KFC is set for the opening in Ayodhya, but with a unique twist on its standard menu. The fast-food the giant must become vegetarian in order to agree with the city’s stringent vegetarian-only policy, according to Moneycontrol. Kentucky Fried Chicken, also known by its acronym KFC, must adjust to the customs of the people if it hopes to gain access to the sacred city. While one of the company’s best-known products is chicken.
“KFC has set up its unit at Ayodhya-Lucknow highway because we do not allow non-vegetarian food items here. We are ready to provide even KFC a space if it decides to sell only vegetarian items,” Ayodhya government official Vishal Singh was quoted by Moneycontrol.
Food chains have been offered a chance to open up their branches inside Ayodhya city
“We have offers from big food chain outlets to set up their shops in Ayodhya. We welcome them with open arms, but there is only one restriction, that they should not serve non-veg food items inside the panch Kosi,” said Vishal Singh. He added “Those serving non-vegetarian food have set up outlets outside 14 Kosi Parikrama Marg.”
“We welcome them with open arms, but there is only one restriction, that they should not serve non-veg food items inside the Panch Kosi,” he said.
Any food outlet that opens in the Ayodhya city is strictly prohibited from selling of liquor and non-vegetarian items.
Business in and around Ayodhya City
To grow their business, Pizza Hut’s manager, Awadh Kumar Verma, told Moneycontrol that they want to construct a store in the Ram Path neighborhood. In addition, Dinesh Yadav, whose Domino’s restaurant is located close to the Ram temple, stated that business is doing well. Remarkably, Ayodhya is not the only Indian town that has limitations on non-vegetarian cuisine. Within the city limits, Haridwar likewise has a similar ban.
Another senior official at the state’s industry department, Abhishek Singh, stated that Bisleri and Haldiram have proposals to establish their units in and around Ayodhya due to the increase in temple tourism. “Besides, many companies like Parle are strengthening their distribution channels of food chain outlets, particularly packaged water, biscuits and namkeen,” he stated to Moneycontrol.
The city has grown to become a well-known pilgrimage destination since the Ram Temple was established. This forces both local businesses and foreign food franchises to recognize and adapt to guests’ changing dietary needs.
Even in the face of controversy, the DDA’s bulldozer at the Mehrauli Masjid in Sanjay Van, Delhi, is not stopping. This time, the action has happened in Baba Haji Rozbih’s grave. An earlier anti-encroachment campaign also included the demolition of Akhoondji Masjid. Later, word leaked out that this mosque had been noted in ASI documents dating back to 1922. The Delhi High Court then issued an order to keep things as they were.
The DDA action was taken on the tomb of Baba Haji Rozbih, which dates back to the eleventh century. The DDA has started an initiative to get rid of encroachment on Sanjay Van’s southern ridge. Its report is currently being reviewed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The newspaper claims that DDA discussed eliminating numerous encroachments, including numerous multi-storied buildings, in its study.
All those structures were in reality mentioned by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, the Assistant Superintendent of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the time, in his 1922 publication, “List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, Volume III – Mehrauli District”. which this bulldozer operation has destroyed. Whether it is Baba Haji Rozbih’s tomb or Akhundji’s mosque. As stated in the same ASI document
“Baba Haji Rozbih is considered one of the oldest saints of Delhi. It is said that he came during the time of Rai Pithura and made his abode in a cave near the moat of the fort.”
ASI’s report of 1922 also mentions regarding mehruli masjid demolition- “On the advice of Baba Haji Rozbih, many Hindus converted to Islam. Astrologers considered this a bad omen and told the king that Baba Haji’s The arrival foreshadows the arrival of Muslim rule in Delhi.”
According to local custom, he also facilitated the conversion of Rai Pithura’s daughter to Islam, and it is believed that she is the owner of the second plaster tomb within the enclosure
In such a case, is it appropriate to target historically and archaeologically significant buildings and monuments in the name of clearing encroachment? The tomb, according to ASI, was not included in the list of monuments covered by ASI protection. Another issue is that, in ASI’s opinion, neither the DDA nor any other organisation got in touch with him prior to the bulldozer operation.
Visuals and footage show a terrifying situation in Harda, Madhya Pradesh. After the Blast in the firecracker factory, earthquake-like tremors were felt in the surrounding areas and more than 100 people were injured and many deaths were also reported.
Following eight days of hearings on Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
What happened during the eight days of hearings to decide whether Aligarh Muslim University qualifies as a minority institution before a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India? Take a look at this detailed synopsis.
Parties in this case
Appellant: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa
Lawyers: Sr. Adv Dr Rajeev Dhawan; Sr. Adv. Nikhil Nayyar; Sr. Adv. Raju Ramachandran; Adv. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas; Adv. Sushma Suri; Adv. Prashant Bhushan; Adv. Ramesh Kumar Mishra; Adv. Aftab Ali Khan; Adv. Mohan Pandey
Respondent: Naresh Agarwal through Laxmi Chandra Agarwal; Union of India through Secretary; Director General of Health Services; Director of Higher Education; Medical Council of India
Lawyers: R. Venkatramani, Attorney General; Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Adv. R. C. Kohli; Adv. Gurmeet Singh Makker; Adv. Gaurav Sharma; Adv. Anup Kumar; Adv. Ejaz Maqbool; Adv. Abhinav Mukerji
Historical Background
Originally established by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College), AMU was later incorporated by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (AMU Act). Important modifications, such those made in 1951 and 1965, had a big impact on the governing structure, representation in the judiciary, and religious education.
Under Article 30(1) (right to establish and administer educational institutions), Article 26(a) (right to carry out religious and charitable causes), Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 29 (right to conserve culture and language), and Article 31 (right to acquire property), the petitioners challenged the amendments to the AMU Act. The case began with S. Azeez Basha & Anr versus Union of India (1967).
The Supreme Court said, “It’s possible that the Muslim minority’s activities led to the 1920 Act’s passage. However, this does not imply that the Muslim minority founded Aligarh University when it was founded in accordance with the 1920 Act.
Recognising Universities of Higher Learning for Minorities:
Definition of Minority Status: The term “minority status” refers to educational institutions that were founded or are being run by a particular language or religious minority. Take into consideration, for example, a college founded by a Christian missionary organisation that specifically serves Christian pupils.
Impact of Regulation: These institutions maintain their minority status even though they are governed by general education regulations. For example, a Sikh community-run school that complies with state education laws is still acknowledged as a minority institution.
Scope of Course Offerings: Courses offered by minority-owned schools frequently combine religious and secular subjects. An Islamic institution might, for instance, offer a curriculum that includes science and humanities classes in addition to religious studies.
Relevance of Article 30: Minorities’ rights to create and run educational institutions are protected by Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. For example, this constitutional provision protects a Jewish educational institution that operates in India.
Rejecting the claim that the petitioners’ fundamental rights were violated, the court affirmed the changes.
The term “university” was redefined as an establishment “established by the Muslims of India” in the 1981 amendment to the Act. Originally called the MAO College, the university changed its name to AMU. The university’s authority under Section 5 of the AMU Act was modified, and the university’s founding objective was expanded to encompass the growth of education and culture for the “Muslims of India.”
AMU implemented reservation policies in 2005, designating 50% of postgraduate medical degree seats for Muslim candidates. The same year, the policy was contested before the Allahabad High Court, with the argument that the reservation is illegal because AMU is not a minority institute, using the Supreme Court’s ruling in Azeez Basha as precedent.
The Allahabad High Court invalidated the reservation policy, rejecting the 1981 amendment and ruling that AMU was not a minority institution based on Azeez Basha, notwithstanding the Union government and the university’s contention that the 1981 amendment invalidated the precedent of Azeez Basha.
The reservation scheme was put on hold as a consequence of an appeal heard by the Supreme Court in 2006. The National Democratic Alliance government disavowed AMU’s minority status and withdrew from the appeal in 2016.
A three-judge bench sent the Azeez Basha ruling to a seven-judge bench for review on February 12, 2019. On October 12, 2023, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, formed a seven-judge bench to hear the case.
Originally called the MAO College, it became an university called AMU Since the case involves the subject of giving admissions preference to members of the minority group, the outcome will have a profound impact on all minorities.
Respondent’s arguments
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, argued against Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) claim to minority status in his arguments on behalf of the respondent.
Citing written submissions, he emphasised the historical background and declared that the AMU founders were ‘loyalists’ to the imperial government. He brought out the existence of a breakaway faction that opposed the loyalist position and was ultimately responsible for the founding of Jamia Millia Islamia University.
Senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi intervened to highlight the goals of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s book, An Account Of The Loyal Muhammadans Of India (1, 2 and 3), which described the founding of the MAO College, which subsequently became AMU.
Dwivedi pointed out that the main goal was to produce a class of educated Muslims who would be obedient subjects of the British Crown.
Mehta emphasised an important point: in order for AMU to be considered a minority institution, a significant portion of its non-minority staff must be in charge of the university’s administration.
He countered that the laws regulating AMU did not meet this standard, pointing out that the legislative council had taken choices at the time the university was founded.
As noted by Kapil Sibal, following the 1920 Act, AMU received ownership of all the MAO College’s facilities.
The SG argued in the Azeez Basha case that the ruling solely pertained to the 1920 Act and did not create a generally applicable statute stating that a university loses its minority status upon incorporation. He made it clear that the Azeez Basha case explicitly looked at the 1920 Act and came to the conclusion that AMU is not a minority university under that Act.
Mehta brought up the AMU Act, namely Section 23, which designates the court as the university’s highest governing authority. He clarified, though, that this should not be interpreted as granting the court final say over any issue.
He explained that admissions are entirely under the executive council’s jurisdiction by statute.
Mehta said that the dual criteria of establishment and administration are covered under Article 30 of the Constitution. The Basha case was mentioned, which invalidated AMU’s minority status due to two important conclusions.
First, it was determined that the MAO College was founded by the Muslim community by virtue of the legal authority granted by the Societies Registration Act. However, it was also determined that the establishment of a college does not entail the establishment of a university.
Second, it was found that Muslims did not run the university after looking at the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920.
The respondent’s attorney further argued that the preamble and the description of the institution were changed as a result of shifts in the historical facts surrounding the university’s founding.
The CJI responded with a statement, pointing out that the second part of the Basha ruling underlined the need for minority administration. The Chief Justice noted that no changes had been made to the current statutory requirements pertaining to administration.
Mehta contended that Basha could not be overruled unless the establishment and administration requirements were met. Since the administrative part was unaffected, it was argued that the case did not come under the purview of the previously mentioned legal precedent.
Mehta asked a question about the definition of “minority” during the proceedings and offered three possible standards for determining minority status. These tests comprise the following: the numerical test, which is based on the community’s share of the national population; the qualitative test, which looks at whether a particular group needs to be identified as a minority; and the community’s desire to be recognised as a minority.
Additionally, he made the oral argument that the concept of a minority is “political” in the sense that, in 1920, there was no such thing as a minority because all communities, including Muslims and Hindus, were subject to British administration.
Minorities were not a topic of discussion. The subject and the imperial ruler were in a relationship. He contended, “We were all subjects, treated the same, and subjected in the same way.
“Is it your contention that because prior to 1947 there was no concept of minority as we constitutionally recognise today, therefore, any institution which has been established before 1947 or really before the advent of the Constitution … no such institution will be entitled to claim minority status? It will boil down to that,” the Bench said.
“What change took place on January 26, 1950 that the Muslims, which according to you would not have minority status before 1950, suddenly got minority status after 1950? What is the big change that took place,” the Bench further asked.
Petitioner’s arguments
In response to Justice Khanna’s question about the Indian Constitution’s enforcement and post-enactment, senior attorney Dr. Dhavan spoke first for the petitioners.
He underlined that, in spite of the Azeez Basha precedent, a sizable number of UGC-designated universities have been designated as minority institutions. He argued that the term “establish” was given an unduly narrow construction by the court in Azeez Basha.
AMU implemented reservation policies in 2005, designating 50% of postgraduate medical degree seats for Muslim candidates.
In Azeez Basha, the Bench came to the conclusion that “establish” in the context of the AMU Act implies “to bring into existence.”
Dr. Dhavan argued that a minority educational institution should maintain its minority status despite being subject to statutory regulations, and that the constitutional viewpoint should be taken into account when promoting the integration of religious and liberal arts education.
In his four key points, Dr. Dhavan expressed his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Azeez Basha case.
He began by pointing out that the ruling recognises the potential for colleges to be regarded as minorities. Secondly, he made the point that the ruling acknowledges the MAO College’s Muslim heritage and its crucial role in founding the school.
Third, Dr. Dhavan contended that the AMU Act of 1920—the university’s founding statute—was not followed by the court. Finally, he argued that the ruling downplays the significance of “recognition” and ignores other possible meanings for the word “establish.”
While the Azeez Basha ruling accurately recognises AMU’s Muslim heritage, Dr. Dhavan argued that it contradicts itself by downplaying the university’s constitutional standing.
The reservation scheme was put on hold as a consequence of an appeal heard by the Supreme Court in 2006. The National Democratic Alliance government disavowed AMU’s minority status and withdrew from the appeal in 2016.
This inconsistency is said to be at odds with the Supreme Court’s position in the St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi case, where the court supported the college’s minority status due to its Christian identity, permitting it to set aside 10% of seats for Christian students in defiance of the university’s policies. The petitioners’ main point of contention is this methodological discrepancy.
Although they acknowledged AMU’s historical background, the judges in Azeez Basha mainly disregarded it. On the other hand, St. Stephen’s argument looked closely at the beginnings and focused in especially on the Christian nature of the structures.
Conclusion
The court battle over AMU’s minority status illustrates how difficult it is to strike a balance between modern realities, historical legacies, and constitutional rights. The Indian Constitution’s tenets of equality, religious freedom, and educational autonomy must be taken into account by the Supreme Court as it deliberates on this case. The decision would support the fundamental values of democracy and pluralism and influence minority education in India going forward. In the end, how this long-running conflict is resolved will determine the future of minority rights and educational governance in the nation.
The Congress and Aam Aadmi Party claim that the election was rigged by the presiding officer, who declared the BJP the winner even though they were short on votes.
The fact is that numbers were in favor of AAP and Congress but eight of their votes were declared invalid. AAP and Congress have termed the declaration of invalidity as rigging. Aam Aadmi Party and Congress had first approached the Punjab Haryana High Court, from where after not getting relief, they reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said, “This is a mockery of democracy. We are shocked by what happened. We cannot allow democracy to be murdered in this manner.” The Supreme Court also strongly reprimanded Anil Masih, the presiding officer who conducted the elections.
What else did the Supreme Court say?
According to news agency PTI, the Supreme Court has also issued a notice to the Chandigarh Administration and Municipal Corporation in the election rigging case.
The video of the election day also went viral on social media.
In the videos that surfaced during the election process, it can be seen that the presiding officer is seen signing or writing something on the ballot papers. Opposition parties allege that the presiding officer made marks on the ballot papers, which were later declared invalid.
Nothing was told during the election process about the reason for these ballot papers being declared invalid.
When coming across the videos, Supreme Court said that video recordings and ballot papers should be preserved.
After watching the video, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said about the presiding officer, “It is clear that the ballot papers have been tampered with. Are elections conducted in this way? This man should be prosecuted. Why are they looking at the camera and then running away like fugitives?”
CJI Chandrachud said, “The presiding officer was seen making changes in the ballot paper. Is this the behavior of a returning officer? They look at the camera and tamper with the ballot papers. They keep the ballot paper which has a cross mark at the bottom of it in the tray. They spoil the ballot paper with a cross on it and then look at the camera. Tell them that the Supreme Court is watching them. We will not allow democracy to be murdered like this. The most important force to bring stability in the country is the purity of the election process.”
Apart from CJI Chandrachud, the bench hearing this case includes Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra. This petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Aam Aadmi Party candidate Kuldeep Kumar in the Chandigarh Mayor elections.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Yogesh Dhingra calls to check Anil Masih’s call list
Leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Yogesh Dhingra, said in an interview with The Indian Express, “We applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling. But we also demand that Masih’s call logs be examined, as he was only following the big fish’s instructions.and the perpetrators of his actions ought to face consequences.
“He arrived at the assembly hall roughly forty to forty-five minutes late,” he continued. And why was that the case? Nobody is aware. A few BJP council members also arrived roughly forty-five minutes late.What then was the plan? It’s also necessary to determine who taught Masih how to perform this.
In the midst of a special four-day session, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami introduced the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in the state Assembly on Tuesday.
Uttarakhand will be the first post-independence state to adopt the UCC once it is put into effect. It has been in use in Goa since the time of Portuguese domination.
The UCC, as its name implies, advocates uniform civil laws for all communities within the state, regardless of caste or religion. If approved, this would give the people of the state a uniform legal framework for laws pertaining to inheritance, land, divorce, and marriage.
Once it’s in place, other states will probably follow suit. Formerly, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made it known in public that his state also intended to adopt it. It is also likely to be used as a model for the national implementation of UCC, and Gujarat is probably going to follow suit according to The Indian Express
The construction company Larsen and Toubro has been served with a legal notice by the Delhi government’s PWD for allegedly causing “financial and reputational” losses due to “technical and design deficiencies” in the Pragati Maidan transit corridor and delays in finishing the Bhairon Marg underpass.
During 2023 G20 Summit, the multi-crore Pragati Maidan Tunnel project is now a “potential threat to the life of passengers.” The cause is a combination of poor drainage, big fractures in the cement, and water seepage. The Public Works Department (PWD) is closely monitoring the construction and quality of the six-lane tunnel. It has repeatedly sent notices to the construction company Larsen and Toubro (L&T), which carried out the project, requesting a deposit of Rs 500 crore for “serious technical and design deficiencies.”
Pragati Maidan tunnel details of the damages as per PWD report
As per The Indian Express, PWD claims that although representatives of the construction company were aware of the problems and even went on several site inspections with government officials, they chose not to address them.
Other significant problems consist of: Prolonged seepage detected and recognized from a few tunnel expansion joints Large fissures in cement and concrete in different locations Over the tunnel, there is waterlogging and drainage system malfunctions. Damage and irregularities in a significant quantity of curbstones Long-term neglected ITPO parking patches in the branch tunnel missing saucer drains in a few different places Murals and paintings on the walls are being harmed by water seeping from the tunnel’s ceiling and by mysterious seepage of groundwater beneath the concrete surface.
Public feedback after the inauguration of Pragati Maidan Tunnel by PM Modi
With a total of six Grammys won—three of which were won by the renowned tabla player Zakir Hussain—Indian musicians made big achievements at the 66th Annual Grammy Awards. Hosted by comedian Trevor Noah on February 4 at the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles. In the process, the fusion group Shakti, consisting of Shankar Mahadevan and Zakir Hussain, beat acclaimed albums by musicians from Peru, the Caribbean, and Africa to win the Best Global Music Album for ‘This Moment’.
For the album, John McLaughlin (guitar, guitar synth), Ganesh Rajagopalan (violinist), Shankar Mahadevan (vocals), and Zakir Hussain (tabla) wrote a total of eight tracks. June 30 of last year saw the release of “This Moment” by Shakti, following a 46-year break since the release of their last studio album, ‘Natural Elements’, in 1977. Indian musicians have now won this category five times; in 2013, Ravi Shankar’s album ‘The Living Room Sessions Pt. 1’ won the award.
Zakir Hussain and Shankar Mahadevan won Grammy award
“Thank you boys. Thank you God, family, friends, and India. India, we are proud of you…Last but not the least, I would like to dedicate this award to my wife whom every note of my music is dedicated to.” said Shankar Mahadevan during his speech. The audience cheered loudly in response to the musician’s remarks.
The renowned Indian musician and tabla player Zakir Hussain cemented his legacy in music history at the 66th Annual Grammy Awards by winning a Grammy Award in the Best Global Music Performance category for his song “Pashto.”
Zakir Hussain has won the grammy award for the second time.
Hussain’s song Pashto, which also features Indian flautist Rakesh Chaurasia (who took home two Grammys this year), American musicians Edgar Meyer and Bela Fleck, and other musicians, is the recipient of another Grammy this year for Best Global Music Performance. Additional Indian-themed songs included in the category of nominees were Shadow Forces by Arooj Aftab and Vijay Iyer, and Abundance in Millets by Grammy winner Falu, which featured Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Rakesh Chaurasia won Grammy Award
Grammy Award winner Indian flautist Rakesh Chaurasia says “It is really a proud moment for me, winning two Grammy Awards for my country. I would like to give credit to Zakir Hussain, who introduced me to Edgar Meyer and Bela Fleck and allowed me to collaborate and ultimately we recorded this. This album is a unique thing for me as it was also difficult to cope with the different genres of music. Coming from the classical background, I am very happy about one thing that I am bringing this award to my country and I will make India proud…” -Source- ANI
SHAKTI wins a #GRAMMYs#GRAMMYs2024 !!! Through this album 4 brilliant Indian musicians win Grammys!! Just amazing. India is shining in every direction. Shankar Mahadevan, Selvaganesh Vinayakram, Ganesh Rajagopalan, Ustad Zakhir Hussain. Ustad Zakhir Hussain won a second Grammy… pic.twitter.com/dJDUT6vRso
Multiple Grammy winner Ricky Kej from Bengaluru, who won his third Grammy for the album “Divine Tides” at the 65th Annual Grammy Awards last year. In a post on X, expressed his happiness for the victories of Indian artists, praising Hussain, Mahadevan, Chaurasia, V Selvaganesh, and Ganesh Rajagopalan.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has carried out raids at locations connected to prominent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) officials in Delhi. Bibhav Kumar, the private secretary to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and ND Gupta, the Rajya Sabha MP for the AAP, were raided by the ED on February 6. Based on reports, the ED is carrying out this raid in connection with a money laundering case involving the Delhi Jal Board.
ED Raids 10 locations in Delhi today
Aside from the residence of former Delhi Jal Board member Shalabh Kumar and personal secretary Bibhav Kumar, ED raids are reportedly occurring at roughly ten locations, according to news agency PTI. The article claims that several other people’s homes are being searched in addition to Rajya Sabha MP Narayan Das Gupta of the Aam Aadmi Party.
VIDEO | Visuals from AAP MP ND Gupta's residence in Delhi.
The ED has been conducting a raid at his residence since morning in connection with a money laundering case. pic.twitter.com/ETbptVWE1x
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been the focus of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) at the same time. According to Delhi Minister Atishi, there appears to be an attempt by the Enforcement Directorate to stop her from revealing a “explosive exposé” through their raids on AAP leaders.
“I had said on Twitter that today at 10 o’clock I will make a big revelation about ED. To stop that revelation, to scare the Aam Aadmi Party, ED is raiding the houses of people and leaders associated with the party from 7 am today. A raid is taking place at the house of our leader ND Gupta. A raid is taking place at the house of the Chief Minister’s PS. BJP wants to suppress us, but we will not be afraid. We did not commit the scam. Actually, there is a scam in the ED investigation itself.”
Atishi went on to say that in the past two years, ED has not received a single rupee. Since the ED lacks proof, raids are being carried out to silence us.
The massive fintech startup Paytm made it clear on Monday that it is not in negotiations to sell its wallet business. A Paytm insider has confirmed that the company is not consulting with anyone regarding the sale, despite media rumors suggesting that the Paytm wallet business will be sold to Jio Financial Services, which is owned by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance, INC 42.
Paytm said that Paytm Payments Bank Limited, a business associate, has notified it that there have been no discussions in this area. Jio Financial Services’ stock suffered after the announcement as well, dropping 3.89 percent to Rs 277.80.
