<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-chief-justice-stays-execution-of-mentally-ill-policeman-190014&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjagK7d5PTfAhWRUd4KHSgfCZsQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw25DNV_s5PLSNLJnFi6TKUa">Chief Justice of Pakistan </a>Saqib Nisar, who tried to cultivate the image of being the "people's judge" and known for his judicial activism, retired on Thursday.

The outgoing chief justice passed several landmark judgments during his tenure as top judge including one which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nawaz-sharif-denied-assistant-told-to-maintain-jail-room-himself-188102&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwimv_-X5PTfAhURhbwKHdGbDMsQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2rlYPawu-ZcmSAzbxVWmBP">disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif </a>in 2017 in a corruption case and the verdict in the blasphemy case against Christian woman Asia Bibi.

Justice Nisar was sworn in as the top judge on December 31, 2016. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa will take over the reins of the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/maharashtra-supreme-court-relaxes-licence-conditions-for-dance-bars-190940&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiS3YW25PTfAhUNF4gKHVFJDz8QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0e5KaRiZErKH6SLktj5Peb">Supreme Court</a> of Pakistan on Friday when he will be administered the oath by President Arif Alvi.

Justice Nisar has been a judge of the apex court since February 18, 2010. Before that, he was a judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

A full court reference in honour of the retiring Chief Justice Nisar was held in the Supreme Court. I was attended by all Supreme Court judges ? with the exception of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah ? as well as Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor, retired senior judges as well as senior journalists, among others.

Addressing the gathering, Justice Nisar said the top court has passed many landmark verdicts.

He said he tried to solve the issues plaguing sectors of health and education, both of which are rights granted to citizens by the Constitution.

"The job of judges is extremely difficult. Corruption within the judiciary is the murder of justice. I worked within the code of conduct for judges and it is my honour to have served the nation," he said.

Addressing the full court reference, chief justice-designate Khosa said Chief Justice Nisar faced many constitutional, societal and political challenges during his tenure and headed the judiciary in "very difficult circumstances".

Outlining his plan for his upcoming tenure as a top judge, Justice Khosa said that he will ensure the quick dispensation of justice.

Referring to Justice Nisar's efforts to raise donations to build the Diamer-Bhasha dams, Justice Khosa said that he too he wanted to build a dam. "I will build a dam against fake cases, against pending cases," he said.

"Currently there are 1.9 million cases pending in courts. Three thousand judges cannot dispense of so many cases," Justice Khosa noted.

He said the power to take Suo Motu notices will be used sparingly.

Speaking on the role of other courts, he said: "The trial of a civilian in a military court is considered wrong across the world. It is said that military courts take less time to issue verdicts. Civilian courts should try to resolve cases in a short period of time. <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-special-director-asthana-moves-delhi-hc-seeking-correction-in-recent-judgement-190801&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiXv_P55PTfAhWa7WEKHTSPDnsQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw14vY_na-Lby8ewG8eJzQds">High court</a>s should exercise powers within their jurisdiction."

He said the army and intelligence agencies should not interfere in civilian matters.

Among Chief Justice Nisar's retirement plans are to open a "free legal clinic".

"I will offer free legal assistance to the oppressed, poor and helpless people at my free legal clinic," he said earlier in the day, after adjourning a hearing of his last case.

Justice Nisar will be remembered for populism and stretching the concept of judicial activism to its last limits. He took at least 43 suo motu actions on issues ranging from water shortages, health issues, exorbitant school fee, and encroachments.

He even organised seminars on how to control population which he termed as dangerous for the country.

He used media efficiently and his aides would send tickers and messages to journalists on the pattern of political leaders.

Justice Nisar took a keen interest in disputes of popular nature. For example, he led a campaign to build dams to store water and set up special accounts to collect donations.

His drive against encroachment was applauded as thousands of acres of land illegally grabbed by land mafia was vacated due to his efforts.

He was shrewd enough to know the limits of his power in a country where the military was a powerful institution and tried to avoid doing things which might have annoyed the army.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar, who tried to cultivate the image of being the "people's judge" and known for his judicial activism, retired on Thursday. The outgoing chief justice passed several landmark judgments during his tenure as top judge including one which disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 2017 in a corruption case and the verdict in the blasphemy case against Christian woman Asia Bibi.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar, who tried to cultivate the image of being the "people's judge" and known for his judicial activism, retired on Thursday. The outgoing chief justice passed several landmark judgments during his tenure as top judge including one which disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 2017 in a corruption case and the verdict in the blasphemy case against Christian woman Asia Bibi. Justice Nisar was sworn in as the top judge on December 31, 2016. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa will take over the reins of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday when he will be administered the oath by President Arif Alvi. Justice Nisar has been a judge of the apex court since February 18, 2010. Before that, he was a judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC). A full court reference in honour of the retiring Chief Justice Nisar was held in the Supreme Court. I was attended by all Supreme Court judges ? with the exception of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah ? as well as Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor, retired senior judges as well as senior journalists, among others. Addressing the gathering, Justice Nisar said the top court has passed many landmark verdicts. He said he tried to solve the issues plaguing sectors of health and education, both of which are rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. "The job of judges is extremely difficult. Corruption within the judiciary is the murder of justice. I worked within the code of conduct for judges and it is my honour to have served the nation," he said. Addressing the full court reference, chief justice-designate Khosa said Chief Justice Nisar faced many constitutional, societal and political challenges during his tenure and headed the judiciary in "very difficult circumstances". Outlining his plan for his upcoming tenure as a top judge, Justice Khosa said that he will ensure the quick dispensation of justice. Referring to Justice Nisar's efforts to raise donations to build the Diamer-Bhasha dams, Justice Khosa said that he too he wanted to build a dam. "I will build a dam against fake cases, against pending cases," he said. "Currently there are 1.9 million cases pending in courts. Three thousand judges cannot dispense of so many cases," Justice Khosa noted. He said the power to take Suo Motu notices will be used sparingly. Speaking on the role of other courts, he said: "The trial of a civilian in a military court is considered wrong across the world. It is said that military courts take less time to issue verdicts. Civilian courts should try to resolve cases in a short period of time. High courts should exercise powers within their jurisdiction." He said the army and intelligence agencies should not interfere in civilian matters. Among Chief Justice Nisar's retirement plans are to open a "free legal clinic". "I will offer free legal assistance to the oppressed, poor and helpless people at my free legal clinic," he said earlier in the day, after adjourning a hearing of his last case. Justice Nisar will be remembered for populism and stretching the concept of judicial activism to its last limits. He took at least 43 suo motu actions on issues ranging from water shortages, health issues, exorbitant school fee, and encroachments. He even organised seminars on how to control population which he termed as dangerous for the country. He used media efficiently and his aides would send tickers and messages to journalists on the pattern of political leaders. Justice Nisar took a keen interest in disputes of popular nature. For example, he led a campaign to build dams to store water and set up special accounts to collect donations. His drive against encroachment was applauded as thousands of acres of land illegally grabbed by land mafia was vacated due to his efforts. He was shrewd enough to know the limits of his power in a country where the military was a powerful institution and tried to avoid doing things which might have annoyed the army.

Pakistan's Chief Justice Nisar, known for judicial activism retires

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court.

The top court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies.

"This Collegium unanimously resolves to fill up, for the present, two of the five existing vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court. The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court," the top court said.

While recommending the names of Justices Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, the Collegium took into consideration the combined seniority on an all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of High Courts, apart from their merit and integrity.

The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts, said the Apex Court.

"We, therefore, recommend that Mr. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India," the collegium concluded.

Justice Maheshwari was appointed as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on September 2, 2004, and was transferred to the Allahabad High Court on July 19, 2014. He was elevated as the Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court on February 24, 2016, and was thereafter transferred to the Karnataka High Court on February 12, 2018.

Meanwhile, Justice Khanna was appointed as a Judge of the Delhi High Court on June 24, 2005, and since then he has been functioning there.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court. The top court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies. "This Collegium unanimously resolves to fill up, for the present, two of the five existing vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court. The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court," the top court said. While recommending the names of Justices Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, the Collegium took into consideration the combined seniority on an all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of High Courts, apart from their merit and integrity. The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts, said the Apex Court. "We, therefore, recommend that Mr. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India," the collegium concluded. Justice Maheshwari was appointed as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on September 2, 2004, and was transferred to the Allahabad High Court on July 19, 2014. He was elevated as the Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court on February 24, 2016, and was thereafter transferred to the Karnataka High Court on February 12, 2018. Meanwhile, Justice Khanna was appointed as a Judge of the Delhi High Court on June 24, 2005, and since then he has been functioning there.

Collegium recommends Karnataka HC Chief Justice, Delhi Court judge for elevation to SC

Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by Governor Acharya Devvrat here on Friday.

The ceremony took place at the Darbar Hall of the Raj Bhavan, where Chief Secretary B K Agarwal read out the Warrant of Appointment issued by the President of India.

Chief Minister Jai Ram Thakur, Assembly Speaker Rajiv Bindal, state ministers, Leader of Opposition Mukesh Agnihotri were among those present on the occasion.

Born on February 10, 1962 at Hisar in Haryana, Justice Surya Kant graduated from Government Post-Graduate College, Hisar, and earned Bachelor's degree in Law in 1984 from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak.

He started practicing law at district court, Hisar in 1984 and shifted to Chandigarh in 1985 to practice at the Punjab and Haryana High Courts. On July 7, 2000, he earned the distinction of being appointed the youngest Advocate General of Haryana.

He was designated senior advocate in March, 2001 and held the office of Advocate General, Haryana, till his elevation as a permanent judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 09, 2004.

Justice Surya Kant was nominated as a member of the National Legal Services Authority on February 23, 2007 for two consecutive terms.&nbsp;

Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by Governor Acharya Devvrat here on Friday. The ceremony took place at the Darbar Hall of the Raj Bhavan, where Chief Secretary B K Agarwal read out the Warrant of Appointment issued by the President of India.

Justice Surya Kant was sworn in as the chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by Governor Acharya Devvrat here on Friday. The ceremony took place at the Darbar Hall of the Raj Bhavan, where Chief Secretary B K Agarwal read out the Warrant of Appointment issued by the President of India. Chief Minister Jai Ram Thakur, Assembly Speaker Rajiv Bindal, state ministers, Leader of Opposition Mukesh Agnihotri were among those present on the occasion. Born on February 10, 1962 at Hisar in Haryana, Justice Surya Kant graduated from Government Post-Graduate College, Hisar, and earned Bachelor's degree in Law in 1984 from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. He started practicing law at district court, Hisar in 1984 and shifted to Chandigarh in 1985 to practice at the Punjab and Haryana High Courts. On July 7, 2000, he earned the distinction of being appointed the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. He was designated senior advocate in March, 2001 and held the office of Advocate General, Haryana, till his elevation as a permanent judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 09, 2004. Justice Surya Kant was nominated as a member of the National Legal Services Authority on February 23, 2007 for two consecutive terms.

Justice Surya Kant sworn in as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court

Pakistan`s Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has condemned the targetted attacks on members of the minority Hazara community in Balochistan, describing it as a clear case of "ethnic cleansing".

Leading a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and himself at the Supreme Court`s Quetta Registry, Chief Justice Nisar, taking suo moto notice of the attacks, said, "For me, the targetted killing of the Hazara community in Quetta is ethnic cleansing and that is why I had to take suo motu notice. We have no words to condemn the killings of Hazaras."

According to the Express Tribune, Chief Justice Nisar took suo motu notice of recent attacks on the beleaguered community and asked the Balochistan government, Levies, police, and the Interior Ministry to submit separate reports to the apex court.

Earlier, community leaders approached the bench to relate their predicament."The Hazaras are being killed for the last 20 years, but no one has been arrested till this date," Advocate Iftikhar Ali, a leader of the community, told the court.

He claimed the Hazaras were facing systemic discrimination."We are facing personal and financial losses due to this persecution," the Express Tribune quoted him, as saying.

He also highlighted the fact that security for 15 Hazara leaders has been withdrawn, which the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Quetta) denied.

Chief Justice Nisar asked Balochistan Inspector General Police (IGP) Moazzam Jah Ansari and other agencies to reveal the measures they were taking to protect the community.

Balochistan IGP Ansari revealed that 399 Hazaras had been killed in various incidents of terrorism in the last six years.

The highest number of Hazaras (208) was killed in 2013, while 19 people from the minority community and 20 settlers were killed in 2012, his report said.

"Nine members of the Hazara community have been targeted in Balochistan in the last four months," the IGP said, adding that 106 security personnel have also been killed since 2012 in targetted attacks.

"Twenty-eight personnel have been martyred so far in various incidents across the province this year. The security situation in the province has improved now," he added.

Another leader of Hazaras, Major (retd) Nadir Ali, lamented that a joint investigation team (JIT) formed to investigate targetted killings of the Hazaras could not produce any significant results.

Chief Justice Nisar ordered the IGP to directly look into the issue.

The chief justice also took notice of a separate petition filed by a Hazara woman whose husband has reportedly gone missing and advised IGP Ansari and the Frontier Corps to contact intelligence agencies for assistance in the matter.

"We cannot exist peacefully without state institutions. We should not consider them as our enemies," he said in a reference to the intelligence agencies on Friday.

"I met the Hazara community recently. They were so afraid, they wouldn`t even lodge complaints or request the Supreme Court, while killers of the community are holding public rallies," Chief Justice Nisar said.

The CJP ordered the authorities to improve and implement a security plan immediately. He later adjourned the hearing till after Eid-ul-Fitr.

Chief Justice Nisar asked Balochistan Inspector General Police (IGP) Moazzam Jah Ansari and other agencies to reveal the measures they were taking to protect the community.

Pakistan`s Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has condemned the targetted attacks on members of the minority Hazara community in Balochistan, describing it as a clear case of "ethnic cleansing". Leading a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and himself at the Supreme Court`s Quetta Registry, Chief Justice Nisar, taking suo moto notice of the attacks, said, "For me, the targetted killing of the Hazara community in Quetta is ethnic cleansing and that is why I had to take suo motu notice. We have no words to condemn the killings of Hazaras." According to the Express Tribune, Chief Justice Nisar took suo motu notice of recent attacks on the beleaguered community and asked the Balochistan government, Levies, police, and the Interior Ministry to submit separate reports to the apex court. Earlier, community leaders approached the bench to relate their predicament."The Hazaras are being killed for the last 20 years, but no one has been arrested till this date," Advocate Iftikhar Ali, a leader of the community, told the court. He claimed the Hazaras were facing systemic discrimination."We are facing personal and financial losses due to this persecution," the Express Tribune quoted him, as saying. He also highlighted the fact that security for 15 Hazara leaders has been withdrawn, which the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Quetta) denied. Chief Justice Nisar asked Balochistan Inspector General Police (IGP) Moazzam Jah Ansari and other agencies to reveal the measures they were taking to protect the community. Balochistan IGP Ansari revealed that 399 Hazaras had been killed in various incidents of terrorism in the last six years. The highest number of Hazaras (208) was killed in 2013, while 19 people from the minority community and 20 settlers were killed in 2012, his report said. "Nine members of the Hazara community have been targeted in Balochistan in the last four months," the IGP said, adding that 106 security personnel have also been killed since 2012 in targetted attacks. "Twenty-eight personnel have been martyred so far in various incidents across the province this year. The security situation in the province has improved now," he added. Another leader of Hazaras, Major (retd) Nadir Ali, lamented that a joint investigation team (JIT) formed to investigate targetted killings of the Hazaras could not produce any significant results. Chief Justice Nisar ordered the IGP to directly look into the issue. The chief justice also took notice of a separate petition filed by a Hazara woman whose husband has reportedly gone missing and advised IGP Ansari and the Frontier Corps to contact intelligence agencies for assistance in the matter. "We cannot exist peacefully without state institutions. We should not consider them as our enemies," he said in a reference to the intelligence agencies on Friday. "I met the Hazara community recently. They were so afraid, they wouldn`t even lodge complaints or request the Supreme Court, while killers of the community are holding public rallies," Chief Justice Nisar said. The CJP ordered the authorities to improve and implement a security plan immediately. He later adjourned the hearing till after Eid-ul-Fitr.

Pakistan CJ condemns ''ethnic cleansing'' of Hazaras

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked state cricket associations and BCCI&nbsp;office-bearers to give their suggestions on the draft constitution for the apex cricket body, to be approved by it.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition filed by Cricket Association of Bihar against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) officials for not implementing its earlier order allowing Bihar to play national level cricket tournaments, including the Ranji Trophy matches.

The Bench, which also comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilakr and D.Y. Chandrachud, considered the submissions of the BCCI, Committee of Administrators (COA) and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting as amicus curiae, that Bihar would take part in national-level tournaments in the cricketing season commencing from September.

The Bench said a draft constitution would be approved by it, which would be binding on the BCCI. However, it clarified that its order on petitions seeking recall of the 2016 verdict would deal with the validity of the draft constitution.

It asked State cricket bodies and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions with regard to the draft constitution to the amicus curiae before May 11, the next date of hearing.

The Bench also directed Maharashtra Cricket Association, represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to postpone its tomorrow’s election till the next date.

The COA had in October last year filed a draft constitution of the BCCI incorporating suggestions of the Justice R M Lodha panel on reforms in the cash-rich cricket body.

The top court had said the draft constitution should include the suggestions of the Lodha committee in its entirety so that a holistic document can be placed before it for a final decision. It had approved the Lodha panel’s recommendations like ‘one state, one vote’, ‘one member, one post’ and fixing a 70-year age-cap on those occupying BCCI posts.

The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) had on April 20 this year moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against some office-bearers of BCCI for not complying with its order allowing Bihar to participate in Ranji Trophy and other national championships.

The CAB, in its plea, had alleged that the BCCI had neither invited any cricket association to play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, nor allowed any cricket association from Bihar to participate in the tournament held in February.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked state cricket associations and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions on the draft constitution for the apex cricket body, to be approved by it. A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition filed by Cricket Association of Bihar against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) officials for not implementing its earlier order allowing Bihar to play national level cricket tournaments, including the Ranji Trophy matches. The Bench, which also comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilakr and D.Y. Chandrachud, considered the submissions of the BCCI, Committee of Administrators (COA) and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting as amicus curiae, that Bihar would take part in national-level tournaments in the cricketing season commencing from September. The Bench said a draft constitution would be approved by it, which would be binding on the BCCI. However, it clarified that its order on petitions seeking recall of the 2016 verdict would deal with the validity of the draft constitution. It asked State cricket bodies and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions with regard to the draft constitution to the amicus curiae before May 11, the next date of hearing. The Bench also directed Maharashtra Cricket Association, represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to postpone its tomorrow’s election till the next date. The COA had in October last year filed a draft constitution of the BCCI incorporating suggestions of the Justice R M Lodha panel on reforms in the cash-rich cricket body. The top court had said the draft constitution should include the suggestions of the Lodha committee in its entirety so that a holistic document can be placed before it for a final decision. It had approved the Lodha panel’s recommendations like ‘one state, one vote’, ‘one member, one post’ and fixing a 70-year age-cap on those occupying BCCI posts. The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) had on April 20 this year moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against some office-bearers of BCCI for not complying with its order allowing Bihar to participate in Ranji Trophy and other national championships. The CAB, in its plea, had alleged that the BCCI had neither invited any cricket association to play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, nor allowed any cricket association from Bihar to participate in the tournament held in February.

Give suggestions on BCCI draft constitution, SC tells state cricket bodies

The government has asked the collegium to reconsider the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court, PTI has reported government sources as saying.&nbsp;

Joseph is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.&nbsp;

The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary.&nbsp;

The government had so far been sitting on Joseph's nomination along with that of Indu Malhotra's. Both names were recommended in January.&nbsp;

Malhotra's name however was cleared yesterday, making her the first woman to directly go from being a lawyer to a Supreme Court judge.&nbsp;

In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back the Congress government of Harish Rawat to power. The judgement was seen as major set back to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre.

The government's decision of not approving Joseph's name has evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing". 
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad wrote to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra this morning requesting the collegium, a group of five senior-most judges that selects judges for the apex court, to reconsider its decision on recommending Justice Joseph to be a judge of the top court.

Prasad also informed the CJI that senior advocate Malhotra has today been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's — he is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court — nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary

The government has asked the collegium to reconsider the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court, PTI has reported government sources as saying. Joseph is currently Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The Centre's decision to not clear Joseph's nomination as a Supreme Court judge is expected to set up a massive confrontation between the government and the judiciary. The government had so far been sitting on Joseph's nomination along with that of Indu Malhotra's. Both names were recommended in January. Malhotra's name however was cleared yesterday, making her the first woman to directly go from being a lawyer to a Supreme Court judge. In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back the Congress government of Harish Rawat to power. The judgement was seen as major set back to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre. The government's decision of not approving Joseph's name has evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing". Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad wrote to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra this morning requesting the collegium, a group of five senior-most judges that selects judges for the apex court, to reconsider its decision on recommending Justice Joseph to be a judge of the top court. Prasad also informed the CJI that senior advocate Malhotra has today been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. (With inputs from PTI)

Government asks collegium to reconsider elevation of Justice KM Joseph to Supreme Court: Sources

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system.

Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court.

The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'.

"The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said.

He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily.

Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?"

"The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order."

"Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said.

His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country.

On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true".

"I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said.

Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye.

"None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said.

In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government".

"I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said.

Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure.

When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media.

"Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements.

"I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said.

Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government?

"I am not answering this question," he replied.

He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired.

When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".&nbsp

Gogoi was one of the four Supreme Court judges who held the January 12 press conference. The conference was seen as being an indictment of CJI Dipak Misra

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system. Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court. The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'. "The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said. He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily. Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?" "The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order." "Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said. His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country. On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true". "I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said. Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye. "None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said. In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government". "I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said. Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure. When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media. "Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements. "I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said. Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government? "I am not answering this question," he replied. He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired. When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".

If Ranjan Gogoi not made next CJI, will prove what we said was true: Chelameswar

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