Maldives President Abdulla Yameen will lift a 45-day state of emergency on Thursday and the government will bring bribery charges against former leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the chief justice, said a senior Maldives diplomat.

Yameen imposed a state of emergency on Feb. 5 for 15 days to annul a Feb. 1 Supreme Court ruling that quashed convictions against nine opposition leaders and ordered his government to free those held in prison. He later extended the state of emergency for another 30 days with parliament approval, a move challenged by the opposition.

Under the emergency, Yameen&#39;s administration arrested former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the chief justice, another Supreme Court judge, and a Supreme Court administrator on allegations of attempting to overthrow the government. They have all rejected the charges.

&quot;Unless something unusual happens, we should not have emergency by Thursday,&quot; Mohamed Hussain Shareef, Maldives Ambassador for Sri Lanka told a Foreign Correspondents Association forum on Monday.

&quot;The government has no intention of extending it any further barring very unusual circumstances like widespread violence. The intention is to do away with this state of emergency when the current 30 day period expires on March 22.&quot;

Shareef said bribery charges against Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed have been sent to the prosecutor general and that bribery charges will also be brought against former president Gayoom and Supreme Court administrator Hassan Sayeed.

&quot;That is definite. We know that charges will be pressed against the four of them,&rdquo; Shareef said.

Gayoom is accused of bribing the three legal professionals to overthrow the Yameen government.

Despite opposition claims that hundreds of people have been arrested under the state of emergency, Shareef said only 38 had been arrested so far while others were &quot;detained and released&quot;.

Maldives police told Reuters on Saturday that at least 139 opposition protesters were arrested as they attempted to defy orders under the state of emergency and march into the high security zone in capital Male.

When asked if any foreign agent or country had a role in the Maldives crisis, Shareef said: &quot;For my knowledge, the investigations at the moment are focused on local actors only&quot;.

Rights group Amnesty International has said the Maldivian government was using the emergency &quot;as a licence for repression, targeting members of civil society, judges and political opponents&quot;.

Yameen&#39;s government retains a majority in parliament in the absence of the opposition&#39;s 12 MPs who were stripped of their seats by Yameen&#39;s party for defecting last year.

A senior Maldives diplomat said the 45-day state of emergency would be lifted Thursday

Maldives President Abdulla Yameen will lift a 45-day state of emergency on Thursday and the government will bring bribery charges against former leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the chief justice, said a senior Maldives diplomat. Yameen imposed a state of emergency on Feb. 5 for 15 days to annul a Feb. 1 Supreme Court ruling that quashed convictions against nine opposition leaders and ordered his government to free those held in prison. He later extended the state of emergency for another 30 days with parliament approval, a move challenged by the opposition. Under the emergency, Yameen's administration arrested former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the chief justice, another Supreme Court judge, and a Supreme Court administrator on allegations of attempting to overthrow the government. They have all rejected the charges. "Unless something unusual happens, we should not have emergency by Thursday," Mohamed Hussain Shareef, Maldives Ambassador for Sri Lanka told a Foreign Correspondents Association forum on Monday. "The government has no intention of extending it any further barring very unusual circumstances like widespread violence. The intention is to do away with this state of emergency when the current 30 day period expires on March 22." Shareef said bribery charges against Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed have been sent to the prosecutor general and that bribery charges will also be brought against former president Gayoom and Supreme Court administrator Hassan Sayeed. "That is definite. We know that charges will be pressed against the four of them,” Shareef said. Gayoom is accused of bribing the three legal professionals to overthrow the Yameen government. Despite opposition claims that hundreds of people have been arrested under the state of emergency, Shareef said only 38 had been arrested so far while others were "detained and released". Maldives police told Reuters on Saturday that at least 139 opposition protesters were arrested as they attempted to defy orders under the state of emergency and march into the high security zone in capital Male. When asked if any foreign agent or country had a role in the Maldives crisis, Shareef said: "For my knowledge, the investigations at the moment are focused on local actors only". Rights group Amnesty International has said the Maldivian government was using the emergency "as a licence for repression, targeting members of civil society, judges and political opponents". Yameen's government retains a majority in parliament in the absence of the opposition's 12 MPs who were stripped of their seats by Yameen's party for defecting last year.

Maldives to lift state of emergency, charge ex-president, chief justice with bribery

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy.

The top court said that it was of a &quot;prima facie view&quot; that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench &#39;per incuriam&#39; (without due regard to the law).

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC.

&quot;We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8),&quot; the bench said.

The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, &quot;we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect.&quot;

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014.

Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam.

On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an &quot;appropriate bench&quot; to deal with the &quot;piquant&quot; situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict.

It had said &quot;We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was &#39;per incuriam&#39; and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it.&quot;

A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if &quot;judicial discipline&quot; and propriety were not maintained, the institution will &quot;go forever&quot; while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition.

It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition.

In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons.

It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency.

The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.

The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that &quot;the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested&quot;.

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy. The top court said that it was of a "prima facie view" that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench 'per incuriam' (without due regard to the law). A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC. "We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8)," the bench said. The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, "we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect." The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014. Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam. On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an "appropriate bench" to deal with the "piquant" situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict. It had said "We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was 'per incuriam' and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it." A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if "judicial discipline" and propriety were not maintained, the institution will "go forever" while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition. It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition. In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons. It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency. The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed. The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".

Will look into correctness of two 3-judge verdicts on land acquisition: SC

Nepal&#39;s largest newspaper is due in court Friday summoned by the country&#39;s chief justice for articles critical of him, in a case widely condemned as an attack on press freedom.

The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country&#39;s top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents.

Judges in Nepal have to retire at 65 and the suggestion is that Parajuli knocked years off his age to hold office for longer.&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>The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country&#39;s top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents</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=The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

In the subpoena issued Sunday by Parajuli -- who will preside over the case despite being directly implicated in it -- the newspaper is accused of using &quot;objectionable language&quot; and repeating &quot;imaginary facts&quot;.

&quot;The articles published by the Kantipur Daily are intended to obstruct the judicial process and weaken the judiciary by disrespecting the court and spreading confusion about the court and its justices,&quot; according to the order seen by AFP.

Multiple news outlets have carried reports that the chief justice&#39;s official documents show as many as five different dates of birth, but only the Kantipur Daily -- Nepal&#39;s largest newspaper by circulation -- has been singled out by the court.

Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders slammed the move against the newspaper and urged lawmakers to impeach the top judge.

&quot;It shouldn&#39;t be necessary to remind a chief justice that you cannot be judge and party at the same time,&quot; said Daniel Bastard, the watchdog&#39;s Asia-Pacific expert.&nbsp;

&quot;This is a completely unacceptable case of prior censorship that could have dire consequences for media freedom if it sets a legal precedent.&quot;

Akhilesh Upadhyay, the editor-in-chief of Kantipur Daily&#39;s English-language sister publication, The Kathmandu Post, said the court order was motivated by a personal vendetta and said the newspaper would fight the charges.

&quot;He has put a muzzle on the press,&quot; he said in an interview with AFP earlier this week.

Parajuli was appointed chief justice nine months ago, and even by the youngest age on his official documents, is due to retire in two months.

Kantipur Daily&#39;s editor-in-chief, the chairman, a company director and a reporter are due in court Friday.

They could face up to a year in jail if found guilty.

Nepal&#39;s media industry has boomed since the country&#39;s king was overthrown a decade ago following a brutal civil war, spawning dozens of newspapers.

A new constitution passed in 2015 proclaims complete press freedom and bans censorship of news, which was common during monarchic rule.

Journalists in the Himalayan nation do still face intimidation and arrest, particularly if reporting on issues deemed by authorities to affect national unity.

Nepal ranks 100 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders&#39; press freedom index.

The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for articles that said he had fudged his date of birth

Nepal's largest newspaper is due in court Friday summoned by the country's chief justice for articles critical of him, in a case widely condemned as an attack on press freedom. The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents. Judges in Nepal have to retire at 65 and the suggestion is that Parajuli knocked years off his age to hold office for longer. The Kantipur Daily was subpoenaed by chief justice Gopal Parajuli on contempt of court charges for a series of articles that said the country's top judge had given different dates of birth on various official documents × In the subpoena issued Sunday by Parajuli -- who will preside over the case despite being directly implicated in it -- the newspaper is accused of using "objectionable language" and repeating "imaginary facts". "The articles published by the Kantipur Daily are intended to obstruct the judicial process and weaken the judiciary by disrespecting the court and spreading confusion about the court and its justices," according to the order seen by AFP. Multiple news outlets have carried reports that the chief justice's official documents show as many as five different dates of birth, but only the Kantipur Daily -- Nepal's largest newspaper by circulation -- has been singled out by the court. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders slammed the move against the newspaper and urged lawmakers to impeach the top judge. "It shouldn't be necessary to remind a chief justice that you cannot be judge and party at the same time," said Daniel Bastard, the watchdog's Asia-Pacific expert. "This is a completely unacceptable case of prior censorship that could have dire consequences for media freedom if it sets a legal precedent." Akhilesh Upadhyay, the editor-in-chief of Kantipur Daily's English-language sister publication, The Kathmandu Post, said the court order was motivated by a personal vendetta and said the newspaper would fight the charges. "He has put a muzzle on the press," he said in an interview with AFP earlier this week. Parajuli was appointed chief justice nine months ago, and even by the youngest age on his official documents, is due to retire in two months. Kantipur Daily's editor-in-chief, the chairman, a company director and a reporter are due in court Friday. They could face up to a year in jail if found guilty. Nepal's media industry has boomed since the country's king was overthrown a decade ago following a brutal civil war, spawning dozens of newspapers. A new constitution passed in 2015 proclaims complete press freedom and bans censorship of news, which was common during monarchic rule. Journalists in the Himalayan nation do still face intimidation and arrest, particularly if reporting on issues deemed by authorities to affect national unity. Nepal ranks 100 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index.

Nepal newspaper summoned to court by Chief Justice for articles critical of him

South African lawmakers on Thursday selected Cyril Ramaphosa as the country&#39;s new president after scandal-tainted Jacob Zuma resigned under pressure from his own ANC ruling party.

Ramaphosa was chosen without a vote after being the only candidate nominated, chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng told assembled lawmakers at a special sitting of the parliament in Cape Town.

The announcement brought loud cheers from ANC lawmakers, with Ramaphosa due to address the parliament later during proceedings.

Zuma resigned on Wednesday as the ANC finally turned against him after a nine-year reign dominated by corruption scandals, economic slowdown and plummeting electoral popularity.

Zuma railed against the ANC for &quot;recalling&quot; him from office and -- when he at first refused to resign -- then threatening to oust him via a parliament no-confidence vote.

In an earlier TV interview on Wednesday, Zuma said he had received &quot;very unfair&quot; treatment from the party that he joined in 1959 and in which he had fought for decades against apartheid white-minority rule.

Zuma had been in a power struggle with Ramaphosa, his deputy president.

Zuma&#39;s hold over the ANC was broken in December when his chosen successor -- his former wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma -- narrowly lost to Ramaphosa in a vote to become the new party leader.

South African lawmakers on Thursday selected Cyril Ramaphosa as the country's new president after scandal-tainted Jacob Zuma resigned under pressure from his own ANC ruling party. Ramaphosa was chosen without a vote after being the only candidate nominated, chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng told assembled lawmakers at a special sitting of the parliament in Cape Town. The announcement brought loud cheers from ANC lawmakers, with Ramaphosa due to address the parliament later during proceedings. Zuma resigned on Wednesday as the ANC finally turned against him after a nine-year reign dominated by corruption scandals, economic slowdown and plummeting electoral popularity. Zuma railed against the ANC for "recalling" him from office and -- when he at first refused to resign -- then threatening to oust him via a parliament no-confidence vote. In an earlier TV interview on Wednesday, Zuma said he had received "very unfair" treatment from the party that he joined in 1959 and in which he had fought for decades against apartheid white-minority rule. Zuma had been in a power struggle with Ramaphosa, his deputy president. Zuma's hold over the ANC was broken in December when his chosen successor -- his former wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma -- narrowly lost to Ramaphosa in a vote to become the new party leader.

South African lawmakers elect Cyril Ramaphosa as President

In a bid to resolve their differences, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra today met the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court who had hurled several accusations against him including on the issue of allocation of PILs of sensitive nature.

The apex court sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- for about 15 minutes before starting the normal work of the day.

Some other judges were also present in the meeting, the sources said.

After the meeting, the CJI and the four judges went ahead with their listed business.

Despite optimism expressed yesterday by legal bodies, the crisis in the Supreme Court over complaints against the chief justice seemed far from over.

At a press conference last week, the four judges had flagged certain problems, including the assigning of cases by the CJI, and said there were certain issues afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.

Earlier in the day, Attorney General K K Venugopal told PTI &quot;I think it (crisis) has not been settled. Lets hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days.&quot;

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh also exuded confidence that there was a likelihood of the crisis being resolved by the end of this week.

Yesterday, Venugopal and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had said the crisis has ended and there is no dispute now.

Sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges for 15 minutes before the start of the working day

In a bid to resolve their differences, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra today met the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court who had hurled several accusations against him including on the issue of allocation of PILs of sensitive nature. The apex court sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- for about 15 minutes before starting the normal work of the day. Some other judges were also present in the meeting, the sources said. After the meeting, the CJI and the four judges went ahead with their listed business. Despite optimism expressed yesterday by legal bodies, the crisis in the Supreme Court over complaints against the chief justice seemed far from over. At a press conference last week, the four judges had flagged certain problems, including the assigning of cases by the CJI, and said there were certain issues afflicting the country's highest court. Earlier in the day, Attorney General K K Venugopal told PTI "I think it (crisis) has not been settled. Lets hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days." Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh also exuded confidence that there was a likelihood of the crisis being resolved by the end of this week. Yesterday, Venugopal and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had said the crisis has ended and there is no dispute now.

Supreme Court crisis: CJI meets four dissenting judges

AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Monday slammed RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and said does he think that he is the Chief Justice of India, reported news agency ANI.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Owaisi&#39;s comments came after&nbsp;Bhagwat&#39;s comments two weeks ago about a Ram temple at a disputed site in Ayodhya that housed the Babri Masjid until 1992 when it was demolished by the Hindu fundamentalists. Bhagwat said such a temple will be constructed right on the disputed site and in no other place.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
On what basis is RSS Chief saying nothing but Ram Temple will be built there. Is he Chief Justice or does he know what would the decision be? On what basis VHP&#39;s Surinder Jain said construction will begin on 18th Oct 2018? Do they have some inside information?: Asaduddin Owaisi <a href="https://t.co/OZaoqjZY0Y">pic.twitter.com/OZaoqjZY0Y</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937612652548730882?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2017</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>

&#39;&#39;With what authority is Mohan Bhagwat saying that a Temple will be built in Ayodhya? The case is still on in the Supreme Court. Is Mohan Bhagwat the Chief Justice? Who is he?,&#39;&#39; said Owaisi.

Last month, BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also expressed optimism that the construction of a Ram temple would begin in Ayodhya by next Diwali. Swamy is an intervenor in a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court decision on the Ayodhya land dispute in Supreme Court, claiming that his right to worship in the temple is being hampered by the long drawn-out court case on Ayodhya.

In October 2010, the Allahabad High Court directed that the disputed site of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties: Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu group).

''With what authority is Mohan Bhagwat saying that a Temple will be built in Ayodhya? The case is still on in the Supreme Court. Is Mohan Bhagwat the Chief Justice? Who is he?,'' said Owaisi.

AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Monday slammed RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and said does he think that he is the Chief Justice of India, reported news agency ANI. Owaisi's comments came after Bhagwat's comments two weeks ago about a Ram temple at a disputed site in Ayodhya that housed the Babri Masjid until 1992 when it was demolished by the Hindu fundamentalists. Bhagwat said such a temple will be constructed right on the disputed site and in no other place. On what basis is RSS Chief saying nothing but Ram Temple will be built there. Is he Chief Justice or does he know what would the decision be? On what basis VHP's Surinder Jain said construction will begin on 18th Oct 2018? Do they have some inside information?: Asaduddin Owaisi pic.twitter.com/OZaoqjZY0Y — ANI (@ANI) December 4, 2017 × ''With what authority is Mohan Bhagwat saying that a Temple will be built in Ayodhya? The case is still on in the Supreme Court. Is Mohan Bhagwat the Chief Justice? Who is he?,'' said Owaisi. Last month, BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also expressed optimism that the construction of a Ram temple would begin in Ayodhya by next Diwali. Swamy is an intervenor in a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court decision on the Ayodhya land dispute in Supreme Court, claiming that his right to worship in the temple is being hampered by the long drawn-out court case on Ayodhya. In October 2010, the Allahabad High Court directed that the disputed site of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties: Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu group).

'Is Mohan Bhagwat Chief Justice of India?', asks Asaduddin Owaisi

Justice Sushila Karki is to be the Chief Justice of the Nepal Supreme Court as the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee today unanimously endorsed her name for the vacant position. 
 
Karki will be the first woman to lead Nepal&#39;s judiciary after President Bidhya Devi Bhandari will appoint her to the post, reports the Himalayan Times. 
 
Speaking at the meeting with the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee, she told the lawmakers that the Supreme Court was facing a tough time due to a low number of available justices. 
 
Dismissing accusations filed against her at the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee that she was involved in corruption, she asked the committee to complete the hearing for justice appointments soon. 
 
Karki has been taking charge of the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice since her predecessor Kalyan Shrestha retired on April 14. 
 
(ANI)

Karki took charge of the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice since her predecessor, Kalyan Shrestha, retired on April 14

Justice Sushila Karki is to be the Chief Justice of the Nepal Supreme Court as the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee today unanimously endorsed her name for the vacant position. Karki will be the first woman to lead Nepal's judiciary after President Bidhya Devi Bhandari will appoint her to the post, reports the Himalayan Times. Speaking at the meeting with the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee, she told the lawmakers that the Supreme Court was facing a tough time due to a low number of available justices. Dismissing accusations filed against her at the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee that she was involved in corruption, she asked the committee to complete the hearing for justice appointments soon. Karki has been taking charge of the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice since her predecessor Kalyan Shrestha retired on April 14. (ANI)

Sushila Karki to be Nepal's first woman Chief Justice

chief-justice

Chief Justice, News on Chief Justice, stories on Chief Justice, articles on Chief Justice, Chief Justice stories at Wion, Chief Justice news, Chief Justice latest news