Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening.

CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes.&nbsp;

The chief justice in his inimitable style stopped a lawyer who started singing at the fag end of the proceedings.&nbsp;

"Tum jiyo hazaron saal..." the lawyer crooned, singing the opening lines of a Hindi film song from the late 1950s usually played on birthdays.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YJkdZIdsTWs" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

CJI Misra immediately stopped him and said, "Presently I am responding from my heart. I will respond from my mind in the evening."

Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice A M Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI.

In a strange turn of events, lawyer R P Luthra mentioned two alleged controversial tweets by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and advocate Prashant Bhushan against the outgoing CJI, criticising his recent judgements, including the verdict in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case.

He urged the court to take cognisance of the alleged controversial tweets. But the bench didn't respond after perusing the tweets.

CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations, and delivered several verdicts in the recent past.

These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery.

The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple.

Justice Misra was appointed additional judge of the Orissa High Court on January 17, 1996, before his transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on December 19, 1997.

He assumed charge of the office of chief justice of Patna High Court on December 23, 2009 and became chief justice of the Delhi High Court on May 24, 2010.&nbsp;

He was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011 and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening. CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes. The chief justice in his inimitable style stopped a lawyer who started singing at the fag end of the proceedings. "Tum jiyo hazaron saal..." the lawyer crooned, singing the opening lines of a Hindi film song from the late 1950s usually played on birthdays. × CJI Misra immediately stopped him and said, "Presently I am responding from my heart. I will respond from my mind in the evening." Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice A M Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI. In a strange turn of events, lawyer R P Luthra mentioned two alleged controversial tweets by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and advocate Prashant Bhushan against the outgoing CJI, criticising his recent judgements, including the verdict in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case. He urged the court to take cognisance of the alleged controversial tweets. But the bench didn't respond after perusing the tweets. CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations, and delivered several verdicts in the recent past. These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery. The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple. Justice Misra was appointed additional judge of the Orissa High Court on January 17, 1996, before his transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on December 19, 1997. He assumed charge of the office of chief justice of Patna High Court on December 23, 2009 and became chief justice of the Delhi High Court on May 24, 2010. He was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011 and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.

Emotional CJI Dipak Misra holds court for last time

India's Supreme Court today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-head-priest-disappointed-after-supreme-court-allows-entry-women-168114">allowed entry of women of all</a> ages into the&nbsp;Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/entry-women-sabarimala-temple-indu-malhotra-lone-dissenter-supreme-court-bench-168118">Also Read:&nbsp; Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench</a>

Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple.

A five-judge Supreme Court bench delivered its verdict on the entry of women aged between&nbsp;10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The Supreme Court said the rule is against the article 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. "Constitutional morality is supreme,"&nbsp;the CJI said while reading out the verdict.

The bench comprises of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

"Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion," CJI Misra said. Sabarimala Temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women, Misra added.

The temple's authorities, however, said they will appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling ahead of its next period of opening of the temple, beginning October 16th.

"Banning entry of women to shrine is gender discrimination," the CJI asserted. Religion is a way of life basically to link life with divinity, he said.

CJI Dipak Misra read out the first of four set of verdicts in the Sabarimala shrine case. Justice Indu Malhotra has written separate dissenting verdict, the CJI said.

Justice R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI.

Law and society are tasked&nbsp;to act as levellers,&nbsp;CJI said, adding,"devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination." Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute separate denomination, the CJI said.

The practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice, the CJI said while delivering the verdict.

Kerala law denies rights to women on the ground of physiological reasons, the CJI added.

The ban was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, among the petitioners who had filed the case in 2006 but it was taken up for hearing in January 2016.

The Kerala government had said earlier that it was not opposed to the "prayers of the petitioner". Kerala state minister K Surendran had said all women, irrespective of their age should be allowed to offer prayers at the Sabarimala Temple.

Last year, in October the Supreme Court bench had asked whether the traditional ban amounts to discrimination against women and violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution.&nbsp;

"Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship," Justice DY Chandrachud, who is part of the five-judge constitutional bench had said.

India's Supreme Court today allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Also Read: Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple.

India's Supreme Court today allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Also Read: Justice Indu Malhotra lone dissenter in Supreme Court bench Women cannot be treated as weaker or lesser, Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra said while delivering the verdict on the entry of women at the Sabarimala temple. A five-judge Supreme Court bench delivered its verdict on the entry of women aged between 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Supreme Court said the rule is against the article 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. "Constitutional morality is supreme," the CJI said while reading out the verdict. The bench comprises of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. "Patriarchal notion cannot be allowed to trump equality in devotion," CJI Misra said. Sabarimala Temple practice violates the rights of Hindu women, Misra added. The temple's authorities, however, said they will appeal to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling ahead of its next period of opening of the temple, beginning October 16th. "Banning entry of women to shrine is gender discrimination," the CJI asserted. Religion is a way of life basically to link life with divinity, he said. CJI Dipak Misra read out the first of four set of verdicts in the Sabarimala shrine case. Justice Indu Malhotra has written separate dissenting verdict, the CJI said. Justice R F Nariman, D Y Chandrachud concurred with the CJI. Law and society are tasked to act as levellers, CJI said, adding,"devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination." Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute separate denomination, the CJI said. The practice of exclusion of women of 10-50 age group cannot be regarded as essential religious practice, the CJI said while delivering the verdict. Kerala law denies rights to women on the ground of physiological reasons, the CJI added. The ban was challenged by the Indian Young Lawyers Association, among the petitioners who had filed the case in 2006 but it was taken up for hearing in January 2016. The Kerala government had said earlier that it was not opposed to the "prayers of the petitioner". Kerala state minister K Surendran had said all women, irrespective of their age should be allowed to offer prayers at the Sabarimala Temple. Last year, in October the Supreme Court bench had asked whether the traditional ban amounts to discrimination against women and violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution. "Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship," Justice DY Chandrachud, who is part of the five-judge constitutional bench had said.

Supreme Court lifts ban on women's entry to Sabarimala temple in Kerala

The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre.&nbsp

The collegium had met today to discuss the issue after the Centre sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration.&nbsp

The Centre's contention was that Kerala, where Justice Joseph hails from, is already adequately represented in the higher judiciary. And that Justice Joseph is not senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court.&nbsp

Justice Joseph is currently 41st in terms of seniority among high court judges.&nbsp

PTI reported earlier that the collegium deliberated on the issue for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-meet-to-decide-on-justice-josephs-elevation-to-sc-concludes-decision-awaited-136113">close to an hour</a>.&nbsp

All the members of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were present at Friday's meeting.&nbsp

The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI Misra.&nbsp

Justice Chelameswar, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, had written to CJI Misra yesterday urging him to convene the meeting and to also send the collegium's nomination of Justice KM Joseph's back to the Centre.&nbsp

PTI reported that in his letter, Justice Chelameswar told the CJI that he was reiterating his decision favouring the elevation of Justice Joseph as a judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10.

PTI added that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, had in his letter responded to all the points raised by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad when he sent back Justice Joseph's name to the collegium for reconsideration.&nbsp

(With inputs from PTI)

The Centre had sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration. The collegium, which met today, reportedly deliberated on the issue for close to an hour

The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre. The collegium had met today to discuss the issue after the Centre sent Justice Joseph's name back to the collegium on April 26 for reconsideration. The Centre's contention was that Kerala, where Justice Joseph hails from, is already adequately represented in the higher judiciary. And that Justice Joseph is not senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Justice Joseph is currently 41st in terms of seniority among high court judges. PTI reported earlier that the collegium deliberated on the issue for close to an hour. All the members of the collegium — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — were present at Friday's meeting. The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI Misra. Justice Chelameswar, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, had written to CJI Misra yesterday urging him to convene the meeting and to also send the collegium's nomination of Justice KM Joseph's back to the Centre. PTI reported that in his letter, Justice Chelameswar told the CJI that he was reiterating his decision favouring the elevation of Justice Joseph as a judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. PTI added that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, had in his letter responded to all the points raised by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad when he sent back Justice Joseph's name to the collegium for reconsideration. (With inputs from PTI)

Collegium agrees unanimously to send Justice KM Joseph's name for elevation to SC back to Centre

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. 
Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited.

All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations.&nbsp;

The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI.

It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/convene-meeting-of-collegium-resend-justice-km-josephs-name-to-centre-justice-chelameswar-to-cji-misra-135904">urgently forward Justice Joseph's name</a> to the Centre.

The government had on April 26 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned the Collegium's recommendation</a> to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10.

It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph.

The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave.&nbsp;

Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.&nbsp;

Justice Jasti Chelameswar had wrtten to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Thursday urging him to convene a meeting of the collegium, and send Justice Joseph's name back to the Centre

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited. All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations. The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI. It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to urgently forward Justice Joseph's name to the Centre. The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph. The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.

Meeting of collegium to decide on Justice Joseph's elevation to SC ends, decision awaited

Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to convene a meeting of the collegium to urgently forward the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as a judge of the apex court to the Centre.

The government had on April 26 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned the collegium's recommendation</a> to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned Justice Joseph's seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

An apex court official said, in his letter sent to the CJI on Wednesday evening, Justice Chelameswar has conveyed that he was reiterating his decision for the elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court since there was no change in the circumstance that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. 
It is also learnt that, Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph.&nbsp;

The meeting of the collegium was expected to take place yesterday but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Besides the CJI and Justice Chelameswar, other members of the collegium are Justices Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph.

Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the collegium on the issue of Uttarakhand Chief Justice Joseph.

Though no official word was there on when the collegium would meet, the official said it is for the CJI to fix the date as there is no other agenda but to discuss the issue of returning the recommendation relating to Justice Joseph to the Centre.

Earlier also, notwithstanding the letters written by the collegium members to the CJI which had come into the public domain, the Centre had disregarded the recommendation about Justice Joseph.

The government had on April 26 returned Justice Joseph's name to the collegium asking it to reconsider its nomination of him. The government had said Kerala, from where Joseph hails, was adequately represented in the higher judiciary. It also wondered whether Justice Joseph was senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court

Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to convene a meeting of the collegium to urgently forward the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as a judge of the apex court to the Centre. The government had on April 26 returned the collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned Justice Joseph's seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. An apex court official said, in his letter sent to the CJI on Wednesday evening, Justice Chelameswar has conveyed that he was reiterating his decision for the elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court since there was no change in the circumstance that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. It is also learnt that, Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph. The meeting of the collegium was expected to take place yesterday but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Besides the CJI and Justice Chelameswar, other members of the collegium are Justices Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the collegium on the issue of Uttarakhand Chief Justice Joseph. Though no official word was there on when the collegium would meet, the official said it is for the CJI to fix the date as there is no other agenda but to discuss the issue of returning the recommendation relating to Justice Joseph to the Centre. Earlier also, notwithstanding the letters written by the collegium members to the CJI which had come into the public domain, the Centre had disregarded the recommendation about Justice Joseph.

Resend Justice KM Joseph's name to Centre: Justice Chelameswar to CJI

The Supreme Court has transferred the Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab.&nbsp;

The Kathua gang rape and murder had shocked the nation.&nbsp;

An eight-year-old Bakarwal girl had been abducted, kept in captivity in a temple, sedated, gang-raped, and finally murdered.&nbsp;

The police have arrested eight people including a juvenile.&nbsp;

The police chargesheet said the accused carried out their premeditated crime to scare the girl's minority community — they're nomads — out of Jammu.&nbsp;

The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety.&nbsp;

The Jammu and Kashmir government had earlier on Monday told the court that it did not want the case transferred out of the state, and that a fair trial would be conducted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Security is the main concern, we have adequate security in Pathankot: Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on transfer of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kathua?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kathua</a> case to Pathankot Court <a href="https://t.co/z6bzcd9vVk">pic.twitter.com/z6bzcd9vVk</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/993437352197611520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court meanwhile has ordered daily in-camera (the public will not be allowed into the courtroom) hearings in the case.&nbsp;

The court also refused to hand the probe over to the CBI saying there was no need for it since the investigation had been conducted and the charge sheet filed.

The victim's father's plea had been heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety

The Supreme Court has transferred the Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab. The Kathua gang rape and murder had shocked the nation. An eight-year-old Bakarwal girl had been abducted, kept in captivity in a temple, sedated, gang-raped, and finally murdered. The police have arrested eight people including a juvenile. The police chargesheet said the accused carried out their premeditated crime to scare the girl's minority community — they're nomads — out of Jammu. The victim's father had asked the Supreme Court for the case to be transferred out of Jammu. He had told the court that he feared for his family's safety. The Jammu and Kashmir government had earlier on Monday told the court that it did not want the case transferred out of the state, and that a fair trial would be conducted. Security is the main concern, we have adequate security in Pathankot: Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on transfer of #Kathua case to Pathankot Court pic.twitter.com/z6bzcd9vVk — ANI (@ANI) May 7, 2018 × The Supreme Court meanwhile has ordered daily in-camera (the public will not be allowed into the courtroom) hearings in the case. The court also refused to hand the probe over to the CBI saying there was no need for it since the investigation had been conducted and the charge sheet filed. The victim's father's plea had been heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Supreme Court transfers Kathua case to Pathankot, Punjab

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said on Tuesday that the Congress was wrong in giving an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The Trinamool Congress did not support the impeachment move, she said.

“The Congress was wrong to give impeachment notice against the CJI. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not,” she told a news channel.

“I told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi not to go for impeachment,” Banerjee said, adding that her party did not want to interfere in the judiciary.

Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the Chief Justice of India on five grounds of “misbehaviour”, saying the allegations were neither “tenable nor admissible”.

Also Read:<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu-132555">&nbsp;Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty — Venkaiah Naidu</a>

Naidu’s order, which came within two days of the notice being submitted to him, was slammed as “hasty, illegal and ill-informed” by the Congress.&nbsp;

Banerjee,&nbsp;who is seen as a key player in a possible grouping of non-BJP political parties ahead of the next Lok Sabha elections, termed the decision of Congress and other opposition parties of impeachment notice against the CJI as "wrong".

A strident critic of the BJP-led central government and its policies, Banerjee had recently called for unity among all the anti-BJP forces to defeat the saffron party in the 2019 Lok Sabha election.

Earlier on Tuesday, Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu said his decision was "<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu-132555">timely and not a hasty one</a>" and came after over a month of due diligence.

(With inputs from PTI)

"Congress was wrong to move impeachment notice against CJI Dipak Misra. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not," the TMC chief said.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said on Tuesday that the Congress was wrong in giving an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The Trinamool Congress did not support the impeachment move, she said. “The Congress was wrong to give impeachment notice against the CJI. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not,” she told a news channel. “I told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi not to go for impeachment,” Banerjee said, adding that her party did not want to interfere in the judiciary. Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the Chief Justice of India on five grounds of “misbehaviour”, saying the allegations were neither “tenable nor admissible”. Also Read: Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty — Venkaiah Naidu Naidu’s order, which came within two days of the notice being submitted to him, was slammed as “hasty, illegal and ill-informed” by the Congress. Banerjee, who is seen as a key player in a possible grouping of non-BJP political parties ahead of the next Lok Sabha elections, termed the decision of Congress and other opposition parties of impeachment notice against the CJI as "wrong". A strident critic of the BJP-led central government and its policies, Banerjee had recently called for unity among all the anti-BJP forces to defeat the saffron party in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. Earlier on Tuesday, Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu said his decision was "timely and not a hasty one" and came after over a month of due diligence. (With inputs from PTI)

Told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul not to go ahead with impeachment notice against CJI, says Mamata Banerjee

Congress-led opposition parties today met Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu seeing impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Nearly 71 lawmakers have signed the petition that alleges the Chief Justice of misconduct and misbehaviour. The motion will be examined by the Vice President.&nbsp;

The request for Misra's impeachment has sparked a political outcry in the country with the BJP lashing out at the Congress for trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary.&nbsp;

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday accused the Congress party of trivialising the power of impeachment and using it as a political tool.

The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100.

Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he&nbsp;will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit a committee can be formed to look into the matter, else the motion can be simply rejected.

While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries.

Bangladesh

The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict last year, declared void a 2014 constitutional amendment that empowered its parliament to impeach apex court judges.&nbsp;

Sri Lanka

The ruling coalition in the year 2012 moved a resolution to impeach the country’s chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.&nbsp;

Early in the year 2013, the Sri Lankan parliament debated the impeachment motion against Bandaranayake removing her from office on 13 January 2013.&nbsp;

She was reinstated into her office by President Maithripala Sirisena.&nbsp;

Nepal

On 30 April, two ruling parties of Nepal -- the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) -- moved an impeachment motion alleging that the Chief Justice had encroached on the prerogatives of the executive branch.&nbsp;

UN rights chief called the impeachment motion "an assault on human rights". “I urge the Nepal authorities to respect the independence of the judiciary, to withdraw what appears to be a politically motivated impeachment motion and to commit to the processes of transitional justice and accountability,” said the top UN human rights official.&nbsp;

If the impeachment motion against Misra is moved it will be the first time ever in the country's history.&nbsp;

While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents and the protocol of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries

Congress-led opposition parties today met Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu seeing impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Nearly 71 lawmakers have signed the petition that alleges the Chief Justice of misconduct and misbehaviour. The motion will be examined by the Vice President. The request for Misra's impeachment has sparked a political outcry in the country with the BJP lashing out at the Congress for trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday accused the Congress party of trivialising the power of impeachment and using it as a political tool. The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100. Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion. In case he finds merit a committee can be formed to look into the matter, else the motion can be simply rejected. While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries. Bangladesh The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict last year, declared void a 2014 constitutional amendment that empowered its parliament to impeach apex court judges. Sri Lanka The ruling coalition in the year 2012 moved a resolution to impeach the country’s chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake. Early in the year 2013, the Sri Lankan parliament debated the impeachment motion against Bandaranayake removing her from office on 13 January 2013. She was reinstated into her office by President Maithripala Sirisena. Nepal On 30 April, two ruling parties of Nepal -- the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) -- moved an impeachment motion alleging that the Chief Justice had encroached on the prerogatives of the executive branch. UN rights chief called the impeachment motion "an assault on human rights". “I urge the Nepal authorities to respect the independence of the judiciary, to withdraw what appears to be a politically motivated impeachment motion and to commit to the processes of transitional justice and accountability,” said the top UN human rights official. If the impeachment motion against Misra is moved it will be the first time ever in the country's history.

Incidents of impeachment: A quick look at some South Asian nations

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website.

Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination.

Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination.

The UIDAI&#39;s remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination.

The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. 
 
The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website. Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination. Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination. The UIDAI's remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.

Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court

A Public Interest Litigation&nbsp;(PIL) seeking probe into judge BH Loya&#39;s alleged suspicious death&nbsp;is&nbsp;listed for hearing on Monday before a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra.

Earlier, Justice Arun Mishra headed SC&nbsp;bench recused itself from hearing the case.&nbsp;

Justice Loya had been hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case in which BJP President Amit Shah is also named.&nbsp;

Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.

The Caravan magazine had, after talking to Loya&#39;s family members, first reported that he had died in mysterious circumstances.&nbsp;

Subsequent news reports have partly corroborated the Caravan report while disagreeing with other parts of it.&nbsp;

Justice Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case in which BJP President Amit Shah is also named.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking probe into judge BH Loya's alleged suspicious death is listed for hearing on Monday before a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra. Earlier, Justice Arun Mishra headed SC bench recused itself from hearing the case. Justice Loya had been hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case in which BJP President Amit Shah is also named. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. The Caravan magazine had, after talking to Loya's family members, first reported that he had died in mysterious circumstances. Subsequent news reports have partly corroborated the Caravan report while disagreeing with other parts of it.

SC bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra to hear Justice Loya's death case on Monday

India&#39;s Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI)&nbsp;of India <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">Dipak Misra</a> after four judges addressed the media for the first time.

Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">addressed the media</a> for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day.&nbsp;

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was &quot;not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable&quot; things have taken place.

The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. &quot;But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; the four judges said.

Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

&quot;A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution,&quot; Justice Chelameswar had said.

Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">looking into the matter</a> and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

India's Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI) of India Dipak Misra after four judges addressed the media for the first time. Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. "But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed," Justice Chelameswar said. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges said. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." "A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution," Justice Chelameswar had said. Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was looking into the matter and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">press conference</a> today. He said that the judges would now have to act in &quot;statesmanship&quot; to ensure complete harmony.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353">Dipak Misra</a> after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

&quot;Today&#39;s press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved,&quot; Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday.

&quot;This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion,&quot; he added.

Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development.

Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">virtual revolt against the CJI</a>, raising questions on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-7-page-letter-4-senior-supreme-court-judges-wrote-to-chief-justice-of-india-29321">&quot;selective&quot; case allocation</a> and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country&#39;s top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges.

The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any &quot;remedial measures&quot; on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive&quot; in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a press conference today. He said that the judges would now have to act in "statesmanship" to ensure complete harmony. Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved. "Today's press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved," Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday. "This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion," he added. Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development. Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity. The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country's top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges. The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any "remedial measures" on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive" in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Press conference by four Supreme Court judges could have been avoided: Attorney General

cji-dipak-misra

Cji Dipak Misra, News on Cji Dipak Misra, stories on Cji Dipak Misra, articles on Cji Dipak Misra, Cji Dipak Misra stories at Wion, Cji Dipak Misra news, Cji Dipak Misra latest news

cji dipak-misra