The Punjab and Haryana High Court handed out a 30-year jail term to a man for the rape and murder of a minor girl in 2018 and made a factual observation saying that mothers in India treat their “precious sons as raja betas” no matter how “imperfect or villainous” they might be. A bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur made the observation while hearing the appeal of a mother-son duo convicted for the rape and murder of a five-year-old minor girl. “Unfortunately, in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their ‘precious’ sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as ‘Raja Betas’,” the court said, and imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh on the convict to be paid to the child’s family.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Accused raped and murdered minor daughter of his employer</h2>&nbsp;The accused had raped and murdered the minor daughter of his employer on May 31, 2018. The minor’s father was a tent installer, and the accused had been working with him for over five years.The accused allegedly took the minor to his home, where he raped and killed her with a kitchen knife and hid her body in a container while his mother had gone to work.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/yearender-2025-the-year-of-wars-tariff-turmoil-and-climate-disasters-1766568207775">Yearender 2025: The year of wars, tariff turmoil, and climate disasters</a>&nbsp;Some villagers said they had seen the accused taking the minor towards his home, after which the owner of a local school where CCTV was installed was contacted. The footage showed the accused taking the girl along while holding her hand. The family members then went to the house of the accused and enquired about him and the girl, but his mother denied their presence. However, she refused to let them in. One of the child’s cousins noticed a container lying in the compound, and her body was found in it.&nbsp;<h2>Accused-mother duo booked under various sections</h2>&nbsp;The accused was booked under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc), 363 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the IPC, and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/yearender-2025-the-year-dissent-and-angst-triggered-mass-protests-worldwide-1766674340518">Yearender 2025: The year dissent and angst triggered mass protests worldwide</a>&nbsp;The accused’s mother was also booked under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc), 363 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender).&nbsp;On January 24, 2020, the trial court convicted the mother-son duo. It sentenced the accused to capital punishment and his mother to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.They subsequently challenged their punishments in the high court.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-may-darkness-give-way-to-dawn-sheikh-hasina-slams-yunus-govt-over-attacks-on-minorities-1766685102235">‘Perpetrating unspeakable atrocities’: Sheikh Hasina slams Yunus govt over attacks on minorities</a><h2>HC bench acquits mother of all charges</h2>&nbsp;The court termed the mother’s attempt to shield her son as appalling and added that the attitude was not new and “deeply embedded in the region’s patriarchal mindset and culture”.“The mother, after discovering that her Raja-beta, was not as gullible as his name suggested and he had assaulted and brutally killed a girl-child aged five, prioritised shielding her son instead of informing the police or seeking justice for the girl,” the court said.Due to her “orthodox conditioning,” she tried to protect her “Raja-beta,” it said. In a civilised society, if any such “barbaric incident” would have happened, then a mother would have preferred justice for the minor girl than for her “Raja-beta”, the bench added.The court acquitted the mother of all charges, saying her only fault was that she was trying to protect her “Raja-beta”, for which she cannot be punished.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-yunus-govt-destroyed-bangladesh-giving-security-to-goons-terrorists-former-mp-1766665361993">‘Yunus govt destroyed Bangladesh, giving security to goons, terrorists’: Former MP</a><h2>Commutes death penalty of accused to 30-year jail term</h2>&nbsp;Calling the crime gruesome, the court said in its order, “To save the other kids and females, the convict must stay inside the four walls of the prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility.”&nbsp;&nbsp;The court also commuted the death penalty of accused to 30 years in jail, saying the minor’s murder was because of “panic” to destroy evidence of rape and not a premeditated act.

The high court acquitted the mother of all charges, saying her only fault was that she was trying to protect her “Raja-beta”, for which she cannot be punished. It further said that the convict must stay inside the four walls of prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court handed out a 30-year jail term to a man for the rape and murder of a minor girl in 2018 and made a factual observation saying that mothers in India treat their “precious sons as raja betas” no matter how “imperfect or villainous” they might be. A bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur made the observation while hearing the appeal of a mother-son duo convicted for the rape and murder of a five-year-old minor girl. “Unfortunately, in this part of India, family members, especially mothers, often have such blind love for their ‘precious’ sons that, no matter how imperfect or villainous they might be, they are still regarded as ‘Raja Betas’,” the court said, and imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh on the convict to be paid to the child’s family. Accused raped and murdered minor daughter of his employer The accused had raped and murdered the minor daughter of his employer on May 31, 2018. The minor’s father was a tent installer, and the accused had been working with him for over five years. The accused allegedly took the minor to his home, where he raped and killed her with a kitchen knife and hid her body in a container while his mother had gone to work. Also Read: Yearender 2025: The year of wars, tariff turmoil, and climate disasters Some villagers said they had seen the accused taking the minor towards his home, after which the owner of a local school where CCTV was installed was contacted. The footage showed the accused taking the girl along while holding her hand. The family members then went to the house of the accused and enquired about him and the girl, but his mother denied their presence. However, she refused to let them in. One of the child’s cousins noticed a container lying in the compound, and her body was found in it. Accused-mother duo booked under various sections The accused was booked under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc), 363 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the IPC, and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Also Read: Yearender 2025: The year dissent and angst triggered mass protests worldwide The accused’s mother was also booked under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc), 363 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender). On January 24, 2020, the trial court convicted the mother-son duo. It sentenced the accused to capital punishment and his mother to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. They subsequently challenged their punishments in the high court. Also Read: ‘Perpetrating unspeakable atrocities’: Sheikh Hasina slams Yunus govt over attacks on minorities HC bench acquits mother of all charges The court termed the mother’s attempt to shield her son as appalling and added that the attitude was not new and “deeply embedded in the region’s patriarchal mindset and culture”. “The mother, after discovering that her Raja-beta, was not as gullible as his name suggested and he had assaulted and brutally killed a girl-child aged five, prioritised shielding her son instead of informing the police or seeking justice for the girl,” the court said. Due to her “orthodox conditioning,” she tried to protect her “Raja-beta,” it said. In a civilised society, if any such “barbaric incident” would have happened, then a mother would have preferred justice for the minor girl than for her “Raja-beta”, the bench added. The court acquitted the mother of all charges, saying her only fault was that she was trying to protect her “Raja-beta”, for which she cannot be punished. Also Read: ‘Yunus govt destroyed Bangladesh, giving security to goons, terrorists’: Former MP Commutes death penalty of accused to 30-year jail term Calling the crime gruesome, the court said in its order, “To save the other kids and females, the convict must stay inside the four walls of the prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility.” The court also commuted the death penalty of accused to 30 years in jail, saying the minor’s murder was because of “panic” to destroy evidence of rape and not a premeditated act.

The high court acquitted the mother of all charges, saying her only fault was that she was trying to protect her “Raja-beta”, for which she cannot be punished. It further said that the convict must stay inside the four walls of prison until he is closer to the sunset of his virility.

Mothers have blind love for ‘raja betas’ who can be villainous, says HC, gives 30-year jail to man in rape, murder case

An Indian High Court has ruled that while minors in live-in relationships cannot seek legal protection from courts, adults, even those already married, should be given protection if facing threats.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that married persons entering into live-in relationships should be given protection if they are facing threats from their respective families or "moral vigilants".&nbsp;

The judgment was delivered in a case involving three separate petitions, reports Law Trend. The first involved a married man&nbsp;living with another woman in a live-in relationship. The second case, meanwhile, involved a married woman in a live-in relationship with another man.

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:181,&quot;w&quot;:622,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:1938}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iaf-wing-commander-booked-after-flying-officer-accuses-him-of-rape-stalking-757532">IAF Wing Commander booked after woman flying officer accuses him of ‘rape, stalking’</a>

The third case was an appeal against a previous order from August 31, 2021, which dismissed a similar petition for a live-in couple's protection. The appellant was also ordered to pay costs.

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:267,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2024}">Autonomy of body</h2>

A bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma noted that every person has "autonomy of body" and that if any assault is permitted on any live-in couple, it will be a casualty.

"Irrespective of socio-moral effect of such live-in relationships rather the preemptions of apposite assaults of any nature, befalling the live-in couple concerned, is the cornerstone of the structure laid by the Apex Court, wherebys, self autonomy in its various dynamic forms has been endowed upon the live-in couple, even if one of them is married, and, even if therebys thus decriminalised adultery does erupt. Therefore, therebys the protection to the above genre of relationship is to be granted," opined the division bench of the High Court.

However, the court observed that those with minor children should not abandon his/her duty to provide optimum care and protection to their wards.

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:512,&quot;w&quot;:694,&quot;h&quot;:34,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2269}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-twelve-including-four-children-dead-in-gujarat-from-mystery-illness-after-heavy-rains-757006">India: Twelve including four children dead in Gujarat from 'mystery illness' after heavy rains</a>

It also noted that the well-being of children born out of wedlock also needs to be addressed, and that male partners in live-in relationships who father minor children have a moral obligation to maintain and care for them.

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:633,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2390}">Minors and live-in relationships</h2>

While the court noted the 'autonomy of body' of an adult person, it said that due to statutory limitations on the capacity of minors to make autonomous decisions, they cannot seek legal protection.

"A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live-in relationship is partnered only by minors, the concerned cannot seek the protection from the courts of law."

"The reason for reaching the conclusion is firmly embedded in the factum that a minor belonging to any religious denomination is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom," said the bench.

The bench further elaborated that, under several Indian statutes including the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Guardians and Wards Act and the Indian Majority Act, minors were legally restricted from entering into contracts.

(With inputs from agencies)

An Indian High Court has ruled that while minors in live-in relationships cannot seek legal protection from courts, adults, even those already married, should be given protection if facing threats.

An Indian High Court has ruled that while minors in live-in relationships cannot seek legal protection from courts, adults, even those already married, should be given protection if facing threats. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that married persons entering into live-in relationships should be given protection if they are facing threats from their respective families or "moral vigilants". The judgment was delivered in a case involving three separate petitions, reports Law Trend. The first involved a married man living with another woman in a live-in relationship. The second case, meanwhile, involved a married woman in a live-in relationship with another man. Also read | IAF Wing Commander booked after woman flying officer accuses him of ‘rape, stalking’ The third case was an appeal against a previous order from August 31, 2021, which dismissed a similar petition for a live-in couple's protection. The appellant was also ordered to pay costs. Autonomy of body A bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma noted that every person has "autonomy of body" and that if any assault is permitted on any live-in couple, it will be a casualty. "Irrespective of socio-moral effect of such live-in relationships rather the preemptions of apposite assaults of any nature, befalling the live-in couple concerned, is the cornerstone of the structure laid by the Apex Court, wherebys, self autonomy in its various dynamic forms has been endowed upon the live-in couple, even if one of them is married, and, even if therebys thus decriminalised adultery does erupt. Therefore, therebys the protection to the above genre of relationship is to be granted," opined the division bench of the High Court. However, the court observed that those with minor children should not abandon his/her duty to provide optimum care and protection to their wards. Also read | India: Twelve including four children dead in Gujarat from 'mystery illness' after heavy rains It also noted that the well-being of children born out of wedlock also needs to be addressed, and that male partners in live-in relationships who father minor children have a moral obligation to maintain and care for them. Minors and live-in relationships While the court noted the 'autonomy of body' of an adult person, it said that due to statutory limitations on the capacity of minors to make autonomous decisions, they cannot seek legal protection. "A minor in a live-in relationship with an adult or where the live-in relationship is partnered only by minors, the concerned cannot seek the protection from the courts of law." "The reason for reaching the conclusion is firmly embedded in the factum that a minor belonging to any religious denomination is incompetent to contract. If so, he/she has no capacity even to make choices or to express his/her freedom," said the bench. The bench further elaborated that, under several Indian statutes including the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Guardians and Wards Act and the Indian Majority Act, minors were legally restricted from entering into contracts. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Court rules married adults in live-in can be given protection, excludes minors in similar relationships

India’s top court on Wednesday (Aug 7) blasted a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who had criticised the Supreme Court’s order passed on May 3. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud remarked that the statement by Judge Rajbir Sehrawat was "scandalous" and "unwarranted".

Although the bench schooled the judge over the required discipline of hierarchy, it stopped short of initiating proceedings.

<h2>The controversial order of Judge Rajbir Sehrawat</h2>

Sehrawat, in an order passed on July 17, had criticised a May 3 ruling of the apex court, saying the top court "turns out to be simply in the nature of putting an estoppel on the powers of the High Court".

There was a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to presume that it was "more Supreme", the judge had said.

<h2>Reaction by Supreme Court</h2>

The Supreme Court bench said it was “pained” by the remarks of the judge. It added that neither the top court nor high courts were supreme and supremacy is actually of the Constitution of India.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjSrvLsguOHAxUfxzgGHQiINzYQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aap-vs-delhi-lt-governor-supreme-court-upholds-l-gs-powers-in-mcd-747247" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aap-vs-delhi-lt-governor-supreme-court-upholds-l-gs-powers-in-mcd-747247&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjSrvLsguOHAxUfxzgGHQiINzYQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">AAP vs Delhi Lt Governor: Supreme Court upholds L-G`s powers in MCD</a>

“This tendency of passing observation about the Supreme Court is not correct. Discipline has to be maintained. This discipline of hierarchy has to be maintained and the discipline of system has to be maintained. There is work pressure on high court judges. The Supreme Court must also use its powers with great caution and remedy by us should not cause greater judicial harm," the SC bench said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjSrvLsguOHAxUfxzgGHQiINzYQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-dismisses-bail-plea-by-cm-arvind-kejriwal-in-excise-case-747298" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-dismisses-bail-plea-by-cm-arvind-kejriwal-in-excise-case-747298&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjSrvLsguOHAxUfxzgGHQiINzYQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE">Delhi High Court dismisses CM Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against arrest by CBI in excise case</a>

"The observations which were made in the order of the single judge were unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous observations with regard to the previous orders passed by the Supreme Court are absolutely unwarranted. Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice but a matter of the constitutional obligation. Parties may be aggrieved by an order. Judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum," the bench added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India’s top court on Wednesday (Aug 7) blasted a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who had criticised the Supreme Court’s order passed on May 3. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud remarked that the statement by Judge Rajbir Sehrawat was "scandalous" and "unwarranted".

India’s top court on Wednesday (Aug 7) blasted a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who had criticised the Supreme Court’s order passed on May 3. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud remarked that the statement by Judge Rajbir Sehrawat was "scandalous" and "unwarranted". Although the bench schooled the judge over the required discipline of hierarchy, it stopped short of initiating proceedings. The controversial order of Judge Rajbir Sehrawat Sehrawat, in an order passed on July 17, had criticised a May 3 ruling of the apex court, saying the top court "turns out to be simply in the nature of putting an estoppel on the powers of the High Court". There was a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to presume that it was "more Supreme", the judge had said. Reaction by Supreme Court The Supreme Court bench said it was “pained” by the remarks of the judge. It added that neither the top court nor high courts were supreme and supremacy is actually of the Constitution of India. Also read: AAP vs Delhi Lt Governor: Supreme Court upholds L-G`s powers in MCD “This tendency of passing observation about the Supreme Court is not correct. Discipline has to be maintained. This discipline of hierarchy has to be maintained and the discipline of system has to be maintained. There is work pressure on high court judges. The Supreme Court must also use its powers with great caution and remedy by us should not cause greater judicial harm," the SC bench said. Also read: Delhi High Court dismisses CM Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against arrest by CBI in excise case "The observations which were made in the order of the single judge were unnecessary for the ultimate order which was passed. Gratuitous observations with regard to the previous orders passed by the Supreme Court are absolutely unwarranted. Compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice but a matter of the constitutional obligation. Parties may be aggrieved by an order. Judges are never aggrieved by an order passed by a higher constitutional forum," the bench added. (With inputs from agencies)

Court vs court: India’s Supreme Court blasts high court judge for ‘unwarranted’ criticism

In India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday (March 27) used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI's ChatGPT while deciding a bail case.&nbsp;

India-based media reports mentioned that the court noted that "any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made… is only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor".&nbsp;

In a first, Justice Anoop Chitkara referred to the AI text generator's answer in the legal ruling. He assessed the worldwide view on bail "when the assault was laced with cruelty".&nbsp;

Artificial intelligence has become the current hot topic in the tech industry, doing mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. AI chatbots are saving time and energy in day-to-day activities like writing, speech recognition, translation, etc.&nbsp;

AI chatbots are gradually becoming a significant part of some industries, but several experts have raised concerns. Its usage has become common in academics, journalism, etc, but the merge of AI in the judicial system is quite unique.&nbsp;

Before it passed the order, the bench asked the AI: "What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?"

The ChatGPT reply was: "The jurisprudence on bail for cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction&nbsp;where the case is being tried."&nbsp;

"However, in general, if the assailants have been charged with a violent crime that involves cruelty, such as murder, aggravated assault, or torture, they may be considered a danger to the community and a flight risk. In such cases, the judge may be less inclined to grant bail or may set the bail amount very high to ensure that the defendant appears in court and does not pose a risk to public safety.

"The severity of the assault, the defendant’s criminal history, and the strength of the evidence against them are all factors that a judge will consider when deciding whether to grant bail. It is important to note that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the justice system, and all defendants are entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.

"Therefore, even in cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty, they may still be granted bail if the judge determines that they do not pose a risk to the community or a flight risk," the AI-generated text read.&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>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday (March 27) used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI's ChatGPT while deciding a bail case.

In India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday (March 27) used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI's ChatGPT while deciding a bail case. India-based media reports mentioned that the court noted that "any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made… is only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor". In a first, Justice Anoop Chitkara referred to the AI text generator's answer in the legal ruling. He assessed the worldwide view on bail "when the assault was laced with cruelty". Artificial intelligence has become the current hot topic in the tech industry, doing mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. AI chatbots are saving time and energy in day-to-day activities like writing, speech recognition, translation, etc. AI chatbots are gradually becoming a significant part of some industries, but several experts have raised concerns. Its usage has become common in academics, journalism, etc, but the merge of AI in the judicial system is quite unique. Before it passed the order, the bench asked the AI: "What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants assaulted with cruelty?" The ChatGPT reply was: "The jurisprudence on bail for cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction where the case is being tried." "However, in general, if the assailants have been charged with a violent crime that involves cruelty, such as murder, aggravated assault, or torture, they may be considered a danger to the community and a flight risk. In such cases, the judge may be less inclined to grant bail or may set the bail amount very high to ensure that the defendant appears in court and does not pose a risk to public safety. "The severity of the assault, the defendant’s criminal history, and the strength of the evidence against them are all factors that a judge will consider when deciding whether to grant bail. It is important to note that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the justice system, and all defendants are entitled to bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. "Therefore, even in cases where the assailants have assaulted with cruelty, they may still be granted bail if the judge determines that they do not pose a risk to the community or a flight risk," the AI-generated text read. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India: Punjab and Haryana High Court asks ChatGPT's opinion in murder case

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

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

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

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

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notice to the Haryana government on the anticipatory bail plea filed by the three trustees of Ryan International School in connection with the murder of a student in its Gurgaon school. 
 
However, the single bench of Justice Inderjit Singh did not grant a stay on arrests in the matter.

The court has posted the matter for next Monday.

&quot;The single bench has issued notice of motion to the Haryana government seeking its response on the anticipatory bail plea,&quot; said the counsel for the Ryan trustees.

The group&#39;s CEO, Ryan Pinto, and his parents, founding chairman Augustine Pinto and managing director Grace Pinto, had approached the High Court last week, seeking anticipatory bail.

Yesterday, Justice A B Chaudhari had recused himself from hearing their plea.

On September 14, the Bombay High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of the three Mumbai-based trustees.

The Pintos had approached the Bombay High Court after the school was accused of negligence in the death of seven-year- old Pradyuman who was murdered in a toilet of Ryan International in Gurgaon on September 8.

Bus conductor Ashok was arrested in connection with the crime. 
&nbsp;

The group's CEO, Ryan Pinto, and his parents, founding chairman Augustine Pinto and managing director Grace Pinto, had approached the High Court last week, seeking anticipatory bail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notice to the Haryana government on the anticipatory bail plea filed by the three trustees of Ryan International School in connection with the murder of a student in its Gurgaon school. However, the single bench of Justice Inderjit Singh did not grant a stay on arrests in the matter. The court has posted the matter for next Monday. "The single bench has issued notice of motion to the Haryana government seeking its response on the anticipatory bail plea," said the counsel for the Ryan trustees. The group's CEO, Ryan Pinto, and his parents, founding chairman Augustine Pinto and managing director Grace Pinto, had approached the High Court last week, seeking anticipatory bail. Yesterday, Justice A B Chaudhari had recused himself from hearing their plea. On September 14, the Bombay High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of the three Mumbai-based trustees. The Pintos had approached the Bombay High Court after the school was accused of negligence in the death of seven-year- old Pradyuman who was murdered in a toilet of Ryan International in Gurgaon on September 8. Bus conductor Ashok was arrested in connection with the crime.

Ryan student murder: High court refuses to stay school owners' arrest

Security outside the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dera-sacha-sauda-chief-sentenced-to-20-years-in-jail-for-rape-19583">Dera Sacha Sauda headquarters in Sirsa&nbsp;has been </a>beefed up as the search operation inside the sprawling premises is underway.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-exclusive-inside-gurmeet-ram-rahims-strange-fantastical-home-19934">WATCH EXCLUSIVE: Inside Gurmeet Ram Rahim&#39;s strange &amp; fantastical home</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sirsa: Security deployed at Satnaam Chowk, main entrance to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DeraSachaSauda?src=hash">#DeraSachaSauda</a> HQ. Security forces will conduct search ops inside Dera today. <a href="https://t.co/qeLQ7jD8cR">pic.twitter.com/qeLQ7jD8cR</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/905972004125196288">September 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Around 41 paramilitary companies, four Army columns, police from&nbsp;four districts, one SWAT team &amp; one dog squad have been deployed for the search operation at the Dera headquarters in Sirsa.

Authorities have imposed a curfew in the area surrounding the Dera headquarters.

The search was ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sirsa: Security personnel &amp; concerned officials entered premises of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DeraSachaSauda?src=hash">#DeraSachaSauda</a> HQ to conduct search as ordered by Punjab &amp; Haryana HC <a href="https://t.co/YST6xgiBVs">pic.twitter.com/YST6xgiBVs</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/905978026105610241">September 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had rapped the Haryana government&nbsp;for the violence that took place after<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dera-sacha-sauda-chief-sentenced-to-20-years-in-jail-for-rape-19583" target="_blank"> Ram Rahim Singh was convicted by a special CBI court</a> which claimed 36 lives.

The Haryana government,&nbsp;in a major <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dera-violence-death-toll-rises-to-36-19543" target="_blank">crackdown&nbsp;on the Dera</a>, had sealed its 30 congregation centres across the state last month.

&nbsp;

 
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KIeBzgDv0CI" width="560"></iframe> 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The search was ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court

Security outside the Dera Sacha Sauda headquarters in Sirsa has been beefed up as the search operation inside the sprawling premises is underway. WATCH EXCLUSIVE: Inside Gurmeet Ram Rahim's strange & fantastical home Sirsa: Security deployed at Satnaam Chowk, main entrance to #DeraSachaSauda HQ. Security forces will conduct search ops inside Dera today. pic.twitter.com/qeLQ7jD8cR — ANI (@ANI) September 8, 2017 × Around 41 paramilitary companies, four Army columns, police from four districts, one SWAT team & one dog squad have been deployed for the search operation at the Dera headquarters in Sirsa. Authorities have imposed a curfew in the area surrounding the Dera headquarters. The search was ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Sirsa: Security personnel & concerned officials entered premises of #DeraSachaSauda HQ to conduct search as ordered by Punjab & Haryana HC pic.twitter.com/YST6xgiBVs — ANI (@ANI) September 8, 2017 × The Punjab and Haryana High Court had rapped the Haryana government for the violence that took place after Ram Rahim Singh was convicted by a special CBI court which claimed 36 lives. The Haryana government, in a major crackdown on the Dera, had sealed its 30 congregation centres across the state last month.

Heavy security outside Dera Sacha Sauda headquarters in Sirsa as search operation begins