India’s former law minister and senior Supreme Court lawyer Shanti Bhushan passed away at his Delhi residence on Tuesday, following a brief illness. He was 97.&nbsp; 
Bhushan served as the law minister from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai cabinet. &nbsp;

During his active career, the eminent jurist was associated with various political parties. Initially&nbsp;with the Congress, he later joined Janata Party and was a member of the Rajya Sabha (upper house). He also had a six-year stint with the Bharatiya Janata Party.&nbsp;

Extending&nbsp;his condolences, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised Bhushan for his exemplary contribution to the legal field.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Shri Shanti Bhushan Ji will be remembered for his contribution to the legal field and passion towards speaking for the underprivileged. Pained by his passing away. Condolences to his family. Om Shanti.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1620446370766389248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Bhushan’s sons are also among the most prominent lawyers in India. He was active in the legal profession till recently and had argued on a public interest litigation (PIL) case in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jets deal.&nbsp;

He along with his son Prashant Bhushan were among the founding members of the&nbsp;Aam Aadmi Party&nbsp;in 2012. Their association ended with the party.&nbsp;

In 1980, Shanti Bhushan founded his NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation', which has filed several landmark PILs in the Supreme Court. &nbsp;

Shanti Bhushan appeared in several cases of public importance. He represented petitioner Raj Narain in the Allahabad High Court in a famous case in which the election of then prime minister Indira Gandhi was annulled for committing electoral malpractices.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE: 

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

India’s former law minister and senior Supreme Court lawyer Shanti Bhushan passed away at his Delhi residence on Tuesday, following a brief illness. He was 97. Bhushan served as the law minister from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai cabinet.

India’s former law minister and senior Supreme Court lawyer Shanti Bhushan passed away at his Delhi residence on Tuesday, following a brief illness. He was 97. Bhushan served as the law minister from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai cabinet. During his active career, the eminent jurist was associated with various political parties. Initially with the Congress, he later joined Janata Party and was a member of the Rajya Sabha (upper house). He also had a six-year stint with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Extending his condolences, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised Bhushan for his exemplary contribution to the legal field. Shri Shanti Bhushan Ji will be remembered for his contribution to the legal field and passion towards speaking for the underprivileged. Pained by his passing away. Condolences to his family. Om Shanti. — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) January 31, 2023 × Bhushan’s sons are also among the most prominent lawyers in India. He was active in the legal profession till recently and had argued on a public interest litigation (PIL) case in the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jets deal. He along with his son Prashant Bhushan were among the founding members of the Aam Aadmi Party in 2012. Their association ended with the party. In 1980, Shanti Bhushan founded his NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation', which has filed several landmark PILs in the Supreme Court. Shanti Bhushan appeared in several cases of public importance. He represented petitioner Raj Narain in the Allahabad High Court in a famous case in which the election of then prime minister Indira Gandhi was annulled for committing electoral malpractices. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India’s former law minister Shanti Bhushan dies at 97 

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts.

"Similar opinions were made in many occasions before as demonstrated by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. In the present controversy, similar comments are also made by Justices (all retired now) Madan Bhimrao Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, and veteran journalist, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV," Bhushan said in his review petition.

Bhushan, in his review petition, also sought an open court hearing and stated that the suo motu contempt plea should not have been heard by Justice (now retired) Arun Mishra. "We need to ask whether they are also to be held guilty of contempt as also others in the press because repeating or supporting a statement is also a publication. Justice Lodha has also criticised the Court`s order, Bhushan asked and raised this question in his review petition."It would follow that they were all in contempt. There should not be any attempt to coerce the contemnor into making an apology on the basis that nothing else would be acceptable," Bhushan said in his review petition.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/india-news/prashant-bhushan-found-guilty-of-contempt-fined-one-rupee-324237" hreflang="en">Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee</a>

He submitted that the judgment, which convicted him of contempt, should be recalled suo motu and added that in any event, no sentence should be imposed."There can be little doubt that the opinions made by me were bonafide and devoid of malice. Thus a case is made out for recalling the conviction order and not inflicting or awarding punishment," the review plea said.

"Many comments have been made in the past about corruption in the Supreme Court and that things do not augur well for the Court. These include ex-Chief Justice Bharucha," it added. Earlier, Bhushan said that he will submit the fine in the registry today but had added that it doesn`t mean he accepts the Supreme Court`s judgement.

Bhushan was convicted and a fine of Re 1 was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in connection with a suo motu criminal contempt of court case over two of his tweets.

One of the tweets, posted on June 29, was related to his post on a picture of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde on a high-end bike. In his second tweet, Bhushan had expressed his opinion on the role of the last four CJIs amid the state of affairs in the country.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing another contempt of court case against Bhushan for his interview to a magazine in 2009 in which he was quoted as saying that half of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts.

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts. "Similar opinions were made in many occasions before as demonstrated by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. In the present controversy, similar comments are also made by Justices (all retired now) Madan Bhimrao Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, and veteran journalist, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV," Bhushan said in his review petition. Bhushan, in his review petition, also sought an open court hearing and stated that the suo motu contempt plea should not have been heard by Justice (now retired) Arun Mishra. "We need to ask whether they are also to be held guilty of contempt as also others in the press because repeating or supporting a statement is also a publication. Justice Lodha has also criticised the Court`s order, Bhushan asked and raised this question in his review petition."It would follow that they were all in contempt. There should not be any attempt to coerce the contemnor into making an apology on the basis that nothing else would be acceptable," Bhushan said in his review petition. Also read: Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee He submitted that the judgment, which convicted him of contempt, should be recalled suo motu and added that in any event, no sentence should be imposed."There can be little doubt that the opinions made by me were bonafide and devoid of malice. Thus a case is made out for recalling the conviction order and not inflicting or awarding punishment," the review plea said. "Many comments have been made in the past about corruption in the Supreme Court and that things do not augur well for the Court. These include ex-Chief Justice Bharucha," it added. Earlier, Bhushan said that he will submit the fine in the registry today but had added that it doesn`t mean he accepts the Supreme Court`s judgement. Bhushan was convicted and a fine of Re 1 was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in connection with a suo motu criminal contempt of court case over two of his tweets. One of the tweets, posted on June 29, was related to his post on a picture of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde on a high-end bike. In his second tweet, Bhushan had expressed his opinion on the role of the last four CJIs amid the state of affairs in the country. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing another contempt of court case against Bhushan for his interview to a magazine in 2009 in which he was quoted as saying that half of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.

Comments were made in good faith, founded on facts: Prashant Bhushan seeks review of conviction in SC

The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of one rupee ($0.0136) on a prominent lawyer found guilty of criminal contempt for posts on Twitter that were critical of senior judges, which he declined to apologise for.&nbsp;

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court said that lawyer Prashant Bhushan must pay the fine by Sept. 15, failing which he could be imprisoned for three months and barred from practice for three years.

"Freedom of expression is there but rights of others should also be respected," the court said while imposing the fine on Bhushan.

Bhushan and his lawyers were not immediately available for comment.

In June, Bhushan posted a photograph that he said showed Chief Justice SA&nbsp;Bobde astride a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, saying he was riding a 5 million rupee ($67,000) bike without a mask or a helmet while citizens were being denied justice as the court was in lockdown.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/india-news/supreme-court-holds-prashant-bhushan-guilty-of-contempt-over-tweets-against-cji-judiciary-320414" hreflang="en">Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary</a>

Bobde has not commented publicly on the photograph.

In another post on Twitter the same month, Bhushan said that when historians looked at how democracy had been destroyed in India in the past six years, they would note the role of the Supreme Court and the past four top justices.

Twitter blocked both of the posts.

In an 108-page order holding him guilty of criminal contempt earlier in August, the court had said the first post was "patently false".

The same order said that the second had the "effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy", referring to the judiciary.

The court then asked Bhushan, who has championed public interest litigation, to issue an "unconditional apology", which he declined to do, leading to the sentence on Monday.

The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of one rupee ($0.0136) on a prominent lawyer found guilty of criminal contempt for posts on Twitter that were critical of senior judges, which he declined to apologise for.

The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of one rupee ($0.0136) on a prominent lawyer found guilty of criminal contempt for posts on Twitter that were critical of senior judges, which he declined to apologise for. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court said that lawyer Prashant Bhushan must pay the fine by Sept. 15, failing which he could be imprisoned for three months and barred from practice for three years. "Freedom of expression is there but rights of others should also be respected," the court said while imposing the fine on Bhushan. Bhushan and his lawyers were not immediately available for comment. In June, Bhushan posted a photograph that he said showed Chief Justice SA Bobde astride a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, saying he was riding a 5 million rupee ($67,000) bike without a mask or a helmet while citizens were being denied justice as the court was in lockdown. Also read: Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary Bobde has not commented publicly on the photograph. In another post on Twitter the same month, Bhushan said that when historians looked at how democracy had been destroyed in India in the past six years, they would note the role of the Supreme Court and the past four top justices. Twitter blocked both of the posts. In an 108-page order holding him guilty of criminal contempt earlier in August, the court had said the first post was "patently false". The same order said that the second had the "effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy", referring to the judiciary. The court then asked Bhushan, who has championed public interest litigation, to issue an "unconditional apology", which he declined to do, leading to the sentence on Monday.

Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra pronounced its verdicts in the suo motu contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his two tweets on the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and his four predecessors.

The bench will hear him on sentence on August 20. According to the criminal contempt of law, the maximum sentence can be of six months in jail or any other punishment court thinks for him.

Bhushan posted two tweets, one on the apex court on June 27 and the second on CJI SA Bobde on June 29. Both tweets were taken down by Twitter after the top court issued a contempt notice to Bhushan.

The June 27 tweet said, “When historians in the future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, &amp; more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”

The June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI S A Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”

On July 22, the top court had issued a show-cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him after taking note of a petition.

While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had earlier said these statements are prima facie capable of "undermining the dignity and authority" of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan in the matter, had said, The two tweets were not against the institution.

Bhushan has made an immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit, Dave had said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters.

Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, the senior advocate had said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out.

In a 142-page reply affidavit filed in the matter, Bhushan had stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court.

Bhushan, in the affidavit, has referred to several apex court judgements, speeches of former and serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases.

Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a 'reasonable restriction', the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra pronounced its verdicts in the suo motu contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his two tweets on the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and his four predecessors. The bench will hear him on sentence on August 20. According to the criminal contempt of law, the maximum sentence can be of six months in jail or any other punishment court thinks for him. Bhushan posted two tweets, one on the apex court on June 27 and the second on CJI SA Bobde on June 29. Both tweets were taken down by Twitter after the top court issued a contempt notice to Bhushan. The June 27 tweet said, “When historians in the future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.” The June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI S A Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!” On July 22, the top court had issued a show-cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him after taking note of a petition. While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had earlier said these statements are prima facie capable of "undermining the dignity and authority" of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan in the matter, had said, The two tweets were not against the institution. Bhushan has made an immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit, Dave had said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters. Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, the senior advocate had said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out. In a 142-page reply affidavit filed in the matter, Bhushan had stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court. Bhushan, in the affidavit, has referred to several apex court judgements, speeches of former and serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a 'reasonable restriction', the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-review-petition-security-of-state-supersedes-everything-government-tells-supreme-court-203317">Rafale review petition: 'Security of state supersedes everything,' government tells Supreme Court</a>

Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court Thursday that the "security of state supersedes everything". The court is hearing a review petition of its earlier judgement in the Rafale case which had said the deal did not need to be investigated for corruption.&nbsp;

The review petition has been filed by former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, and the lawyer Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-leader-donald-tusk-backs-long-delay-if-britain-rethinks-brexit-203291">EU's Donald Tusk backs 'long' delay if Britain 'rethinks' Brexit</a>

EU leader Donald Tusk said Thursday that European capitals could approve a long delay to Brexit, in a last-ditch push to persuade Prime Minister Theresa May to change her negotiating red lines. &nbsp;&nbsp;

During consultations ahead of next week's EU summit, Tusk said he "will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it."

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sp-bsp-will-have-joint-rallies-in-uttar-pradesh-says-akhilesh-203316">Lok Sabha polls: SP &amp; BSP will hold joint rallies in Uttar Pradesh, says Akhilesh</a>

In Uttar Pradesh, the SP and BSP will hold joint election rallies during the ensuing Lok Sabha polls, former chief minister Akhilesh Yadav said here on Thursday.&nbsp;

'We have planned joint rallies in Uttar Pradesh,' he told ANI in reply to a question about what transpired in his meeting with BSP president Mayawati on Wednesday.&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/wing-commander-abhinandans-debiefing-complete-he-will-now-go-on-sick-leave-iaf-sources-203327">Wing Commander Abhinandan's debriefing complete, he will now go on sick leave: IAF sources</a>

Wing Commander Abhinandan Varathaman's debriefing is now complete, Indian Air Force sources said on Thursday.&nbsp;

The news agency ANI quoted the sources as saying Abhinandan will now go on sick leave for a few weeks on the advice of doctors at the army's Research and Referral Hospital in Delhi.&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-100-malaysian-schools-shut-after-toxic-waste-dump-203324">Over 100 Malaysian schools shut after </a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-100-malaysian-schools-shut-after-toxic-waste-dump-203324">toxic</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-100-malaysian-schools-shut-after-toxic-waste-dump-203324"> waste dump</a>

Over 100 schools in Malaysia have been closed after the dumping of toxic waste into a river caused hundreds of people to fall ill, including many children, authorities said.

A lorry is believed to have dumped the waste in southern Johor state last week, sending hazardous fumes across a wide area and causing those affected to display symptoms of poisoning such as nausea and vomiting.

Rafale review petition: 'Security of state supersedes everything,' government tells Supreme Court Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court Thursday that the "security of state supersedes everything".

Rafale review petition: 'Security of state supersedes everything,' government tells Supreme Court Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court Thursday that the "security of state supersedes everything". The court is hearing a review petition of its earlier judgement in the Rafale case which had said the deal did not need to be investigated for corruption. The review petition has been filed by former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, and the lawyer Prashant Bhushan. EU's Donald Tusk backs 'long' delay if Britain 'rethinks' Brexit EU leader Donald Tusk said Thursday that European capitals could approve a long delay to Brexit, in a last-ditch push to persuade Prime Minister Theresa May to change her negotiating red lines. During consultations ahead of next week's EU summit, Tusk said he "will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it." Lok Sabha polls: SP & BSP will hold joint rallies in Uttar Pradesh, says Akhilesh In Uttar Pradesh, the SP and BSP will hold joint election rallies during the ensuing Lok Sabha polls, former chief minister Akhilesh Yadav said here on Thursday. 'We have planned joint rallies in Uttar Pradesh,' he told ANI in reply to a question about what transpired in his meeting with BSP president Mayawati on Wednesday. Wing Commander Abhinandan's debriefing complete, he will now go on sick leave: IAF sources Wing Commander Abhinandan Varathaman's debriefing is now complete, Indian Air Force sources said on Thursday. The news agency ANI quoted the sources as saying Abhinandan will now go on sick leave for a few weeks on the advice of doctors at the army's Research and Referral Hospital in Delhi. Over 100 Malaysian schools shut after toxic waste dump Over 100 schools in Malaysia have been closed after the dumping of toxic waste into a river caused hundreds of people to fall ill, including many children, authorities said. A lorry is believed to have dumped the waste in southern Johor state last week, sending hazardous fumes across a wide area and causing those affected to display symptoms of poisoning such as nausea and vomiting.

News brief: Big stories of the day

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jk-terrorists-shoot-dead-gardener-who-used-to-work-with-the-army-in-pulwama-203102">J&amp;K: Suspected terrorists shoot </a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jk-terrorists-shoot-dead-gardener-who-used-to-work-with-the-army-in-pulwama-203102">dead</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jk-terrorists-shoot-dead-gardener-who-used-to-work-with-the-army-in-pulwama-203102"> man who had enrolled with the army</a>

Suspected terrorists have shot dead a 25-year-old man in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama. The man was identified as Ashiq Ahmad.&nbsp;

Ashiq was shot and critically wounded in Pulwama's Pingleena village. He was rushed to hospital where doctors declared him dead on arrival.&nbsp;

Initial reports had suggested Ashiq used to work as a gardener with the Indian Army but that he resigned his job a few months ago.&nbsp;

The army however said Ashiq had enrolled with them on January 15, 2018 but that he deserted eight months later.&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-case-government-tells-sc-accessing-of-internal-secret-deliberations-jeopardised-national-security-203114">Rafale case: Petitioners' documents jeopardised national security, </a><a class="gr-progress" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-case-government-tells-sc-accessing-of-internal-secret-deliberations-jeopardised-national-security-203114">government</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-case-government-tells-sc-accessing-of-internal-secret-deliberations-jeopardised-national-security-203114"> tells Supreme Court</a>

The government on Wednesday filed a fresh affidavit in the Supreme Court in the Rafale case, saying that “unauthorisedly-accessed” documents related to “internal secret deliberations” had been presented in a “selective” manner to mislead the top court and amounted to jeopardising national security.

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-all-boeing-737-max-planes-now-grounded-government-warns-tomorrow-will-be-real-challenging-day-203110">India: All Boeing 737 Max planes now grounded, government warns tomorrow will be 'real challenging day'</a>

All Boeing 737 Max planes flying in the country have now been grounded. The ban came into effect at 4 pm on Wednesday after two recent crashes of the aircraft, one in Ethiopia this Sunday and one in October last year in Indonesia.&nbsp;

"As of now, all flights of Boeing 737 Max have been grounded," Pradeep Singh Kharola, secretary of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, said on Wednesday. &nbsp;

Kharola added that the flights were grounded "before the deadline of 4 pm", but he also warned that tomorrow will be "a real challenging day".&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-to-vote-today-on-whether-they-want-no-deal-brexit-203112">British MPs to vote today on whether they want no-deal Brexit</a>

British MPs will vote Wednesday on whether they want to avert a potentially chaotic "no-deal" exit from the EU, as business leaders warned the country was "staring down the precipice" after parliament rejected a divorce agreement.

Parliament is expected to vote against leaving the bloc without a deal — although it remains the default option unless an alternative can be secured by the fast-approaching March 29 Brexit date.&nbsp;

 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kartarpur-corridor-talks-india-hopes-for-meaningful-talks-may-raise-khalistani-propaganda-with-pakistan-203092">Kartarpur corridor: India hopes for 'meaningful' talks with Pakistan, may raise Khalistan propaganda</a>

India and Pakistan will hold talks on Thursday to decide the modalities of the Kartarpur corridor. The corridor was agreed upon by both countries in November 2018.&nbsp;

The talks will be held on March 14 on the Indian side of the Wagah-Attari border.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

J&K: Suspected terrorists shoot dead man who had enrolled with the army Suspected terrorists have shot dead a 25-year-old man in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama. The man was identified as Ashiq Ahmad.

J&K: Suspected terrorists shoot dead man who had enrolled with the army Suspected terrorists have shot dead a 25-year-old man in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama. The man was identified as Ashiq Ahmad. Ashiq was shot and critically wounded in Pulwama's Pingleena village. He was rushed to hospital where doctors declared him dead on arrival. Initial reports had suggested Ashiq used to work as a gardener with the Indian Army but that he resigned his job a few months ago. The army however said Ashiq had enrolled with them on January 15, 2018 but that he deserted eight months later. Rafale case: Petitioners' documents jeopardised national security, government tells Supreme Court The government on Wednesday filed a fresh affidavit in the Supreme Court in the Rafale case, saying that “unauthorisedly-accessed” documents related to “internal secret deliberations” had been presented in a “selective” manner to mislead the top court and amounted to jeopardising national security. India: All Boeing 737 Max planes now grounded, government warns tomorrow will be 'real challenging day' All Boeing 737 Max planes flying in the country have now been grounded. The ban came into effect at 4 pm on Wednesday after two recent crashes of the aircraft, one in Ethiopia this Sunday and one in October last year in Indonesia. "As of now, all flights of Boeing 737 Max have been grounded," Pradeep Singh Kharola, secretary of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, said on Wednesday. Kharola added that the flights were grounded "before the deadline of 4 pm", but he also warned that tomorrow will be "a real challenging day". British MPs to vote today on whether they want no-deal Brexit British MPs will vote Wednesday on whether they want to avert a potentially chaotic "no-deal" exit from the EU, as business leaders warned the country was "staring down the precipice" after parliament rejected a divorce agreement. Parliament is expected to vote against leaving the bloc without a deal — although it remains the default option unless an alternative can be secured by the fast-approaching March 29 Brexit date. Kartarpur corridor: India hopes for 'meaningful' talks with Pakistan, may raise Khalistan propaganda India and Pakistan will hold talks on Thursday to decide the modalities of the Kartarpur corridor. The corridor was agreed upon by both countries in November 2018. The talks will be held on March 14 on the Indian side of the Wagah-Attari border.

The hearing in the Supreme Court during lawyer Prashant Bhushan's application seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from adjudicating contempt plea filed against him by the Attorney General saw some heated arguments on Thursday.

The case was being heard by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha. Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave, appearing for Prashant Bhushan, referred to some earlier orders passed by Justice Mishra, including the one in which the apex court had made observations about lawyers going to the media on sub-judice cases, and said this has given rise to an apprehension in Bhushan's mind.

"Judges think independently. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some matters, some judges may have strict views while other judges will have different views. This is the beauty of this institution," Justice Sinha observed.

Dave said apprehension has to be seen from the mind of litigants and not from the mind of judges. "Please hear our application (seeking recusal). There are reasons in it."

To this, the bench told Dave, "Sorry, we are not with you. We should not express any opinion on this kind of application. If you want, we can pass reasoned order and then it will reflect many things. We are telling you."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, which has also filed a separate contempt plea against Bhushan, referred to earlier orders passed by the apex court and said seeking recusal of judges has become a "pattern".

He said earlier also attempts were made to have two out of three judges recuse from hearing the pleas seeking probe into the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for some social activists who have sought to intervene in the case, said Mehta has no locus to argue in the matter as the Centre's contempt plea against Bhushan was not maintainable.

"He (Mehta) appears in court, stands up and argues without being a party in the case," Dhavan said.

"Mr Dhavan, please maintain cool," the bench said. To this, the senior lawyer replied, "I am cool, My Lord. My biggest advantage is, I don't have blood pressure."

"Please check your blood pressure anyway", Justice Mishra commented.

During the hearing, Bhushan admitted in the court that he had made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted in the apex court fabricated documents of the high-powered selection panel on appointment of interim CBI director.

Advocate Dave expressed the inclination on behalf of his client to withdraw an application seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt plea filed by Attorney General K K Venugopal against the activist lawyer.

When the bench said the application be withdrawn with an unconditional apology, Dave said he will tender the same on behalf of Bhushan.

However, when the bench sought Bhushan's own view, he said he was not inclined to tender an unconditional apology as the application filed by him was bona fide.

Taking note of his statement, the bench said in its order, "We make it clear that there is no reason for recusal and we will deal with it." The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

The hearing in the Supreme Court during lawyer Prashant Bhushan's application seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from adjudicating contempt plea filed against him by the Attorney General saw some heated arguments on Thursday.

The hearing in the Supreme Court during lawyer Prashant Bhushan's application seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from adjudicating contempt plea filed against him by the Attorney General saw some heated arguments on Thursday. The case was being heard by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha. Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave, appearing for Prashant Bhushan, referred to some earlier orders passed by Justice Mishra, including the one in which the apex court had made observations about lawyers going to the media on sub-judice cases, and said this has given rise to an apprehension in Bhushan's mind. "Judges think independently. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some matters, some judges may have strict views while other judges will have different views. This is the beauty of this institution," Justice Sinha observed. Dave said apprehension has to be seen from the mind of litigants and not from the mind of judges. "Please hear our application (seeking recusal). There are reasons in it." To this, the bench told Dave, "Sorry, we are not with you. We should not express any opinion on this kind of application. If you want, we can pass reasoned order and then it will reflect many things. We are telling you." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, which has also filed a separate contempt plea against Bhushan, referred to earlier orders passed by the apex court and said seeking recusal of judges has become a "pattern". He said earlier also attempts were made to have two out of three judges recuse from hearing the pleas seeking probe into the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for some social activists who have sought to intervene in the case, said Mehta has no locus to argue in the matter as the Centre's contempt plea against Bhushan was not maintainable. "He (Mehta) appears in court, stands up and argues without being a party in the case," Dhavan said. "Mr Dhavan, please maintain cool," the bench said. To this, the senior lawyer replied, "I am cool, My Lord. My biggest advantage is, I don't have blood pressure." "Please check your blood pressure anyway", Justice Mishra commented. During the hearing, Bhushan admitted in the court that he had made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted in the apex court fabricated documents of the high-powered selection panel on appointment of interim CBI director. Advocate Dave expressed the inclination on behalf of his client to withdraw an application seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt plea filed by Attorney General K K Venugopal against the activist lawyer. When the bench said the application be withdrawn with an unconditional apology, Dave said he will tender the same on behalf of Bhushan. However, when the bench sought Bhushan's own view, he said he was not inclined to tender an unconditional apology as the application filed by him was bona fide. Taking note of his statement, the bench said in its order, "We make it clear that there is no reason for recusal and we will deal with it." The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

'I am cool', says lawyer in courtroom exchange during Prashant Bhushan case hearing

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-lawyer-prashant-bhushan-on-contempt-plea-by-ag-and-centre-195507">tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting</a> of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha that in view of Bhushan's statement, he would like to withdraw his contempt plea filed against the noted lawyer.

However, Bhushan filed an application in the court seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt petition filed by Venugopal.

Bhushan also refused to tender an unconditional apology before the bench for seeking Justice Mishra's recusal.

Venugopal told the court that he stood by his earlier statement that he did not want any punishment for Bhushan in the matter.

The bench, however, said it would consider the larger issue of whether a person can criticise the court in a sub- judice matter to influence public opinion.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director. Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha that in view of Bhushan's statement, he would like to withdraw his contempt plea filed against the noted lawyer. However, Bhushan filed an application in the court seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt petition filed by Venugopal. Bhushan also refused to tender an unconditional apology before the bench for seeking Justice Mishra's recusal. Venugopal told the court that he stood by his earlier statement that he did not want any punishment for Bhushan in the matter. The bench, however, said it would consider the larger issue of whether a person can criticise the court in a sub- judice matter to influence public opinion. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

Prashant Bhushan admits in Supreme court he made 'genuine mistake' in his tweets on fabricated documents

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a review petition of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dassault-aviation-welcomes-supreme-court-judgement-on-rafale-deal-184110">its December 2018 verdict on the Rafale deal</a> which had said the deal did not need to be probed.&nbsp;

The review petition is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. The petitioners include former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and the advocate Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

Bhushan had on Wednesday referred to a newspaper article, when Venugopal said the write-ups were based on stolen documents and that an investigation into the "theft" is ongoing.&nbsp;

Venugopal said the reports were published "to influence the mind of court".&nbsp;

To which Bhushan replied: “Before AG begins, like to bring to your notice that any attempt to intimidate petitioners before the court amounts to criminal contempt. &nbsp;When AG says we are going to prosecute not only newspapers but also petitioners, it amounts to intimidation”&nbsp;

Venugopal then said: “The stolen documents were not supposed to be in public domain. RTI will not apply to security of state and to acts affecting friendly relations with foreign states. Look at the damage this article has done.”

Venugopal then said the acquisition of the Rafales “has taken six and seven years", while referring to the current tensions between India and Pakistan. "F-16 came to bomb us, how are we to be defended? First Rafale was to be delivered by September... 32 pilots sent to France for training.

"This is extent to which we are trying to protect the country. They want this not to be materialised," he added.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph then replied to the attorney general that national security cannot be used to cover up a possible act of commission.&nbsp;

"Suppose a law is broken, should we take shelter under national security?" he asked.&nbsp;

And he added that "stolen documents can be looked into, even if they are acquired illegally.”&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rafale Jet Deal case: CJI says, "Primary question is that should the court not look into the evidence or the document, if there is relevance or corruption?"AG Venugopal says, "It should not be looked into as it deals with defence and secrets."
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1103227525445156864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Venugopal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the source of the document (on which the write-up&nbsp;in The Hindu was based) should be disclosed to the court by the people who published it.&nbsp;

Bhushan meanwhile reminded the court that "in Coalgate and 2G scam cases, I brought documents from a whistleblower".&nbsp;

The matter was adjourned till March 14.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal.

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a review petition of its December 2018 verdict on the Rafale deal which had said the deal did not need to be probed. The review petition is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. The petitioners include former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and the advocate Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan had on Wednesday referred to a newspaper article, when Venugopal said the write-ups were based on stolen documents and that an investigation into the "theft" is ongoing. Venugopal said the reports were published "to influence the mind of court". To which Bhushan replied: “Before AG begins, like to bring to your notice that any attempt to intimidate petitioners before the court amounts to criminal contempt. When AG says we are going to prosecute not only newspapers but also petitioners, it amounts to intimidation” Venugopal then said: “The stolen documents were not supposed to be in public domain. RTI will not apply to security of state and to acts affecting friendly relations with foreign states. Look at the damage this article has done.” Venugopal then said the acquisition of the Rafales “has taken six and seven years", while referring to the current tensions between India and Pakistan. "F-16 came to bomb us, how are we to be defended? First Rafale was to be delivered by September... 32 pilots sent to France for training. "This is extent to which we are trying to protect the country. They want this not to be materialised," he added. Justice Joseph then replied to the attorney general that national security cannot be used to cover up a possible act of commission. "Suppose a law is broken, should we take shelter under national security?" he asked. And he added that "stolen documents can be looked into, even if they are acquired illegally.” Rafale Jet Deal case: CJI says, "Primary question is that should the court not look into the evidence or the document, if there is relevance or corruption?"AG Venugopal says, "It should not be looked into as it deals with defence and secrets." — ANI (@ANI) March 6, 2019 × Venugopal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the source of the document (on which the write-up in The Hindu was based) should be disclosed to the court by the people who published it. Bhushan meanwhile reminded the court that "in Coalgate and 2G scam cases, I brought documents from a whistleblower". The matter was adjourned till March 14.

Supreme Court asks government what it did after it says Rafale documents were stolen

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

Bhushan was given three weeks to reply.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion.

Criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice, the bench added.

"This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued," it said, listing the matter for further hearing on March 7.

Bhushan, in his tweets, alleged that the Centre, represented by Venugopal, misled the apex court on the issue of Rao's appointment.

On Tuesday, the Centre moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making a false statement in a pending case. This was days after Venugopal's contempt petition against Bhushan.

Venugopal, in his contempt plea, referred to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A K Sikri and leader of the largest opposition party Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Centre's plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal's petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea.

Venugopal's petition referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the apex court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee.

Through his tweets, Venugopal said, Bhushan appeared to have deliberately intended to cast aspersions on the "integrity and honesty" of the attorney general who had placed the minutes of the meeting before the apex court during the February 1 hearing.

On February 1, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre's decision to appoint Rao, an IPS officer, as interim CBI director.

Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan's tweets "scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court".

He said during the hearing on February 1, he had handed over to the bench the minutes of the meeting of the high-powered committee held on January 9 and January 10.

According to the petition, signatures of all the three members of the committee — were affixed in the decision taken by the panel.

Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, "I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting."

The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the high-powered committee.

"If the minutes of the meeting were to be fabricated, the members of the high powered committee who constituted the majority would have to be parties to such fabrication as their signatures are contained on the very same page on which the decision is recorded in the minutes," the plea had said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director. Bhushan was given three weeks to reply. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion. Criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice, the bench added. "This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued," it said, listing the matter for further hearing on March 7. Bhushan, in his tweets, alleged that the Centre, represented by Venugopal, misled the apex court on the issue of Rao's appointment. On Tuesday, the Centre moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making a false statement in a pending case. This was days after Venugopal's contempt petition against Bhushan. Venugopal, in his contempt plea, referred to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A K Sikri and leader of the largest opposition party Mallikarjun Kharge. The Centre's plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal's petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea. Venugopal's petition referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the apex court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee. Through his tweets, Venugopal said, Bhushan appeared to have deliberately intended to cast aspersions on the "integrity and honesty" of the attorney general who had placed the minutes of the meeting before the apex court during the February 1 hearing. On February 1, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre's decision to appoint Rao, an IPS officer, as interim CBI director. Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan's tweets "scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court". He said during the hearing on February 1, he had handed over to the bench the minutes of the meeting of the high-powered committee held on January 9 and January 10. According to the petition, signatures of all the three members of the committee — were affixed in the decision taken by the panel. Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, "I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting." The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the high-powered committee. "If the minutes of the meeting were to be fabricated, the members of the high powered committee who constituted the majority would have to be parties to such fabrication as their signatures are contained on the very same page on which the decision is recorded in the minutes," the plea had said.

Supreme Court issues notice to lawyer Prashant Bhushan for tweet on appointment of CBI chief

Former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan moved&nbsp;the Supreme Court on Wednesday for review of Rafale judgement.

Bhushan is seeking review of December 14 judgement on Rafale. Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review of Rafale judgment. <a href="https://t.co/SZk2zmwnmd">pic.twitter.com/SZk2zmwnmd</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1080347083733905408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

They are also asking to grant an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea.

The petition stated that the recent judgement contains several errors and also the judgement relies upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of principle of natural justice.

This petition also mentioned that several new facts have come to the light after the judgement was reserved in the matter, which needs to go to the root of the matter.

Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan had expressed their disappointment over the December 14 judgement of the top court on Rafale fighter jet deal.

Reacting to the Rafale verdict by the apex court, the trio, who has sought a court-monitored CBI probe into the 36-aircraft Rafale deal, issued a press statement and said, "The judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing our petition seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal is as shocking as it is disappointing. We had gone to court after making a detailed complaint to the CBI."The three petitioners said, "No Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale has been submitted or examined."

"Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of Defence deal corruption involving high functionaries. Shocked that the judgment is based on completely false information about the CAG report. No CAG report on Rafale has been submitted or examined. Shocked that court accepts Mukesh Ambani`s RIL as 'parent company'&nbsp;of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence. The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the statement read.

In their detailed statement, they also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Airforce Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any Defence procurement.

"The Air Force had in fact been asking for at least 126 fighter jets which had been approved by the DAC, tenders had been issued, 6 companies had applied, two were shortlisted and finally Dassault was selected as the lowest tender. The tender was on the basis that 126 fighters would be procured out of which only 18 would be bought in a ready to fly condition and the remaining would be manufactured in India by HAL with the transfer of technology by HAL," it said.

"All facts were documented in the complaint to the CBI and we sought a court-monitored investigation (when the CBI did not register an FIR on our complaint which is mandatory as per law)," the petitioners had claimed.

Expressing further dismay over the apex court`s verdict on the Defence deal, the petitioners said, "The court's judgement today does not even address the documented facts stated in our petition or even deal with our main prayer seeking an investigation."

It added, "On the contrary, it proceeds on the basis that we were challenging the contract itself and uses the facts stated by the government either in the short open affidavit filed or perhaps facts claimed in the sealed cover handed only to the court which was never shared with us. In fact, some of the facts mentioned in the court judgement are not only not on record but are patently incorrect."

The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress and other opposition parties have been alleging irregularities in the high-profile deal. The fighter jet is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which security analysts believe can be a 'game-changer'&nbsp;for India's defence system.

On December 14, the Supreme Court had dismissed all petitions seeking court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jet deal with France, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal.

The top court said it was not its job to go into the issue of pricing.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, said that there is no need to conduct an investigation into details of Rafale pricing."We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. Joint exercises have taken place and there is no element of financial benefits. Detailed scrutiny of Rafale Deal deal is not required," said CJI Gogoi.

Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal- Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement.

Former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday for review of Rafale judgement. Bhushan is seeking review of December 14 judgement on Rafale. Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement. Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review of Rafale judgment. pic.twitter.com/SZk2zmwnmd — ANI (@ANI) January 2, 2019 × They are also asking to grant an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea. The petition stated that the recent judgement contains several errors and also the judgement relies upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of principle of natural justice. This petition also mentioned that several new facts have come to the light after the judgement was reserved in the matter, which needs to go to the root of the matter. Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan had expressed their disappointment over the December 14 judgement of the top court on Rafale fighter jet deal. Reacting to the Rafale verdict by the apex court, the trio, who has sought a court-monitored CBI probe into the 36-aircraft Rafale deal, issued a press statement and said, "The judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing our petition seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal is as shocking as it is disappointing. We had gone to court after making a detailed complaint to the CBI."The three petitioners said, "No Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale has been submitted or examined." "Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of Defence deal corruption involving high functionaries. Shocked that the judgment is based on completely false information about the CAG report. No CAG report on Rafale has been submitted or examined. Shocked that court accepts Mukesh Ambani`s RIL as 'parent company' of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence. The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the statement read. In their detailed statement, they also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Airforce Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any Defence procurement. "The Air Force had in fact been asking for at least 126 fighter jets which had been approved by the DAC, tenders had been issued, 6 companies had applied, two were shortlisted and finally Dassault was selected as the lowest tender. The tender was on the basis that 126 fighters would be procured out of which only 18 would be bought in a ready to fly condition and the remaining would be manufactured in India by HAL with the transfer of technology by HAL," it said. "All facts were documented in the complaint to the CBI and we sought a court-monitored investigation (when the CBI did not register an FIR on our complaint which is mandatory as per law)," the petitioners had claimed. Expressing further dismay over the apex court`s verdict on the Defence deal, the petitioners said, "The court's judgement today does not even address the documented facts stated in our petition or even deal with our main prayer seeking an investigation." It added, "On the contrary, it proceeds on the basis that we were challenging the contract itself and uses the facts stated by the government either in the short open affidavit filed or perhaps facts claimed in the sealed cover handed only to the court which was never shared with us. In fact, some of the facts mentioned in the court judgement are not only not on record but are patently incorrect." The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress and other opposition parties have been alleging irregularities in the high-profile deal. The fighter jet is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which security analysts believe can be a 'game-changer' for India's defence system. On December 14, the Supreme Court had dismissed all petitions seeking court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jet deal with France, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal. The top court said it was not its job to go into the issue of pricing. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, said that there is no need to conduct an investigation into details of Rafale pricing."We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. Joint exercises have taken place and there is no element of financial benefits. Detailed scrutiny of Rafale Deal deal is not required," said CJI Gogoi.

Rafale verdict: Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">verdict</a> "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition.

"In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition," Prashant Bhushan said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Prashant Bhushan: In our opinion the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafaledeal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafaledeal</a> <a href="https://t.co/djJheTLAhr">https://t.co/djJheTLAhr</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1073453506584080385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process."

Meanwhile, home minister Rajnath Singh while hailing the court verdict said that "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/matter-was-crystal-clear-from-the-beginning-rajnath-singh-on-rafale-jets-deal-verdict-183966">the matter was crystal clear from the beginning</a>".&nbsp;

"We have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnasth Singh added.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required.

India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore.

The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition.

Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court.

Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court.

The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. 
&nbsp;

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the verdict "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition.

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the verdict "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition. "In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition," Prashant Bhushan said. Prashant Bhushan: In our opinion the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition #Rafaledeal https://t.co/djJheTLAhr — ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018 × The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process." Meanwhile, home minister Rajnath Singh while hailing the court verdict said that "the matter was crystal clear from the beginning". "We have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnasth Singh added. A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required. India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore. The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition. Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court. Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court. The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter.

He also expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report.

"Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of defence deal corruption involving high functionaries," Bhushan said in a statement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Read statement issued by Yashwant Sinha, Arun shourie &amp; myself on the disappointing and indeed shocking judgement of the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal. Apart from not dealing the issues raised by us, the judgement makes several grotesque factual errors<a href="https://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh">https://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh</a>
— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) <a href="https://twitter.com/pbhushan1/status/1073553815088054272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He said the "scandal" involving the deal will continue to agitate people in the country.

"The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the activist-lawyer said.

Bhushan was one of the petitioners who had approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal.

In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).&nbsp;

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter.

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter. He also expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report. "Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of defence deal corruption involving high functionaries," Bhushan said in a statement. Read statement issued by Yashwant Sinha, Arun shourie & myself on the disappointing and indeed shocking judgement of the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal. Apart from not dealing the issues raised by us, the judgement makes several grotesque factual errorshttps://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh — Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) December 14, 2018 × He said the "scandal" involving the deal will continue to agitate people in the country. "The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the activist-lawyer said. Bhushan was one of the petitioners who had approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal. In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract. The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).

Disappointed over SC's 'conservative view': Bhushan on Rafale deal verdict

Top court dismisses Rafale probe demand

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases.

The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition.

The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it.

"I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan.

He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter.

"Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India. A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases. The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it. "I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan. He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter. "Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea challenging allocation of cases by CJI

Rohingya refugees living in India are waiting in hope of positive verdict as Supreme Court will take up the Deportation of Rohingya case for final disposal.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case.

Last year in August, Central government announced to deport Rohingya refugees who migrated to India after escaping from Myanmar following the&nbsp;violence and discrimination against the community.

According to reports over 40,000 refugees have moved to India and got settled in areas of Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

The center stated that refugees moving to India would create a threat to the country's security as seeing the rise of terrorism in last&nbsp;decade, illegal migrants living in the country are more prone to recruitment by terrorist organisation.&nbsp;

After the center's case, a batch of petitions was filed by several Rohingya migrants challenging&nbsp;center.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093">Also read: Myanmar not ready for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093">return</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-not-ready-for-return-of-rohingya-refugees-un-official-129093"> of Rohingya refugees says UN official</a>

Advocate Prashant Bhushan is fighting Rohingya case in the court who has argued that Rohingya migrants should also be allowed to stay in India on the same terms as Sri Lankan refugees live in the country.

There were also reports alleging that Rohingya migrants are being denied services like healthcare and education. 
&nbsp; 
Advocate Tushar Mehta is representing center against the petitioners.

Meanwhile, the Centre has also questioned the credentials of the petitioners seeking to block the deportation saying that the genesis of the PILs threatens to change the country's demography and destabilise it.

More than 600,000 refugees are languishing in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing a brutal Myanmar army campaign launched in August last year.

The United Nations had said the scorched-earth operation, which has left hundreds of villages burned to ash in Rakhine state, amounts to 'ethnic cleansing'.&nbsp;

Also read: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/rohingya-crisis-un-security-council-to-visit-myanmar-bangladesh-this-month--127974">UN Security Council to visit Myanmar, Bangladesh this month</a>

(With inputs from ANI)

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case

Rohingya refugees living in India are waiting in hope of positive verdict as Supreme Court will take up the Deportation of Rohingya case for final disposal. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the case. Last year in August, Central government announced to deport Rohingya refugees who migrated to India after escaping from Myanmar following the violence and discrimination against the community. According to reports over 40,000 refugees have moved to India and got settled in areas of Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. The center stated that refugees moving to India would create a threat to the country's security as seeing the rise of terrorism in last decade, illegal migrants living in the country are more prone to recruitment by terrorist organisation. After the center's case, a batch of petitions was filed by several Rohingya migrants challenging center. Also read: Myanmar not ready for return of Rohingya refugees says UN official Advocate Prashant Bhushan is fighting Rohingya case in the court who has argued that Rohingya migrants should also be allowed to stay in India on the same terms as Sri Lankan refugees live in the country. There were also reports alleging that Rohingya migrants are being denied services like healthcare and education. Advocate Tushar Mehta is representing center against the petitioners. Meanwhile, the Centre has also questioned the credentials of the petitioners seeking to block the deportation saying that the genesis of the PILs threatens to change the country's demography and destabilise it. More than 600,000 refugees are languishing in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing a brutal Myanmar army campaign launched in August last year. The United Nations had said the scorched-earth operation, which has left hundreds of villages burned to ash in Rakhine state, amounts to 'ethnic cleansing'. Also read: UN Security Council to visit Myanmar, Bangladesh this month (With inputs from ANI)

Supreme Court verdict on Rohingya case likely today

A body comprising activists from various fields today said it has handed over a complaint against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the five seniormost Supreme Court judges over alleged misconduct in connection with the medical college bribery case.

The Convenor of Campaign for Judical Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), which held a press conference, repeated all the allegations it had raised in its PIL in the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh.

The petition was dismissed on December 1 last year.

However, in the presser held by advocate Prashant Bhushan and Anjali Bharadwaj, convenor and member of executive committee of CJAR respectively, they once again raked up the medical college scam in which it was alleged that bribes were paid in the name of judges.

The apex court had dismissed the plea of CJAR for Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the bribery case in which the CBI filed an FIR against ex-judge of Orissa high court I M Quddusi.

Quddusi and a few others were arrested in the case by the CBI and later granted bail by a court. The medical college bribery case related to Prasad Education Trust.

Referring to the in-house procedure to deal with the complaints against judges of the apex court and high courts, Bhushan said they have to be sent to the CJI but no procedure has been laid down for enquiring into a complaint against the head of the judiciary.

The complaint was sent to the four judges who have mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI. It was also sent to Arjan Kumar Sikri. The four dissenting judges were Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Bhimarao Lokur and Kurian Joseph.

Bhushan alleged that from the recorded conversation of the accused, including Qudussi, it was clear that there was a serious conspiracy of bribe in the medical college scam case.

However, he clarified that he was not alleging that the CJI was involved in the conspiracy and said that a thorough investigation was required in it.

While dismissing the petition of CJAR, the three-judge bench of Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra and A M Khanwilkar had said &quot;the petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalising the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability.

&quot;What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than subserving it.&quot;&nbsp;

The five judges were asked to probe alleged misconduct in the medical college bribery case

A body comprising activists from various fields today said it has handed over a complaint against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the five seniormost Supreme Court judges over alleged misconduct in connection with the medical college bribery case. The Convenor of Campaign for Judical Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), which held a press conference, repeated all the allegations it had raised in its PIL in the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh. The petition was dismissed on December 1 last year. However, in the presser held by advocate Prashant Bhushan and Anjali Bharadwaj, convenor and member of executive committee of CJAR respectively, they once again raked up the medical college scam in which it was alleged that bribes were paid in the name of judges. The apex court had dismissed the plea of CJAR for Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the bribery case in which the CBI filed an FIR against ex-judge of Orissa high court I M Quddusi. Quddusi and a few others were arrested in the case by the CBI and later granted bail by a court. The medical college bribery case related to Prasad Education Trust. Referring to the in-house procedure to deal with the complaints against judges of the apex court and high courts, Bhushan said they have to be sent to the CJI but no procedure has been laid down for enquiring into a complaint against the head of the judiciary. The complaint was sent to the four judges who have mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI. It was also sent to Arjan Kumar Sikri. The four dissenting judges were Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Bhimarao Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Bhushan alleged that from the recorded conversation of the accused, including Qudussi, it was clear that there was a serious conspiracy of bribe in the medical college scam case. However, he clarified that he was not alleging that the CJI was involved in the conspiracy and said that a thorough investigation was required in it. While dismissing the petition of CJAR, the three-judge bench of Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra and A M Khanwilkar had said "the petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalising the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. "What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than subserving it."

CJAR hands over complaint against CJI to SC's 5 most senior judges

Dismissing media reports that the AAP was holding talks with them for their return to the party absurd, Swaraj India founders Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav on Monday said there was no such possibility.

Bhushan retweeted a media report that quoted Aam Aadmi Party leader Kumar Vishwas as saying so and dubbed it as &quot;absurd&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
An absurd report. There are no talks or possibility of our returning to AAP which has betrayed all the ideals of the Anti Corruption movement <a href="https://t.co/dFWxdAYU7v">https://t.co/dFWxdAYU7v</a>
&mdash; Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) <a href="https://twitter.com/pbhushan1/status/937574939313369089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 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>

Kumar Vishwas on Sunday expressed displeasure over the AAP&#39;s functioning and said the party needed to go back to the basics.

He said the party workers were in talks with many of their colleagues who had since left the AAP, including Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, and apologised for any wrongs done by the party.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Really? 
Must be very secret, since both of us have not heard about it! 
 
<a href="https://t.co/Nbdb6oNN3q">https://t.co/Nbdb6oNN3q</a>
&mdash; Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) <a href="https://twitter.com/_YogendraYadav/status/937571807061667840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 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>

&quot;There are no talks or possibility of our returning to AAP, which has betrayed all the ideals of the anti-corruption movement,&quot; Bhushan tweeted.

Yadav took to Twitter and said he was &quot;surprised&quot; on reading what Vishwas had said a day before.

&quot;Really? Must be very secret, since both of us have not heard about it! In my knowledge, there is no possibility of this happening,&quot; he said in a series of tweets.

 
Yadav and Bhushan were sacked from the AAP in March 2015 for alleged anti-party activities. They had hit out at AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal over his &quot;supremo style of functioning&quot; and lack of transparency in the party.

In October 2016, the two launched a new political outfit Swaraj India.

Bhushan retweeted a media report that quoted Aam Aadmi Party leader Kumar Vishwas as saying so and dubbed it as "absurd".

Dismissing media reports that the AAP was holding talks with them for their return to the party absurd, Swaraj India founders Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav on Monday said there was no such possibility. Bhushan retweeted a media report that quoted Aam Aadmi Party leader Kumar Vishwas as saying so and dubbed it as "absurd". An absurd report. There are no talks or possibility of our returning to AAP which has betrayed all the ideals of the Anti Corruption movement https://t.co/dFWxdAYU7v — Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) December 4, 2017 × Kumar Vishwas on Sunday expressed displeasure over the AAP's functioning and said the party needed to go back to the basics. He said the party workers were in talks with many of their colleagues who had since left the AAP, including Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, and apologised for any wrongs done by the party. Really? Must be very secret, since both of us have not heard about it! https://t.co/Nbdb6oNN3q — Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) December 4, 2017 × "There are no talks or possibility of our returning to AAP, which has betrayed all the ideals of the anti-corruption movement," Bhushan tweeted. Yadav took to Twitter and said he was "surprised" on reading what Vishwas had said a day before. "Really? Must be very secret, since both of us have not heard about it! In my knowledge, there is no possibility of this happening," he said in a series of tweets. Yadav and Bhushan were sacked from the AAP in March 2015 for alleged anti-party activities. They had hit out at AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal over his "supremo style of functioning" and lack of transparency in the party. In October 2016, the two launched a new political outfit Swaraj India.

Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav rule out AAP return

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court.&quot;I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action,&quot; Bhushan told ANI.&quot;But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court,&quot; he added.

The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing&nbsp;on Monday.

However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void.

Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a &quot;hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order&quot; by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings.

&quot;It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government,&quot; Bhushan said.

&quot;A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at&nbsp;2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench,&quot; he added.

Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day.

&quot;When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case.

&quot;Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court.&quot;Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches,&quot; he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, &quot;Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest.&quot;

&quot;The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case &amp; speak against `impropriety` of Court 2,&quot; he had added.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10.

The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing.

This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri.

Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in &quot;settling&quot; a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court.

The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled a Thursday order by the same court

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court."I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action," Bhushan told ANI."But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court," he added. The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing on Monday. However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void. Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a "hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order" by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings. "It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government," Bhushan said. "A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at 2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench," he added. Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day. "When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers," he said, adding, "He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case. "Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court."Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches," he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, "Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest." "The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case & speak against `impropriety` of Court 2," he had added. The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10. The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing. This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri. Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in "settling" a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court. The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

Black day in history of Supreme Court: Prashant Bhushan

The Supreme Court asked the central government on Monday for a detailed reply on the issue of deporting the Rohingyas to Myanmar.

The Rohingya are originally from Myanmar.&nbsp;

There are some 40,000 Rohingya registered with the UNHCR as living in India.

The government has been threatening to deport all of them.&nbsp;

The Rohingya however are reviled back home in Myanmar, with the Myanmarese seeing them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh

There have been allegations of the Myanmarese army and paramilitary forces carrying out a &quot;genocide&quot; or &quot;pogrom&quot;&nbsp;against them in the western Myanmar state of Rakhine.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rohingya-children-beheaded-civlians-burned-alive-by-myanmarese-security-forces-report-19823" target="_blank">Also read:&nbsp;Rohingya children beheaded, civilians burned alive by Myanmarese security forces: Report</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-to-deport-all-40000-rohingya-living-in-india-rijiju-19001" target="_blank">Also read: Government to deport all 40,000 Rohingya living in India: Rijiju</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/as-bodies-wash-up-un-says-27000-rohingya-have-fled-myanmar-19767" target="_blank">As bodies wash up, UN says 27,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar</a>

The petition against their deportation was filed with the Supreme Court by two Rohingyas -- Mohammad Sallimullah and Mohammad Shakir.&nbsp;

On Monday, they told the Supreme Court they would face certain death should they be deported to Myanmar.&nbsp;

In the last hearing, ANI reported their advocate Prashant Bhushan as asserting that such a move -- their deportation -- would be unconstitutional as the apex court had repeatedly ruled, as in the case of Chakma refugees, that it was the cardinal duty of the Union government to protect refugees who leave their own country because of persecution at the hands of state authorities.

&nbsp;

 
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tfQcZ_6zQzM" width="560"></iframe>

There are some 40,000 Rohingya registered with the UNHCR as living in India

The Supreme Court asked the central government on Monday for a detailed reply on the issue of deporting the Rohingyas to Myanmar. The Rohingya are originally from Myanmar. There are some 40,000 Rohingya registered with the UNHCR as living in India. The government has been threatening to deport all of them. The Rohingya however are reviled back home in Myanmar, with the Myanmarese seeing them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh There have been allegations of the Myanmarese army and paramilitary forces carrying out a "genocide" or "pogrom" against them in the western Myanmar state of Rakhine. Also read: Rohingya children beheaded, civilians burned alive by Myanmarese security forces: Report Also read: Government to deport all 40,000 Rohingya living in India: Rijiju As bodies wash up, UN says 27,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar The petition against their deportation was filed with the Supreme Court by two Rohingyas -- Mohammad Sallimullah and Mohammad Shakir. On Monday, they told the Supreme Court they would face certain death should they be deported to Myanmar. In the last hearing, ANI reported their advocate Prashant Bhushan as asserting that such a move -- their deportation -- would be unconstitutional as the apex court had repeatedly ruled, as in the case of Chakma refugees, that it was the cardinal duty of the Union government to protect refugees who leave their own country because of persecution at the hands of state authorities.

Supreme Court asks government for detailed reply on deportation of Rohingyas

Rajya Sabha MP and Essel Group Chairman Dr&nbsp;Subhash Chandra&nbsp;has filed a criminal defamation case against activist, lawyer and politician&nbsp;Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

Prashant Bhushan is accused of&nbsp;levelling&nbsp;false allegations against Dr&nbsp;Subhash Chandra on Twitter.

Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House Court took cognizance and accepted it for hearing.

The next date of the case&#39;s hearing&nbsp;is October 28th.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sgieCs4LYVo" width="560"></iframe>

Prashant Bhushan had levelled false allegations against Dr?Subhash Chandra

Rajya Sabha MP and Essel Group Chairman Dr Subhash Chandra has filed a criminal defamation case against activist, lawyer and politician Prashant Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan is accused of levelling false allegations against Dr Subhash Chandra on Twitter. Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House Court took cognizance and accepted it for hearing. The next date of the case's hearing is October 28th.

Dr?Subhash Chandra files criminal defamation case against advocate Prashant Bhushan

Lawyer-politician Prashant Bhushan Sunday stoked a controversy with certain remarks on Lord Krishna while criticising the &#39;anti-Romeo&#39; drive in Uttar Pradesh, following which he was booked for hurting religious feelings. 
 
&quot;Romeo loved just one lady, while Krishna was a legendary Eve teaser. Would (UP CM Yogi) Adityanath have the guts to call his vigilantes Anti-Krishna squads?&quot; Bhushan tweeted. 
 
As the controversy erupted, he tried to control damage by tweeting that his remarks had been distorted and he had no intention of hurting religious sentiments. 
 
&quot;My tweet on Romeo brigade being distorted. My position is: By the logic of Romeo Brigade, even Lord Krishna would look like eve teaser. 
 
&quot;We have grown up with legends of young Krishna teasing Gopis. The logic of Romeo squad would criminalise this. Didn&#39;t intend to hurt sentiments,&quot; he added in another tweet. 
 
However, by then separate police complaints had been filed against him by Delhi BJP spokesperson Tajinder Pal Bagga in the national capital and UP Congress spokesperson Zeeshan Haidar in Lucknow. 
 
Manzil Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police of Lucknow, said that they have registered an FIR against Bhushan under IPC sections related to hurting religious feelings and promoting enmity between different groups. 
 
&quot;The FIR has been registered against Prashant Bhushan under sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR has been lodged at Hazratganj Police Station,&quot; the SSP told PTI. 
 
Haider said he had lodged a police complaint against Bhushan for his indecent remarks on Lord Krishna, &quot;who is revered across the world. This is not a question of Hindu or Muslim. The tweets of Bhushan have hurt sentiments of crores of devotees.&quot; 
 
The Tilak Marg police in Delhi, where Bagga has lodged a complaint, is looking into the matter, a police official said, adding no FIR has been lodged yet. 
 
The special anti-Romeo squads of UP Police were formed to check eveteasing after the Yogi Aditynath government assumed office last month, fulfilling one of the poll promises of the BJP. Critics have alleged that it has led to incidents of harassment. 
 
Stressing that his government was firm on upholding the security and dignity of women, Chief Minister Adityanath had said the state-wide drive was launched to free public places of anti-social elements and check incidents of eve-teasing, indecent behaviour and passing of lewd comments at women and girls. 
 
Bhushan is a leader of Swaraj India party, which he along with his associate Yogendra Yadav floated in October last year after being expelled from AAP. 
 
Reacting to Bhushan&#39;s&nbsp;offensive&nbsp;tweet, UP BJP spokesperson Manish Shukla, said, &quot;It simply reflects his narrow mindset. The tweet has hurt the sentiments of billions of devotees of Lord Krishna not only in India, but across the world. 
 
&quot;He is the same Prashant Bhushan, who had once said that Kashmir is not a part of India. Hence, the need of the hour is to initiate stringent legal action against him.&quot; 
 
BJP&#39;s National General Secretary Bhupendra Yadav said Bhushan should study the Indian epics before commenting.

Clarifying Bhushan&#39;s statement, Swaraj Abhiyan&#39;s spokesperson Anupam said the lawyer&#39;s tweet was a satire by which he meant that the way the anti-romeo squads were working, they could raise question over every relationship between a man and woman and with their logic, they could even term Lord Krishna as an eve-teaser. 
 
Party member Yogendra Yadav said Bhushan meant to say that in the garb of controlling crime against women, it was wrong to term every relationship between a man and a woman as an offence. 
 
He also said no case was made out against Bhushan for allegedly insulting Lord Krishna with his indecent remarks.&nbsp;

(PTI)

 
&nbsp;

The BJP and the Congress have filed police complaints against the activist-lawyer

Lawyer-politician Prashant Bhushan Sunday stoked a controversy with certain remarks on Lord Krishna while criticising the 'anti-Romeo' drive in Uttar Pradesh, following which he was booked for hurting religious feelings. "Romeo loved just one lady, while Krishna was a legendary Eve teaser. Would (UP CM Yogi) Adityanath have the guts to call his vigilantes Anti-Krishna squads?" Bhushan tweeted. As the controversy erupted, he tried to control damage by tweeting that his remarks had been distorted and he had no intention of hurting religious sentiments. "My tweet on Romeo brigade being distorted. My position is: By the logic of Romeo Brigade, even Lord Krishna would look like eve teaser. "We have grown up with legends of young Krishna teasing Gopis. The logic of Romeo squad would criminalise this. Didn't intend to hurt sentiments," he added in another tweet. However, by then separate police complaints had been filed against him by Delhi BJP spokesperson Tajinder Pal Bagga in the national capital and UP Congress spokesperson Zeeshan Haidar in Lucknow. Manzil Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police of Lucknow, said that they have registered an FIR against Bhushan under IPC sections related to hurting religious feelings and promoting enmity between different groups. "The FIR has been registered against Prashant Bhushan under sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR has been lodged at Hazratganj Police Station," the SSP told PTI. Haider said he had lodged a police complaint against Bhushan for his indecent remarks on Lord Krishna, "who is revered across the world. This is not a question of Hindu or Muslim. The tweets of Bhushan have hurt sentiments of crores of devotees." The Tilak Marg police in Delhi, where Bagga has lodged a complaint, is looking into the matter, a police official said, adding no FIR has been lodged yet. The special anti-Romeo squads of UP Police were formed to check eveteasing after the Yogi Aditynath government assumed office last month, fulfilling one of the poll promises of the BJP. Critics have alleged that it has led to incidents of harassment. Stressing that his government was firm on upholding the security and dignity of women, Chief Minister Adityanath had said the state-wide drive was launched to free public places of anti-social elements and check incidents of eve-teasing, indecent behaviour and passing of lewd comments at women and girls. Bhushan is a leader of Swaraj India party, which he along with his associate Yogendra Yadav floated in October last year after being expelled from AAP. Reacting to Bhushan's offensive tweet, UP BJP spokesperson Manish Shukla, said, "It simply reflects his narrow mindset. The tweet has hurt the sentiments of billions of devotees of Lord Krishna not only in India, but across the world. "He is the same Prashant Bhushan, who had once said that Kashmir is not a part of India. Hence, the need of the hour is to initiate stringent legal action against him." BJP's National General Secretary Bhupendra Yadav said Bhushan should study the Indian epics before commenting. Clarifying Bhushan's statement, Swaraj Abhiyan's spokesperson Anupam said the lawyer's tweet was a satire by which he meant that the way the anti-romeo squads were working, they could raise question over every relationship between a man and woman and with their logic, they could even term Lord Krishna as an eve-teaser. Party member Yogendra Yadav said Bhushan meant to say that in the garb of controlling crime against women, it was wrong to term every relationship between a man and a woman as an offence. He also said no case was made out against Bhushan for allegedly insulting Lord Krishna with his indecent remarks. (PTI)

Prashant Bhushan in row for invoking Lord Krishna for Uttar Pradesh anti-Romeo squads

prashant-bhushan

Prashant Bhushan, News on Prashant Bhushan, stories on Prashant Bhushan, articles on Prashant Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan stories at Wion, Prashant Bhushan news, Prashant Bhushan latest news

prashant bhushan

India’s former law minister Shanti Bhushan dies at 97

Comments were made in good faith, founded on facts: Prashant Bhushan seeks review of conviction in SC

Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee

Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary

News brief: Big stories of the day

News brief: Big stories of the day

'I am cool', says lawyer in courtroom exchange during Prashant Bhushan case hearing

Prashant Bhushan admits in Supreme court he made 'genuine mistake' in his tweets on fabricated documents

Supreme Court asks government what it did after it says Rafale documents were stolen

Supreme Court issues notice to lawyer Prashant Bhushan for tweet on appointment of CBI chief

Rafale verdict: Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review

Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict

Disappointed over SC's 'conservative view': Bhushan on Rafale deal verdict

Top court dismisses Rafale probe demand

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea challenging allocation of cases by CJI

Supreme Court verdict on Rohingya case likely today

CJAR hands over complaint against CJI to SC's 5 most senior judges

Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav rule out AAP return

Black day in history of Supreme Court: Prashant Bhushan

Supreme Court asks government for detailed reply on deportation of Rohingyas

Dr?Subhash Chandra files criminal defamation case against advocate Prashant Bhushan

Prashant Bhushan in row for invoking Lord Krishna for Uttar Pradesh anti-Romeo squads