Speaker 1: In this episode, we talk about India achieving a major
Speaker 1: milestone in the space sector and becoming the third country
Speaker 1: in the world to successfully place satellites into orbit using
Speaker 1: a rocket developed by a private company. We also talk
Speaker 1: about the Cocro Junta party threatening to restart the protests
Speaker 1: if fiers filed against any of the protesters in Delhi
Speaker 1: or any other BGP ruled states are not withdrawn. But
Speaker 1: you begin today with the major legal ruling on artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence and copyright in India.
Speaker 2: Hi, I am Aherikan Nanda and you are listening to
Speaker 2: three things in an Express News show.
Speaker 1: Recently, the Delhi High Court has held at the interim
Speaker 1: stage that Openey's use of copyrighted material to train its
Speaker 1: large language models does not amount to copyright infringement and
Speaker 1: can fall within fair dealing under Indian copyright law. The
Speaker 1: case was filed by News Agency A, which accused open
Speaker 1: AI of using its copyrighted material to train chat GBT.
Speaker 1: Now this is significant because several publishing and music industry
Speaker 1: bodies have raised similar objections to AI training models, and
Speaker 1: so the ruling signals how Indine courts are thinking about
Speaker 1: copyright and the limits of fair dealing. So to understand
Speaker 1: what exactly did the Delhi high coat say and what
Speaker 1: does this ruling mean for creators and AI companies in India.
Speaker 1: My colleague Chasharma is joined by the Interinet expresses so
Speaker 1: hey ghosts so Heney.
Speaker 3: We understand that A and I raised three connected objections
Speaker 3: to the use of its copyrighted material. So could you
Speaker 3: start by reminding us what was A and I alleging
Speaker 3: OpenAI had done with its content?
Speaker 4: So A and I's main contention was that open ai
Speaker 4: is training its large language model on its works which
Speaker 4: fall under copyright, and it's ultimately also producing content of
Speaker 4: A and I's verbaton in its output. These were basically
Speaker 4: two limbs of what A and I's argument was while
Speaker 4: claiming that OpenAI is effectively infringing on.
Speaker 5: Its copyrighted works.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that was broadly the case that A and
Speaker 4: I had put forth.
Speaker 5: One A and I had moved quote.
Speaker 4: Then other parties had also joined in. Some of them
Speaker 4: were consonant with an I's line of argument, and some
Speaker 4: of them were more supportive of open AI's line of argument,
Speaker 4: which was that basically it's not copyright infringement if they're
Speaker 4: training their models on copyrighted works and so.
Speaker 3: What exactly has the Delhi High Code ruled and what
Speaker 3: has it not yet decided.
Speaker 4: So, first of all, this is a single judge order
Speaker 4: by the Delhi High Code, so obviously there are chances
Speaker 4: that the parties would go into appeal, further putting that
Speaker 4: caveat in place. Broadly, what the verdict establishes in the
Speaker 4: Indian copyright law jurisdiction is that basically, if you're training
Speaker 4: your LMS and storing internally this work on which your
Speaker 4: LMS would be trained, that is not a copyright infringement. Effectively,
Speaker 4: that is the crux of what the Telehigh Courte right.
Speaker 5: Now has held.
Speaker 4: So in a sense it is ruling on the copyright
Speaker 4: aspect of the input that goes into your LMS, and
Speaker 4: not exactly the output, which is what it gives when
Speaker 4: you put in a query, when you put in a prompt.
Speaker 4: What is under copyright there what is not? That question
Speaker 4: remains open broadly, but in terms of the training data,
Speaker 4: how it is kept, what is used, and what purpose
Speaker 4: it is used for. Based on that, the COOTE held
Speaker 4: that if the training material is a also not being
Speaker 4: shared with any third party and is only being stored
Speaker 4: and used internally to train your machines, which also translates
Speaker 4: to research work by machines, how research by humans happen,
Speaker 4: which is where you say, read an article, read multiple books,
Speaker 4: and your training your mind.
Speaker 5: The code took a similar view with machines.
Speaker 4: And held that it won't be a copyright infringement.
Speaker 3: Right and for those who may not know already, fair
Speaker 3: dealing is a copyright law exception that allows limited use
Speaker 3: of protected works without the owner's permission, and so so
Speaker 3: any does the judgment distinguish between an AI system learning
Speaker 3: from copyrighted material and reproducing it.
Speaker 4: So the quote and an I S case specifically found
Speaker 4: that the output is not an exact replication, duplication.
Speaker 5: Or lego gutation of what it is being fed.
Speaker 4: So essentially the middle process it's adding some value to
Speaker 4: what it is being fed. And thus, in this case,
Speaker 4: specifically in an I S case, the overall flow the
Speaker 4: workflow wouldn't count as copyright infringement. And the judgment also
Speaker 4: made this distinction that A and I's works are freely available,
Speaker 4: and it's not even their case that their work was
Speaker 4: behind a payball and OpenAI got it illegally or unauthorizedly and.
Speaker 5: Used that to train.
Speaker 4: So I think somewhere over there the quote is drawing
Speaker 4: a line. And say, for publications, newspaper publications, if you
Speaker 4: are putting your content behind payall, it gives you some
Speaker 4: amount of immunity if I go by the Deli High
Speaker 4: courtes in interpretation right now in this judgment.
Speaker 3: And so what has been open eis argument.
Speaker 4: So open eyes broad argument has been and it takes
Speaker 4: from what the global jurisdiction has held that A as
Speaker 4: a news organization, you have quite a limited scope of copyright.
Speaker 4: For example, compared to say fiction novel visa we what
Speaker 4: A and I produces, it's very different. A fiction novel
Speaker 4: has a stronger copyright value because it is a lot
Speaker 4: of intellectual work, a lot of original work that goes
Speaker 4: in versus a news report, which is anyway, it faces a.
Speaker 5: Very narrow scope of copyright. Because facts are facts.
Speaker 4: There are only so many ways that you can report
Speaker 4: a fact.
Speaker 5: So that was one limb of argument.
Speaker 4: A second limb of argument was also the fact that
Speaker 4: so they stopped using an i's feed or the syndicate
Speaker 4: for training purposes once A and I sent them a
Speaker 4: legal notice before approaching quote. So in a sense, opening
Speaker 4: I kind of exhibited that we are acting with bona
Speaker 4: fide intentions, and because someone objected to it, we took
Speaker 4: a conscious decision to hold back and not use this material.
Speaker 4: So yeah, broadly, these were their limbs of argument.
Speaker 3: And so even if training is legally considered fair dealing,
Speaker 3: does that settle the separate question of whether creators and
Speaker 3: publishers ought to be paid or asked for consent.
Speaker 4: So again we have to look at global jurisdictions and
Speaker 4: how they have interpreted their copyright protections for what is
Speaker 4: being fed to train your elms and in that for
Speaker 4: example the US Sports there were two crucial judgments in
Speaker 4: US in June twenty twenty five where they kind of
Speaker 4: weighed the fact that this technology is transformative and thus
Speaker 4: if you're training on these original walks for a transformative purpose,
Speaker 4: that gets a pass under fair dealing. Similarly, Europe also
Speaker 4: has some regulation around training and.
Speaker 5: Storage of data for elelems.
Speaker 4: The European Union's framework is more structured and leaves very
Speaker 4: little scope for quotes to interfere. So what the European
Speaker 4: law says is that you can use works protected walks
Speaker 4: for training purposes. If it is for research purpose or
Speaker 4: research being, it has to be by universities, by cultural
Speaker 4: heritage institutions or any sort of research body, either that
Speaker 4: or the second category is for any other use.
Speaker 5: But in the.
Speaker 4: Second category, I, as a owner of the work, I
Speaker 4: get to also opt out.
Speaker 5: So there's an opt out option over there.
Speaker 4: So euces training in that sense where it gives some
Speaker 4: amount of leverage to the owner of the work and
Speaker 4: gives them there is some level of consent of theirs
Speaker 4: involved right.
Speaker 3: And so, so how significant is this ruling for India
Speaker 3: because it is the first time an Indian constitutional quote
Speaker 3: has expressed a view on whether copyrighted material may lawfully
Speaker 3: be used to change generative AI systems.
Speaker 4: So for starters, it gives us a starting point. Now
Speaker 4: it remains to be seen that how much content creators
Speaker 4: or owners of copyright, how much they get to exercise
Speaker 4: their rights here, But broadly on the input side, basically,
Speaker 4: if it is being used for training.
Speaker 5: Purposes, the rights are kind of diminished.
Speaker 4: For them in if put very bluntly, So what remains
Speaker 4: to be seen as how they negotiate on the output part.
Speaker 4: And there's something that a lot of experts are also flagging.
Speaker 4: So one obvious fallout that we see from yours maybe
Speaker 4: copyright owners have to start thinking about what kind of
Speaker 4: licensing agreements they should have, what kind of rights these
Speaker 4: licensing agreements give and to whom, But to negotiate that
Speaker 4: they have more levey on the output side. So for example,
Speaker 4: if tomorrow there's a benign prompt that you give, and you,
Speaker 4: being a fiction writer or an academic paper writer, you
Speaker 4: see parts of it being regurgitated as it is you're
Speaker 4: being given paragraphs and paragraphs.
Speaker 5: From your paper or from your book.
Speaker 4: You have a strong case then to actually raise your
Speaker 4: copyright infringement claims. However, raising those claims at the starting
Speaker 4: phase where the elms are getting trained, that scope has
Speaker 4: kind of narrowed now with this judgment, and.
Speaker 3: So any earlier you mentioned how A and I was
Speaker 3: one of the organizations involved in the litigation, among others
Speaker 3: like the Federation of Indian Publishers, the Digital News Publishers
Speaker 3: Association and even the Indian music industry. Talk about what
Speaker 3: does this mean for other creative industries, So see the
Speaker 3: aspect that Delhi High Code does not go into is
Speaker 3: I mean also because they.
Speaker 4: Were only dealing with A and I's case broadly, but
Speaker 4: there is something that the US quotes dealt with or
Speaker 4: this was because it was an issue about what if
Speaker 4: your lem is getting trained on piated data, which is
Speaker 4: shadow libraries. So technically shadow libraries are pirated content. So
Speaker 4: for example, in Delhi the High Court has earlier held
Speaker 4: again there's a preliminary finding that the quote gave and
Speaker 4: the broader or the final judgment, and that is still pending,
Speaker 4: it's still undergoing adjudication. It was this case by Elsevier,
Speaker 4: the organization that I'm sure we all know publishes a
Speaker 4: lot of academic papers and journals.
Speaker 5: So they had moved quote.
Speaker 4: Alleging copyright infringement by shadow libraries like sihab and libgen.
Speaker 4: So in that there was a preliminary fine Delhi High
Speaker 4: Courte that this is a copyright infringement and rolled in
Speaker 4: el Severe's favor. So now what we have here and
Speaker 4: what might cause a gray area here is at one
Speaker 4: juncture you are saying that shadow libraries are an act
Speaker 4: of copyright infringement. At the same time we are not
Speaker 4: really going into the source of the training data for llms.
Speaker 4: So for example, in A and I's case, there was
Speaker 4: no piated data involved here.
Speaker 5: It was all legitimate data.
Speaker 4: But there's no observation from the quote on how do
Speaker 4: we interpret copyright infringement in the case, say, if your
Speaker 4: training material itself is violating or the way you have procured,
Speaker 4: the way you have access that training material, it might
Speaker 4: have some level of copyright infringement, say, for example, in
Speaker 4: the shadow libraries case, if you're using libraries. So yeah,
Speaker 4: broadly that is something that remains unanswered in the verdict.
Speaker 3: And sohny does this case raise a question about India
Speaker 3: now needing a specific law for EI training because the
Speaker 3: Copyright Act was not drafted with generative AI in mind,
Speaker 3: and that's why coats are applying existing concepts like Ferylyn.
Speaker 4: So I personally don't think that a new law is
Speaker 4: going to make much of a difference, if at all,
Speaker 4: It's only going.
Speaker 5: To create more confusion. But again personal opinion.
Speaker 4: Here, what I feel the EU model is much better
Speaker 4: because it gives some level of structure, some level of consent,
Speaker 4: some level of you as a copyright owner having some.
Speaker 5: Say over how your work is used.
Speaker 4: Because it was Washington Post who did this story, I
Speaker 4: think sometime in January basically saying how Anthropic is buying
Speaker 4: up millions of books from the EU markets, physical copies
Speaker 4: of books and tearing them up completely. And these include
Speaker 4: like rare books as well, tearing them up, getting those digitized,
Speaker 4: putting it on their library so that they can train
Speaker 4: their lms.
Speaker 5: Now, one theory of why.
Speaker 4: They're doing this is apparently they want to basically subwort
Speaker 4: the copyright restrictions. So both the US and USE laws
Speaker 4: they have their own loopholes and if someone wants to
Speaker 4: subvert that, they do.
Speaker 5: It very clearly.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and next we turned to a major milestone
Speaker 1: in india space sector. Earlier this month, India became only
Speaker 1: the third country in the world, after the United States
Speaker 1: and China to successfully place satellites into orbit using a
Speaker 1: rocket developed by a private company. On the eighteenth of July,
Speaker 1: victim Ie, a rocket named after pioneering space scientist Vikrm Saurabhai,
Speaker 1: reached Earth orbit and deployed several experimental satellites as part
Speaker 1: of Mission Agman, developed by the Hyderabad based company Skyroute Aerospace.
Speaker 1: The mission marks the beginning of a new chapter for
Speaker 1: India's private space industry. To understand the significance of Mission
Speaker 1: Agman and what greater participation by private companies could mean
Speaker 1: for India space ambitions. We speak with the Indiane expresses
Speaker 1: anonadath Anona. India for the first time has had a
Speaker 1: private space agency launch a payload into the Earth's orbit.
Speaker 2: Talk about the significance of this moment.
Speaker 6: So basically, this is the first time that a private
Speaker 6: company has done an orbital launch. The same company had
Speaker 6: actually done a suborbital flight in twenty twenty two to
Speaker 6: check call its systems. What this means is now the
Speaker 6: vehicle is capable of actually launching satellites into the orbit,
Speaker 6: and in fact, the first flight did carry some technology
Speaker 6: demonstration satellites onboard and launched them. This is significant because
Speaker 6: the space sector was opened up by the government to
Speaker 6: private players only in twenty twenty and in less than
Speaker 6: six years these companies have been able to achieve an
Speaker 6: orbital launch and the company has already said that after
Speaker 6: a few of these demonstration missions they would go into
Speaker 6: a full fledged commercial launch capability, which means they would
Speaker 6: be attracting people from satellite manufacturers from across the globe
Speaker 6: and launched their satellites from the Indian soil.
Speaker 1: Right and can you talk about Mission Argument and about
Speaker 1: Vikram one, the first private Indian launch vehicle that has
Speaker 1: reached the Earth's orbit.
Speaker 6: Yes, like I mentioned, this was Argument which was announcing
Speaker 6: of this you know, new vehicle entering the spaceflight sector,
Speaker 6: and they decided to name the mission Argument because this
Speaker 6: was the first orbital launched by the company and it
Speaker 6: would mark the beginning of you know, induction of this
Speaker 6: new vehicle into the spaceflight sector when it comes to
Speaker 6: become one. This rocket is made up of four stages,
Speaker 6: three solid stages which provide the maximum amount of power
Speaker 6: to the vehicle to escape the Earth's atmosphere and then
Speaker 6: comes a liquid fuel based orbital adjustment module. This is
Speaker 6: the one which fine tunes the position of the last
Speaker 6: stage of the rocket in space and you know, orients
Speaker 6: it correctly for placing the satellites in accurate orbit. So
Speaker 6: the company was successfully able to demonstrate the accurate working
Speaker 6: of all four stages and they were able to put
Speaker 6: the demonstration satellites in.
Speaker 2: Very accurate orbits during the launch, which.
Speaker 6: Showcases that this rocket can become a very successful small
Speaker 6: commercial launch rockets for the low Earth orbit satellites.
Speaker 1: And anona walk us through what happened at three Harrikota
Speaker 1: on eighteenth of July. How did the events unfold? Because
Speaker 1: we understand that the team encountered a few setbacks before
Speaker 1: the launch, right, yes.
Speaker 6: So basically this was the first time in the mission
Speaker 6: control the front bench was occupied by a very young
Speaker 6: group of people, very enthusiastic. You could see that they
Speaker 6: were anxious but happy that finally all their work was
Speaker 6: going to be demonstrated. And while all the checks were
Speaker 6: being done a day ahead of the launch, everything was
Speaker 6: found to be normal. But yes, there was a slight
Speaker 6: snag at the time of the launch and the automatic
Speaker 6: launch sequence wherein the vehicle t over all the processes
Speaker 6: needed to finally launch itself that had to be stopped
Speaker 6: just five minutes before the launch. But it couldn't have
Speaker 6: been a very significant technical fault because it was resolved
Speaker 6: within minutes and the new window for accurate launch was
Speaker 6: calculated and there was just about half an hour delay
Speaker 6: in the launch of the satellites. So the snag was
Speaker 6: immediately corrected and a new automatic launch sequence was launched
Speaker 6: and instead of around eleven thirty, the vehicle finally took
Speaker 6: off at twelve oh five on the day off and
Speaker 6: within about twenty minutes, less than twenty minutes, the satellites
Speaker 6: were placed in orbit. We should also talk about the
Speaker 6: excitement that was seen once the scientists, these young scientists
Speaker 6: were very sure that you know, the satellite would reach
Speaker 6: its intended orbit. First, the first point was when these
Speaker 6: vehicle crossed the one hundred kilometers mark indicating that it
Speaker 6: had entered space. There was a cheer that went through
Speaker 6: the room. And once the launch was complete, you could
Speaker 6: see these you know, young scientists celebrating and sort of
Speaker 6: dancing with joy in the mission control.
Speaker 7: FIE four three oh one and we have LIP one.
Speaker 4: India's first private orbital and we have great views coming from.
Speaker 5: The cameras and is in this.
Speaker 6: And this time around the senior ISRO scientists including the
Speaker 6: current chairman WIENA. Rynan and former chairpersons h such as S.
Speaker 6: Som Nath brother Krishnan was also there. So all of
Speaker 6: the chairpersons along with mister Pavangenka who heads the body
Speaker 6: called in Space, all of them were present. But behind
Speaker 6: these young scientists who were there in the mission control.
Speaker 1: And an The private organization at the center of this
Speaker 1: mission is Skyroot Aerospace can you tell us a bit
Speaker 1: about the company.
Speaker 6: So this is actually the first Unicorn space startup in
Speaker 6: the country. Sky Route came up actually just before the
Speaker 6: space sector was open, and they took a benefit of
Speaker 6: these sector opening up to private players and really ran
Speaker 6: with it. They are the first company to achieve orbital flight,
Speaker 6: but there are others who are attempting it. This was
Speaker 6: actually founded by people who have worked with Israel previously
Speaker 6: and you know, they sort of they have made them
Speaker 6: mark and you could see the confidence that people have
Speaker 6: on them with the kind of investment that has come
Speaker 6: from you know a lot of private players into the company, right,
Speaker 6: and we understand that post the launch, the founders also
Speaker 6: had a conversation with PM mod What did he have
Speaker 6: to say about this development. So while we've seen, you know,
Speaker 6: with all key ISRAE missions, the Prime Minister either does
Speaker 6: like a video address in Chandryan to the Prime Minister
Speaker 6: was actually present at the mission control even though the
Speaker 6: landing could not be successful. So with these key you
Speaker 6: know missions, the Prime Minister usually takes note of it.
Speaker 6: And while he was not present during this mission, he
Speaker 6: did speak with both the founders immediately after the launch,
Speaker 6: and the founders at that time were on the diace
Speaker 6: and they held up their phone to the microphone and
Speaker 6: everybody could hear what the PM was saying.
Speaker 8: At this was essentially the PM was talking about the
Speaker 8: great achievement that has happened.
Speaker 6: And now you know, with this launch, India became the
Speaker 6: third country which has these private spacecraft programs which can
Speaker 6: be utilized by satellite makers across the world. So it
Speaker 6: was a good achievement. And he also spoke about the
Speaker 6: decision to open up the space sector in twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: He said that, you know, there were a lot of
Speaker 6: people who said, how will you do this, how will
Speaker 6: this happen?
Speaker 8: It's not possible, but he said that, you know, the
Speaker 8: success of.
Speaker 6: Sky Root sort of proved his point, and he said
Speaker 6: people should give this kind of ambitious work to youngsters
Speaker 6: because they are able to deliver. And then of course
Speaker 6: he congratulated the founders. The founders also informed him that
Speaker 6: a message that he had sent on the flight, he
Speaker 6: had actually signed the postcards stating one day Mataram. The
Speaker 6: founders told him that that has actually reached space now
Speaker 6: and it's in orbit. So that was the conversation that
Speaker 6: happened between the founders and the PM and Anona.
Speaker 1: Are there other private companies that are also working towards
Speaker 1: entering this space and what does the RoadHead look like
Speaker 1: for India's private space sector?
Speaker 6: So there are two types of things that are happening.
Speaker 6: Just like sky Route, there is another company called Arnikol
Speaker 6: which is also developing its own launch vehicle and they
Speaker 6: have also been able to do their sub orbital launch,
Speaker 6: but they are yet to do an orbital launch so far.
Speaker 6: Other than these two companies, there is also a small
Speaker 6: satellite launch vehicle which was developed by ISRO itself, which
Speaker 6: was developed thinking that there would be an increase in
Speaker 6: demand to launch small satellites into the low Earth orbit.
Speaker 6: You know satellites which are significantly used for communications by
Speaker 6: companies such as Starlink and one Web. So ISRO was
Speaker 6: aware that this boom might happen and that's why they developed.
Speaker 6: It's SSLv, which has now been transferred to an industry
Speaker 6: and now the private playwires who would take up the
Speaker 6: SSLv vehicle and you know, do complete end to end launch,
Speaker 6: So they will manufacture it, they will find clients for
Speaker 6: it and they will schedule the launches accordingly. So that
Speaker 6: is another thing that is happening in the private sector
Speaker 6: in India right now. Other than that, the you know
Speaker 6: opening up space sector came with the sort of forward
Speaker 6: thinking that ISRO would now for on the big missions.
Speaker 6: You know, they will give up the routine launches and
Speaker 6: look at missions like adite l one which is studying
Speaker 6: the Sun, or Chandrayan, which is you know, incrementally going
Speaker 6: to the Moon. And there's also a plan to set
Speaker 6: up a space station. So the inan space research organization
Speaker 6: would then focus on these kind of research and innovation
Speaker 6: rather than launching communications aatellites or Earth observations aatellites regularly.
Speaker 6: So all in all, there would be several private players
Speaker 6: in the market in the coming years. And this is
Speaker 6: an attempt towards you know, getting a significantly higher share
Speaker 6: of the global space launch market.
Speaker 1: And in the end we discuss another issue that is
Speaker 1: arising between the Corporate Junta Party and the Center.
Speaker 2: One of the key demands.
Speaker 1: Of the CGP before it reached an agreement with the
Speaker 1: Center on calling off the protests against paper leaks in
Speaker 1: Delhi and elsewhere was that cases registered against protesters we withdrawn.
Speaker 1: The CGP has now accused the government of going back
Speaker 1: on its commitment by allowing the police to register cases
Speaker 1: and make arrests in BGP ruled states, and warned of
Speaker 1: renewing the agitation. They also pointed out that the signed
Speaker 1: agreement the Center promised has not yet been handed over.
Speaker 1: The Indiane Express's Dari reports that the government sources insisted
Speaker 1: that the assurance given by Health Minister JP Nada on
Speaker 1: Saturday during the press conference was limited to peaceful protesters
Speaker 1: and did not cover antisocial elements who infiltrated the protests.
Speaker 7: Point action Nahu or other heir to widraw Ho which
Speaker 7: Chavo JP ruled states recopied or will draw naked bath
Speaker 7: pull the action ningba is badko you protest future Magie
Speaker 7: Joe organizers have protesters said, is activity kill poet unper
Speaker 7: hag case nzoga is bat correct.
Speaker 1: The minister pointed out that even in the written assurance
Speaker 1: given to activist sonambang Chuk before he ended his twenty
Speaker 1: six day past, the government committed only to not take.
Speaker 2: Action against peaceful protesters.
Speaker 1: Another senior minister said there was still no signed written
Speaker 1: agreement between the Center and the CGP. The proposal submitted
Speaker 1: by the CGP, which was to be returned with the
Speaker 1: government's signatures by Tuesday, has yet not been handed over.
Speaker 1: This comes at a time when BGP governments in Bihar
Speaker 1: and Asam have announced that they would withdraw cases against
Speaker 1: protesters detained before six pm on July twenty six and
Speaker 1: release those arrested before that cutoff, while maintaining that action
Speaker 1: would continue against those involved in violence. West Beingal, however,
Speaker 1: has continued a crackdown, registering seven firs and arresting sixteen
Speaker 1: people in connection with the July twenty four violence in Kolkata.
Speaker 1: Chief Minister Souvendhuadikari has maintained that many of those identified
Speaker 1: were not students but antisocial elements. Deepman reported that on Monday,
Speaker 1: CGP spokesperson Ashuto Shanka alleged a complete breach of the
Speaker 1: July twenty five understanding with the Center, claiming that one
Speaker 1: hundreds of students had been arrested in BJP rule states.
Speaker 1: He demanded an immediate withdrawal of all fils, the release
Speaker 1: of detained protesters and end to fresh criminal cases by
Speaker 1: the Delhi Police, Central Agencies and police in BJP ruled states,
Speaker 1: and immediate sharing of the signed agreement. The CGP also
Speaker 1: announced a nationwide legal aided cell and launched an online
Speaker 1: evidence gathering platform, Sakshi with Rajasawa MP couple Sybil announcing
Speaker 1: Rupe's one Core corpus to provide legal assistance to protesters
Speaker 1: facing criminal proceedings.
Speaker 9: The other eight Senior Cabinet Administer Sarkar say, make Agreement,
Speaker 9: Honor Kiya Jayaga three five hours file draw Kia Jagassi
Speaker 9: Protestera organizer called parish Jaga detained Nikahika Jaga or future
Speaker 9: Mani protester organizers per other kultuk the Written Agreement Sati
Speaker 9: or Chao Yuanko protesters detained Khata Tokkro Junta Party Fit protest.
Speaker 2: You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Speaker 1: Today's episode was edited and Makes Nice and produced by
Speaker 1: Ichas Sharma and Mehari Kananda. If you like the show,
Speaker 1: then do subscribe to us wherever you get to podcast.
Speaker 1: You can also recommend the show to someone you think
Speaker 1: we like it, share it with a friend or someone
Speaker 1: in your family. It's the best way for people to
Speaker 1: get to know about us. You can also tweet us
Speaker 1: at Express podcast and write to us at podcasts at
Speaker 1: Indian Express dot com.