India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-crisis-like-in-india-could-happen-anywhere-warns-who-381419">Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO</a> 
 
The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
India reports 3,86,452 new <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry 
 
Total cases: 1,87,62,976 
Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 
Death toll: 2,08,330 
Active cases: 31,70,228 
 
Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 <a href="https://t.co/mRsifO2IMP">pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1387979313551527939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2021</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>

To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-11-indian-courts-pull-up-governments-381518/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data. India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic. India reports 3,86,452 new #COVID19 cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry Total cases: 1,87,62,976 Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 Death toll: 2,08,330 Active cases: 31,70,228 Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP — ANI (@ANI) April 30, 2021 × To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas. The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added. (With inputs from agencies)

India records biggest-ever surge of 386,452 COVID-19 cases, 3498 deaths in a day

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications.

Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing.

High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India.

A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts.

"Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat.

Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said.

Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said.

The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media.

"All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said.

The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint.

"It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said.

"Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas.

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing. High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts. "Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat. Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said. Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said. The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media. "All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said. The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint. "It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said. "Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said. (With inputs from agencies)

High courts should avoid 'off-the-cuff' remarks, says Supreme Court during Covid hearing

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account.

Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre.

The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis.

Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account.

The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states.

Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring.

On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital.

"Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court.

The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary'

On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases.

"Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said.

The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested.

In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission.

"The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court.

On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis.

"Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court.

The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities.

In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region.

"If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said.

'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak.

High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis.

As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre &amp; states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared. It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account. Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre. The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis. Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account. The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states. Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring. On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital. "Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court. The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary' On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases. "Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said. The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested. In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission. "The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court. On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis. "Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court. The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities. In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region. "If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said. 'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak. High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis. As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre & states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Indian courts pull up governments over Covid crisis

2 High Courts in India recently delivered these controversial judgements: Groping without 'skin-to-skin' contact is not sexual assault, A minor Muslim girl can marry after attaining puberty. WION's Palki tells you why the legal system needs a reality check.

Gravitas: Why the legal system needs a reality check

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law.

A bench of Justice Alka Sarin gave the verdict relying on various court rulings and the article 195 in 'Principles of Mohammedan Law', an authoritative textbook by prominent Muslim personal law jurist Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla.

Quoting provisions of article 195 in Mulla's authoritative treatise on Muslim personal laws, the bench observed that a Muslim girl on attaining the age of puberty was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice.

Article 195 in the book explains the capacity (eligibility) for marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the bench pointed out, adding that as per this provision, every Mohammedan (Muslim) of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage.

According to law the minimum age for marriage — is 18 years for girls and 21 for boys. This is laid down in two separate acts of the Indian parliament.

One, the special marriage act of 1954.

Second and the prohibition of child marriage act of 2006.

How then did the court recognise this marriage of a 17 year old?

Because it gave primacy to personal laws, the Muslim personal law says maturity and puberty are one and the same. So if a person has attained puberty — they are free to marry.

This puts the age of marriage at around 15 years. It's as if the last 150 years of social reforms never happened.

This is not an argument against personal laws in India. Though it's high time the country had a uniform civil code. But that's for the Parliament and the people of India to decide together.

But when courts uphold personal laws — at the expense of children's rights — questions must be asked.

Are the laws in tune with modern times? Are the Court's interpreting them with a progressive mindset? Most of the laws that we live by were framed decades back.

Times have changed, what was considered normal in the past -- is probably a crime today.

So the laws must keep up. Which means the lawmakers must keep up. Unfortunately -- in most cases -- they don't.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Muslim girl who is less than 18 years old but has attained puberty is free to marry anyone as per the Muslim Personal Law. A bench of Justice Alka Sarin gave the verdict relying on various court rulings and the article 195 in 'Principles of Mohammedan Law', an authoritative textbook by prominent Muslim personal law jurist Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla. Quoting provisions of article 195 in Mulla's authoritative treatise on Muslim personal laws, the bench observed that a Muslim girl on attaining the age of puberty was competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. Article 195 in the book explains the capacity (eligibility) for marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the bench pointed out, adding that as per this provision, every Mohammedan (Muslim) of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage. According to law the minimum age for marriage — is 18 years for girls and 21 for boys. This is laid down in two separate acts of the Indian parliament. One, the special marriage act of 1954. Second and the prohibition of child marriage act of 2006. How then did the court recognise this marriage of a 17 year old? Because it gave primacy to personal laws, the Muslim personal law says maturity and puberty are one and the same. So if a person has attained puberty — they are free to marry. This puts the age of marriage at around 15 years. It's as if the last 150 years of social reforms never happened. This is not an argument against personal laws in India. Though it's high time the country had a uniform civil code. But that's for the Parliament and the people of India to decide together. But when courts uphold personal laws — at the expense of children's rights — questions must be asked. Are the laws in tune with modern times? Are the Court's interpreting them with a progressive mindset? Most of the laws that we live by were framed decades back. Times have changed, what was considered normal in the past -- is probably a crime today. So the laws must keep up. Which means the lawmakers must keep up. Unfortunately -- in most cases -- they don't. (With inputs from agencies)

On attaining puberty, Muslim girl can marry anyone: Why legal system needs a reality check

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mysterious-covid-19-vaccine-chinas-cry-of-help-for-friendship-334123">Also read|&nbsp;Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship</a>

At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts.

The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-to-join-covax-when-will-un-hold-china-responsible-for-its-actions-334138">Also read|&nbsp;China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions?</a>

Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes.&nbsp;

The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs.

In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&amp;D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others.

The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court.

The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

The Madras High Court has expressed apprehension about India’s over-dependence on ’hostile neighbor’ China, when it comes to the import of Active Pharmaceutical ingredients (API). This observation was made on the grounds that it hinders the nation’s response to security and other breaches by the neighbor. APIs are the ingredients in the medicine that play the major role of acting upon the illness. While India, which is regarded a pioneer in pharmaceuticals, does not import medicines per se, the country imports APIs, which are the crucial ingredient in the drugs’ manufacture. Also read| Mysterious COVID-19 vaccine: China's cry of help for friendship At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (NSA) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” the Court said. It is said that China is also the global leader in the production and export of APIs, which is enabled by government support and lower costs on various fronts. The Court notes that the economic advantage of importing APIs from China has led to India losing its scientific-edge and self-reliance in APIs. It is said that China is able to sell their APIs to India at 25% of the cost that it would take to manufacture in India. “As a result, our country that had once built 99.7% self-reliance in APIs went on to import over 90% of its API requirements from China”, the Court said. “At one stage, even the National Security Advisor (‘NSA’) has cautioned the Government of the danger to our national security on account of this excess import dependence from a single nation” it added. Also read| China to join COVAX: When will UN hold China responsible for its actions? Fearsome prospects of Indian patients having to consume sub-standard drugs or go without medicines, in case of escalation of tensions with China were also mentioned by the Court, in view of the Galwan clashes. The court made the observations while ordering that a five-member committee be set-up to ensure the enabling of a private company Vinkem Labs Ltd to become a global player that can bring in foreign exchange and also ensure India’s self-reliance in cancer drugs. In an issued on September 30, 2020, the Court said that a committee must be formed within eight weeks to facilitate requirements of Vinkem Labs including fiscal and regulatory for R&D, commercialization, industry development, regulatory compliances, technology infusion, exports, domestic supply and others. The proposed committee is meant to have a member each from Union Ministry of Pharmaceuticals and Finance Ministry not below Joint Secretary rank, Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of Tamil Nadu, one member from Bank of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) not below the rank of Senior General Manager and N.L.Rajah, the amicus curiae appointed by the court. The court monitored Committee is also required to remove delays and difficulties, including funding requirements of Vinkem Labs with necessary recommendations to the banks.

Madras High court raises concern over India’s over-dependence on Chinese pharma ingredients

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients.

The division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan listed the matter for further hearing on September 28.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/admitted-to-hospital-for-covid-19-delhi-deputy-cm-manish-sisodia-also-diagnosed-with-dengue-330037">Also read:&nbsp;Admitted to hospital for COVID-19, Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia also diagnosed with dengue</a>

The Delhi government, in a petition filed through additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose against the interim order dated September 22 passed by a single-judge bench, said that the bench has not appreciated the categoric submissions made on behalf of the appellant regarding the surge in the number of COVID-19 patients, and the dynamic efforts being undertaken by the appellant to tackle the ever-changing nature situation regarding healthcare and medical facilities in the NCT of Delhi, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A single-judge bench had on Tuesday this week stayed the recent order passed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led government instructing private hospitals in Delhi to reserve 80 per cent of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients, till the next date of hearing on a petition moved by the "Association of Healthcare Providers India".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-reports-86052-new-cases-as-total-infections-near-6-million-mark-330100">Also read:&nbsp;India reports 86,052 new cases as total infections near 6 million-mark</a>

The petition filed before the single-judge through advocate Sanyam Khetarpal and Narita Yadav said that the order has been passed in an arbitrary, unfair and illegal manner without even realizing the difficulties that may be faced by the said private nursing homes and hospitals.

"Moreover, no consideration has been given to the fact that the non-COVID-19 patients may suffer fatal consequences owing to their prolonged or sudden illness and due to the non-availability of ICU/HDU beds they may not be able to endure the disease," said the petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers India.

The plea had said that private hospitals routinely get patients with heart attacks, grievous injuries, acute pulmonary disorders, complex fractures, and even other conditions like cancer, transplant and cardiac patients which require urgent interventions and critical care.

"Reserving 80% beds in the ICU will deny urgent care to seriously ill patients, requiring vital surgical interventions and critical care. These beds, which may constitute 15 per cent to 20per cent of overall ICU bed capacity in some of the hospitals, are not usable for COVID-19 patients since very rarely does a COVID-19 patient of that age requires critical care," it had added.&nbsp;

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Friday deferred to September 28 hearing on a petition filed by the Delhi government challenging a single-judge bench order imposing an interim stay on the reservation of 80 per cent ICU beds in a group of top private hospitals in the national capital exclusively for COVID-19 patients. The division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan listed the matter for further hearing on September 28. Also read: Admitted to hospital for COVID-19, Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia also diagnosed with dengue The Delhi government, in a petition filed through additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose against the interim order dated September 22 passed by a single-judge bench, said that the bench has not appreciated the categoric submissions made on behalf of the appellant regarding the surge in the number of COVID-19 patients, and the dynamic efforts being undertaken by the appellant to tackle the ever-changing nature situation regarding healthcare and medical facilities in the NCT of Delhi, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. A single-judge bench had on Tuesday this week stayed the recent order passed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal-led government instructing private hospitals in Delhi to reserve 80 per cent of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients, till the next date of hearing on a petition moved by the "Association of Healthcare Providers India". Also read: India reports 86,052 new cases as total infections near 6 million-mark The petition filed before the single-judge through advocate Sanyam Khetarpal and Narita Yadav said that the order has been passed in an arbitrary, unfair and illegal manner without even realizing the difficulties that may be faced by the said private nursing homes and hospitals. "Moreover, no consideration has been given to the fact that the non-COVID-19 patients may suffer fatal consequences owing to their prolonged or sudden illness and due to the non-availability of ICU/HDU beds they may not be able to endure the disease," said the petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers India. The plea had said that private hospitals routinely get patients with heart attacks, grievous injuries, acute pulmonary disorders, complex fractures, and even other conditions like cancer, transplant and cardiac patients which require urgent interventions and critical care. "Reserving 80% beds in the ICU will deny urgent care to seriously ill patients, requiring vital surgical interventions and critical care. These beds, which may constitute 15 per cent to 20per cent of overall ICU bed capacity in some of the hospitals, are not usable for COVID-19 patients since very rarely does a COVID-19 patient of that age requires critical care," it had added.

HC defers Delhi govt's plea against interim stay on reservation of ICU beds in private hospitals

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Centre and Netflix and sought their stand by September 23 on Choksi's appeal.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the PNB scam accused, said he was only seeking that the matter be remanded back to the single judge who had dismissed as not maintainable the plea to pre-screen the docuseries.

The single judge had on August 28 denied any relief to Choksi, saying a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable.

The high court had said his remedy lies in a civil suit and granted him the liberty to raise the issue in a civil suit.

Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems, and his nephew, Nirav Modi, are accused in the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.

Choksi left the country last year and was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda.

The documentary, which was scheduled for release in India on September 2, was promoted by Netflix as: "This investigative docuseries explores the greed, fraud and corruption that built up - and ultimately brought down - India's most infamous tycoons".

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and online video streaming platform Netflix on PNB scam accused Mehul Choksi's appeal against the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Centre and Netflix and sought their stand by September 23 on Choksi's appeal. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the PNB scam accused, said he was only seeking that the matter be remanded back to the single judge who had dismissed as not maintainable the plea to pre-screen the docuseries. The single judge had on August 28 denied any relief to Choksi, saying a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable. The high court had said his remedy lies in a civil suit and granted him the liberty to raise the issue in a civil suit. Choksi, the promoter of Gitanjali Gems, and his nephew, Nirav Modi, are accused in the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case. Choksi left the country last year and was granted citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda. The documentary, which was scheduled for release in India on September 2, was promoted by Netflix as: "This investigative docuseries explores the greed, fraud and corruption that built up - and ultimately brought down - India's most infamous tycoons".

High Court seeks Centre, Netflix response to Mehul Choksi's plea on 'Bad Boy Billionaires' docuseries

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-are-shifting-from-burden-of-school-bag-to-boon-of-learning-pm-modi-317503">Also read|&nbsp;We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi</a>

"This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments.

The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee.

According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/from-4-years-bed-degree-to-removing-mphil-highlights-of-national-education-policy-2020-316865">Also read|&nbsp;From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020</a>

The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes.

"The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said.

"The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added.

The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system.

"Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Delhi government to take steps to waive off the school tuition fee amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown. A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan also expressed displeasure with the petitioner and counsel and asked why did you not apprised the court that a similar matter was already dismissed by the same court. Also read| We are shifting from burden of school bag to boon of learning: PM Modi "This is clear misconduct," the bench said, after which advocate N Pradeep Sharma sought an apology from the High Court and withdrew the PIL as the court was not convinced by his arguments. The plea, filed by one Naresh Kumar, prayed for the interpretation of Force Majeure clauses in the present pandemic situation and sought directions to the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to take steps to waver off the school tuition fee. According to the petition, the impact of COVID-19 is building by the day, supply chains are being significantly disrupted and businesses` rights and obligations under contracts are coming into sharp focus. Also read| From 4 years B.Ed. degree to removing M.Phil: Highlights of National Education Policy 2020 The plea said that private school administrations have been demanding school fee and other charges without rendering any services. It said that the school admission form does not have any clause that in case of an adverse situation, the school would charge tuition fees for providing online classes. "The students are facing several side effects and such online classes offered by schools have other medical and psychological implications, which is against the concept of school education," the plea said. "The schools are duty-bound to follow and abide the terms and conditions which are a part of school prospectus and if there is no Force Majeure clause in the school prospectus, demanding of tuition fee, without providing the actual education, is a violation of law in terms of a contract and also against the principle of natural justice," it added. The plea said that it would not be out of the question to mention that the school prospectus does not contain any clause with respect to a pandemic or like situation and further that in such a condition, the school would provide online classes and charge tuition fees for the same.It also said that the entire student community is facing a lot of problems to gain knowledge through the online education system. "Some homework and class tests are required to be undertaken under the guidance of trained teachers so as to achieve, through the online way of teaching. It would be important to mention that private schools are either being run by the Society or trust and are not doing any social service to society. Even otherwise, the school is a service provider and thus is covered under the Consumer Act also," the plea said.

COVID-19: Delhi HC refuses to entertain PIL seeking directions to waive off school tuition fee

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others.

A bench of Justice N Kirubakarn and Justice R Hemalatha observed during the hearing of a petition by Nalini's mother, seeking a direction to permit her daughter to speak to her mother-in-law in Sri Lanka and sister-in-law in London daily for ten minutes.

Making clear they were not in support of the convicts, the judges wondered as to why the prison authorities were refusing to grant the permission when the state has taken a stand to release all the seven convicts in the case.

It was referring to the decision of the state cabinet for premature release of the seven convicts, which is awaiting approval from the state Governor.

Public Prosecutor A Natarajan informed the court that Nalini cannot be allowed to make video calls as there was no such provision in rules for contacting any person in any foreign country.

Since the offence committed by the life convicts had international ramification and given their overseas contacts with banned outfits, there was no guarantee that the convicts would use this facility for a personal and family affair, he submitted.

The bench then adjourned the hearing to Wednesday with a direction to the prosecutor to inform the court the clear stand of the prison authorities.

Earlier, in a counter-affidavit, the state police had said there was no provision either in the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules or in government orders to allow a prisoner to make a video call or even voice call to 
any person in any foreign country.

The official noted that the issue involving foreign countries falls within the domain of Union Ministry for External Affairs, and the state government or the prison authorities cannot take any unilateral decision.

Besides Nalini and her husband, the others convicted in the case are A G Perarivalan, Santhan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran and Robert Pyas.

All are serving life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, by an LTTE suicide-bomber at nearby Sriperumbudur.

They were initially sentenced to death, but later the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally asked the Tamil Nadu government reason for not allowing Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts, Nalini and her husband Sriharan, to make video calls to their relatives in Sri Lanka when it had already decided to release her and six others. A bench of Justice N Kirubakarn and Justice R Hemalatha observed during the hearing of a petition by Nalini's mother, seeking a direction to permit her daughter to speak to her mother-in-law in Sri Lanka and sister-in-law in London daily for ten minutes. Making clear they were not in support of the convicts, the judges wondered as to why the prison authorities were refusing to grant the permission when the state has taken a stand to release all the seven convicts in the case. It was referring to the decision of the state cabinet for premature release of the seven convicts, which is awaiting approval from the state Governor. Public Prosecutor A Natarajan informed the court that Nalini cannot be allowed to make video calls as there was no such provision in rules for contacting any person in any foreign country. Since the offence committed by the life convicts had international ramification and given their overseas contacts with banned outfits, there was no guarantee that the convicts would use this facility for a personal and family affair, he submitted. The bench then adjourned the hearing to Wednesday with a direction to the prosecutor to inform the court the clear stand of the prison authorities. Earlier, in a counter-affidavit, the state police had said there was no provision either in the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules or in government orders to allow a prisoner to make a video call or even voice call to any person in any foreign country. The official noted that the issue involving foreign countries falls within the domain of Union Ministry for External Affairs, and the state government or the prison authorities cannot take any unilateral decision. Besides Nalini and her husband, the others convicted in the case are A G Perarivalan, Santhan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran and Robert Pyas. All are serving life imprisonment for their role in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, by an LTTE suicide-bomber at nearby Sriperumbudur. They were initially sentenced to death, but later the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

Why Rajiv Gandhi case convicts can't video call their relatives: Court asks state 

Religion is a personal belief and whether to convert to a different faith or not is an individual's choice, the Delhi High Court said on Friday while declining to entertain a plea for stopping or regulating religious conversions.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar asked the petitioner, a lawyer, to withdraw the petition as it did not want to reject it.

"Why don't you withdraw it? Why should we reject it," the court said.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-seeks-centre-delhi-government-stand-for-adequate-measures-to-combat-coronavirus-285576">Delhi High Court seeks Centre, Delhi government stand for adequate measures to combat coronavirus</a>

Subsequently, the petitioner BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought permission to withdraw the matter and the bench allowed him to do so.

When the petition came up for hearing, the court said, professing a religion was a matter of personal belief and whether to convert to a different religion was an individual's choice.

"Tell us how can we regulate it? What will we regulate? If someone is threatening someone or intimidating someone, it is an offence under the Indian Penal Code," the bench said and added there was no reason for an individual to succumb to threats, intimidation or allurement to convert to a different faith.

Read More:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/very-unfortunate-delhi-high-court-expresses-concern-over-ib-officer-ankit-sharmas-death-in-violence-282886"> 'Very unfortunate': Delhi High Court expresses concern over IB officer Ankit Sharma's death in violence</a>

Upadhyay, in his plea, had contended that many individuals, NGOs and institutions are converting downtrodden persons, particularly of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, by "intimidating, threatening, luring by monetary benefits and by other acts, including miracle healing, black magic and more".

"Many individuals/organisations have started conversions of SC/STs in rural areas and the situation is very alarming. The mass religious conversion of the socially economically downtrodden men, women and children, and, in particular of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community, is on the rise in the last 20 years," the petition had claimed.

It had also claimed that as per the 2011 census, Hindus constitute 79 per cent of the population down from 86 per cent in 2001 and if no action is taken "Hindus will become minority in India".

Upadhyay had suggested enacting of a law to prevent conversions by force or deceit and to award jail term for any violation.

Religion is a personal belief and whether to convert to a different faith or not is an individual's choice, the Delhi High Court said on Friday while declining to entertain a plea for stopping or regulating religious conversions.

Religion is a personal belief and whether to convert to a different faith or not is an individual's choice, the Delhi High Court said on Friday while declining to entertain a plea for stopping or regulating religious conversions. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar asked the petitioner, a lawyer, to withdraw the petition as it did not want to reject it. "Why don't you withdraw it? Why should we reject it," the court said. Also Read: Delhi High Court seeks Centre, Delhi government stand for adequate measures to combat coronavirus Subsequently, the petitioner BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay sought permission to withdraw the matter and the bench allowed him to do so. When the petition came up for hearing, the court said, professing a religion was a matter of personal belief and whether to convert to a different religion was an individual's choice. "Tell us how can we regulate it? What will we regulate? If someone is threatening someone or intimidating someone, it is an offence under the Indian Penal Code," the bench said and added there was no reason for an individual to succumb to threats, intimidation or allurement to convert to a different faith. Read More: 'Very unfortunate': Delhi High Court expresses concern over IB officer Ankit Sharma's death in violence Upadhyay, in his plea, had contended that many individuals, NGOs and institutions are converting downtrodden persons, particularly of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, by "intimidating, threatening, luring by monetary benefits and by other acts, including miracle healing, black magic and more". "Many individuals/organisations have started conversions of SC/STs in rural areas and the situation is very alarming. The mass religious conversion of the socially economically downtrodden men, women and children, and, in particular of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community, is on the rise in the last 20 years," the petition had claimed. It had also claimed that as per the 2011 census, Hindus constitute 79 per cent of the population down from 86 per cent in 2001 and if no action is taken "Hindus will become minority in India". Upadhyay had suggested enacting of a law to prevent conversions by force or deceit and to award jail term for any violation.

Delhi High Court declines to accept plea against religious conversion

Justice Muralidhar took oath as the Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was sworn in by Chief Justice of the High Court Ravi Shanker Jha in the presence of jurists and lawyers.

Muralidhar, was transferred from the Delhi High Court, was greeted with flowers by the lawyers in the Court auditorium during the oath-taking ceremony.

"The roads leading to the High Court complex were flooded with welcome signs, a warm gesture to welcome a Judge," said a senior lawyer. "Delhi`s loss is Punjab`s gain,"&nbsp;a hoarding stated.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-says-congress-politicising-routine-transfer-of-justice-muralidhar-283064">Government says Congress politicising ‘routine transfer’ of Justice Muralidhar</a>

Giving a farewell speech on Thursday in the Delhi High Court where he addressed the lawyers, Justice Murlidhar talked about the incidents and communication on his transfer to another court.

Murlidhar quoted that "he was informed about his transfer on February 17 and had no problem with it. He also said that he has received a message from CJI, SA Bobde, about the decision taken by the collegium for my transfers.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-first-supreme-court-collegium-to-make-decisions-public-21088">In first, Supreme Court collegium to make decisions public</a>

Accepting the transfer order the Judge said that he was not having any objection to go to the preferred Court.

Ministry of Law and Justice on February 26 informed the transfer of S Murlidhar from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Earlier, Justice Muralidhar had slammed the Delhi police over the lack of action in Delhi violence incidents.

He had said that another 1984 situation cannot be allowed to happen in the city under its watch. 
&nbsp;

Justice Muralidhar took oath as the Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was sworn in by Chief Justice of the High Court Ravi Shanker Jha in the presence of jurists and lawyers.

Justice Muralidhar took oath as the Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was sworn in by Chief Justice of the High Court Ravi Shanker Jha in the presence of jurists and lawyers. Muralidhar, was transferred from the Delhi High Court, was greeted with flowers by the lawyers in the Court auditorium during the oath-taking ceremony. "The roads leading to the High Court complex were flooded with welcome signs, a warm gesture to welcome a Judge," said a senior lawyer. "Delhi`s loss is Punjab`s gain," a hoarding stated. Also Read: Government says Congress politicising ‘routine transfer’ of Justice Muralidhar Giving a farewell speech on Thursday in the Delhi High Court where he addressed the lawyers, Justice Murlidhar talked about the incidents and communication on his transfer to another court. Murlidhar quoted that "he was informed about his transfer on February 17 and had no problem with it. He also said that he has received a message from CJI, SA Bobde, about the decision taken by the collegium for my transfers. Also Read: In first, Supreme Court collegium to make decisions public Accepting the transfer order the Judge said that he was not having any objection to go to the preferred Court. Ministry of Law and Justice on February 26 informed the transfer of S Murlidhar from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Earlier, Justice Muralidhar had slammed the Delhi police over the lack of action in Delhi violence incidents. He had said that another 1984 situation cannot be allowed to happen in the city under its watch.

S Murlidhar takes oath as Punjab, Haryana High Court Judge amid high drama

In Anti-CAA Protests, SC refused to probe into police action on the protesters and asked to approach High Court for the same. Watch this video to know more.#CAA #SupremeCourt #HighCourt

Anti-CAA Protests: SC refused to probe into police action, asked to approach High Court

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/lahore-high-court-accepts-hafiz-saaeds-application-challenging-his-arrest-in-terror-financing-case-254314">Lahore High Court</a> (LHC) on Monday will hear a petition filed by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maryam-nawaz-moves-high-court-over-removal-of-name-from-exit-control-list-266846">Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz </a>(PML-N) vice president Maryam Nawaz which seeks the removal of her name from the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nawaz-sharifs-name-likely-to-be-removed-from-exit-control-list-260835"> Exit Control List</a> (ECL), Pakistani media reported.

A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi will hear the petition, which was filed on Saturday, a day after the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) moved the Supreme Court against the LHC's decision to grant bail to Maryam in Chaudhry Sugar Mills investigation, reported the Express Tribune.

Maryam's name was placed on the no-fly list by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf-an-underdog-emerges-as-challenger-152858">Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf</a> (PTI) led federal cabinet on NAB's request on August 20, 2018.

Maryam, who is the daughter of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, argues in her petition that her name was placed on the ECL without her stance on the matter being heard.

"The memorandum issued on August 20, 2018, was illegal. I have been regularly appearing in the courts and therefore, I should be granted permission to travel abroad till a final verdict on the petition," Maryam argued in her petition.

She further urged the LHC to declare the order of putting her name on the ECL as null and void and terming it illegal.

The petition further read, "I am under a lot of mental stress due to my father's illness and he also needs me. I should be granted permission to travel abroad till a final verdict on the petition,"

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday will hear a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) vice president Maryam Nawaz which seeks the removal of her name from the Exit Control List (ECL), Pakistani media reported.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday will hear a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) vice president Maryam Nawaz which seeks the removal of her name from the Exit Control List (ECL), Pakistani media reported. A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi will hear the petition, which was filed on Saturday, a day after the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) moved the Supreme Court against the LHC's decision to grant bail to Maryam in Chaudhry Sugar Mills investigation, reported the Express Tribune. Maryam's name was placed on the no-fly list by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led federal cabinet on NAB's request on August 20, 2018. Maryam, who is the daughter of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, argues in her petition that her name was placed on the ECL without her stance on the matter being heard. "The memorandum issued on August 20, 2018, was illegal. I have been regularly appearing in the courts and therefore, I should be granted permission to travel abroad till a final verdict on the petition," Maryam argued in her petition. She further urged the LHC to declare the order of putting her name on the ECL as null and void and terming it illegal. The petition further read, "I am under a lot of mental stress due to my father's illness and he also needs me. I should be granted permission to travel abroad till a final verdict on the petition,"

Pakistan: Lahore high court to hear Maryam's petition for removal of name from Exit Control List today

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-lifts-stay-on-bar-elections-at-tis-hazari-karkardooma-district-courts-265280">Delhi High Court</a> on Wednesday disposed of the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to Delhi government for immediate grant of sanction to proceed with the trial against former Jawaharlal Nehru Unversity Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and others in connection with a sedition case.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-recommends-justice-dn-patel-as-next-chief-justice-of-delhi-high-court-218328">DN Patel </a>asked the government to decide the issue as per law.

"There is no need for further guidelines. There are enough guidelines. No reason to constitute a high power committee. Govt has enough number of officers. As far as <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jnu-executive-council-approves-recommendations-of-high-level-committee-on-revised-hostel-manual-charges-264573">JNU </a>sloganeering case is concerned, the petitioner has requested directions to the Delhi government to grant sanction. The government may act as per rules and regulations," the court observed.

Petitioner Nand Kishore Garg, a former BJP MLA, through his counsel, advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi, prayed for an immediate grant of sanction for the trial of Kanhaiya Kumar and others and argued that Delhi government is harboring political prejudices by not granting the sanction in the case since one year. 
The counsel further argued that the Delhi government is guilty of obstruction of justice in such serious criminal cases which are clearly opposed to the constitutional commitment made by the government at the time of taking an oath.

The counsel further argued the oath obliges the government to act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India.

There is already a growing perception among the common people that law is differently applied to different people in our country and finally counsel argued that a high powered committee may be instituted to look into the lapses on the part of government officials in the issuance of said sanction for the prosecution of accused, the petitioner contended.

The plea had sought directions for issuance of guidelines for expeditious prosecutions in respect of all sensitive criminal and corruption-related cases where the allegations are serious in nature and are having widespread ramifications on the community. 
The public prosecutor had recently informed Patiala House court, where the case is pending, that the matter regarding grant of sanction is still pending to prosecute Kanhaiya Kumar and others in the JNU sedition case.

Court had adjourned the matter after the prosecutor informed that the sanction of the charge sheet is still pending and that the Home Department has not given the sanction yet. 
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) court had issued the summons to the investigating officer of the case and slated the matter for December 11.

In the charge sheet filed in the court in January, Delhi Police had said there was video footage wherein Kumar is "seen leading the students who were raising anti-national slogans" and that he had been identified by the witnesses in the videos.

"The location of mobile phone at the place of occurrence" was also cited as evidence against Kumar in the 1200-page charge sheet. 
As part of other evidence, the police said the Forensic Science Laboratory had retrieved an SMS sent by Khalid to Kumar asking him to "arrive at Sabarmati Dhaba, JNU, as their permission had been canceled by the JNU administration".

Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to Delhi government for immediate grant of sanction to proceed with the trial against former Jawaharlal Nehru Unversity Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and others in connection with a sedition case.

Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to Delhi government for immediate grant of sanction to proceed with the trial against former Jawaharlal Nehru Unversity Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar and others in connection with a sedition case. A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel asked the government to decide the issue as per law. "There is no need for further guidelines. There are enough guidelines. No reason to constitute a high power committee. Govt has enough number of officers. As far as JNU sloganeering case is concerned, the petitioner has requested directions to the Delhi government to grant sanction. The government may act as per rules and regulations," the court observed. Petitioner Nand Kishore Garg, a former BJP MLA, through his counsel, advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi, prayed for an immediate grant of sanction for the trial of Kanhaiya Kumar and others and argued that Delhi government is harboring political prejudices by not granting the sanction in the case since one year. The counsel further argued that the Delhi government is guilty of obstruction of justice in such serious criminal cases which are clearly opposed to the constitutional commitment made by the government at the time of taking an oath. The counsel further argued the oath obliges the government to act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India. There is already a growing perception among the common people that law is differently applied to different people in our country and finally counsel argued that a high powered committee may be instituted to look into the lapses on the part of government officials in the issuance of said sanction for the prosecution of accused, the petitioner contended. The plea had sought directions for issuance of guidelines for expeditious prosecutions in respect of all sensitive criminal and corruption-related cases where the allegations are serious in nature and are having widespread ramifications on the community. The public prosecutor had recently informed Patiala House court, where the case is pending, that the matter regarding grant of sanction is still pending to prosecute Kanhaiya Kumar and others in the JNU sedition case. Court had adjourned the matter after the prosecutor informed that the sanction of the charge sheet is still pending and that the Home Department has not given the sanction yet. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) court had issued the summons to the investigating officer of the case and slated the matter for December 11. In the charge sheet filed in the court in January, Delhi Police had said there was video footage wherein Kumar is "seen leading the students who were raising anti-national slogans" and that he had been identified by the witnesses in the videos. "The location of mobile phone at the place of occurrence" was also cited as evidence against Kumar in the 1200-page charge sheet. As part of other evidence, the police said the Forensic Science Laboratory had retrieved an SMS sent by Khalid to Kumar asking him to "arrive at Sabarmati Dhaba, JNU, as their permission had been canceled by the JNU administration".

Delhi High Court disposes of plea on delay in sanctions in JNU sedition case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday said that as soon as the stay imposed on the arrest of former finance minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-p-chidambarams-judicial-custody-extended-till-december-11-264937">P Chidambaram'</a>s son Karti Chidambaram is uplifted, he will be arrested.

"<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambarams-arrest-son-karti-speaks-to-wion-calls-arrest-witch-hunt-244684">Karti Chidambaram</a> is yet to be arrested in ED case, he did not apply for bail, he had filed a petition in High Court challenging few provisions of PMLA. There is a stay on his arrest and once it is lifted, he would be arrested," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing ED, told the Supreme Court.

Mehta said that Karti is not on bail in the money laundering case being probed by the ED but in the corruption case investigated by the CBI.

The ED made contentions before the apex court which was hearing Chidambaram's petition challenging the Delhi High Court November 15 verdict which denied him bail in the case being probed by the ED. It has reserved the judgment on his petition.

INX Media case pertains to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during P Chidambaram's tenure as the finance minister.

CBI had registered a corruption case in this regard in May 2017. Later that year, the ED also lodged a money laundering case.

The CBI recently filed a charge sheet against fourteen accused, including P Chidambaram, Karti and a handful of bureaucrats in the case.

In its charge sheet, the CBI revealed that Karti influenced public servants to extend favors to the INX Media and also used false invoices as a genuine document to demand an illegal gratification of Rs 10 lakh from the company.

P Chidambaram was first arrested by the CBI on August 21 in the corruption case but was granted bail by the Supreme Court two months later.

He was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case on October 16. A special court yesterday extended his judicial custody in Tihar jail till December 11.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday said that as soon as the stay imposed on the arrest of former finance minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram is uplifted, he will be arrested.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday said that as soon as the stay imposed on the arrest of former finance minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram is uplifted, he will be arrested. "Karti Chidambaram is yet to be arrested in ED case, he did not apply for bail, he had filed a petition in High Court challenging few provisions of PMLA. There is a stay on his arrest and once it is lifted, he would be arrested," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing ED, told the Supreme Court. Mehta said that Karti is not on bail in the money laundering case being probed by the ED but in the corruption case investigated by the CBI. The ED made contentions before the apex court which was hearing Chidambaram's petition challenging the Delhi High Court November 15 verdict which denied him bail in the case being probed by the ED. It has reserved the judgment on his petition. INX Media case pertains to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during P Chidambaram's tenure as the finance minister. CBI had registered a corruption case in this regard in May 2017. Later that year, the ED also lodged a money laundering case. The CBI recently filed a charge sheet against fourteen accused, including P Chidambaram, Karti and a handful of bureaucrats in the case. In its charge sheet, the CBI revealed that Karti influenced public servants to extend favors to the INX Media and also used false invoices as a genuine document to demand an illegal gratification of Rs 10 lakh from the company. P Chidambaram was first arrested by the CBI on August 21 in the corruption case but was granted bail by the Supreme Court two months later. He was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case on October 16. A special court yesterday extended his judicial custody in Tihar jail till December 11.

Karti will be arrested once stay is lifted: Enforcement Directorate tells Supreme Court

The death of a teenage Dutch model who fell naked from an upmarket apartment, allegedly after drug-fuelled group sex, is being treated as murder, Malaysian police said.

Ivana Smit tumbled from the 20th floor of a Kuala Lumpur condominium and landed on a sixth-floor balcony in December 2017.

Her death made headlines after claims emerged that 18-year-old Smit, the American living there and his Kazakh wife consumed large quantities of drugs and alcohol and had group sex.

Police at first dismissed suggestions of foul play and a coroner ruled earlier this year that no one was criminally involved while conceding there was likely a struggle before she fell.

But Smit's family lodged a legal challenge and the High Court last week overturned the coroner's decision, ruling that "persons knew or unknown" were involved and ordered a new probe.

Police announced Wednesday that the death of Smit, who reportedly lived in Malaysia since childhood, had been reclassified as murder and they were re-opening investigations.

A task force will be formed for the case, said Huzir Mohamed, head of the police's criminal investigation department.

"We will recall witnesses from whom we have taken statements, and call witnesses who were not previously interviewed," he said.

Police did not say who they planned to question. The couple linked to the case are reported to have left the country.

The death of a teenage Dutch model who fell naked from an upmarket apartment, allegedly after drug-fuelled group sex, is being treated as murder, Malaysian police said.

The death of a teenage Dutch model who fell naked from an upmarket apartment, allegedly after drug-fuelled group sex, is being treated as murder, Malaysian police said. Ivana Smit tumbled from the 20th floor of a Kuala Lumpur condominium and landed on a sixth-floor balcony in December 2017. Her death made headlines after claims emerged that 18-year-old Smit, the American living there and his Kazakh wife consumed large quantities of drugs and alcohol and had group sex. Police at first dismissed suggestions of foul play and a coroner ruled earlier this year that no one was criminally involved while conceding there was likely a struggle before she fell. But Smit's family lodged a legal challenge and the High Court last week overturned the coroner's decision, ruling that "persons knew or unknown" were involved and ordered a new probe. Police announced Wednesday that the death of Smit, who reportedly lived in Malaysia since childhood, had been reclassified as murder and they were re-opening investigations. A task force will be formed for the case, said Huzir Mohamed, head of the police's criminal investigation department. "We will recall witnesses from whom we have taken statements, and call witnesses who were not previously interviewed," he said. Police did not say who they planned to question. The couple linked to the case are reported to have left the country.

Dutch model's death plunge was murder, say Malaysian police

Justice Suresh Kait of Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the bail plea of former Finance Minister and Indian National Congress veteran leader P Chidambaram, who is lodged in Tihar jail in the INX Media case, related to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board during his watch.

A Special Court had ordered judicial custody of the high-profile politician till November 27, 2019, in the case.

Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR in May 2017 over alleged graft in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, when Chidambaram was Finance Minister.

"No doubt bail is his right, but if granted in such cases, it is against the interest of the public at large," the court stated.&nbsp;

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the money laundering case, had arrested Chidambaram last month. He is currently lodged in judicial custody in Tihar jail.&nbsp;

The Congress leader had sought a regular bail by asserting that no part of the triple test, which includes flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, has been made out against him. His bail plea was opposed by the ED.&nbsp;

The agency asserted that Chidambaram used the high office of the country "for his personal gains".

"Proceeds of crime were generated on the act done by P Chidambaram in his capacity as the finance minister. Considering the gravity of the offences against him, bail should not be granted," the agency submitted.&nbsp;

The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister.&nbsp;

Thereafter, a case was registered by the ED. Chidambaram was granted bail by the Supreme Court on October 22 in the INX Media corruption case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

Justice Suresh Kait of Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the bail plea of former Finance Minister and Indian National Congress veteran leader P Chidambaram, who is lodged in Tihar jail in the INX Media case, related to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board during his watch.

Justice Suresh Kait of Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the bail plea of former Finance Minister and Indian National Congress veteran leader P Chidambaram, who is lodged in Tihar jail in the INX Media case, related to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board during his watch. A Special Court had ordered judicial custody of the high-profile politician till November 27, 2019, in the case. Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR in May 2017 over alleged graft in the FIPB clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, when Chidambaram was Finance Minister. "No doubt bail is his right, but if granted in such cases, it is against the interest of the public at large," the court stated. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the money laundering case, had arrested Chidambaram last month. He is currently lodged in judicial custody in Tihar jail. The Congress leader had sought a regular bail by asserting that no part of the triple test, which includes flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, has been made out against him. His bail plea was opposed by the ED. The agency asserted that Chidambaram used the high office of the country "for his personal gains". "Proceeds of crime were generated on the act done by P Chidambaram in his capacity as the finance minister. Considering the gravity of the offences against him, bail should not be granted," the agency submitted. The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. Thereafter, a case was registered by the ED. Chidambaram was granted bail by the Supreme Court on October 22 in the INX Media corruption case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). (With inputs from ANI)

INX Media case: Delhi high court rejects P Chidambaram's bail plea

Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the response of ED and CBI on a bail application filed by alleged middleman in AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, Christian Michel. 
Justice Anu Malhotra directed both the agencies to file a reply in two weeks before the court and the next date of hearing in the case is November 13.

 
On October 23, Michel had approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the cases filed against him by CBI and ED in connection with Rs 3,600 crore VVIP chopper deal.

He approached the High Court after a special court dismissed his bail plea by observing that the accusations against him are "serious in nature".

The bail plea has been filed on the ground that he has been in the custody since January and the charge sheet has also been filed by both CBI and by ED in April this year.

Earlier, in the special court, both the investigating agencies had opposed the bail plea of Michel.

The agencies submitted that they would file a supplementary charge sheet in the case since sufficient evidence attributing to the criminality against other public servants and private persons had surfaced during the ongoing probe.

The agencies also submitted that Michel was a flight risk and could possibly flee the country.

Michel was extradited from Dubai last year and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with alleged irregularities in the chopper deal.

While the CBI is probing his alleged role as a 'middleman' in the deal, the ED is investigating money laundering charges against him.

Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the response of ED and CBI on a bail application filed by alleged middleman in AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, Christian Michel.

Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the response of ED and CBI on a bail application filed by alleged middleman in AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam, Christian Michel. Justice Anu Malhotra directed both the agencies to file a reply in two weeks before the court and the next date of hearing in the case is November 13. On October 23, Michel had approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the cases filed against him by CBI and ED in connection with Rs 3,600 crore VVIP chopper deal. He approached the High Court after a special court dismissed his bail plea by observing that the accusations against him are "serious in nature". The bail plea has been filed on the ground that he has been in the custody since January and the charge sheet has also been filed by both CBI and by ED in April this year. Earlier, in the special court, both the investigating agencies had opposed the bail plea of Michel. The agencies submitted that they would file a supplementary charge sheet in the case since sufficient evidence attributing to the criminality against other public servants and private persons had surfaced during the ongoing probe. The agencies also submitted that Michel was a flight risk and could possibly flee the country. Michel was extradited from Dubai last year and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with alleged irregularities in the chopper deal. While the CBI is probing his alleged role as a 'middleman' in the deal, the ED is investigating money laundering charges against him.

AgustaWestland: Delhi HC seeks ED, CBI's response on bail plea of Christian Michel

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

The High Court had dismissed Chidambaram's plea asserting that he might influence witnesses in the case.

Following this, Chidambaram's counsel, Kapil Sibal, moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court today, seeking urgent hearing into it.

A bench of Justice N V Ramana, however, assured that Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will take a decision on the matter later during the day.

The file has been sent to him for consideration for the listing of the matter.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Chidambaram on August 21 following which he was sent to judicial custody, which is slated to end today.

While CBI is probing the corruption allegations, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is looking into money laundering allegations against him in the case.

Chidambaram is facing probe for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union finance minister.&nbsp;

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case. The High Court had dismissed Chidambaram's plea asserting that he might influence witnesses in the case. Following this, Chidambaram's counsel, Kapil Sibal, moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court today, seeking urgent hearing into it. A bench of Justice N V Ramana, however, assured that Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will take a decision on the matter later during the day. The file has been sent to him for consideration for the listing of the matter. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Chidambaram on August 21 following which he was sent to judicial custody, which is slated to end today. While CBI is probing the corruption allegations, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is looking into money laundering allegations against him in the case. Chidambaram is facing probe for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union finance minister.

INX Media: P Chidambaram moves Supreme Court challenging after Delhi high court dismissed bail

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday conducted searches at several locations in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in connection with the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/central-bureau-of-investigation-registers-two-separate-firs-in-illegal-sand-mining-case-234818">illegal sand mining case.</a>

The probe officials conducted searches at eleven locations including Saharanpur, Dehradun and Lucknow in the morning.

Notably, in January also, searches were conducted at 12 places in the districts of Hamirpur, Jalon, Noida, Kanpur, Lucknow and Delhi.

During the searches, incriminating material pertaining to illegal sand mining, including huge cash and gold were recovered.

It has been alleged that government officials along with private individuals had allocated some illegal mining sites by flouting rules and regulations between the year 2012 and 2016.

Mining rights were also given in violation of NGT orders.

All those who were ministers in that period will also be investigated, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/llegal-sand-mining-supreme-court-seeks-response-from-centre-cbi-and-5-states-238146">CBI</a> sources said.

Akhilesh Yadav held the charge of mining ministry between 2012 to July 2013 and hence can come under scanner in the ongoing probe.

The CBI had initiated a probe in the alleged illegal mining case in 2016 on directions of the Allahabad High Court.

The cases of illegal mining were recorded from seven districts of Uttar Pradesh, namely, Shamli, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Deoria, Saharanpur, Hamirpur, and Siddharthnagar.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday conducted searches at several locations in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in connection with the illegal sand mining case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday conducted searches at several locations in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in connection with the illegal sand mining case. The probe officials conducted searches at eleven locations including Saharanpur, Dehradun and Lucknow in the morning. Notably, in January also, searches were conducted at 12 places in the districts of Hamirpur, Jalon, Noida, Kanpur, Lucknow and Delhi. During the searches, incriminating material pertaining to illegal sand mining, including huge cash and gold were recovered. It has been alleged that government officials along with private individuals had allocated some illegal mining sites by flouting rules and regulations between the year 2012 and 2016. Mining rights were also given in violation of NGT orders. All those who were ministers in that period will also be investigated, CBI sources said. Akhilesh Yadav held the charge of mining ministry between 2012 to July 2013 and hence can come under scanner in the ongoing probe. The CBI had initiated a probe in the alleged illegal mining case in 2016 on directions of the Allahabad High Court. The cases of illegal mining were recorded from seven districts of Uttar Pradesh, namely, Shamli, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Deoria, Saharanpur, Hamirpur, and Siddharthnagar.

Illegal sand mining: Central Bureau of Investigation conducts raids in North India

No immediate relief for P Chidamabaram from the Supreme Court. The case has been forwarded to Chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. Watch full video to know more.

Chidambaram INX Media case: Ranjan Gogoi to decide on urgent hearing of plea after lunch

Zimbabwe's main opposition MDC party succumbed on Friday to pressure from what it labelled a fascist government, calling off a street protest as armed police set up roadblocks and barred access to its Harare offices.

Zimbabwe's main opposition MDC party succumbed on Friday to pressure from what it labelled a fascist government, calling off a street protest as armed police set up roadblocks and barred access to its Harare offices. Friday's demonstration was to have been the first in a series planned by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which accuses the government of corruption and economic mismanagement. The protests are widely viewed as a test of how President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who has so far this year failed to make good on promises of political and economic reform, responds to dissent in a country tainted by a long history of repression. Police late on Thursday banned the Harare event and said anyone taking part would be committing a crime, and a High Court judge early on Friday dismissed an application by the party to overturn that ban. The ban, which the MDC would not appeal, had exposed the government's "true colours," party Vice President Tendai Biti told reporters outside the court. "The constitution guarantees the right to a demonstration ... yet this fascist regime has denied and proscribed this right to the people of Zimbabwe," he said. "...We have jumped from the frying pan into the fire after the coup of November 2017... We don't accept the conduct of this regime, the conduct of Mr Mnangagwa." Elected after the armed forces intervened to oust Robert Mugabe, Mnangagwa has said he aims to break with the long legacy of repression that characterised much of his predecessor's 37 years in power. But the economy is mired in its worst crisis in a decade, and Mnangagwa is struggling to convince the growing ranks of poor citizens that his government's austerity measures and reforms can trigger a recovery. Zimbabweans had also expected last year's vote to usher in a new dawn of expanded political rights and an end to the country's international pariah status, but instead, the elections left the country more polarised. APPARATUS OF THE STATE In January, a violent security crackdown in Harare against fuel demonstrations left more than a dozen people dead. Days ahead of the planned Harare demonstration, six political activists were abducted from their homes at night and beaten by armed men, a coalition of rights groups said. On Friday, the apparatus of the state was out in force again and the city's streets were unusually quiet. Reuters witnesses saw police and armed soldiers searching buses, taxis and private vehicles at checkpoints and randomly asking for identity documents. More than a hundred opposition supporters chanted party slogans and sang near a square in central Harare where protesters had been set to assemble but were chased away by baton-wielding police. One woman was taken to hospital by ambulance after sustaining a deep gash on her heard. Police also blocked roads to the MDC headquarters. Most businesses, including banks, were closed as workers stayed at home. A major supermarket chain nearby that had opened, quickly closed its doors fearing tensions would escalate. Anger is mounting as Zimbabweans grapple with soaring inflation, rolling power cuts and shortages of US dollars, fuel, and bread. In a letter to church leaders published on Friday in the state-owned Herald newspaper, Mnangagwa said the economic hardship had its roots in sanctions imposed by the West more than a decade ago as well as a severe drought this year. He also said MDC leader Nelson Chamisa had rejected his invitation to dialogue meant to resolve Zimbabwe's political and economic problems. Chamisa has said he will only sit down with Mnangagwa if there is a neutral arbiter. "The doors of national dialogue are still open to all political leaders including to the leader of the MDC," Mnangagwa said. While political leaders argue, wages and pensions continue to be eroded by triple-digit inflation, bringing back bad memories of the hyperinflation of a decade ago, which forced the country to ditch its currency.

Under-eye of 'fascist' government, Zimbabwe opposition scraps Harare protest

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time.

"The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench.&nbsp;

The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;

The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks.&nbsp;

The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

 
&nbsp;

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time. "The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench. The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks. The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

Centre seeks one week's time to take decision on Justice Akil Kureshi's elevation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday issued a notice to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pragya-thakur-completes-taking-oath-in-three-attempts-in-lok-sabha-228122">BJP Bhopal MP Pragya Singh Thakur</a> on a petition challenging her election to the Lok Sabha because she allegedly adopted "corrupt practices" and whipped up communal passions during the campaign.

The petition was filed by journalist Rakesh Dixit, who is a registered voter in Bhopal.&nbsp;

According to litigant`s Advocate Arvind Shrivastava, a notice has been served to 2008 Malegaon blast accused Thakur by Justice Vishal Dhagat on Thursday and he has sought her response within four weeks.

Thakur had violated section 123 (3) (seeking votes based on religion) of the Representation of the People Act during the Lok Sabha poll campaign, the petition claimed.

"She also made false statements against her rival and Congress candidate Digvijay Singh and gave defamatory statements about other candidates. She even said that he is proud of the fact that she was among the ones who demolished Babri Masjid and she is proud of it, she even said that she was sent by God to save Hindus, she asked people to not repeat the mistake which they did before by voting Singh," the advocate said.&nbsp;

"She even gave controversial remarks on Hemant Karkare and Nathu Ram Godse," he said. Thakur won from Bhopal by defeating Singh by over 3 lakh votes.&nbsp;

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday issued a notice to BJP Bhopal MP Pragya Singh Thakur on a petition challenging her election to the Lok Sabha because she allegedly adopted "corrupt practices" and whipped up communal passions during the campaign.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday issued a notice to BJP Bhopal MP Pragya Singh Thakur on a petition challenging her election to the Lok Sabha because she allegedly adopted "corrupt practices" and whipped up communal passions during the campaign. The petition was filed by journalist Rakesh Dixit, who is a registered voter in Bhopal. According to litigant`s Advocate Arvind Shrivastava, a notice has been served to 2008 Malegaon blast accused Thakur by Justice Vishal Dhagat on Thursday and he has sought her response within four weeks. Thakur had violated section 123 (3) (seeking votes based on religion) of the Representation of the People Act during the Lok Sabha poll campaign, the petition claimed. "She also made false statements against her rival and Congress candidate Digvijay Singh and gave defamatory statements about other candidates. She even said that he is proud of the fact that she was among the ones who demolished Babri Masjid and she is proud of it, she even said that she was sent by God to save Hindus, she asked people to not repeat the mistake which they did before by voting Singh," the advocate said. "She even gave controversial remarks on Hemant Karkare and Nathu Ram Godse," he said. Thakur won from Bhopal by defeating Singh by over 3 lakh votes.

High Court serves notice to Pragya Thakur on petition challenging her election, seeks reply in 4 days

Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a petition challenging his election from Varanasi constituency in 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The petition was filed by Tej Bahadur, ex-BSF jawan and SP candidate, whose nomination to contest from Varanasi was rejected by the Election Commission.

The court will hear the case on August 21. On May 1, Yadav's candidature was rejected by the returning officer after he failed to submit a certificate on whether or not he was dismissed from the service for corruption or disloyalty to the government.

In his petition, Yadav alleged that his nomination papers were "wrongly" rejected and urged the court to declare Modi's election null and void as a member of Parliament from Varanasi On May 9, the apex court had dismissed Yadav's plea challenging the rejection of his nomination by the Election Commission from Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had said, "We don`t find any merit to entertain this petition.

"Samajwadi Party had fielded Yadav as its candidate against Prime Minister Modi in Varanasi on April 29. Prior to that, he was in the fray as an independent candidate.&nbsp;

Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a petition challenging his election from Varanasi constituency in 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Allahabad High Court has issued a notice to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with a petition challenging his election from Varanasi constituency in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The petition was filed by Tej Bahadur, ex-BSF jawan and SP candidate, whose nomination to contest from Varanasi was rejected by the Election Commission. The court will hear the case on August 21. On May 1, Yadav's candidature was rejected by the returning officer after he failed to submit a certificate on whether or not he was dismissed from the service for corruption or disloyalty to the government. In his petition, Yadav alleged that his nomination papers were "wrongly" rejected and urged the court to declare Modi's election null and void as a member of Parliament from Varanasi On May 9, the apex court had dismissed Yadav's plea challenging the rejection of his nomination by the Election Commission from Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had said, "We don`t find any merit to entertain this petition. "Samajwadi Party had fielded Yadav as its candidate against Prime Minister Modi in Varanasi on April 29. Prior to that, he was in the fray as an independent candidate.

Allahabad High Court issues notice to PM Narendra Modi on plea challenging his election to Lok Sabha

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-defers-hearing-on-naming-lok-sabha-opposition-leader-230569">Delhi High Court </a>on Monday sought the response of the government and police on a plea seeking its direction for the constitution of government bodies at district or group of districts level to enforce the provisions of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-ak-sikri-raises-concern-on-rights-of-mentally-ill-persons-heres-what-sc-judge-says-188435">Mental Health Care Act, 2017</a>.

A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Harishankar issued a notice to respondents based on the petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahani.&nbsp;

The court asked the respondents to file their replies within four weeks and posted the matter for hearing on September 11. In his plea, Sahani sought the court`s direction to constitute the State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards for district or group of the district as mandated by the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.

"Section 33 and Section 45 of the Act mandates for the establishment for the Central Mental Health Authority and State Mental health Authority respectively within 9 months from the date on which the Act receives the assent of the Hon`ble President of India," the plea said.&nbsp;

Citing a WHO study, the plea said one in five Indians may suffer from depression in their lifetime and submitted that most people who experience mental health problems can recover fully if they get appropriate treatment.

"Due to the social stigma attached to mental ill-health, people with mental health problems can experience discrimination in all aspects of their lives. Many people`s problems are made worse by the stigma and discrimination they experience - not only from society but also from families, friends, and employers," the plea read.

"The Act asserts that no person or authority shall classify an individual as a person with mental illness unless indirectly about the treatment of the illness," it added.&nbsp;

The Act has decriminalized attempted suicide which was punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the government and police on a plea seeking its direction for the constitution of government bodies at district or group of districts level to enforce the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the government and police on a plea seeking its direction for the constitution of government bodies at district or group of districts level to enforce the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Harishankar issued a notice to respondents based on the petition filed by social activist and advocate Amit Sahani. The court asked the respondents to file their replies within four weeks and posted the matter for hearing on September 11. In his plea, Sahani sought the court`s direction to constitute the State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards for district or group of the district as mandated by the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. "Section 33 and Section 45 of the Act mandates for the establishment for the Central Mental Health Authority and State Mental health Authority respectively within 9 months from the date on which the Act receives the assent of the Hon`ble President of India," the plea said. Citing a WHO study, the plea said one in five Indians may suffer from depression in their lifetime and submitted that most people who experience mental health problems can recover fully if they get appropriate treatment. "Due to the social stigma attached to mental ill-health, people with mental health problems can experience discrimination in all aspects of their lives. Many people`s problems are made worse by the stigma and discrimination they experience - not only from society but also from families, friends, and employers," the plea read. "The Act asserts that no person or authority shall classify an individual as a person with mental illness unless indirectly about the treatment of the illness," it added. The Act has decriminalized attempted suicide which was punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Delhi High Court seeks state government, police's response on mental health plea

The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and education.

A division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, however, said the quota percentage should be reduced from 16 per cent to 12 to 13 per cent, as recommended by the State Backward Classes Commission.

"We hold and declare that the state government possesses legislative competence to create a separate category of the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) and grant reservation," the court said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/maratha-reservations-issue-a-timeline-230879">Maratha Reservations Issue: A Timeline</a>

"We, however, have held that the 16 per cent should be reduced to 12 to 13 per cent as recommended by the commission," the bench said.

The court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging Maharashtra government's decision granting 16 per cent reservation to the Maratha community in government jobs and educational institutions.

On November 30, 2018, the Maharashtra legislature passed a bill granting 16 per cent reservation in education and government jobs for the Marathas, declared a socially and educationally backward class by the state government.

The reservation will be in addition to the existing 52 per cent overall reservation in the state. With the 16 per cent reservation for Marathas, the reservation quantum in the state was expected to rise to 68 per cent.

Several petitions were filed in the court challenging the reservation, while a few others were filed in its support.

The petitions challenging the quota decision had argued that it was violative of Supreme Court's orders which say that reservation in any state should not exceed more than 50 per cent.

The government, while defending its decision, had said that it was meant to alleviate the Maratha community, which it said was socially and economically backward.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and education. A division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, however, said the quota percentage should be reduced from 16 per cent to 12 to 13 per cent, as recommended by the State Backward Classes Commission.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and education. A division bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, however, said the quota percentage should be reduced from 16 per cent to 12 to 13 per cent, as recommended by the State Backward Classes Commission. "We hold and declare that the state government possesses legislative competence to create a separate category of the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) and grant reservation," the court said. Maratha Reservations Issue: A Timeline "We, however, have held that the 16 per cent should be reduced to 12 to 13 per cent as recommended by the commission," the bench said. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging Maharashtra government's decision granting 16 per cent reservation to the Maratha community in government jobs and educational institutions. On November 30, 2018, the Maharashtra legislature passed a bill granting 16 per cent reservation in education and government jobs for the Marathas, declared a socially and educationally backward class by the state government. The reservation will be in addition to the existing 52 per cent overall reservation in the state. With the 16 per cent reservation for Marathas, the reservation quantum in the state was expected to rise to 68 per cent. Several petitions were filed in the court challenging the reservation, while a few others were filed in its support. The petitions challenging the quota decision had argued that it was violative of Supreme Court's orders which say that reservation in any state should not exceed more than 50 per cent. The government, while defending its decision, had said that it was meant to alleviate the Maratha community, which it said was socially and economically backward.

Maratha quota valid but should be cut from 16 to 12-13 per cent: Bombay High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to appoint a Leader of Opposition in the 17th Lok Sabha.

While asserting that the matter can be heard after the court vacation, a bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Manoj Kumar Ohri posted the matter for hearing to July 8.

"What is the urgency in the matter? It is a vacation Bench. You are asking for a policy in place for the appointment of the leader of opposition in future. We find there is no urgency in the matter," the bench said.&nbsp;

A petition in this regard was filed by two advocates -- Manmohan Singh Narula and Susmita Kumari -- contending that the denial of leadership to the second largest party in Parliament "sets a wrong precedent and dilutes democracy."Since the Leader of Opposition is a "statutory post" and the Speaker is performing a "statutory duty" in recognising the Leader of Opposition, he or she cannot exercise any discretion in the matter, the petition stated.

"There is no room for ifs and buts, under the Salaries and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, the duty of the Speaker is to recognise the eligible person," the petitioner submitted.

He said that recognising a member of the house as the Leader of Opposition is not a political or arithmetical decision but a statutory decision.&nbsp;

"The Speaker has to merely ascertain whether the party claiming this post is the largest party in the opposition," the petition stated. On June 18, senior Congress leader and West Bengal MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury was named by the Congress as its leader in the Lok Sabha. The newly-appointed Speaker Om Birla has, however, not appointed him as the Leader of Opposition yet.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to appoint a Leader of Opposition in the 17th Lok Sabha.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to appoint a Leader of Opposition in the 17th Lok Sabha. While asserting that the matter can be heard after the court vacation, a bench of Justices Jyoti Singh and Manoj Kumar Ohri posted the matter for hearing to July 8. "What is the urgency in the matter? It is a vacation Bench. You are asking for a policy in place for the appointment of the leader of opposition in future. We find there is no urgency in the matter," the bench said. A petition in this regard was filed by two advocates -- Manmohan Singh Narula and Susmita Kumari -- contending that the denial of leadership to the second largest party in Parliament "sets a wrong precedent and dilutes democracy."Since the Leader of Opposition is a "statutory post" and the Speaker is performing a "statutory duty" in recognising the Leader of Opposition, he or she cannot exercise any discretion in the matter, the petition stated. "There is no room for ifs and buts, under the Salaries and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, the duty of the Speaker is to recognise the eligible person," the petitioner submitted. He said that recognising a member of the house as the Leader of Opposition is not a political or arithmetical decision but a statutory decision. "The Speaker has to merely ascertain whether the party claiming this post is the largest party in the opposition," the petition stated. On June 18, senior Congress leader and West Bengal MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury was named by the Congress as its leader in the Lok Sabha. The newly-appointed Speaker Om Birla has, however, not appointed him as the Leader of Opposition yet.

Delhi high court defers hearing of plea seeking appointment of leader of opposition in Lok Sabha

The Madras High Court Tuesday granted permission to Nalini Sriharan, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to appear in person on July 5 and argue on her plea for six months ordinary leave to make arrangements for her daughter's wedding.

A division bench of Justice M M Sundaresh and Justice M Nirmal Kumar gave her permission to appear in person on July 5 at 2.15 pm to argue her case. 
Nalini, who has been in prison for over 27 years, wanted the court to direct the superintendent of police, Special Prison for Women in Vellore, to produce her before the court so that she could argue her case for leave as party-in-person.

The court had on June 11 observed that the right of Nalini to appear in person to argue on her plea cannot be denied.

According to Nalini, a life convict is entitled to one-month leave once in two years and since she had never availed such ordinary leave for more than 27 years, she made a representation to prison authorities on February 25 seeking six-month leave to make arrangement for her daughter's marriage.

Subsequently, Nalini's mother also made a similar representation on March 22. As the authorities failed to consider her representation, she moved the high court.

Nalini was initially sentenced to death for her involvement in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. However, her death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Tamil Nadu government on April 24, 2000.

She claimed that after commutation of her death sentence, around 3,700 life convicts, who had served 10 years of imprisonment and less, were released by the Tamil Nadu government.

"My request to the state for premature release under the 1994 scheme of premature release of life convicts was cleared by the council of ministers and on September 9, 2018, the council advised the governor to release me and other six life convicts in the case. But it has been over six months and the decision of the state is still yet to be implemented," she had submitted.

The AIADMK government had adopted a resolution recommending Governor Banwarilal Purohit the release of seven convicts -- Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran, Robert Payas and Nalini -- serving life terms.

Chief Minister K Palaniswami had said his government was committed to the release of the convicts and expressed hope the governor would act on the cabinet recommendation for setting them free.

His statement came amid renewed calls, both from the opposition and Tamil groups, for the release of the convicts, after the Supreme Court disposed of a plea of the relatives of those killed along with Rajiv Gandhi opposing their release.

Former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a LTTE suicide bomber during an election rally at Sriperumpudur near here on May 21, 1991.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Madras High Court Tuesday granted permission to Nalini Sriharan, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to appear in person on July 5 and argue on her plea for six months ordinary leave to make arrangements for her daughter's wedding.

The Madras High Court Tuesday granted permission to Nalini Sriharan, a life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, to appear in person on July 5 and argue on her plea for six months ordinary leave to make arrangements for her daughter's wedding. A division bench of Justice M M Sundaresh and Justice M Nirmal Kumar gave her permission to appear in person on July 5 at 2.15 pm to argue her case. Nalini, who has been in prison for over 27 years, wanted the court to direct the superintendent of police, Special Prison for Women in Vellore, to produce her before the court so that she could argue her case for leave as party-in-person. The court had on June 11 observed that the right of Nalini to appear in person to argue on her plea cannot be denied. According to Nalini, a life convict is entitled to one-month leave once in two years and since she had never availed such ordinary leave for more than 27 years, she made a representation to prison authorities on February 25 seeking six-month leave to make arrangement for her daughter's marriage. Subsequently, Nalini's mother also made a similar representation on March 22. As the authorities failed to consider her representation, she moved the high court. Nalini was initially sentenced to death for her involvement in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. However, her death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Tamil Nadu government on April 24, 2000. She claimed that after commutation of her death sentence, around 3,700 life convicts, who had served 10 years of imprisonment and less, were released by the Tamil Nadu government. "My request to the state for premature release under the 1994 scheme of premature release of life convicts was cleared by the council of ministers and on September 9, 2018, the council advised the governor to release me and other six life convicts in the case. But it has been over six months and the decision of the state is still yet to be implemented," she had submitted. The AIADMK government had adopted a resolution recommending Governor Banwarilal Purohit the release of seven convicts -- Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan, Jayakumar, Ravichandran, Robert Payas and Nalini -- serving life terms. Chief Minister K Palaniswami had said his government was committed to the release of the convicts and expressed hope the governor would act on the cabinet recommendation for setting them free. His statement came amid renewed calls, both from the opposition and Tamil groups, for the release of the convicts, after the Supreme Court disposed of a plea of the relatives of those killed along with Rajiv Gandhi opposing their release. Former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a LTTE suicide bomber during an election rally at Sriperumpudur near here on May 21, 1991.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination: HC allows Nalini to appear in person to argue on plea for leave

The Calcutta High Court on Friday refused to pass any interim order on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/west-bengal-doctors-strike-spreads-to-other-states-hospital-operations-hit-227037">strike by junior doctors</a> at state-run hospitals in protest against the attack on two of their colleagues by family members of a patient.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice TBN Radhakrishnan and Justice Suvra Ghosh asked the state government to persuade the striking doctors to resume work and provide usual services to patients.

The court also directed the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government to apprise it of the steps taken following the attack on the junior doctors at a city hospital on Monday night.

The Chief Justice, during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), reminded the striking doctors of the 'Hippocratic Oath' they take to ensure the welfare of all patients. The bench fixed June 21 for further hearing of the petition.

Junior doctors across all state-run hospitals in West Bengal have called for a strike, demanding adequate security in medical colleges and hospitals, after two of their colleagues were brutally beaten up at NRS Medical College and Hospital in the city.

Emergency wards, outdoor facilities, pathological units of many state-run medical colleges and hospitals and a number of private medical facilities in the state have remained closed over the past three days in the wake of the protest.&nbsp;

The Calcutta High Court on Friday refused to pass any interim order on the strike by junior doctors at state-run hospitals in protest against the attack on two of their colleagues by family members of a patient.

The Calcutta High Court on Friday refused to pass any interim order on the strike by junior doctors at state-run hospitals in protest against the attack on two of their colleagues by family members of a patient. A division bench comprising Chief Justice TBN Radhakrishnan and Justice Suvra Ghosh asked the state government to persuade the striking doctors to resume work and provide usual services to patients. The court also directed the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government to apprise it of the steps taken following the attack on the junior doctors at a city hospital on Monday night. The Chief Justice, during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), reminded the striking doctors of the 'Hippocratic Oath' they take to ensure the welfare of all patients. The bench fixed June 21 for further hearing of the petition. Junior doctors across all state-run hospitals in West Bengal have called for a strike, demanding adequate security in medical colleges and hospitals, after two of their colleagues were brutally beaten up at NRS Medical College and Hospital in the city. Emergency wards, outdoor facilities, pathological units of many state-run medical colleges and hospitals and a number of private medical facilities in the state have remained closed over the past three days in the wake of the protest.

Calcutta High Court refuses to pass interim order on doctors' strike

high-court

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