The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-question-of-nrc-in-bihar-pm-has-clarified-his-stand-on-it-nitish-kumar-273931">Supreme Court</a> on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. 
 
A five-judge Bench of Justices <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-review-on-all-restrictive-orders-in-jammu-and-kashmir-after-article-370-abrogation-273307">NV Ramana</a>, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC's 5-judge bench, headed by Justice NV Ramana, starts hearing curative petitions filed by two Delhi 2012 gangrape&amp;murder case convicts Vinay&amp;Mukesh, in a chamber hearing.Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by judges. It' the last&amp;final legal remedy available to convicts. <a href="https://t.co/l7Lt8tKoiA">pic.twitter.com/l7Lt8tKoiA</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1216999960861790208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</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>

The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued death warrants in their names for their hanging on January 22. 
 
Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/days-after-death-warrant-nirbhaya-case-convict-files-curative-plea-before-supreme-court-273126">executed</a> on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises. 
 
They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in the national capital on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Asha Devi, mother of 2012 Delhi gang-rape victim: This is a big day for me. I had been struggling for the last 7 years. But the biggest day will be 22nd January when they (convicts) will be hanged. <a href="https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb">https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb</a> <a href="https://t.co/uMPcVfP7Sf">pic.twitter.com/uMPcVfP7Sf</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1217009067983458304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</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>

The victim, who was later given the name <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/tihar-jail-to-conduct-dummy-execution-of-nirbhaya-convicts-before-january-22-272825">Nirbhaya</a>, had succumbed to injuries at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment. 
 
A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for the redressal of grievances. Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by the judges. 
 
If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment. 
 
The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks time to file both the curative and mercy petitions.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. A five-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. A five-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh. SC's 5-judge bench, headed by Justice NV Ramana, starts hearing curative petitions filed by two Delhi 2012 gangrape&murder case convicts Vinay&Mukesh, in a chamber hearing.Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by judges. It' the last&final legal remedy available to convicts. pic.twitter.com/l7Lt8tKoiA — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2020 × The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued death warrants in their names for their hanging on January 22. Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be executed on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises. They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in the national capital on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. Asha Devi, mother of 2012 Delhi gang-rape victim: This is a big day for me. I had been struggling for the last 7 years. But the biggest day will be 22nd January when they (convicts) will be hanged. https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb pic.twitter.com/uMPcVfP7Sf — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2020 × The victim, who was later given the name Nirbhaya, had succumbed to injuries at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment. A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for the redressal of grievances. Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by the judges. If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment. The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks time to file both the curative and mercy petitions.

Supreme Court dismisses Nirbhaya convicts curative pleas

The Supreme Court on December 18 rejected the review petition filed by Akshay Singh Thakur, one of the death-row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape and murder case. A newly-constituted three-member bench headed by Justice Bhanumathi and comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna heard the case. With the rejection of Akshay's review petition, the path for the hanging of all the four convicts in the heinous crime is clear. #WION #WIONDispatch #NirbhayaVerdict #2012DelhiGangRape

WION Dispatch: SC upholds death for Nirbhaya killers

The Supreme Court on December 18 rejected the review petition filed by Akshay Singh Thakur, one of the death-row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape and murder case. A newly-constituted three-member bench headed by Justice Bhanumathi and comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna heard the case. With the rejection of Akshay's review petition, the path for the hanging of all the four convicts in the heinous crime is clear. #WION #NirbhayaVerdict #2012DelhiGangRape

Indian Top Court rejects review petition of Nirbhaya rape-murder convict

Claiming that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-vs-centre-sc-delivers-split-verdict-on-control-of-services-refers-it-to-larger-bench-197305">Supreme Court's split verdict</a> on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies.

At a press conference after the apex court order, he accused the BJP-led government at the centre of creating hurdles in the functioning of the AAP dispensation and appealed to the people to elect AAP candidates in all the seven Lok Sabha seats in the national capital in the upcoming general elections to help the party achieve full-statehood for Delhi.

"The judgment is against constitution and democracy. We will seek legal remedies," Kejriwal said, adding it was an "injustice to the people" of Delhi. 
&nbsp; 
"The people of Delhi helped us win 67 of 70 seats. An elected government doesn't even have the power to transfer officers, but those with three seats (BJP) do. How will the government function if we can't transfer non-performing officials?" he posed.

"The solution to the problem lies with the people of Delhi. I appeal to the residents not to see the polls as only to elect a prime minister. Please give all the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi to the AAP. We will force the government at the Centre to give full statehood to Delhi," the AAP national convener said.

In a jolt to the AAP dispensation, the Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on their views on disputes pertaining to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), setting up of a commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors.

The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government.

Claiming the court order states the elected government has no power to transfer officers, Kejriwal sought to know how the AAP dispensation will work and said the chief minister of Delhi does not have the power to appoint even a peon.

"We have been suffering for the last four years. For every work and forgetting each file cleared, if the Delhi chief minister and his ministers have to hold protests and sit on hunger strike at the L-G house, how will the government work? What sort of democracy is it?" he asked.

On former Delhi chief minister and Congress leader Sheila Dikshit's comments that according to the constitution "Delhi government doesn't have unlimited powers and, the L-G and the MHA also have control over many things", Kejriwal said his predecessor should refrain from making such statements for short-term political gains.

"I respect Sheila Dikshit ji. I appeal to her not to make such comments. We don't even have 10 per cent of the power that her government had. Didn't she have the power to transfer officers? Didn't she have ACB under her? Still, in the last four years we have done more work than her government did in 15 years," he said.

Claiming that the Supreme Court's split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies.

Claiming that the Supreme Court's split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies. At a press conference after the apex court order, he accused the BJP-led government at the centre of creating hurdles in the functioning of the AAP dispensation and appealed to the people to elect AAP candidates in all the seven Lok Sabha seats in the national capital in the upcoming general elections to help the party achieve full-statehood for Delhi. "The judgment is against constitution and democracy. We will seek legal remedies," Kejriwal said, adding it was an "injustice to the people" of Delhi. "The people of Delhi helped us win 67 of 70 seats. An elected government doesn't even have the power to transfer officers, but those with three seats (BJP) do. How will the government function if we can't transfer non-performing officials?" he posed. "The solution to the problem lies with the people of Delhi. I appeal to the residents not to see the polls as only to elect a prime minister. Please give all the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi to the AAP. We will force the government at the Centre to give full statehood to Delhi," the AAP national convener said. In a jolt to the AAP dispensation, the Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench. A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on their views on disputes pertaining to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), setting up of a commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors. The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government. Claiming the court order states the elected government has no power to transfer officers, Kejriwal sought to know how the AAP dispensation will work and said the chief minister of Delhi does not have the power to appoint even a peon. "We have been suffering for the last four years. For every work and forgetting each file cleared, if the Delhi chief minister and his ministers have to hold protests and sit on hunger strike at the L-G house, how will the government work? What sort of democracy is it?" he asked. On former Delhi chief minister and Congress leader Sheila Dikshit's comments that according to the constitution "Delhi government doesn't have unlimited powers and, the L-G and the MHA also have control over many things", Kejriwal said his predecessor should refrain from making such statements for short-term political gains. "I respect Sheila Dikshit ji. I appeal to her not to make such comments. We don't even have 10 per cent of the power that her government had. Didn't she have the power to transfer officers? Didn't she have ACB under her? Still, in the last four years we have done more work than her government did in 15 years," he said.

Supreme Court's split verdict on control of services against 'constitution and democracy', says Kejriwal

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Gali Janardhan Reddy, for allowing him to go to Bellary to campaign for his brother, G Somashekar Reddy, contesting for the upcoming assembly elections in Karnataka.

A bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan dismissed the plea of Janardhan Reddy and said "your brother will take care of it".

Out on bail in the illegal mining case, Janardhan Reddy approached the apex court saying he wanted to campaign for his younger brother Somashekar Reddy on May 8 and 9 in Bellary, Karnataka.

He also wanted permission to cast his vote in Bellary on May 12. The results of the polls are scheduled to be out on May 15.

In January 2015, the apex court while granting him bail in the illegal mining case had asked him to stay away from mining areas like Bellary district of Karnataka.

Janardhana Reddy is an accused in the illegal mining case involving his Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).

The company is accused of changing the mining lease boundary markings and indulging in illegal mining in the Bellary Reserve Forest area, spread over Bellary in Karnataka and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh.

 
&nbsp;

A bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan dismissed the plea of Janardhan Reddy and said 'your brother will take care of it'

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Gali Janardhan Reddy, for allowing him to go to Bellary to campaign for his brother, G Somashekar Reddy, contesting for the upcoming assembly elections in Karnataka. A bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan dismissed the plea of Janardhan Reddy and said "your brother will take care of it". Out on bail in the illegal mining case, Janardhan Reddy approached the apex court saying he wanted to campaign for his younger brother Somashekar Reddy on May 8 and 9 in Bellary, Karnataka. He also wanted permission to cast his vote in Bellary on May 12. The results of the polls are scheduled to be out on May 15. In January 2015, the apex court while granting him bail in the illegal mining case had asked him to stay away from mining areas like Bellary district of Karnataka. Janardhana Reddy is an accused in the illegal mining case involving his Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC). The company is accused of changing the mining lease boundary markings and indulging in illegal mining in the Bellary Reserve Forest area, spread over Bellary in Karnataka and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh.

Karnataka polls: SC rejects Janardhan Reddy's plea to campaign in Bellary for brother

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition filed by a hospitality firm linked to Robert Vadra challenging an Income Tax (I-T) department notice to it for re-assessment of its profits from land deals in Haryana and Rajasthan for 2010-11.

The Delhi-based firm, Sky Light Hospitality LLP, had filed an appeal against the February order of the Delhi High Court which had rejected its petition against the I-T notice.

After a brief hearing, an apex court bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan refused to interfere with the high court's order by which the firm associated with Vadra was directed to join proceedings before the assessing officer.

The I-T department, in a tax evasion report tabled before the high court, had said it had reasons to believe that over Rs 35 crore, earned by the firm in 2010-11, "had escaped from assessment".

The high court had said, "After going through the reasons, we are satisfied that the 'reasons to believe' show and establish a live link and connect with the inference drawn that income had escaped assessment, which is required for issuance of notice."

In the high court, the firm had challenged the I-T department's notice, contending that the "reasons to believe" were mere reasons to suspect and do not establish that income had escaped assessment.

Disagreeing with the firm's contention, the high court had said that "absolute certainty is not required at the time of issue of notice and at the same time, 'reasons to believe' must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The said test and criteria, we have no hesitation in holding, is satisfied in the present case".

"There is evidence and material on record to justify issue of notice," it said.

The high court also said that as long as there was a "honest and reasonable opinion" formed by the assessing officer and the "reasons to believe" are not mere "reasons to suspect", courts should not interject to stop the adjudication process and scrutiny on merits."

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition filed by a hospitality firm linked to Robert Vadra challenging an Income Tax (I-T) department notice to it for re-assessment of its profits from land deals in Haryana and Rajasthan for 2010-11

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition filed by a hospitality firm linked to Robert Vadra challenging an Income Tax (I-T) department notice to it for re-assessment of its profits from land deals in Haryana and Rajasthan for 2010-11. The Delhi-based firm, Sky Light Hospitality LLP, had filed an appeal against the February order of the Delhi High Court which had rejected its petition against the I-T notice. After a brief hearing, an apex court bench of justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan refused to interfere with the high court's order by which the firm associated with Vadra was directed to join proceedings before the assessing officer. The I-T department, in a tax evasion report tabled before the high court, had said it had reasons to believe that over Rs 35 crore, earned by the firm in 2010-11, "had escaped from assessment". The high court had said, "After going through the reasons, we are satisfied that the 'reasons to believe' show and establish a live link and connect with the inference drawn that income had escaped assessment, which is required for issuance of notice." In the high court, the firm had challenged the I-T department's notice, contending that the "reasons to believe" were mere reasons to suspect and do not establish that income had escaped assessment. Disagreeing with the firm's contention, the high court had said that "absolute certainty is not required at the time of issue of notice and at the same time, 'reasons to believe' must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The said test and criteria, we have no hesitation in holding, is satisfied in the present case". "There is evidence and material on record to justify issue of notice," it said. The high court also said that as long as there was a "honest and reasonable opinion" formed by the assessing officer and the "reasons to believe" are not mere "reasons to suspect", courts should not interject to stop the adjudication process and scrutiny on merits."

Supreme Court dismisses plea of firm linked to Robert Vadra in I-T case

ashok-bhushan

Ashok Bhushan, News on Ashok Bhushan, stories on Ashok Bhushan, articles on Ashok Bhushan, Ashok Bhushan stories at Wion, Ashok Bhushan news, Ashok Bhushan latest news