a outing, a tour ,a picnic, check for discount coupons on FREE GIFTS TO HOME before buying a package.
A tour package of Rs. 35000 costs only Rs. 12000 after applying the discount coupon code. We don't sell tour packages but still can be of some help.
Mobile or DTH, please check the offer on FREEGIFTS TO HOME before doing it through some other medium. A recharge of Rs. 20 costs only Rs. 12 after application of Discount Coupon provided on these site.We don't sell recharges but still can be of some help
a laptop, desktop, or may be some electronic product. Try the offer on FREE GIFTS TO HOME before buying it from any other site or place. A 16 GB pendrive of Rs. 900 costs only Rs. 349 after application of Discount Coupon.We don't sell PEN DRIVE but still can be of some help
A health drink, a medicine, a health product. Check for Discount coupon code on FREE GIFTS TO HOME before ordering it from anywhere else. A 1 kg Dabur Chawanprash of Rs. 240 costs only Rs. 140 after application of Discount Code.We don't sell Chawanprash but still can be of some help
A new dress, t-shirt, top or jeans. Check for the free trial offers of different brands on FREE GIFTS TO HOME before buying it from anywhere else. Most of the branded products offers free trial for new customers.We don't Endorse any brand but still can be of some help
A Japanese court has ordered search giant Google to suspend its auto-complete function because it breaches one man's privacy, his lawyer said.
Tokyo District Court approved a petition by the man, who claimed typing his name into the search engine generated a suggestion linking him to crimes he did not commit, lawyer Hiroyuki Tomita told media Sunday.
If a user accepts the search suggestion, thousands of results are produced that imply criminality of which the man is not guilty, Tomita said.
The lawyer added that since these postings began appearing on the Internet over the last few years, his client has had difficulty finding work, with his online reputation always in question.
Auto-complete is a function provided by many search engines that predicts what a user may be looking for. It is often based on what previous users have searched for when they typed the same initial letters of a word.
Tomita said the auto-complete function was problematic because it guides users to sites that may contain false or misleading information.
Google has responded to the man's complaints by saying that since the results are compiled automatically there is no intrusion of privacy, Tomita said.
The petition was approved by the court on March 19, but Google has so far refused to take action, saying Japanese law does not apply to its US headquarters and its own corporate privacy policy, Tomita told reporters.
The man may seek financial damages in a bid to press Google to erase the suggested search, said Tomita, who was trained in California and has taken on many Internet-related cases, including online reputation issues.
Google did not immediately respond to AFP enquiries about the case, but has told Japanese network NHK that it was considering its response.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday issued notice to the Maharashtra government, film maker Subhash Ghai and PIL petitioner Rajendra Lakshman Sontakke on a plea by union minister Vilasrao Deshmukh challenging the adverse remarks passed against him by the Bombay High Court in a land allocation case.
A court bench headed by Justice HL Dattu also issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Mr Deshmukh's lawyer argued in court that he had "signed in the agreement between Ghai and the Film corporation as a token of blessing and has no hand in transaction."
To this the court said, "Blessings are given by hand not by signature..." and asked, "What is the message given by this signature?"
The court has asked for a response in four weeks, after which Deshmukh has been given two weeks to file his reply.
The Bombay High Court, while cancelling the allotment of 20 acres of government land to Ghai's Whistlingwood International, had described the role of then Maharashtra Chief Minister Deshmukh as depricable and said that he clearly misused his office and had accepted undue favours.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: Kanimozhi, the Rajya Sabha MP who spent six months in jail, has asked the Delhi High Court to drop the charges that led to her arrest in the telecom scam. Her lawyers say that there is no evidence that she conspired with the others being tried for the swindle, including her party's A Raja, the former telecom minister who is still in jail.
The CBI has accused Kanimozhi of criminal conspiracy, cheating and attempt to bribe a public servant, Mr Raja. She was granted bail in November. Kanimzohi's father heads the DMK and is a powerful member of the ruling UPA coalition at the Centre.
Kanimozhi was arrested because a firm part-owned by her, Kalaignar TV, allegedly served as the landing place for a 214-crore bribe for Mr Raja. The money was sent, according to the CBI, by Swan Telecom which had won an out-of-turn telecom license from Mr Raja in 2008. The money was allegedly routed through a maze of companies all associated with or owned by Swan.
But Kanimozhi's lawyers say that she was only a shareholder in Kalaignar TV and that she played no role in its management's decisions. They also say that the money that was paid to Kalaignar TV was a laon that was returned with interest. The CBI says the money was sent back only after the case against Mr Raja began picking up speed.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
London: Former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi has been declared bankrupt by a London court over unpaid bills of 65,000 pounds (approximately Rs 53 lakh) owed to a private security firm.
According to a report in 'The Telegraph' daily, the order was passed last month and comes at a time when Modi is awaiting the judgment from a libel trial with the retired New Zealand all-rounder Chris Cairns.
Modi owes the Page Group, an international securities and risk assessment company, fees for services provided in 2010.
Modi in his defence said "Until the order was served, I was completely unaware of any outstanding monies. I have not seen any previous demands but since it came to my attention, I've even offered to lodge the sum being claimed with the court pending clarity. But for some reason, that was refused, by the company concerned."
The former BCCI vice-president and cricket entrepreneur, who now lives in London, feels that it is an attempt to gain cheap publicity by the securities firm.
Stuart Page, the company's chairman, said: "It's unfortunate that we have come to this situation but Modi has given us no other option. We gave Modi a number of security services in relation to threats made against him and his family. We submitted a number of invoices which were not paid."
Page further stated: "(Our) attempts to reach a settlement with Modi were to no avail and we were forced to take the action we have taken."
A hearing will be held in London shortly when Modi will attempt to have the order set aside.
"It is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and I can only assume it is being done in an attempt to gain some sort of publicity at my expense. Any suggestion that this order means I am unable to pay is equally ridiculous," Modi said.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
Ahmedabad: The Supreme Court has sent a notice to the Gujarat Government and the Nanavati Commission on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL seeks issue of summons to chief minister Narendra Modi for his examination before the probe panel.
The PIL was filed by an NGO called Jansangharsh Manch, which had earlier approached the Nanavati Commission. It had pleaded that Mr Modi should be summoned and examined in the 2002 riots cases as there are 'evidences of his complicity.' But the Nanavati commission had rejected its plea.
Later, they moved the High Court, which too rejected the plea.
The NGO then moved the Supreme Court, which today issued a notice to Nanavati commission and the Gujarat government.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
The Supreme Court tomorrow will hear the government’s appeal in the $2.2 billion Vodafone tax case. The government has, with a review petition, asked the court to reconsider its verdict delivered in January which sided with Vodafone and helped improve foreign investor confidence.
But last week, in the union budget, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee proposed changes to tax laws retrospectively to 1963. That move, analysts believe, is the government’s attept at getting around the court’s decision that the government cannot tax a deal between two foreign entities, even if the transaction includes an Indian asset.
India had sought $2.2 billion from London-listed Vodafone in tax after its purchase of Indian assets from Hong Kong-listed Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.
Vodafone is the largest overseas corporate investor in India, but its long-running dispute has come to symbolise the perils foreign firms face doing business in the country. The Finance Minister’s proposal will allow the country to retrospectively tax cross-border transactions in which the underlying assets are located in India.
Business figures have criticized the amendment, which the head of the Confederation of Indian Industries said would "create an impression of India being an investor unfriendly country especially at a time when we need urgent investment."
"This is most retrograde. Our policymakers should realize we do not live in isolation. We need FDI, foreign technology and capital," said Deepak Parekh, chairman of Housing Development Finance Corp, India's biggest mortgage lender.
Mr Mukherjee has sought to allay industry worries by asserting that the new amendment would not duplicate tax paid in other jurisdictions, and only seeks to ensure tax is paid on deals involving the transfer of Indian assets.
Vodafone's deal is not unique. Various other acquisitions involving overseas deals that appeared closed after the Supreme Court ruling could be affected by the proposal.
Kraft Foods Inc's 2010 acquisition of Cadbury's Indian business and deals involving Indian assets sold by AT&T Inc and SABMiller Plc's purchase of Fosters would be at risk under the new amendment.
"The proposal...raises a question as to whether foreign investments are protected in India," wrote Nitish Desai Associates, a legal and tax advisory firm, in a research report.
Legal and tax experts say that while the amendment will see foreign investors act more cautiously in future deals involving Indian assets, the government's decision to throw past deals back into turmoil will only sour overseas investment appetite.
"The government is saying it is clarifying its position," said Amrish Shah, national leader, transaction tax, Ernst & Young India. "But on past deals, it has muddied the water.”
(Reported by A Vaidyanathan with inputs from Reuters)
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted conditional permission to Pakistani-born Canadian Islamic scholar Maulana Tahirul Qadri to hold public meetings in the city, an official said Thursday.
Justice VM Kanade and Justice PD Kode directed that the maulana must restrict his speeches only to spiritual and religious matters and not digress to any other controversial issue, said Imtiyaz Patel, counsel for Raza Academy, a group of Muslim scholars.
Raza Academy filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the court on Wednesday challenging Qadri's plans to address two major public meetings in Mumbai, contending that his speeches could pose law and order situation.
"The court has further directed the police to submit tape records, written and translated copies of Qadri's speech to the court tomorrow," Patel told IANS.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the government's plea seeking directions to restrain an Indian domestic help, awarded nearly $1.5 million relief for alleged ill-treatment by an Indian consulate employee in the US, from pursuing her case in a New York court.
Justice Kailash Gambhir asked the government why it had made itself a party to the case.
"Why are you filing a case? Why can the diplomat not file apetition on her own? How can Union of India become a party on what happens in the four corners of a flat," the court asked.
Responding to this, Additional Solicitor General A.S. Chandiok said that the government had sent the diplomat to New York. Thus, the government took a stand and filed a petition in the US.
"To bring into the notice of the US court that she is an Indian diplomat, I filed the petition there," Chandiok said.
"Can someone interfere with the administrative service of India," asked Chandiok, adding that the New York court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the maid's complaint.
Chandiok told the court that the diplomat had transferred an amount of Rs.221,000 into the maid's account in lieu of her service which was later reimbursed by the government to the diplomat.
A New York judge last month recommended that maid Shanti Gurung deserved nearly $1.5 million for her "barbaric treatment" by Neena Malhotra, who in 2006 served as press counsellor at the Indian consulate in the US, and her husband Jogesh.
Gurung in her complaint in the US alleged that Malhotra made her work without pay, seized her passport and visa, restricted her ability to leave her apartment and constantly warned her that if she travelled on her own, without their permission, she would be arrested, beaten and raped.
Justice Gambhir on Tuesday sought the bank account details in which the salary of the maid was paid.
The government March 12 approached the court seeking directions to restrain Gurung from pursuing the case in a New York court. It also sought the court to direct Gurung to withdraw the complaint.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: Nupur Talwar, mother of Aarushi Talwar who was killed in 2008 at Noida, has moved the Supreme Court with a plea to review its decision of declining to quash the case against the dentist couple. She wanted the court to hear the review petition in the open court.
The Supreme Court will now hear the review petition in the open court. Normally, review petitions are decided by the judges in their chambers, and not in the open court.
On January 6 this year, the court rejected the Talwars' plea to close the case against them and directed them to stand trial before Ghaziabad special CBI court.
The trial court refused to accept the closure report filed by the CBI in December 2010, and took cognizance of the case.
Now, Mrs Talwar in her review petition wants the Supreme Court to review its January 6 decision and direct CBI for further scientific probe.
In her review petition, Nupur says that the DNA evidence of Hemraj was found in Krishna's house in the bedsheet seized by the police and later given to the CBI. By this, Talwars claim that Krishna came in contact with Hemraj before the murders. The petition also states that the clothes the Talwars wore on the night of Aarushi's murder, only had her DNA and not Hemraj's. Stating that none of these findings of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) were considered by any court, Talwars have once again pleaded for DNA mapping.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked the central government for a copy of the contract signed with an Indian domestic help who was working with a diplomat at the consulate in New York and has alleged that she was ill-treated. The court said the government had to take care of the maid as she was also Indian.
Justice Kailash Gambhir also sought the bank account details regarding the salary given to Shanti Gurung, who has alleged that she was not paid during her stay in New York when she was working with Neena Malhotra, the press counsellor at the Indian Consulate in 2006, and her husband Jogesh Malhotra.
The government had Monday approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to restrain Gurung from pursuing the claim in a New York court.
A New York judge had last month recommended that Gurung deserved nearly $1.5 million for her "barbaric treatment". The proposed award included $500,000 for the "emotional distress" inflicted on Gurung, who was a teenager when she was taken to the US.
Taking note of Gurung's allegation that she had drastically lost weight, Justice Gambhir asked the central government to produce documents pertaining to her health records by March 14, the next date of hearing.
Additional Solicitor General A.S. Chandiok told the court that Gurung was the employee of the central government. "She was the service staff member of Indian consulate employee and the government of India paid her salary."
"Can such an government employee ever be under the jurisdiction of foreign court?" Chandiok asked, saying that the New York court lacked jurisdiction to entertain her complaint.
Justice Gambhir said that as the government of India "you have to take care of the maid also, as she is also an Indian".
Countering Gurung's allegation that she was trafficked to the US against her will, the government's petition said "the fact is she travelled to New York at the expenses of the government of India".
"Gurung also alleged that she was not paid during her stay in New York as service staff to Neena Malhotra. Admittedly, Neena Malhotra was making payments as per mutually agreed terms and conditions in the form of regular transfers into a bank account in India," the petition said.
The government said the couple enjoyed diplomatic immunity and any legal action against them could only be done in Delhi.
Gurung in her complaint in the US alleged that she was made to work without pay. Her passport and visa had been seized, her movements were restricted and she was constantly warned her that if she travelled on her own, without their permission, she would be arrested, beaten and raped.
In her lawsuit, Gurung had alleged that in bringing her over to the US in 2006 on an A-3 visa, Neena Malhotra instructed Gurung to tell the US embassy in New Delhi that she would be paid $7 per hour.
The complaint also said that with a steady deterioration in her living conditions from June 2006, Gurung was required to "perform substantially more duties than had been represented at the time of recruitment".
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: The Cabinet today deferred a decision on the presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the issue of telecom licences in view of the court's verdict in the 2G scam case. In a meeting that lasted nearly two hours this evening, the Cabinet decided that Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman will brief it on the presidential reference and the Cabinet will only take a final decision after the Solicitor General's briefing.
In January, the Supreme Court cancelled 122 licenses granted in 2008 by then Telecom Minister A Raja for mobile network licenses and accompanying second generation or 2G spectrum; the two judges who delivered the verdict said all national resources must be distributed only through an auction. The licenses revoked by the court had been allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis by A Raja and the judges said this policy was "fundamentally flawed" partly because it presented an advantage to anyone with access to the "corridors of power."
The government has said that while it in no way challenges the verdict of the court, it needs answers on how natural resources should be distributed hereon. The Prime Minister had in February sanctioned a Presidential reference on the matter - which means that the government will formally request President Pratibha Patil to ask the Supreme Court if its order applies to all natural resources.
NDTV has learnt that these are the seven questions that the government is likely to pose to the Supreme Court through the presidential reference:
1) Whether licenses, other than the ones auctioned, were granted illegally?
2) Were all licenses granted on a first-come-first-served basis, upto 2007 granted illegally?
3) If yes, then what steps should be taken by the government to deal with those licenses?
4) If no, is the Government of India obligated to ensure a level-playing field in granting licenses and whether it is required to withdraw spectrum allocated to all existing licenses? Also, should it be with retrospective effect and be charged and at what price and what date?
5) Is dual technology licences illegal and is the government of India required to make a level-playing field and withdraw all spectrum allocated to licensees in 2008? Should they be charged, and at what price and from what date?
6) Does the 3G spectrum auction allotted in 2010 to entities whose licenses have been quashed in the judgement referred to in the above stand withdrawn?
7) Is allocation of spectrum through auction the only legitimate mode even when it is inadequate or there is no competition?
The President can, under Article 143 of the Constitution, refer matters of public interest to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will then set up a bench of either three or five judges to provide clarifications requested by the President. These judges could talk to parties involved with the case or to experts; regular hearings will be held before they share their conclusions.
The last time such a presidential referral was made was in 2004 for a dispute between Punjab and Haryana over water-sharing.
The 122 licenses that were cancelled in January are at the heart of what's believed to be India's biggest scam. As Telecom Minister, Mr Raja, now in jail for over a year, allegedly granted sweetheart deals to companies who conspired with him - not only did he give them licenses at throwaway prices, but the spectrum they needed was free. Many of the executives of these companies were arrested last year and spent several months in jail before being granted bail.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today admitted a petition questioning whether a person of foreign origin can hold public office.
A bench comprising Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad also favoured expediating hearing on the issue which was raised by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (RMM), a socio-political organisation.
RMM has filed an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court's verdict which had dismissed the petition filed against Congress President Sonia Gandhi on the grounds that Sonia Gandhi being of Italian origin, she is not entitled to hold any constitutional post.
The RMM, in its petition, had taken exception to Congress chief Sonia Gandhi being invited to form government at the Centre by the then President in 1999 after NDA lost a no-confidence motion in Parliament.
The apex court had in April, 2007 issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission on the issue.
However, the Centre did not file any affidavit and asked the apex court to post the matter for final hearing.
The Election Commission had said that its stand will be the same as that of the Centre.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: Former Telecom Minister A Raja has asked the Supreme Court to review its decision that cancelled 122 mobile network licences issued by him. The verdict, delivered on February 2, has caused panic attacks for India Inc; it also has the government searching for exigent clarifications. Mr Raja said that the principles of natural justice were not followed because he was not allowed to present his case to the Supreme Court. Mr Raja has been in jail for over a year for allegedly violating all rules as he assigned those licences to companies that he reportedly conspired with.
The government also filed a petition today suggesting that the judiciary is getting involved with policy-making, a prerogative of the government. In its verdict that nullified Mr Raja's decisions, the court had ruled that spectrum and other natural resources cannot be allotted on a first-come-first-serve basis, because that guideline is "fundamentally flawed." The court then ordered the new telecom licences to be sold on the basis of an auction. The government's review petition today said policy involves the balancing of "different values and considerations." This job, it stressed, belongs to the executive and "it is not permissible for the court to take this exercise upon itself... both for the reason that it is not its role to do so and it does not have the expertise to do so."
The government has been at pains to make clear that it is not challenging the cancellation of the 122 licences. But it contented today that that there cannot be a flat rule that in all cases, natural resources must go to the highest bidder. In the case of telecom licences in 2008, it said, the government was focusing on making cellular services available at the cheapest rates for Indians in not just cities, but semi-urban and rural areas.
Earlier this week, Tata Teleservices filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the cancellations of its licences in three circles; several other telecoms are expected to follow suit.
Another petition filed yesterday by the government explains that the process of reallocating the cancelled licences will likely take 400 days. In its order, the court had told the government to complete the process within 120 days or four months. The Supreme Court's order makes the 122 licences invalid starting June 2. The government in its petition filed yesterday states that because an auction cannot be held by then, nearly 70 million cellphone subscribers will be left in the lurch (Customers who have been with an operator for more than 90 days are entitled to switch immediately to a different mobile company).
The government also wants the Supreme Court to reconsider another verdict it delivered recently related to the telecom scam. On January 31, the court said that the Prime Minister's office was wrong to have kept Subramanian Swamy waiting for 18 months when he asked for permission for the prosecution of Mr Raja on corruption charges. Because Mr Raja was then a union minister, the Prime Minister's consent had to be sought for proceedings against him. Mr Swamy is Janata Party president; his different petitions on the telecom scam have been partly responsible for the mammoth investigation that has been launched into how licences were fraudulently allotted.
The Supreme Court ruled in Mr Swamy's favour and said that Parliament should consider introducing a four-month deadline for any request seeking sanction of the prosecution of a government servant. In its review petition, filed yesterday, the government has said that sanction cannot be given before a court takes cognizance of the charges against the government servant in question. So the government is seeking review of the court decision upholding the right to get sanction for prosecution of public servants even before a complaint is filed.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
New Delhi: Army Chief General V K Singh, who lost his battle with the Defence Ministry on the age row, feels the Supreme Court has "not effectively" closed the issue but ruled out his resignation.
"It would be dishonest to say that that I was not under pressure to resign. Even my closest advisors were affected by the media interpretation and, yes, I was extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court had not effectively closed the issue.
"... as chief of army staff, I have a responsibility towards the army and its men and have to attend to the unfinished tasks that I had set out for myself. I cannot quit until I complete what I have started. Organisational interests are supreme," he told "Outlook" magazine in an interview.
General Singh said many commentators were looking at this matter as a classic case of strained civil-military relations, and drew parallels with the unfinished resignation of General K S Thimmayya, to predict his resignation.
"But I see the age as something that I and the army have to address, and we will do it once we are given a legal order," he said in reply to a question about the wide speculation that he would resign since the Supreme Court did not uphold his case.
General Singh said the apex court order has created more confusion, without addressing the main issue. It talks of a statutory complaint being divided into two parts--the process of decision-making on the one hand and maintainability on the other.
"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has argued that since the decision has been taken by them to peg my Year of Birth as 1950, I must accept this regardless. This goes against the principles of natural justice," General Singh said.
Asked about the impression that he had lost the battle and that the Supreme Court had ruled against him, he said it was a strange situation.
While the apex court was dealing with the case there was a parallel minute-by-minute interpretation of the proceedings in the media. Breaking news on TV and newspaper headlines the next day delivered their own verdict which declared that 'the General has lost the battle'.
But, he said, when the order came out on February 15, the media did not report it and everyone missed its import. "It is an innocuous order that leaves recognition of the DoB to the competent authority based on records. The media was reporting obiter dicta in a highly exaggerated manner," he said.
To a question about his decision to withdraw the petition in the court gave an impression that he was satisfied with what the court had to say, General Singh said after his statutory complaint was rejected the Defence Ministry on December 30 last, he had moved the court.
On February 3, the court questioned the decision-making process which led to it being turned down and opined that it went against the principles of natural justice.
On February 10, the Attorney General withdrew the Defence Ministry's order against the statutory complaint and tacitly admitted that the actual DoB was 1951 and that the ministry was opposing it only "on a matter of principle".
General Singh said after that there was nothing else to be said in court especially since the judges had also indicated that the court did not want to get into the actual date of birth.
"Now, unless the Defence Ministry's decision-making process is spelt out so as to explain the rationale behind still pegging my YoB as 1950, how can I challenge it. I therefore withdrew my petition and have decided to wait for the MoD to give its reasons afresh," he said.
He said it is important to put in place systems that ensure that such cases were never repeated in future.
Asked about the views of his daughter who wrote in an article pointing at the hand of former chief General J J Singh in the DoB controversy, General Singh gave no direct answer except to say that the problem got aggravated when the Defence Ministry chose to "endorse this line without going into why this was being done".
Q: Are you saying that the 2006 decision (taken by J J Singh) was illegal?
A: It has its ramifications. Even I say that I don't contest it, it cannot be implemented because the SC order does not say anything about the legality of two different dates of birth.
To a question he was looked upon as someone standing up to the establishment, giving as good as he got, General Singh said, "being Chief of the Indian Army does not insulate me from public opinion and I am aware that many feel that I was wrong in taking the fight to the MoD".
He said the tendency after reaching senior ranks is to avoid rocking the boat. "But if I, as the chief, did not stand up for what is correct, what sort of a message would I be sending to the rank and file," he said.
Similarly, he said, that despite the overwhelming opinion he should resign, it was necessary for him to stay the course.
"The SC has sidestepped the issue. But it certainly does not clear the way for any illegal order to be given to the Army. Had I resigned, it would have been a self-goal and in the long run, against the interest of the organisation," General Singh said.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
