2026)
    • Supreme Court of India: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304]

  • Supreme Court Declines Subramanian Swamy’s Plea Over Tirumala Laddu Inquiry

    NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to appoint a one-member committee to review administrative lapses in the Tirumala laddu controversy. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi ruled that the state-appointed administrative inquiry does not conflict with the ongoing criminal proceedings, allowing both processes to continue independently and in accordance with the law.

    Judicial Observations on “Overlapping” Probes

    The petitioner had argued that the appointment of a separate committee, led by retired IAS officer Dinesh Kumar, undermined the authority of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) previously constituted by the Supreme Court. However, the bench found these apprehensions to be without “solid foundation.”

    CJI Surya Kant stated, “Such an administrative enquiry cannot be called as overlapping with the criminal proceedings which led to the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet.” The court noted that the scope of the two investigations is well-demarcated: the SIT handles the criminal aspect, whilst the state committee is tasked with fixing responsibility for administrative failures.

    Arguments and State Cabinet Decision

    The controversy, which first emerged in late 2024, involves allegations of adulterated ghee being used in the preparation of ‘prasadam’ laddus at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, submitted that the petition was intended to derail departmental proceedings.

    The state cabinet, chaired by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, had decided on February 3 to form the committee to identify individuals responsible for the alleged quality lapses. Swamy’s plea had also assailed public statements made by the Chief Minister regarding the row, but the court declined to interfere with the executive’s right to conduct internal reviews.

    Background on the Investigation

    Recent developments in the broader case include a chargesheet filed by the CBI-led SIT in the Nellore ACB court. According to reports from The Times of India, the forensic analysis indicated that the ghee samples drawn from certain tankers were “synthetic” and blended with vegetable oils, rather than containing animal fats as initially alleged. The court’s decision today ensures that the departmental inquiry into how such supplies were procured can proceed alongside these judicial findings.

    Sources

    • The New Indian Express: “SC refuses to entertain plea challenging committee’s review of SIT report on Tirumala laddu row” (February 23, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “Tirupati laddu case: Supreme Court rejects Subramanian Swamy’s plea against State probe panel” (February 23, 2026)
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC rejects plea against panel reviewing SIT report on Tirumala laddu row” (February 23, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “CBI chargesheet rules out mixing of animal fats in Tirupati laddu ghee” (January 31, 2026)

  • Police Investigate Toddler’s Death Following Allegations of Medical Negligence in Kattakada

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (February 23, 2026) — The Kerala Police have launched an investigation into the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl after her family alleged medical negligence at a private hospital in Kattakada. The child, Aisha Fathima, passed away early Monday morning at a tertiary care facility where she had been rushed following a sudden deterioration in her condition. The Aryanad police have registered a First Information Report (FIR) and are currently awaiting forensic results to determine the exact cause of death.

    Timeline of Medical Consultations

    Aisha Fathima, the daughter of Sidique and Fasilath from Punlal, Perumkulam, first exhibited signs of physical discomfort on February 18. According to reports from Manorama Online and Deshabhimani, the child initially suffered from breathing difficulties and swelling near her eyelid.

    The family sought medical attention across several institutions over the following days:

    • February 18: The child was treated for shortness of breath and eyelid swelling at the Aryanad Government Hospital.
    • February 19: Seeking a paediatric specialist, the family visited Mamal Hospital, a private facility in Kattakada. Reports indicate the attending doctor suggested the symptoms might be related to a clothing allergy.
    • February 20: Following further medical advice, the child was taken to a private eye hospital for specialised consultation.
    • February 22: At approximately 11:00 am, the toddler’s condition worsened significantly, manifesting as extreme fatigue and acute respiratory distress.

    Allegations of Treatment Mismanagement

    The family returned to Mamal Hospital on Sunday, where they discovered the paediatrician was on leave. According to the parents’ complaint, the child was examined by another doctor who ordered blood and urine tests.

    The situation reportedly escalated after the child was administered oxygen and two injections. The family alleged that Aisha’s condition deteriorated immediately following the second injection, noting that she became visibly weaker and “her face contorted” as she struggled to breathe. The family also claimed that hospital staff initially prevented them from entering the ambulance when the decision was made to transfer the child to Neyyar Medicity. Aisha was declared dead at the second hospital at 12:55 am on Monday.

    Official Response and Legal Action

    The Aryanad police have seized the medical records from the private hospital as part of their inquiry. Authorities have confirmed that a case of unnatural death has been registered, and the body has been shifted for a post-mortem examination.

    As noted in regional reports, the private hospital is owned by L. V. Ajayakumar, President of the Kerala Pradesh Pravasi Congress State Committee. Whilst the hospital management has not yet issued a formal statement regarding the specific clinical decisions made, the police stated that the investigation will focus on whether the administered medication was appropriate for the child’s symptoms.

    Sources

    • Manorama Online: “Two-and-a-half-year-old girl dies; complaint alleges medical negligence” (February 23, 2026)
    • Deshabhimani: “Child Dies; Complaint of Treatment Negligence at Private Hospital” (February 23, 2026)
    • Asianet News Malayalam: “Toddler suffers from breathing issue; dies after injection” (February 22, 2026)
    • Kerala Police Departmental Briefing: Saheednagar / Aryanad Station Records (February 23, 2026)

  • Five Arrested Following Murder of Ranchi Man Over Domestic Dispute

    RANCHI (February 23, 2026) — Police in Ranchi have arrested five individuals, including a married couple, in connection with the murder of a 30-year-old man whose body was recovered from a well last week. The victim, identified as Asif Ansari, a resident of Raja Colony in Kantatoli, was found on Thursday in the Gadigaon area. Subsequent investigations have revealed a pre-planned conspiracy allegedly motivated by a long-standing personal dispute.

    Autopsy Revisions and Cause of Death

    Initial physical examinations of the body suggested that Ansari had been killed by being crushed with stones. However, a formal autopsy report has since clarified that the victim was first shot dead before the attackers attempted to obscure the cause of death by using heavy stones.

    DSP Sadar Sanjeev Besra stated on Monday, “Initial investigation revealed that the victim was killed by crushing him with stones, but the autopsy report revealed that Ansari was first shot dead with a bullet before being crushed with stones.”

    Alleged Conspiracy and Financial Details

    The police investigation has linked the murder to a relationship Ansari allegedly maintained with a woman for approximately 15 years. According to the authorities, the woman’s husband, identified as 35-year-old Johnson Minj, orchestrated the killing alongside his associate, 36-year-old Deepak Agarwal.

    The DSP noted that Minj allegedly paid a total of 8 lakh rupees to various parties to carry out the crime:

    • Deepak Agarwal: Received 4 lakh rupees to coordinate the plot.
    • Prince Kumar (22): Paid 1.60 lakh rupees for his involvement.
    • Prem Lakra (44): Paid 2.40 lakh rupees for his role in the execution.

    Arrests and Seizures

    Following the interrogation and subsequent confessions, all five suspects, including the couple, were sent to judicial custody on Sunday. During the operation, the Ranchi police seized several items of evidence, including:

    • A country-made pistol.
    • Two motorcycles used in the commission of the crime.
    • Blood-stained clothing and mobile handsets.

    The Khelgaon police, who led the recovery of the body from the well on Thursday, are continuing their inquiries to ensure all aspects of the conspiracy are documented for the upcoming trial.

  • Police Head Constable Among Four Arrested in Arunachal Pradesh Drug Bust

    ITANAGAR (February 23, 2026) — Authorities in Arunachal Pradesh have arrested four individuals, including a serving police head constable, following the seizure of heroin in the Banderdewa region. The arrests, made on Sunday afternoon, are part of a broader crackdown on cross-border narcotics trafficking between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. According to official statements, the seized contraband is estimated to have a market value exceeding 50,000 rupees.

    Interception at Niya Colony

    The operation was launched by the Banderdewa police acting on credible intelligence regarding the transport of narcotics from Assam. A team led by Inspector Kipa Hamak intercepted a motorcycle at Niya Colony, leading to the arrest of two primary suspects, identified as Shivaji Morang and Sarat Kutum, both residents of the Lakhimpur district in Assam.

    Upon searching the suspects, police recovered approximately 11 grams of suspected heroin concealed within a soap case. As noted in reports by India Today NE, both individuals were formally charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

    Involvement of Law Enforcement

    The investigation deepened following the initial arrests, leading to the apprehension of two additional suspects. Amongst those taken into custody is a head constable of the Arunachal Pradesh Police. Officials stated that the involvement of a uniformed officer in the trafficking network is being treated with “utmost seriousness.”

    The Naharlagun Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Rishi Longdo, confirmed that a case has been registered at the Banderdewa Police Station. This incident marks the second time this month that state police personnel have been implicated in drug-related offences, following a similar arrest of an India Reserve Battalion (IRBn) official earlier in February.

    Sources

    • India Today NE: “Arunachal police bust cross-border narcotic supply route, two arrested” (February 23, 2026)
    • The Arunachal Times: “Four arrested in drug bust near Banderdewa” (February 23, 2026)
    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Police head constable among four held with heroin in Arunachal” (February 23, 2026)