Former TV anchor and producer Suhaib Ilyasi has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order which <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/tv-producer-suhaib-ilyasi-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-for-murdering-his-wife-27285" target="_blank">sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife</a>.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Former TV anchor &amp; producer Suhaib Ilyasi approached Delhi High Court &amp; challenged the trial court order which sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. (File Pic) <a href="https://t.co/SdKcezZJEc">pic.twitter.com/SdKcezZJEc</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/973568481085067264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Suhaib Ilyasi, the former host of the popular crime show&nbsp;&quot;India&#39;s Most Wanted&quot;,&nbsp; was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Delhi court on December 20 for the murder of his wife Anju 17 years ago.&nbsp;

The court said Ilyasi &quot;committed her murder and gave it a colour of suicide&quot;.&nbsp;

Right after the verdict, Ilyasi, 51, shouted that he was innocent and that the conviction was an &quot;injustice&quot;.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/a-timeline-suhaib-ilyasi-sentenced-to-life-for-wifes-murder-27294" target="_blank">Suhaib Ilyasi, India&#39;s most wanted: A timeline</a>

Ilyasi had earlier been charged under milder sections of the IPC, including 304 B (dowry death).

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/satisfied-with-verdict-suhaib-ilyasis-mother-in-law-27311" target="_blank">Anju&#39;s mother and sister Rashmi Singh </a>had moved the Delhi High Court which in August 2014 ruled that Ilyasi would be tried for murder.

Anju was rushed to a hospital on January 11, 2000, with stab wounds.

Ilyasi was arrested on March 28, 2000.&nbsp;

The prosecution had asked for the death sentence, saying Ilyasi had &quot;betrayed the faith of not only his wife but of the public at large&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp;

But the court said the murder did not fall in the rarest-of-rare category.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Suhaib Ilyasi, the former host of the popular crime show 'India's Most Wanted', was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Delhi court on December 20 for the murder of his wife Anju 17 years ago

Former TV anchor and producer Suhaib Ilyasi has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court order which sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. Former TV anchor & producer Suhaib Ilyasi approached Delhi High Court & challenged the trial court order which sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. (File Pic) pic.twitter.com/SdKcezZJEc — ANI (@ANI) March 13, 2018 × Suhaib Ilyasi, the former host of the popular crime show "India's Most Wanted", was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Delhi court on December 20 for the murder of his wife Anju 17 years ago. The court said Ilyasi "committed her murder and gave it a colour of suicide". Right after the verdict, Ilyasi, 51, shouted that he was innocent and that the conviction was an "injustice". Also read: Suhaib Ilyasi, India's most wanted: A timeline Ilyasi had earlier been charged under milder sections of the IPC, including 304 B (dowry death). Anju's mother and sister Rashmi Singh had moved the Delhi High Court which in August 2014 ruled that Ilyasi would be tried for murder. Anju was rushed to a hospital on January 11, 2000, with stab wounds. Ilyasi was arrested on March 28, 2000. The prosecution had asked for the death sentence, saying Ilyasi had "betrayed the faith of not only his wife but of the public at large". But the court said the murder did not fall in the rarest-of-rare category.

Suhaib Ilyasi challenges life imprisonment verdict against him in High Court

In a relief to Kerala-based Hadiya, an alleged victim of love jihad, the Supreme Court today set aside the high court order annulling her marriage to a Muslim man.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, however, said that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) may continue its investigation in the matter.

The apex court had in August last year asked the NIA to probe the case of conversion and marriage of Hadiya, as the agency claimed a &quot;pattern&quot; was emerging in Kerala.

The matter came to the fore when Shafin Jahan, Hadiya&#39;s husband, had challenged a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with her and sending the woman to her parents&#39; custody.

On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents&#39; custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband.

The high court had in May last year annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;, following which Jahan had approached the apex court.&nbsp;

The court however said the NIA could continue its investigation into whether Hadiya's marriage to Shafin Jahan was an example of 'love jihad'

In a relief to Kerala-based Hadiya, an alleged victim of love jihad, the Supreme Court today set aside the high court order annulling her marriage to a Muslim man. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, however, said that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) may continue its investigation in the matter. The apex court had in August last year asked the NIA to probe the case of conversion and marriage of Hadiya, as the agency claimed a "pattern" was emerging in Kerala. The matter came to the fore when Shafin Jahan, Hadiya's husband, had challenged a Kerala High Court order annulling his marriage with her and sending the woman to her parents' custody. On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents' custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband. The high court had in May last year annulled the marriage terming it as an instance of 'love jihad', following which Jahan had approached the apex court.

Kerala 'love jihad' case: Supreme Court restores Hadiya's marriage, strikes down high court order

The Delhi High Court today questioned the law and order situation in the capital while hearing the bail plea of one of the two AAP MLAs, arrested for allegedly assaulting Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash.

The court said it was concerned that if &quot;a person&quot; can be assaulted in the presence of the Delhi chief minister and the deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places.

&quot;At a place where the chief minister is sitting, a person is assaulted. What is the law and order situation. This is happening in front of the chief minister. I am not going on the personality of the person who was assaulted. You need to answer this,&quot; Justice Mukta Gupta said.

The court&#39;s remark came while hearing the bail plea of Deoli MLA Prakash Jarwal, who was arrested on February 20 in connection with the chief secretary&#39;s assault case.

The judge said, &quot;I am concerned that if a person is assaulted in the presence of the chief minister and deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places? How should I be satisfied that no such incident would take place in future?&quot;

The court, which has called for a file relating to Jarwal&#39;s previous criminal case, would resume the hearing on his bail plea after some time.

The court is also scheduled to hear the bail application of another AAP&#39;s Okhla MLA Amanatullah Khan, who was also arrested in the case on February 21.

During the hearing, senior advocates Rebecca John and Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Jarwal, sought bail for him saying that he was ready to abide by any condition and will give it on an affidavit that if he violates any condition, his bail shall be cancelled.

The counsel further claimed that only heated arguments took place between the MLAs and the chief secretary (CS) and no assault took place.

The police, in its status report filed through advocate Sanjay Lau, said that as per the medical report of the senior bureaucrat, his injuries were of simple nature but two of the provisions invoked on Jarwal were non-bailable.

While opposing the bail plea, he termed the incident as &quot;very unfortunate&quot; and said the police has collected the video recording from Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal&#39;s residence, where the incident took place.

He told the court that Jarwal&#39;s name was not mentioned in the FIR because the CS was initially not aware of the name of those who assaulted him.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the CS, filed an intervention application and opposed Jarwal&#39;s bail plea saying the bureaucrat was called in the room consciously because no camera were there and he was made to sit between two persons.

The high court had on March 1 issued notice to Delhi Police on Jarwal&#39;s bail plea and sought a status report in the matter. Amanatullah Khan had yesterday moved his bail plea before the high court.

Jarwal and Khan are undergoing 14-day judicial custody, which expires tomorrow, in connection with the alleged assault on the bureaucrat during a meeting at Arvind Kejriwal&#39;s residence on the night of February 19.

A magisterial court had earlier denied bail to both of them, saying the matter cannot be treated in &quot;a casual and routine manner&quot; while dubbing them as &quot;history-sheeters&quot;.

Jarwal had then moved a sessions court and was again denied the relief with the court saying the situation could not be more alarming when lawmakers do not respect the rule of law.

The court said it was concerned that if 'a person' can be assaulted in the presence of the Delhi chief minister and the deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places

The Delhi High Court today questioned the law and order situation in the capital while hearing the bail plea of one of the two AAP MLAs, arrested for allegedly assaulting Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash. The court said it was concerned that if "a person" can be assaulted in the presence of the Delhi chief minister and the deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places. "At a place where the chief minister is sitting, a person is assaulted. What is the law and order situation. This is happening in front of the chief minister. I am not going on the personality of the person who was assaulted. You need to answer this," Justice Mukta Gupta said. The court's remark came while hearing the bail plea of Deoli MLA Prakash Jarwal, who was arrested on February 20 in connection with the chief secretary's assault case. The judge said, "I am concerned that if a person is assaulted in the presence of the chief minister and deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places? How should I be satisfied that no such incident would take place in future?" The court, which has called for a file relating to Jarwal's previous criminal case, would resume the hearing on his bail plea after some time. The court is also scheduled to hear the bail application of another AAP's Okhla MLA Amanatullah Khan, who was also arrested in the case on February 21. During the hearing, senior advocates Rebecca John and Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Jarwal, sought bail for him saying that he was ready to abide by any condition and will give it on an affidavit that if he violates any condition, his bail shall be cancelled. The counsel further claimed that only heated arguments took place between the MLAs and the chief secretary (CS) and no assault took place. The police, in its status report filed through advocate Sanjay Lau, said that as per the medical report of the senior bureaucrat, his injuries were of simple nature but two of the provisions invoked on Jarwal were non-bailable. While opposing the bail plea, he termed the incident as "very unfortunate" and said the police has collected the video recording from Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence, where the incident took place. He told the court that Jarwal's name was not mentioned in the FIR because the CS was initially not aware of the name of those who assaulted him. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the CS, filed an intervention application and opposed Jarwal's bail plea saying the bureaucrat was called in the room consciously because no camera were there and he was made to sit between two persons. The high court had on March 1 issued notice to Delhi Police on Jarwal's bail plea and sought a status report in the matter. Amanatullah Khan had yesterday moved his bail plea before the high court. Jarwal and Khan are undergoing 14-day judicial custody, which expires tomorrow, in connection with the alleged assault on the bureaucrat during a meeting at Arvind Kejriwal's residence on the night of February 19. A magisterial court had earlier denied bail to both of them, saying the matter cannot be treated in "a casual and routine manner" while dubbing them as "history-sheeters". Jarwal had then moved a sessions court and was again denied the relief with the court saying the situation could not be more alarming when lawmakers do not respect the rule of law.

Chief Secretary assault case: HC questions law and order in capital

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

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

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

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

The Question and Reference Committee of Delhi Assembly on Sunday accused Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash of &quot;lying&quot; before the Delhi High Court. The committee alleged that Prakash lied with regard to a breach of privilege notice issued to him for allegedly skipping a meeting called by the panel.

Members of the committee are likely to initiate &quot;forgery proceedings&quot; against Prakash for misinforming the court.

On February 21, the panel recommended privilege proceedings against the chief secretary (CS) for contempt of House after he skipped the meeting called by the committee.

&quot;We have learnt that the CS has moved the High Court challenging the breach of privilege notice served to him by accusing us of arm-twisting him in a matter related to alleged attack on him, but he is hiding the fact that the meeting was related to rising NPAs,&quot; AAP MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj, a member of the committee, said.

&quot;This issue is going on for over a year. An MLA filed a complaint with the Question and Reference Committee when he was not given a satisfactory answer in the Delhi Assembly for a question related to rising NPAs and bank loans based on fraudulent papers in Delhi Nagrik Sarkari Bank,&quot; he said, adding that despite summoning the CS, present and former Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS), they did not turn up for the meeting for three consecutive days.

&quot;Whoever is lying in the affidavit before the Delhi High Court, forgery proceedings should be initiated against him. We shall do the same,&quot; Bhardwaj said.

&quot;The committee members challenge the CS to stick to the contents of his affidavit and not alter these contents. The chief secretary is clearly trying to shield those involved in the multi-crore scam, which appears to be on the lines of the Punjab National Bank scam,&quot; the committee said in a statement.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

Members of the committee are likely to initiate 'forgery proceedings' against Prakash for misinforming the court

The Question and Reference Committee of Delhi Assembly on Sunday accused Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash of "lying" before the Delhi High Court. The committee alleged that Prakash lied with regard to a breach of privilege notice issued to him for allegedly skipping a meeting called by the panel. Members of the committee are likely to initiate "forgery proceedings" against Prakash for misinforming the court. On February 21, the panel recommended privilege proceedings against the chief secretary (CS) for contempt of House after he skipped the meeting called by the committee. "We have learnt that the CS has moved the High Court challenging the breach of privilege notice served to him by accusing us of arm-twisting him in a matter related to alleged attack on him, but he is hiding the fact that the meeting was related to rising NPAs," AAP MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj, a member of the committee, said. "This issue is going on for over a year. An MLA filed a complaint with the Question and Reference Committee when he was not given a satisfactory answer in the Delhi Assembly for a question related to rising NPAs and bank loans based on fraudulent papers in Delhi Nagrik Sarkari Bank," he said, adding that despite summoning the CS, present and former Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS), they did not turn up for the meeting for three consecutive days. "Whoever is lying in the affidavit before the Delhi High Court, forgery proceedings should be initiated against him. We shall do the same," Bhardwaj said. "The committee members challenge the CS to stick to the contents of his affidavit and not alter these contents. The chief secretary is clearly trying to shield those involved in the multi-crore scam, which appears to be on the lines of the Punjab National Bank scam," the committee said in a statement. (With inputs from PTI)

Delhi Assembly committee accuses Anshu Prakash of lying before High Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked if a roving inquiry could be ordered into the &quot;issue of consent&quot; between two adults who married at will and if the Kerala High Court order annulling the marriage of Hadiya, an alleged victim of &#39;love jihad&#39;, was justified.

The questions from a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud came during the hearing of the Kerala conversion case.

&quot;What troubles us is that whether there can be a roving inquiry into the issue of consent between two adults who have agreed to marry,&quot; the bench said.

Whether the high court was justified in nullifying the marriage is a pure question of law, it added.

&quot;Marriage and investigation are two different things. As far as marriage is concerned, it does not warrant any investigation. Investigation has nothing to do with it. You can investigate any other thing,&quot; the court said.

Hadiya, the 25-year-old woman who is at the centre of an alleged love jihad controversy, had on Tuesday filed an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/i-am-a-muslim-want-to-remain-muslim-says-hadiya-in-affidavit-to-supreme-court-33507" target="_blank">affidavit before the top court</a> claiming that she willingly converted to Islam and wants to live with her husband Shafin Jahan.

The matter had come to fore when Jahan had challenged the Kerala High Court&#39;s order annulling his marriage with Hadiya and sending her to her parents&#39; custody. On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents&#39; custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Hadiya&#39;s father, said it was a case of vulnerable adults and the high court was justified in nullifying the marriage by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

&quot;In this case, marriage was used as a pretext to keep it out of the court&#39;s jurisdiction,&quot; Divan said.

Hadiya had urged the court to set aside the judgement of the Kerala High Court that had annulled the marriage terming it an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;.

The top court had earlier ordered an NIA probe into a &quot;pattern&quot; where some women were allegedly being converted to Islam.

Later, the court decided to hear the woman and interviewed her in an open court when she made an appeal for her freedom under the Constitution.

In her affidavit, the woman told the court that &quot;horrendous sufferings&quot; were meted out to her for converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim man.

The apex court had on January 23 made it clear that the National Investigation Agency cannot probe the marital status of Hadiya and Jahan.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'What troubles us is that whether there can be a roving inquiry into the issue of consent between two adults who have agreed to marry,'the bench said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked if a roving inquiry could be ordered into the "issue of consent" between two adults who married at will and if the Kerala High Court order annulling the marriage of Hadiya, an alleged victim of 'love jihad', was justified. The questions from a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud came during the hearing of the Kerala conversion case. "What troubles us is that whether there can be a roving inquiry into the issue of consent between two adults who have agreed to marry," the bench said. Whether the high court was justified in nullifying the marriage is a pure question of law, it added. "Marriage and investigation are two different things. As far as marriage is concerned, it does not warrant any investigation. Investigation has nothing to do with it. You can investigate any other thing," the court said. Hadiya, the 25-year-old woman who is at the centre of an alleged love jihad controversy, had on Tuesday filed an affidavit before the top court claiming that she willingly converted to Islam and wants to live with her husband Shafin Jahan. The matter had come to fore when Jahan had challenged the Kerala High Court's order annulling his marriage with Hadiya and sending her to her parents' custody. On November 27 last year, the apex court had freed Hadiya from her parents' custody and sent her to college to pursue her studies, even as she had pleaded that she should be allowed to go with her husband. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Hadiya's father, said it was a case of vulnerable adults and the high court was justified in nullifying the marriage by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. "In this case, marriage was used as a pretext to keep it out of the court's jurisdiction," Divan said. Hadiya had urged the court to set aside the judgement of the Kerala High Court that had annulled the marriage terming it an instance of 'love jihad'. The top court had earlier ordered an NIA probe into a "pattern" where some women were allegedly being converted to Islam. Later, the court decided to hear the woman and interviewed her in an open court when she made an appeal for her freedom under the Constitution. In her affidavit, the woman told the court that "horrendous sufferings" were meted out to her for converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim man. The apex court had on January 23 made it clear that the National Investigation Agency cannot probe the marital status of Hadiya and Jahan.

Supreme Court asks if Kerala High Court was justified in annulling Hadiya's marriage

Stop giving contaminated water to passengers as their health&nbsp;is important, the Delhi High Court told the Indian Railways today.

&quot;We want you to give people at least a drinkable water,&quot; a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar said, adding that people would not be reading the Railway&#39;s affidavits filed in the court on the steps they propose to take to provide clean water.

The bench told the officials and the counsel for the Railways that they should start the work from any one station as a pilot project.

&quot;People of this country are entitled under the law to get clean water,&quot; the bench said and asked the authorities to file their action plan positively by April 12.

The bench said the issue assumes importance and deserved greatest attention and it wanted the Railways to examine and take a decision on its own without the court getting into it.

The court was hearing a PIL by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has sought &quot;an independent and preferably court-monitored probe into the neglect of the quality of the drinking water supply and the manipulations in the award of contracts for supply of chlorination plants for past several years&quot;.

Advocate Govind Jee, appearing for the NGO, said the railways was neither adhering to the standards laid down for drinking water by the Bureau of Indian Standards nor following the Indian Railway Medical Manual.

The lawyer said water being provided on stations and trains was not even being tested for the presence of E.Coli bacteria.

The NGO has contended that while the Indian Railways, which has an independent water supply system all over the country, is able to keep trains running by meeting the requirement of water for washing and cleaning of trains, tracks and platforms, it is &quot;failing to supply safe and wholesome drinking water to millions of railway passengers and its staff who live in the railway colonies&quot;.

It alleged that Indian Railways has &quot;continued to neglect the quality of water supply for so many years&quot; as records which have come to light recently show that water quality has been very unsatisfactory for the past several years.

The plea also claimed that &quot;the water treatment infrastructure for disinfection of water by chlorination has almost completely collapsed and level of contamination in the entire supply network from the source to the top is alarming.&quot;&nbsp;

The court was hearing a PIL by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has sought an independent and preferably court-monitored probe into the neglect of the quality of the drinking water supply

Stop giving contaminated water to passengers as their health is important, the Delhi High Court told the Indian Railways today. "We want you to give people at least a drinkable water," a bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar said, adding that people would not be reading the Railway's affidavits filed in the court on the steps they propose to take to provide clean water. The bench told the officials and the counsel for the Railways that they should start the work from any one station as a pilot project. "People of this country are entitled under the law to get clean water," the bench said and asked the authorities to file their action plan positively by April 12. The bench said the issue assumes importance and deserved greatest attention and it wanted the Railways to examine and take a decision on its own without the court getting into it. The court was hearing a PIL by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which has sought "an independent and preferably court-monitored probe into the neglect of the quality of the drinking water supply and the manipulations in the award of contracts for supply of chlorination plants for past several years". Advocate Govind Jee, appearing for the NGO, said the railways was neither adhering to the standards laid down for drinking water by the Bureau of Indian Standards nor following the Indian Railway Medical Manual. The lawyer said water being provided on stations and trains was not even being tested for the presence of E.Coli bacteria. The NGO has contended that while the Indian Railways, which has an independent water supply system all over the country, is able to keep trains running by meeting the requirement of water for washing and cleaning of trains, tracks and platforms, it is "failing to supply safe and wholesome drinking water to millions of railway passengers and its staff who live in the railway colonies". It alleged that Indian Railways has "continued to neglect the quality of water supply for so many years" as records which have come to light recently show that water quality has been very unsatisfactory for the past several years. The plea also claimed that "the water treatment infrastructure for disinfection of water by chlorination has almost completely collapsed and level of contamination in the entire supply network from the source to the top is alarming."

Stop giving contaminated water to passengers: High Court to Railways

Shortly after late J Jayalalithaa&#39;s portrait was unveiled on Monday in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, the opposition DMK moved the Madras High Court seeking its removal.&nbsp;

DMK leaders sought the removal of the portrait stating that the late AIADMK supremo was found guilty on corruption charges.

When the first bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose commenced proceedings on Monday at about 10.30 am, DMK&#39;s counsel P Wilson made an urgent mention and requested the court to take up the plea.

According to the petitioner, Jayalalithaa was convicted by a special court on graft charges. Later the same was set aside by the Karnataka high court while the Supreme Court found all the accused guilty of the charges. In view of her demise, appeals against Jayalalithaa were treated as abated, the petitioner said.

Members from the DMK have already filed a plea in the high court seeking removal of Jayalalithaa&#39;s photos. The plea also seeks to remove her name displayed or mentioned in government offices, buildings, public sector undertakings and government schemes.

The plea alleged that the Speaker, P Dhanapal,&nbsp;&quot;arbitrarily&quot; took a decision on February 10 to unveil a portrait of Jayalalithaa in the assembly hall in the presence of the chief minister and the deputy chief minister.

The plea called the speaker&#39;s decision unconstitutional, tainted with illegality, highly arbitrary and unreasonable.

&quot;It is antithetical to standards of morality and probity enshrined in our Constitution and expounded by the Supreme Court of India from time to time,&quot; the counsel said.

&quot;The intention of the then Speakers to display photographs.. inside the Assembly was to serve as an example and reminder to all the members of the august assembly that the elected representatives should live and conduct themselves like these leaders whose life is an example of the highest standards of public life,&quot; the petitioner submitted.

&quot;It could never have been the intention of the then speakers to hang portraits of convicts, culprits or persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude like corruption,&quot; the petitioner said.

The petitioner has urged the court to direct the authorities to remove the portrait of Jayalalithaa from the precincts of the assembly.

(With inputs from agencies)

The seven-ft high portrait was successfully unveiled this morning

Shortly after late J Jayalalithaa's portrait was unveiled on Monday in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, the opposition DMK moved the Madras High Court seeking its removal. DMK leaders sought the removal of the portrait stating that the late AIADMK supremo was found guilty on corruption charges. When the first bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose commenced proceedings on Monday at about 10.30 am, DMK's counsel P Wilson made an urgent mention and requested the court to take up the plea. According to the petitioner, Jayalalithaa was convicted by a special court on graft charges. Later the same was set aside by the Karnataka high court while the Supreme Court found all the accused guilty of the charges. In view of her demise, appeals against Jayalalithaa were treated as abated, the petitioner said. Members from the DMK have already filed a plea in the high court seeking removal of Jayalalithaa's photos. The plea also seeks to remove her name displayed or mentioned in government offices, buildings, public sector undertakings and government schemes. The plea alleged that the Speaker, P Dhanapal, "arbitrarily" took a decision on February 10 to unveil a portrait of Jayalalithaa in the assembly hall in the presence of the chief minister and the deputy chief minister. The plea called the speaker's decision unconstitutional, tainted with illegality, highly arbitrary and unreasonable. "It is antithetical to standards of morality and probity enshrined in our Constitution and expounded by the Supreme Court of India from time to time," the counsel said. "The intention of the then Speakers to display photographs.. inside the Assembly was to serve as an example and reminder to all the members of the august assembly that the elected representatives should live and conduct themselves like these leaders whose life is an example of the highest standards of public life," the petitioner submitted. "It could never have been the intention of the then speakers to hang portraits of convicts, culprits or persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude like corruption," the petitioner said. The petitioner has urged the court to direct the authorities to remove the portrait of Jayalalithaa from the precincts of the assembly. (With inputs from agencies)

DMK moves HC after Jaya portrait unveiled in TN assembly

The Supreme Court today sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the CBI on a plea of the special judge, who convicted Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Tawar in the Aarushi murder case in 2013, against his criticism in the Allahabad High Court verdict.

Special CBI judge Shyam Lal, now retired, alleged that the high court while acquitting the Talwars in the case on October 12, 2017, made &quot;disparaging remarks&quot; and &quot;unwarranted comments&quot; and sought their expunction.

A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, the CBI and the Allahabad High Court and sought their response in four weeks.

Senior advocate S R Singh, appearing for the retired judge, said that the strictures passed against him are ultimately going to affect his reputation as an impartial and transparent judge and should be expuncted.

Singh said that the remarks in the judgement were neither warranted nor were in conformity with the settled law of apex court.

In his plea, Shyam Lal said that he is not aggrieved against the judgement of the acquittal of Talwars but he is aggrieved by the observations made by a member judge of the division bench of the high court, in his separate concurring judgement dated October 12, 2017.

The high court judge in his separate but concurring judgement had said, &quot;The trial judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn the conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning.

&quot;Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring to see that it being a case based on circumstantial evidence things cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like the present one by adhering to self-created postulates then to roam inside the circle with all fanciful whim.&quot;

The high court verdict further said that the trial judge took evidence and the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a &quot;mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question&quot;.

It also said the point is that &quot;the trial judge cannot act like a maths teacher who is solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking the certain figure for granted&quot;.

&quot;... Like a film director, the trial Judge has tried to thrust coherence among facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened&quot;, the verdict had said with various other comments.

Lal, while posted as special CBI judge at Ghaziabad, had on November 25, 2013, convicted the Talwar couple for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and had sentenced them to life sentence.

&quot;While allowing criminal appeals (of Talwars) no adverse comments have been made against the petitioner (Shyam Lal) in the main judgement but the second judge in his concurring judgement has made certain adverse remarks which seriously affect the reputation of the petitioner as independent and impartial judge,&quot; his plea said.

Lal claimed in his petition that during his 28 years of &quot;unblemished service&quot; before retiring on November 30, 2013, he dealt with high profile cases like that of Surendra Koli vs. State, properly known as &#39;Nithari case&#39;, graft case of former Uttar Pradesh chief secretary Neera Yadav, among others.&nbsp;

Special CBI judge alleged that the high court made 'disparaging remarks' and 'unwarranted comments' and sought their expunction

The Supreme Court today sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the CBI on a plea of the special judge, who convicted Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Tawar in the Aarushi murder case in 2013, against his criticism in the Allahabad High Court verdict. Special CBI judge Shyam Lal, now retired, alleged that the high court while acquitting the Talwars in the case on October 12, 2017, made "disparaging remarks" and "unwarranted comments" and sought their expunction. A bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, the CBI and the Allahabad High Court and sought their response in four weeks. Senior advocate S R Singh, appearing for the retired judge, said that the strictures passed against him are ultimately going to affect his reputation as an impartial and transparent judge and should be expuncted. Singh said that the remarks in the judgement were neither warranted nor were in conformity with the settled law of apex court. In his plea, Shyam Lal said that he is not aggrieved against the judgement of the acquittal of Talwars but he is aggrieved by the observations made by a member judge of the division bench of the high court, in his separate concurring judgement dated October 12, 2017. The high court judge in his separate but concurring judgement had said, "The trial judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn the conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning. "Thus, basing the finding of conviction without caring to see that it being a case based on circumstantial evidence things cannot be presumed and stuffed in a manner like the present one by adhering to self-created postulates then to roam inside the circle with all fanciful whim." The high court verdict further said that the trial judge took evidence and the circumstances of the case for granted and tried to solve it like a "mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question". It also said the point is that "the trial judge cannot act like a maths teacher who is solving a mathematical question by analogy after taking the certain figure for granted". "... Like a film director, the trial Judge has tried to thrust coherence among facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened", the verdict had said with various other comments. Lal, while posted as special CBI judge at Ghaziabad, had on November 25, 2013, convicted the Talwar couple for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and had sentenced them to life sentence. "While allowing criminal appeals (of Talwars) no adverse comments have been made against the petitioner (Shyam Lal) in the main judgement but the second judge in his concurring judgement has made certain adverse remarks which seriously affect the reputation of the petitioner as independent and impartial judge," his plea said. Lal claimed in his petition that during his 28 years of "unblemished service" before retiring on November 30, 2013, he dealt with high profile cases like that of Surendra Koli vs. State, properly known as 'Nithari case', graft case of former Uttar Pradesh chief secretary Neera Yadav, among others.

Aarushi case: Ex-CBI judge moves Supreme Court against his criticism by High Court

The CBI on Friday filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging a 2005 order of the Delhi High Court quashing all charges against the accused persons in the politically-sensitive Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case.

The agency filed the appeal against the May 31, 2005 decision of the high court by which all the accused persons including Europe-based industrialists Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case.

The filing of the appeal assumes significance as recently Attorney General K K Venugopal had advised against going for the petition after 12 years of delay.

However, sources said that the law officers after consultation were in favour of the appeal as the CBI placed some important documents and evidence to challenge the high court order.&nbsp;

Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who contested the 2014 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli against the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has also filed an application seeking recusal of Chief Justice Dipak Misra from hearing the matter.

During the last hearing on January 16, the bench had asked&nbsp;Agrawal to explain his locus in filing the appeal and satisfy it how could the matter be entertained at the instance of a third party. 
 
Later, he filed an application seeking the CJI&#39;s recusal alleging that the chief justice was &quot;prejudiced&quot; and &quot;bent upon&quot; dismissing the case without going into the merits.

The&nbsp;Rs.&nbsp;1,437-crore deal between India and Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 155mm Howitzer guns for the Indian Army was entered into on March 24, 1986. 
 
Swedish Radio on April 16, 1987, had claimed that the company had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel. 
 
The CBI on January 22, 1990 had registered the FIR for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, the then president of AB Bofors, alleged middleman Win Chadda and the Hinduja brothers.

Earlier, all accused including Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case

The CBI on Friday filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging a 2005 order of the Delhi High Court quashing all charges against the accused persons in the politically-sensitive Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case. The agency filed the appeal against the May 31, 2005 decision of the high court by which all the accused persons including Europe-based industrialists Hinduja brothers were discharged from the case. The filing of the appeal assumes significance as recently Attorney General K K Venugopal had advised against going for the petition after 12 years of delay. However, sources said that the law officers after consultation were in favour of the appeal as the CBI placed some important documents and evidence to challenge the high court order. Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who contested the 2014 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli against the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has also filed an application seeking recusal of Chief Justice Dipak Misra from hearing the matter. During the last hearing on January 16, the bench had asked Agrawal to explain his locus in filing the appeal and satisfy it how could the matter be entertained at the instance of a third party. Later, he filed an application seeking the CJI's recusal alleging that the chief justice was "prejudiced" and "bent upon" dismissing the case without going into the merits. The Rs. 1,437-crore deal between India and Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 155mm Howitzer guns for the Indian Army was entered into on March 24, 1986. Swedish Radio on April 16, 1987, had claimed that the company had paid bribes to top Indian politicians and defence personnel. The CBI on January 22, 1990 had registered the FIR for alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, the then president of AB Bofors, alleged middleman Win Chadda and the Hinduja brothers.

Bofors case: CBI files plea in SC against HC order quashing charges against accused

The Bombay High Court today said it had not found any violation on part of the state in allowing actor Sanjay Dutt to walk out of jail eight months before the completion of his five-year sentence in the 1993 serial bomb blasts case.

A bench of Justices S C Dharamadhikari and Bharati Dangre observed that the state government had succeeded in backing its claims of impartiality in the case with valid documents from the Home department.

The court, thus, disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the remission of Dutt&#39;s sentence, and the &quot;frequent parole and furlough&quot; leaves granted to him while he was serving his sentence in the Yerwada prison in Pune.

&quot;We found nothing contrary in the records submitted by the state Home department and the explanation offered by the state. No violations or abuse of discretionary powers were detected,&quot; the bench said.

The court, however, said the state must devise a scheme to ensure that all applications made by convicts for parole and furlough henceforth are decided upon expeditiously and in a transparent manner.

&quot;The public or the inmates themselves must not get the impression that the authorities grant favours in allowing parole and furlough,&quot; the bench said.

The PIL claimed that while there were several other inmates who displayed exemplary conduct, yet Dutt was the only one whom the prison authorities favoured.

The state government, however, denied the charge.

On a previous hearing, it had submitted a chart of the number of days, the dates that Dutt remained out of jail on parole and furlough, and the reasons for having granted him such leave, to show that it had followed due procedure.

The bench too noted that none of the inmates from the Yerwada prison had made any allegations or complaints alleging that their rights were breached and that undue favours were granted to Dutt.

It cautioned that PILs must not target an individual.

&quot;A Public Interest litigation must not become a public(ity) interest litigation,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;The allegations made in the PIL have not been substantiated. Thus, this matter deserves to be closed,&quot; the high court said.

Dutt was convicted for illegal possession and destruction of an AK-56 rifle in 1993 serial blasts case.

He spent a little over a year and four months in jail as an undertrial and about two-and-a-half years as a convict between June 2013 and February 2016. During the period, he remained out of jail for over five months on parole and furlough.

On February 25, 2016, he walked out of the jail, eight months and 16 days before completion of his five-year sentence, since the state remitted his sentence based on &quot;exemplary conduct displayed&quot; during his time in the jail.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A bench of Justices S C Dharamadhikari and Bharati Dangre observed that the state government had succeeded in backing its claims of impartiality in the case with valid documents from the Home department

The Bombay High Court today said it had not found any violation on part of the state in allowing actor Sanjay Dutt to walk out of jail eight months before the completion of his five-year sentence in the 1993 serial bomb blasts case. A bench of Justices S C Dharamadhikari and Bharati Dangre observed that the state government had succeeded in backing its claims of impartiality in the case with valid documents from the Home department. The court, thus, disposed of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the remission of Dutt's sentence, and the "frequent parole and furlough" leaves granted to him while he was serving his sentence in the Yerwada prison in Pune. "We found nothing contrary in the records submitted by the state Home department and the explanation offered by the state. No violations or abuse of discretionary powers were detected," the bench said. The court, however, said the state must devise a scheme to ensure that all applications made by convicts for parole and furlough henceforth are decided upon expeditiously and in a transparent manner. "The public or the inmates themselves must not get the impression that the authorities grant favours in allowing parole and furlough," the bench said. The PIL claimed that while there were several other inmates who displayed exemplary conduct, yet Dutt was the only one whom the prison authorities favoured. The state government, however, denied the charge. On a previous hearing, it had submitted a chart of the number of days, the dates that Dutt remained out of jail on parole and furlough, and the reasons for having granted him such leave, to show that it had followed due procedure. The bench too noted that none of the inmates from the Yerwada prison had made any allegations or complaints alleging that their rights were breached and that undue favours were granted to Dutt. It cautioned that PILs must not target an individual. "A Public Interest litigation must not become a public(ity) interest litigation," the bench said. "The allegations made in the PIL have not been substantiated. Thus, this matter deserves to be closed," the high court said. Dutt was convicted for illegal possession and destruction of an AK-56 rifle in 1993 serial blasts case. He spent a little over a year and four months in jail as an undertrial and about two-and-a-half years as a convict between June 2013 and February 2016. During the period, he remained out of jail for over five months on parole and furlough. On February 25, 2016, he walked out of the jail, eight months and 16 days before completion of his five-year sentence, since the state remitted his sentence based on "exemplary conduct displayed" during his time in the jail.

No violation by govt in allowing early release to Sanjay Dutt: High Court

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

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

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

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

The judges of Supreme Court and 24 high courts have got almost 200% hike in their salary, the government notified on Tuesday.&nbsp;

The chief justice of India will now earn Rs 2.8 lakh - up from Rs 1 lakh, including dearness and other allowances.&nbsp;

The revised&nbsp;salary is in addition to perks such as official residence, cars, staff and allowances as applicable.

Other judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of the high courts will be earning a monthly salary of Rs 2.50 lakh, up from the current Rs 90,000.

The judges of the high courts, who get Rs 80,000 per month now, will get Rs 2.25 lakh per month&nbsp;

SC judges and chief justices of high courts shall also be entitled to allowances, at the level of the cabinet secretary, the service chiefs and some constitutional functionaries such as the CAG and the CEC.

The High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2018 also revises the rates of house rent allowance with effect from July 1, 2017, and the rates of sumptuary allowance with effect from September 22, 2017.&nbsp;

The salary hike is in line with the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission for officers of all-India services&nbsp;and makes it on par with bureaucrats.

On January 4, the Lok Sabha had passed a bill to hike the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.&nbsp;

SC judges to get Rs 2.8 lakhs per month and HC judges to get Rs 2.5 lakhs per month

The judges of Supreme Court and 24 high courts have got almost 200% hike in their salary, the government notified on Tuesday. The chief justice of India will now earn Rs 2.8 lakh - up from Rs 1 lakh, including dearness and other allowances. The revised salary is in addition to perks such as official residence, cars, staff and allowances as applicable. Other judges of the Supreme Court and chief justices of the high courts will be earning a monthly salary of Rs 2.50 lakh, up from the current Rs 90,000. The judges of the high courts, who get Rs 80,000 per month now, will get Rs 2.25 lakh per month SC judges and chief justices of high courts shall also be entitled to allowances, at the level of the cabinet secretary, the service chiefs and some constitutional functionaries such as the CAG and the CEC. The High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2018 also revises the rates of house rent allowance with effect from July 1, 2017, and the rates of sumptuary allowance with effect from September 22, 2017. The salary hike is in line with the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission for officers of all-India services and makes it on par with bureaucrats. On January 4, the Lok Sabha had passed a bill to hike the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

200% hike in salary for Supreme Court, High Court judges

Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister&#39;s Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu.

The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year.

The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years.

Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month&#39;s time to file their response.

When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry.

Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court&#39;s direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu

Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry. A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu. The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year. The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years. Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month's time to file their response. When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry. Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court's direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

Delay in response to PIL: High Court imposes Rs 5000 cost on PMO, Law Ministry

The single-member Peshawar High Court bench has directed that DNA tests will now be mandatory on the suspect as well as the alleged victim in sexual assault cases.&nbsp;

Justice Roohul Amin Khan Chamkani ruled that under that Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was inserted in the law by Criminal Law Act 2016, DNA samples of the rapist and the victim will be collected and sent for examination as soon as possible.&nbsp;

The bench further observed, &quot;It further provides that the DNA samples collected shall be sent at earliest for the purpose of the investigation to a Forensic Laboratory, where the same shall be properly examined and preserved.&quot;

The decision was passed in a comprehensive judgement of bail petition filed by Umar Taj, who was earlier charged with sexually abusing and raping a woman, local media reports said.&nbsp;

In the judgement, Justice Roohul Amin Khan talked about laws on Protection of Women (Criminal law Amendment) Act, 2006, and the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Related to Rape) Act, 2016 - aimed at protecting women from sexual abuse, adultery and fornication.&nbsp;

As per reports, it was ruled that Section 164-B CrPC linked with carrying out DNA tests would be applicable under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of the Pakistan Penal Code.&nbsp;

The PPC Section 376 awards punishment of death or imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years and fine for an accused proved guilty of rape.&nbsp;

The judgement passed by the bench also observed that the offence of sexual intercourse between people not married to each other is non-cognisable and that a complaint has to be lodged in the concerned court in connection with the offence. 
&nbsp;

The bench further observed, 'It further provides that the DNA samples collected shall be sent at earliest for the purpose of the investigation to a Forensic Laboratory, where the same shall be properly examined and preserved'

The single-member Peshawar High Court bench has directed that DNA tests will now be mandatory on the suspect as well as the alleged victim in sexual assault cases. Justice Roohul Amin Khan Chamkani ruled that under that Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was inserted in the law by Criminal Law Act 2016, DNA samples of the rapist and the victim will be collected and sent for examination as soon as possible. The bench further observed, "It further provides that the DNA samples collected shall be sent at earliest for the purpose of the investigation to a Forensic Laboratory, where the same shall be properly examined and preserved." The decision was passed in a comprehensive judgement of bail petition filed by Umar Taj, who was earlier charged with sexually abusing and raping a woman, local media reports said. In the judgement, Justice Roohul Amin Khan talked about laws on Protection of Women (Criminal law Amendment) Act, 2006, and the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Related to Rape) Act, 2016 - aimed at protecting women from sexual abuse, adultery and fornication. As per reports, it was ruled that Section 164-B CrPC linked with carrying out DNA tests would be applicable under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The PPC Section 376 awards punishment of death or imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years and fine for an accused proved guilty of rape. The judgement passed by the bench also observed that the offence of sexual intercourse between people not married to each other is non-cognisable and that a complaint has to be lodged in the concerned court in connection with the offence.

Pakistan high court: DNA test mandatory in sexual assault cases

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on cancellation of bail granted to Pinto family on Monday.

The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case.

Justice Surender Gupta, however, barred them from leaving the country without permission and directed the family to extend their help in the investigation.

Also Read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ryan-school-murder-supreme-court-to-hear-plea-challenging-pinto-familys-anticipatory-bail-25553">Supreme Court to hear plea challenging Pinto family&#39;s anticipatory bail</a>

Pradyuman was found in a pool of blood with his throat slit inside the school, sparking a public outcry following which the Gurugram Police arrested bus conductor Ashok, accusing him of killing the seven-year-old student.

But the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is now probing the matter, gave him a clean chit and held a class 11 student responsible for the murder.

The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on cancellation of bail granted to Pinto family on Monday. The High Court had, on November 21, granted an anticipatory bail to the Pinto family, in connection with the case. Justice Surender Gupta, however, barred them from leaving the country without permission and directed the family to extend their help in the investigation. Also Read: Supreme Court to hear plea challenging Pinto family's anticipatory bail Pradyuman was found in a pool of blood with his throat slit inside the school, sparking a public outcry following which the Gurugram Police arrested bus conductor Ashok, accusing him of killing the seven-year-old student. But the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is now probing the matter, gave him a clean chit and held a class 11 student responsible for the murder.

Pradyuman Thakur murder: Plea seeking Pinto family's bail cancellation adjourned

A Zimbabwe High Court has ruled that the military takeover that led to Robert Mugabe&#39;s ousting was legal, raising immediate concerns about judicial independence under the country&#39;s new administration.

Army chiefs put military vehicles on the streets of Harare and placed veteran leader Mugabe, 93, under house arrest, before he resigned on Tuesday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mugabe-granted-immunity-from-prosecution-assured-of-safety-in-zimbabwe-sources-24948">Many Zimbabweans celebrated the end of Mugabe&#39;s 37-year rule</a>, but fear the new government under President Emmerson Mnangagwa could also be an authoritarian regime.

&quot;Actions by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces to stop the usurping of power by those close to former president Robert Mugabe are constitutional,&quot; state-run ZBC media on Saturday reported the court as saying.

In an apparent reference to Mugabe&#39;s wife Grace and her supporters, it said the court ruled Friday that the takeover was &quot;to ensure the non-elected individual do not exercise powers that can only be exercised by (those) elected&quot;.

Grace was alleged to have positioned herself to be Mugabe&#39;s chosen successor,&nbsp;prompting the military to intervene and usher in their preferred candidate Mnangagwa.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/end-of-mugabe-era-zimbabwes-mnangagwa-sworn-in-as-president-25022">Mnangagwa was sworn in on Friday, </a>vowing sweeping changes and seeking to attract foreign investment to revive the moribund economy.

He used his inauguration speech to pay tribute to the increasingly frail Mugabe, describing him as one of the &quot;founding fathers of our nation&quot;.

Alongside another court ruling that Mugabe&#39;s earlier sacking of Mnangagwa as vice president was illegal, Human Rights Watch questioned the courts&#39; independence.

&quot;Two incredible judgements,&quot; Dewa Mavhinga, southern African director of HRW, wrote on Twitter. &quot;Strange, captured judiciary?&quot;

A Zimbabwe High Court has ruled that the military takeover that led to Robert Mugabe's ousting was legal, raising immediate concerns about judicial independence under the country's new administration

A Zimbabwe High Court has ruled that the military takeover that led to Robert Mugabe's ousting was legal, raising immediate concerns about judicial independence under the country's new administration. Army chiefs put military vehicles on the streets of Harare and placed veteran leader Mugabe, 93, under house arrest, before he resigned on Tuesday. Many Zimbabweans celebrated the end of Mugabe's 37-year rule, but fear the new government under President Emmerson Mnangagwa could also be an authoritarian regime. "Actions by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces to stop the usurping of power by those close to former president Robert Mugabe are constitutional," state-run ZBC media on Saturday reported the court as saying. In an apparent reference to Mugabe's wife Grace and her supporters, it said the court ruled Friday that the takeover was "to ensure the non-elected individual do not exercise powers that can only be exercised by (those) elected". Grace was alleged to have positioned herself to be Mugabe's chosen successor, prompting the military to intervene and usher in their preferred candidate Mnangagwa. Mnangagwa was sworn in on Friday, vowing sweeping changes and seeking to attract foreign investment to revive the moribund economy. He used his inauguration speech to pay tribute to the increasingly frail Mugabe, describing him as one of the "founding fathers of our nation". Alongside another court ruling that Mugabe's earlier sacking of Mnangagwa as vice president was illegal, Human Rights Watch questioned the courts' independence. "Two incredible judgements," Dewa Mavhinga, southern African director of HRW, wrote on Twitter. "Strange, captured judiciary?"

Zimbabwe court rules military takeover legal

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind has expressed concern over the less representation of woman and traditionally weaker sections in high courts and the Supreme Court.

The President said, &quot;Of the 17,000 judges in our subordinate courts, High Courts &amp; SC only about 4,700 are women. In addition, there&#39;s an unacceptably low representation of traditionally weaker sections such as OBCs, SCs &amp; STs, especially in the higher judiciary.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Of the 17,000 judges in our subordinate courts, High Courts &amp; SC only about 4,700 are women. In addition, there&#39;s an unacceptably low representation of traditionally weaker sections such as OBCs, SCs &amp; STs, especially in the higher judiciary: President Ram Nath Kovind in Delhi <a href="https://t.co/0GnifflUKb">pic.twitter.com/0GnifflUKb</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/934433433681403904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The President also added that &quot;without compromising on quality, we need to take long-term measures to remedy this situation.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Without compromising on quality, we need to take long-term measures to remedy this situation. Like other public institutions, our judiciary too has to be judicious in being representative of the diversity of our country &amp; the breadth &amp; depth of our society.: Pres Ram Nath Kovind <a href="https://t.co/z5mX0IQmuU">pic.twitter.com/z5mX0IQmuU</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/934433802071375872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

President Kovind also asked for simplifying the laws and repealing outdated laws to thereby decongest the statute book and promote ease of governance.

The President was speaking at the inaugural function of the two-day meet organised jointly by the Law Commission and Niti Aayog on the National Law Day.

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind has expressed concern over the less representation of woman and traditionally weaker sections in high courts and Supreme Court

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind has expressed concern over the less representation of woman and traditionally weaker sections in high courts and the Supreme Court. The President said, "Of the 17,000 judges in our subordinate courts, High Courts & SC only about 4,700 are women. In addition, there's an unacceptably low representation of traditionally weaker sections such as OBCs, SCs & STs, especially in the higher judiciary." Of the 17,000 judges in our subordinate courts, High Courts & SC only about 4,700 are women. In addition, there's an unacceptably low representation of traditionally weaker sections such as OBCs, SCs & STs, especially in the higher judiciary: President Ram Nath Kovind in Delhi pic.twitter.com/0GnifflUKb — ANI (@ANI) November 25, 2017 × The President also added that "without compromising on quality, we need to take long-term measures to remedy this situation." Without compromising on quality, we need to take long-term measures to remedy this situation. Like other public institutions, our judiciary too has to be judicious in being representative of the diversity of our country & the breadth & depth of our society.: Pres Ram Nath Kovind pic.twitter.com/z5mX0IQmuU — ANI (@ANI) November 25, 2017 × President Kovind also asked for simplifying the laws and repealing outdated laws to thereby decongest the statute book and promote ease of governance. The President was speaking at the inaugural function of the two-day meet organised jointly by the Law Commission and Niti Aayog on the National Law Day.

Less representation of weaker sections in high courts, Supreme Court: President Kovind

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Sunday that the government was in the process of appointing the highest number of high court judges in a single year, breaking the 30-year-old record of 126.

&quot;In 2016, about 126 High Court judges were appointed which is a 30-year-old history. But this year, we will cross the 126 mark,&quot; said the union minister, who was attending an event at the Odisha Law academy here.

The minister&#39;s reply came after a media person queried him on the one-day strike declared by the Orissa High Court Bar Association.

The association has announced a one-day strike, to be held on Friday, after an HC judge was transferred despite the court being short of nine judges from the sanctioned strength of 27.

According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts.

Earlier on November 4, the Supreme Court appointed three new judges for the Jharkhand High Court and one judge for the Tripura High Court.

The collegium, comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J&nbsp;Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi, had discussed the reports of the intelligence bureau and the state government for the appointments.

The Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts: Reports

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said on Sunday that the government was in the process of appointing the highest number of high court judges in a single year, breaking the 30-year-old record of 126. "In 2016, about 126 High Court judges were appointed which is a 30-year-old history. But this year, we will cross the 126 mark," said the union minister, who was attending an event at the Odisha Law academy here. The minister's reply came after a media person queried him on the one-day strike declared by the Orissa High Court Bar Association. The association has announced a one-day strike, to be held on Friday, after an HC judge was transferred despite the court being short of nine judges from the sanctioned strength of 27. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium would soon take a call on appointing 40 new judges to nine courts. Earlier on November 4, the Supreme Court appointed three new judges for the Jharkhand High Court and one judge for the Tripura High Court. The collegium, comprising of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi, had discussed the reports of the intelligence bureau and the state government for the appointments.

Govt will appoint highest number of high court judges this year: Ravi Shankar Prasad

The Allahabad High Court today asked the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) if any land was allotted to yoga guru Ramdev&#39;s firm Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, directly or indirectly for setting up a food park.

The High Court has sought details if it was done.

The bench comprising justices Tarun Agarwala and Ajay Bhanot also issued a notice to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd on a petition by a man named Ausaf and others of Gautam Budh Nagar.

The petitioners had challenged the alleged allotment of 400 acres of land in favour of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Noida.

The court asked YEIDA to provide all the records showing details of allotment of land in favour of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and such other company or firm or industry that directly or indirectly relates to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd along with maps.

The court has fixed November 14 for the next hearing in the case.

The petitioners alleged that they were allotted land on lease for plantation of trees in 1994 for 30 years but now that land was allotted illegally by YEIDA to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.

During the course of the hearing , the Yamuna Expressway authority said neither its officers went to cut down tree nor any tree existed on the spot.

However, the state government in its affidavit stated that the authority&#39;s officers went to the disputed land to cut the trees and at least 300 trees are there.

&quot;It seems that cover-up operations are going on. Neither the government nor the authority is ready to answer whose JCB machines were used to pull down trees,&quot; the court had observed on an earlier date.

Earlier, the court had directed the parties concerned not to make any development or changes in the land in dispute till the next order.&nbsp;

A petition was filed in the High Court stating that the land was allotted on lease for plantation of trees in 1994 for 30 years but now that land was allotted illegally by YEIDA to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd

The Allahabad High Court today asked the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) if any land was allotted to yoga guru Ramdev's firm Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, directly or indirectly for setting up a food park. The High Court has sought details if it was done. The bench comprising justices Tarun Agarwala and Ajay Bhanot also issued a notice to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd on a petition by a man named Ausaf and others of Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioners had challenged the alleged allotment of 400 acres of land in favour of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Noida. The court asked YEIDA to provide all the records showing details of allotment of land in favour of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and such other company or firm or industry that directly or indirectly relates to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd along with maps. The court has fixed November 14 for the next hearing in the case. The petitioners alleged that they were allotted land on lease for plantation of trees in 1994 for 30 years but now that land was allotted illegally by YEIDA to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. During the course of the hearing , the Yamuna Expressway authority said neither its officers went to cut down tree nor any tree existed on the spot. However, the state government in its affidavit stated that the authority's officers went to the disputed land to cut the trees and at least 300 trees are there. "It seems that cover-up operations are going on. Neither the government nor the authority is ready to answer whose JCB machines were used to pull down trees," the court had observed on an earlier date. Earlier, the court had directed the parties concerned not to make any development or changes in the land in dispute till the next order.

Was land allotted to Patanjali for food park: HC asks Noida

A transgender sailor of the Indian Navy approached the Delhi High Court to challenge an&nbsp;order of the Navy removing her from service because she underwent&nbsp;a sex change operation. The&nbsp;Navy considers Manish Giri (now known as Sabi) guilty of breaching service rules and eligibility criteria for his employment as a Sailor in the Indian Navy.

The Navy, in its press release, stated, &ldquo;The Indian Navy has discharged Manish Giri, a naval sailor evoking the clause of Service No Longer Required under the Navy Regulations. The serving sailor who underwent sex reassignment surgery at a private facility whilst on leave was administratively discharged from the Service.&quot;&nbsp;

On Monday, the high court&nbsp;said&nbsp;that Navy can punish her for indiscipline, but at the same time, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/high-court-asks-navy-to-consider-transgender-for-alternate-job-23204">it needs to accommodate her</a>. &quot;The petitioner can give up a claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual&#39;s wife, and child, need not suffer,&quot; the court said.

Sabi Giri, born&nbsp;Manish Kumar Giri, was enrolled as a young sailor in the Indian navy in 2010 at the age of 18 years. Giri&nbsp;always wanted to change into a woman&#39;s body since &quot;she was old enough to understand gender&quot;. A few years into service, Manish decided&nbsp;to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) and became a woman named Sabi.

Sabi had initially approached&nbsp;the doctors within the Navy at Visakhapatnam where she was posted, but they refused to help her. She then&nbsp;decided to consult a private psychiatrist and psychologist who diagnosed her with Gender Identity Disorder.&nbsp;But Sabi took a leave without informing the Navy and undewent the&nbsp;sex change operation in Delhi. She reported on duty after 15 days, but did not tell anyne about her surgery.&nbsp;

Sabi&#39;s condition came to light when she developed a unirnary infection. As Navy&#39;s doctors&nbsp;didn&#39;t know&nbsp;how to handle this case, Sabi was admitted to the psychiatric ward.

After several rounds of psychiatric and other medical examinations, Sabi did join back, this time as&nbsp;a woman, but the Navy had by now sent her case file&nbsp;to the Defence&nbsp;Ministry&nbsp;seeking their comments and action that needed to be taken in the case. The action was necessitated by the fact&nbsp;that females are not allowed to work as soldiers per the Navy rules and regulations.&nbsp;

Sabi&nbsp;claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and when she told her parents about it, they forced her to marry a woman. She also claimed that she was absent from service without leave several times as she suffered bouts of depression, owing to her gender identity issues.

Now her case is listed for further hearing on November 23 as the court said that &quot;Here is a person struggling with gender identity. Had she suppressed the condition and continued, it would have been dangerous. It could have been fatal. Think about it and come back.&quot;&nbsp;

A transgender sailor of the Indian Navy approached the high court to challenge the order of the Navy removing her from service because she went through sex operation.?

A transgender sailor of the Indian Navy approached the Delhi High Court to challenge an order of the Navy removing her from service because she underwent a sex change operation. The Navy considers Manish Giri (now known as Sabi) guilty of breaching service rules and eligibility criteria for his employment as a Sailor in the Indian Navy. The Navy, in its press release, stated, “The Indian Navy has discharged Manish Giri, a naval sailor evoking the clause of Service No Longer Required under the Navy Regulations. The serving sailor who underwent sex reassignment surgery at a private facility whilst on leave was administratively discharged from the Service." On Monday, the high court said that Navy can punish her for indiscipline, but at the same time, it needs to accommodate her. "The petitioner can give up a claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual's wife, and child, need not suffer," the court said. Sabi Giri, born Manish Kumar Giri, was enrolled as a young sailor in the Indian navy in 2010 at the age of 18 years. Giri always wanted to change into a woman's body since "she was old enough to understand gender". A few years into service, Manish decided to undergo Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) and became a woman named Sabi. Sabi had initially approached the doctors within the Navy at Visakhapatnam where she was posted, but they refused to help her. She then decided to consult a private psychiatrist and psychologist who diagnosed her with Gender Identity Disorder. But Sabi took a leave without informing the Navy and undewent the sex change operation in Delhi. She reported on duty after 15 days, but did not tell anyne about her surgery. Sabi's condition came to light when she developed a unirnary infection. As Navy's doctors didn't know how to handle this case, Sabi was admitted to the psychiatric ward. After several rounds of psychiatric and other medical examinations, Sabi did join back, this time as a woman, but the Navy had by now sent her case file to the Defence Ministry seeking their comments and action that needed to be taken in the case. The action was necessitated by the fact that females are not allowed to work as soldiers per the Navy rules and regulations. Sabi claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and when she told her parents about it, they forced her to marry a woman. She also claimed that she was absent from service without leave several times as she suffered bouts of depression, owing to her gender identity issues. Now her case is listed for further hearing on November 23 as the court said that "Here is a person struggling with gender identity. Had she suppressed the condition and continued, it would have been dangerous. It could have been fatal. Think about it and come back."

Meet Sabi Giri, Indian Navy's first transgender sailor

The Delhi High Court today asked the Centre to consider giving an alternate job to a transgender sailor who was removed from service after a sex change, terming it an &quot;out of the box situation&quot;.

&quot;You can punish her for indiscipline, but at the same time, you can accommodate her,&quot; a bench of Justices G S Sistani and V K Rao suggested to Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for the Centre and Navy.

Calling for a change in mindset, the bench said the instant case was probably the only one of its kind in the armed forces and asked the Navy to consider the transgender for some other job.

&quot;Here is an opportunity to look at it from a different perspective. It is an out of the box situation. It may be a first of its kind situation.

&quot;Here is a person struggling with gender identity. Had she suppressed the condition and continued, it would have been dangerous. It could have been fatal. Think about it and come back,&quot; the bench said and listed the matter for further hearing on November 23.

The court said that while the person deserved to be punished for indiscipline for being absent without leave, but where there was a medical condition of this sort, it may be seen from a different perspective.

During the course of the hearing, the bench said, &quot;the mindset should change. In today&#39;s situation, a medical condition like this cannot be suppressed.&quot;

The court was of the view that the petitioner, who was posted onboard INS Eksila at Visakhapatnam, can give up a claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual&#39;s wife and child, need not suffer.

ASG Jain and central government standing counsel Anil Soni, who also appeared for the Navy, told the court that the individual in question &quot;had a chequered history of indiscipline&quot; for being absent without leave several times.

However, they agreed to take instructions on whether the instant matter can be taken up as a special case.

They also told the bench that the individual had got badly infected after undergoing sex reassignment surgery and it was the Navy which treated her humanely and provided treatment and counseling to her.

The lawyers said that one seat in another branch or department of the force cannot be blocked for such an individual who also suffered from psychiatric and gender identity problems.

They further argued that since the petitioner was a female now, she cannot be employed as a sailor in the Navy as that position is not open for women.

The ASG said the simple question before the bench was whether a woman and not a transgender, can be appointed as a sailor on a ship as the petitioner was now a female.

The petitioner had challenged the October 6 order of the Navy removing her from service.

She had claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and when she told her parents, they forced her to marry a woman.

She further claimed that she was absent from service without leave several times as she suffered bouts of depression, owing to her gender identity issues.

The Delhi High Court today asked the Centre to consider giving an alternate job to a transgender sailor who was removed from service after a sex change, terming it an "out of the box situation".

The Delhi High Court today asked the Centre to consider giving an alternate job to a transgender sailor who was removed from service after a sex change, terming it an "out of the box situation". "You can punish her for indiscipline, but at the same time, you can accommodate her," a bench of Justices G S Sistani and V K Rao suggested to Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for the Centre and Navy. Calling for a change in mindset, the bench said the instant case was probably the only one of its kind in the armed forces and asked the Navy to consider the transgender for some other job. "Here is an opportunity to look at it from a different perspective. It is an out of the box situation. It may be a first of its kind situation. "Here is a person struggling with gender identity. Had she suppressed the condition and continued, it would have been dangerous. It could have been fatal. Think about it and come back," the bench said and listed the matter for further hearing on November 23. The court said that while the person deserved to be punished for indiscipline for being absent without leave, but where there was a medical condition of this sort, it may be seen from a different perspective. During the course of the hearing, the bench said, "the mindset should change. In today's situation, a medical condition like this cannot be suppressed." The court was of the view that the petitioner, who was posted onboard INS Eksila at Visakhapatnam, can give up a claim for the job of a sailor and may accept a clerical position so that the family, comprising aged parents, the individual's wife and child, need not suffer. ASG Jain and central government standing counsel Anil Soni, who also appeared for the Navy, told the court that the individual in question "had a chequered history of indiscipline" for being absent without leave several times. However, they agreed to take instructions on whether the instant matter can be taken up as a special case. They also told the bench that the individual had got badly infected after undergoing sex reassignment surgery and it was the Navy which treated her humanely and provided treatment and counseling to her. The lawyers said that one seat in another branch or department of the force cannot be blocked for such an individual who also suffered from psychiatric and gender identity problems. They further argued that since the petitioner was a female now, she cannot be employed as a sailor in the Navy as that position is not open for women. The ASG said the simple question before the bench was whether a woman and not a transgender, can be appointed as a sailor on a ship as the petitioner was now a female. The petitioner had challenged the October 6 order of the Navy removing her from service. She had claimed that she was suffering from gender identity issues since 2011 and when she told her parents, they forced her to marry a woman. She further claimed that she was absent from service without leave several times as she suffered bouts of depression, owing to her gender identity issues.

Delhi High Court asks Navy to consider transgender for alternate job

A Delhi Court said today &quot;in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate&quot; while deposing a 2007 case in which four men were found guilty of assaulting their neighbour allegedly over political rivalry.

&nbsp;&quot;The need of the hour is to curb such rising intolerance and to award a suitable and adequate sentence commensurate to the gravity of offence,&quot; the court said while adding such instances reflected a return to &quot;the age of barbarism&quot;.

&quot;A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate,&quot; the judge observed while ordering the four men to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

&quot;The case depicts a glaring example of rising intolerance among the natives of this city who, even on trivial issues involving their alleged political faiths, do not even hesitate in attacking their own neighbours with such fury that even if the other side loses life, that would hardly matter to them,&quot; the court said.

The court was hearing the 2007 case in which four accused hit a man named Raju who was their neighbour with sticks and swords in south Delhi&#39;s Tughlakabad area. The men not only beat up Raju but severely injured his son Nilesh who had to be taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.&nbsp;

They later lodged a complaint accusing the four men of being political workers of BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri who is currently a Parliament member from Tughlakabad.&nbsp;

&quot;Neighbours are considered to be more precious than the relatives because in the event of any emergency, it is the neighbours upon whom a person could fall back for assistance and not on the distant relatives,&quot; the court said.

&quot;However, with rise of materialistic society, somehow, we are deviating from our ancient culture, ethics, and moralities and are returning to the age of barbarism as was prevalent in the primitive society,&quot; the court said while ordering the men to be sent&nbsp;to jail.

'A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology,' the court said while deposing on a 2007 case.

A Delhi Court said today "in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate" while deposing a 2007 case in which four men were found guilty of assaulting their neighbour allegedly over political rivalry. "The need of the hour is to curb such rising intolerance and to award a suitable and adequate sentence commensurate to the gravity of offence," the court said while adding such instances reflected a return to "the age of barbarism". "A person in a democratic set up like India is free to follow any political ideology, but it does not give him a right to force others to succumb to his mandate," the judge observed while ordering the four men to three years of rigorous imprisonment. "The case depicts a glaring example of rising intolerance among the natives of this city who, even on trivial issues involving their alleged political faiths, do not even hesitate in attacking their own neighbours with such fury that even if the other side loses life, that would hardly matter to them," the court said. The court was hearing the 2007 case in which four accused hit a man named Raju who was their neighbour with sticks and swords in south Delhi's Tughlakabad area. The men not only beat up Raju but severely injured his son Nilesh who had to be taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre. They later lodged a complaint accusing the four men of being political workers of BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri who is currently a Parliament member from Tughlakabad. "Neighbours are considered to be more precious than the relatives because in the event of any emergency, it is the neighbours upon whom a person could fall back for assistance and not on the distant relatives," the court said. "However, with rise of materialistic society, somehow, we are deviating from our ancient culture, ethics, and moralities and are returning to the age of barbarism as was prevalent in the primitive society," the court said while ordering the men to be sent to jail.

Need to curb rising intolerance: Delhi court

US <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/amazon-launches-instant-pickup-for-quick-delivery-in-the-us-19037">based e-commerce marketplace Amazon</a> has been dragged to the Bombay High Court by Global E-services.&nbsp;

The Mumbai based firm, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/amazon-pay-expands-its-service-to-mobile-recharges-18822">Global E services </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/amazon-pay-expands-its-service-to-mobile-recharges-18822">has</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/amazon-pay-expands-its-service-to-mobile-recharges-18822"> sued Amazon</a> for non-payment of rental dues.&nbsp;

Punit Damodar, the lawyer representing the Mumbai based company said that Amazon vacated the premises without clearing the dues. Though he did not clarify the actual outstanding amount but said it is &quot;substantial&quot;.&nbsp;

Before this, in 2016 &nbsp;Amazon had been sued by a Chennai based ed-tech startup &#39;Flintobox&#39;. The startup had then filed a legal notice against Amazon claiming the e-commerce marketplace had indulged&nbsp;in the illegal use of its brand name.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court is to hear the Global E services case on September 4.&nbsp;

The US e-commerce giant&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;has been caught in the court proceedings at a time when it is focusing on expanding its market in the Indian subcontinent.

Recently the company <a href="http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/amazon-gets-doorway-to-indias-food-retail-17816">had invested over 300 crores in its </a>Indian wholesale business.

US based e-commerce marketplace Amazon has been dragged to the Bombay High Court by Global E-services.?

US based e-commerce marketplace Amazon has been dragged to the Bombay High Court by Global E-services. The Mumbai based firm, Global E services has sued Amazon for non-payment of rental dues. Punit Damodar, the lawyer representing the Mumbai based company said that Amazon vacated the premises without clearing the dues. Though he did not clarify the actual outstanding amount but said it is "substantial". Before this, in 2016 Amazon had been sued by a Chennai based ed-tech startup 'Flintobox'. The startup had then filed a legal notice against Amazon claiming the e-commerce marketplace had indulged in the illegal use of its brand name. The Bombay High Court is to hear the Global E services case on September 4. The US e-commerce giant Amazon has been caught in the court proceedings at a time when it is focusing on expanding its market in the Indian subcontinent. Recently the company had invested over 300 crores in its Indian wholesale business.

Mumbai firm sends legal notice to Amazon

The Supreme Court prohibited the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the country from conducting counselling sessions or admitting students into the institutes till further notice this year.

The stay is over an 18-marks bonus being awarded to all students who appeared in the Advanced Joint Entrance Exams this year as the answer key to seven questions had been lost. It is applicable to all the institutes which use the IIT-JEE (Advanced) results for admissions.

A bench of Justices headed by Dipak Misra restrained the high courts from entertaining any writ petition relating to counselling and admissions to the IITs from now on.

It also sought details of the number of cases and petitioners challenging the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The apex court had issued notice to the Indian ministry of (MHRD) human resource development on a plea seeking an end to the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list.

The petition filed by IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court&#39;s direction to declare that the action of awarding &quot;bonus marks&quot; to the candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced) 2017 examination, was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students.

It sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks to the candidates who had attempted the answers for the incorrect questions.

As an alternative, the petitioner said the institution should conduct fresh examination and prepare a fresh merit list or grant all students another opportunity to appear in the examination to be conducted next year.

The petition also sought an interim stay on the merit list and the counselling, saying it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner&nbsp;and other deserving candidates.

The next hearing on the matter will be on Monday, July 10.

Bonus marks were awarded to each candidate as the answer key to seven questions was lost

The Supreme Court prohibited the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the country from conducting counselling sessions or admitting students into the institutes till further notice this year. The stay is over an 18-marks bonus being awarded to all students who appeared in the Advanced Joint Entrance Exams this year as the answer key to seven questions had been lost. It is applicable to all the institutes which use the IIT-JEE (Advanced) results for admissions. A bench of Justices headed by Dipak Misra restrained the high courts from entertaining any writ petition relating to counselling and admissions to the IITs from now on. It also sought details of the number of cases and petitioners challenging the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The apex court had issued notice to the Indian ministry of (MHRD) human resource development on a plea seeking an end to the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The petition filed by IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court's direction to declare that the action of awarding "bonus marks" to the candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced) 2017 examination, was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students. It sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks to the candidates who had attempted the answers for the incorrect questions. As an alternative, the petitioner said the institution should conduct fresh examination and prepare a fresh merit list or grant all students another opportunity to appear in the examination to be conducted next year. The petition also sought an interim stay on the merit list and the counselling, saying it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and other deserving candidates. The next hearing on the matter will be on Monday, July 10.

Indian Supreme Court stays IIT counselling over "bonus marks" in IIT-JEE Advance

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court, refused to restrain high courts across the country from taking up cases relating to demonetisation, delivering yet another setback to the government.

The government had approached the top court for a stay on the proceedings of the high courts proceedings in demonetisation cases on the ground that the situation was &quot;much better,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

This failed to cut any ice with the top court which refused to stay the ongoing proceedings before the high courts on the grounds that people may get &quot;immediate relief&quot; from them.

&quot;We don&#39;t want to stay it,&quot; a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said. &quot;There are various issues. People may get immediate relief from the high courts.&quot;

The Centre had claimed that the scheme was a &quot;success&quot; since over Rs six lakh crores had already been deposited and about Rs 10 lakh crore was expected to come to the exchequer till December end.&nbsp;

The government&#39;s top law officer, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, also submitted to the apex court that queues in banks, ATMs, post offices had shortened remarkably and, if required, the time limit of depositing and exchanging the Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 old notes could be extended beyond December 30. He also said people had alternatives by way of digital money.

Rohatgi also told the court that demonetising high denomination currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 was a &quot;move to remove 70 years of slush money&quot; since they constituted 80 to 85 per cent of the legal tender.&nbsp;

&quot;If it takes another 20-30 days to remove it, I do not think its a big deal,&quot; he told the bench. &quot;It is a success till now.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;The money will be used in the economy and the lending rates will come down,&quot; the attorney general added.&nbsp;

But the bench was not impressed. It observed that people were seriously affected and doors of courts cannot be shut in a situation which &quot;may lead to riots&quot;.

The setback to the government came in quick succession to the Supreme Court&#39;s November 18 ruling in which it had refused to stop high courts from admitting petitions challenging the government&#39;s notification of November 8 to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.&nbsp;

The bench only issued notices and sought the response of those who had approached high courts on the Centre&#39;s plea seeking transfer of the cases to the apex court or any one of the high courts, PTI reported.

Some of the issues which have come up before high courts included removing the weekly limit of Rs 24,000 on withdrawals, challenging the use of old currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 at public utility centres like hospitals and petrol pumps and asking for direction to ensure sufficient cash in ATMs.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The court told the government the doors of the court cannot be shut in a situation where people were seriously affected

India's top court, the Supreme Court, refused to restrain high courts across the country from taking up cases relating to demonetisation, delivering yet another setback to the government. The government had approached the top court for a stay on the proceedings of the high courts proceedings in demonetisation cases on the ground that the situation was "much better," PTI reported. This failed to cut any ice with the top court which refused to stay the ongoing proceedings before the high courts on the grounds that people may get "immediate relief" from them. "We don't want to stay it," a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said. "There are various issues. People may get immediate relief from the high courts." The Centre had claimed that the scheme was a "success" since over Rs six lakh crores had already been deposited and about Rs 10 lakh crore was expected to come to the exchequer till December end. The government's top law officer, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, also submitted to the apex court that queues in banks, ATMs, post offices had shortened remarkably and, if required, the time limit of depositing and exchanging the Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 old notes could be extended beyond December 30. He also said people had alternatives by way of digital money. Rohatgi also told the court that demonetising high denomination currency notes of Rs 1000 and Rs 500 was a "move to remove 70 years of slush money" since they constituted 80 to 85 per cent of the legal tender. "If it takes another 20-30 days to remove it, I do not think its a big deal," he told the bench. "It is a success till now." "The money will be used in the economy and the lending rates will come down," the attorney general added. But the bench was not impressed. It observed that people were seriously affected and doors of courts cannot be shut in a situation which "may lead to riots". The setback to the government came in quick succession to the Supreme Court's November 18 ruling in which it had refused to stop high courts from admitting petitions challenging the government's notification of November 8 to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes. The bench only issued notices and sought the response of those who had approached high courts on the Centre's plea seeking transfer of the cases to the apex court or any one of the high courts, PTI reported. Some of the issues which have come up before high courts included removing the weekly limit of Rs 24,000 on withdrawals, challenging the use of old currency notes of Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 at public utility centres like hospitals and petrol pumps and asking for direction to ensure sufficient cash in ATMs. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's top court refuses to restrain high courts from taking up demonetisation cases

India&#39;s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has taken into its custody three accused in the case of rape of a woman and her minor girl in northern India&#39;s Bulandshahr city last month. 
 
CBI sources refused to disclose the identity of the accused who were taken into custody by it but said they would be produced in the fast-track court of Bulandshahr on August 23. 
 
North India&#39;s Uttar Pradesh state police had arrested six persons, including the prime suspect, in connection with the rape of the woman and her 13-year-old daughter while they were travelling from Noida to Shahjahanpur on the intervening night of July 29-30. 
 
The case was transferred to CBI on the instructions of the Allahabad High Court. The agency had registered a case yesterday and sent a team of forensic experts and deputy inspector general-ranked officer to the crime scene. 
 
UP police, which received flak from the Allahabad High Court, had claimed to have solved the blind case within nine days of the incident with arrest of Salim Bawariya, the head of a gang from &nbsp;north-western state of Rajasthan. 
 
On the basis of his interrogation, two other gang members - Zubair and Sajid - were arrested by the Special Task Force of UP police. Later, three more accused - Naresh (25), Bablu (22) and Rais (28) - were arrested. 
 
(PTI)

The agency refused to disclose the identity of the accused but said they would be produced in a fast-track court on August 23

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has taken into its custody three accused in the case of rape of a woman and her minor girl in northern India's Bulandshahr city last month. CBI sources refused to disclose the identity of the accused who were taken into custody by it but said they would be produced in the fast-track court of Bulandshahr on August 23. North India's Uttar Pradesh state police had arrested six persons, including the prime suspect, in connection with the rape of the woman and her 13-year-old daughter while they were travelling from Noida to Shahjahanpur on the intervening night of July 29-30. The case was transferred to CBI on the instructions of the Allahabad High Court. The agency had registered a case yesterday and sent a team of forensic experts and deputy inspector general-ranked officer to the crime scene. UP police, which received flak from the Allahabad High Court, had claimed to have solved the blind case within nine days of the incident with arrest of Salim Bawariya, the head of a gang from north-western state of Rajasthan. On the basis of his interrogation, two other gang members - Zubair and Sajid - were arrested by the Special Task Force of UP police. Later, three more accused - Naresh (25), Bablu (22) and Rais (28) - were arrested. (PTI)

Bulandshahr gang rape case: India's investigative agency takes custody of three accused

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