Police atrocity evoked mixed response today. The shops and markets remained closed in the state and vehicles were off the roads except in Gandacherra sub-division of Dhalai district. Many offices and banks were open but the attendance was thin.

Many picketers were arrested from different parts of the state but released after wards, police said. Opposition leader Sudip Roy Burman had announced a state wide bandh today against the clash between police and Congress activists during the civil disobedience launched by the party to protest against the rampant corruption by cadres of the ruling CPI-M and demanded resignation of Chief Minister Manik Sarkar.

BEIJING — “Stick out your tongue. Now give me your wrist.”

That’s how “Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)” practitioners begin to diagnose what ails you. It’s often followed by a prescription of foul-tasting herbs, to be taken daily, along with exhortations to consume or avoid certain “hot” or “cold” foods.

But after more than 2,000 years of practice, the question remains: Is there scientific evidence that traditional Chinese medicine actually works? A doctor at one of Beijing’s top hospitals is challenging these time-honored methods with a modern proposal: cash prizes for proof.

Dr. Ning Fanggang is offering 100,000 renminbi ($16,300) to anyone who resolves the common claim that traditional practitioners can tell if a woman is pregnant just by taking her pulse. “If [someone is] successful, I will never state that Traditional Chinese Medicine is a fake science,” Ning promised. The 38-year-old is chief surgeon at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, which specializes in burn victims, and is also one of the best-known doctors on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter.

His challenge calls for readings of 80-percent accuracy, using the pulse method alone. Critics complain that isolating the wrist from the rest of the system undermines the validity of a diagnosis, and thus the challenge.

So far, only one person has taken Ning up — but he appears to be backing out.

Another doctor from Chengdu, Lu Jilai, author of the “Chinese Encyclopedia of Losing Weight and Body Building” and “Traditional Medicine Trinity Theories,” boasted that he could even

Twelve days before his retirement, Central Bureau of Investigation Director Ranjit Sinha on Thursday suffered a major blow when the Supreme Court removed him from the 2G scam case, saying the allegations against him of protecting some accused appears to be “prima facie credible”.

The Apex court, in an unprecedented order, handed over the case to the senior-most officer after Sinha in the 2G scam investigating team.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu, however, refused to pass an elaborate order on the issue saying that it would “tarnish” the “image and reputation” of the premier agency.

The fate of the top cop, who is due to retire on December 2, in the case became abundantly clear when the bench, also comprising justices M B Lokur and A K Sikri, before rising for the lunch break, asked senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Sinha, about various options.

The court said it did not want to pass an elaborate order, because it would be against the interest and image of the agency.

“Prima facie the allegations made in the application (by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation) are credible and required to be accepted,” the bench observed.

However, his counsel insisted that the allegations levelled against Sinha of scuttling the 2G probe were “untrue”.

The CBI chief’s role was criticised by the Apex court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover and counsel appearing for CBI, K K Venugopal, also raised questions on Sinha naming a senior IPS officer as mole in the team.

The Apex court also recalled its earlier order by which it directed the NGO to disclose the name of whistleblower who had provided documents and visitors diary of Sinha’s residence.

At the outset, the Special Public Prosecutor raised serious questions on the conduct of the top cop and contended that the whole case against some of the accused would have been “demolished” if Sinha’s instructions had been followed in the trial.

Grover said that stand taken by Sinha was “completely inconsistent” with the agency’s stand and said he tried to interfere at the last stage of the trial when the prosecution evidence was almost over.

He said that information that he gathered, after going through all file notings, is “shocking” and cannot be revealed in an open court.

The independent prosecutor also raised questions on the opinion of Law Ministry to allegedly favour some of the firms facing trial in 2G case.

“It is a sad story how ministry works. An official deposed saying that it was done on the basis of file notings of the minister but the question is who was the person behind the minister? It is shocking,” he said.

At this stage of proceedings, the hearing took a new turn with advocate Prashant Bhushan alleging that CBI counsel in 2G case K K Venugopal was directed by Sinha not to argue in this case.

The bench then queried who had given such direction.

CBI joint Director Ashok Tiwari, who was present in the court room, said that Venugopal continues to be the CBI counsel in the Apex court and also tried to shield his chief in the present controversy.

The court took strong exception to Tiwari trying to defend his boss and also raised question on the presence of around nine senior officers of CBI inside the court room.

“You are not agents of the Director and you cannot be his mouthpiece. You do not need to take responsibility. How is your presence required here,” the bench questioned.

“Why are so many CBI officers here? How come so many officers are sitting in the court room? We do not require their presence. We are not hearing 2G investigation case. We are hearing an application filed against the Director,” it said.

The bench asked the officers to leave the courtroom and “do their duty rather than observing court proceedings”.

The officers thereafter left the courtroom.

Venugopal then brought to court’s notice media reports on Singh naming a DIG-rank officer Santosh Rastogi as a “mole” who supplied documents and guest list of Director’s residence to Bhushan.

The CBI through Venugopal criticised Sinha’s stand and urged the court to ask him to withdraw the statement.

“Yesterday’s statement was not right that the officer is a mole in the CBI. If there is any evidence then it must be produced. The statement must be withdrawn as the officer needs protection,” he said.

Bhushan also submitted that he never met the officer and somebody else had given him the documents and filed an affidavit in this regard which was taken on record.

The bench also raised objection that image of the officer cannot be allowed to be tarnished and said that it was wrong on the part of Sinha’s counsel to name the officer while arguing the case.

Going by file notings on transfer of the officer, the bench said, “It seems that you want to clear the path as the officer was opposing some of your decisions”.

The bench said the decision taken by the Director to transfer the officer amounts to “overreaching” the Apex court order which had directed that no person in 2G probe team be removed without its order.

It said that “all is not well” and “some allegations against him (Sinha) appeared to be prima facie credible and asked Singh about the options available in the case as it did not want to pass an elaborate order with reasons which would have the potential to tarnish the image and reputation of the premier institution.

Vikas Singh, however, preferred to continue with his arguments saying that statements made by SPP and others against the Director were patently false and baseless.

He said that Director’s decision may not be the best but there was no malafide and dishonest intention behind the decision.

The bench, however, brushed aside the contention saying, “For every thing there is justification but the justification should appeal to us”.

At the end of the four-hour long proceedings, the bench passed a brief order directing Sinha to keep himself away from the 2G case and “not to interfere in the investigation and trial of the 2G cases and recuse himself from them”.

“To protect the faith in the institution and reputation of Director, CBI, we are not focusing on elaborate reasons and it is suffice to say information furnished by applicants prima facie appears to be credible and therefore required to be accepted,” the bench said.

Salman Khan’s sister Arpita Khan and Aayush Sharma’s wedding preparations have been making headlines recently. And now they are finally married. They have taken their vows and exchanged garlands in a typical Hindu Punjabi ritual.

Arpita Khan and Aayush Sharma got married at the Falaknuma Palace in Hyderabad last night, November 18. Few pictures of the bride and groom have been tweeted from the venue. Arpita can be seen dressed in a heavily embroidered red lehenga and Aayush in white sherwani and sehra. Arpita has dressed up completely like a Hindu Punjabi bride. She had worn choodas and kale’s, a typical Punjabi bride.

Salman Khan and his family were dressed in black and had sported a golden pagdi. The baraat was received by Salman’s father Salim Khan, mother Salma and brothers Sohail and Arbaaz. A jaimala and pheras also took place.

The celebrations, which kicked off with the ‘baraat’ at 4.30 p.m., continued till late in the night at the heritage hotel located in the old city area.

Aamir Khan, Katrina Kaif and Karan Johar were among top stars from Bollywood who attended the marriage. It was not clear as to which other leading stars attended the wedding as the security was very tight.

Ahead of the wedding, Arpita’s sisters-in-law Malaika Arora Khan and Seema Khan, close friend and Malaika’s sister Amrita Arora, and family friend Deanne Panday were photographed in their wedding outfits.

Aayush and Arpita’s reception is expected to take place in Mumbai on November 21.