Madras High Court seeks affidavit on DVAC funding for CCTV upgrade
The court asked the human resources management department secretary to explain why funds have not been allotted to the DVAC to comply with Supreme Court orders in the Paramveer Singh Saini case.
The Madras High Court has directed the secretary of the human resources management department to file an affidavit explaining why funds are not being allotted to the DVAC to comply with Supreme Court orders in the Paramveer Singh Saini case, according to The New Indian Express.
The report was published on September 11, 2026. The court's direction concerns funding for upgrading a CCTV system.
No further details on the court's proceedings or the government's response were available in the report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 03:32current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.