Jammu High Court Bar Association (JHCBA) tells SC that it did not support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua gangrape-murder case.

Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter.

The Bar Association of Jammu on April 13 said that it was extending its strike till April 17 against the “growing illegal presence of Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals,” while alleging that its agitation for a CBI probe into the Kathua rape-cum-murder case was wrongly being portrayed as “communal”.

(With inputs from PTI)

Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter.

Jammu High Court Bar Association (JHCBA) tells SC that it did not support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua gangrape-murder case. Bar Council of India tells SC that it has set up a team, headed by a former HC judge to examine the matter. The Bar Association of Jammu on April 13 said that it was extending its strike till April 17 against the “growing illegal presence of Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals,” while alleging that its agitation for a CBI probe into the Kathua rape-cum-murder case was wrongly being portrayed as “communal”. (With inputs from PTI)

Didn't support lawyers protest in connection with Kathua case: Jammu Bar Association to SC

Delhi High Court today directed national aviation regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to make sure that no pilot flies for more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days.&nbsp

The aviation watchdog added that "making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers".

Last month, Delhi HC cracked its whip on the DGCA asking for an affidavit stating that the remaining fleet of A-320 neo planes were safe and airworthy.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi HC tells Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that no pilot should fly for a time of more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days, adds that, 'making pilots overwork is dangerous for safety of passengers.'
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/986554972170006528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to DGCA, IndiGo and GoAir together have a total of 45 A320 neo aircraft, of which 14 have been grounded till date due to engine trouble.

The direction from a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar came on a plea which has sought the grounding of all the A320 neos till the aviation regulator certified that they are safe to fly.

(With inputs from agencies)

Making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court today directed national aviation regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to make sure that no pilot flies for more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days. The aviation watchdog added that "making pilots overwork is dangerous for the safety of passengers". Last month, Delhi HC cracked its whip on the DGCA asking for an affidavit stating that the remaining fleet of A-320 neo planes were safe and airworthy. Delhi HC tells Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that no pilot should fly for a time of more than 125 hours in 30 consecutive days, adds that, 'making pilots overwork is dangerous for safety of passengers.' — ANI (@ANI) April 18, 2018 × According to DGCA, IndiGo and GoAir together have a total of 45 A320 neo aircraft, of which 14 have been grounded till date due to engine trouble. The direction from a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar came on a plea which has sought the grounding of all the A320 neos till the aviation regulator certified that they are safe to fly. (With inputs from agencies)

No pilot should fly over 125 hours in 30 days: Delhi High Court tells DGCA

Delhi High Court has ordered media houses who had revealed the identity of Kathua rape case victim and to whom notices were issued to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the court.

According to ANI, the Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund.

On April 13, Delhi Court had issued notices to media houses for leaking the identity of the 8-year old girl, who was gang-raped in Kathua district, in Jammu & Kashmir.

The High Court, in its notices to media houses, had sought their response as to why no action should be taken against them.

The Court also said that anyone who discloses rape victim's identity can be imprisoned for 6 months.

Next date of hearing in the case is on April 25.

The girl from the nomadic Bakerwal Muslim community had disappeared from near her home in the forests next to her village in Kathua, 90 km from here, on January 10.

A week later, her body was found in the same area.

The state police Crime Branch, which probed the case, filed the main charge sheet against seven accused persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district earlier this week.

The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged, raped inside a place of worship before being killed.

(With inputs from Agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund.

Delhi High Court has ordered media houses who had revealed the identity of Kathua rape case victim and to whom notices were issued to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the court. According to ANI, the Court will transfer the amount to J&K victims compensation fund. On April 13, Delhi Court had issued notices to media houses for leaking the identity of the 8-year old girl, who was gang-raped in Kathua district, in Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court, in its notices to media houses, had sought their response as to why no action should be taken against them. The Court also said that anyone who discloses rape victim's identity can be imprisoned for 6 months. Next date of hearing in the case is on April 25. The girl from the nomadic Bakerwal Muslim community had disappeared from near her home in the forests next to her village in Kathua, 90 km from here, on January 10. A week later, her body was found in the same area. The state police Crime Branch, which probed the case, filed the main charge sheet against seven accused persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district earlier this week. The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged, raped inside a place of worship before being killed. (With inputs from Agencies)

Delhi High Court raps media houses for revealing Kathua gang rape victim's identity, says pay Rs 10 lakh each

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a reply from former President Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him in connection with his book 'Turbulent Years 1980- 1996'.

The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The suit is filed for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments.

The lower court had earlier on November 30, 2016 rejected the plea seeking deletion of the contents of the&nbsp;book.

The next hearing of the case is reserved for July 30.

The book was released in 2016.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court today sought reply of former president Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him which seeks deletion of some portions of his 2016 book ‘Turbulent Years 1980-1996′ for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. Mukherjee has to reply till 30th July (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/EHEYNpKduD">pic.twitter.com/EHEYNpKduD</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/982181403222683649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

 
 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a reply from former President Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him in connection with his book 'Turbulent Years 1980- 1996'. The case filed against him seeks deletion of some portions of his book which talks about the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The suit is filed for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. The lower court had earlier on November 30, 2016 rejected the plea seeking deletion of the contents of the book. The next hearing of the case is reserved for July 30. The book was released in 2016. Delhi High Court today sought reply of former president Pranab Mukherjee on a suit filed against him which seeks deletion of some portions of his 2016 book ‘Turbulent Years 1980-1996′ for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments. Mukherjee has to reply till 30th July (file pic) pic.twitter.com/EHEYNpKduD — ANI (@ANI) April 6, 2018 ×

High Court seeks response from Pranab Mukherjee over his book for allegedly 'hurting Hindu sentiments'

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

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

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

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

An NGO’s plea in the Delhi High Court seeking to make marital rape an offence was on Tuesday opposed by another NGO, run by a group of men, which said that married women have been given adequate protection under the law against sexual violence by their husbands. NGO Men Welfare Trust claimed that exception in Section 375 of the IPC, which says intercourse or a sexual act by a man with his wife is not rape, is “not unconstitutional” and setting it aside will create more injustice.

It was opposing the petitions filed by NGO RIT Foundation and the All India Democratic Women’s Association, which have challenged the constitutionality of Section 375 (which defines rape) of the IPC on the ground that it discriminated against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar posed various questions to the trust’s representatives, who were made intervenors in the matter, and asked whether their stand was that a husband has a right to perpetrate sexual offence on his wife and could he force sex on his spouse?

To this, NGO Men Welfare Trust’s representatives Amit Lakhani and Ritwik Bisaria replied in the negative and said there were existing provisions, including domestic violence law, harassment to a married woman, unnatural sex, which provide adequate protection to a wife against sexual violence committed by the husband. However, no such protection is given to husbands as laws in India are gender-specific, unlike in most parts of the world, they argued.

When NGO Men Welfare Trust said that rape by a husband and a third person cannot be put on the same pedestal, the bench shot back, saying “a rape is a rape. Is it that if you are married, it is okay but if you are not, then it’s a rape? If an uncle or grandfather sexually assaults a woman or a girl, it is covered under the offence of rape.” The arguments remained inconclusive and will continue on April 16, the next date of hearing.

Earlier, Kolkata-based NGO Hridaya had also opposed the plea to make marital rape an offence, saying consent for physical relations is for all time when a person enters the institution of marriage. The high court had earlier agreed to examine the issue raised in PILs by advocate Karuna Nundy, who represented RIT Foundation and the All India Democratic Women’s Association, and a man and a woman, who have sought striking down the exception in the Indian penal law that does not consider sexual intercourse with a wife, not less than 15 years of age, as rape.

The petitions have also sought setting aside of the exception in the rape law that protects husbands, saying that it violates the right to equality, freedom and to live life with dignity provided under the Constitution. The Delhi government had said that quashing the protection husbands enjoy against prosecution for marital rape would lead to “creation of an offence”, which is a legislative job and courts cannot create or legislate an offence, which would be the inevitable outcome of striking down of the exception in the IPC.

The Centre has opposed the main petitions saying marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon which may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing the husbands.

NGO Men Welfare Trust claimed that exception in Section 375 of the IPC, which says intercourse or a sexual act by a man with his wife is not rape, is "not unconstitutional" and setting it aside will create more injustice.

An NGO’s plea in the Delhi High Court seeking to make marital rape an offence was on Tuesday opposed by another NGO, run by a group of men, which said that married women have been given adequate protection under the law against sexual violence by their husbands. NGO Men Welfare Trust claimed that exception in Section 375 of the IPC, which says intercourse or a sexual act by a man with his wife is not rape, is “not unconstitutional” and setting it aside will create more injustice. It was opposing the petitions filed by NGO RIT Foundation and the All India Democratic Women’s Association, which have challenged the constitutionality of Section 375 (which defines rape) of the IPC on the ground that it discriminated against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar posed various questions to the trust’s representatives, who were made intervenors in the matter, and asked whether their stand was that a husband has a right to perpetrate sexual offence on his wife and could he force sex on his spouse? To this, NGO Men Welfare Trust’s representatives Amit Lakhani and Ritwik Bisaria replied in the negative and said there were existing provisions, including domestic violence law, harassment to a married woman, unnatural sex, which provide adequate protection to a wife against sexual violence committed by the husband. However, no such protection is given to husbands as laws in India are gender-specific, unlike in most parts of the world, they argued. When NGO Men Welfare Trust said that rape by a husband and a third person cannot be put on the same pedestal, the bench shot back, saying “a rape is a rape. Is it that if you are married, it is okay but if you are not, then it’s a rape? If an uncle or grandfather sexually assaults a woman or a girl, it is covered under the offence of rape.” The arguments remained inconclusive and will continue on April 16, the next date of hearing. Earlier, Kolkata-based NGO Hridaya had also opposed the plea to make marital rape an offence, saying consent for physical relations is for all time when a person enters the institution of marriage. The high court had earlier agreed to examine the issue raised in PILs by advocate Karuna Nundy, who represented RIT Foundation and the All India Democratic Women’s Association, and a man and a woman, who have sought striking down the exception in the Indian penal law that does not consider sexual intercourse with a wife, not less than 15 years of age, as rape. The petitions have also sought setting aside of the exception in the rape law that protects husbands, saying that it violates the right to equality, freedom and to live life with dignity provided under the Constitution. The Delhi government had said that quashing the protection husbands enjoy against prosecution for marital rape would lead to “creation of an offence”, which is a legislative job and courts cannot create or legislate an offence, which would be the inevitable outcome of striking down of the exception in the IPC. The Centre has opposed the main petitions saying marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon which may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing the husbands.

Men’s NGO opposes plea in Delhi High Court seeking to make marital rape an offence

The Delhi High Court today issued notices to all those accused in the 2G spectrum case including former telecom minister A Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi. The move came on the basis of an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),&nbsp;

The court has also demanded to maintain status quo in relation to properties attached by the ED.&nbsp;

&quot;The court while issuing notice on interim application granted status quo order with regard to attached property, this means the property remains with ED.&quot; a&nbsp;representative noted.&nbsp;

The CBI filed an appeal on Tuesday while the ED had moved the court on Monday against the acquittal of all the accused.

A Raja has said the move was anticipated as it was a statutory right to appeal. &quot;Deprived party can go for an appeal, that is a statutory right. Suppose, if I am convicted am I not entitled to appeal? That is quite natural, nothing special. This was 100% anticipated,&quot; Raja noted.

A special CBI court acquitted all key accused, including A Raja, in the 2G spectrum allocation case last year. There was a lack of &quot;prosecutable evidence&quot;, the court noted.

The case will now be heard next on May 25.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The case will now be heard next on May 25

The Delhi High Court today issued notices to all those accused in the 2G spectrum case including former telecom minister A Raja and DMK MP Kanimozhi. The move came on the basis of an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), The court has also demanded to maintain status quo in relation to properties attached by the ED. "The court while issuing notice on interim application granted status quo order with regard to attached property, this means the property remains with ED." a representative noted. The CBI filed an appeal on Tuesday while the ED had moved the court on Monday against the acquittal of all the accused. A Raja has said the move was anticipated as it was a statutory right to appeal. "Deprived party can go for an appeal, that is a statutory right. Suppose, if I am convicted am I not entitled to appeal? That is quite natural, nothing special. This was 100% anticipated," Raja noted. A special CBI court acquitted all key accused, including A Raja, in the 2G spectrum allocation case last year. There was a lack of "prosecutable evidence", the court noted. The case will now be heard next on May 25. (With inputs from ANI)

2G spectrum scam: Delhi High Court issues notice to all accused

The CBI today moved the Delhi High Court challenging a special court order acquitting former telecom minister A Raja, DMK MP Kanimozhi and others in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case.

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta.

The court allowed it to be listed for hearing tomorrow.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had yesterday moved the high court against acquittal of Raja, Kanimozhi and others in a money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam.

The special court had on December 21 last year acquitted Raja, Kanimozhi and others in the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED.

Besides Raja and Kanimozhi, the special court had acquitted 17 others, including DMK supremo M Karunanidhi&#39;s wife Dayalu Ammal, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of STPL, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Director of Kalaignar TV Sharad Kumar in the ED case.

The ED, in its charge sheet, had alleged that Rs 200 crore was paid by Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL) promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV.

On the same day, the trial court had acquitted Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others, including former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja&#39;s erstwhile private secretary R K Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Unitech Ltd. MD Sanjay Chandra and three top executives of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) -- Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, in the CBI&#39;s 2G case.

The CBI had alleged that there was a loss of Rs 30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of licences for 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the top court on February 2, 2012.

Special Judge O P Saini had held that the prosecution had &quot;miserably failed&quot; to prove the charges.

The special court, which was set up on March 14, 2011 for hearing 2G cases exclusively, had also acquitted Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and six others in a separate case arising out of the 2G scam probe.

The first case, prosecuted by the CBI, had 17 accused, while the second matter, pursued by the ED, had 19 accused. The third one had eight accused including Essar promoters.

In the CBI case, Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others were tried under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using as genuine fake documents, abusing official position, criminal misconduct by public servant and taking bribe. 
&nbsp;

Special Judge O P Saini had held that the prosecution had 'miserably failed' to prove the charges

The CBI today moved the Delhi High Court challenging a special court order acquitting former telecom minister A Raja, DMK MP Kanimozhi and others in the 2G spectrum allocation scam case. The matter was mentioned before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta. The court allowed it to be listed for hearing tomorrow. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had yesterday moved the high court against acquittal of Raja, Kanimozhi and others in a money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam. The special court had on December 21 last year acquitted Raja, Kanimozhi and others in the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED. Besides Raja and Kanimozhi, the special court had acquitted 17 others, including DMK supremo M Karunanidhi's wife Dayalu Ammal, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of STPL, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd., film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Director of Kalaignar TV Sharad Kumar in the ED case. The ED, in its charge sheet, had alleged that Rs 200 crore was paid by Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL) promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV. On the same day, the trial court had acquitted Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others, including former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja's erstwhile private secretary R K Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Unitech Ltd. MD Sanjay Chandra and three top executives of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) -- Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, in the CBI's 2G case. The CBI had alleged that there was a loss of Rs 30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of licences for 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the top court on February 2, 2012. Special Judge O P Saini had held that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the charges. The special court, which was set up on March 14, 2011 for hearing 2G cases exclusively, had also acquitted Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and six others in a separate case arising out of the 2G scam probe. The first case, prosecuted by the CBI, had 17 accused, while the second matter, pursued by the ED, had 19 accused. The third one had eight accused including Essar promoters. In the CBI case, Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others were tried under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using as genuine fake documents, abusing official position, criminal misconduct by public servant and taking bribe.

2G case: CBI moves Delhi High Court against acquittal of Raja, Kanimozhi

The office bearers of the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) have told the Delhi High Court that they have not violated its order on holding protests in the varsity as they did not block access to the administrative block.

They also submitted before the high court that its August last year direction to not hold protests within 100 metres of the admin block should not be viewed technically as the spirit of the direction was to prevent obstruction of any access to the building.

The submissions were made before Justice V K Rao who is hearing a plea moved by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) seeking contempt action against the JNUSU office bearers for holding protests within 100 meters of the administrative block.

The varsity in its petition moved through central government standing counsel Monika Arora and advocate Kushal Sharma, has contended that the office bearers have violated the high court&#39;s August 9, 2017, direction.

The varsity in its plea has also claimed that the protesting students had obstructed access to the administrative block of JNU.

The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and are expected to continue tomorrow.

The JNUSU office bearers also told the court that other student bodies and associations, as well as a teachers group, have also held protests within 100 metres of the administrative block, but no action has been taken against them.

Therefore, the 100-meter restriction should not be viewed technically, their lawyer told the court.

The JNUSU office bearers had earlier told the court that the main reason behind the protests in the varsity was not holding of academic council meetings.

The court had on February 16, in an interim order, directed the JNU students not to obstruct the vice chancellor and other staff from entering the administrative block to carry out their work.

The interim order was passed on JNU&#39;s plea that the protests near the administrative block were hampering its day-to-day functioning, including the disbursal salaries in connection with the Seventh Pay Commission.

The students had on February 15 allegedly blockaded the administration block demanding a meeting with the vice chancellor on the issue of compulsory attendance and stopped the two rectors from leaving the building.

The court had in its August 2017 order also said that the university was at liberty to request police assistance to maintain law and order in the campus.

It had, however, made it clear that the order &quot;should not preclude&quot; the students from peacefully protesting at the Sabarmati lawn in the campus away from the administrative block.

The August 2017 order had come during the hearing of the JNU administration&#39;s petition against the blocking of its administrative block by agitating students.

The varsity had moved the high court when the students were protesting against the JNU&#39;s admission policy based on a University Grants Commission notification slashing the seats for MPhil and PhD courses.

They also submitted before the high court that its August last year direction to not hold protests within 100 metres of the admin block

The office bearers of the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) have told the Delhi High Court that they have not violated its order on holding protests in the varsity as they did not block access to the administrative block. They also submitted before the high court that its August last year direction to not hold protests within 100 metres of the admin block should not be viewed technically as the spirit of the direction was to prevent obstruction of any access to the building. The submissions were made before Justice V K Rao who is hearing a plea moved by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) seeking contempt action against the JNUSU office bearers for holding protests within 100 meters of the administrative block. The varsity in its petition moved through central government standing counsel Monika Arora and advocate Kushal Sharma, has contended that the office bearers have violated the high court's August 9, 2017, direction. The varsity in its plea has also claimed that the protesting students had obstructed access to the administrative block of JNU. The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and are expected to continue tomorrow. The JNUSU office bearers also told the court that other student bodies and associations, as well as a teachers group, have also held protests within 100 metres of the administrative block, but no action has been taken against them. Therefore, the 100-meter restriction should not be viewed technically, their lawyer told the court. The JNUSU office bearers had earlier told the court that the main reason behind the protests in the varsity was not holding of academic council meetings. The court had on February 16, in an interim order, directed the JNU students not to obstruct the vice chancellor and other staff from entering the administrative block to carry out their work. The interim order was passed on JNU's plea that the protests near the administrative block were hampering its day-to-day functioning, including the disbursal salaries in connection with the Seventh Pay Commission. The students had on February 15 allegedly blockaded the administration block demanding a meeting with the vice chancellor on the issue of compulsory attendance and stopped the two rectors from leaving the building. The court had in its August 2017 order also said that the university was at liberty to request police assistance to maintain law and order in the campus. It had, however, made it clear that the order "should not preclude" the students from peacefully protesting at the Sabarmati lawn in the campus away from the administrative block. The August 2017 order had come during the hearing of the JNU administration's petition against the blocking of its administrative block by agitating students. The varsity had moved the high court when the students were protesting against the JNU's admission policy based on a University Grants Commission notification slashing the seats for MPhil and PhD courses.

Did not block access to admin block: JNUSU to High court

Delhi High Court on Friday granted interim relief to Karti Chidambaram until March 20 in the event of an arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) ) in the INX Media money laundering case.&nbsp;

The court&nbsp;granted the relief till next date of hearing. HC also issued a notice to ED and Centre based on Karti&#39;s plea.&nbsp;

The next date of hearing is March 20.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court grants interim relief to Karti Chidambaram from arrest from the Enforcement Directorate. Relief granted till next date of hearing. HC also issued notice to ED &amp; Centre on Karti&#39;s plea.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/972014626698399744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Karti had moved the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief in the INX Media money laundering case.&nbsp;He moved the petition after the special CBI court had extended his custody by three more days on March 6.&nbsp;

The investigating agency had said that new revelations have come up and his custodial interrogation was necessary to confront him with the new facts.

Senior Congress leader and former finance minister&#39;s P Chidambaram&#39;s son Karti Chidambaram was arrested on February 28 from Chennai Airport in connection with the INX Media money laundering case.

Earlier Delhi Patiala Court sent Karti Chidambaram to 5-days police custody in connection with the INX Media money laundering case on March 1 which was extended by three days till March 9.&nbsp;

Delhi High Court on Friday granted interim relief to Karti Chidambaram until March 20 in the event of an arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) ) in the INX Media money laundering case. The court granted the relief till next date of hearing. HC also issued a notice to ED and Centre based on Karti's plea. The next date of hearing is March 20. Delhi High Court grants interim relief to Karti Chidambaram from arrest from the Enforcement Directorate. Relief granted till next date of hearing. HC also issued notice to ED & Centre on Karti's plea. — ANI (@ANI) March 9, 2018 × Karti had moved the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief in the INX Media money laundering case. He moved the petition after the special CBI court had extended his custody by three more days on March 6. The investigating agency had said that new revelations have come up and his custodial interrogation was necessary to confront him with the new facts. Senior Congress leader and former finance minister's P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram was arrested on February 28 from Chennai Airport in connection with the INX Media money laundering case. Earlier Delhi Patiala Court sent Karti Chidambaram to 5-days police custody in connection with the INX Media money laundering case on March 1 which was extended by three days till March 9.

Delhi High Court grants interim relief from arrest to Karti Chidambaram

AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal has been granted bail by Delhi high court in the Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash alleged assault case, according to news agency ANI. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Anshu Prakash had alleged that he was roughed up by AAP MLAs Amanatullah Khan and Parkash Jarwal during a meeting at the Chief Minister&#39;s residence after midnight on February 20.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash alleged assault case: AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal has been granted bail by High Court
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/971975915222675457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

While Parkash Jarwal was arrested by the Delhi Police on February 21, Amanatullah Khan surrendered at the Jamia Nagar Police Station. Khan, however, had claimed innocence while surrendering.

Khan moved a bail plea in the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.

The Police have filed an FIR on a complaint from Prakash under various sections, including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 186 (obstructing a public servant from performing the duty) and 353 (assault on public servant).

Parkash Jarwal and Ajay Dutt, AAP MLAs from Deoli and Ambedkar Nagar respectively, had claimed the bureaucrat made casteist remarks. They have lodged a complaint against him with the Delhi Police and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash had alleged that he was roughed up by AAP MLAs Amanatullah Khan and Parkash Jarwal during a meeting at the chief minister's residence after midnight on February 20.

AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal has been granted bail by Delhi high court in the Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash alleged assault case, according to news agency ANI. Anshu Prakash had alleged that he was roughed up by AAP MLAs Amanatullah Khan and Parkash Jarwal during a meeting at the Chief Minister's residence after midnight on February 20. Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash alleged assault case: AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal has been granted bail by High Court — ANI (@ANI) March 9, 2018 × While Parkash Jarwal was arrested by the Delhi Police on February 21, Amanatullah Khan surrendered at the Jamia Nagar Police Station. Khan, however, had claimed innocence while surrendering. Khan moved a bail plea in the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. The Police have filed an FIR on a complaint from Prakash under various sections, including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 186 (obstructing a public servant from performing the duty) and 353 (assault on public servant). Parkash Jarwal and Ajay Dutt, AAP MLAs from Deoli and Ambedkar Nagar respectively, had claimed the bureaucrat made casteist remarks. They have lodged a complaint against him with the Delhi Police and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

Delhi chief secretary assault case: AAP MLA Prakash Jarwal granted bail

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to&nbsp;Lieutenant governor, Delhi Government, Privileges Committee and Question and Answer Committee of Delhi Assembly to respond to a petition filed by Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash.

Chief secretary Anshu Prakash had filed a plea challenging a notice of the Delhi Assembly.

The Question and Reference Committee of Delhi Assembly had recommended privilege proceedings against the chief secretary for contempt of House on February 21 after he skipped the meeting called by the committee.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Delhi court seeks a reply from the authorities within two weeks.&nbsp;

The matter of the case will be heard on April 11.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi HC issues notice to LG, Delhi govt, Privileges Committee &amp; Question and Answer Committee of Delhi Assembly to respond on plea filed by Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash, replies to be filed within 2 weeks. Matter to be heard on 11 April.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/970616866896048128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court observes that the elected Delhi government and bureaucracy should have made efforts to calm tempers and such notices to Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash to appear before the Committee of Privileges add fuel to fire.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/970572252831014912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The court seeks a reply from the authorities within two weeks

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to Lieutenant governor, Delhi Government, Privileges Committee and Question and Answer Committee of Delhi Assembly to respond to a petition filed by Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash. Chief secretary Anshu Prakash had filed a plea challenging a notice of the Delhi Assembly. The Question and Reference Committee of Delhi Assembly had recommended privilege proceedings against the chief secretary for contempt of House on February 21 after he skipped the meeting called by the committee. The Delhi court seeks a reply from the authorities within two weeks. The matter of the case will be heard on April 11. Delhi HC issues notice to LG, Delhi govt, Privileges Committee & Question and Answer Committee of Delhi Assembly to respond on plea filed by Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash, replies to be filed within 2 weeks. Matter to be heard on 11 April. — ANI (@ANI) March 5, 2018 × Delhi High Court observes that the elected Delhi government and bureaucracy should have made efforts to calm tempers and such notices to Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash to appear before the Committee of Privileges add fuel to fire. — ANI (@ANI) March 5, 2018 ×

High Court seeks reply from Delhi govt, LG on Chief secretary Anshu Prakash's plea

The Delhi High Court today reserved its order on Aam Aadmi Party MLA disqualification case. 20 disqualified AAP MLAs had filed a plea challenging their disqualification in office-of-profit case.

A bench headed by justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar decided to keep the final decision pending.&nbsp;

The Election Commission had asked the MLAs in question to be disqualified after which President Ram Nath Kovind also gave his nod to the EC&#39;s recommendation. The MLAs then moved the HC challenging their disqualification.

The MLAs on Tuesday called the EC&#39;s order &quot;complete violation of natural justice&quot;.&nbsp;

They also stated that they were not given the opportunity to explain their stand before the poll panel.

&nbsp;

A bench headed by justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar decided to keep the final decision pending

The Delhi High Court today reserved its order on Aam Aadmi Party MLA disqualification case. 20 disqualified AAP MLAs had filed a plea challenging their disqualification in office-of-profit case. A bench headed by justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar decided to keep the final decision pending. The Election Commission had asked the MLAs in question to be disqualified after which President Ram Nath Kovind also gave his nod to the EC's recommendation. The MLAs then moved the HC challenging their disqualification. The MLAs on Tuesday called the EC's order "complete violation of natural justice". They also stated that they were not given the opportunity to explain their stand before the poll panel.

AAP MLA disqualification case: Delhi High Court reserves order

The Delhi high court on Wednesday put on hold the operation of a CBSE notification laying down eligibility conditions, including upper age limit of 25 years and 30 years for general and reserved categories respectively, to apply for MBBS course.

The order was passed by a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar on several petitions moved by medical aspirants who are aggrieved by various other eligibility norms which bar them from applying for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)-UG for which the last date for submitting the application is on 9 March.

Under the CBSE notification, candidates who have studied in open school, students who have had biology as an additional subject, those who have taken more than two years to complete their 11th and 12th and students who have studied privately were not eligible to apply for the exam.

The court, while passing its interim order, made it clear that while the candidates are allowed to submit their application for the entrance exam, it does not mean that they can sit for it.

The bench also said students from open school or those who have studied privately should belong to a recognised board in order to apply for the exam. The court said the interim order will continue till the next date of hearing on 6 April.

The Delhi high court in its interim order also made it clear that while the candidates are allowed to submit their application for the NEET, it does not mean that they can sit for it

The Delhi high court on Wednesday put on hold the operation of a CBSE notification laying down eligibility conditions, including upper age limit of 25 years and 30 years for general and reserved categories respectively, to apply for MBBS course. The order was passed by a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar on several petitions moved by medical aspirants who are aggrieved by various other eligibility norms which bar them from applying for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)-UG for which the last date for submitting the application is on 9 March. Under the CBSE notification, candidates who have studied in open school, students who have had biology as an additional subject, those who have taken more than two years to complete their 11th and 12th and students who have studied privately were not eligible to apply for the exam. The court, while passing its interim order, made it clear that while the candidates are allowed to submit their application for the entrance exam, it does not mean that they can sit for it. The bench also said students from open school or those who have studied privately should belong to a recognised board in order to apply for the exam. The court said the interim order will continue till the next date of hearing on 6 April.

Delhi High Court stays CBSE notification on eligibility norms for NEET

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking penal action against the producers and the director of Bollywood movie Padmaavat&nbsp;for alleged glorification of the practice of &#39;sati&#39;. 
 
&#39;Sati&#39; is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband&#39;s pyre and the law prohibits it. 
 
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the plea saying the petitioner should have approached the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) at an appropriate time. 
 
The high court also said in its detailed order that the Board has exercised its discretion carefully and not given a &#39;U&#39; certificate for unrestricted viewing but granted &#39;U/A&#39; certification. 
 
&quot;As on date, the film stands released as well. The film stands released without any complaints and it is already in public domain. If the petitioner was having any complaint with regard to the issue raised in his writ petition, he should have made a complaint before the CBFC at an appropriate time. We find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.&quot; the court said. 
 
The bench also said that writs cannot be issued against artistic works premised on individual perceptions. 
 
&ldquo;The entire writ petition is premised on the sole submission that it has elaborately choreographed the &lsquo;Sati&rsquo; or &lsquo;Jauhar&rsquo; scenes in the history of Indian cinema. The writ petitioner does not even state at all that the film is &lsquo;supporting, justifying or propagating the practice of sati&rsquo;. It is therefore, not possible to hold that the film would invite penal action under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. 
 
A PIL by social activist Swami Agnivesh had sought deletion of the scenes that depict the practice of &#39;sati&#39;. 
 
The court had earlier observed that according to one of the disclaimers in the film, it is a work of fiction and therefore, it does not show any intention or animus on the part of the producers or director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, to propagate the practice. 
 
The petition, filed through advocate Mehmood Pracha, had sought directions to the Delhi Police to lodge FIR against Ajit Andhare, one of the producers, and Bhansali. 
 
Central government standing counsel Manish Mohan, who appeared for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the censor board, had opposed the plea, saying the movie was certified for public viewing after considering all the aspects.

The court had said that in the present day and age, it was &quot;hesitant to accept&quot; the petitioner&#39;s claim that someone would follow such a practice just by seeing the movie.

The high court on January 25 had rejected a Rajasthan-based group&#39;s plea seeking quashing of the certification granted to the film, saying the Supreme Court had permitted its release. 
 
The film, which hit the theatres on January 25, is directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali and has Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor in the lead roles. It is based on the saga of a historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.

The impending release of the movie had led to several incidents of vandalism, including an attack on a school bus in Gurugram and torching of a Haryana Roadways bus on January 24. The set of the movie was vandalised twice -- in Jaipur and Kolhapur, while its director Bhansali was roughed up by members of the Karni Sena last year. 
 
The apex court had paved the way for nationwide release of the film by staying the ban on its screening in Gujarat and Rajasthan. It had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking penal action against the producers and the director of Bollywood movie Padmaavat for the alleged glorification of the practice of 'Sati'.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a plea seeking penal action against the producers and the director of Bollywood movie Padmaavat for alleged glorification of the practice of 'sati'. 'Sati' is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband's pyre and the law prohibits it. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the plea saying the petitioner should have approached the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) at an appropriate time. The high court also said in its detailed order that the Board has exercised its discretion carefully and not given a 'U' certificate for unrestricted viewing but granted 'U/A' certification. "As on date, the film stands released as well. The film stands released without any complaints and it is already in public domain. If the petitioner was having any complaint with regard to the issue raised in his writ petition, he should have made a complaint before the CBFC at an appropriate time. We find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed." the court said. The bench also said that writs cannot be issued against artistic works premised on individual perceptions. “The entire writ petition is premised on the sole submission that it has elaborately choreographed the ‘Sati’ or ‘Jauhar’ scenes in the history of Indian cinema. The writ petitioner does not even state at all that the film is ‘supporting, justifying or propagating the practice of sati’. It is therefore, not possible to hold that the film would invite penal action under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. A PIL by social activist Swami Agnivesh had sought deletion of the scenes that depict the practice of 'sati'. The court had earlier observed that according to one of the disclaimers in the film, it is a work of fiction and therefore, it does not show any intention or animus on the part of the producers or director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, to propagate the practice. The petition, filed through advocate Mehmood Pracha, had sought directions to the Delhi Police to lodge FIR against Ajit Andhare, one of the producers, and Bhansali. Central government standing counsel Manish Mohan, who appeared for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the censor board, had opposed the plea, saying the movie was certified for public viewing after considering all the aspects. The court had said that in the present day and age, it was "hesitant to accept" the petitioner's claim that someone would follow such a practice just by seeing the movie. The high court on January 25 had rejected a Rajasthan-based group's plea seeking quashing of the certification granted to the film, saying the Supreme Court had permitted its release. The film, which hit the theatres on January 25, is directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali and has Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor in the lead roles. It is based on the saga of a historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi. The impending release of the movie had led to several incidents of vandalism, including an attack on a school bus in Gurugram and torching of a Haryana Roadways bus on January 24. The set of the movie was vandalised twice -- in Jaipur and Kolhapur, while its director Bhansali was roughed up by members of the Karni Sena last year. The apex court had paved the way for nationwide release of the film by staying the ban on its screening in Gujarat and Rajasthan. It had also restrained other states from issuing any such notification or order banning the screening of the film.

Padmaavat: Delhi High Court rejects plea alleging glorification of Sati in the film

No-frill carrier IndiGo has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that it cannot claim monopoly over Terminal-1 (T-1) of the IGI Airport here, which cannot be given exclusively to it.

The airline&#39;s appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23.

A larger bench of the High Court had upheld the decision of the single judge order observing that the decision of Delhi International Airport Ltd&#39;s (DIAL) to partially shift IndiGo operations from T-1 to T-2 cannot be said to be unreasonable only because it may operate harshly against that airline.

&quot;If we may twist the American idiom, &#39;my way or the highway&#39; to fit the present context, then IndiGo cannot be heard to say that it is either their way or the runway.

&quot;IndiGo are tending to forget that this part relocation from T-1 to T-2 proposed by DIAL is only a temporary measure and once T-1 is renovated and commences its operations after capacity building, all the airlines can operate from there full throttle and take wings,&quot; a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli had said while upholding the order of a single judge accepting DIAL&#39;s decision.

The High Court had turned down the suggestion of IndiGo that T-1 be dedicated exclusively for its use and low-cost carrier SpiceJet be asked to move its entire operations to T-2, and had said this sprang from IndiGo&#39;s own commercial considerations and not made in the larger public good.

It had said SpiceJet was as much a business rival of IndiGo as GoAir was a competitor of these two private carriers. IndiGo may be on top of the heap if the volume of passenger traffic is seen, but this would not entitle it to claim monopoly over T-1 to the exclusion of the rest, it had added.

The decision had come on IndiGo&#39;s plea challenging its single judge order of December 20 last year, upholding DIAL&#39;s October 21, 2017 decision to partially shift the operations of Indigo, GoAir and SpiceJet from T-1 to T-2 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport here.

The airline's appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23

No-frill carrier IndiGo has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that it cannot claim monopoly over Terminal-1 (T-1) of the IGI Airport here, which cannot be given exclusively to it. The airline's appeal against the February 13 order of the division bench of the High Court has been filed and is likely to be taken up for hearing on February 23. A larger bench of the High Court had upheld the decision of the single judge order observing that the decision of Delhi International Airport Ltd's (DIAL) to partially shift IndiGo operations from T-1 to T-2 cannot be said to be unreasonable only because it may operate harshly against that airline. "If we may twist the American idiom, 'my way or the highway' to fit the present context, then IndiGo cannot be heard to say that it is either their way or the runway. "IndiGo are tending to forget that this part relocation from T-1 to T-2 proposed by DIAL is only a temporary measure and once T-1 is renovated and commences its operations after capacity building, all the airlines can operate from there full throttle and take wings," a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli had said while upholding the order of a single judge accepting DIAL's decision. The High Court had turned down the suggestion of IndiGo that T-1 be dedicated exclusively for its use and low-cost carrier SpiceJet be asked to move its entire operations to T-2, and had said this sprang from IndiGo's own commercial considerations and not made in the larger public good. It had said SpiceJet was as much a business rival of IndiGo as GoAir was a competitor of these two private carriers. IndiGo may be on top of the heap if the volume of passenger traffic is seen, but this would not entitle it to claim monopoly over T-1 to the exclusion of the rest, it had added. The decision had come on IndiGo's plea challenging its single judge order of December 20 last year, upholding DIAL's October 21, 2017 decision to partially shift the operations of Indigo, GoAir and SpiceJet from T-1 to T-2 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport here.

IndiGo moves Supreme Court against High Court order asking it to partially move from T1 to T 2

&quot;Why were the offices set up&quot;, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the disqualified Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs, who claimed they had not received any monetary benefit, perks or remuneration including official vehicles, in their capacity as parliamentary secretaries.

A bench comprising of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar said if offices were set up, it means the MLAs were overlooking the administrative functions of the ministries where they were posted.

&quot;Why were offices set up for you (disqualified AAP MLAs)&nbsp;What were you getting from that. Normally if you are given an office means you will come and sit. You will also use the infrastructure. You are sitting there, (which) virtually means you are overlooking the affairs and functioning of the ministry,&quot; the bench orally observed.

The court&#39;s observation came during the hearing of the 20 AAP legislators&#39; pleas challenging their disqualification for holding offices of profit.

The arguments on behalf of the MLAs, which remained inconclusive, will resume on February 15.

During the nearly three-hour-long hearing of the legislators&#39; petitions, senior advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing for some of the MLAs, submitted that the Election Commission (EC) did not consider the aspect of what benefits they had derived while ruling that they held offices of profit.

The advocate said that no pecuniary benefit was received by the MLAs, while they were appointed as parliamentary secretaries.

Yesterday, the MLAs had claimed that they were held guilty of holding office of profit by the EC without giving them an opportunity to explain their stand.

&quot;Even a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the grounds of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry. However, in the present case, the members of the legislative assembly were removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry and without giving them any opportunity to explain if they ever held any office of profit,&quot; the MLAs had submitted.

The high court had on January 24 refused to stay the Centre&#39;s notification disqualifying the MLAs, but restrained the EC from taking any &quot;precipitate measures&quot; such as announcing dates for by-polls to fill the vacancies. 
The EC had recommended the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs on January 19. The President had accepted the EC&#39;s opinion the very next day.

The 20 disqualified MLAs include Adarsh Shastri (Dwarka), Alka Lamba (Chandni Chowk), Anil Bajpai (Gandhi Nagar), Avtar Singh (Kalkaji), Kailash Gahlot (Najafgarh) -- who is also a minister -- Madan Lal (Kasturba Nagar), Manoj Kumar (Kondli), Naresh Yadav (Mehrauli), Nitin Tyagi (Laxmi Nagar), Praveen Kumar (Jangpura).

The others are Rajesh Gupta (Wazirpur), Rajesh Rishi (Janakpuri), Sanjeev Jha (Burari), Sarita Singh (Rohtas Nagar), Som Dutt (Sadar Bazar), Sharad Kumar (Narela), Shiv Charan Goel (Moti Nagar), Sukhbir Singh (Mundka), Vijendar Garg (Rajinder Nagar) and Jarnail Singh (Tilak Nagar).

The Delhi High Court had on September 8, 2016, set aside their appointment as parliamentary secretaries on the grounds that they were appointed without the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.

 
&nbsp;

A bench comprising of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar said if offices were set up, it means the MLAs were overlooking the administrative functions of the ministries where they were posted

"Why were the offices set up", the Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the disqualified Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs, who claimed they had not received any monetary benefit, perks or remuneration including official vehicles, in their capacity as parliamentary secretaries. A bench comprising of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar said if offices were set up, it means the MLAs were overlooking the administrative functions of the ministries where they were posted. "Why were offices set up for you (disqualified AAP MLAs) What were you getting from that. Normally if you are given an office means you will come and sit. You will also use the infrastructure. You are sitting there, (which) virtually means you are overlooking the affairs and functioning of the ministry," the bench orally observed. The court's observation came during the hearing of the 20 AAP legislators' pleas challenging their disqualification for holding offices of profit. The arguments on behalf of the MLAs, which remained inconclusive, will resume on February 15. During the nearly three-hour-long hearing of the legislators' petitions, senior advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing for some of the MLAs, submitted that the Election Commission (EC) did not consider the aspect of what benefits they had derived while ruling that they held offices of profit. The advocate said that no pecuniary benefit was received by the MLAs, while they were appointed as parliamentary secretaries. Yesterday, the MLAs had claimed that they were held guilty of holding office of profit by the EC without giving them an opportunity to explain their stand. "Even a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the grounds of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry. However, in the present case, the members of the legislative assembly were removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry and without giving them any opportunity to explain if they ever held any office of profit," the MLAs had submitted. The high court had on January 24 refused to stay the Centre's notification disqualifying the MLAs, but restrained the EC from taking any "precipitate measures" such as announcing dates for by-polls to fill the vacancies. The EC had recommended the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs on January 19. The President had accepted the EC's opinion the very next day. The 20 disqualified MLAs include Adarsh Shastri (Dwarka), Alka Lamba (Chandni Chowk), Anil Bajpai (Gandhi Nagar), Avtar Singh (Kalkaji), Kailash Gahlot (Najafgarh) -- who is also a minister -- Madan Lal (Kasturba Nagar), Manoj Kumar (Kondli), Naresh Yadav (Mehrauli), Nitin Tyagi (Laxmi Nagar), Praveen Kumar (Jangpura). The others are Rajesh Gupta (Wazirpur), Rajesh Rishi (Janakpuri), Sanjeev Jha (Burari), Sarita Singh (Rohtas Nagar), Som Dutt (Sadar Bazar), Sharad Kumar (Narela), Shiv Charan Goel (Moti Nagar), Sukhbir Singh (Mundka), Vijendar Garg (Rajinder Nagar) and Jarnail Singh (Tilak Nagar). The Delhi High Court had on September 8, 2016, set aside their appointment as parliamentary secretaries on the grounds that they were appointed without the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.

'Why were the offices set up': HC asks disqualified AAP MLAs

JNU Students&#39; Union has announced that it will hold a protest march to the Ministry of Human Resource Development here on Thursday, demanding the removal of the varsity&#39;s Vice Chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar.

Though the students have held various protests and online campaigns using the hashtag &quot;#notourvc&quot; inside the campus, this is the first time a demand for removal of the Vice Chancellor will be raised outside the campus.

&quot;Our principal demand would be the removal of the VC from his office,&quot; JNUSU Joint Secretary Shubhanshu Singh told PTI.

Ever since the announcement of compulsory attendance, the students have been resorting to various ways of protest against the university establishment.

The stand-off between students and the Vice Chancellor escalated on February 8 when the administration made 75 per cent attendance mandatory for availing scholarships and fellowships.

For the last three days, scores of students have been organising strikes, human chains and holding demonstrations near the administration block, breaking the Delhi High Court 100-metre order.

Meanwhile, the administration today issued circulars to all members of the Academic Council announcing the decision to postpone council meeting indefinitely initially scheduled for February 23.

&quot;Due to unavoidable circumstances, the Academic Council meeting which was to be held on February 23 will be rescheduled,&quot; the circular signed by Registrar Pramod Kumar said.&nbsp;

Students also held various protests and online campaigns using the hashtag "#notourvc" inside the campus

JNU Students' Union has announced that it will hold a protest march to the Ministry of Human Resource Development here on Thursday, demanding the removal of the varsity's Vice Chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar. Though the students have held various protests and online campaigns using the hashtag "#notourvc" inside the campus, this is the first time a demand for removal of the Vice Chancellor will be raised outside the campus. "Our principal demand would be the removal of the VC from his office," JNUSU Joint Secretary Shubhanshu Singh told PTI. Ever since the announcement of compulsory attendance, the students have been resorting to various ways of protest against the university establishment. The stand-off between students and the Vice Chancellor escalated on February 8 when the administration made 75 per cent attendance mandatory for availing scholarships and fellowships. For the last three days, scores of students have been organising strikes, human chains and holding demonstrations near the administration block, breaking the Delhi High Court 100-metre order. Meanwhile, the administration today issued circulars to all members of the Academic Council announcing the decision to postpone council meeting indefinitely initially scheduled for February 23. "Due to unavoidable circumstances, the Academic Council meeting which was to be held on February 23 will be rescheduled," the circular signed by Registrar Pramod Kumar said.

JNU students' union to hold protest march seeking VC's removal

A bench in Delhi High Court will hear the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/20-aap-mlas-again-move-delhi-high-court-against-their-disqualification-30450" target="_blank"> plea filed by the disqualified AAP MLAs</a> on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court Bench to hear the plea in AAP MLAs disqualification matter tomorrow.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955797311162007552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Twenty Members of Legislative Assembly of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) today moved the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/disqualified-aap-mlas-withdraw-plea-in-hc-to-file-fresh-ones-30419">Delhi High Court again</a>&nbsp;against their disqualification for holding an office of profit by the Election Commission of India with the assent of the President.

In a huge setback to the Arvind Kejriwal-led party, the Election Commission&#39;s recommendation for their disqualification was approved by President Ram Nath Kovind on January 21.

The Election Commission had recommended their disqualification for holding the post of parliamentary secretaries between March 2015 and September 2016, considered as holding an office of profit.

Twenty Members of Legislative Assembly of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) today moved the Delhi High Court again against their disqualification for holding an office of profit by the Election Commission of India with the assent of the President

A bench in Delhi High Court will hear the plea filed by the disqualified AAP MLAs on Wednesday. Delhi High Court Bench to hear the plea in AAP MLAs disqualification matter tomorrow. — ANI (@ANI) January 23, 2018 × Twenty Members of Legislative Assembly of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) today moved the Delhi High Court again against their disqualification for holding an office of profit by the Election Commission of India with the assent of the President. In a huge setback to the Arvind Kejriwal-led party, the Election Commission's recommendation for their disqualification was approved by President Ram Nath Kovind on January 21. The Election Commission had recommended their disqualification for holding the post of parliamentary secretaries between March 2015 and September 2016, considered as holding an office of profit.

High Court to hear plea filed by disqualified AAP MLAs

Twenty lawmakers of the Aam Aadmi Party were disqualified on Sunday by the President acting on the recommendation of the Election Commission. The legislators have been disqualified for holding &lsquo;offices of profit.&rsquo; They had been appointed &lsquo;Parliamentary Secretaries&rsquo; by the Delhi government headed by AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal. The Delhi High Court set aside the appointments in 2016 and the Aam Aadmi Party would have perhaps thought that&rsquo;s that. Expect that it wasn&rsquo;t. The Election Commission acted on the letter of the law and now many observers and, of course, the Aam Aadmi Party, are claiming that the spirit of the law has been violated.

So did the Election Commission wake up one fine morning and say - &ldquo;I&rsquo;ll huff and I&rsquo;ll puff and I&rsquo;ll blow your house down&rdquo;? Anyone familiar with the goings-on of Nirvachan Sadan would agree that its not how the Election Commission works at all. Most decisions are based on precedent and following the letter of the Constitution and the laws therein to the T. It is an institution that is admired for its impartial conduct and, come elections, it does not shy away from taking uncomfortable decisions in replacing top officials in a state, should they feel that such officials would impede the conduct of free and fair polls.

The appointments as Parliamentary Secretaries were made in March 2015, the AAP sought to exempt theMLAs by amending the provisions of the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act 1997, in 2016 &mdash; a year later. The bill seeking the amendments was struck down by the then President, Pranab Mukherjee.

So why then is the disqualification of these 20 MLAs being branded as an excess? Would similar questions have been raised if the members were from the Bharatiya Janata Party? Is it playing into the politics of Centre Vs State and then some? After all, Delhi&rsquo;s state government has gone toe-to-toe with the Lieutenant Governor over the past 3-4 years and the relationship between this state government and the Centre has been tenuous, to say the least. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has branded the disqualification of AAP MLAs as &lsquo;Tughlaqshahi of the worst order&rsquo;. The reference to a former Sultan of Delhi is ironic - the Chief Minister is also branded as a despot by many within his own ranks and is capable of, shall we say, whimsical behaviour. AAP founder-member, and now a staunch Kejriwal critic, Kumar Vishwas says his opinion on the appointment of the parliamentary secretaries was disregarded.

AAP is now pinning its hopes on the Delhi High Court which will examine the decision not just on the principles of natural justice but also under the provisions of laws like the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 and Article 239 AA of the Constitution which deals with Centre-State relations.

If the disqualification holds, then Delhi is heading for a mini-poll of sorts in six months to elect 20 lawmakers. The chief minister and his ilk can continue to cry foul, suggest the Election Commission is in cahoots with the Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre and perhaps garner some sympathy (and votes too).

Meanwhile, even with its diminished strength of 45, the Aam Aadmi Party has a comfortable majority in the 70-member Delhi Assembly. Assuming that AAP loses the contest for all 20 seats, while it will be a loss of face, that majority wouldn&rsquo;t change. This churn may also give Arvind Kejriwal a chance to consolidate his flock and inject some fresh loyalists in the party that has been badly plagued with dissension.

Not just an open revolt by Kumar Vishwas who is still smarting from being denied a Rajya Sabha ticket, but the Aam Aadmi Party also has Kapil Mishra and Devendra Sehrawat who are MLAs but have been suspended from the party. Some other lawmakers like Asim Ahmed Khan have been dumped as ministers. The by polls, if won, would not just serve as a referendum of Arvind Kejriwal&rsquo;s policies in government but would also keep detractors at bay.

So what has the Chief Minister to lose from this disqualification? Nothing at all. No matter how the cookie crumbles, it is a win-win situation for Arvind Kejriwal.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

AAP is now pinning its hopes on the Delhi High Court which will examine the decision.

Twenty lawmakers of the Aam Aadmi Party were disqualified on Sunday by the President acting on the recommendation of the Election Commission. The legislators have been disqualified for holding ‘offices of profit.’ They had been appointed ‘Parliamentary Secretaries’ by the Delhi government headed by AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal. The Delhi High Court set aside the appointments in 2016 and the Aam Aadmi Party would have perhaps thought that’s that. Expect that it wasn’t. The Election Commission acted on the letter of the law and now many observers and, of course, the Aam Aadmi Party, are claiming that the spirit of the law has been violated. So did the Election Commission wake up one fine morning and say - “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down”? Anyone familiar with the goings-on of Nirvachan Sadan would agree that its not how the Election Commission works at all. Most decisions are based on precedent and following the letter of the Constitution and the laws therein to the T. It is an institution that is admired for its impartial conduct and, come elections, it does not shy away from taking uncomfortable decisions in replacing top officials in a state, should they feel that such officials would impede the conduct of free and fair polls. The appointments as Parliamentary Secretaries were made in March 2015, the AAP sought to exempt theMLAs by amending the provisions of the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act 1997, in 2016 — a year later. The bill seeking the amendments was struck down by the then President, Pranab Mukherjee. So why then is the disqualification of these 20 MLAs being branded as an excess? Would similar questions have been raised if the members were from the Bharatiya Janata Party? Is it playing into the politics of Centre Vs State and then some? After all, Delhi’s state government has gone toe-to-toe with the Lieutenant Governor over the past 3-4 years and the relationship between this state government and the Centre has been tenuous, to say the least. Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has branded the disqualification of AAP MLAs as ‘Tughlaqshahi of the worst order’. The reference to a former Sultan of Delhi is ironic - the Chief Minister is also branded as a despot by many within his own ranks and is capable of, shall we say, whimsical behaviour. AAP founder-member, and now a staunch Kejriwal critic, Kumar Vishwas says his opinion on the appointment of the parliamentary secretaries was disregarded. AAP is now pinning its hopes on the Delhi High Court which will examine the decision not just on the principles of natural justice but also under the provisions of laws like the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 and Article 239 AA of the Constitution which deals with Centre-State relations. If the disqualification holds, then Delhi is heading for a mini-poll of sorts in six months to elect 20 lawmakers. The chief minister and his ilk can continue to cry foul, suggest the Election Commission is in cahoots with the Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre and perhaps garner some sympathy (and votes too). Meanwhile, even with its diminished strength of 45, the Aam Aadmi Party has a comfortable majority in the 70-member Delhi Assembly. Assuming that AAP loses the contest for all 20 seats, while it will be a loss of face, that majority wouldn’t change. This churn may also give Arvind Kejriwal a chance to consolidate his flock and inject some fresh loyalists in the party that has been badly plagued with dissension. Not just an open revolt by Kumar Vishwas who is still smarting from being denied a Rajya Sabha ticket, but the Aam Aadmi Party also has Kapil Mishra and Devendra Sehrawat who are MLAs but have been suspended from the party. Some other lawmakers like Asim Ahmed Khan have been dumped as ministers. The by polls, if won, would not just serve as a referendum of Arvind Kejriwal’s policies in government but would also keep detractors at bay. So what has the Chief Minister to lose from this disqualification? Nothing at all. No matter how the cookie crumbles, it is a win-win situation for Arvind Kejriwal. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Undue process? Why AAP MLAs being disqualified is a win-win situation for Arvind Kejriwal

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India seeking permission from it to allow the use of AIADMK-Amma name to TTV Dhinakarn camp for the upcoming municipal polls.&nbsp;

The court issued the notice to the EC after a plea was filed by TTV Dhinakaran.

The next hearing in the matter is on February 6.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on plea of TTV Dhinakaran seeking directions to EC to permit his camp to continue using AIADMK-Amma name for the upcoming municipal polls.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/956091352072077312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court asks the Election Commission of Commission to file it&#39;s reply within a week, next date of hearing is February 6.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/956091795116408832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Dhinakaran who recently won the RK Nagar bypoll&nbsp;had fought the election as an Independent candidate.&nbsp;

He beat the AIADMK&#39;s E Madhusudhanan by over 40,000 votes.

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India seeking permission from it to allow the use of AIADMK-Amma name to TTV Dhinakarn camp for the upcoming municipal polls

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India seeking permission from it to allow the use of AIADMK-Amma name to TTV Dhinakarn camp for the upcoming municipal polls. The court issued the notice to the EC after a plea was filed by TTV Dhinakaran. The next hearing in the matter is on February 6. Delhi High Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India on plea of TTV Dhinakaran seeking directions to EC to permit his camp to continue using AIADMK-Amma name for the upcoming municipal polls. — ANI (@ANI) January 24, 2018 × Delhi High Court asks the Election Commission of Commission to file it's reply within a week, next date of hearing is February 6. — ANI (@ANI) January 24, 2018 × Dhinakaran who recently won the RK Nagar bypoll had fought the election as an Independent candidate. He beat the AIADMK's E Madhusudhanan by over 40,000 votes.

High Court issues notice to EC on TTV Dhinakaran's plea

The Delhi Development Authority has been asked by the Delhi High Court today to construct a boundary wall around the Kathputli Colony.

The move is to ensure that no unauthorised occupancy and encroachment can happen over the vacant area. The court also noted that the Delhi Development Authority would be at liberty to demolish the remaining structures at the colony.

The DDA is yet to allot flats in Narela to relocate the eligible colony residents.

A bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar noted the move to be essential to ensure safety and wellbeing of people.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, a court-appointed observer told the bench that 53 vacant units remain abandoned at the site.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by an NGO on behalf of some of the residents of the colony. The PIL challenged the demolition as well as their relocation to a transit camp at Anand Parbat.

The lawyers representing the NGO raised concerns about the&nbsp;facilities at the transit camp. The bench has allowed the NGO and the residents of the colony to visit and inspect the camp.

The case will be heard on March 20.&nbsp;

The court was hearing a PIL filed by an NGO on behalf of some of the residents of the colony

The Delhi Development Authority has been asked by the Delhi High Court today to construct a boundary wall around the Kathputli Colony. The move is to ensure that no unauthorised occupancy and encroachment can happen over the vacant area. The court also noted that the Delhi Development Authority would be at liberty to demolish the remaining structures at the colony. The DDA is yet to allot flats in Narela to relocate the eligible colony residents. A bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar noted the move to be essential to ensure safety and wellbeing of people. Meanwhile, a court-appointed observer told the bench that 53 vacant units remain abandoned at the site. The court was hearing a PIL filed by an NGO on behalf of some of the residents of the colony. The PIL challenged the demolition as well as their relocation to a transit camp at Anand Parbat. The lawyers representing the NGO raised concerns about the facilities at the transit camp. The bench has allowed the NGO and the residents of the colony to visit and inspect the camp. The case will be heard on March 20.

Kathputli Colony: Delhi High Court tells DDA to construct wall around colony

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave life imprisonment to seven suspended Uttarakhand policemen for killing a 22-year-old MBA student in a fake encounter in Dehradun in 2009.

The court, however, set aside the conviction and life term of 10 other suspended policemen.

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta upheld the trial court&#39;s June 9, 2014, verdict regarding seven policemen, who murdered Ranbir Singh on July 3, 2009.

The details of the judgement are awaited as the judges only read out the operative portion of the pronouncement.

Ranbir Singh, the 22-year-old student from Ghaziabad, was shot dead by the Dehradun Police on July 3, 2009, in the Ladpur forests.

After the incident, the Uttarakhand Police had claimed that Ranbir had fled with a Sub-Inspector&rsquo;s pistol and was shot dead during an encounter.

Later, it was found that it was a fake encounter and the state government had ordered a CBI inquiry.

All of them were on security duty on July 3, 2009, in view of the visit of then president Pratibha Patil.

CBI has submitted before the court that the victim had gone to Dehradun to take up a job on July 3, 2009, and the theory of the convicts &quot;is a story&quot;.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

All of them were on security duty on July 3, 2009, in view of the visit of then president Pratibha Patil

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave life imprisonment to seven suspended Uttarakhand policemen for killing a 22-year-old MBA student in a fake encounter in Dehradun in 2009. The court, however, set aside the conviction and life term of 10 other suspended policemen. A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta upheld the trial court's June 9, 2014, verdict regarding seven policemen, who murdered Ranbir Singh on July 3, 2009. The details of the judgement are awaited as the judges only read out the operative portion of the pronouncement. Ranbir Singh, the 22-year-old student from Ghaziabad, was shot dead by the Dehradun Police on July 3, 2009, in the Ladpur forests. After the incident, the Uttarakhand Police had claimed that Ranbir had fled with a Sub-Inspector’s pistol and was shot dead during an encounter. Later, it was found that it was a fake encounter and the state government had ordered a CBI inquiry. All of them were on security duty on July 3, 2009, in view of the visit of then president Pratibha Patil. CBI has submitted before the court that the victim had gone to Dehradun to take up a job on July 3, 2009, and the theory of the convicts "is a story". (With inputs from PTI)

Uttarakhand fake encounter case: Delhi High Court holds 7 cops guilty, acquits 10 others

The Delhi High Court has asked the Election Commission to file a detailed affidavit stating factual aspects of its decision on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-to-hear-plea-filed-by-disqualified-aap-mlas-on-january-24-30529" target="_blank">disqualification of the 20&nbsp;MLAs</a>&nbsp;of the Aam Aadmi Party.

The court has asked the Commission to file a written reply to the MLAs plea.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
20 AAP disqualification matter: Delhi High Court asks Election Commission to file written reply to AAP MLAs plea. Matter to be heard on 7 February.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/958227078737838081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The twenty members of Legislative Assembly of the AAP had moved the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/disqualified-aap-mlas-withdraw-plea-in-hc-to-file-fresh-ones-30419">Delhi High Court </a>on January 23 against their disqualification.

In a huge setback to the Arvind Kejriwal-led party, the Election Commission&#39;s recommendation for the&nbsp;disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs was approved by President Ram Nath Kovind on January 21.

The recommendation for&nbsp;disqualification was issued&nbsp;for holding the post of parliamentary secretaries between March 2015 and September 2016, considered as holding an office of profit.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February 7.&nbsp;

The court has asked the Commission to file a written reply to the MLAs plea

The Delhi High Court has asked the Election Commission to file a detailed affidavit stating factual aspects of its decision on disqualification of the 20 MLAs of the Aam Aadmi Party. The court has asked the Commission to file a written reply to the MLAs plea. 20 AAP disqualification matter: Delhi High Court asks Election Commission to file written reply to AAP MLAs plea. Matter to be heard on 7 February. — ANI (@ANI) January 30, 2018 × The twenty members of Legislative Assembly of the AAP had moved the Delhi High Court on January 23 against their disqualification. In a huge setback to the Arvind Kejriwal-led party, the Election Commission's recommendation for the disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs was approved by President Ram Nath Kovind on January 21. The recommendation for disqualification was issued for holding the post of parliamentary secretaries between March 2015 and September 2016, considered as holding an office of profit. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February 7.

High Court asks EC to state facts behind AAP MLAs disqualification

If those responsible for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots had been punished back then, India would have been different now, the Delhi High Court today said, while asking the police to take action against those involved in the recent attacks on properties of lawyers.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the lack of punishment in such cases signifies the &quot;beginning of the rot&quot; in the system.

&quot;If those responsible for 1984 riots had been punished, India would have been different,&quot; the bench said and expressed concern over the safety of the common man on the street if senior lawyers were being attacked.

When the bench was informed that the police was in the process of lodging FIRs in connection with the incidents, that occurred on January 4, 8 and 22, the bench questioned the response time and asked it to expedite the forensic analysis of the evidence gathered from the site of the attacks. The lawyers who have been at the receiving end of the arson attacks are those who have represented a woman lawyer who was allegedly assaulted by police officers and dragged out of the house she was residing in after a stalking case was lodged against her by a woman purportedly over a property dispute. When the bench was informed that the entire issue emanated from a property dispute as a land mafia was allegedly involved in it, the court remarked, &quot;It cannot be that the land mafia has grown to become a hydra.&quot;&nbsp;

On January 9 and 22, arson attacks were made on the properties and cars of senior advocates Vikas Pahwa and Kirti Uppal, who is also the president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), by using inflammable substances. Uppal&#39;s Hyundai Tucson car that was parked outside his house in south Delhi&#39;s Nizamuddin West was set on fire by unidentified miscreants.&nbsp;

On January 4, two cars &mdash; a Maruti Swift and a Honda Amaze &mdash; parked in the east Delhi house of advocate Ravi Sharma were allegedly torched by unidentified persons.

The bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice issued a notice to the police in the plea moved before it for a court-monitored SIT probe into the incidents and listed it for hearing tomorrow when the agency is expected to come with an order appointing a special investigator to probe the case.

Earlier in the day, the bench had on its own taken up the issue of the attacks on lawyers as a PIL and sought an action taken report from the police. The plea for court-monitored SIT probe was moved before it later. The &quot;inevitability of punishment&quot; acting as a deterrent and concern for the safety of citizens of the city was also expressed by another bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma which was hearing the woman advocate&#39;s matter in relation to her assault on December 18 last year allegedly by some police officers.

The proceedings before this bench in the first half of the day, witnessed high drama as some of the lawyers beat up an unknown individual inside the courtroom suspecting him to be the person who had torched the vehicles of the senior advocates. Frowning upon the incident inside the courtroom, the bench headed by Justice Mridul said, &quot;We cannot allow the court to turn into an &#39;akhada&#39; (wrestling ground). We are not going to permit this.&quot;

It also rapped the Delhi Police for the lack of any progress in the probe into the arson attacks, saying &quot;if you are unable to handle law and order in the city, let us know&quot;. &quot;We are concerned that you have an arsonist on the loose in the capital who is throwing firebombs and setting cars ablaze. What are you waiting for? A fatality? Is anybody safe? Are we safe in the courtroom? Right to be safe in our homes is inviable. We are not going to permit this,&quot; the bench said. It further said that only deterrent against such incidents was the &quot;inevitability of punishment&quot;. The bench also comprising Justice Sharma said, &quot;It was alarming that it was so easy to do something like this in the city of Delhi.&quot; The police, represented by standing counsel Rahul Mehra and advocate Tushar Sannu, assured both the benches that necessary steps and action would be taken immediately and protection would also be provided to all those persons, connected with the case, who face any threat to their safety.

A bench observed that the lack of punishment in such cases signifies the "beginning of the rot" in the system

If those responsible for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots had been punished back then, India would have been different now, the Delhi High Court today said, while asking the police to take action against those involved in the recent attacks on properties of lawyers. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the lack of punishment in such cases signifies the "beginning of the rot" in the system. "If those responsible for 1984 riots had been punished, India would have been different," the bench said and expressed concern over the safety of the common man on the street if senior lawyers were being attacked. When the bench was informed that the police was in the process of lodging FIRs in connection with the incidents, that occurred on January 4, 8 and 22, the bench questioned the response time and asked it to expedite the forensic analysis of the evidence gathered from the site of the attacks. The lawyers who have been at the receiving end of the arson attacks are those who have represented a woman lawyer who was allegedly assaulted by police officers and dragged out of the house she was residing in after a stalking case was lodged against her by a woman purportedly over a property dispute. When the bench was informed that the entire issue emanated from a property dispute as a land mafia was allegedly involved in it, the court remarked, "It cannot be that the land mafia has grown to become a hydra." On January 9 and 22, arson attacks were made on the properties and cars of senior advocates Vikas Pahwa and Kirti Uppal, who is also the president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), by using inflammable substances. Uppal's Hyundai Tucson car that was parked outside his house in south Delhi's Nizamuddin West was set on fire by unidentified miscreants. On January 4, two cars — a Maruti Swift and a Honda Amaze — parked in the east Delhi house of advocate Ravi Sharma were allegedly torched by unidentified persons. The bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice issued a notice to the police in the plea moved before it for a court-monitored SIT probe into the incidents and listed it for hearing tomorrow when the agency is expected to come with an order appointing a special investigator to probe the case. Earlier in the day, the bench had on its own taken up the issue of the attacks on lawyers as a PIL and sought an action taken report from the police. The plea for court-monitored SIT probe was moved before it later. The "inevitability of punishment" acting as a deterrent and concern for the safety of citizens of the city was also expressed by another bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma which was hearing the woman advocate's matter in relation to her assault on December 18 last year allegedly by some police officers. The proceedings before this bench in the first half of the day, witnessed high drama as some of the lawyers beat up an unknown individual inside the courtroom suspecting him to be the person who had torched the vehicles of the senior advocates. Frowning upon the incident inside the courtroom, the bench headed by Justice Mridul said, "We cannot allow the court to turn into an 'akhada' (wrestling ground). We are not going to permit this." It also rapped the Delhi Police for the lack of any progress in the probe into the arson attacks, saying "if you are unable to handle law and order in the city, let us know". "We are concerned that you have an arsonist on the loose in the capital who is throwing firebombs and setting cars ablaze. What are you waiting for? A fatality? Is anybody safe? Are we safe in the courtroom? Right to be safe in our homes is inviable. We are not going to permit this," the bench said. It further said that only deterrent against such incidents was the "inevitability of punishment". The bench also comprising Justice Sharma said, "It was alarming that it was so easy to do something like this in the city of Delhi." The police, represented by standing counsel Rahul Mehra and advocate Tushar Sannu, assured both the benches that necessary steps and action would be taken immediately and protection would also be provided to all those persons, connected with the case, who face any threat to their safety.

Punishments in 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases would have led to a different India: Delhi High Court

The Delhi Court is all set to hear an appeal filed by 20 disqualified lawmakers of the Aam Aadmi Party today.

The members were disqualified on January 21 after a recommendation by the Election Commission for holding office of profit.&nbsp;

Party chief and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal denied the accusation.

Kejriwal called President Kovind&#39;s order &quot;undemocratic&quot;.

In an open letter to Delhiites, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia described the disqualification as &quot;dirty politics&quot;.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass any interim order on staying the Centre&#39;s notification disqualifying 20 AAP MLAs.

Although a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bypolls-imposed-on-delhi-will-hamper-development-work-kejriwal-30416">bypoll</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bypolls-imposed-on-delhi-will-hamper-development-work-kejriwal-30416"> was &quot;imposed&quot;</a> on Delhi, the court had asked the Election Commission <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/office-of-profit-caseoffice-of-profit-case-delhi-hc-orders-ec-to-make-no-bypoll-announcement-until-29-january-30636">not to make any announcement regarding </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/office-of-profit-caseoffice-of-profit-case-delhi-hc-orders-ec-to-make-no-bypoll-announcement-until-29-january-30636">bypolls</a> in Delhi until January 29, the next date of hearing in the case.

The high court also noted that the elections cannot be held in Delhi until it reaches a conclusion in the case. 
&nbsp;

The members were disqualified on January 21 after a recommendation by the Election Commission

The Delhi Court is all set to hear an appeal filed by 20 disqualified lawmakers of the Aam Aadmi Party today. The members were disqualified on January 21 after a recommendation by the Election Commission for holding office of profit. Party chief and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal denied the accusation. Kejriwal called President Kovind's order "undemocratic". In an open letter to Delhiites, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia described the disqualification as "dirty politics". The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass any interim order on staying the Centre's notification disqualifying 20 AAP MLAs. Although a bypoll was "imposed" on Delhi, the court had asked the Election Commission not to make any announcement regarding bypolls in Delhi until January 29, the next date of hearing in the case. The high court also noted that the elections cannot be held in Delhi until it reaches a conclusion in the case.

Delhi High Court to hear disqualified AAP MLAs appeal today 

The Supreme court stayed a High Court order initiating a contempt and departmental enquiry lower court&#39;s Additional District Judge (ADJ) Dr Kamini Lau on Tuesday.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Lau to file an &quot;unconditional apology&quot;&nbsp;in the Delhi High Court, saying it &ldquo;wanted to protect&rdquo; her for future as well.&nbsp;

&ldquo;I had no intention whatsoever to undermine the majesty of law and the words used were unintentional,&rdquo; she said, adding that she would file the affidavit tendering unconditional apology in the High Court as asked by the top court.

&ldquo;It is in your interest, we are asking you to file this affidavit in the High Court. We are going to protect your in interest in this regard,&rdquo; the bench said.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 22 last year, had directed of contempt and enquiry proceedings against Lau after noticing alleged objectionable words used in four applications seeking expunction of adverse remarks passed by a single judge bench of the High Court in as many civil appeals.

Lau, in her appeal, mentioned that the higher courts &ldquo;should judge the judgements and not the judge&rdquo;.

At the outset, the CJI said he wanted to protect the judge and even asked senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lau, not to argue.

A single bench of High Court has made some comments about judgements passed by Lau as Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari in four civil cases.&nbsp;

(With PTI inputs)

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Dr Kamini Lau to file an unconditional apology in the Delhi High Court, saying it 'wanted to protect' her for future as well

The Supreme court stayed a High Court order initiating a contempt and departmental enquiry lower court's Additional District Judge (ADJ) Dr Kamini Lau on Tuesday. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Lau to file an "unconditional apology" in the Delhi High Court, saying it “wanted to protect” her for future as well. “I had no intention whatsoever to undermine the majesty of law and the words used were unintentional,” she said, adding that she would file the affidavit tendering unconditional apology in the High Court as asked by the top court. “It is in your interest, we are asking you to file this affidavit in the High Court. We are going to protect your in interest in this regard,” the bench said. A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 22 last year, had directed of contempt and enquiry proceedings against Lau after noticing alleged objectionable words used in four applications seeking expunction of adverse remarks passed by a single judge bench of the High Court in as many civil appeals. Lau, in her appeal, mentioned that the higher courts “should judge the judgements and not the judge”. At the outset, the CJI said he wanted to protect the judge and even asked senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lau, not to argue. A single bench of High Court has made some comments about judgements passed by Lau as Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari in four civil cases. (With PTI inputs)

Supreme Court stays contempt proceedings against woman ADJ judge

Three cases have been registered against Baba Virendra Dev Dixit by Central Bureau of Investigation.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered 3 cases against Baba Virendra Dev dixit; several girls allegedly kept under illegal confinement at his ashram in Rohini were rescued in December 2017
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/948516061531463680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

CBI has constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the matter relating to Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Ashram, Rohini, New Delhi on the orders of Delhi High Court.

In December 2017, Indian police<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/more-girls-rescued-from-delhi-rohini-ashram-27535"> raided </a>properties of the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya, to free hundreds of girls being kept in terrible conditions inside the ashram.

According to reports about 250 women and 48 girls have been released and many of the residents appeared to be drugged.

According to a lawsuit lodged at <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rohini-ashram-sexual-assault-delhi-high-court-to-continue-hearing-27418">Delhi&#39;s High Court </a>the leader of the group Virendra Dev Dixit has sexually assaulted multiple women and children and keeps residents confined in conditions &ldquo;worse than farm animals.&quot;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/head-of-rohini-ashram-where-girls-were-abused-faces-delhi-high-court-wrath-27458">Head of Rohini ashram where girls were abused faces Delhi High Court wrath</a>

CBI was asked by Delhi Commission for women <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dcw-chief-suspects-human-trafficking-in-virender-dev-dikshits-ashram-27690">chief Swati Maliwal&nbsp;</a>to conduct raids on all ashram of spiritual leader Virendra Dev Dikshit under the suspicion of human trafficking racket running in many of his ashrams.

Delhi High Court also asked CBI to probe the matter.

Swati Maliwal visited several of Dikshit&#39;s ashram and found out that prior to their visit many girls&nbsp;were removed from the ashram,&nbsp;told by locals to her.

An alleged victim had stated&nbsp;that the people in the ashram tried to brainwash the resident girls and women and sexually assaulted them under the pretext of religion.

The family members were also not allowed to meet their girls living in the ashram.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar has asked the founder of the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya in North Delhi Rohini to appear before January 4.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In December 2017, Indian police raided properties of the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya, to free hundreds of girls being kept in terrible conditions inside the ashram

Three cases have been registered against Baba Virendra Dev Dixit by Central Bureau of Investigation. Delhi: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered 3 cases against Baba Virendra Dev dixit; several girls allegedly kept under illegal confinement at his ashram in Rohini were rescued in December 2017 — ANI (@ANI) January 3, 2018 × CBI has constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the matter relating to Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidhyalaya Ashram, Rohini, New Delhi on the orders of Delhi High Court. In December 2017, Indian police raided properties of the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya, to free hundreds of girls being kept in terrible conditions inside the ashram. According to reports about 250 women and 48 girls have been released and many of the residents appeared to be drugged. According to a lawsuit lodged at Delhi's High Court the leader of the group Virendra Dev Dixit has sexually assaulted multiple women and children and keeps residents confined in conditions “worse than farm animals." Also read: Head of Rohini ashram where girls were abused faces Delhi High Court wrath CBI was asked by Delhi Commission for women chief Swati Maliwal to conduct raids on all ashram of spiritual leader Virendra Dev Dikshit under the suspicion of human trafficking racket running in many of his ashrams. Delhi High Court also asked CBI to probe the matter. Swati Maliwal visited several of Dikshit's ashram and found out that prior to their visit many girls were removed from the ashram, told by locals to her. An alleged victim had stated that the people in the ashram tried to brainwash the resident girls and women and sexually assaulted them under the pretext of religion. The family members were also not allowed to meet their girls living in the ashram. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar has asked the founder of the Adhyatmik Vishwa Vidyalaya in North Delhi Rohini to appear before January 4.

Rohini ashram sexual assault: CBI register 3 cases against Baba Virendra Dev Dixit

The Delhi High Court on Friday will continue to hear the case of alleged sexual assault of women and minor girls in the residential facility of an ashram cum meditation centre in Rohini area of Delhi.

On Thursday, the High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the case.

The high court transferred the case to probe agency in view of its serious nature.

A court-appointed committee informed the court that they recovered around 40 mobile phones, 12 memory cards, and a few letters, all of which have been sealed now.

The court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO, Foundation of Social Empowerment, alleging that the girls living in the premises of the educational institution were not allowed to leave the area or meet their respective families.

Taking note of this, the High Court had asked the police, Delhi government and Delhi Commission for Women, to visit the place and assess the situation.

The family of one of the victims had alleged that they have not been allowed to meet her since 2015.

An alleged victim had stated in the court that the people in the ashram tried to brainwash the resident girls and women, and sexually assaulted them under the pretext of religion.

She further alleged that the victims were brainwashed into believing that no wrong was committed and the aggressors were manifestations of God.

On Thursday, the High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the case

The Delhi High Court on Friday will continue to hear the case of alleged sexual assault of women and minor girls in the residential facility of an ashram cum meditation centre in Rohini area of Delhi. On Thursday, the High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the case. The high court transferred the case to probe agency in view of its serious nature. A court-appointed committee informed the court that they recovered around 40 mobile phones, 12 memory cards, and a few letters, all of which have been sealed now. The court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO, Foundation of Social Empowerment, alleging that the girls living in the premises of the educational institution were not allowed to leave the area or meet their respective families. Taking note of this, the High Court had asked the police, Delhi government and Delhi Commission for Women, to visit the place and assess the situation. The family of one of the victims had alleged that they have not been allowed to meet her since 2015. An alleged victim had stated in the court that the people in the ashram tried to brainwash the resident girls and women, and sexually assaulted them under the pretext of religion. She further alleged that the victims were brainwashed into believing that no wrong was committed and the aggressors were manifestations of God.

Rohini ashram sexual assault: Delhi High Court to continue hearing case

Anju Singh&#39;s mother today expressed satisfaction over the life term awarded to Suhaib Ilyasi for killing her daughter after a 17-year-long battle.

The former TV anchor and producer was awarded the sentence by a Delhi court which said that he &quot;committed murder and gave it a colour of suicide&quot;.

Rukma Singh, who arrived from Patna to attend today&#39;s proceedings, said, &quot;I&#39;m satisfied with the verdict. As long as he is convicted I&#39;m fine.&quot;

She told the reporters that she had spoken to her granddaughter, who was three-year-old at the time of the incident, and had seen her.

&quot;She resembles Anju a lot,&quot; she said.

Her lawyer Satender Sharma said that Rukma had met her granddaughter, currently in Ilyasi&#39;s custody, in 2008 on her birthday, adding that she had visiting rights and used to meet her on special occasions like birthdays.

Rukma had earlier alleged that Ilyasi used to torture his wife for dowry and later moved the Delhi High Court for adding the charge of murder against him.

The high court had allowed her plea and in August 2014 it ruled that the TV producer would be tried under Section 302 of the IPC for the offence of murder.

Rukma Singh had moved the Delhi High Court to upgrade the charges against Ilyasi

Anju Singh's mother today expressed satisfaction over the life term awarded to Suhaib Ilyasi for killing her daughter after a 17-year-long battle. The former TV anchor and producer was awarded the sentence by a Delhi court which said that he "committed murder and gave it a colour of suicide". Rukma Singh, who arrived from Patna to attend today's proceedings, said, "I'm satisfied with the verdict. As long as he is convicted I'm fine." She told the reporters that she had spoken to her granddaughter, who was three-year-old at the time of the incident, and had seen her. "She resembles Anju a lot," she said. Her lawyer Satender Sharma said that Rukma had met her granddaughter, currently in Ilyasi's custody, in 2008 on her birthday, adding that she had visiting rights and used to meet her on special occasions like birthdays. Rukma had earlier alleged that Ilyasi used to torture his wife for dowry and later moved the Delhi High Court for adding the charge of murder against him. The high court had allowed her plea and in August 2014 it ruled that the TV producer would be tried under Section 302 of the IPC for the offence of murder.

Satisfied with verdict: Suhaib Ilyasi's mother-in-law

The CBI today told the Delhi High Court that it has registered a criminal case over the alleged leak of question paper for the AIIMS MBBS entrance examination this year from an institute in Ghaziabad.

The submission was made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar, hearing a PIL seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged illegalities and irregularities during the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) MBBS entrance exam held on May 28 this year.

The AIIMS also told the court that the enquiry committee, set up by them, have found that one student was indulging in cheating.

The CBI has said that &quot;specific questions in the leaked screen shots were used in SET-3 of shift-2 at exam centre - HR Institute of Technology, Morta, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh&quot;.

&quot;It has also been found that the specific combination and sequence of the questions was randomly and uniquely allocated to a particular candidate,&quot; CBI&#39;s Special Public Prosecutor Rajdipa Behura submitted in the court.

&quot;A regular case was registered on June 13,&quot; the agency&#39;s counsel said, adding that the &quot;investigation of the case is at initial stage&quot;.

Taking note of which, the bench disposed off the PIL and asked the CBI to continue with further investigation into the matter.

The CBI was responding to the plea of doctor Anand Rai, who claims to be a whistleblower in the Vyapam scam case, seeking directions to AIIMS to quash the result declared on June 15 for the MBBS exam held on May 28.

The PIL had sought direction to AIIMS to produce before the court the finding of the institute&#39;s committee which was constituted for conducting inquiry into the complaints regarding the conduct of the examination.

Rai had on May 31 alleged that the question papers of this year&#39;s entrance exam for MBBS course of the AIIMS were leaked.

He had, in a series of tweets, posted images of question papers of the entrance examination which was held across the country on May 28 and said he had received the snapshots from a source who claimed these were leaked from a college in Lucknow when the online test was going on.

Rai had also alleged that AIIMS MBBS seats were being &quot;sold&quot;.&nbsp;

The CBI has said that "specific questions in the leaked screenshots were used in SET-3 of shift-2 at exam centre - HR Institute of Technology, Morta, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh".

The CBI today told the Delhi High Court that it has registered a criminal case over the alleged leak of question paper for the AIIMS MBBS entrance examination this year from an institute in Ghaziabad. The submission was made before a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar, hearing a PIL seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged illegalities and irregularities during the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) MBBS entrance exam held on May 28 this year. The AIIMS also told the court that the enquiry committee, set up by them, have found that one student was indulging in cheating. The CBI has said that "specific questions in the leaked screen shots were used in SET-3 of shift-2 at exam centre - HR Institute of Technology, Morta, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh". "It has also been found that the specific combination and sequence of the questions was randomly and uniquely allocated to a particular candidate," CBI's Special Public Prosecutor Rajdipa Behura submitted in the court. "A regular case was registered on June 13," the agency's counsel said, adding that the "investigation of the case is at initial stage". Taking note of which, the bench disposed off the PIL and asked the CBI to continue with further investigation into the matter. The CBI was responding to the plea of doctor Anand Rai, who claims to be a whistleblower in the Vyapam scam case, seeking directions to AIIMS to quash the result declared on June 15 for the MBBS exam held on May 28. The PIL had sought direction to AIIMS to produce before the court the finding of the institute's committee which was constituted for conducting inquiry into the complaints regarding the conduct of the examination. Rai had on May 31 alleged that the question papers of this year's entrance exam for MBBS course of the AIIMS were leaked. He had, in a series of tweets, posted images of question papers of the entrance examination which was held across the country on May 28 and said he had received the snapshots from a source who claimed these were leaked from a college in Lucknow when the online test was going on. Rai had also alleged that AIIMS MBBS seats were being "sold".

Criminal case registered in AIIMS 2017 paper leak: CBI to HC

delhi-high-court

Delhi High Court, News on Delhi High Court, stories on Delhi High Court, articles on Delhi High Court, Delhi High Court stories at Wion, Delhi High Court news, Delhi High Court latest news

delhi high-court