Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi has permitted the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice SN Shukla of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Former Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra had ordered a preliminary inquiry against Justice Shukla after receiving a complaint from UP Advocate General, Raghvendra Singh, who had accused the judge of serious judicial misconduct.

Later, an in-house panel was constituted by the then CJI comprising three High Court Chief Justices to inquire into the allegations.

The panel had found Justice Shukla guilty of giving favours to a private medical college by extending deadline for MBBS admission of students.&nbsp;

The order by Justice Shukla violated a Supreme Court order.

Justice Shukla was reportedly also asked to resign or take voluntary retirement by the former Chief Justice Dipak Misra. However, Shukla declined following which judicial work was withdrawn from him in 2018.

The CBI had written to the Chief Justice Gogoi seeking permission to investigate Justice Shukla in the case. It may be noted that a case cannot be filed against a sitting judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi has permitted the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice SN Shukla of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi has permitted the CBI to lodge an FIR against Justice SN Shukla of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). Former Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra had ordered a preliminary inquiry against Justice Shukla after receiving a complaint from UP Advocate General, Raghvendra Singh, who had accused the judge of serious judicial misconduct. Later, an in-house panel was constituted by the then CJI comprising three High Court Chief Justices to inquire into the allegations. The panel had found Justice Shukla guilty of giving favours to a private medical college by extending deadline for MBBS admission of students. The order by Justice Shukla violated a Supreme Court order. Justice Shukla was reportedly also asked to resign or take voluntary retirement by the former Chief Justice Dipak Misra. However, Shukla declined following which judicial work was withdrawn from him in 2018. The CBI had written to the Chief Justice Gogoi seeking permission to investigate Justice Shukla in the case. It may be noted that a case cannot be filed against a sitting judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India.

Chief Justice of India allows CBI to file FIR against Justice Shukla of Allahabad HC under Prevention of Corruption Act

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-supreme-court-bench-to-hear-ayodhya-title-suit-on-january-10-188180">reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench</a> including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;

The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench.

The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;The court will hear the case on January 29th.

The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages.&nbsp;

The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years.&nbsp;

The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board.&nbsp;

The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case.

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench. The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The court will hear the case on January 29th. The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages. The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years. The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.

CJI Gogoi reconstitutes Ayodhya bench; two judges added

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whenever-ram-temple-is-built-in-ayodhya-it-will-be-by-us-yogi-adityanath-186043">Ram Temple at Ayodhya</a> if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

"The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav.

The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ljp-makes-public-its-unease-with-bjp-over-ram-temple-185367">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case</a> along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter.

The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench".

"We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here.&nbsp;

Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims.

In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling.

The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday. "The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav. The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter. The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench". "We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here. Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims. In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling. The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

Open for 'other options' if SC doesn't fast track Ram temple case: Ram Madhav

Kafeel Khan, who was booked in connection with the death of infants at a state-run hospital here last year, walked out of jail on Saturday.

Khan, who worked as a nodal officer at the Baba Raghav Das Medical College, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday.

His wife Shabistan Khan, daughter and other family members welcomed him.

"Kafeel Khan was freed from jail this evening. Although he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on April 25, the delay was due to some other procedures," jail superintendent Ramdhani said.

Various organisations, including members of 'Adhikar Morcha' wearing saffron scarves, came in support of Khan. They also carried banners and posters with 'Dr Kafeel hamara hero' (Dr Kafeel is our hero) and 'congratulations' written on them.

After coming out of jail, Kafeel hugged his wife and daughter and said, "The honourable high court has clearly said that there is no evidence against me. You know what my family went through in the last eight months. I do not know what my fault is".

In the letter, the former nodal officer at BRD hospital mentioned that payment to oxygen supplier at the hospital was not made because the fund for the same was not released.

More than 60 children, mostly infants, had died at the hospital within a week in August 2017. There were allegations that the deaths occurred due to disruption in oxygen supply. The BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government, however, had denied that shortage of oxygen led to the deaths.

In its report submitted on August 23, 2017, a committee under Chief Secretary Rajive Kumar had recommended initiating criminal action against the principal of the hospital Rajiv Mishra, HoD Anaesthesia Paediatric department Satish, in-charge of 100-bed AES ward Kafeel Khan and Pushpa Sales.

On August 24, an FIR was filed against nine persons, including Mishra, his wife Purnima Shukla, Kafeel Khan and the proprietors of M/s Pushpa Sales.

On September 2 last, Khan was arrested and subsequently removed from his post in the hospital.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There were times, when I used to think that what wrong have I done to be in jail. My future plans depend on CM Yogi, if he revokes my suspension I'll join the hospital again & continue serving people: Dr. Kafeel Khan on returning home after getting bail <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Gorakhpur?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Gorakhpur</a> <a href="https://t.co/cZmIeiBd0c">pic.twitter.com/cZmIeiBd0c</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/990292551134572544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Khan was a nodal officer at the BRD Medical College where over 60 children died within a week of each other last year. He was released from jail on Saturday

Kafeel Khan, who was booked in connection with the death of infants at a state-run hospital here last year, walked out of jail on Saturday. Khan, who worked as a nodal officer at the Baba Raghav Das Medical College, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday. His wife Shabistan Khan, daughter and other family members welcomed him. "Kafeel Khan was freed from jail this evening. Although he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on April 25, the delay was due to some other procedures," jail superintendent Ramdhani said. Various organisations, including members of 'Adhikar Morcha' wearing saffron scarves, came in support of Khan. They also carried banners and posters with 'Dr Kafeel hamara hero' (Dr Kafeel is our hero) and 'congratulations' written on them. After coming out of jail, Kafeel hugged his wife and daughter and said, "The honourable high court has clearly said that there is no evidence against me. You know what my family went through in the last eight months. I do not know what my fault is". In the letter, the former nodal officer at BRD hospital mentioned that payment to oxygen supplier at the hospital was not made because the fund for the same was not released. More than 60 children, mostly infants, had died at the hospital within a week in August 2017. There were allegations that the deaths occurred due to disruption in oxygen supply. The BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government, however, had denied that shortage of oxygen led to the deaths. In its report submitted on August 23, 2017, a committee under Chief Secretary Rajive Kumar had recommended initiating criminal action against the principal of the hospital Rajiv Mishra, HoD Anaesthesia Paediatric department Satish, in-charge of 100-bed AES ward Kafeel Khan and Pushpa Sales. On August 24, an FIR was filed against nine persons, including Mishra, his wife Purnima Shukla, Kafeel Khan and the proprietors of M/s Pushpa Sales. On September 2 last, Khan was arrested and subsequently removed from his post in the hospital. There were times, when I used to think that what wrong have I done to be in jail. My future plans depend on CM Yogi, if he revokes my suspension I'll join the hospital again & continue serving people: Dr. Kafeel Khan on returning home after getting bail #Gorakhpur pic.twitter.com/cZmIeiBd0c — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) April 28, 2018 ×

If CM Yogi revokes my suspension, I will go back to hospital: Dr Kafeel Khan

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15.&nbsp

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a 'property dispute' and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it. Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench. Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench. The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/arrest-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar-allahabad-high-court-directs-cbi-130239">Arrest MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Allahabad High Court directs CBI</a>

The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the CBI to arrest BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, accused in the Unnao rape case.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/cwg-2018-pooja-dhanda-bags-silver-in-womens-wrestling--130237">CWG 2018: Pooja Dhanda bags silver in women's wrestling</a>

Wrestler Pooja Dhanda bagged silver medal in the women's 57-kilogram wrestling at the 21st Commonwealth Games 2018 on Friday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/third-front-is-coming-together-of-indias-masses-telangana-cm-kcr-130258">Third</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/third-front-is-coming-together-of-indias-masses-telangana-cm-kcr-130258"> front is coming together of India's masses: Telangana CM KCR</a>

Third front isn't a silly political front, it'll be coming together of India's masses, said Telangana &nbspChief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao after meeting former prime minister and Jananta Dal (Secular) chief HD Deve Gowda.&nbsp

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/cwg-2018-india-lose-3-2-to-new-zealand-in-mens-hockey-will-play-for-bronze-130256">CWG 2018: India lose 3-2 to New Zealand in Men's Hockey, will play for bronze</a>

The Indian men’s hockey team on Friday were convincingly beaten by New Zealand in the semi-final at the Commonwealth Games in Gold Coast.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pak-supreme-court-verdict-disqualifying-nawaz-sharif-a-joke-says-his-party-130229">Pak Supreme Court verdict disqualifying Nawaz Sharif a joke, says his party</a>

Nawaz Sharif's party has called the Supreme Court verdict against the former Pakistan Prime Minister a "joke". The Pakistan Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, disqualified Sharif from holding office for life while hearing a case related to determination of time duration for disqualification of a lawmaker under the Constitution. Sharif, facing corruption charges, was disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution.

&nbsp

Arrest MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Allahabad High Court directs CBI The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the CBI to arrest BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, accused in the Unnao rape case. CWG 2018: Pooja Dhanda bags silver in women's wrestling Wrestler Pooja Dhanda bagged silver medal in the women's 57-kilogram wrestling at the 21st Commonwealth Games 2018 on Friday. Third front is coming together of India's masses: Telangana CM KCR Third front isn't a silly political front, it'll be coming together of India's masses, said Telangana &nbspChief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao after meeting former prime minister and Jananta Dal (Secular) chief HD Deve Gowda. CWG 2018: India lose 3-2 to New Zealand in Men's Hockey, will play for bronze The Indian men’s hockey team on Friday were convincingly beaten by New Zealand in the semi-final at the Commonwealth Games in Gold Coast. Pak Supreme Court verdict disqualifying Nawaz Sharif a joke, says his party Nawaz Sharif's party has called the Supreme Court verdict against the former Pakistan Prime Minister a "joke". The Pakistan Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, disqualified Sharif from holding office for life while hearing a case related to determination of time duration for disqualification of a lawmaker under the Constitution. Sharif, facing corruption charges, was disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the CBI to arrest BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, accused in the Unnao rape case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DB Bhosale and Justice Suneet Kumar gave the direction to the agency after the counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government informed it that Sengar has been detained for interrogation and not arrested yet.

The court directed the CBI to carry out investigation strictly in accordance with law and to consider filing an application for cancellation of bail granted to other accused in the case.

It also directed the CBI to file the status report by May 2.

The bench passed the order on a letter written by senior advocate Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi demanding a court-monitored investigation of the incident and treated it as a PIL.

Yesterday, the court had asked the Advocate General whether the state government proposes to arrest Sengar.

Advocate General Raghvendra Singh had replied that he was not in a position to make any statement in this regard and police will proceed in accordance with the law only after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses.

The CBI registered three separate cases in connection with the alleged rape and detained Sengar for questioning in the early hours today.

The cases pertain to the alleged rape, killing of the girl's father and a case of arms act which was slapped on her father in which he was arrested by local police.

He had subsequently died in judicial custody and the autopsy report showed serious injuries on his body.

The court directed the CBI to carry out investigation strictly in accordance with law and to consider filing an application for cancellation of bail granted to other accused in the case.

The Allahabad High Court on Friday directed the CBI to arrest BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, accused in the Unnao rape case. A bench comprising Chief Justice DB Bhosale and Justice Suneet Kumar gave the direction to the agency after the counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government informed it that Sengar has been detained for interrogation and not arrested yet. The court directed the CBI to carry out investigation strictly in accordance with law and to consider filing an application for cancellation of bail granted to other accused in the case. It also directed the CBI to file the status report by May 2. The bench passed the order on a letter written by senior advocate Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi demanding a court-monitored investigation of the incident and treated it as a PIL. Yesterday, the court had asked the Advocate General whether the state government proposes to arrest Sengar. Advocate General Raghvendra Singh had replied that he was not in a position to make any statement in this regard and police will proceed in accordance with the law only after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses. The CBI registered three separate cases in connection with the alleged rape and detained Sengar for questioning in the early hours today. The cases pertain to the alleged rape, killing of the girl's father and a case of arms act which was slapped on her father in which he was arrested by local police. He had subsequently died in judicial custody and the autopsy report showed serious injuries on his body.

Arrest MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Allahabad High Court directs CBI

Amid mounting outrage over the alleged gangrape of a minor girl over a year ago, the Allahabad High Court today castigated the UP government for delay in arrest of the accused BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar despite an FIR against him, warning it may be forced to observe that "law and order has collapsed in the state".

The FIR itself came days after the Unnao girl tried to self-immolate in front of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's house on Sunday accusing authorities of inaction, and death of her father in custody the next day allegedly after being beaten up by the politician's brother and their henchmen in front of policemen.

As the public outcry raged amid growing demands by political parties and civil society for the legislator's arrest, protests were also held outside Adityanath's house while the police put the onus on the CBI to arrest the MLA, who has remained defiant and has dubbed allegations as a political conspiracy.

The FIR was registered against Sengar under various sections of the IPC, including for rape, kidnapping and criminal intimidation as well as under provisions of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Under POCSO, an accused has to be arrested immediately.

The case was registered hours before the high court was to hear the matter, and so was the UP government's decision on transferring the case to the CBI late last night.

"Police is not ready to register FIR of a minor rape victim. In spite of SIT report, you are repeating that we can only take any action after further investigation, if this is the conduct of the police in state, whom a victim will approach to register a complaint. If this is the stand you repeatedly taking then we will be forced to observe in our order that law and order has collapsed in the state," the court said.

The court, which is expected to pass order tomorrow, took strong objection to the delay in the MLA's arrest as it sought details of the action taken by the government in the matter.

The court was told by the Advocate General that three of the accused in the case were arrested including the MLA's brother but any further action would depend on statements of the complainant and witnesses.

Observing that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report showed that the medical officers and police officers were hand in glove with the accused to save them, the court said since these officers have been arrested already why further investigation was needed to arrest the main accused.

Senior Advocate G S Chaturvedi, who had moved the court, said the SIT headed by senior police officers conducted preliminary investigation and then filed a report after which the FIR was registered.

When asked when Sengar would be arrested, Principal Secretary (Home) Arvind Kumar told reporters here that the CBI would take a decision on this.

State Director General of Police O P Singh said the minor had not named the MLA before the magistrate earlier as she feared for her life. The government has decided to extend security to the family of the 17-year-old girl, he added.

Kumar dismissed allegations that police was trying to shield the MLA.

Strong reactions came from opposition parties, who demanded immediate arrest of the MLA with senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his silence over the Unnao rape case.

Sibal also alleged that Modi was "not serious" about the crimes against women across the country, in an apparent reference to another rape case in Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir, where the BJP is in the ruling alliance with the PDP.

Several Union ministers including Mahesh Sharma, Piyush Goyal and Maneka Gandhi, however, sought to defend the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, saying it is committed to protecting women, and ensuring that law takes its course.

Two doctors have been suspended and disciplinary proceedings initiated against three others for laxity in providing the victim's father with proper medical care and treatment prior to his judicial custody and at the district hospital, officials said.

Kumar said the government decided to transfer the case to the CBI after lodging the case into the incidents of June 4, 2017, (alleged rape) and since the two other cases of April 3 this year (cross FIRs on the beating up of the victim's father leading to his death) are connected, they will also be transferred to the CBI.

The teen rape survivor demanded immediate arrest of the MLA, saying the CBI probe could be conducted later.

"Why is he being shielded? If the MLA is allowed to remain out he will not leave my uncle... He had earlier too hatched conspiracies against my kin," she said. PTI

An FIR was finally filed against Unnao MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar on Thursday but police have refused to arrest him, saying the CBI will do it

Amid mounting outrage over the alleged gangrape of a minor girl over a year ago, the Allahabad High Court today castigated the UP government for delay in arrest of the accused BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar despite an FIR against him, warning it may be forced to observe that "law and order has collapsed in the state". The FIR itself came days after the Unnao girl tried to self-immolate in front of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's house on Sunday accusing authorities of inaction, and death of her father in custody the next day allegedly after being beaten up by the politician's brother and their henchmen in front of policemen. As the public outcry raged amid growing demands by political parties and civil society for the legislator's arrest, protests were also held outside Adityanath's house while the police put the onus on the CBI to arrest the MLA, who has remained defiant and has dubbed allegations as a political conspiracy. The FIR was registered against Sengar under various sections of the IPC, including for rape, kidnapping and criminal intimidation as well as under provisions of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Under POCSO, an accused has to be arrested immediately. The case was registered hours before the high court was to hear the matter, and so was the UP government's decision on transferring the case to the CBI late last night. "Police is not ready to register FIR of a minor rape victim. In spite of SIT report, you are repeating that we can only take any action after further investigation, if this is the conduct of the police in state, whom a victim will approach to register a complaint. If this is the stand you repeatedly taking then we will be forced to observe in our order that law and order has collapsed in the state," the court said. The court, which is expected to pass order tomorrow, took strong objection to the delay in the MLA's arrest as it sought details of the action taken by the government in the matter. The court was told by the Advocate General that three of the accused in the case were arrested including the MLA's brother but any further action would depend on statements of the complainant and witnesses. Observing that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report showed that the medical officers and police officers were hand in glove with the accused to save them, the court said since these officers have been arrested already why further investigation was needed to arrest the main accused. Senior Advocate G S Chaturvedi, who had moved the court, said the SIT headed by senior police officers conducted preliminary investigation and then filed a report after which the FIR was registered. When asked when Sengar would be arrested, Principal Secretary (Home) Arvind Kumar told reporters here that the CBI would take a decision on this. State Director General of Police O P Singh said the minor had not named the MLA before the magistrate earlier as she feared for her life. The government has decided to extend security to the family of the 17-year-old girl, he added. Kumar dismissed allegations that police was trying to shield the MLA. Strong reactions came from opposition parties, who demanded immediate arrest of the MLA with senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his silence over the Unnao rape case. Sibal also alleged that Modi was "not serious" about the crimes against women across the country, in an apparent reference to another rape case in Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir, where the BJP is in the ruling alliance with the PDP. Several Union ministers including Mahesh Sharma, Piyush Goyal and Maneka Gandhi, however, sought to defend the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, saying it is committed to protecting women, and ensuring that law takes its course. Two doctors have been suspended and disciplinary proceedings initiated against three others for laxity in providing the victim's father with proper medical care and treatment prior to his judicial custody and at the district hospital, officials said. Kumar said the government decided to transfer the case to the CBI after lodging the case into the incidents of June 4, 2017, (alleged rape) and since the two other cases of April 3 this year (cross FIRs on the beating up of the victim's father leading to his death) are connected, they will also be transferred to the CBI. The teen rape survivor demanded immediate arrest of the MLA, saying the CBI probe could be conducted later. "Why is he being shielded? If the MLA is allowed to remain out he will not leave my uncle... He had earlier too hatched conspiracies against my kin," she said. PTI

Unnao gang rape case: High court slams UP govt over delay in accused MLA's arrest

The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushi-talwar-murder-case-rajesh-nupur-talwar-acquitted-22340" target="_blank">acquittal of Dr&nbsp;Rajesh and Nupur Talwar</a>&nbsp;in the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
CBI moves Supreme Court challenging Talwars&#39; acquittal in Aarushi Talwar murder case. <a href="https://t.co/E2vpq8X9vV">pic.twitter.com/E2vpq8X9vV</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/971757931468394496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

On October 12,&nbsp;2017, the Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court&#39;s conviction and acquitted the couple&nbsp;of the murder of their daughter.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6v9jaIoDC3M" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The court had said it was giving the &quot;benefit of doubt&quot; to the couple.

In December 2017, Hemraj&#39;s wife had also moved&nbsp;the Supreme Court challenging&nbsp;the acquittal&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushi-hemraj-double-murder-hemrajs-wife-challenges-talwars-acquittal-in-supreme-court-26859" target="_blank">Aarushi-Hemraj double murder: Hemraj&#39;s wife challenges Talwars&#39; acquittal in Supreme Court</a>

The Talwars had filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court challenging the CBI court order which had convicted them of the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room at the Talwars&#39; Noida, Uttar Pradesh home with her throat slit on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008.&nbsp;

Hemraj was initially suspected of the murder after he was thought to be missing but his body was found on the terrace of the Talwar home a day&nbsp;later.

Aarushi&#39;s father Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after his daughter&#39;s murder by the Uttar Pradesh police on May 23, 2008.&nbsp;

The case was later taken over by the CBI.&nbsp;

In 2009, the CBI had handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation.

It named Rajesh Talwar as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of a lack of evidence.The court however refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court's conviction and acquitted the couple of the murder of their daughter on October 12

The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the acquittal of Dr Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar. CBI moves Supreme Court challenging Talwars' acquittal in Aarushi Talwar murder case. pic.twitter.com/E2vpq8X9vV — ANI (@ANI) March 8, 2018 × On October 12, 2017, the Allahabad High Court had set aside a CBI court's conviction and acquitted the couple of the murder of their daughter. × The court had said it was giving the "benefit of doubt" to the couple. In December 2017, Hemraj's wife had also moved the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal Aarushi-Hemraj double murder: Hemraj's wife challenges Talwars' acquittal in Supreme Court The Talwars had filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court challenging the CBI court order which had convicted them of the murder of their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj. Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room at the Talwars' Noida, Uttar Pradesh home with her throat slit on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008. Hemraj was initially suspected of the murder after he was thought to be missing but his body was found on the terrace of the Talwar home a day later. Aarushi's father Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after his daughter's murder by the Uttar Pradesh police on May 23, 2008. The case was later taken over by the CBI. In 2009, the CBI had handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation. It named Rajesh Talwar as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of a lack of evidence.The court however refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

Aarushi Talwar murder case: CBI challenges parents' acquittal in Supreme Court

The other day, a former senior bureaucrat attached to the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, told a news channel that Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had informed the Chief Minister about archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood. This was roughly a fortnight before the disputed structure was demolished. The bureaucrat was referring to the findings of an archaeological exercise conducted just months before. A more detailed excavation was done in 2003 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Allahabad High Court&rsquo;s instructions.

Interestingly, both of these explorations had dug out evidence of a Hindu structure that once existed. The findings had set off a furious debate between the pro-temple organisations on the one hand and the pro-mosque lobby consisting of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and Left-liberal historians on the other. Now, given that the Supreme Court has said that it would hear the matter as a title deed case and not delve into the faith aspect, the archaeological material could play a crucial role.

Indeed, even the Allahabad High Court, while going into matters of faith, had relied heavily on the ASI&rsquo;s 2003 findings. &nbsp;The High Court&rsquo;s order was subsequently stayed by the apex court, but the archaeological findings haven&rsquo;t gone anywhere. The fire may now be re-ignited.

The pro-mosque lobby has consistently questioned the credibility of the ASI&rsquo;s findings. The fact is that the ASI did the excavations in 2003 under the supervision of the court. The court had appointed a panel including two junior judges and three archaeologists to maintain a close vigil on the excavation. And yet, the findings were discredited merely because they indicated the existence of a Hindu structure. It must be remembered that the 2003 excavation was more elaborate than the one in the early 1990s because it was done post-demolition.

Many findings were noted, and the most significant one was that well before the mosque came to be constructed, there had been large-scale structures of non-residential type (religious in nature) right up to the present level of the disputed site. Some 50 pillar bases were excavated; walls were discovered; a circular shrine with a water chute towards the north, that is meant to drain out water after offering to the deity, was found. The High Court had asked the ASI to excavate to determine &ldquo;whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished and the mosque constructed on the disputed site&rdquo;. Left historians, perhaps, already apprehensive that the 1992 findings would be reinforced, strenuously objected on the ground that the court seemed to be giving &ldquo;tacit judicial recognition&rdquo; to the belief that a monument could be destroyed on grounds of its having been built over another religious structure.

As more and more material emerged through the excavations that pointed to the pre-existence of a temple &mdash; or at the very least a Hindu structure, Left historians and the pro-mosque lobby stepped up their opposition. What then was witnessed was a sequence of desperate arguments. They had to respond somehow after the ASI report concluded that the findings were &ldquo;indicative (of) remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India&rdquo;. In short, the mosque had not been constructed on vacant land and that the remains found belonged to Hindu structures.

The dilemma before the pro-mosque organisations was: What was now to be done in the face of such evidence gathered through an exercise closely supervised by the High Court? One Left historian, Irfan Habib, was quick off the mark. Even before the ASI had submitted its final report to the court, he alleged that the ASI appeared to be bent on &ldquo;finding what those in powers wish it to find &mdash; the remains of a temple&rdquo;. He then went on to make a bizarre claim: That another mosque had immediately existed where the Babri structure later came up. Undaunted by the outlandish claims, he suggested that the pillar bases and bricks (which were evidence of a Hindu structure) were &ldquo;easy to assemble&rdquo; and that the bricks could have been &ldquo;arranged by the ASI excavators to provide evidence&rdquo;. Having already made up his mind, it wasn&rsquo;t surprising that Habib dismissed the final report as an &ldquo;unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, one-sided presentations of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences&rdquo;.

There were other Left historians too who endorsed Habib&rsquo;s outrage. But the High Court did not share their prejudices, also because the excavations had been done under its supervision and there had been no reason for any objective evaluator to doubt the exercise&rsquo;s credibility.

Just one more instance should suffice to demonstrate the desperation of the Left historians and their patrons. The excavations had revealed details of the Ram Chabutara (the site of which the High Court eventually awarded to the pro-temple groups in its verdict). These historians had all along insisted that the Chabutara had been constructed soon after the 1857 revolt, quite ignoring the description of a Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who had visited the place between 1766 and 1771. The priest had written in detail about the structure, and his writings matched the earliest form of Ram Chabutara.

The Left academics&rsquo; strategy has been clear and consistent. First, deny the evidence. If that becomes difficult, explain it away as one that fits with anything but the pre-existence of a Hindu structure. When even that fails, blame the ASI team for &lsquo;planting&rsquo; evidence to bolster a &lsquo;pre-conceived&rsquo; agenda driven by the rulers of the day. As the apex court takes up the issue from March 14, we may see the resurgence of the same old stance.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

PM Narasimha Rao and CM Kalyan Singh were aware of archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood.

The other day, a former senior bureaucrat attached to the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, told a news channel that Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had informed the Chief Minister about archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood. This was roughly a fortnight before the disputed structure was demolished. The bureaucrat was referring to the findings of an archaeological exercise conducted just months before. A more detailed excavation was done in 2003 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Allahabad High Court’s instructions. Interestingly, both of these explorations had dug out evidence of a Hindu structure that once existed. The findings had set off a furious debate between the pro-temple organisations on the one hand and the pro-mosque lobby consisting of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and Left-liberal historians on the other. Now, given that the Supreme Court has said that it would hear the matter as a title deed case and not delve into the faith aspect, the archaeological material could play a crucial role. Indeed, even the Allahabad High Court, while going into matters of faith, had relied heavily on the ASI’s 2003 findings. The High Court’s order was subsequently stayed by the apex court, but the archaeological findings haven’t gone anywhere. The fire may now be re-ignited. The pro-mosque lobby has consistently questioned the credibility of the ASI’s findings. The fact is that the ASI did the excavations in 2003 under the supervision of the court. The court had appointed a panel including two junior judges and three archaeologists to maintain a close vigil on the excavation. And yet, the findings were discredited merely because they indicated the existence of a Hindu structure. It must be remembered that the 2003 excavation was more elaborate than the one in the early 1990s because it was done post-demolition. Many findings were noted, and the most significant one was that well before the mosque came to be constructed, there had been large-scale structures of non-residential type (religious in nature) right up to the present level of the disputed site. Some 50 pillar bases were excavated; walls were discovered; a circular shrine with a water chute towards the north, that is meant to drain out water after offering to the deity, was found. The High Court had asked the ASI to excavate to determine “whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished and the mosque constructed on the disputed site”. Left historians, perhaps, already apprehensive that the 1992 findings would be reinforced, strenuously objected on the ground that the court seemed to be giving “tacit judicial recognition” to the belief that a monument could be destroyed on grounds of its having been built over another religious structure. As more and more material emerged through the excavations that pointed to the pre-existence of a temple — or at the very least a Hindu structure, Left historians and the pro-mosque lobby stepped up their opposition. What then was witnessed was a sequence of desperate arguments. They had to respond somehow after the ASI report concluded that the findings were “indicative (of) remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India”. In short, the mosque had not been constructed on vacant land and that the remains found belonged to Hindu structures. The dilemma before the pro-mosque organisations was: What was now to be done in the face of such evidence gathered through an exercise closely supervised by the High Court? One Left historian, Irfan Habib, was quick off the mark. Even before the ASI had submitted its final report to the court, he alleged that the ASI appeared to be bent on “finding what those in powers wish it to find — the remains of a temple”. He then went on to make a bizarre claim: That another mosque had immediately existed where the Babri structure later came up. Undaunted by the outlandish claims, he suggested that the pillar bases and bricks (which were evidence of a Hindu structure) were “easy to assemble” and that the bricks could have been “arranged by the ASI excavators to provide evidence”. Having already made up his mind, it wasn’t surprising that Habib dismissed the final report as an “unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, one-sided presentations of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”. There were other Left historians too who endorsed Habib’s outrage. But the High Court did not share their prejudices, also because the excavations had been done under its supervision and there had been no reason for any objective evaluator to doubt the exercise’s credibility. Just one more instance should suffice to demonstrate the desperation of the Left historians and their patrons. The excavations had revealed details of the Ram Chabutara (the site of which the High Court eventually awarded to the pro-temple groups in its verdict). These historians had all along insisted that the Chabutara had been constructed soon after the 1857 revolt, quite ignoring the description of a Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who had visited the place between 1766 and 1771. The priest had written in detail about the structure, and his writings matched the earliest form of Ram Chabutara. The Left academics’ strategy has been clear and consistent. First, deny the evidence. If that becomes difficult, explain it away as one that fits with anything but the pre-existence of a Hindu structure. When even that fails, blame the ASI team for ‘planting’ evidence to bolster a ‘pre-conceived’ agenda driven by the rulers of the day. As the apex court takes up the issue from March 14, we may see the resurgence of the same old stance. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What decides Babri Masjid's fate on March 14

The Supreme Court is to resume hearing on a batch of cross-petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Thursday.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and two other judges &ndash; Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer - will hear a total of 13 petitions over the disputed site in Ayodhya at around 2 pm.

On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla. The verdict was given by Justice Harinath Tilahri.

Justice Tilhari granted permission for the Darshan following a court petition.

Speaking to ZEE media, he said he granted permission following an appeal by a lawyer in 1993.

Tilhari said that he only gave the permission of Darshan and advised the government to maintain the sanctity of the temple.

On Thursday&#39;s hearing in the Supreme Court, all he said was &quot;just wait and watch the Supreme Court will deliver the justice&quot;.

The last hearing in the case was conducted on December 5, 2017, wherein senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, had pleaded that the hearing should be postponed.

Appearing on UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Sibal had said that the hearing should be deferred to July 2019, suggesting that it be held after the outcome of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The lawyers had also demanded that the case is referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

The court, however, rejected the plea by Sibal and scheduled the hearing for February 8.

On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla

The Supreme Court is to resume hearing on a batch of cross-petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Thursday. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and two other judges – Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer - will hear a total of 13 petitions over the disputed site in Ayodhya at around 2 pm. On January 1, 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ruled that till the issue is resolved, devotees must be allowed for darshan of Ram Lalla. The verdict was given by Justice Harinath Tilahri. Justice Tilhari granted permission for the Darshan following a court petition. Speaking to ZEE media, he said he granted permission following an appeal by a lawyer in 1993. Tilhari said that he only gave the permission of Darshan and advised the government to maintain the sanctity of the temple. On Thursday's hearing in the Supreme Court, all he said was "just wait and watch the Supreme Court will deliver the justice". The last hearing in the case was conducted on December 5, 2017, wherein senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, had pleaded that the hearing should be postponed. Appearing on UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Sibal had said that the hearing should be deferred to July 2019, suggesting that it be held after the outcome of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The lawyers had also demanded that the case is referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The court, however, rejected the plea by Sibal and scheduled the hearing for February 8.

Allahabad HC judge on why he allowed Ram Lalla's Darshan in Ayodhya in 1993

Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister&#39;s Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu.

The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year.

The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years.

Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month&#39;s time to file their response.

When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry.

Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court&#39;s direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu

Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry. A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu. The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year. The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years. Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month's time to file their response. When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry. Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court's direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

Delay in response to PIL: High Court imposes Rs 5000 cost on PMO, Law Ministry

The Lucknow administration has issued&nbsp;notices to 1500 defaulters for using <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/up-loudspeakers-in-religious-places-to-be-removed-28794" target="_blank">loudspeakers without permission at religious and public places</a>.&nbsp;

The notice warns the institutes for&nbsp;taking an action against them in case they fail to take permission before the stipulated&nbsp;time.&nbsp;

The government&nbsp;had earlier stated that&nbsp;non-compliance with norms could lead to five years of imprisonment and/or penalty of Rs 1 lakh.&nbsp;

The last day for taking permission for installing of loudspeakers is January 20.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Lucknow administration sent notices to 1500 defaulters for using loudspeakers without permission at religious and public places. The notices sent to them states that the last day to obtain permission is 20th January after which action will be taken against them.
&mdash; ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/953835171446276096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Earlier this month the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, citing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, had asked the state government if written permissions were taken by the religious and public authorities before putting up loudspeakers.&nbsp;

The decision of the court aimed at curbing the noise pollution in the state.&nbsp;

The state police were directed on January 7 to remove all unauthorised loudspeakers present in religious and public places.

A team was formed to conduct a survey of places were loudspeakers were installed without permission. &nbsp;

The government has specified a limited sound level for public and private places.

The government was further seeking on the number of loudspeakers installed, proof of permission obtained, and action being taken against processions involving loud music being taken out in the day and night.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The notice warns the institutes for taking an action against them in case they fail to take permission before the stipulated time

The Lucknow administration has issued notices to 1500 defaulters for using loudspeakers without permission at religious and public places. The notice warns the institutes for taking an action against them in case they fail to take permission before the stipulated time. The government had earlier stated that non-compliance with norms could lead to five years of imprisonment and/or penalty of Rs 1 lakh. The last day for taking permission for installing of loudspeakers is January 20. Lucknow administration sent notices to 1500 defaulters for using loudspeakers without permission at religious and public places. The notices sent to them states that the last day to obtain permission is 20th January after which action will be taken against them. — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) January 18, 2018 × Earlier this month the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, citing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, had asked the state government if written permissions were taken by the religious and public authorities before putting up loudspeakers. The decision of the court aimed at curbing the noise pollution in the state. The state police were directed on January 7 to remove all unauthorised loudspeakers present in religious and public places. A team was formed to conduct a survey of places were loudspeakers were installed without permission. The government has specified a limited sound level for public and private places. The government was further seeking on the number of loudspeakers installed, proof of permission obtained, and action being taken against processions involving loud music being taken out in the day and night.

Lucknow government sends notice to 1500 defaulters for unauthorised loudspeakers

Rajesh and Nupur Talwar are to be freed today, at last.&nbsp;

The dentist couple are expected to be released from Ghaziabad&#39;s Dasna jail sometime before 2 pm today.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Court has opened after a 2 day holiday, there is a strong possibility of the Talwars being released today: D. Maurya, Jailor, Dasna Jail <a href="https://t.co/mVGYQeZDC8">pic.twitter.com/mVGYQeZDC8</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/919779056060588032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I think any time after 3 pm they (Rajesh &amp; Nupur Talwar) should be walking out of the jail: Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Talwars&#39; lawyer <a href="https://t.co/ZsmEyC1fQx">pic.twitter.com/ZsmEyC1fQx</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/919789799501787136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Talwars have been through a long and tortuous ordeal.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushis-parents-will-return-to-jail-every-15-days-to-treat-inmates-22463" target="_blank">Also read: Aarushi&#39;s parents will return to jail every 15 days -- this time to treat inmates</a>

Their daughter Aarushi and their help Hemraj were found murdered in their Noida home in 2008.&nbsp;

The Talwars were convicted of the murders.&nbsp;

There were however many large question marks over both the investigation and the conviction, with numerous accusations of them having been botched.&nbsp;

A total of three teams had investigated the murders.&nbsp;

The Uttar Pradesh police had first announced that Aarushi, who was 14 at the time, and Hemraj were found in a &quot;compromising position&quot; which is why her parents had killed them in a fit of rage.&nbsp;

The investigation was then taken over by first one CBI team and then another.&nbsp;

The Central Bureau of Investigation also worked along the same lines -- that Aarushi and Hemraj had been caught in the sexual act by her parents.&nbsp;

A special CBI court in Ghaziabad convicted Rajesh and Nupur in 2013 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.&nbsp;

The Allahabad High Court -- which overturned their conviction last Thursday, the Talwars had appealed -- had lambasted the CBI court for its conviction, and the CBI for its investigation.&nbsp;

The high court said the CBI had tutored witnesses,&nbsp;that a conviction cannot be based on &quot;mere suspicion&quot;, and that the Talwars had to be given the benefit of the doubt.&nbsp;

And it rubbished the theory that Aarushi and Hemraj had been caught in the sexual act.&nbsp;

&quot;We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove by any reliable or cogent evidence, the motive suggested by the prosecution for the appellants to commit the double murder i.e. the deceased being caught in the midst of a sexual act on the fateful night by Dr. Rajesh Talwar who suddenly got so gravely provoked that he committed their murder,&quot; the high court had said.&nbsp;

The Talwars are expected to walk out of Ghaziabad's Dasna jail sometime -- it is not yet clear when -- today

Rajesh and Nupur Talwar are to be freed today, at last. The dentist couple are expected to be released from Ghaziabad's Dasna jail sometime before 2 pm today. Court has opened after a 2 day holiday, there is a strong possibility of the Talwars being released today: D. Maurya, Jailor, Dasna Jail pic.twitter.com/mVGYQeZDC8 — ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2017 × I think any time after 3 pm they (Rajesh & Nupur Talwar) should be walking out of the jail: Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Talwars' lawyer pic.twitter.com/ZsmEyC1fQx — ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2017 × The Talwars have been through a long and tortuous ordeal. Also read: Aarushi's parents will return to jail every 15 days -- this time to treat inmates Their daughter Aarushi and their help Hemraj were found murdered in their Noida home in 2008. The Talwars were convicted of the murders. There were however many large question marks over both the investigation and the conviction, with numerous accusations of them having been botched. A total of three teams had investigated the murders. The Uttar Pradesh police had first announced that Aarushi, who was 14 at the time, and Hemraj were found in a "compromising position" which is why her parents had killed them in a fit of rage. The investigation was then taken over by first one CBI team and then another. The Central Bureau of Investigation also worked along the same lines -- that Aarushi and Hemraj had been caught in the sexual act by her parents. A special CBI court in Ghaziabad convicted Rajesh and Nupur in 2013 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court -- which overturned their conviction last Thursday, the Talwars had appealed -- had lambasted the CBI court for its conviction, and the CBI for its investigation. The high court said the CBI had tutored witnesses, that a conviction cannot be based on "mere suspicion", and that the Talwars had to be given the benefit of the doubt. And it rubbished the theory that Aarushi and Hemraj had been caught in the sexual act. "We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove by any reliable or cogent evidence, the motive suggested by the prosecution for the appellants to commit the double murder i.e. the deceased being caught in the midst of a sexual act on the fateful night by Dr. Rajesh Talwar who suddenly got so gravely provoked that he committed their murder," the high court had said.

Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to be freed today, at long last

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Is the conduct of the accused in consonance with that of a guilty person or is it in consonance with an innocent person? That is the question that needs to be answered every time a crime is to be proved in a court of law.

Take the case of two individuals, Mr. Rajesh Talwar and Ms. Nupur Talwar. Their daughter is discovered murdered on one fateful morning. The crime scene is left unsealed and visitors throng their residence without any restrictions thanks to a police team that did not know the basics of crime scene investigations. A few days later the family help is found murdered on the terrace.&nbsp;

The Police formulate a theory and the CBI redefines the theory after an employee of the Talwars confesses under the influence of narco analysis. But then there is another twist, the CBI redefines its own redefined theory finally pointing fingers at the Talwars, only to seek closure of the case on the premise that they couldn&rsquo;t gather evidence which prima facie establishes the needle of suspicion in the direction of the Talwars, as required for filing a charge sheet.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>CBI court convicts the Talwars as a consequence of the couple&#39;s own successful actions to keep the case alive.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=CBI court convicts the Talwars as a consequence of the couple's own successful actions to keep the case alive." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Talwars then challenge the closure report, wanting the case to be kept open. After reviewing these sequence of complex events, the CBI court convicts the Talwars as a consequence of the couple&#39;s own successful actions to keep the case alive.

There are many questionable aspects of the prosecution&rsquo;s case. But the most dominant question that I ask myself is whether a person guilty of a crime would willingly stop the investigator&rsquo;s efforts to close the case and move on?

Even if I keep this paradoxical conduct of the Accused aside for a second, in a criminal case, an acquittal can either be the consequence of the accused being innocent or it can be the consequence of the prosecution failing to meet the burden of proof to establish guilt&nbsp;beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, the prosecution couldn&rsquo;t explain why the murder accused would themselves challenge the CBI&rsquo;s closure report to keep the case alive.

Secondly, the theory that it was an honour killing by parents discovering their daughter in a compromising position with the family help (who was also found dead subsequently), was backed up by a medical examiner whose basis was that the penis of the said family help was enlarged. When pointed out that the enlargement of the genital organs could occur as a result of putrefaction, the doctor justified his opinion on the ground that being a married man, he would know why a man&rsquo;s penis would be enlarged. Would such testimony and evidence qualify as the benchmark for the prosecution establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential for convicting the Talwar&rsquo;s for murders?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It is still open to determine whether or not the Talwar&rsquo;s found reprieve on grounds of innocence or as beneficiaries of the benefit of doubt.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text= It is still open to determine whether or not the Talwar?s found reprieve on grounds of innocence or as beneficiaries of the benefit of doubt." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Today&rsquo;s judgement of the Allahabad High Court acquitting the Talwars remedied, what in my opinion, was an untenable order of conviction in the Aarushi Talwar murder case. Make no mistake, the acquittal by itself doesn&rsquo;t mean that the Talwar&rsquo;s were innocent. Pending the review of the copy of the judgement of acquittal, it is still open to determine whether or not the Talwar&rsquo;s found reprieve on grounds of innocence or as beneficiaries of the benefit of doubt, occasioned by a poorly conceived investigation and prosecution. Either way, they did not deserve to languish in prison, and I think justice is done one way or the other by the Hon&rsquo;ble Allahabad High Court.

That being said, it must be noted that in the case of State v. Kishan Bai, the Supreme Court directed that in cases of acquittal due to lapses in investigation and prosecution, the acquitting court has to identify the source of lapses and direct action to be taken against the erring investigators and prosecutors. Therefore, the Aarushi Talwar case is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary to fix accountability on the investigators and prosecutor(s) who spearheaded the case of the prosecution leading to the conviction which is now set aside. The unfortunate reality in every case of acquittal, especially in cases as heinous as murder or rape, is that the victim and her loved ones have no closure on one hand and on the other hand, the accused is branded a criminal until his/her name is cleared. In itself, the journey preceding the acquittal is a tragedy, for all stakeholders on both sides.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Aarushi Talwar case is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary to fix accountability on the investigators and prosecutor(s) who spearheaded the case.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Aarushi Talwar case is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary to fix accountability on the investigators and prosecutor(s) who spearheaded the case." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

What makes this tragedy particularly bad for the Talwars is that they are both the loved ones without closure as well as the accused who languished in prison on the strength of a conviction order which eventually was set aside. Therefore, by virtue of the said judgement of the Supreme Court, it is time we identified the men and women who were responsible for the poor investigation and prosecution and ensured they are suitably disciplined as per law.

The time spent in prison by the Talwars on the strength of careless investigation and prosecution must be quantified and suitable reparations are called for. And at the very least, such reparations must include identifying the killer in the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj and bringing him or her or them to justice.

&nbsp;

What makes this tragedy particularly bad for the Talwars is that they are both the loved ones without closure, as well as, the accused who languished in prison on the strength of a conviction order which eventually is set aside.

Is the conduct of the accused in consonance with that of a guilty person or is it in consonance with an innocent person? That is the question that needs to be answered every time a crime is to be proved in a court of law. Take the case of two individuals, Mr. Rajesh Talwar and Ms. Nupur Talwar. Their daughter is discovered murdered on one fateful morning. The crime scene is left unsealed and visitors throng their residence without any restrictions thanks to a police team that did not know the basics of crime scene investigations. A few days later the family help is found murdered on the terrace. The Police formulate a theory and the CBI redefines the theory after an employee of the Talwars confesses under the influence of narco analysis. But then there is another twist, the CBI redefines its own redefined theory finally pointing fingers at the Talwars, only to seek closure of the case on the premise that they couldn’t gather evidence which prima facie establishes the needle of suspicion in the direction of the Talwars, as required for filing a charge sheet. CBI court convicts the Talwars as a consequence of the couple's own successful actions to keep the case alive. × The Talwars then challenge the closure report, wanting the case to be kept open. After reviewing these sequence of complex events, the CBI court convicts the Talwars as a consequence of the couple's own successful actions to keep the case alive. There are many questionable aspects of the prosecution’s case. But the most dominant question that I ask myself is whether a person guilty of a crime would willingly stop the investigator’s efforts to close the case and move on? Even if I keep this paradoxical conduct of the Accused aside for a second, in a criminal case, an acquittal can either be the consequence of the accused being innocent or it can be the consequence of the prosecution failing to meet the burden of proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, the prosecution couldn’t explain why the murder accused would themselves challenge the CBI’s closure report to keep the case alive. Secondly, the theory that it was an honour killing by parents discovering their daughter in a compromising position with the family help (who was also found dead subsequently), was backed up by a medical examiner whose basis was that the penis of the said family help was enlarged. When pointed out that the enlargement of the genital organs could occur as a result of putrefaction, the doctor justified his opinion on the ground that being a married man, he would know why a man’s penis would be enlarged. Would such testimony and evidence qualify as the benchmark for the prosecution establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential for convicting the Talwar’s for murders? It is still open to determine whether or not the Talwar’s found reprieve on grounds of innocence or as beneficiaries of the benefit of doubt. × Today’s judgement of the Allahabad High Court acquitting the Talwars remedied, what in my opinion, was an untenable order of conviction in the Aarushi Talwar murder case. Make no mistake, the acquittal by itself doesn’t mean that the Talwar’s were innocent. Pending the review of the copy of the judgement of acquittal, it is still open to determine whether or not the Talwar’s found reprieve on grounds of innocence or as beneficiaries of the benefit of doubt, occasioned by a poorly conceived investigation and prosecution. Either way, they did not deserve to languish in prison, and I think justice is done one way or the other by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. That being said, it must be noted that in the case of State v. Kishan Bai, the Supreme Court directed that in cases of acquittal due to lapses in investigation and prosecution, the acquitting court has to identify the source of lapses and direct action to be taken against the erring investigators and prosecutors. Therefore, the Aarushi Talwar case is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary to fix accountability on the investigators and prosecutor(s) who spearheaded the case of the prosecution leading to the conviction which is now set aside. The unfortunate reality in every case of acquittal, especially in cases as heinous as murder or rape, is that the victim and her loved ones have no closure on one hand and on the other hand, the accused is branded a criminal until his/her name is cleared. In itself, the journey preceding the acquittal is a tragedy, for all stakeholders on both sides. Aarushi Talwar case is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary to fix accountability on the investigators and prosecutor(s) who spearheaded the case. × What makes this tragedy particularly bad for the Talwars is that they are both the loved ones without closure as well as the accused who languished in prison on the strength of a conviction order which eventually was set aside. Therefore, by virtue of the said judgement of the Supreme Court, it is time we identified the men and women who were responsible for the poor investigation and prosecution and ensured they are suitably disciplined as per law. The time spent in prison by the Talwars on the strength of careless investigation and prosecution must be quantified and suitable reparations are called for. And at the very least, such reparations must include identifying the killer in the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj and bringing him or her or them to justice.

Reprieve for Talwars: A case of justice delayed but not denied

The Allahabad High Court is expected to announce its verdict today on whether dentist couple Nupur and Rajesh Talwar murdered their teenage daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj in 2008.

The court will decide on an appeal filed by the Talwars challenging a CBI court order convicting them for the murder of Aarushi and Hemraj.

The couple have been in Ghaziabad&#39;s Dasna jail since 2013 after a special CBI court in Ghaziabad convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The judge who found them guilty accused them of destroying evidence.

A division bench of the high court comprising justices B K Narayana and A K Mishra had reserved its judgement on September 7 and fixed October 12 as the date for the verdict.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars&#39; Noida residence with her throat slit with surgical precision on the night of May 15-16.

Hemraj, 45, was initially suspected of the murder after he was found missing, however, body was recovered from the terrace of the house two days later.

The police then suspected the Talwars and said Rajesh Talwar had murdered Aarushi and Hemraj after finding them in an &quot;objectionable&quot; position.&nbsp;

Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after the murder by the Uttar Pradesh Police&nbsp;on May 23, 2008 after which he was lodged at Dasna Jail and let off on bail on July 11.

In 2012, his wife Nupur surrendered before a Ghaziabad court before trial and was also sent to the same prison.

The accusations enraged the Talwars and friends, who accused the police of framing the dentist couple in order to cover up a botched investigation.

After the Uttar Pradesh police drew criticism for its shoddy investigation, then chief minister Mayawati handed over the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The CBI initially exonerated the parents and suspected the Talwars&#39; assistant Krishna, and two domestic servants, Rajkumar Sharma and Vijay Mandal, of the murder.

In 2009, the CBI handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation.

It named Rajesh as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of lack of evidence.

The court refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Aarushi and the Talwars' domestic help Hemraj were murdered in 2008

The Allahabad High Court is expected to announce its verdict today on whether dentist couple Nupur and Rajesh Talwar murdered their teenage daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj in 2008. The court will decide on an appeal filed by the Talwars challenging a CBI court order convicting them for the murder of Aarushi and Hemraj. The couple have been in Ghaziabad's Dasna jail since 2013 after a special CBI court in Ghaziabad convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The judge who found them guilty accused them of destroying evidence. A division bench of the high court comprising justices B K Narayana and A K Mishra had reserved its judgement on September 7 and fixed October 12 as the date for the verdict. Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars' Noida residence with her throat slit with surgical precision on the night of May 15-16. Hemraj, 45, was initially suspected of the murder after he was found missing, however, body was recovered from the terrace of the house two days later. The police then suspected the Talwars and said Rajesh Talwar had murdered Aarushi and Hemraj after finding them in an "objectionable" position. Rajesh Talwar was arrested seven days after the murder by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 23, 2008 after which he was lodged at Dasna Jail and let off on bail on July 11. In 2012, his wife Nupur surrendered before a Ghaziabad court before trial and was also sent to the same prison. The accusations enraged the Talwars and friends, who accused the police of framing the dentist couple in order to cover up a botched investigation. After the Uttar Pradesh police drew criticism for its shoddy investigation, then chief minister Mayawati handed over the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI initially exonerated the parents and suspected the Talwars' assistant Krishna, and two domestic servants, Rajkumar Sharma and Vijay Mandal, of the murder. In 2009, the CBI handed over the investigation to a new team, which in 2010 recommended closing the case due to critical gaps in the investigation. It named Rajesh as the sole suspect based on circumstantial evidence but refused to charge him because of lack of evidence. The court refused to allow the CBI to close the case.

Aarushi Talwar murder: Allahabad High Court to pronounce verdict on parents' appeal today

The Allahabad High Court today<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aarushi-talwar-murder-case-rajesh-nupur-talwar-acquitted-22340"> gave major relief to Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who were</a> convicted for the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar, by acquitting them.

The Talwar<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/reprieve-for-talwars-a-case-of-justice-delayed-but-not-denied-22345"> couple had been lodged in Dasna jail since</a> 2013, after being convicted by a special CBI court.

Today, setting aside that conviction, the Allahabad High Court broadly mentioned three point, giving the Talwars benefit of doubt:

<ul>
	<li>The conviction of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar can&rsquo;t be based on suspicion</li>
	<li>Aarushi&rsquo;s parents have to be given benefit of doubt</li>
	<li>As per circumstances and evidence on record, they can&#39;t be held guilty</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

The Talwars had filed an appeal with the High Court&nbsp;challenging a CBI court order convicting them for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.

Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars&#39; Noida residence in Noida with her throat slit on the night of May 15-16 in 2008.

 
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RuAnb1UKlMM" width="560"></iframe> 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Allahabad High Court today gave major relief to Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who were convicted for the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar, by acquitting them.

The Allahabad High Court today gave major relief to Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who were convicted for the murder of their daughter Aarushi Talwar, by acquitting them. The Talwar couple had been lodged in Dasna jail since 2013, after being convicted by a special CBI court. Today, setting aside that conviction, the Allahabad High Court broadly mentioned three point, giving the Talwars benefit of doubt: The conviction of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar can’t be based on suspicion Aarushi’s parents have to be given benefit of doubt As per circumstances and evidence on record, they can't be held guilty The Talwars had filed an appeal with the High Court challenging a CBI court order convicting them for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj. Fourteen-year-old Aarushi was found dead inside her room in the Talwars' Noida residence in Noida with her throat slit on the night of May 15-16 in 2008.

Aarushi Talwar murder case: What Allahabad HC said while acquitting Talwars

Making yet another strong observation on the issue of Triple Talaq, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday said the rights of Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of &#39;personal law&#39;.

&quot;A Muslim husband cannot give divorce in such a manner which would put a question mark on equal rights,&quot; the court observed.

The court also said basic and human rights cannot be exploited on the basis of gender.

It held that personal law may be applicable only within the purview of the Constitution and that fatwa, which is contrary to the justice system, is not valid.

&quot;No fatwa can be contrary to someone&#39;s rights,&quot; the court said.

The high court had in December last year held the Islamic practice of Triple Talaq&nbsp;was &quot;unconstitutional&quot;.

The court had observed that the practice, sanctioned under Muslim Personal Law that governs marriage, property, and divorce, violated the rights of Muslim women.

&quot;Triple Talaq is unconstitutional, it violates the rights of Muslim women, &quot;the High Court had ruled, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution.

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, had referred the triple talaq issue to a Constitution bench on March 30.

The top court will hear the matter on May 11. The court will hear a bunch of petitions demanding a ban on the Muslim practice.

A five-member bench will be constituted by the top court to hear the matter.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) claimed earlier that pleas challenging Triple Talaq, were not maintainable since the issue fell outside the realm of the secular judiciary.

(WION with inputs from ANI) 
&nbsp;

The court also said that personal law may be applicable only within the purview of the Constitution

Making yet another strong observation on the issue of Triple Talaq, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday said the rights of Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of 'personal law'. "A Muslim husband cannot give divorce in such a manner which would put a question mark on equal rights," the court observed. The court also said basic and human rights cannot be exploited on the basis of gender. It held that personal law may be applicable only within the purview of the Constitution and that fatwa, which is contrary to the justice system, is not valid. "No fatwa can be contrary to someone's rights," the court said. The high court had in December last year held the Islamic practice of Triple Talaq was "unconstitutional". The court had observed that the practice, sanctioned under Muslim Personal Law that governs marriage, property, and divorce, violated the rights of Muslim women. "Triple Talaq is unconstitutional, it violates the rights of Muslim women, "the High Court had ruled, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution. India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, had referred the triple talaq issue to a Constitution bench on March 30. The top court will hear the matter on May 11. The court will hear a bunch of petitions demanding a ban on the Muslim practice. A five-member bench will be constituted by the top court to hear the matter. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) claimed earlier that pleas challenging Triple Talaq, were not maintainable since the issue fell outside the realm of the secular judiciary. (WION with inputs from ANI)

'Personal law' cannot be used to violate rights of Muslim women: Allahabad High Court on Triple Talaq

The Allahabad high court has said the practice of triple talaq -- which allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife by saying the word &quot;talaq&quot; or &quot;divorce&quot; three times -- is unconstitutional.&nbsp;

&quot;Triple talaq is unconstitutional, it violates the rights of Muslim women,&quot; it said.&nbsp;

&quot;No Personal Law Board is above the Constitution,&quot; it added.&nbsp;

&quot;Muslim law, as applied in India, has taken a course contrary to the spirit of what the Prophet or the Holy Quran laid down and the same misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife&#39;s right to divorce&quot;, a single judge bench of Justice Suneet Kumar said in its judgement passed last month.

The court observed that &quot;divorce is permissible in Islam only in case of extreme emergency. When all efforts for effecting a reconciliation have failed, the parties may proceed to a dissolution of marriage by Talaq or by Khola&quot;.

A number of PILs or public interest litigation petitions have been filed around the country, including in the Supreme Court, against the practice. &nbsp;

When asked for its opinion, the Indian government had recently said it was against the practice.&nbsp;

The Indian constitution allows Muslims, the biggest religious minority group, to regulate matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance through their own civil code.

Women&#39;s rights activists say the &quot;triple talaq&quot; practice -- which allows Muslim men an instant divorce with Muslim women being divorced via Facebook, Skype and text message -- is unconstitutional because it violates the right to equality.

However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a non-governmental body which oversees the application of Muslim personal law, opposes any ban on triple talaq and polygamy.

(WION with inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

'It violates the rights of Muslim women,' it said

The Allahabad high court has said the practice of triple talaq -- which allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife by saying the word "talaq" or "divorce" three times -- is unconstitutional. "Triple talaq is unconstitutional, it violates the rights of Muslim women," it said. "No Personal Law Board is above the Constitution," it added. "Muslim law, as applied in India, has taken a course contrary to the spirit of what the Prophet or the Holy Quran laid down and the same misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife's right to divorce", a single judge bench of Justice Suneet Kumar said in its judgement passed last month. The court observed that "divorce is permissible in Islam only in case of extreme emergency. When all efforts for effecting a reconciliation have failed, the parties may proceed to a dissolution of marriage by Talaq or by Khola". A number of PILs or public interest litigation petitions have been filed around the country, including in the Supreme Court, against the practice. When asked for its opinion, the Indian government had recently said it was against the practice. The Indian constitution allows Muslims, the biggest religious minority group, to regulate matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance through their own civil code. Women's rights activists say the "triple talaq" practice -- which allows Muslim men an instant divorce with Muslim women being divorced via Facebook, Skype and text message -- is unconstitutional because it violates the right to equality. However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a non-governmental body which oversees the application of Muslim personal law, opposes any ban on triple talaq and polygamy. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India: Allahabad high court says triple talaq unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of India today held that former chief ministers are not entitled for government accommodation for lifetime. 
 
A bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, which pronounced its verdict on a 2004 plea, said that any such government accommodation should be vacated within two to three months.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;They don&#39;t have the right to occupy government accommodation for lifetime,&quot; the bench also comprising Justices U U Lalit and L Nageswara Rao said. 
 
The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, based out of northern India Uttar Pradesh (UP) state, which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers and other &#39;non-eligible&#39; organisations.&nbsp; 
 
The NGO had alleged that despite the direction of Allahabad High Court, the UP government had framed ex-Chief Minister&#39;s Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (non-statutory) for allotting bungalows to successive ex-chief ministers. 
 
The NGO had also contended that the rules framed in 1997 for allotment of government bungalows to ex-chief ministers were unconstitutional and illegal, and those occupying them were allegedly unauthorised occupants under the purview of the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.&nbsp; 
 
The petitioner also said that retention of government accommodation by chief ministers after demitting office was against the Provisions of UP Ministers (Salaries/allowances and other facilities) Act. The judgment on the plea was reserved on November 27, 2014. 
 
(PTI)

The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers

The Supreme Court of India today held that former chief ministers are not entitled for government accommodation for lifetime. A bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, which pronounced its verdict on a 2004 plea, said that any such government accommodation should be vacated within two to three months. "They don't have the right to occupy government accommodation for lifetime," the bench also comprising Justices U U Lalit and L Nageswara Rao said. The judgment came on a plea filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, based out of northern India Uttar Pradesh (UP) state, which had sought a direction against allotment of government bungalows to ex chief ministers and other 'non-eligible' organisations. The NGO had alleged that despite the direction of Allahabad High Court, the UP government had framed ex-Chief Minister's Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (non-statutory) for allotting bungalows to successive ex-chief ministers. The NGO had also contended that the rules framed in 1997 for allotment of government bungalows to ex-chief ministers were unconstitutional and illegal, and those occupying them were allegedly unauthorised occupants under the purview of the UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner also said that retention of government accommodation by chief ministers after demitting office was against the Provisions of UP Ministers (Salaries/allowances and other facilities) Act. The judgment on the plea was reserved on November 27, 2014. (PTI)

No lifetime government accommodation for former chief ministers: India's top court