The Central government on Tuesday mentioned the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ready-to-provide-air-ambulance-to-mehul-choksi-to-bring-him-back-to-india-enforcement-directorate-tells-court-229405">fugitive Mehul Choksi</a> case seeking an urgent hearing against a Bombay High Court order allowing Choksi`s counsel to furnish his health report.&nbsp;

Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it may have an impact on fugitive`s extradition from Antigua.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court had on June 24 stated that a team of specialists from Mumbai`s JJ Hospital will give a report to the High Court on the present health condition of Mehul Choksi to ascertain whether he is fit to travel from Antigua to India for interrogation or not.

&nbsp;At that time, Choksi's lawyers were directed to submit his latest medical reports to the team within a week.&nbsp;

The doctors will submit a report on the status of Choksi's health in a sealed cover to the court on July 9. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the matter for hearing on July 10.&nbsp;

The Central government on Tuesday mentioned the fugitive Mehul Choksi case seeking an urgent hearing against a Bombay High Court order allowing Choksi`s counsel to furnish his health report.

The Central government on Tuesday mentioned the fugitive Mehul Choksi case seeking an urgent hearing against a Bombay High Court order allowing Choksi`s counsel to furnish his health report. Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it may have an impact on fugitive`s extradition from Antigua. The Bombay High Court had on June 24 stated that a team of specialists from Mumbai`s JJ Hospital will give a report to the High Court on the present health condition of Mehul Choksi to ascertain whether he is fit to travel from Antigua to India for interrogation or not. At that time, Choksi's lawyers were directed to submit his latest medical reports to the team within a week. The doctors will submit a report on the status of Choksi's health in a sealed cover to the court on July 9. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the matter for hearing on July 10.

Centre mentions Mehul Choksi case in Supreme Court for urgent hearing

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan&nbsp;Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/all-you-need-to-know-about-shanghai-cooperation-organisation-227166">chief justices in Sochi, Russia</a>.&nbsp;

While emphasising on the dire need to develop and nurture leadership in the judiciary, the CJI said that every nation should aspire for an independent judicial system and independence is the "very soul" of a functioning judiciary.

He explained countries that support and invest in a strong judicial infrastructure are more likely to become nations with stable governments and administrations.&nbsp;

On India experience, he said, executive and judiciary enjoy healthy relationship of mutual respect.

Other Indian Supreme court judges who participated in the meet were Justice V.N.Ramana, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice M.R.Shah.&nbsp;

On Monday, CJI Gogoi met Russian chief justice Vyacheslav Lebedev during which he said he would look forward to learn from other SCO member states on fast disposal of cases.&nbsp;

He said, the Indian judicial system can absorb practices such as mediation, out of court settlement to resolve pendency of cases, which Indian courts have highest among the world.

The SCO Supreme court judges conference ended with a declaration for further promotion of cooperation among judicial bodies of SCO countries.

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of chief justices in Sochi, Russia.

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of chief justices in Sochi, Russia. While emphasising on the dire need to develop and nurture leadership in the judiciary, the CJI said that every nation should aspire for an independent judicial system and independence is the "very soul" of a functioning judiciary. He explained countries that support and invest in a strong judicial infrastructure are more likely to become nations with stable governments and administrations. On India experience, he said, executive and judiciary enjoy healthy relationship of mutual respect. Other Indian Supreme court judges who participated in the meet were Justice V.N.Ramana, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice M.R.Shah. On Monday, CJI Gogoi met Russian chief justice Vyacheslav Lebedev during which he said he would look forward to learn from other SCO member states on fast disposal of cases. He said, the Indian judicial system can absorb practices such as mediation, out of court settlement to resolve pendency of cases, which Indian courts have highest among the world. The SCO Supreme court judges conference ended with a declaration for further promotion of cooperation among judicial bodies of SCO countries.

Independence of judiciary not a one-time pill, says CJI Gogoi at SCO conference

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/saradha-scam-supreme-court-vacates-order-granting-protection-from-arrest-to-ex-kolkata-commissioner-rajeev-kumar-219314">Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar</a> Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case.

Kumar's lawyer mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna. The council said the apex court had on May 17 granted seven days time to Kumar to approach the competent court for legal remedies but they want an extension of time as lawyers in Kolkata courts are presently on a strike.

Kumar's counsel said four days have already elapsed and they needed time to approach the competent court in Kolkata. However, the bench said since the May 17 order was passed by a three-judge bench, they can approach the registry for the listing of the matter before an appropriate bench.

"You are a lawyer and you know that CJI is the master of roster," the bench told Kumar's counsel and asked him to approach the registry for the listing of the matter. On May 17, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had withdrawn the protection from arrest granted to Kumar by its February 5 order.

The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate with the investigation of cases arising out of the scam.

The bench, however, had said the protection to Kumar would continue for seven days from May 17 to enable him to approach the competent court for relief. The top court had also expressed concern over the confrontation between the CBI and the West Bengal Police in the case, saying that "at the receiving end are silently waiting for lakhs of a small town and rural investors who have been deprived and looted of their savings".

The bench had said the situation was grim as both sides have hardened their stand and there was no administrative mechanism in place to avoid and resolve such conflicts between two wings of the police force in the country.

It had noted that the CBI had issued three notices on October 18 and October 23, 2017, and on December 8, 2018, asking Kumar to appear and join the investigation, but he had not responded.

The court had also noted that the West Bengal government and Kumar have alleged "political vendetta" and have made allegations against M Nageswara Rao, former interim CBI director. In its order, the court had said the CBI had alleged non-cooperation and charged WB state police with "obfuscating investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protecting big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal".

The court had noted the CBI's claim of having substantial material implicating Kumar, the then Commissioner, Bidhannagar Commissionerate, of connivance and complicity with the principal accused.

Earlier, Kumar in an affidavit before the court had alleged that he was targeted by the CBI in the chit fund case due to "mala fide intent" and "conflict of interest" of Rao as his family members were under the scanner post-demonetisation.

The Election Commission on Wednesday had ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control incidents of violence in the state and had asked him to report to the Union Home Ministry on Thursday.

Kumar was removed along with West Bengal's Principal Secretary (Home) Atri Bhattacharya after parts of Kolkata witnessed widespread violence during BJP president Amit Shah's massive roadshow in the city.&nbsp;

Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case.

Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case. Kumar's lawyer mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna. The council said the apex court had on May 17 granted seven days time to Kumar to approach the competent court for legal remedies but they want an extension of time as lawyers in Kolkata courts are presently on a strike. Kumar's counsel said four days have already elapsed and they needed time to approach the competent court in Kolkata. However, the bench said since the May 17 order was passed by a three-judge bench, they can approach the registry for the listing of the matter before an appropriate bench. "You are a lawyer and you know that CJI is the master of roster," the bench told Kumar's counsel and asked him to approach the registry for the listing of the matter. On May 17, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had withdrawn the protection from arrest granted to Kumar by its February 5 order. The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate with the investigation of cases arising out of the scam. The bench, however, had said the protection to Kumar would continue for seven days from May 17 to enable him to approach the competent court for relief. The top court had also expressed concern over the confrontation between the CBI and the West Bengal Police in the case, saying that "at the receiving end are silently waiting for lakhs of a small town and rural investors who have been deprived and looted of their savings". The bench had said the situation was grim as both sides have hardened their stand and there was no administrative mechanism in place to avoid and resolve such conflicts between two wings of the police force in the country. It had noted that the CBI had issued three notices on October 18 and October 23, 2017, and on December 8, 2018, asking Kumar to appear and join the investigation, but he had not responded. The court had also noted that the West Bengal government and Kumar have alleged "political vendetta" and have made allegations against M Nageswara Rao, former interim CBI director. In its order, the court had said the CBI had alleged non-cooperation and charged WB state police with "obfuscating investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protecting big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal". The court had noted the CBI's claim of having substantial material implicating Kumar, the then Commissioner, Bidhannagar Commissionerate, of connivance and complicity with the principal accused. Earlier, Kumar in an affidavit before the court had alleged that he was targeted by the CBI in the chit fund case due to "mala fide intent" and "conflict of interest" of Rao as his family members were under the scanner post-demonetisation. The Election Commission on Wednesday had ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control incidents of violence in the state and had asked him to report to the Union Home Ministry on Thursday. Kumar was removed along with West Bengal's Principal Secretary (Home) Atri Bhattacharya after parts of Kolkata witnessed widespread violence during BJP president Amit Shah's massive roadshow in the city.

Saradha scam: Ex-Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar moves Supreme Court seeking extension of protection

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam.

The CBI had told the apex court that it wanted custodial interrogation of Kumar, who was earlier heading West Bengal Police SIT probing chit fund scam, as there was prima facie evidence of his allegedly trying to destroy or tamper with evidence and "shield high and mighty" in the case.

However, Kumar's counsel had countered CBI's submissions and told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the agency wanted his custodial interrogation "just to humiliate" him and CBI should not be allowed to abuse the process of law.

Kumar's counsel had told the bench that CBI's application seeking custodial interrogation of the IPS officer was a "mala fide exercise".

Kumar was earlier heading the West Bengal Police's special investigation team (SIT) probing the chit fund scam. The apex court had in May 2014 directed the CBI to investigate the case.

The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate into the investigation of cases arising out of the scam.

The Election Commission on Wednesday ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal and had asked him to report to Union Home Ministry on Thursday.

Kumar, involved in a face-off with the CBI in connection with the agency's investigation in Saradha and Rose Valley chit fund scams, was removed as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control the incidents of violence in the state.

During the arguments on CBI's plea, the apex court had said that it would examine whether there was evidence requiring Kumar's custodial interrogation in the case and had also perused the case diary placed before it by the agency.

CBI had claimed in the court that they were seeking vacation of interim protection granted to Kumar as some crucial evidence, collected by the West Bengal Police SIT, was not shared with it despite repeated requests.

Kumar's counsel had argued that the IPS officer was interrogated by the CBI for almost 40 hours and the agency was not able to spell out clearly as to what was the offence committed by him for which they want his custodial interrogation. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam. The CBI had told the apex court that it wanted custodial interrogation of Kumar, who was earlier heading West Bengal Police SIT probing chit fund scam, as there was prima facie evidence of his allegedly trying to destroy or tamper with evidence and "shield high and mighty" in the case. However, Kumar's counsel had countered CBI's submissions and told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the agency wanted his custodial interrogation "just to humiliate" him and CBI should not be allowed to abuse the process of law. Kumar's counsel had told the bench that CBI's application seeking custodial interrogation of the IPS officer was a "mala fide exercise". Kumar was earlier heading the West Bengal Police's special investigation team (SIT) probing the chit fund scam. The apex court had in May 2014 directed the CBI to investigate the case. The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate into the investigation of cases arising out of the scam. The Election Commission on Wednesday ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal and had asked him to report to Union Home Ministry on Thursday. Kumar, involved in a face-off with the CBI in connection with the agency's investigation in Saradha and Rose Valley chit fund scams, was removed as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control the incidents of violence in the state. During the arguments on CBI's plea, the apex court had said that it would examine whether there was evidence requiring Kumar's custodial interrogation in the case and had also perused the case diary placed before it by the agency. CBI had claimed in the court that they were seeking vacation of interim protection granted to Kumar as some crucial evidence, collected by the West Bengal Police SIT, was not shared with it despite repeated requests. Kumar's counsel had argued that the IPS officer was interrogated by the CBI for almost 40 hours and the agency was not able to spell out clearly as to what was the offence committed by him for which they want his custodial interrogation.

Supreme Court to pass order on CBI plea for vacating interim protection granted to Rajeev Kumar

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this.

"I saw the allegations levelled against the Chief Justice of India, and the clean chit given to him by Supreme Court's in-house committee. I am seeing all this in the media because it's a secret report and I have not seen it. But I am shocked to see that even the people sitting in top position can be attacked and maligned like this," <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/bjp-will-win-lok-sabha-polls-opposition-can-keep-dreaming-pm-modi-to-wion-217331">PM Modi told WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary</a>.

A woman staffer (an entry-level cleric), who worked at the Supreme Court, accused the CJI of sexually harassing her. An in-house committee was formed to look into the issue and it gave clean chit to CJI Gogoi, who appeared before the panel on May 1.

Sources later said that the complaint was part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI. The woman staffer worked as junior court assistant for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI, said sources. They also said that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking a bribe in the name of providing employment in the Supreme Court.

The sources further added that the conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, the Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress president Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/bjp-will-win-lok-sabha-polls-opposition-can-keep-dreaming-pm-modi-to-wion-217350/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about an unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said.

The in-house committee led by Justice SA Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this. "I saw the allegations levelled against the Chief Justice of India, and the clean chit given to him by Supreme Court's in-house committee. I am seeing all this in the media because it's a secret report and I have not seen it. But I am shocked to see that even the people sitting in top position can be attacked and maligned like this," PM Modi told WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary. A woman staffer (an entry-level cleric), who worked at the Supreme Court, accused the CJI of sexually harassing her. An in-house committee was formed to look into the issue and it gave clean chit to CJI Gogoi, who appeared before the panel on May 1. Sources later said that the complaint was part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI. The woman staffer worked as junior court assistant for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI, said sources. They also said that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking a bribe in the name of providing employment in the Supreme Court. The sources further added that the conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, the Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress president Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters. × They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about an unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said. The in-house committee led by Justice SA Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Shocked to see CJI's image being maligned: PM Modi to WION

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-tenders-unconditional-apology-to-supreme-court-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-216903">36 Rafale fighter jets</a> on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.

The top court reserved its verdict on pleas, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking review of its December 14 judgement which gave clean chit to the Centre's Rafale deal to procure jets from the French firm, Dassault.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence. "The question is whether you are obliged to follow the Lalita Kumari judgment or not."

Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, that "there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence".

Justice Joseph referred to the earlier deal and asked the Centre as to why the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology.

"The court cannot decide such technical aspects," the law officer said.&nbsp;

On the court's question of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal said it was not an "unprecedented practice" and referred to such agreements with Russia and the US where there was such a waiver.

"It is a question of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments", he said.

The bench was hearing three review petitions filed by the trio, a lawyer Vineet Dhandha and AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh.

The apex court had said in the December verdict that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

At the outset, Bhushan submitted that the judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA.&nbsp;

He said the Centre misled the court by referring to non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year.&nbsp;

"How did the government anticipate even before the CAG report came that the pricing details of Rafale will be redacted. In a report submitted in November 2018, how did they know that the CAG report in February next&nbsp;year would redact pricing details," the lawyer asked.

Bhushan alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016.

One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said. "This is shocking that the government concealed this piece of information from the court. Doing away with the anti-corruption clauses and concealment of this fact from the court is by itself a sufficient ground to order a criminal investigation," he said.&nbsp;

He referred to the news articles and said that three experts of Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft.

"The benchmark price was firm and fixed. It was 5 billion Euros. But the final price for Rafale jets shot up to 55.6 per cent above the benchmark price and would continue to increase with time," he alleged.

Referring to reports, he alleged that besides the seven-member INT, which was negotiating the deal, "parallel negotiations" were undertaken by the PMO and this weaken the negotiating powers of the INT.&nbsp;

"Even the NSA was playing some role although he was not to be involved," he said.&nbsp;

"Anil Ambani was involved in this deal right from the beginning" and he even produced a film for the wife of a French leader, he said, alleging "quid pro quo" which required criminal investigation.

Shourie also addressed the bench on a separate plea seeking perjury prosecution of unknown government officials for misleading it during the hearing of the pleas.&nbsp;

Venugopal vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of the review petitions saying that the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.&nbsp;

"The Supreme Court has already decided the challenge to the Rafale deal. I would still say that the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret stolen documents," he said.&nbsp;

He then referred to clause 10 of the IGA between France and India and said that it mandated maintaining the secrecy of the deal.&nbsp;

Venugopal then referred to the CAG report and said that it has been found&nbsp; 
that the government got the jets at 2.86 per cent lower price.

The government is under obligation to put defence material undercover, he said, adding that "when the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact. The top court reserved its verdict on pleas, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking review of its December 14 judgement which gave clean chit to the Centre's Rafale deal to procure jets from the French firm, Dassault. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence. "The question is whether you are obliged to follow the Lalita Kumari judgment or not." Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, that "there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence". Justice Joseph referred to the earlier deal and asked the Centre as to why the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology. "The court cannot decide such technical aspects," the law officer said. On the court's question of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal said it was not an "unprecedented practice" and referred to such agreements with Russia and the US where there was such a waiver. "It is a question of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments", he said. The bench was hearing three review petitions filed by the trio, a lawyer Vineet Dhandha and AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh. The apex court had said in the December verdict that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. At the outset, Bhushan submitted that the judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA. He said the Centre misled the court by referring to non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year. "How did the government anticipate even before the CAG report came that the pricing details of Rafale will be redacted. In a report submitted in November 2018, how did they know that the CAG report in February next year would redact pricing details," the lawyer asked. Bhushan alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016. One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said. "This is shocking that the government concealed this piece of information from the court. Doing away with the anti-corruption clauses and concealment of this fact from the court is by itself a sufficient ground to order a criminal investigation," he said. He referred to the news articles and said that three experts of Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft. "The benchmark price was firm and fixed. It was 5 billion Euros. But the final price for Rafale jets shot up to 55.6 per cent above the benchmark price and would continue to increase with time," he alleged. Referring to reports, he alleged that besides the seven-member INT, which was negotiating the deal, "parallel negotiations" were undertaken by the PMO and this weaken the negotiating powers of the INT. "Even the NSA was playing some role although he was not to be involved," he said. "Anil Ambani was involved in this deal right from the beginning" and he even produced a film for the wife of a French leader, he said, alleging "quid pro quo" which required criminal investigation. Shourie also addressed the bench on a separate plea seeking perjury prosecution of unknown government officials for misleading it during the hearing of the pleas. Venugopal vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of the review petitions saying that the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case. "The Supreme Court has already decided the challenge to the Rafale deal. I would still say that the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret stolen documents," he said. He then referred to clause 10 of the IGA between France and India and said that it mandated maintaining the secrecy of the deal. Venugopal then referred to the CAG report and said that it has been found that the government got the jets at 2.86 per cent lower price. The government is under obligation to put defence material undercover, he said, adding that "when the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".

Rafale case: Supreme Court poses queries on waiver of sovereign guarantee

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets.

Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan Friday sought from the Supreme Court setting aside its earlier verdict that dismissed their petition for criminal investigation into the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-tenders-unconditional-apology-to-supreme-court-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-216903">Rafale fighter jet deal case</a>.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, during the two-hour-long hearing, referred to various aspects including alleged suppression of material facts from the court and said that an FIR should have been lodged and a criminal investigation launched into the case.

He also referred to the documents relating to alleged parallel negotiations being undertaken by the PMO and said that three members of the Indian Negotiation Team had objected to the parallel negotiations.

He said that a prima facie cognisable offence has been committed and it warranted registration of the FIR.&nbsp;

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre objected to the review petition and said that the basic grounds for seeking review of the verdict are the same as they were in the main petition.

The petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret "stolen documents".

He also referred to the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France and said that this matter pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract for construction of flyover or dams.

Venugopal sought dismissal of the review petitions.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets. Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan Friday sought from the Supreme Court setting aside its earlier verdict that dismissed their petition for criminal investigation into the Rafale fighter jet deal case. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, during the two-hour-long hearing, referred to various aspects including alleged suppression of material facts from the court and said that an FIR should have been lodged and a criminal investigation launched into the case. He also referred to the documents relating to alleged parallel negotiations being undertaken by the PMO and said that three members of the Indian Negotiation Team had objected to the parallel negotiations. He said that a prima facie cognisable offence has been committed and it warranted registration of the FIR. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre objected to the review petition and said that the basic grounds for seeking review of the verdict are the same as they were in the main petition. The petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret "stolen documents". He also referred to the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France and said that this matter pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract for construction of flyover or dams. Venugopal sought dismissal of the review petitions.

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Rafale review petitions 

Shocked to see CJI's image being maligned: PM Modi

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">clean chit</a> given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said.

They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ex-woman-employees-silence-hints-at-conspiracy-against-cji-say-sources-216779">sexual harassment allegations</a> against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee. The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the clean chit given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said. They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

'Why repeatedly skipping inquiries?' Sources on CJI accuser's demand for clean chit copy

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has opined that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by a former employee of the Supreme Court against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi</a>.

In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

"The common man of the country is not a fool. Mass was/is realising that there was/is some very strong backing/support behind the complaint against Chief Justice of India and complainant was/is not at all a simple lady," the BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra stated on Monday.

Throwing light on the incident, the BCI said, "If you examine the complaint and the annexures and see the way facts are narrated; the manner in which she claims to have recorded everything in her mobile while at police station, and the way she has been dealing with police, the Courts, CBI, IB, everyone; If one analyses these things carefully, you will find something fishy."

The council further said that one should not doubt the decision of three-judge in-house Committee of the Supreme Court, which on Monday gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment complaint allegation against him.

"The Committee has taken the decision after examining the materials and everything carefully; it has adopted the right procedure, which was required in this case. We should not doubt the decision of our three Judges of the committee, otherwise, it will send a very wrong signal and there shall be no end to such malicious complaints against the responsible authorities/persons discharging important functions," the BCI said.

It further informed that the complainant did not opt to lodge an FIR against the CJI in the matter.

"Before questioning the validity of probe by in-house Committee of three Judges, we should not forget that the lady (Complainant) had approached and lodged her complaint to the Judges of Supreme Court only; she did not opt to lodge a complaint or FIR. She herself has opted this forum and the Judges have decided to hold in-house inquiry on her complaint before them. Even Supreme Court Bar Association had proposed for holding in-house inquiry," the BCI said.

The three-judge committee constituted to probe the allegations of sexual harassment made by the complainant against CJI Gogoi has cleared him of the charges.

The committee has concluded that there is no substance in the allegations of the former employee of the Supreme Court.

As the news broke and set off a storm about the complaint, the Chief Justice had called an extraordinary sitting of a bench headed by him and called the allegations a big conspiracy against him.

The bench also passed remarks debunking the complainant.

Later, the court constituted a three-member Committee consisting of Justices Bobde, NV Ramana and Indra Banerjee.

Justice Ramana recused from being a part of the committee after the complainant sought his recusal saying he was close the CJI. Justice Indu Malhotra replaced Ramana.

However, the constitution of the committee came under criticism with a number of jurists and lawyer including women advocates` saying the probe panel was not in accordance with the Visakha guidelines propounded by the apex court on the basis of which parliament had also passed a law.

While the SC has an in-house procedure for dealing with complaints, it has neither precedent of nor a provision for dealing with a complaint of sexual harassment against the CJI.

Meanwhile, the woman complainant appeared before the three-judge panel and later walked out of it saying she was denied assistance of a lawyer or a "support person" to help her in presenting her case as she was not a legal person.

With the procedure adopted by the Committee attracting criticism, Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court wrote to the judges in the Full Court to "remedy all the grievances" which led the woman complainant to withdraw from the probe on April 30.

On Sunday, the Secretary-General denied that Justice Chandrachud along with Justice Rohinton F Nariman had met Justice Bobde to make the demand.

However, he did not deny that Justice Chandrachud had written to all the judges in the Full Court.

The woman who came out with the allegation a fortnight ago said her complaint was in the form of an affidavit sent by her to the judges of the SC on April 19.

"I am alarmed at the conclusion arrived at by the in-house Committee, as my accusation of sexual harassment at the workplace and the consequent relentless victimization and reprisals against me and my family, are substantiated by documents and are verifiable."

She said on April 26 she had joined proceedings of the in-house committee and from the very beginning expressed serious concerns and reservations "that the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted would not mitigate the stark asymmetry of power between me and the CJI."

"On 4th May 2019, at about 8 pm I received a hard copy of my statements recorded before the In House Committee on 26th, 29th and 30th April 2019. On 6th May 2019, at around 10.30 am, I submitted corrections of some inaccuracies in my recorded statements, to the concerned registrar at the Supreme Court."&nbsp;

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has opined that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by a former employee of the Supreme Court against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has opined that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by a former employee of the Supreme Court against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI. "The common man of the country is not a fool. Mass was/is realising that there was/is some very strong backing/support behind the complaint against Chief Justice of India and complainant was/is not at all a simple lady," the BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra stated on Monday. Throwing light on the incident, the BCI said, "If you examine the complaint and the annexures and see the way facts are narrated; the manner in which she claims to have recorded everything in her mobile while at police station, and the way she has been dealing with police, the Courts, CBI, IB, everyone; If one analyses these things carefully, you will find something fishy." The council further said that one should not doubt the decision of three-judge in-house Committee of the Supreme Court, which on Monday gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment complaint allegation against him. "The Committee has taken the decision after examining the materials and everything carefully; it has adopted the right procedure, which was required in this case. We should not doubt the decision of our three Judges of the committee, otherwise, it will send a very wrong signal and there shall be no end to such malicious complaints against the responsible authorities/persons discharging important functions," the BCI said. It further informed that the complainant did not opt to lodge an FIR against the CJI in the matter. "Before questioning the validity of probe by in-house Committee of three Judges, we should not forget that the lady (Complainant) had approached and lodged her complaint to the Judges of Supreme Court only; she did not opt to lodge a complaint or FIR. She herself has opted this forum and the Judges have decided to hold in-house inquiry on her complaint before them. Even Supreme Court Bar Association had proposed for holding in-house inquiry," the BCI said. The three-judge committee constituted to probe the allegations of sexual harassment made by the complainant against CJI Gogoi has cleared him of the charges. The committee has concluded that there is no substance in the allegations of the former employee of the Supreme Court. As the news broke and set off a storm about the complaint, the Chief Justice had called an extraordinary sitting of a bench headed by him and called the allegations a big conspiracy against him. The bench also passed remarks debunking the complainant. Later, the court constituted a three-member Committee consisting of Justices Bobde, NV Ramana and Indra Banerjee. Justice Ramana recused from being a part of the committee after the complainant sought his recusal saying he was close the CJI. Justice Indu Malhotra replaced Ramana. However, the constitution of the committee came under criticism with a number of jurists and lawyer including women advocates` saying the probe panel was not in accordance with the Visakha guidelines propounded by the apex court on the basis of which parliament had also passed a law. While the SC has an in-house procedure for dealing with complaints, it has neither precedent of nor a provision for dealing with a complaint of sexual harassment against the CJI. Meanwhile, the woman complainant appeared before the three-judge panel and later walked out of it saying she was denied assistance of a lawyer or a "support person" to help her in presenting her case as she was not a legal person. With the procedure adopted by the Committee attracting criticism, Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court wrote to the judges in the Full Court to "remedy all the grievances" which led the woman complainant to withdraw from the probe on April 30. On Sunday, the Secretary-General denied that Justice Chandrachud along with Justice Rohinton F Nariman had met Justice Bobde to make the demand. However, he did not deny that Justice Chandrachud had written to all the judges in the Full Court. The woman who came out with the allegation a fortnight ago said her complaint was in the form of an affidavit sent by her to the judges of the SC on April 19. "I am alarmed at the conclusion arrived at by the in-house Committee, as my accusation of sexual harassment at the workplace and the consequent relentless victimization and reprisals against me and my family, are substantiated by documents and are verifiable." She said on April 26 she had joined proceedings of the in-house committee and from the very beginning expressed serious concerns and reservations "that the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted would not mitigate the stark asymmetry of power between me and the CJI." "On 4th May 2019, at about 8 pm I received a hard copy of my statements recorded before the In House Committee on 26th, 29th and 30th April 2019. On 6th May 2019, at around 10.30 am, I submitted corrections of some inaccuracies in my recorded statements, to the concerned registrar at the Supreme Court."

Something fishy in harassment allegations against CJI: Bar Council of India

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">gave a clean chit</a> to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court.

Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment.

All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added.

The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said.

The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said.

This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead. Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court. Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment. All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added. The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said. The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said. This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Ex-woman employee's silence hints at conspiracy against CJI, say sources

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">CJI Ranjan Gogoi gets clean chit in sexual harassment case by Supreme Court's in-house panel</a>

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case.&nbsp;

The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-ready-for-any-us-attack-foreign-minister-216419">If United States opts for war, we will not only fight but win: Venezuela government</a>

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is ready to see off any attack from the United States, his foreign minister Jorge Arreaza said Monday in Moscow, after a meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-ahmadi-community-faces-growing-discrimination-report-says-216405">Pakistan's Ahmadi community faces growing discrimination: Report</a>

Pakistan's Ahmadi community faces growing institutionalized discrimination fanned by last year's election campaign by Prime Minister Imran Khan, the minority movement said in a report issued on Monday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pilot-says-lightning-caused-deadly-russian-crash-landing-216399">Pilot says lightning caused deadly Russian crash landing</a>

The pilot of a Russian passenger plane that erupted in a ball of fire on the runway of Moscow's busiest airport, killing 41 people, said lightning led to the emergency landing.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/live-lok-sabha-elections-polling-underway-in-seven-states-in-fifth-phase-216212">Live Lok Sabha phase 5 elections: 61% turn out recorded till 6:30 pm; West Bengal leads with 74%, Jharkhand 64%</a>

Jammu &amp; Kashmir: A petrol bomb was hurled at a polling station in south Kashmir’s Shopian today. No loss of life or injuries reported.&nbsp;

CJI Ranjan Gogoi gets clean chit in sexual harassment case by Supreme Court's in-house panel The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi gets clean chit in sexual harassment case by Supreme Court's in-house panel The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. If United States opts for war, we will not only fight but win: Venezuela government Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is ready to see off any attack from the United States, his foreign minister Jorge Arreaza said Monday in Moscow, after a meeting with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Pakistan's Ahmadi community faces growing discrimination: Report Pakistan's Ahmadi community faces growing institutionalized discrimination fanned by last year's election campaign by Prime Minister Imran Khan, the minority movement said in a report issued on Monday. Pilot says lightning caused deadly Russian crash landing The pilot of a Russian passenger plane that erupted in a ball of fire on the runway of Moscow's busiest airport, killing 41 people, said lightning led to the emergency landing. Live Lok Sabha phase 5 elections: 61% turn out recorded till 6:30 pm; West Bengal leads with 74%, Jharkhand 64% Jammu & Kashmir: A petrol bomb was hurled at a polling station in south Kashmir’s Shopian today. No loss of life or injuries reported.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi agreed to hear the plea on May 6.

This decision came after the senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on the behalf of DMK, pleaded for an early hearing in the matter.

Sibal also told the apex court that speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly P&nbsp;Dhanapal himself had faced no-confidence motion while issuing a notice to three AIADMK MLAs, namely Rathinasabapathy, MLA of Aranthangi constituency, VT Kalaiselvan from Virudhachalam constituency, and VT Prabhu from Kallakuruchi constituency.

DMK president MK&nbsp;Stalin had claimed that the ruling AIADMK had sought to disqualify the three MLAs because the intelligence agencies had warned the government that retaining them in the party would have an "unfavourable outcome" in the bypoll to the 22 Assembly constituencies.

The chief whip of AIADMK S&nbsp;Rajendran had on April 26 met Tamil Nadu assembly speaker P&nbsp;Dhanapal and filed a petition to take action against three party MLAs on account of their "anti-party activities."Rajendran has accused the MLAs of working for Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam(AMMK) General Secretary TTV&nbsp;Dhinakaran.

Out of 234 seats in Tamil Nadu assembly, the ruling AIADMK has 114 members, the DMK has 88, the Congress has eight, while the IUML and the Independent members represent one constituency each.

In 2017, a total of 19 AIADMK MLAs had submitted a letter to then Governor CV Raowithdrawing support to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami.

As a retort, Rajendran asked Dhanapal to disqualify the MLAs stating that their actions amounted to voluntarily giving up their party membership.

Tamil Nadu Speaker had on September 18 disqualified 18 MLAs belonging to AIADMK. By-elections for these 18 seats were held on April 18 this year.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi agreed to hear the plea on May 6. This decision came after the senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on the behalf of DMK, pleaded for an early hearing in the matter. Sibal also told the apex court that speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly P Dhanapal himself had faced no-confidence motion while issuing a notice to three AIADMK MLAs, namely Rathinasabapathy, MLA of Aranthangi constituency, VT Kalaiselvan from Virudhachalam constituency, and VT Prabhu from Kallakuruchi constituency. DMK president MK Stalin had claimed that the ruling AIADMK had sought to disqualify the three MLAs because the intelligence agencies had warned the government that retaining them in the party would have an "unfavourable outcome" in the bypoll to the 22 Assembly constituencies. The chief whip of AIADMK S Rajendran had on April 26 met Tamil Nadu assembly speaker P Dhanapal and filed a petition to take action against three party MLAs on account of their "anti-party activities."Rajendran has accused the MLAs of working for Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam(AMMK) General Secretary TTV Dhinakaran. Out of 234 seats in Tamil Nadu assembly, the ruling AIADMK has 114 members, the DMK has 88, the Congress has eight, while the IUML and the Independent members represent one constituency each. In 2017, a total of 19 AIADMK MLAs had submitted a letter to then Governor CV Raowithdrawing support to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami. As a retort, Rajendran asked Dhanapal to disqualify the MLAs stating that their actions amounted to voluntarily giving up their party membership. Tamil Nadu Speaker had on September 18 disqualified 18 MLAs belonging to AIADMK. By-elections for these 18 seats were held on April 18 this year.

Supreme Court agrees to hear DMK's plea against disqualification of 3 AIADMK MLAs

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Mayawati's counsel to file a separate appeal against the poll panel's order.

Taking note of the EC action, the court said<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/election-commission-has-finally-woken-up-to-its-power-supreme-court-on-campaign-ban-on-politicians-210816"> it seems the poll body has "woken up"</a> and barred various politicians from poll campaigning for varying hours.

The bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that no further order was required for now.

The Election Commission on Monday imposed a nationwide campaign ban on Adityanath for 72 hours and on Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and Mayawati for 48 hours from Tuesday for their "provocative" communal remarks, which it said had the "propensity to polarise the elections".

A 72-hour campaign ban has also been imposed on Samajwadi Party's Azam Khan for his alleged "khaki underwear" jibe against actor-politician Jaya Prada, who is his rival BJP candidate in Rampur Lok Sabha seat.&nbsp;

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.

The all-India ban on all four leaders -- two from the ruling BJP and two from opposition parties -- came into force from 6 am Tuesday.

While Adityanath, Mayawati and Gandhi were found guilty of violating the model code, the EC said Khan not only violated the poll code, he also disregarded its November 2013 directive asking politicians to desist from "deeds or actions construed as being repugnant to the honour and dignity of women".

For the first time a pan-India ban has been imposed on politicians, while any restriction on a chief minister and a union minister is unprecedented.

Mayawati alleged the order has been passed "under pressure" and it would be remembered as a "black day" in the EC's history. She has faced action for appealing to Muslims to not vote for the Congress to avoid their anti-BJP votes getting divided.&nbsp;

Her alliance partner and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav asked the EC whether it is capable to issue similar directives to the prime minister to stop him from asking for votes in name of the Army.

The EC order to bar Adityanath and Mayawati came soon after the Supreme Court asked the poll watchdog about the action it has initiated against them.

The apex court had on Monday expressed displeasure over the Election Commission not taking quick action against politicians for communal and hate speeches during the Lok Sabha campaigning and decided to examine the ambit of its power following submission that it was "toothless".

The bench had taken the cases of alleged communal speeches of Mayawati and Adityanath and asked the EC about the action taken so far against them while deciding to examine the statutory powers of the poll panel to deal with the violation of the model code of conduct (MCC).

The EC's counsel had said: "The power of the EC in this behalf is very limited. We can issue notice and seek reply but we cannot de-recognise a party or disqualify a candidate...We can only issue advisories and in case of a repeat offence, register a complaint."

Reacting sharply, the bench had said, "So you are basically saying you are toothless and powerless against hate speeches."

It had then said that besides sending a notice, an advisory and a criminal case can be filed only against such leader.&nbsp;

"It is stated by the counsel appearing for the EC that the power of the ECI for violation of the Model Code of Conduct by making hate speeches on grounds of religion, caste etc is circumscribed to issuing of notice and upon consideration of the reply to issue advisories.&nbsp;

"Only in case of repeated violation of the advisories, the EC has the power to file an FIR with the Police for initiation of criminal proceedings," the bench had noted in the order.

The apex court, on April 8, had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on the PIL seeking direction to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on castes and religions in the media in the run-up to general elections.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches.

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Mayawati's counsel to file a separate appeal against the poll panel's order. Taking note of the EC action, the court said it seems the poll body has "woken up" and barred various politicians from poll campaigning for varying hours. The bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that no further order was required for now. The Election Commission on Monday imposed a nationwide campaign ban on Adityanath for 72 hours and on Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and Mayawati for 48 hours from Tuesday for their "provocative" communal remarks, which it said had the "propensity to polarise the elections". A 72-hour campaign ban has also been imposed on Samajwadi Party's Azam Khan for his alleged "khaki underwear" jibe against actor-politician Jaya Prada, who is his rival BJP candidate in Rampur Lok Sabha seat. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections. The all-India ban on all four leaders -- two from the ruling BJP and two from opposition parties -- came into force from 6 am Tuesday. While Adityanath, Mayawati and Gandhi were found guilty of violating the model code, the EC said Khan not only violated the poll code, he also disregarded its November 2013 directive asking politicians to desist from "deeds or actions construed as being repugnant to the honour and dignity of women". For the first time a pan-India ban has been imposed on politicians, while any restriction on a chief minister and a union minister is unprecedented. Mayawati alleged the order has been passed "under pressure" and it would be remembered as a "black day" in the EC's history. She has faced action for appealing to Muslims to not vote for the Congress to avoid their anti-BJP votes getting divided. Her alliance partner and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav asked the EC whether it is capable to issue similar directives to the prime minister to stop him from asking for votes in name of the Army. The EC order to bar Adityanath and Mayawati came soon after the Supreme Court asked the poll watchdog about the action it has initiated against them. The apex court had on Monday expressed displeasure over the Election Commission not taking quick action against politicians for communal and hate speeches during the Lok Sabha campaigning and decided to examine the ambit of its power following submission that it was "toothless". The bench had taken the cases of alleged communal speeches of Mayawati and Adityanath and asked the EC about the action taken so far against them while deciding to examine the statutory powers of the poll panel to deal with the violation of the model code of conduct (MCC). The EC's counsel had said: "The power of the EC in this behalf is very limited. We can issue notice and seek reply but we cannot de-recognise a party or disqualify a candidate...We can only issue advisories and in case of a repeat offence, register a complaint." Reacting sharply, the bench had said, "So you are basically saying you are toothless and powerless against hate speeches." It had then said that besides sending a notice, an advisory and a criminal case can be filed only against such leader. "It is stated by the counsel appearing for the EC that the power of the ECI for violation of the Model Code of Conduct by making hate speeches on grounds of religion, caste etc is circumscribed to issuing of notice and upon consideration of the reply to issue advisories. "Only in case of repeated violation of the advisories, the EC has the power to file an FIR with the Police for initiation of criminal proceedings," the bench had noted in the order. The apex court, on April 8, had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on the PIL seeking direction to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on castes and religions in the media in the run-up to general elections.

Supreme Court refuses to consider Mayawati's plea against Election Commission order

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the EC for Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering.&nbsp;

The bench referred to submissions of the EC that they can issue a notice, then advisory and finally lodge a complaint against an errant politician for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by giving hate speeches based on caste and religion during the campaign.

"The EC says they are toothless. They say that they first issue a notice, then advisory and then complain," the bench said, adding it would examine the aspect relating to poll panel's power to deal with hate speeches during poll campaign.

During the hearing, the bench asked the counsel for EC as to what action they have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath for alleged hate speeches.

The counsel appearing for poll panel said that it has already issued notices against the two politicians.

"Tell us what actions you have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath," the bench asked and fixed the matter for tomorrow.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far.

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the EC for Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering. The bench referred to submissions of the EC that they can issue a notice, then advisory and finally lodge a complaint against an errant politician for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by giving hate speeches based on caste and religion during the campaign. "The EC says they are toothless. They say that they first issue a notice, then advisory and then complain," the bench said, adding it would examine the aspect relating to poll panel's power to deal with hate speeches during poll campaign. During the hearing, the bench asked the counsel for EC as to what action they have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath for alleged hate speeches. The counsel appearing for poll panel said that it has already issued notices against the two politicians. "Tell us what actions you have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath," the bench asked and fixed the matter for tomorrow. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.

Supreme Court takes note of alleged hate speeches made by Mayawati, Adityanath

CBI told the Supreme Court Friday that it had closed in 2013 a preliminary inquiry against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-gives-cbi-4-weeks-to-reply-on-mulayams-da-case-209793">Mulayam Singh Yadav </a>and his son Akhilesh in a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ancestral-corrupt-yogi-adityanath-takes-a-dig-at-akhilesh-mulayam-after-sc-seeks-status-report-on-13-year-old-da-case-205546">disproportionate assets </a>case.

Taking note of the oral submission of the agency, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by a Congress activist seeking to know the status of probe in the assets case against the family members of the Samajwadi Party patriarch including his second son Prateek.

The bench, which also included Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had on March 25 granted two weeks to CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to file the response to the plea.&nbsp;

Yadav, who is contesting Lok Sabha polls from Mainpuri seat in Uttar Pradesh, in its reply has alleged that the petition, filed on the poll eve, was politically motivated.&nbsp;

He said the petition against him and his family was filed in 2005 and the CBI and the Income Tax Authorities did not find anything adverse.&nbsp;

He alleged in an affidavit that Congress activist Vishwanath Chaturvedi was trying to rake up an old disproportionate assets case against him and his family to malign their image during the current general elections.

Yadav, who had filed his affidavit in response to the notice issued to him on March 25, said Chaturvedi filed a fresh plea for extraneous reasons and with an objective to gain political mileage "just at the time and eve of the 2019 General Elections with mala fide reasons".&nbsp;

Chaturvedi has sought a direction to the CBI to place the status report on probe either before the apex court or before a magisterial court in the assets case against the three SP leaders -- Yadav and his two sons, Akhilesh, also a former Chief Minister, and Prateek.

"The petition is not bona fide and has been filed for extraneous reasons and considerations to malign the reputation of Yadav and his family particularly when the petitioner is aware that respondents would be contesting in the upcoming general elections," the affidavit claimed.

The petitioner is associated and affiliated to a political adversary and he himself contested assembly election in the past and lost, it added.

Yadav said even after a detailed enquiry, spread over the period of about two years, no case was found by the CBI against him or his son Akhilesh and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav.

He had further submitted that due to one petition filed, he has been subjected to a prolonged investigation by the CBI but nothing was unearthed.&nbsp;

"It is stated that on account of the said proceedings, Yadav has been suffering and facing completely uncalled for embarrassment in the public sphere. 
&nbsp;He has been subjected to the investigation only for the reason that he and his family members have been in public life and have held high offices both at the state and central level," he said in the affidavit.

Yadav had submitted that in the absence of any direction of registration of FIR or regular case by the CBI no directions can be given by the top court for placing the report of the probe agency before the jurisdictional magistrate as sought by the petitioner.

Chaturvedi, in 2005, had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadav, Akhilesh and his wife Dimple, and Prateek under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority.

The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007, had directed the CBI "to inquire into allegations" and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was "correct or not".

In 2012, the court had dismissed the review petitions of Yadav and his sons against its verdict and directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case.

It had allowed the review plea of Dimple and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.

The court had also modified its March 1, 2007 order and asked the CBI to file the status report before the court, not the government.

The top court had on March 25, 2019, had also asked the probe agency to file a report within two weeks and said that "there was a status report (of 2007 by CBI) saying that prima facie case is made out. We are entitled to know as to what happened to the investigation".

CBI told the Supreme Court Friday that it had closed in 2013 a preliminary inquiry against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh in a disproportionate assets case.

CBI told the Supreme Court Friday that it had closed in 2013 a preliminary inquiry against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh in a disproportionate assets case. Taking note of the oral submission of the agency, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by a Congress activist seeking to know the status of probe in the assets case against the family members of the Samajwadi Party patriarch including his second son Prateek. The bench, which also included Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had on March 25 granted two weeks to CBI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to file the response to the plea. Yadav, who is contesting Lok Sabha polls from Mainpuri seat in Uttar Pradesh, in its reply has alleged that the petition, filed on the poll eve, was politically motivated. He said the petition against him and his family was filed in 2005 and the CBI and the Income Tax Authorities did not find anything adverse. He alleged in an affidavit that Congress activist Vishwanath Chaturvedi was trying to rake up an old disproportionate assets case against him and his family to malign their image during the current general elections. Yadav, who had filed his affidavit in response to the notice issued to him on March 25, said Chaturvedi filed a fresh plea for extraneous reasons and with an objective to gain political mileage "just at the time and eve of the 2019 General Elections with mala fide reasons". Chaturvedi has sought a direction to the CBI to place the status report on probe either before the apex court or before a magisterial court in the assets case against the three SP leaders -- Yadav and his two sons, Akhilesh, also a former Chief Minister, and Prateek. "The petition is not bona fide and has been filed for extraneous reasons and considerations to malign the reputation of Yadav and his family particularly when the petitioner is aware that respondents would be contesting in the upcoming general elections," the affidavit claimed. The petitioner is associated and affiliated to a political adversary and he himself contested assembly election in the past and lost, it added. Yadav said even after a detailed enquiry, spread over the period of about two years, no case was found by the CBI against him or his son Akhilesh and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav. He had further submitted that due to one petition filed, he has been subjected to a prolonged investigation by the CBI but nothing was unearthed. "It is stated that on account of the said proceedings, Yadav has been suffering and facing completely uncalled for embarrassment in the public sphere. He has been subjected to the investigation only for the reason that he and his family members have been in public life and have held high offices both at the state and central level," he said in the affidavit. Yadav had submitted that in the absence of any direction of registration of FIR or regular case by the CBI no directions can be given by the top court for placing the report of the probe agency before the jurisdictional magistrate as sought by the petitioner. Chaturvedi, in 2005, had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadav, Akhilesh and his wife Dimple, and Prateek under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority. The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007, had directed the CBI "to inquire into allegations" and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was "correct or not". In 2012, the court had dismissed the review petitions of Yadav and his sons against its verdict and directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case. It had allowed the review plea of Dimple and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office. The court had also modified its March 1, 2007 order and asked the CBI to file the status report before the court, not the government. The top court had on March 25, 2019, had also asked the probe agency to file a report within two weeks and said that "there was a status report (of 2007 by CBI) saying that prima facie case is made out. We are entitled to know as to what happened to the investigation".

Preliminary inquiry against Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh in DA case closed in 2013: CBI to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered an important judgment with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a place where a married woman can file cases against her estranged husband and in-laws after being subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty.

The bench said besides the place where a woman was living before and after marriage, the place of shelter will also have territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial cases.

The apex court verdict came on a plea filed by one Rupali Devi of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter.

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered an important judgment with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a place where a married woman can file cases against her estranged husband and in-laws after being subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty. The bench said besides the place where a woman was living before and after marriage, the place of shelter will also have territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial cases. The apex court verdict came on a plea filed by one Rupali Devi of Uttar Pradesh.

Woman driven out of matrimonial home can file case at place where she has taken shelter: Supreme Court

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary.

"The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/go-to-shillong-it-is-a-cool-place-cji-ranjan-gogoi-to-cbi-kolkata-police-commissioner-195460">Ranjan Gogoi</a> — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act.&nbsp;

The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets.&nbsp;

"Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said. &nbsp;

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public.

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary. "The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday. The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act. The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets. "Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said.

Does office of CJI come under RTI Act? Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice examines

Supreme Court rejected a PIL Monday challenging the bus fare of Rs 49 to go to the temple in Sabarimala in Kerala.&nbsp;

A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "Sorry, we can't decide here what should be the bus fare? Are we now going to decide the bus fare?"

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court rejected a PIL challenging the bus fare of Rs 49 to go to the temple in Sabarimala in Kerala. A bench of the apex court, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said,"Sorry, we can't decide here what should be the bus fare?Are we now going to decide the bus fare?"
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1110055246854676481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 25, 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>

Meanwhile, the Supreme court also refused to entertain a plea filed by a former DGP of Uttar Pradesh seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-seeking-ban-on-roadshows-bike-rallies-during-polls-205462">to ban roadshows</a> and bike rallies during polls.

Supreme Court rejected a PIL Monday challenging the bus fare of Rs 49 to go to the temple in Sabarimala in Kerala. A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "Sorry, we can't decide here what should be the bus fare?

Supreme Court rejected a PIL Monday challenging the bus fare of Rs 49 to go to the temple in Sabarimala in Kerala. A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "Sorry, we can't decide here what should be the bus fare? Are we now going to decide the bus fare?" Supreme Court rejected a PIL challenging the bus fare of Rs 49 to go to the temple in Sabarimala in Kerala. A bench of the apex court, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said,"Sorry, we can't decide here what should be the bus fare?Are we now going to decide the bus fare?" — ANI (@ANI) March 25, 2019 × Meanwhile, the Supreme court also refused to entertain a plea filed by a former DGP of Uttar Pradesh seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to ban roadshows and bike rallies during polls.

'Are we now to decide bus fare?' asks Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of an ordinance which makes the practice of instant <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cabinet-nod-to-ordinance-on-triple-talaq-arun-jaitley-198369">'triple talaq'</a> a punishable offence.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed a plea of a Kerala-based outfit and said it will not like to interfere.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance was first notified on September 19 last year, hours after the Union Cabinet had cleared it.

Instant 'triple talaq', also known as 'talaq-e-biddat', is an instant divorce whereby a Muslim man can legally divorce his wife by pronouncing 'talaq' three times in one go.

The ordinance making the practice of instant 'triple talaq' a punishable offence was issued for the third time in less than a year on February 21.

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of an ordinance which makes the practice of instant 'triple talaq' a punishable offence.

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of an ordinance which makes the practice of instant 'triple talaq' a punishable offence. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed a plea of a Kerala-based outfit and said it will not like to interfere. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance was first notified on September 19 last year, hours after the Union Cabinet had cleared it. Instant 'triple talaq', also known as 'talaq-e-biddat', is an instant divorce whereby a Muslim man can legally divorce his wife by pronouncing 'talaq' three times in one go. The ordinance making the practice of instant 'triple talaq' a punishable offence was issued for the third time in less than a year on February 21.

Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging constitutional validity of 'triple talaq' ordinance

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lokpal-search-committee-supreme-court-directs-centre-to-file-affidavit-on-steps-taken-since-september-2018-188219">meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal</a> and its members.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was informed by Venugopal that the search committee headed by former apex court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai has recommended three panels of names to the selection committee for appointment of chairperson, judicial and non-judicial members.

The AG told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, that he will ask the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training to ensure that the meeting of the prime minister-headed selection committee is convened as early as possible.

The top court also refused to pass directions to disclose names in the three panels.&nbsp;

It had earlier requested the search committee on Lokpal to recommend by February end a panel of names for appointing the country's first anti-graft ombudsman.

The top court had asked the Centre to make available requisite infrastructure, manpower, secretarial assistance and others to enable the committee, headed by Desai, to commence its work immediately and conclude it within the time frame.

It was hearing a contempt petition filed by NGO Common Cause which has raised the issue of non-appointment of Lokpal despite the apex court's judgement of April 27, 2017.

The search committee will forward the names to the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the leader of the largest opposition party and an eminent jurist.

The other members of the search committee are former chief of State Bank of India Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash, Indian Space

Research Organisation head A S Kiran Kumar, former judge of Allahabad High Court Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, former Gujarat Police head Shabbirhusein S Khandwawala, retired IAS officer of Rajasthan cadre Lalit K Panwar, and former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar.

On January 4, the apex court had directed the Centre to place on affidavit the steps for Lokpal's appointment and had expressed its displeasure over the tardy progress made in this regard.

It had asked the attorney general to file an affidavit explaining in detail the various steps, including setting up of a search committee by the competent authority for recommending names for the appointment.

The top court on July 24 last year had rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit".

It was also told that the selection committee had met on July 19 last year to deliberate names for members of the search committee.

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is the leader of the largest opposition party, has been giving a go by to the meetings of the selection panel.

The top court was earlier told that the selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people, including the chairperson, with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc.

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal and its members.

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal and its members. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was informed by Venugopal that the search committee headed by former apex court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai has recommended three panels of names to the selection committee for appointment of chairperson, judicial and non-judicial members. The AG told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, that he will ask the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training to ensure that the meeting of the prime minister-headed selection committee is convened as early as possible. The top court also refused to pass directions to disclose names in the three panels. It had earlier requested the search committee on Lokpal to recommend by February end a panel of names for appointing the country's first anti-graft ombudsman. The top court had asked the Centre to make available requisite infrastructure, manpower, secretarial assistance and others to enable the committee, headed by Desai, to commence its work immediately and conclude it within the time frame. It was hearing a contempt petition filed by NGO Common Cause which has raised the issue of non-appointment of Lokpal despite the apex court's judgement of April 27, 2017. The search committee will forward the names to the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the leader of the largest opposition party and an eminent jurist. The other members of the search committee are former chief of State Bank of India Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash, Indian Space Research Organisation head A S Kiran Kumar, former judge of Allahabad High Court Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, former Gujarat Police head Shabbirhusein S Khandwawala, retired IAS officer of Rajasthan cadre Lalit K Panwar, and former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar. On January 4, the apex court had directed the Centre to place on affidavit the steps for Lokpal's appointment and had expressed its displeasure over the tardy progress made in this regard. It had asked the attorney general to file an affidavit explaining in detail the various steps, including setting up of a search committee by the competent authority for recommending names for the appointment. The top court on July 24 last year had rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit". It was also told that the selection committee had met on July 19 last year to deliberate names for members of the search committee. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is the leader of the largest opposition party, has been giving a go by to the meetings of the selection panel. The top court was earlier told that the selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people, including the chairperson, with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc.

Supreme Court asks AG KK Venugopal to inform within 10 days date for meeting of Lokpal selection committee

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday recused himself from hearing the appeal of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar challenging the Delhi High Court verdict sentencing him to life term in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The 73-year-old Kumar had surrendered before a trial court here on December 31, 2018 to serve the sentence in pursuance of the high court's December 17 judgment awarding him life imprisonment for the "remainder of his natural life".

The case in which Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment's Raj Nagar Part-I area of southwest Delhi on November 1-2, 1984 and burning down of a gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II.&nbsp;

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday recused himself from hearing the appeal of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar challenging the Delhi High Court verdict sentencing him to life term in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday recused himself from hearing the appeal of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar challenging the Delhi High Court verdict sentencing him to life term in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The 73-year-old Kumar had surrendered before a trial court here on December 31, 2018 to serve the sentence in pursuance of the high court's December 17 judgment awarding him life imprisonment for the "remainder of his natural life". The case in which Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment's Raj Nagar Part-I area of southwest Delhi on November 1-2, 1984 and burning down of a gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II.

1984 anti-Sikh riots: Justice Sanjiv Khanna recuses from hearing Sajjan Kumar's appeal

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also issued notices to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Jammu and Kashmir and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the plea filed by 19-year-old Preeti Kedar Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra.

The petitioners said they are "greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs" pelting stones at soldiers and Army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir.

The plea has sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing duties.

The petitioners said they have approached the apex court as they were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondents in addressing various acts of human right violations of Army personnel, resulting in obstruction in the discharge of their duties, as well as endangers their safety and security at the place of their deployment.

The petitioners are daughters of Army officials -- one serving and another retired.

"The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters, while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment," the plea has said.

Referring to FIRs being lodged against Army personnel, the plea said cases are being lodged if action was taken against the stone pelters in retaliation or self-defence.

"The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any Armed force personnel for any act done by them which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force. However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence," it said.

The petition termed as shocking a former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister's declaration in the legislative assembly that as many as 9,760 FIRs registered against stone pelters would be withdrawn as they were first-time offenders.

"It is pertinent to note that firstly, the state is not entitled to withdraw an FIR, once registered against a person, without following the due process of the law as provided in the CrPC/RPC; secondly, the complainant or the victim of the offence is entitled to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime against him," it said.

The petition added that depriving the armed forces personnel of their right to prosecute a person who has committed an offence against them is a violation of their fundamental right to life and liberty, including the right to legal recourse.

"Further, armed forces personnel are also deprived of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb," it said.

The petition also said that the petitioners had lodged a complaint of human rights violation with the NHRC, citing specific instances, but the commission transferred the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.

The petitioners also sought setting aside of the NHRC order dated January 4 transferring the representation to the SHRC and a direction to complete the probe of human rights violations of armed forces personnel.

"There is no mechanism put in place by the Centre or the state to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas by orders of the respondents to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No 1 (Centre) puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces," the plea added.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also issued notices to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Jammu and Kashmir and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the plea filed by 19-year-old Preeti Kedar Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra. The petitioners said they are "greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs" pelting stones at soldiers and Army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea has sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing duties. The petitioners said they have approached the apex court as they were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondents in addressing various acts of human right violations of Army personnel, resulting in obstruction in the discharge of their duties, as well as endangers their safety and security at the place of their deployment. The petitioners are daughters of Army officials -- one serving and another retired. "The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters, while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment," the plea has said. Referring to FIRs being lodged against Army personnel, the plea said cases are being lodged if action was taken against the stone pelters in retaliation or self-defence. "The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any Armed force personnel for any act done by them which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force. However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence," it said. The petition termed as shocking a former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister's declaration in the legislative assembly that as many as 9,760 FIRs registered against stone pelters would be withdrawn as they were first-time offenders. "It is pertinent to note that firstly, the state is not entitled to withdraw an FIR, once registered against a person, without following the due process of the law as provided in the CrPC/RPC; secondly, the complainant or the victim of the offence is entitled to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime against him," it said. The petition added that depriving the armed forces personnel of their right to prosecute a person who has committed an offence against them is a violation of their fundamental right to life and liberty, including the right to legal recourse. "Further, armed forces personnel are also deprived of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb," it said. The petition also said that the petitioners had lodged a complaint of human rights violation with the NHRC, citing specific instances, but the commission transferred the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. The petitioners also sought setting aside of the NHRC order dated January 4 transferring the representation to the SHRC and a direction to complete the probe of human rights violations of armed forces personnel. "There is no mechanism put in place by the Centre or the state to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas by orders of the respondents to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No 1 (Centre) puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces," the plea added.

Supreme Court agrees to hear plea seeking protection of human rights of security forces

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure.

"There have been years of apathy towards judiciary. Suitable conditions are not provided but it is working," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed.

The top court, which has been monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary and filling up the vacancies of judicial officers and supporting staff, on Tuesday examined the progress made by the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand.

The remarks relating to the apathy towards judiciary were made while dealing with the steps taken by the Rajasthan government.

"Have you visited the courts? It is unimaginable under what conditions the judicial work is going on," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when advocate Gaurav Agrawal was assisting it as an amicus curiae.

In its order relating to Rajasthan, the bench said that the state of infrastructure as indicated is grossly unsatisfactory.

The bench asked the Rajasthan government to apprise it within three months further progress made on the issue of appointment of judicial officers and development of infrastructure of the courts.

While dealing with the issue of Uttarakhand the bench was surprised that the state government was hesitant in supplying information about the utilisation of funds from the Centre.

The bench asked the deputy chief secretary, who was present in the court, to submit the utilisation certificate of the central funds to the competent authority so that additional central funds required for the purpose could be disposed.

The top court took on record the information provided by other states on the issue.

The top court on its own had taken note of over 5,000 vacancies for judicial officers across the country and had directed all the 24 high courts and 36 states and UTs to apprise it of remedial measures.

It is also monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary.

The top court had appointed senior advocates Shyam Divan, K V Vishwanathan, Vijay Hansaria and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal as amicus curiae and asked them to assist it in dealing with the case.

Divan would deal with the vacancies and the processes needed to fill them up in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and the Northeast states.

While Vishwanathan would assist the top court in dealing with the vacancies in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Kerala, Hansaria would deal with Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Patna and Punjab and Haryana.

Agrawal would render assistance to the top court in dealing with the issue of vacancies in states of Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure. "There have been years of apathy towards judiciary. Suitable conditions are not provided but it is working," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed. The top court, which has been monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary and filling up the vacancies of judicial officers and supporting staff, on Tuesday examined the progress made by the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand. The remarks relating to the apathy towards judiciary were made while dealing with the steps taken by the Rajasthan government. "Have you visited the courts? It is unimaginable under what conditions the judicial work is going on," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when advocate Gaurav Agrawal was assisting it as an amicus curiae. In its order relating to Rajasthan, the bench said that the state of infrastructure as indicated is grossly unsatisfactory. The bench asked the Rajasthan government to apprise it within three months further progress made on the issue of appointment of judicial officers and development of infrastructure of the courts. While dealing with the issue of Uttarakhand the bench was surprised that the state government was hesitant in supplying information about the utilisation of funds from the Centre. The bench asked the deputy chief secretary, who was present in the court, to submit the utilisation certificate of the central funds to the competent authority so that additional central funds required for the purpose could be disposed. The top court took on record the information provided by other states on the issue. The top court on its own had taken note of over 5,000 vacancies for judicial officers across the country and had directed all the 24 high courts and 36 states and UTs to apprise it of remedial measures. It is also monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary. The top court had appointed senior advocates Shyam Divan, K V Vishwanathan, Vijay Hansaria and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal as amicus curiae and asked them to assist it in dealing with the case. Divan would deal with the vacancies and the processes needed to fill them up in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and the Northeast states. While Vishwanathan would assist the top court in dealing with the vacancies in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Kerala, Hansaria would deal with Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Patna and Punjab and Haryana. Agrawal would render assistance to the top court in dealing with the issue of vacancies in states of Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand.

Years of apathy resulted in hard-pressed situation of subordinate judiciary: Supreme Court

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals.

The Centre was responding to the January 28 queries of the apex court which had asked the Centre and the state to provide the details of the functional detention centres in Assam and the foreigners detained there during the last 10 years.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that both the Centre and the state have filed their affidavits giving in details the information sought by the apex

The Centre said Over 27,000 foreigners have pushed back at border points while attempting to enter India illegally.

Solicitor General told the bench, also comprising Justice L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, that the Centre has allotted Rs 47 crores and Assam has provided land for building new detention centre with various facilities that will also cover the issues of human rights.

He said a new detention centre will be ready by August 31.

The hearing will continue after lunch.&nbsp;

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals.

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals. The Centre was responding to the January 28 queries of the apex court which had asked the Centre and the state to provide the details of the functional detention centres in Assam and the foreigners detained there during the last 10 years. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that both the Centre and the state have filed their affidavits giving in details the information sought by the apex The Centre said Over 27,000 foreigners have pushed back at border points while attempting to enter India illegally. Solicitor General told the bench, also comprising Justice L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, that the Centre has allotted Rs 47 crores and Assam has provided land for building new detention centre with various facilities that will also cover the issues of human rights. He said a new detention centre will be ready by August 31. The hearing will continue after lunch.

938 persons detained in six centres in Assam, 823 declared as foreigners, Centre tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/anna-hazare-calls-off-indefinite-hunger-strike-after-maharashtra-cm-accepts-his-demand-195426">Lokpal</a> Lokayuktas petition.

Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We want to be harsh but are refraining from saying anything at this stage."The petition was filed by advocate and BJP leader, Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a direction to expeditiously appoint Lokpal at the Centre, Lokayukta in states and provide a citizen charter in every department to ensure time-bound delivery of goods and services.

As per provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, a Lokpal as anti-corruption authority or ombudsman would be set up at the Central level, while a Lokayukta will be set up in each state.

In July last year, the Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over non-appointment of Lokpal by the central government.

In September, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Central government had appointed a Search Committee to nominate the chairperson and members of the Lokpal.&nbsp;

Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai was nominated as chairperson of the committee.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court asked the Lokpal Search Committee to complete its task of short-listing names for a Lokpal by February-end and submit the list for consideration to the Selection Committee. The apex court will hear the plea on March 7.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of Lokpal Lokayuktas petition. Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of Lokpal Lokayuktas petition. Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We want to be harsh but are refraining from saying anything at this stage."The petition was filed by advocate and BJP leader, Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a direction to expeditiously appoint Lokpal at the Centre, Lokayukta in states and provide a citizen charter in every department to ensure time-bound delivery of goods and services. As per provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, a Lokpal as anti-corruption authority or ombudsman would be set up at the Central level, while a Lokayukta will be set up in each state. In July last year, the Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over non-appointment of Lokpal by the central government. In September, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Central government had appointed a Search Committee to nominate the chairperson and members of the Lokpal. Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai was nominated as chairperson of the committee. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court asked the Lokpal Search Committee to complete its task of short-listing names for a Lokpal by February-end and submit the list for consideration to the Selection Committee. The apex court will hear the plea on March 7.

Supreme Court slams states who failed to appoint state Lokayuktas yet

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister.&nbsp;

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court dismisses a plea of RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. CJI Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Tejashwi Yadav. <a href="https://t.co/vKVZ1i3xNe">pic.twitter.com/vKVZ1i3xNe</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1093746450511605762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 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>

Yadav earlier filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court judgement which had turned down his petition challenging the Bihar government order to vacate his bungalow to make way for Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi.

The premises was allotted to Yadav in 2015 upon his appointment as the deputy chief minister of the then 'Grand Alliance' government headed by Nitish Kumar.

He continues to occupy the sprawling bungalow, situated adjacent to the chief minister's residence, even after the lapse of more than a year since RJD lost power in the state and Kumar now heads an NDA government.

Yadav is currently the leader of the opposition in the state assembly.&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister.

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him. Supreme Court dismisses a plea of RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. CJI Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Tejashwi Yadav. pic.twitter.com/vKVZ1i3xNe — ANI (@ANI) February 8, 2019 × Yadav earlier filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court judgement which had turned down his petition challenging the Bihar government order to vacate his bungalow to make way for Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi. The premises was allotted to Yadav in 2015 upon his appointment as the deputy chief minister of the then 'Grand Alliance' government headed by Nitish Kumar. He continues to occupy the sprawling bungalow, situated adjacent to the chief minister's residence, even after the lapse of more than a year since RJD lost power in the state and Kumar now heads an NDA government. Yadav is currently the leader of the opposition in the state assembly.

SC dismisses Tejashwi Yadav's plea challenging decision asking him to vacate govt bungalow 

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-to-move-supreme-court-against-detention-of-agency-officials-by-mamata-government-194919">Saradha chit fund scam case</a> by the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, "Extraordinary situation has arrived. The CBI office was under siege. Evidence (electronic) has been destroyed, we've issued four summons to the commissioner. On a daily basis, FIRs are being registered against CBI officers. We are also filing a contempt petition. He should immediately surrender and we have certain things to point out."

The court, however, declined the plea of the Solicitor General to hear the two applications on Monday in the post-lunch session. "We have gone through your application, there's nothing in it," the CJI said posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday.

At the same time, the bench said it is open for the Solicitor General or any other party to lay before the court any material or evidence to show that any West Bengal authority or police official is planning or trying to destroy evidence related to the case.

"If Kolkata Police Commissioner even remotely thinks of destroying evidence, bring the material before this court. We will come down so heavily on him that he will regret," the bench said.

The top court said all material or evidence has to be placed before it by means of affidavit.

An <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/mamata-government-making-mockery-of-democracy-constitutional-propriety-bjp-194895">all-out war</a> broke out between the Centre and the Mamata Banerjee government on Sunday, with the feisty West Bengal leader beginning the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/my-satyagraha-will-continue-till-india-is-saved-says-mamata-continuing-her-sit-in-194947">sit-in protest</a> over CBI's attempt to question the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in connection with chit fund scams.

Some road restrictions have been imposed in the Metro Cinema area in the heart of West Bengal's capital Kolkata where the sit-in is being held.

The Trinamool Congress chief said she would not attend the Assembly, where the state budget would be placed by Finance Minister Amit Mitra, on Monday.

Insisting that it the CBI stifled the spirit of "Constitution and federalism", Banerjee claimed that the investigation agency knocked on the doors of Kumar without a search warrant.

Banerjee, one of the prime movers behind the effort to cobble together an anti-BJP alliance ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah want to impose President's Rule in whatever states the opposition is in power.

Other politicians such as Congress president Rahul Gandhi, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister M Chandrababu Naidu, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav spoke to Banerjee on Sunday night and vowed support to her protest.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the Saradha chit fund scam case by the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the Saradha chit fund scam case by the Kolkata Police Commissioner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, "Extraordinary situation has arrived. The CBI office was under siege. Evidence (electronic) has been destroyed, we've issued four summons to the commissioner. On a daily basis, FIRs are being registered against CBI officers. We are also filing a contempt petition. He should immediately surrender and we have certain things to point out." The court, however, declined the plea of the Solicitor General to hear the two applications on Monday in the post-lunch session. "We have gone through your application, there's nothing in it," the CJI said posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday. At the same time, the bench said it is open for the Solicitor General or any other party to lay before the court any material or evidence to show that any West Bengal authority or police official is planning or trying to destroy evidence related to the case. "If Kolkata Police Commissioner even remotely thinks of destroying evidence, bring the material before this court. We will come down so heavily on him that he will regret," the bench said. The top court said all material or evidence has to be placed before it by means of affidavit. An all-out war broke out between the Centre and the Mamata Banerjee government on Sunday, with the feisty West Bengal leader beginning the sit-in protest over CBI's attempt to question the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in connection with chit fund scams. Some road restrictions have been imposed in the Metro Cinema area in the heart of West Bengal's capital Kolkata where the sit-in is being held. The Trinamool Congress chief said she would not attend the Assembly, where the state budget would be placed by Finance Minister Amit Mitra, on Monday. Insisting that it the CBI stifled the spirit of "Constitution and federalism", Banerjee claimed that the investigation agency knocked on the doors of Kumar without a search warrant. Banerjee, one of the prime movers behind the effort to cobble together an anti-BJP alliance ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah want to impose President's Rule in whatever states the opposition is in power. Other politicians such as Congress president Rahul Gandhi, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister M Chandrababu Naidu, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav spoke to Banerjee on Sunday night and vowed support to her protest.

Will come down heavily on Kolkata Police chief if he thinks of destroying evidence, says Supreme Court

Rishi Kumar Shukla has been appointed the new director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Shukla is a 1983-batch Indian Police Service officer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre; he has before this been director general of the Madhya Pradesh Police.&nbsp;

He is at the moment chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation.

Shukla's appointment came a day after the second meeting of the PM Modi-led selection panel remained inconclusive.&nbsp;

The CBI chief is chosen by a three-member panel made up of the prime minister (Modi), the leader of the&nbsp;opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha (Mallikarjun Kharge), and the Chief Justice of India (Ranjan Gogoi).&nbsp;

Kharge had not agreed with Shukla's appointment, citing <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-cbi-chief-selection-criteria-were-diluted-says-kharge-in-dissent-note-to-pm-194637?utm_source=izooto&amp;utm_medium=push_notifications&amp;utm_campaign=New%20CBI%20chief&amp;utm_content=&amp;utm_term=">his lack of experience in anti-corruption investigations</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge in a dissent note to the Prime Minister expressed his objection over the appointment of IPS officer Rishi Kumar Shukla as the new CBI Director citing the officer's lack of experience in anti-corruption investigations. (File pic) <a href="https://t.co/B8XcEfbSqc">pic.twitter.com/B8XcEfbSqc</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1091691991790804994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

The BJP responded saying "whatever is being said by him (Kharge) is totally unfounded and not based on facts".&nbsp;

"It's rather Mr&nbsp;Kharge who is guilty of trying to have manipulated independent assessment based criteria, in order to accommodate names of his preference," said Jitendra Singh, Minister of State, Prime Minister Office.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Jitendra Singh, MoS PMO on Mallikarjun Kharge's dissent note to PM over appointment of new CBI Director: Whatever is being said by him is totally unfounded &amp; not based on facts. For the selection of CBI Director, a very objective criteria was followed. <a href="https://t.co/Y5fwZQXuLD">pic.twitter.com/Y5fwZQXuLD</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1091703399962226688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

The CBI chief has a fixed tenure of two years, during which time he cannot be sacked or transferred.&nbsp;

On Saturday, the appointments committee of the Cabinet approved Shukla's appointment as the new CBI director for a period of two years.&nbsp;

Shukla takes over the country's premier investigative agency at a difficult time.

His predecessor, Alok Verma, was the first the CBI chief to not complete his tenure.

Verma was sent on leave after he and his deputy, Rakesh Asthana, filed charges of corruption against each other.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Verma had fought Asthana's appointment as his deputy, saying he was being investigated for corruption. But after Asthana was foisted on the agency, he filed counter-charges against Verma.&nbsp;

Asthana too was sent on leave a little after Verma.&nbsp;

Verma fought his removal in the Supreme Court, which reinstated him with curtailed powers. (He was not allowed to make any major policy changes.)&nbsp;

The court added that a final call on his staying or leaving would be made by a high-powered committee&nbsp;consisting of the prime minister, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India or a stand-in for him.&nbsp;

The committee (Justice AK Sikri stood in for CJI Gogoi) later voted to let go of Verma.&nbsp;

The government then appointed Verma Director General of Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards — a less important portfolio. Verma declined, telling the government to consider him retired.&nbsp;

Rishi Kumar Shukla has been appointed the new director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Shukla is a 1983-batch Indian Police Service officer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre; he has before this been director general of the Madhya Pradesh Police.

Rishi Kumar Shukla has been appointed the new director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Shukla is a 1983-batch Indian Police Service officer from the Madhya Pradesh cadre; he has before this been director general of the Madhya Pradesh Police. He is at the moment chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation. Shukla's appointment came a day after the second meeting of the PM Modi-led selection panel remained inconclusive. The CBI chief is chosen by a three-member panel made up of the prime minister (Modi), the leader of the opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha (Mallikarjun Kharge), and the Chief Justice of India (Ranjan Gogoi). Kharge had not agreed with Shukla's appointment, citing his lack of experience in anti-corruption investigations. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge in a dissent note to the Prime Minister expressed his objection over the appointment of IPS officer Rishi Kumar Shukla as the new CBI Director citing the officer's lack of experience in anti-corruption investigations. (File pic) pic.twitter.com/B8XcEfbSqc — ANI (@ANI) February 2, 2019 × The BJP responded saying "whatever is being said by him (Kharge) is totally unfounded and not based on facts". "It's rather Mr Kharge who is guilty of trying to have manipulated independent assessment based criteria, in order to accommodate names of his preference," said Jitendra Singh, Minister of State, Prime Minister Office. Jitendra Singh, MoS PMO on Mallikarjun Kharge's dissent note to PM over appointment of new CBI Director: Whatever is being said by him is totally unfounded & not based on facts. For the selection of CBI Director, a very objective criteria was followed. pic.twitter.com/Y5fwZQXuLD — ANI (@ANI) February 2, 2019 × The CBI chief has a fixed tenure of two years, during which time he cannot be sacked or transferred. On Saturday, the appointments committee of the Cabinet approved Shukla's appointment as the new CBI director for a period of two years. Shukla takes over the country's premier investigative agency at a difficult time. His predecessor, Alok Verma, was the first the CBI chief to not complete his tenure. Verma was sent on leave after he and his deputy, Rakesh Asthana, filed charges of corruption against each other. Verma had fought Asthana's appointment as his deputy, saying he was being investigated for corruption. But after Asthana was foisted on the agency, he filed counter-charges against Verma. Asthana too was sent on leave a little after Verma. Verma fought his removal in the Supreme Court, which reinstated him with curtailed powers. (He was not allowed to make any major policy changes.) The court added that a final call on his staying or leaving would be made by a high-powered committee consisting of the prime minister, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India or a stand-in for him. The committee (Justice AK Sikri stood in for CJI Gogoi) later voted to let go of Verma. The government then appointed Verma Director General of Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards — a less important portfolio. Verma declined, telling the government to consider him retired.

Former Madhya Pradesh police chief Rishi Kumar Shukla appointed new director of CBI

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI.&nbsp;

Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

The plea will now be heard by another bench.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. <a href="https://t.co/VwL8kEOjNK">pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1087223638066188289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 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>

The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.)&nbsp;

Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption.&nbsp;Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out.&nbsp;

ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. The plea will now be heard by another bench. Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK — ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2019 × The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.) Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption. Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out. ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi recuses himself from hearing plea against Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim CBI director 

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-a-timeline-188184">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid</a> land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

"Further orders will be passed by an appropriate bench on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing the matter," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said.&nbsp;

An appropriate bench will pass an appropriate order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.&nbsp;

No sooner the matter came up, the CJI said it is the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and went ahead with passing the order.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev DhaVan, appearing for different parties, did not even get the opportunity to make any submission.

The hearing did not even last 30 seconds.&nbsp;

Now, a three-member bench will be set up for taking forward the Ayodhya land dispute case in which as many as 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

The hearing on Friday assumed importance as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday had suggested any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process.

(With PTI inputs)

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya. "Further orders will be passed by an appropriate bench on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing the matter," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said. An appropriate bench will pass an appropriate order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said. No sooner the matter came up, the CJI said it is the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and went ahead with passing the order. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev DhaVan, appearing for different parties, did not even get the opportunity to make any submission. The hearing did not even last 30 seconds. Now, a three-member bench will be set up for taking forward the Ayodhya land dispute case in which as many as 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site. The hearing on Friday assumed importance as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday had suggested any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process. (With PTI inputs)

Appropriate bench to fix hearing date in Ayodhya land dispute case on January 10: Supreme Court

ranjan-gogoi

Ranjan Gogoi, News on Ranjan Gogoi, stories on Ranjan Gogoi, articles on Ranjan Gogoi, Ranjan Gogoi stories at Wion, Ranjan Gogoi news, Ranjan Gogoi latest news

ranjan gogoi