India's supreme court has upheld the revocation of the special status of erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The top court also upheld the reorganization of the state into two Union Territories. Both of these changes were made by the Indian Parliament back in 2019. However, the assembly elections in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, could not be conducted even after more than four years. So the supreme court of India has now directed the election commission to hold elections in the union territory by September next year.

India: Supreme Court of India upholds abrogation of article 370

Article 370 verdict: With the stormy Indian Parliament winter session ongoing, the country's Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the validity of the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution. The Indian government on 5 August 2019 abrogated Article 370 of the Consitution and completed the reorganisation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Article 370 verdict: 'Indian Army deployed at places in valley to maintain law & order,' says SC

Bihar cabinet cleared quota hike. The move started a political slugfest. A proposal has been passed to raise the Reservation quota for SCs, STs, OBCs and EWS .The quota has been increased to a total of 75% from the existing 50% .

Bihar cabinet approves to hike reservation quota to 75%

In an apparent bid to delay the elections in Punjab, Pakistan's defence ministry in a report to the supreme court says that India's spy agency R&AW plans to exploit fault lines of the country. Islamabad also fears more attacks by the Pakistan Taliban. The claim is seen as an excuse to delay the elections in the Punjab province, as they fear the growing popularity of Imran Khan.

'India can attack us': Pak terrified, cites 'Indian threat' in report to SC

The Constitution does not grant unilateral and arbitrary power to the country’s top judge to list cases for hearing, form special benches and select judges, Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court quoted recently.

Pakistan: Suo Motu case heard by Supreme Court, opposition slams government

The Supreme Court heard arguments on President Biden federal Students loan forgiveness plan on Tuesday. Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt.

U.S. SC weighs Biden student debt relief plan

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court&nbsp;of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.&nbsp;The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling&nbsp;in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google.&nbsp;Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store.&nbsp;

After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users.&nbsp;

The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform.&nbsp;

CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers.&nbsp;

Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like&nbsp;mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive.&nbsp;

Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform.&nbsp;

A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward."&nbsp;

"We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google. Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store. After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users. The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform. CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers. Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive. Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform. A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward." "We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Google to cooperate with India antitrust watchdog after Android ruling

Marking a historic shift towards increased transparency, all constitutional bench hearings before India's Supreme Court will now be live-streamed.

Live Streaming of proceedings: India's push for transparency in judiciary

There seems to be no end to the political turmoil in Pakistan. With the country's most populous state Punjab becoming the battleground between the coalition government and the key opposition PTI. In the latest, Pakistan SC gives a big blow to the ruling party.

Pakistan SC overturns Punjab DY CM's decision, names Parvez Elahi as Punjab CM

The Indian Supreme Court expanded the scope of the MTP Act to include "unmarried women", allowing a woman to abort her 24-weeks pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship. Molly Gambhir tells you why this verdict is significant.

WION Fineprint | Unmarried women have right to safe abortion says Indian Supreme Court

The right to abortion in America is on the line a day after draft opinion surfaced online. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the legitimacy of the document, the leaked majority opinion suggested that the top US court is poised to strike down the right to abortion in the United States. Mass rallies have been organized by abortion right advocates across the country.

United States: Protests swell across major cities after Abortion rights draft leak

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson becomes the first black woman on US Supreme Court. US President Joe Biden hailed her confirmation.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson becomes 1st black woman on US Supreme Court

The hearing on Pakistan's top court on objection of the no-confidence motion by the national assembly deputy speaker and the dissolution of the assembly has been adjourned. The hearing by the five-judge bench will resume today.

What next for Imran Khan? Will Pakistan SC announce sentence today?

Pakistan's political battle which has been in the Supreme Court for the fifth day may see a conclusion soon. The Pakistan Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on national assembly deputy speaker's April 3rd ruling which rejected the no-confidence vote against Imran Khan

Pakistan Political Crisis: Supreme Court reserves verdict

April 3rd is when Pakistan's national assembly was supposed to vote on a no-confidence motion against Imran khan while the day may have passed in a flash with back-to-back political developments its aftershocks will remain in Pakistan's politics.

Pakistan SC to resume hearing on dismissal of no-trust vote against PM Imran Khan

The SC of Pakistan has returned a petition filed by its bar association. The petition asks the apex court to reconsider the lifetime disqualification of politicians under an article in the constitution.

Pakistan's Supreme Court returns petition filed by bar association

US Supreme Court has delivered a blow to President Biden's COVID strategy, blocking his mandate that all unvaccinated employees of large businesses provide weekly negative tests.

US President Joe Biden: Disappointed as Supreme Court blocks vaccine mandate

A Pakistan SC Judge's wife, Serena Isa alleges that she was harassed and abused at her home by goons posing as intelligence officials.

A Pakistan SC Judge's wife harassed & abused at home by goons posing as intelligence officials

&nbsp;A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers&nbsp;protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors.

The body of Lakhbir Singh, 35, from Punjab's Taran Taran district, was found tied to an overturned police barricade at the site where farmers are protesting three Central farm laws for over 10 months.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/4-para-military-personnel-injured-in-accidental-blast-as-container-of-detonators-slips-while-boarding-train-421202">4 para military personnel injured in accidental blast as container of detonators slips while boarding train</a>

His body bore over 10 wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and the incident is being blamed on a group of Nihangs.

Referring to the incident, a fresh plea has been filed for urgent hearing of the PIL, pending since March this year, saying "The right to freedom of speech and expression cannot supersede the right to life and if this protest is allowed to go in like this, the nation at large will be at a loss."

The interim application has been filed by Swati Goel and Sanjeev Newar in their pending PIL through lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha.

"After the incident of mutilating and murder of the Dalit man, I have moved an urgent mentioning application before Supreme Court," the lawyer said, adding, "Anti-human activities are happening in the name of protests, including rape of a woman and killing of and mutilating a Dalit man. It cannot be allowed to continue."

Besides seeking the removal of protesting farmers, the plea has also sought the issuance of guidelines by the Centre to the states and Union Territories to stop all kinds of protests and not permit them until the pandemic gets over.

"A protest which in itself is illegal cannot be continued when it is witnessing anti-humanitarian acts," the PIL said, adding the protests have seen many unforeseen and unacceptable things including the tractor rally on Republic Day, rape of a woman and its cover-up at the site and murder of Lakhbir Singh on Dusshera.

The plea said at a time when there is a ban on celebrating festivals, visiting temples, going to school and colleges, allowing such protests will serve no good.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/yamuna-river-in-indias-national-capital-delhi-littered-with-waste-despite-curbs-421206">Yamuna river in India's national capital Delhi littered with waste despite curbs</a>

"Protestors are not only putting their life at risk but of millions of people of India and such a prolonged agitation cannot be allowed especially during ongoing pandemic since prolonged protests on public places are not only a clear violation of Supreme Court rulings but is violating Right of Life of others who are directly or indirectly affected by the said protests," it said.

The plea said the PIL, which was listed first on May 10, could not be heard due to the crash of a server at the apex court on that day and later dates of hearings also, it could not be taken up.

Meanwhile, the top court is also hearing a separate plea of a Noida&nbsp;resident Monicca Agrawaal. 
She has sought the removal of blockades saying earlier it took 20 minutes to reach Delhi and now it is taking over two hours and that people of the area are facing hardships due to the protests at the UP Gate on the Delhi border.

On October 4, the top court sought responses from 43 farmers' bodies and their leaders, including Rakesh Tikait, Darshan Pal and Gurnam Singh, leading protests at Delhi borders, on a plea of the Haryana government alleging they have not been participating in talks with its panel to resolve the impasses over road blockade here.

Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-power-crisis-eases-on-account-of-increased-coal-supply-onset-of-winter-421204">&nbsp;India’s power crisis eases on account of increased coal supply, onset of winter</a>

Haryana has moved an application seeking to make 43 bodies and individual leaders of various farmers&nbsp;organisations in the PIL filed by Agrawaal.

The farmers are protesting for the last 10 months against the passage of three laws -- Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.

Initially, the protests started from Punjab in November last year and later spread mainly to Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors.

A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors. The body of Lakhbir Singh, 35, from Punjab's Taran Taran district, was found tied to an overturned police barricade at the site where farmers are protesting three Central farm laws for over 10 months. Also Read | 4 para military personnel injured in accidental blast as container of detonators slips while boarding train His body bore over 10 wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and the incident is being blamed on a group of Nihangs. Referring to the incident, a fresh plea has been filed for urgent hearing of the PIL, pending since March this year, saying "The right to freedom of speech and expression cannot supersede the right to life and if this protest is allowed to go in like this, the nation at large will be at a loss." The interim application has been filed by Swati Goel and Sanjeev Newar in their pending PIL through lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha. "After the incident of mutilating and murder of the Dalit man, I have moved an urgent mentioning application before Supreme Court," the lawyer said, adding, "Anti-human activities are happening in the name of protests, including rape of a woman and killing of and mutilating a Dalit man. It cannot be allowed to continue." Besides seeking the removal of protesting farmers, the plea has also sought the issuance of guidelines by the Centre to the states and Union Territories to stop all kinds of protests and not permit them until the pandemic gets over. "A protest which in itself is illegal cannot be continued when it is witnessing anti-humanitarian acts," the PIL said, adding the protests have seen many unforeseen and unacceptable things including the tractor rally on Republic Day, rape of a woman and its cover-up at the site and murder of Lakhbir Singh on Dusshera. The plea said at a time when there is a ban on celebrating festivals, visiting temples, going to school and colleges, allowing such protests will serve no good. Also Read | Yamuna river in India's national capital Delhi littered with waste despite curbs "Protestors are not only putting their life at risk but of millions of people of India and such a prolonged agitation cannot be allowed especially during ongoing pandemic since prolonged protests on public places are not only a clear violation of Supreme Court rulings but is violating Right of Life of others who are directly or indirectly affected by the said protests," it said. The plea said the PIL, which was listed first on May 10, could not be heard due to the crash of a server at the apex court on that day and later dates of hearings also, it could not be taken up. Meanwhile, the top court is also hearing a separate plea of a Noida resident Monicca Agrawaal. She has sought the removal of blockades saying earlier it took 20 minutes to reach Delhi and now it is taking over two hours and that people of the area are facing hardships due to the protests at the UP Gate on the Delhi border. On October 4, the top court sought responses from 43 farmers' bodies and their leaders, including Rakesh Tikait, Darshan Pal and Gurnam Singh, leading protests at Delhi borders, on a plea of the Haryana government alleging they have not been participating in talks with its panel to resolve the impasses over road blockade here. Also Read | India’s power crisis eases on account of increased coal supply, onset of winter Haryana has moved an application seeking to make 43 bodies and individual leaders of various farmers organisations in the PIL filed by Agrawaal. The farmers are protesting for the last 10 months against the passage of three laws -- Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. Initially, the protests started from Punjab in November last year and later spread mainly to Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

Plea seeks early hearing of PIL in India's Supreme Court on removing protesting farmers from Delhi borders

The Capitol, frequented by presidents, Supreme Court justices and movie stars, it is the transport of choice for some of the world's most powerful movers and shakers, yet only a few in the US, or world, know it exists.

The Capitol: Have you heard of Washington's Secret Subway? | WION Edge

Nepal's embattled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli will not resign but face a floor test in parliament instead, an associate said on Wednesday, a day after the Supreme Court rejected his decision to dissolve the legislature and call early elections.

In a landmark ruling, a five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher on Tuesday annulled the Oli government's "unconstitutional" decision to dissolve the 275-member lower house of Parliament. The court also ordered the government to summon the House session within the next 13 days. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nepal-supreme-court-overturns-prime-minister-kp-sharma-olis-house-dissolution-365693">Also read: Nepal Supreme Court overturns Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's House dissolution</a> 
 
Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 after President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolved the House and announced fresh elections on April 30 and May 10 at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

Oli's Press Advisor Surya Thapa said the prime minister, who turned 69 this week, intends to implement the verdict of the apex court after facing Parliament that is due to convene within two weeks.

"The Supreme Court's verdict is controversial, however, it should be accepted and implemented. Its effects will be seen in the future as the decision has not provided any solution to the political problems," Thapa said.

He claimed that the apex court's verdict will further fuel instability and pave way for power-play.

"The Prime Minister will face the House of Representatives to implement the verdict but will not tender his resignation as of now," Thapa was quoted as saying by The Himalayan Times.

Oli's Chief Advisor Bishnu Rimal, mirroring Thapa's sentiments, said that all will have to accept the court's decision. "However, it provides no solution to existing political complications," Rimal said.

Thapa’s reaction comes amid mounting pressure on the prime minister to step down following the court verdict.

A large section of the Nepalese media welcomed the Supreme Court's verdict that reinstated the dissolved House of Representatives. They hailed the decision, saying it has upheld democratic values and safeguarded the Constitution.

"By passing a judgment, the Supreme Court has once again stood by the people, and reestablished the notion of an independent judiciary,” wrote The Kathmandu Post in its editorial."

"Now the House has been reinstated and the politics will return to Parliament, the problems are not yet over. There are too many players in the House with no one controlling the majority and the risk of the dirty game of horse-trading could start soon," the daily warned.

Naya Patrika daily termed the ruling a “defeat for an autocratic ruler” and a “victory for democracy and a challenge for the future.”

"If both the factions of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) could utilise the opportunity created by the House reinstatement in a constructive way, it would benefit all the party, the cadres and leaders of the party as well as the entire nation," the Annapurna Post said in its editorial.

"One should use conscience so that the country would not plunge into another political crisis and confrontation," it said.

Meanwhile, Vice-president of the CPN Bamdev Gautam, who has so far maintained a balance between Oli and his rivals Prachanda and Madhav Kumar Nepal, has urged the prime minister to step down.

"As the court verdict has proven that the PM's step was unconstitutional, he must resign immediately," Gautam said.

Bhim Rawal, the Sudurpaschim in-charge of the Dahal-Nepal faction of Nepal Communist Party (NCP), has said on Wednesday Oli should apologise to the people.

"KP Sharma Oli should personally apologise to the nation for dissolving the parliament. If he resigns from the post of Prime Minister on moral grounds and asks for forgiveness from NCP, then only can the party become positive towards him," The Himalayan Times quoted Rawal as saying.

(With inputs from agencies)

Nepal's embattled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli will not resign but face a floor test in parliament instead, an associate said on Wednesday, a day after the Supreme Court rejected his decision to dissolve the legislature and call early elections.

Nepal's embattled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli will not resign but face a floor test in parliament instead, an associate said on Wednesday, a day after the Supreme Court rejected his decision to dissolve the legislature and call early elections. In a landmark ruling, a five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher on Tuesday annulled the Oli government's "unconstitutional" decision to dissolve the 275-member lower house of Parliament. The court also ordered the government to summon the House session within the next 13 days. Also read: Nepal Supreme Court overturns Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's House dissolution Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 after President Bidya Devi Bhandari dissolved the House and announced fresh elections on April 30 and May 10 at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Oli's Press Advisor Surya Thapa said the prime minister, who turned 69 this week, intends to implement the verdict of the apex court after facing Parliament that is due to convene within two weeks. "The Supreme Court's verdict is controversial, however, it should be accepted and implemented. Its effects will be seen in the future as the decision has not provided any solution to the political problems," Thapa said. He claimed that the apex court's verdict will further fuel instability and pave way for power-play. "The Prime Minister will face the House of Representatives to implement the verdict but will not tender his resignation as of now," Thapa was quoted as saying by The Himalayan Times. Oli's Chief Advisor Bishnu Rimal, mirroring Thapa's sentiments, said that all will have to accept the court's decision. "However, it provides no solution to existing political complications," Rimal said. Thapa’s reaction comes amid mounting pressure on the prime minister to step down following the court verdict. A large section of the Nepalese media welcomed the Supreme Court's verdict that reinstated the dissolved House of Representatives. They hailed the decision, saying it has upheld democratic values and safeguarded the Constitution. "By passing a judgment, the Supreme Court has once again stood by the people, and reestablished the notion of an independent judiciary,” wrote The Kathmandu Post in its editorial." "Now the House has been reinstated and the politics will return to Parliament, the problems are not yet over. There are too many players in the House with no one controlling the majority and the risk of the dirty game of horse-trading could start soon," the daily warned. Naya Patrika daily termed the ruling a “defeat for an autocratic ruler” and a “victory for democracy and a challenge for the future.” "If both the factions of the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) could utilise the opportunity created by the House reinstatement in a constructive way, it would benefit all the party, the cadres and leaders of the party as well as the entire nation," the Annapurna Post said in its editorial. "One should use conscience so that the country would not plunge into another political crisis and confrontation," it said. Meanwhile, Vice-president of the CPN Bamdev Gautam, who has so far maintained a balance between Oli and his rivals Prachanda and Madhav Kumar Nepal, has urged the prime minister to step down. "As the court verdict has proven that the PM's step was unconstitutional, he must resign immediately," Gautam said. Bhim Rawal, the Sudurpaschim in-charge of the Dahal-Nepal faction of Nepal Communist Party (NCP), has said on Wednesday Oli should apologise to the people. "KP Sharma Oli should personally apologise to the nation for dissolving the parliament. If he resigns from the post of Prime Minister on moral grounds and asks for forgiveness from NCP, then only can the party become positive towards him," The Himalayan Times quoted Rawal as saying. (With inputs from agencies)

Nepal PM in no mood to resign, prepared to face Parliament: Oli's Press Advisor

A special bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal has reinstated the Lower House of the Parliament which was dissolved by the government of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli in December 2020.&nbsp;

The SC has deemed Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's decision to dissolve the House as an unconstitutional move, thereby overturning the decision. With this, the house will be reinstated.

The Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has directed the government to summon a session of the House of Representatives within 13 days.

Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 after Oli, in a surprise move, dissolved the House of Representatives, amidst a tussle for power with his rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'. His move to dissolve the 275-member House had sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by Prachanda, also a co-chair of the ruling party.

Oli repeatedly defended his move to dissolve the House of Representatives, saying some leaders of his party were attempting to form a "parallel government".

As many as 13 writ petitions including the one by the ruling Nepal Communist Party's Chief Whip Dev Prasad Gurung were filed at the apex court seeking the restoration of the lower house parliament.

Just some days ago, Prime Minister Oli had warned of an impending protest if it was ordered for the parliament to be reinstated.

(With inputs from agencies)

A special bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal has reinstated the Lower House of the Parliament which was dissolved by the government of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli in December 2020.

A special bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal has reinstated the Lower House of the Parliament which was dissolved by the government of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli in December 2020. The SC has deemed Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's decision to dissolve the House as an unconstitutional move, thereby overturning the decision. With this, the house will be reinstated. The Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has directed the government to summon a session of the House of Representatives within 13 days. Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 after Oli, in a surprise move, dissolved the House of Representatives, amidst a tussle for power with his rival Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'. His move to dissolve the 275-member House had sparked protests from a large section of the NCP led by Prachanda, also a co-chair of the ruling party. Oli repeatedly defended his move to dissolve the House of Representatives, saying some leaders of his party were attempting to form a "parallel government". As many as 13 writ petitions including the one by the ruling Nepal Communist Party's Chief Whip Dev Prasad Gurung were filed at the apex court seeking the restoration of the lower house parliament. Just some days ago, Prime Minister Oli had warned of an impending protest if it was ordered for the parliament to be reinstated. (With inputs from agencies)

Nepal Supreme Court overturns Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's House dissolution

Amid the ongoing political turmoil in the country, Nepal caretaker Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Thursday reached the country's Supreme Court to furnish written reply over the cases filed against him.&nbsp;

This comes as Nepal Supreme Court last month had summoned PM Oli in person within seven days with a written response on why he should not be punished for contempt of court.&nbsp;

“Single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma ordered PM Oli to appear before the court in the contempt of court cases over his comments over a senior advocate and subsequent comments about the sub-judicial case of house dissolution,” said Devendra Dhakal, assistant spokesperson, Supreme Court last month.&nbsp;

Earlier, two advocates had filed separate cases of 'Contempt of Court' against Oli last month over his remarks on the Parliament dissolution case, which is undergoing discussion at the court along with subsequent comment over a senior advocate.&nbsp;

Advocates Kumar Sharma Acharya and Kanchan Krishna Neupane filed the cases against Oli, who is functioning as a 'caretaker prime minister' after dissolving lower house and calling fresh elections, before schedule.&nbsp;

Advocates have claimed that Oli tried to influence the court and made disparaging remarks against legal practitioners. In an event on January 22, Oli during his address at a local gathering claimed that parliament dissolution has been made over time in Nepali history and there is no provision to restore the house.&nbsp;

While defending himself over the issue, which now is undergoing discussion at court, Oli took a jibe at a senior advocate and former chairman of Nepal Bar Association, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, calling him a 'grandfather' lawyer and asked petitioners not to trouble him.&nbsp;

Oli further attacked Bhandari calling his presence at the Supreme Court a 'farce'. The former chair and senior advocate, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, earlier in the week while taking part in the discussion had termed the latest move of Oli as unconstitutional.&nbsp;

The petitioners, who lodged a case against Oli in the Supreme Court, have claimed the statement by Oli has evoked Article 128 (4) of the constitution.&nbsp;

Over a dozen writ petitions have been lodged against Oli after he recommended the President to dissolve the lower house for failing to get an absolute majority in the parliament.&nbsp;

Amid the ongoing political turmoil in the country, Nepal caretaker Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Thursday reached the country's Supreme Court to furnish written reply over the cases filed against him.

Amid the ongoing political turmoil in the country, Nepal caretaker Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Thursday reached the country's Supreme Court to furnish written reply over the cases filed against him. This comes as Nepal Supreme Court last month had summoned PM Oli in person within seven days with a written response on why he should not be punished for contempt of court. “Single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma ordered PM Oli to appear before the court in the contempt of court cases over his comments over a senior advocate and subsequent comments about the sub-judicial case of house dissolution,” said Devendra Dhakal, assistant spokesperson, Supreme Court last month. Earlier, two advocates had filed separate cases of 'Contempt of Court' against Oli last month over his remarks on the Parliament dissolution case, which is undergoing discussion at the court along with subsequent comment over a senior advocate. Advocates Kumar Sharma Acharya and Kanchan Krishna Neupane filed the cases against Oli, who is functioning as a 'caretaker prime minister' after dissolving lower house and calling fresh elections, before schedule. Advocates have claimed that Oli tried to influence the court and made disparaging remarks against legal practitioners. In an event on January 22, Oli during his address at a local gathering claimed that parliament dissolution has been made over time in Nepali history and there is no provision to restore the house. While defending himself over the issue, which now is undergoing discussion at court, Oli took a jibe at a senior advocate and former chairman of Nepal Bar Association, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, calling him a 'grandfather' lawyer and asked petitioners not to trouble him. Oli further attacked Bhandari calling his presence at the Supreme Court a 'farce'. The former chair and senior advocate, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, earlier in the week while taking part in the discussion had termed the latest move of Oli as unconstitutional. The petitioners, who lodged a case against Oli in the Supreme Court, have claimed the statement by Oli has evoked Article 128 (4) of the constitution. Over a dozen writ petitions have been lodged against Oli after he recommended the President to dissolve the lower house for failing to get an absolute majority in the parliament.

Nepal caretaker PM furnishes written reply in SC over contempt of court cases

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/school-established-for-slum-children-at-indian-farmers-protest-site-355436/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The top court also considered staying the implementation of the three laws and refused to give the government extra time for finding a solution.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/im-a-farmers-son-know-more-about-agriculture-than-rahul-gandhi-rajnath-singh-353287">I’m a farmer’s son, know more about agriculture than Rahul Gandhi: Rajnath Singh</a>

"We have given you long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the bench has made "harsh" observations on the government's handling of the crisis to which the top court replied, "that was the most the innocuous factual thing for us to say".&nbsp;

The SC said that it was "extremely disappointed" with the negotiation process and told the Centre that state government are "rebelling" against the laws.&nbsp;

"We don't want to make any stray observations on your negotiations but we are extremely disappointed with the process," the top court said.&nbsp;

The SC also asked the parties to suggest names of former chief justices that can head the panel

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock. Watch | The top court also considered staying the implementation of the three laws and refused to give the government extra time for finding a solution. Also read | I’m a farmer’s son, know more about agriculture than Rahul Gandhi: Rajnath Singh "We have given you long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the bench has made "harsh" observations on the government's handling of the crisis to which the top court replied, "that was the most the innocuous factual thing for us to say". The SC said that it was "extremely disappointed" with the negotiation process and told the Centre that state government are "rebelling" against the laws. "We don't want to make any stray observations on your negotiations but we are extremely disappointed with the process," the top court said. The SC also asked the parties to suggest names of former chief justices that can head the panel

'Extremely disappointed': SC pulls up Centre for handling farmers' protest

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against the legality of the Shaheen Bagh protest, saying public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters.

Shaheen Bagh Case: Public Places, Roads Can't be Occupied Indefinitely, Says Supreme Court

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court.

The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc.

It has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED) &amp; SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office) or by a Special Investigation Team to investigate various offences including money laundering and black money hoarding by directors &amp; beneficiaries of the company.

The plea alleged that the company collected franchise fees of Rs three lakh and assured certain payouts and attracted 500 investors.

However, the company defaulted in the payment during the lockdown and sent an email in May saying it was enforcing Force Majure (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) clause listed in the agreement, according to the plea.

"The injury is large because under a well-planned conspiracy, directors, sleeping partners and employees deceived the petitioners by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing them to deliver their hard earned money," the plea alleged.

A man was arrested in Uttar Pradesh's Noida in August in connection with a 'franchise fraud' in which scores of people have been allegedly duped to the tune of around Rs 30 crore.

According to police, a group of people in the National Capital Region (NCR) had floated a company, "Hypermart", registered in Sector 63 of Noida, and five-six more such firms to target people with offer of giving them a "franchise store" of the firm in their city.

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc.

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc. It has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED) & SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office) or by a Special Investigation Team to investigate various offences including money laundering and black money hoarding by directors & beneficiaries of the company. The plea alleged that the company collected franchise fees of Rs three lakh and assured certain payouts and attracted 500 investors. However, the company defaulted in the payment during the lockdown and sent an email in May saying it was enforcing Force Majure (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) clause listed in the agreement, according to the plea. "The injury is large because under a well-planned conspiracy, directors, sleeping partners and employees deceived the petitioners by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing them to deliver their hard earned money," the plea alleged. A man was arrested in Uttar Pradesh's Noida in August in connection with a 'franchise fraud' in which scores of people have been allegedly duped to the tune of around Rs 30 crore. According to police, a group of people in the National Capital Region (NCR) had floated a company, "Hypermart", registered in Sector 63 of Noida, and five-six more such firms to target people with offer of giving them a "franchise store" of the firm in their city.

Plea in Supreme Court for investigation in alleged 'franchise racket'

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court.&nbsp;

On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order.

According to the Banks' allegations, Vijay Mallya hid the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in violation of the orders given by the Karnataka High Court. 
&nbsp; 
The Supreme Court's division bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan rejected the petition and said "We do not find any merits. Review petition dismissed".

Mallya, who is accused in a bank loan default case of over ₹9,000 crores involving his Kingfisher Airlines and is presently in the UK, had reportedly sought asylum in the country after having lost extradition proceedings.

In June, the apex court had asked its registry as to why Mallya's review petition had not been listed before the court concerned in the last three years. The Supreme Court directed the registry to provide all details including the names of officials who dealt with the file concerning the review petition in the last three years.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court. On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court. On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order. According to the Banks' allegations, Vijay Mallya hid the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in violation of the orders given by the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court's division bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan rejected the petition and said "We do not find any merits. Review petition dismissed". Mallya, who is accused in a bank loan default case of over ₹9,000 crores involving his Kingfisher Airlines and is presently in the UK, had reportedly sought asylum in the country after having lost extradition proceedings. In June, the apex court had asked its registry as to why Mallya's review petition had not been listed before the court concerned in the last three years. The Supreme Court directed the registry to provide all details including the names of officials who dealt with the file concerning the review petition in the last three years.

Supreme Court rejects Vijay Mallya's plea seeking review against contempt order

The Supreme Court on July 13 pronounced its verdict on the dispute over management of Thiruvananthapuram's historic Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The top court said that the royal family of Travancore still has the shebait right.

Padmanabhaswamy Temple Row: Royale family to manage Kerala temple, says SC

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

LGBT community applaud Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to&nbsp;coronavirus lockdown.

The nationwide lockdown was announced from March 25 to combat the spread of the global pandemic, COVID-19.

Here are the key observations made by the Supreme Court:

June 5 Hearing

1. The Supreme Court on June 5&nbsp;said it intends to give 15 days to the Centre and states for transporting all stranded migrant workers to their native places.

2. The apex court will pronounce its order on June 9 on the issue including their registration and employment opportunities.

3. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that till now over one crore migrant workers have been transported to their destinations through trains and buses.

4. Tushar Mehta assured the bench that necessary trains are being made available to the concerned states and it would be provided in future as well when demands are raised. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/congress-must-continue-to-engage-with-migrant-workers-in-a-time-of-crisis-like-covid-19-303351">Also Read: Congress must continue to engage with migrant workers</a>

May 28&nbsp;Hearing

5. On May 28, the top court directed that no fare for travel either by train or bus be charged from migrant workers, stranded across the country.

6. The court also said that all the migrant workers stranded at various places shall be provided food by concerned states and Union Territories (UTs).

7. The court further observed that the originating state shall provide meals and water at the station and during the journey, the Railways would provide the same to the migrant workers.

8. The bench directed that migrant workers found walking on the roads should immediately be taken to shelters and provided food and other necessary facilities.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-21-lakh-migrant-labourers-have-returned-to-up-official-302023">Also Read: Over 21 lakh migrant labourers have returned to UP</a>

May 26 Hearing

9. The Supreme Court on May 26 took cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers and said there have been “inadequacies and certain lapses” on the part of the central and state governments in dealing with the crisis.

10. The top court issued notice to the central government, all states and Union Territories to submit their responses by May 28. 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to coronavirus lockdown.

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to coronavirus lockdown. The nationwide lockdown was announced from March 25 to combat the spread of the global pandemic, COVID-19. Here are the key observations made by the Supreme Court: June 5 Hearing 1. The Supreme Court on June 5 said it intends to give 15 days to the Centre and states for transporting all stranded migrant workers to their native places. 2. The apex court will pronounce its order on June 9 on the issue including their registration and employment opportunities. 3. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that till now over one crore migrant workers have been transported to their destinations through trains and buses. 4. Tushar Mehta assured the bench that necessary trains are being made available to the concerned states and it would be provided in future as well when demands are raised. Also Read: Congress must continue to engage with migrant workers May 28 Hearing 5. On May 28, the top court directed that no fare for travel either by train or bus be charged from migrant workers, stranded across the country. 6. The court also said that all the migrant workers stranded at various places shall be provided food by concerned states and Union Territories (UTs). 7. The court further observed that the originating state shall provide meals and water at the station and during the journey, the Railways would provide the same to the migrant workers. 8. The bench directed that migrant workers found walking on the roads should immediately be taken to shelters and provided food and other necessary facilities. Also Read: Over 21 lakh migrant labourers have returned to UP May 26 Hearing 9. The Supreme Court on May 26 took cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers and said there have been “inadequacies and certain lapses” on the part of the central and state governments in dealing with the crisis. 10. The top court issued notice to the central government, all states and Union Territories to submit their responses by May 28. (With inputs from PTI)

A look at the Supreme Court's observations on the migrant workers crisis due to coronavirus lockdown: Key points

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat"&nbsp;as a sense of pride.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/raveesh-kumar-appointed-as-next-ambassador-of-india-to-finland-302902" hreflang="en">Raveesh Kumar appointed as next Ambassador of India to Finland</a>

The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to send a written copy of his plea to concerned ministries that will decide representation appropriately.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/armies-of-india-and-china-to-hold-lt-gen-level-talks-on-june-6-to-resolve-ladakh-crisis-302898" hreflang="en">Armies of India and China to hold Lt Gen level talks on June 6 to resolve Ladakh crisis</a>

The Delhi-based petitioner said the time is ripe to recognise the country by its original name rather than its "English"&nbsp;name.&nbsp;

The plea revolves around Article 1 will ensure "the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past."

The plea read: "The removal of the English name, though appears symbolic, will instil a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for the future generations. In fact, replacing India with Bharat would justify the hard-fought freedom achieved by our ancestors."

"The nature of injury being caused to the public is the loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule," the plea contended.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat" as a sense of pride.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat" as a sense of pride. Also read: Raveesh Kumar appointed as next Ambassador of India to Finland The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to send a written copy of his plea to concerned ministries that will decide representation appropriately. Also read: Armies of India and China to hold Lt Gen level talks on June 6 to resolve Ladakh crisis The Delhi-based petitioner said the time is ripe to recognise the country by its original name rather than its "English" name. The plea revolves around Article 1 will ensure "the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past." The plea read: "The removal of the English name, though appears symbolic, will instil a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for the future generations. In fact, replacing India with Bharat would justify the hard-fought freedom achieved by our ancestors." "The nature of injury being caused to the public is the loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule," the plea contended.

Supreme Court rejects plea to change India's name to 'Bharat'

Sc, News on Sc, stories on Sc, articles on Sc, Sc stories at Wion, Sc news, Sc latest news