In a major relief for thousands of candidates, the Jharkhand High Court has stayed the state government's decision to cancel 22 recruitment examinations and related appointments. The exams, conducted by JPSC and JSSC, were scrapped following CID and SIT investigations into alleged irregularities. Many successful candidates had already joined government service and argued they were punished without being heard. The court's intervention has now put the controversial cancellation order on hold.


Breaking: Jharkhand HC stays government's order cancelling JPSC exams

The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court against Madras High Court orders permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar near a dargah atop the Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai, reviving the dispute that has been the subject of months of litigation and political debate in the State.


Tamil Nadu Deepam Row: Vijay Govt Moves SC Against HC Order on Lamp Lighting

Bollywood star Ranveer Singh has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the legal case related to the film Kantara. The High Court has denied an urgent hearing, delaying the next steps in the matter. Stay tuned for updates on court proceedings, legal analysis, and implications for the film and the actor.

Ranveer Singh Moves to HC to Quash 'Kantara' Case | Karnataka HC Denies Urgent Hearin

Social media platform X has approached the High Court to challenge the government’s ‘Sahyog’ takedown powers, raising questions about online content regulation and free speech.

Elon Musk:  X Challenges Govt's 'sahyog' Takedown Powers in High Court

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Mar 15) has taken suo motu cognizance of a controversial rulling by the Allahabad High Court, which said that grabbing breasts and breaking pyjama strings did not amount to rape or attempt to rape. The court&rsquo;s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists.
The matter will be heard in the Supreme Court by the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Wednesday (Mar 26).
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/man-rapes-infant-indian-court-reduces-life-sentence-to-10-years-says-original-punishment-was-harsh-and-excessive-8887575">Man rapes infant, Indian court reduces life sentence to 10 years, says original punishment was 'harsh and excessive'</a>
<h2>Controversial verdict</h2>
The Allahabad High Court ruling came as it was hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case of alleged rape of a minor girl.
The accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, allegedly grabbed the breasts of a minor girl and broke her pyjama string. They also attempted to drag her beneath a culvert but fled the scene after a passer-by came to the girl&rsquo;s aid. The incident took place in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/man-rapes-mentally-challenged-minor-indian-court-reduces-sentence-because-hes-family-man-with-4-kids-8885258">Man rapes mentally challenged minor, Indian court reduces sentence because he's 'family man with 4 kids'</a>
In its order, the Allahabad High Court had said that &ldquo;the allegation of holding the victim&rsquo;s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Defending the ruling, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who gave the order on March 17, said that while it was a case of assault on a woman&rsquo;s dignity, but it can&rsquo;t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl.
<h2>HC order draws criticism</h2>
The verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation. Legal experts noted that such statements diminish the confidence of the public in the judiciary.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/grabbing-breasts-snapping-pyjama-string-not-rape-allahabad-hcs-controversial-ruling-sparks-debate-8873890">'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate</a>
Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal said, &ldquo;God save this country with such judges adorning the bench! The Supreme Court has been too soft in dealing with errant judges (sic).&rdquo;
Earlier on Monday (Mar 24), the Supreme Court denied to hear a petition regarding the HC&rsquo;s ruling.&nbsp;
The petition called for the top court to issue an order to remove controversial sections of the judgment. The plea also demanded SC issue guidelines to prevent judges from making such remarks in the future.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-ghaziabad-man-rapes-murders-7-year-old-daughter-frames-neighbour-8868874">India: Ghaziabad man rapes, murders 7-Year-Old daughter; frames neighbour</a>
Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi told PTI, &ldquo;I am completely against this decision, and the Supreme Court should take serious note of it. Such a ruling has no place in a civilised society.&rdquo;
(With inputs from agencies)

India news | Trending | The HC’s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists.

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Mar 15) has taken suo motu cognizance of a controversial rulling by the Allahabad High Court, which said that grabbing breasts and breaking pyjama strings did not amount to rape or attempt to rape. The court’s verdict came on March 17 in a case involving an 11-year-old girl, sparking outrage from legal experts, political leaders and activists. The matter will be heard in the Supreme Court by the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Wednesday (Mar 26). Also read | Man rapes infant, Indian court reduces life sentence to 10 years, says original punishment was 'harsh and excessive' Controversial verdict The Allahabad High Court ruling came as it was hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case of alleged rape of a minor girl. The accused, identified as Pawan and Akash, allegedly grabbed the breasts of a minor girl and broke her pyjama string. They also attempted to drag her beneath a culvert but fled the scene after a passer-by came to the girl’s aid. The incident took place in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj. Also read | Man rapes mentally challenged minor, Indian court reduces sentence because he's 'family man with 4 kids' In its order, the Allahabad High Court had said that “the allegation of holding the victim’s breasts and breaking the waistband of the pyjama did not constitute a case of attempted rape against the accused.” Defending the ruling, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who gave the order on March 17, said that while it was a case of assault on a woman’s dignity, but it can’t be termed as an attempt to rape the 11-year-old girl. HC order draws criticism The verdict drew massive criticism, sparking outrage across the nation. Legal experts noted that such statements diminish the confidence of the public in the judiciary. Also read | 'Grabbing breasts, snapping pyjama string not rape': Allahabad HC's controversial ruling sparks debate Senior advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal said, “God save this country with such judges adorning the bench! The Supreme Court has been too soft in dealing with errant judges (sic).” Earlier on Monday (Mar 24), the Supreme Court denied to hear a petition regarding the HC’s ruling. The petition called for the top court to issue an order to remove controversial sections of the judgment. The plea also demanded SC issue guidelines to prevent judges from making such remarks in the future. Also read | India: Ghaziabad man rapes, murders 7-Year-Old daughter; frames neighbour Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi told PTI, “I am completely against this decision, and the Supreme Court should take serious note of it. Such a ruling has no place in a civilised society.” (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court takes suo motu notice of Allahabad HC ‘grabbing breasts not rape attempt’ ruling

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

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

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

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

&quot;No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough,&quot; an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016.

Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing &#39;Ram Nagar Trust&#39; to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.

The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on.

Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust&#39;s lawyer sought a week&#39;s time to submit the same.

This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust.

Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, &quot;No more adjournments. No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough&quot;.

&quot;That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay,&quot; Justice Patel said.

The famous dialogue &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39; from Bollywood movie &#39;Damini&#39; starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process.

Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days.

&quot;Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day&#39;s delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018,&quot; the court said.

The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible.&nbsp;

&quot;The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable,&quot; Justice Patel said.&nbsp;

He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff&#39;s lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes.&nbsp;

&quot;This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one,&quot; the court said.

&quot;We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause,&quot; Justice Patel noted.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay HC said while ruling out adjournments in a case.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016. Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing 'Ram Nagar Trust' to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009. The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on. Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust's lawyer sought a week's time to submit the same. This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust. Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, "No more adjournments. No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough". "That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay," Justice Patel said. The famous dialogue 'tareekh pe tareekh' from Bollywood movie 'Damini' starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process. Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days. "Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day's delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018," the court said. The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible. "The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable," Justice Patel said. He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff's lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes. "This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one," the court said. "We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause," Justice Patel noted.

No more tareekh pe tareekh: Bombay High Court judge tells lawyer against adjournment

The AAP MLAs, who have been disqualified as legislators for holding office of profit, today withdrew their pleas from Delhi High Court challenging the Election Commission&#39;s recommendation which got the assent of the President.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bypolls-imposed-on-delhi-will-hamper-development-work-kejriwal-30416">The 20 MLAs</a>, whose appointment as parliamentary secretaries was questioned, told the High Court that they would move fresh petitions against the taking away of their assembly seats as their pleas had become infructuous after President Ram Nath Kovind put a stamp of approval on the EC&#39;s recommendation.

Justice Rekha Palli allowed the MLAs to withdraw their plea, terming it &quot;dismissed as withdrawn&quot;.

Advocate Manish Vashisht, appearing for one of the AAP MLAs, told the court that a notification has been issued on January 20 by the government after the President accepted the poll panel&#39;s recommendation.

Taking the submission on record, the court continued with its January 19 interim order giving no protection to the aggrieved legislators.

In its opinion sent to the President, the EC had said that by being parliamentary secretaries, they held office of profit and were liable to be disqualified as MLAs of the Delhi Assembly.

The petition before the EC was filed by Prashant Patel against 21 MLAs who were appointed as parliamentary secretaries by the AAP government in Delhi.

The proceedings against Jarnail Singh were dropped after he resigned as the Rajouri Garden MLA to contest the Punjab Assembly polls.

The 20 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).

In their pleas, the legislators had sought a stay on the proceedings before the EC as well as any communication to the President by the poll panel.

They had contended that no hearing on the merits of the case had taken place before the EC, nor was any opportunity granted to the petitioners before the poll panel. They had also claimed that no evidence was led by complainant Prashant Patel.&nbsp;

Justice Rekha Palli allowed the MLAs to withdraw their plea, terming it 'dismissed as withdrawn'.

The AAP MLAs, who have been disqualified as legislators for holding office of profit, today withdrew their pleas from Delhi High Court challenging the Election Commission's recommendation which got the assent of the President. The 20 MLAs, whose appointment as parliamentary secretaries was questioned, told the High Court that they would move fresh petitions against the taking away of their assembly seats as their pleas had become infructuous after President Ram Nath Kovind put a stamp of approval on the EC's recommendation. Justice Rekha Palli allowed the MLAs to withdraw their plea, terming it "dismissed as withdrawn". Advocate Manish Vashisht, appearing for one of the AAP MLAs, told the court that a notification has been issued on January 20 by the government after the President accepted the poll panel's recommendation. Taking the submission on record, the court continued with its January 19 interim order giving no protection to the aggrieved legislators. In its opinion sent to the President, the EC had said that by being parliamentary secretaries, they held office of profit and were liable to be disqualified as MLAs of the Delhi Assembly. The petition before the EC was filed by Prashant Patel against 21 MLAs who were appointed as parliamentary secretaries by the AAP government in Delhi. The proceedings against Jarnail Singh were dropped after he resigned as the Rajouri Garden MLA to contest the Punjab Assembly polls. The 20 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). In their pleas, the legislators had sought a stay on the proceedings before the EC as well as any communication to the President by the poll panel. They had contended that no hearing on the merits of the case had taken place before the EC, nor was any opportunity granted to the petitioners before the poll panel. They had also claimed that no evidence was led by complainant Prashant Patel.

Disqualified AAP MLAs withdraw plea, will file fresh one

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

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea seeking clarification if a man&#39;s physical relations with his wife below 18 years of age amounts to rape or not.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence.

Earlier, the hearing was to be carried out by the Delhi High Court, but they put it on hold after learning that the SC has taken up for the hearing of a petition on a similar matter.

The HC then asked the parties before it to find out if the issues raised before it in the petitions seeking to make marital rape an offence are similar to those being heard by the apex court.

The NGO, who had filed the plea is opposing this as they argue that while SC is hearing a plea questioning the validity of a provision under the IPC permitting a man to have a physical relationship with his wife, even if she was aged between 15 and 18 years.

The issue before the HC is different as the PILs challenge the constitutionality of Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that it discriminates against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea seeking clarification if a man's physical relations with his wife below 18 years of age amounts to rape or not. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence. Earlier, the hearing was to be carried out by the Delhi High Court, but they put it on hold after learning that the SC has taken up for the hearing of a petition on a similar matter. The HC then asked the parties before it to find out if the issues raised before it in the petitions seeking to make marital rape an offence are similar to those being heard by the apex court. The NGO, who had filed the plea is opposing this as they argue that while SC is hearing a plea questioning the validity of a provision under the IPC permitting a man to have a physical relationship with his wife, even if she was aged between 15 and 18 years. The issue before the HC is different as the PILs challenge the constitutionality of Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that it discriminates against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands.

SC reserves verdict on criminalising marital rape

The Allahabad high court has stayed the arrest of five of six members of Mohammad Akhlaq&#39;s family. Akhlaq had been beaten to death by a mob in the village of Dadri in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh because he was thought to have eaten beef.&nbsp; 
 
Many Hindus in India think of the cow as sacred and the killing of cows is banned in a number of states.&nbsp; 
 
The court however refused to stay the arrest of Akhlaq&#39;s brother, saying he&nbsp;&quot;could have been involved in the alleged act alongside his deceased brother&quot;.&nbsp; 
 
The family had moved the Allahabad High Court against a recent lower court order that a police case be filed against them for storing and consuming beef under the Cow Slaughter Act. The lower court order came on the heels of a&nbsp;forensic report which said that the meat found inside Akhlaq&#39;s home was that &quot;of cow or its progeny&quot;. 
 
Maulana Amir Rahsadi Madni, national president of the Rashtriya Ulama Council, however&nbsp;alleged that the evidence in the infamous Dadri lynching had been &quot;tampered&quot; with and also raised questions over the conflicting Dadri and Mathura lab reports on the sample of meat sent for examination. 
 
&quot;First of all, the meat recovered was more than 150 metres away from Akhlaq&#39;s house,&quot; he said. 
 
The court order that a police case be filed against them came 10 days ago following a petition by a neighbour in Akhlaq&#39;s village Bisada. The petition was backed by the persons accused of Akhlaq&#39;s murder. In the petition, the neighbour has claimed that on September 26, Akhlaq and his son Danish were seen beating the calf. Later, the petition said, a villager saw Akhlaq holding down the calf while his brother killed it. 
 
(WION, this story first appeared on the DNA website)

The arrest of five of 6 members of the family has been stayed. But the court said his brother 'could have been involved in the alleged act'

The Allahabad high court has stayed the arrest of five of six members of Mohammad Akhlaq's family. Akhlaq had been beaten to death by a mob in the village of Dadri in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh because he was thought to have eaten beef. Many Hindus in India think of the cow as sacred and the killing of cows is banned in a number of states. The court however refused to stay the arrest of Akhlaq's brother, saying he "could have been involved in the alleged act alongside his deceased brother". The family had moved the Allahabad High Court against a recent lower court order that a police case be filed against them for storing and consuming beef under the Cow Slaughter Act. The lower court order came on the heels of a forensic report which said that the meat found inside Akhlaq's home was that "of cow or its progeny". Maulana Amir Rahsadi Madni, national president of the Rashtriya Ulama Council, however alleged that the evidence in the infamous Dadri lynching had been "tampered" with and also raised questions over the conflicting Dadri and Mathura lab reports on the sample of meat sent for examination. "First of all, the meat recovered was more than 150 metres away from Akhlaq's house," he said. The court order that a police case be filed against them came 10 days ago following a petition by a neighbour in Akhlaq's village Bisada. The petition was backed by the persons accused of Akhlaq's murder. In the petition, the neighbour has claimed that on September 26, Akhlaq and his son Danish were seen beating the calf. Later, the petition said, a villager saw Akhlaq holding down the calf while his brother killed it. (WION, this story first appeared on the DNA website)

India: Court stays arrest of family of man lynched on suspicion of eating beef

Hc, News on Hc, stories on Hc, articles on Hc, Hc stories at Wion, Hc news, Hc latest news