NEW DELHI: Both houses of Indian parliament were suspended temporarily on Thursday within minutes of opening as opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings for the third day this week seeking a discussion on allegations against the Adani Group.

US authorities have accused Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar Adani and managing director of Adani Green, Vneet S. Jaain, of being part of a scheme to pay bribes of $265 million to secure Indian solar power supply contracts, and misleading US investors during fund raises there.

“We want a discussion on this in parliament. It is going to be the third day that we are demanding a reply from the prime minister” on the Adani issue, Manickam Tagore, a lawmaker from the main opposition Congress party, which has been leading the protests against the business group, told news agency ANI.

Many of India’s opposition parties accuse Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of favoring Adani and blocking investigations against him in India, accusations both have denied.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who has been a vocal critic of Adani, said Gautam Adani, 62, should be arrested.

While the government has not made any comment on the indictment, Modi’s BJP has said it had no reason to defend Adani, adding that the party was not against industrialists and considered them partners in nation-building efforts.

“Let him defend himself,” BJP spokesperson Gopal Krishna Agarwal said on Tuesday, adding that the law would take its course.

MELBOURNE: The Australian Senate was debating a ban on children younger than 16 years old from social media Thursday after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported the age restriction.
The bill that would make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent young children from holding accounts.
It is likely to be passed by the Senate on Thursday, the Parliament’s final session for the year and potentially the last before elections, which are due within months.
The major parties’ support for the ban all but guarantees the legislation will become law. But many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about unintended consequences.
Unaligned Sen. Jacqui Lambie complained about the limited amount of time the government gave the Senate to debate the age restriction, which she described as “undercooked.”
“I thought this was a good idea. A lot of people out there thought it was a good idea until we looked at the detail and, let’s be honest, there’s no detail,” Lambie told the Senate.
Opposition Sen. Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical but necessary.
“The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.
“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.
Sen. David Shoebridge, from the minor Greens party, said mental health experts agreed that the ban could dangerously isolate many children who used social media to find support.
“This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly carried the bill 102 votes to 13.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland urged senators to pass the bill which she said reflected the Australian community’s view.
“The ... government is on the side of supporting parents and protecting young people,” Rowland told the House.
Once the legislation becomes law, the platforms would have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced.
The platforms complained that the law would be unworkable, and urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June next year when a government-commissioned evaluation of age assurance technologies made its report on how young children could be excluded.
Critics argue the government is attempting to convince parents it is protecting their children ahead of general elections due by May. The government hopes that voters will reward it for responding to parents’ concerns about their children’s addiction to social media. Some argue the legislation could cause more harm than it prevents.
Criticisms include that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines parental authority to make decisions for their children.
Opponents of the bill also argue the ban would isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children too young for social media to report harm and reduce incentives for platforms to improve online safety.