DDNEWS — Charcha Mein
20261012 123000 UTC
455 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:04] I am better placed
[00:00:25] Hello, you have started watching our special discussion program on DD News.
[00:00:29] I am Chandra Singh, and in today's
[00:00:32] discussion, we will talk about the two pillars of democracy,
[00:00:36] the judiciary and the executive,
[00:00:39] the relationship between these two, and
[00:00:42] their respective rights. This debate has re-emerged
[00:00:46] because something new has happened,
[00:00:49] something that had not happened before.
[00:00:53] Opposition parties wrote a letter to the Chief Justice,
[00:00:56] to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, requesting a meeting.
[00:01:00] He responded, he responded through a letter,
[00:01:03] and this reply was given yesterday. And
[00:01:07] in it, the Chief Justice, Justice Suryakant,
[00:01:10] wrote everything in his reply. Despite
[00:01:13] that, the opposition parties have taken to the streets.
[00:01:17] But this has sparked a debate that
[00:01:20] if you want to talk to the
[00:01:22] judiciary and the Supreme Court Chief
[00:01:26] Justice, what should be the way? What
[00:01:30] are the constitutional provisions? Today,
[00:01:32] we will discuss this issue. First, let
[00:01:36] us show you what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
[00:01:39] Suryakant, Justice Suryakant,
[00:01:43] wrote in his reply. He refused to meet Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and
[00:01:47] Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. He refused
[00:01:50] to meet
[00:01:52] them.
[00:01:58] And the Chief Justice wrote a letter
[00:02:00] and appreciated. to both leaders, a reply letter, and he fully clarified
[00:02:03] the reason for not being able to meet. He said that the issues on which
[00:02:07] opposition leaders want to meet him are already pending
[00:02:11] before the Supreme Court. So, meeting to discuss pending cases
[00:02:15] Now it is rebar with would not be in accordance with established ethical
[00:02:19] norms and judicial decorum. Also, the Chief
[00:02:23] is hidden from Justice clarified in his letter that discussing pending cases
[00:02:26] at an administrative level would be against
[00:02:30] the principle of separation of powers. He
[00:02:33] also advised opposition leaders that instead of submitting a memorandum,
[00:02:36] they should take recourse to the judicial process of the Supreme Court and file
[00:02:40] their petition online or directly
[00:02:43] in court. The Chief Justice said that it is the duty of the Supreme Court
[00:02:46] to consider cases related to the violation of fundamental
[00:02:50] rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. In fact,
[00:02:54] Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge wrote a letter to the Chief Justice on October 10th
[00:02:58] and requested a meeting between
[00:03:00] 4 and 5 p.m. for October 12th, i.e., today.
[00:03:03] Both leaders wanted to submit a memorandum
[00:03:07] on issues related to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission,
[00:03:10] alleged arbitrary arrests of students, closure of metro stations,
[00:03:14] and cancellation of trains. They wanted to meet
[00:03:18] and submit it.
[00:03:36] which shows the accuracy
[00:03:40] So, today's discussion
[00:03:40] Who can ask is about this. The topic of our discussion
[00:03:44] is whether our leaders are forgetting the dignity of the Constitution
[00:03:48] for political gain. And this includes prominent
[00:03:52] leaders and major parties
[00:03:56] who have ruled this country for decades,
[00:03:59] who have held power, who claim to have
[00:04:03] built institutions, who often refer
[00:04:07] to the Constitution, holding it in their hands, saying that
[00:04:10] this is the Constitution and it should be followed.
[00:04:14] So, have these leaders, these parties, forgotten
[00:04:17] the dignity of the Constitution, and are they
[00:04:20] not following the Constitution themselves? And that is why
[00:04:24] they are taking such steps, steps that have never
[00:04:28] been taken before. So, what are its legal aspects,
[00:04:31] what are the provisions in our Constitution? If, for instance,
[00:04:35] the executive, that is, leaders, officials,
[00:04:38] or anyone, if they
[00:04:41] need to meet the top people of our judiciary, to raise
[00:04:45] an issue, what is the provision for that? Sanjay Chaddha
[00:04:48] ji, a legal expert, has joined us. Let's try to understand
[00:04:52] from him. Welcome, Sanjay ji. First of
[00:04:55] all, we will try to understand
[00:04:58] Nowadays, that is not necessary. from you, and in fact, everyone would want to know at this time, has
[00:05:00] anything like this ever happened before, where leaders of parties
[00:05:04] wrote and requested a meeting? Because there
[00:05:08] are many ways to submit a memorandum or a petition. Has
[00:05:11] this ever happened before? Is there such a system in our
[00:05:14] Constitution, or was this an attempt to go beyond
[00:05:18] the Constitution? Two things. The answer
[00:05:21] to the first question is that historically,
[00:05:24] if we look, no political party has ever requested
[00:05:28] time from the CJI or judges
[00:05:32] to submit any memorandum
[00:05:35] or anything of that sort. If it has to be submitted, as you mentioned, there
[00:05:38] are many other ways, including through
[00:05:42] post, including by delivering it to their
[00:05:46] office. This is what happens, just like in this case. This letter
[00:05:50] was written two days ago, and it was delivered there.
[00:05:54] Yes, okay. So that's one thing. Secondly, you
[00:05:58] asked if there is any such provision in the Constitution.
[00:06:01] The answer is no, there is no such provision
[00:06:05] because this is an administrative task, not a judicial
[00:06:09] task. So,
[00:06:13] there is no such provision. Now, as far as this decision
[00:06:16] is concerned, and
[00:06:19] why he took such a decision, nobody
[00:06:23] can comment on that. Absolutely, you are right that
[00:06:26] since these are political matters, what is there to comment on?
[00:06:29] But the way a meeting was requested for the 12th,
[00:06:33] just one day before, today the Chief Justice's statement
[00:06:36] also came, he said that I had replied to the letter a day before,
[00:06:40] i.e., yesterday. And in the reply, he explained
[00:06:44] in detail why he is not meeting. He has given sufficient reasons. In the
[00:06:48] light of the reasons he has given,
[00:06:51] the Chief Justice has said
[00:06:55] very important things. Because he also talked
[00:06:58] about the separation of powers.
[00:07:02] He also said that it would not be good if you meet
[00:07:06] him separately on a case that is under hearing.
[00:07:09] This should not happen. These are very important things.
[00:07:29] Based on that, I would like to say that if any matter is going on before a judge, no party or any person related
[00:07:33] to it talks to him about
[00:07:36] that matter. This is something that
[00:07:39] is not considered appropriate from a judicial point of view.
[00:07:44] The second thing is why the Chief Justice, I saw his
[00:07:47] interview this morning, he clearly said
[00:07:51] that because the issues about
[00:07:53] which you are trying to meet me, for which you
[00:07:57] have written a letter, those issues
[00:08:00] are already pending in a petition in the Supreme Court.
[00:08:03] So, it is not appropriate,
[00:08:06] rather it is not fair for me
[00:08:10] to meet you for this particular issue.
[00:08:14] This is the first thing, and the second is a very
[00:08:17] important thing that the CJI
[00:08:20] said, which we can also say is that the issue is already
[00:08:24] sub judice. So, don't talk
[00:08:27] to me about it because you have full
[00:08:31] right to come to court either yourself or through
[00:08:35] another person, another advocate, and present your views on that issue
[00:08:38] when it is being heard. Yes.
[00:08:41] Right. Absolutely.
[00:08:44] The argument of the leaders who wrote the letter for a meeting
[00:08:48] is that just as we presented our views to the President,
[00:08:52] and just as we go to meet the Election Commission, similarly,
[00:08:55] we want to convey our views to the Chief Justice, and that is
[00:08:59] why we wrote this letter and requested this time. But
[00:09:03] first, you are saying that there is no such precedent, it has never happened before.
[00:09:07] Secondly, there is no such provision.
[00:09:10] Thirdly, when the same case is under hearing,
[00:09:14] then such a meeting becomes even more unfair.
[00:09:17] That is to say, it would be inappropriate. Such
[00:09:21] a meeting would be inappropriate. In such a situation, if they
[00:09:24] want to express their views, what are the constitutional ways,
[00:09:28] what are the legal ways through which any leader, any party,
[00:09:31] or even any common citizen, if
[00:09:35] they want to express their views on this whole matter that is under hearing, how
[00:09:39] can they do it? Sir, as you said, any
[00:09:43] person who wants to express their views has several
[00:09:46] means. One is, you
[00:09:50] know, I'm saying any person, so X, Y, Z.
[00:09:53] These are, of course, the Leader of Opposition. They
[00:09:57] are not just any person, they are different.
[00:10:00] So, if any person, you
[00:10:04] want to give some better inputs, better
[00:10:08] information, and you want to give
[00:10:11] that to the court, in this regard, you
[00:10:14] can file an application before the court.
[00:10:18] When this particular case is heard, you can
[00:10:21] also become a party. You will give your reason that due
[00:10:25] to these reasons,
[00:10:29] to assist the court on this issue, that you
[00:10:32] should make such and such a decision. So what
[00:10:36] is called intervening, intervening petition,
[00:10:39] intervenor, I have to intervene
[00:10:42] in it. The literal meaning of intervention
[00:10:46] is interference, but it is a
[00:10:49] intervenor application. So you can become
[00:10:52] an intervenor and present your fundamental
[00:10:56] feelings to the court. On many issues, we see
[00:11:00] intervenor applications filed every day in court.
[00:11:04] The court hears them, and a large
[00:11:07] number of intervenor applications are also rejected,
[00:11:11] in which the court says that no, we are competent, we do not need the knowledge
[00:11:14] you want to show or the information you
[00:11:18] want to give. I have said it in harsh words, it
[00:11:22] is not acceptable. We will not, because otherwise thousands of people will line up tomorrow.
[00:11:55] A Supreme Court speaker has joined us, Aman Sena ji. Welcome
[00:11:58] to the discussion. I would like to convey
[00:12:02] your opinion, your understanding on this aspect
[00:12:05] to the people. Let's take a short break. After the break, we will return to both of you.
[00:12:08] For now, it's time for a short break
[00:12:10] in the discussion.
[00:12:16] India's largest gold loan NBFC, Muthoot Finance.
[00:12:19] Take a gold loan and then see what gold cannot do.
[00:12:23] Call 1800313.
[00:12:26] When the iron stone comes out by tearing the earth
[00:12:30] and meets the zeal of Mongia,
[00:12:33] then it is heated, melted,
[00:12:36] and becomes steel.
[00:12:40] all its qualities.
[00:12:42] Mongia Steel, strong country's strong
[00:12:45] rebar.
[00:12:49] Welcome back after the break. You are watching our special program in discussion, and we have
[00:12:53] both our guests joining us. Aman ji has also joined, senior advocate of the Supreme Court,
[00:12:57] and Sanjay Chaddha ji has also joined. And what are we talking about? We are talking
[00:13:01] about what the Chief Justice
[00:13:04] of the Supreme Court replied to the letter
[00:13:08] with. What are the key points, what are the provisions, what are the legal provisions,
[00:13:12] what are the different rights? Aman Sinha ji,
[00:13:15] the way some leaders wrote a letter, first of all, it has never
[00:13:19] been seen before, there is no example of it ever being done before.
[00:13:22] After that, what the Chief Justice
[00:13:26] said in his reply letter, how important
[00:13:30] is it? Also tell me that if we look at it legally,
[00:13:34] in terms of legal provisions, in terms of tradition,
[00:13:38] then not asking for time for a meeting
[00:13:42] has not been in tradition.
[00:13:45] Aman Sena ji,
[00:13:48] Look, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the country,
[00:13:51] it is a temple of justice, not an arena for political rallies.
[00:13:55] And the court runs on petitions,
[00:13:59] it does not run on a political
[00:14:02] procession. Those who wave the Constitution,
[00:14:06] they should sometimes open and read the Constitution.
[00:14:10] And they should also understand its dignity.
[00:14:13] Clearly, this matter is pending in the Supreme Court,
[00:14:16] before the bench of the Chief Justice of India. And
[00:14:20] as you said, he himself said in his letter
[00:14:24] that the matter is sub judice, so come through a petition.
[00:14:27] But he didn't want a petition, he wanted
[00:14:30] to come with a political procession. So,
[00:14:34] the whole country, our whole justice system,
[00:14:37] will run according to the Constitution, right? A separate
[00:14:41] system will not be created for one person.
[00:14:44] Of course. And when a case
[00:14:48] is pending before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
[00:14:51] himself on the judicial side, and you are going
[00:14:55] to the same judge of the Supreme Court with a political procession,
[00:14:59] and you want to give a memorandum with a long procession,
[00:15:03] then this is a tactic to put pressure.
[00:15:06] This is clearly an attempt to influence
[00:15:10] and put pressure. Otherwise, you could have done it by impleading
[00:15:14] in the same petition. What is the need for such a big show?
[00:15:18] And a single lawyer could have gone and filed it.
[00:15:23] It can also be filed
[00:15:25] online. So, in a way, they are doing this.
[00:15:29] If, suppose, a judge meets and takes
[00:15:33] a private memorandum, any sub judice matter that is before him,
[00:15:36] then he cannot hear that case
[00:16:08] further. And clearly, if someone had to go there,
[00:16:11] a single lawyer could have gone and filed it, it could have been
[00:16:15] online. You are going to the same judge with a sub judice
[00:16:19] matter with a private memorandum, a political procession.
[00:16:22] Yes, as you said, as you said,
[00:16:26] this was somehow an attempt to pressure the Chief Justice.
[00:16:29] Was it because of these things,
[00:16:32] so that a wrong message should not go anywhere, or it should not be twisted,
[00:16:36] as you mentioned about the talks after meeting the President?
[00:16:39] For this also, the Chief Justice
[00:16:43] himself came today and said that I had replied
[00:16:47] to the letter a day before. The Chief Justice
[00:16:50] explained these reasons sufficiently precisely because of these things,
[00:16:54] so that no confusion or doubt should be spread among
[00:16:57] the people about why I refused to meet. He listed all those things.
[00:17:01] Was this the reason? No,
[00:17:04] you are absolutely right, and that is why he
[00:17:07] clearly wrote in his letter that this matter is sub judice
[00:17:11] before him, and that is why no private meeting can
[00:17:14] be entertained in this way. And if you look at the issues
[00:17:18] also, it will be very clear. For example,
[00:17:21] the talk about ballot paper and EVMs. In many cases, the Supreme Court
[00:17:25] has already settled this issue. Now,
[00:17:28] we cannot go back to ancient
[00:17:31] times. The EVM system is globally
[00:17:34] admired
[00:17:38] Now, if the Supreme Court has already
[00:17:42] decided that thing, you can go and file a curative petition
[00:17:45] against it. There is a legal system. But will
[00:17:48] you undermine an order of the Supreme Court with
[00:17:52] an illegal political procession? Will you go
[00:17:55] outside Mandi House, outside Doordarshan, and will there be
[00:17:59] a hearing there? No. The justice system in the Supreme Court
[00:18:03] will have to be followed by everyone.
[00:18:06] Their political and political... That is why
[00:18:10] I said that those who wave the Constitution, they
[00:18:13] should open and read the Constitution and understand
[00:18:16] its dignity. Similarly, the issue of SIR
[00:18:20] is being tried to be questioned. The issue of SIR, its
[00:18:24] constitutional legal validity has already been
[00:18:27] examined by the Supreme Court and it has been examined
[00:18:30] that its constitutionality has been continuously upheld, rather since the
[00:18:33] SIR started in Bihar, it has been happening continuously.
[00:18:37] Lalchand ji and in Bihar, out of 65
[00:18:40] lakh omissions, not even
[00:18:44] a single individual appeal has been filed. If
[00:18:47] someone's vote is cut, they will go
[00:18:50] and file an individual appeal themselves. When it was found that not
[00:18:54] a single individual appeal had been filed, some political parties filed
[00:18:58] a few selected 70-80 appeals, that too objecting
[00:19:01] to someone's name. But you should understand
[00:19:04] that when the SIR process omits 65
[00:19:08] lakh names, not a single appeal is filed,
[00:19:14] with which it is working. And that too when the Supreme Court had said,
[00:19:18] "Bring 15 names, we will cancel the entire SIR."
[00:19:21] It was found that many fake names were brought. That's why, look,
[00:19:25] I am saying that these omissions
[00:19:29] are all flawed entries. These are not names, and so far no names
[00:19:32] have been removed because this is a draft list. Everyone has the right.
[00:19:36] If someone feels their name has been wrongly cut,
[00:19:39] they can go and get it added. There are levels of appeal, and until
[00:19:43] the final list comes,
[00:19:46] the old list still holds. This is very clearly
[00:19:50] written in the Representation of People's Act.
[00:19:53] So, will our country run on such false propaganda,
[00:19:57] on the Constitution, on law,
[00:19:59] on truth, on arguments, on counter-arguments, or will it run on
[00:20:03] such fallacies and anyone says anything
[00:20:06] in the air?
[00:20:15] The way such a thing had never happened before,
[00:20:18] an attempt was made. After that, the Chief Justice
[00:20:22] wrote a letter and explained sufficiently
[00:20:25] why the request for a meeting was rejected.
[00:20:29] He explained in detail. After this,
[00:20:32] can we expect that at least no such other
[00:20:36] attempt will be made in the future, because of the way the Chief
[00:20:40] Justice explained everything and rejected
[00:20:42] the request for a meeting, will our leaders
[00:20:46] or political party workers not make any such request
[00:20:50] in the future? Somewhere, behind rejecting this request,
[00:20:53] the Chief Justice must have had this
[00:20:57] objective. Lalchand ji, you are absolutely
[00:21:01] right. Two things are very important. Look, this was an
[00:21:05] administrative
[00:21:07] function, the writing of the letter, not
[00:21:11] a judicial function. There was no judicial function in this,
[00:21:14] so there can be no appeal either. That's why I said this.
[00:21:18] First thing, second thing. Clearly stating the reasons,
[00:21:21] not just one reason, all things have been mentioned
[00:21:25] maturely in it, and after
[00:21:29] that, the letter has been sent. I think
[00:21:32] it is now impossible to approach
[00:21:36] again in any way, as you said.
[00:21:39] The answer given by the honorable
[00:21:43] CJI ji is absolutely not only mature
[00:21:47] but also self-explanatory. Recently,
[00:21:59] as we have seen, the tradition in this country has indeed been
[00:22:03] that especially after the Supreme Court gives a ruling,
[00:22:07] then political parties stop at that point, considering it
[00:22:11] the limit. Right.
[00:22:14] Nowadays, it is seen that some new organizations
[00:22:17] that have been formed
[00:22:20] go beyond that and target the judiciary
[00:22:23] as well, targeting the names of Supreme Court judges, the Chief
[00:22:27] Justice, including their names. Is it
[00:22:31] that some of our parties, some
[00:22:34] of our seasoned leaders,
[00:22:38] also started following the same path? That is why such
[00:22:41] an application was made for the first time, such a letter was written for the first
[00:22:45] time, saying, "Please give us time to meet, we want to present our views
[00:22:49] on this issue before you." Is it having some effect
[00:22:52] on some of our parties, some leaders, which is why the judiciary was approached
[00:22:56] in a way it had never
[00:22:57] been before?
[00:23:03] Please unmute your mic, sir.
[00:23:05] Yes,
[00:23:08] please speak, sir. You are absolutely right, Lalchandra ji.
[00:23:12] And this is a new
[00:23:15] tendency that has started to exert pressure on Supreme Court
[00:23:19] judges. A new tactic has begun
[00:23:22] that first you
[00:23:25] get a story published in a newspaper, then bring
[00:23:29] a political procession, then approach the court, and
[00:23:33] if things don't go in your favor in court, then
[00:23:37] you start to berate its credibility.
[00:23:40] You can criticize the judgment, but
[00:23:44] you start questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court itself.
[00:23:48] Fight elections.
[00:23:50] If you lose, then question the Election Commission that
[00:23:54] there is a problem here. I don't understand,
[00:23:58] Lalchandra ji, what the Leader of
[00:24:00] Opposition was asking a year ago,
[00:24:04] saying that there are errors in the voter list and they should be corrected. So today,
[00:24:07] how can votes be stolen? And
[00:24:11] vote theft, that is what happened, right? When, say, the list
[00:24:14] is being corrected, being cleaned, its sanctity is increasing,
[00:24:18] its accuracy is increasing,
[00:24:21] then that is welcome. That is true.
[00:24:25] Who can demand a faulty voter list?
[00:24:30] for a faulty voter list and say that we will contest elections with that? This is true, and the one
[00:24:34] who is saying it, Lalchandra ji,
[00:24:37] has a guilty conscience, so let him understand. Because why
[00:24:40] does he want to save fake names? If there are any wrong names
[00:24:44] in the list, and I also want
[00:24:47] to tell you that people are saying
[00:24:50] that 13 crore omissions have occurred. First of all, these 13 crore
[00:24:53] are not names that have been cut, these are flawed entries.
[00:24:57] Out of these, more than 4 crore people have died.
[00:25:00] Many people have changed their addresses.
[00:25:04] And the previous SIR, it happened
[00:25:06] in 2004, 22 years ago. And so far, all
[00:25:10] the SIRs that have happened were during opposition
[00:25:14] governments. Despite that, there is a provision, right, that if someone is genuinely a voter
[00:25:17] and they are currently on the list, and their name has been cut from
[00:25:21] the list, there are many provisions to get it added. This is a point that can be taken and no one's name has been cut yet.
[00:25:25] That's right. It's still a draft
[00:25:28] list, and anyone can go to appeal. So all this is
[00:25:32] false propaganda, but I am confident that politics
[00:25:36] will continue on this, politics will continue, but one thing is absolutely clear
[00:25:39] that the judiciary, the CJI, you should hold such
[00:25:43] programs so that public awareness increases and
[00:25:47] they know what the right message is.
[00:26:02] With this hope, as Sanjay Chaddha ji said, let's hope that
[00:26:06] this never happened before, and the way the CJI replied today,
[00:26:10] it never happens again because both have different
[00:26:13] rights, the judiciary and the executive. Thank you very
[00:26:17] much, Aman Sinha ji, Senior Advocate, and Sanjay Chaddha
[00:26:21] ji, Legal Expert. Thank you very much to both of you for joining this discussion. So,
[00:26:25] with this hope that the domains of the judiciary are different
[00:26:28] and those of the executive are different, both have different rights. Such
[00:26:32] things should not be dragged into politics in this way.
[00:26:35] That's all for today's discussion. Please allow the entire team. Namaste.
[00:26:53] When power comes into the hands of 11 Indians, India becomes
[00:26:57] the World Champion in the cricket field.
[00:27:01] Just imagine, when every Indian gets power, in how many other
[00:27:04] fields will India become the World Champion? That's why YONO gives
[00:27:08] power to every Indian. The all-new YONO, Power to Every
[00:27:11] Indian.
[00:27:15] My choice, my
[00:27:17] choice.
[00:27:20] My choice, my
[00:27:22] choice. Our
[00:27:26] choice.
[00:27:28] Everyone's choice. Strong country's strong rebar is
[00:27:31] steel.
[00:28:02] Monday to Friday, afternoon 2:30 PM, only
[00:28:06] on DD News. Here,
[00:28:09] the examination is not done with words, but with arguments.
[00:28:11] Here,
[00:28:13] it's not chaos, but an investigation of facts.
[00:28:16] Here, it's not just news,
[00:28:19] but evidence is given.
[00:28:23] Know everything that
[00:28:26] you. This is the complete truth because
[00:28:29] there is no news bigger than the truth.
[00:29:02] This is around you, know how it
[00:29:06] hides behind every why, it will give your scientific
[00:29:09] thinking a new spark, which will open
[00:29:12] the door to a new world. That is Science Spark.
[00:29:49] Hello and welcome to DD News. I am Gaurav Srivastava with you, and you are watching our
[00:29:53] special program, Khabar Duniya Ki. In today's episode of Khabar Duniya Ki, we will talk about
[00:29:56] Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia amid tensions in West Asia.
[00:30:00] We will also talk about
[00:30:32] the last battle of Houthis to capture the city of Taiz in Yemen.
[00:30:36] The humanitarian crisis deepened due to the strict siege of the city
[00:30:40] Medical equipment and fuel are on the verge of running out. The ground forces claim to have killed about
[00:30:44] 60 fighters.
[00:30:46] दावा
[00:30:50] Ukrainian President Zelensky claims that Russia bombed energy facilities immediately after Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire.
[00:30:54] के तुरंत बाद रूस ने ऊर्जा ठिकानों पर बरसाए बम ट्रंप
[00:30:58] Trump claims both sides have agreed.