Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. &nbsp;

This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash.&nbsp;

Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. &nbsp;

Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so.&nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. &nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. &nbsp;

Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same.&nbsp;

There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. 
 
Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts.

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash. Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so. Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha. A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same. There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Post-retirement jobs: Judiciary’s bane

Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on March 4 a plea seeking immediate registration of FIR against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and others for their alleged "hate speech", that allegedly led to the violence in North-East Delhi.

The petition was filed by a group of Delhi violence survivors.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for the survivors told the apex court that Delhi High Court had last week adjourned the issue for six weeks whereas people are dying every day.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/airtel-deposits-another-rs-8000-crore-towards-agr-dues-in-compliance-with-sc-order-283450">Airtel deposits another Rs 8,000 crore towards AGR dues in compliance with SC order</a>

Gonsalves said that it is an urgent issue and added that the top court should hear the matter today or tomorrow. The Chief Justice said that he "wished for peace" but added that the court cannot give preventive relief.

"We are not saying people should die. That kind of pressure we are not equipped to handle. We cannot stop things from happening. We cannot give preventive relief. We feel a kind of pressure on us... We can only deal with the situation after it occurs, the kind of pressure on us, we can`t handle that... it's like the court is responsible," Chief Justice Bobde observed.

"We read newspapers, we know the kind of comments that are made. Courts come on to the scene after the thing is done and courts have not been able to prevent such a thing. We wish peace...," he added.

Also see: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-declines-to-refer-the-petitions-challenging-government-move-on-article-370-to-a-larger-bench-283634">Supreme Court declines to refer the petitions challenging government move on Article 370 to a larger bench</a>

The plea filed by a group of 10 Delhi violence survivors sought an immediate FIR against Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma who allegedly "indulged in hate speech, rioting, murder, and arson".

It sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with officers from outside Delhi to probe violence and call in the army to maintain law and order in the national capital. The plea further sought an inquiry committee headed by a retired judge to probe police persons involved in the violence and exemplary compensation to all victims.

The petitioners also sought postmortem reports to be released immediately to the families of victims. IT also sought a direction to the government and police to make public the full list of persons detained by police and paramilitary and to preserve all CCTV footage of violence-affected areas.

At least 46 people lost their lives and more than 200 others sustained serious injuries in the violence that rocked North-East Delhi last week.

Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on March 4 a plea seeking immediate registration of FIR against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and others for their alleged "hate speech", that allegedly led to the violence in North-East Delhi.

Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on March 4 a plea seeking immediate registration of FIR against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and others for their alleged "hate speech", that allegedly led to the violence in North-East Delhi. The petition was filed by a group of Delhi violence survivors. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for the survivors told the apex court that Delhi High Court had last week adjourned the issue for six weeks whereas people are dying every day. Also read: Airtel deposits another Rs 8,000 crore towards AGR dues in compliance with SC order Gonsalves said that it is an urgent issue and added that the top court should hear the matter today or tomorrow. The Chief Justice said that he "wished for peace" but added that the court cannot give preventive relief. "We are not saying people should die. That kind of pressure we are not equipped to handle. We cannot stop things from happening. We cannot give preventive relief. We feel a kind of pressure on us... We can only deal with the situation after it occurs, the kind of pressure on us, we can`t handle that... it's like the court is responsible," Chief Justice Bobde observed. "We read newspapers, we know the kind of comments that are made. Courts come on to the scene after the thing is done and courts have not been able to prevent such a thing. We wish peace...," he added. Also see: Supreme Court declines to refer the petitions challenging government move on Article 370 to a larger bench The plea filed by a group of 10 Delhi violence survivors sought an immediate FIR against Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma who allegedly "indulged in hate speech, rioting, murder, and arson". It sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with officers from outside Delhi to probe violence and call in the army to maintain law and order in the national capital. The plea further sought an inquiry committee headed by a retired judge to probe police persons involved in the violence and exemplary compensation to all victims. The petitioners also sought postmortem reports to be released immediately to the families of victims. IT also sought a direction to the government and police to make public the full list of persons detained by police and paramilitary and to preserve all CCTV footage of violence-affected areas. At least 46 people lost their lives and more than 200 others sustained serious injuries in the violence that rocked North-East Delhi last week.

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking FIR against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur

Irrespective of years of service, Supreme Court directed the Center to give permanent commissions to all women officers in the army who opt for it within three months. The SC said that all the conditions for the appointment of women officers will be the same as their male counterparts.

Indian Apex court orders to grant permanent commission to women officers in Army

In a landmark order today, the Supreme Court ordered political parties to share details of criminal cases against their candidates on the party website.

Gravitas: Top Court orders parties to upload candidates' criminal record

Its been 8 years since Nirbhaya was gang raped and left to die. On Thursday, the hearing on the execution of the guilty rapists was postponed again.

Gravitas: Nirbhaya Case: Justice delayed is justice denied

Supreme Court of India on its verdict challenging the lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir has directed the government to review all the restrictions in place within seven days. The court also said that internet access is part of article 19 which is a fundamental right to expression. #SupremeCourtOfIndia #J&K #JammuAndKashmir

Fineprint: Review all restrictions in seven days, says SC on J&K lockdown

Supreme Court Judges said curbs on the internet are subject to scrutiny and it should be reviewed. The court was delivering its verdict on numerous Pleas including that of congress leader Gulam Nabi Azad. #SupremeCourtVerdict #KashmirCrisis #WionNews

SC verdict on J&K Plea, orders review on restriction in a week

Curbs on the internet are subject to scrutiny, says SC

In India resentment over the amended Citizenship law among certain quarters has culminated into a series of protests. Atleast 20 petitions have been fired in the Supreme Court of India till now. A three-judge bench headed by Justice SA Bobde will hear the petition today.

Supreme Court 3 judge bench to hear CAA petition today

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill.

Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant?

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance.

The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again.

India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities.

While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home.

The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant.&nbsp;

In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. &nbsp;

The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns.

Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India.

While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value.

With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how.

The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion.&nbsp;

Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so.&nbsp;

Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit.

Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'.

However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application

The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally.

However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others.

The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'.

In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney &amp; Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government.

However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. 
 
The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. 
 
In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” 
 
Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. 
 
Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. 
 
Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. 
 
In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention.

Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts.

The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries.

As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition.

Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines.

Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'.

Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. 
&nbsp;

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law.

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill. Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance. The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again. India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities. While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home. The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant. In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns. Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India. While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value. With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how. The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion. Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so. Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit. Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'. However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally. However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others. The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'. In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government. However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention. Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts. The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries. As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition. Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines. Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'. Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Here's why Supreme Court is not likely to quash Citizenship Amendment Act

The Supreme Court on December 12 dismissed a batch of petitions seeking review of its November 9 Ayodhya land dispute case verdict, which cleared the way for construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site.

Supreme Court dismisses all review petitions in Ayodhya verdict

The Central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to renew the reservation provided to the marginalised communities like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state legislatures.

Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad will introduce the Constitution (126th Amendment Bill) 2019, in the Lok Sabha on Monday, that provides to further amend Article 334 of the Constitution which proposes to extend the reservation for these marginalised sections for another ten years.

Interestingly, the proposed amendment does away with the reservation provided to the Anglo Indian community in the Lok Sabha and state legislatures.

"Although SCs and STs have made considerable progress in the last 70 years, the reasons which weighed with the constituent assembly in making provisions with regard to the aforesaid reservation of seats have not yet ceased to exist.

Therefore, with a view to retaining the inclusive character as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Constitution, it is proposed to continue the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for another 10 years, that is up to 25 January 2030," the proposed Bill states.

The move was set in motion after a meeting of the BJP`s top brass, attended by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister and party chief Amit Shah, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, Leader of House in Rajya Sabha and Social Justice Minister Thawar Chand Gehlot, in Parliament on December 3.

The need for bringing in the Bill was felt as the current reservation provision ends on January 26, 2020, and the government wants to get the approval of Parliament ahead of the deadline.

The move by the Narendra Modi government is significant as the BJP is often portrayed as being anti-reservation. Sources stated that this step is expected to send across a message that the Narendra Modi government is with the marginalised sections of the society.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to renew the reservation provided to the marginalised communities like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state legislatures.

The Central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to renew the reservation provided to the marginalised communities like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and state legislatures. Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad will introduce the Constitution (126th Amendment Bill) 2019, in the Lok Sabha on Monday, that provides to further amend Article 334 of the Constitution which proposes to extend the reservation for these marginalised sections for another ten years. Interestingly, the proposed amendment does away with the reservation provided to the Anglo Indian community in the Lok Sabha and state legislatures. "Although SCs and STs have made considerable progress in the last 70 years, the reasons which weighed with the constituent assembly in making provisions with regard to the aforesaid reservation of seats have not yet ceased to exist. Therefore, with a view to retaining the inclusive character as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Constitution, it is proposed to continue the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for another 10 years, that is up to 25 January 2030," the proposed Bill states. The move was set in motion after a meeting of the BJP`s top brass, attended by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister and party chief Amit Shah, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, Leader of House in Rajya Sabha and Social Justice Minister Thawar Chand Gehlot, in Parliament on December 3. The need for bringing in the Bill was felt as the current reservation provision ends on January 26, 2020, and the government wants to get the approval of Parliament ahead of the deadline. The move by the Narendra Modi government is significant as the BJP is often portrayed as being anti-reservation. Sources stated that this step is expected to send across a message that the Narendra Modi government is with the marginalised sections of the society.

Government to introduce Bill to extend reservation for SC/ST in Lok Sabha on Monday

Soon After SC's Order Directing Floor Test, Chips Begin To Fall In Maharashtra Politics.

Gravitas: Maharashtra Political Thriller: Floor Test Tomorrow

Pakistan Supreme Court issues notice to the defence ministry.

SC puts a hold on Bajwa tenure extension

According to SC orders, Floor test to be conducted by protem speaker that will take place tomorrow.

SC Orders trust vote in Maharashtra

SC Hearing on Government Formation Today. To know more watch the video

Maharashtra Political Crisis: SC Hearing on Government Formation Today

SC to pass order tomorrow at 10:30 AM. To know more watch the video

Maharashtra Political Crisis: SC to pass order tomorrow at 10:30 AM

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-court-orders-5-day-custody-for-chidambaram-244846">under the&nbsp;CBI custody till August 26</a>.

The plea was filed by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court verdict of&nbsp;August 20 that dismissed his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-immediate-relief-for-p-chidambaram-his-plea-against-arrest-referred-to-chief-justice-of-india-244564">anticipatory bail plea</a> in the INX Media case.

The CBI court on Thursday ordered 5-day custody for Chidambaram who is accused in the INX media case.&nbsp;

During his remand with the CBI, Chidambaram will be allowed to meet with his lawyers and family members for 30 minutes every day. &nbsp;

Meanwhile, Chidambaram's bail petition against the Enforcement Directorate will be heard by the Supreme Court on August 27.

The CBI court on Thursday began hearing the matter Chidambaram's bail plea at Rouse Avenue District Court in New Delhi.&nbsp;

Chidambaram was arrested in the INX media case on Wednesday night after he failed to get relief from the Supreme Court over CBI and ED's pursuit of him as the matter was not heard by the court despite repeated efforts of his lawyers.

Chidambaram's arrest became an intense political drama as CBI officials had to climb the wall of his residence to get inside his home.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held under the CBI custody till August 26.

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held under the CBI custody till August 26. The plea was filed by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court verdict of August 20 that dismissed his anticipatory bail plea in the INX Media case. The CBI court on Thursday ordered 5-day custody for Chidambaram who is accused in the INX media case. During his remand with the CBI, Chidambaram will be allowed to meet with his lawyers and family members for 30 minutes every day. Meanwhile, Chidambaram's bail petition against the Enforcement Directorate will be heard by the Supreme Court on August 27. The CBI court on Thursday began hearing the matter Chidambaram's bail plea at Rouse Avenue District Court in New Delhi. Chidambaram was arrested in the INX media case on Wednesday night after he failed to get relief from the Supreme Court over CBI and ED's pursuit of him as the matter was not heard by the court despite repeated efforts of his lawyers. Chidambaram's arrest became an intense political drama as CBI officials had to climb the wall of his residence to get inside his home.

INX Media case: Supreme Court to hear P Chidambaram's bail plea today

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Sunday claimed that the economic condition of the people belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories is continuously deteriorating due to India's sluggish economy.

To resolve the existing issue, she urged the Centre and the state governments to provide employment to these sections by filling the vacant quota seats allocated in government-run institutions.

Taking to Twitter, the former Uttar Pradesh chief minister said, "In our country, the economic condition of SCs, STs, OBCs and upper caste poor is continuously deteriorating due to the economic slowdown. I urge the Central government as well as the state governments to pay special attention to these neglected sections of the society and provide them with all the benefits by introducing new schemes in order to eradicate poverty."

"In addition, I also want Centre and the state government to fill up the vacant quota seats of the government-run institutions by giving these people employment. The administration must carry out special campaigns for the same. These moves will improve their economic conditions slightly. These kinds of steps are also important in the interest of the country," she said in another tweet.

On Saturday also, the BSP Supremo expressed concern over the prevailing economic condition of the country and stated that an "economic recession" is looming over the country.

"In the midst of serious issues like widespread unemployment, poverty, price rise, illiteracy, health, tensions/violence, the threat of an economic recession is looming over the country," she said on micro-blogging site yesterday.

"The trader community is dejected and worried. After job cuts, they are forced to commit suicide. The Centre must take this seriously," she said in another tweet yesterday.&nbsp;

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Sunday claimed that the economic condition of the people belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories is continuously deteriorating due to India's sluggish economy.

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Sunday claimed that the economic condition of the people belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories is continuously deteriorating due to India's sluggish economy. To resolve the existing issue, she urged the Centre and the state governments to provide employment to these sections by filling the vacant quota seats allocated in government-run institutions. Taking to Twitter, the former Uttar Pradesh chief minister said, "In our country, the economic condition of SCs, STs, OBCs and upper caste poor is continuously deteriorating due to the economic slowdown. I urge the Central government as well as the state governments to pay special attention to these neglected sections of the society and provide them with all the benefits by introducing new schemes in order to eradicate poverty." "In addition, I also want Centre and the state government to fill up the vacant quota seats of the government-run institutions by giving these people employment. The administration must carry out special campaigns for the same. These moves will improve their economic conditions slightly. These kinds of steps are also important in the interest of the country," she said in another tweet. On Saturday also, the BSP Supremo expressed concern over the prevailing economic condition of the country and stated that an "economic recession" is looming over the country. "In the midst of serious issues like widespread unemployment, poverty, price rise, illiteracy, health, tensions/violence, the threat of an economic recession is looming over the country," she said on micro-blogging site yesterday. "The trader community is dejected and worried. After job cuts, they are forced to commit suicide. The Centre must take this seriously," she said in another tweet yesterday.

Conditions of SCs, STs deteriorating due to economic slowdown: Mayawati

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time.

"The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench.&nbsp;

The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;

The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks.&nbsp;

The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

 
&nbsp;

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time. "The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench. The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks. The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

Centre seeks one week's time to take decision on Justice Akil Kureshi's elevation

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-revoked-from-jammu-and-kashmir-all-you-need-to-know-240772">Article 370</a>.

The court said it will wait for the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/article-370-scrapped-special-privileges-and-autonomy-never-touched-lives-of-common-people-of-jammu-and-kashmir-241451">normalcy to return</a> in&nbsp;the valley and scheduled the hearing of the matter after two weeks.

The petition, filed by social activist Tehseen Poonawala, sought lifting of curfew and other restrictions including blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels. 
 
WATCH:

<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/pakistans-desperation-grows-poland-backs-bilateral-solution-on-jk-242639/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Attorney General for the government, Tushar Mehta, told the court that government was reviewing the day-to-day situation in the Union Territory. It is a highly sensitive situation but it is in the interest of everyone. Not a single drop of blood has been shed, no one has died so far," he said.&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal also supported the argument given by Mehta and said every step is taken to bring normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.

The three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra told the petitioner, "We shall wait for the restoration of normalcy, if nothing happens you can back to the court."

Centre last week abolished Article 370 and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links, TV channels as 'temporary measures' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370. The court said it will wait for the normalcy to return in the valley and scheduled the hearing of the matter after two weeks. The petition, filed by social activist Tehseen Poonawala, sought lifting of curfew and other restrictions including blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels. WATCH: × Attorney General for the government, Tushar Mehta, told the court that government was reviewing the day-to-day situation in the Union Territory. It is a highly sensitive situation but it is in the interest of everyone. Not a single drop of blood has been shed, no one has died so far," he said. Attorney General KK Venugopal also supported the argument given by Mehta and said every step is taken to bring normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra told the petitioner, "We shall wait for the restoration of normalcy, if nothing happens you can back to the court." Centre last week abolished Article 370 and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links, TV channels as 'temporary measures' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. (With inputs from agencies)

Article 370 revoked: Government needs time to bring back normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-mamata-banerjee-takes-a-u-turn-on-national-register-of-citizens-156891">National Register of Citizens (NRC)</a> which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".&nbsp;

"We will not be bothered by what others say about our orders and judgments. We will continue to oversee <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/additional-exclusion-list-to-draft-nrc-published-in-assam-102-lakh-people-named-230525">NRC </a>finalised as per the scheduled date of August 31, " the apex court bench said.

The NRC in Assam is being updated under the monitoring of the Supreme Court and the final list is scheduled to be released on August 31.&nbsp;

NRC authorities have started a re-verification of some of the people whose names figured in the draft NRC published last year.

The Supreme Court had recently turned down a petition from the Assam government as well as from the Central government seeking sample re-verification of 20 per cent of people in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10 per cent sample re-verification for people in other districts.

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". "We will not be bothered by what others say about our orders and judgments. We will continue to oversee NRC finalised as per the scheduled date of August 31, " the apex court bench said. The NRC in Assam is being updated under the monitoring of the Supreme Court and the final list is scheduled to be released on August 31. NRC authorities have started a re-verification of some of the people whose names figured in the draft NRC published last year. The Supreme Court had recently turned down a petition from the Assam government as well as from the Central government seeking sample re-verification of 20 per cent of people in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10 per cent sample re-verification for people in other districts. (With inputs from agencies)

SC reserves order on National Register of Citizens, says 'We will not be bothered about what others say'

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi deferred the matter after being informed that Mallya`s lawyer Fali S Nariman was not well.&nbsp;

In his plea, the embattled businessman has submitted that no properties other than those related to Kingfisher Airlines, which is facing cases of alleged irregularities, should be attached.&nbsp;

On July 11, the Bombay High court had dismissed Mallya's petition seeking a stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by a government agency.&nbsp;

A special PMLA court had on January 5 declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender and directed that the properties of the 63-year-old be confiscated. He had fled the country in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then.&nbsp;

Last month, the Royal Courts of Justice had granted permission to Mallya to appeal against the UK Home Secretary`s order extraditing him to India to face trial on charges of fraud and money laundering to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi deferred the matter after being informed that Mallya`s lawyer Fali S Nariman was not well. In his plea, the embattled businessman has submitted that no properties other than those related to Kingfisher Airlines, which is facing cases of alleged irregularities, should be attached. On July 11, the Bombay High court had dismissed Mallya's petition seeking a stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by a government agency. A special PMLA court had on January 5 declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender and directed that the properties of the 63-year-old be confiscated. He had fled the country in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then. Last month, the Royal Courts of Justice had granted permission to Mallya to appeal against the UK Home Secretary`s order extraditing him to India to face trial on charges of fraud and money laundering to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore.

Supreme Court adjourns till August 13 hearing on Vijay Mallya's plea against confiscation of properties

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard.&nbsp;

During the course of the proceedings, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner M Alagarsamy, argued that illegal sand mining is going on across the country.&nbsp;

"It is a rampant problem across the country which needs to be tackled immediately," Bhushan contended. Quoting a media article, Bhushan submitted that a special investigation team, headed by a senior IAS officer, has revealed illegal mining of 1 crore metric tonnes of beach sand from Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari districts in Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;

Alagarsamy sought a direction to the investigating agency to register and investigate the "scams" highlighted by him.&nbsp;

The petition said that a direction should be issued to the Centre not to grant environment clearance for sand mining projects without taking into account the cumulative impact of the sand mining in the entire area.&nbsp;

It pleaded for prosecution and termination of the leases of those entities that were found to have committed illegal sand mining. The plea sought denial of environment clearance to any sand mining project without procuring a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental management plan (EMP) and public consultation, and appraisal as per the EIA Notification, 2006.&nbsp;

The petition submitted that the court should direct the Centre and states to cease all river and beach sand mining activities owing to the non-implementation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and office memorandum dated December 24, 3013. A direction was also sought by the petitioner to the MoEF to constitute a committee for monitoring all such activities along with investigation and registration of cases against illegal mining by the CBI.&nbsp;

The Centre and states should ensure the existence of an approved mining plan under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for all sand mining projects, the petition added.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard. During the course of the proceedings, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner M Alagarsamy, argued that illegal sand mining is going on across the country. "It is a rampant problem across the country which needs to be tackled immediately," Bhushan contended. Quoting a media article, Bhushan submitted that a special investigation team, headed by a senior IAS officer, has revealed illegal mining of 1 crore metric tonnes of beach sand from Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari districts in Tamil Nadu. Alagarsamy sought a direction to the investigating agency to register and investigate the "scams" highlighted by him. The petition said that a direction should be issued to the Centre not to grant environment clearance for sand mining projects without taking into account the cumulative impact of the sand mining in the entire area. It pleaded for prosecution and termination of the leases of those entities that were found to have committed illegal sand mining. The plea sought denial of environment clearance to any sand mining project without procuring a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental management plan (EMP) and public consultation, and appraisal as per the EIA Notification, 2006. The petition submitted that the court should direct the Centre and states to cease all river and beach sand mining activities owing to the non-implementation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and office memorandum dated December 24, 3013. A direction was also sought by the petitioner to the MoEF to constitute a committee for monitoring all such activities along with investigation and registration of cases against illegal mining by the CBI. The Centre and states should ensure the existence of an approved mining plan under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for all sand mining projects, the petition added.

llegal sand mining: Supreme Court seeks response from Centre, CBI and 5 states

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government.

In a letter to the chief minister, he asked him to hold&nbsp;the floor test in the Assembly by 6pm today. 
 
On Thursday, Governor, in a letter to Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy, asked him to hold the floor test by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-governor-asks-chief-minister-to-hold-floor-test-on-friday-as-congress-jds-delay-trust-vote-236984">1.30pm on Friday.</a>&nbsp;

An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Congress has moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs. 
 
The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators. 
 
The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the Congress and JD-S cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-chief-minister-hd-kumaraswamy-resumes-debate-as-trust-vote-deadline-nears-237056">Earlier in the day</a>, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint.

"Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker.

"Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added.

Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-hd-kumaraswamy-moves-confidence-motion-to-prove-majority-of-jds-congress-government-236840">moved confidence motion</a> in the state Assembly at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers.

He claimed that the dissenting legislators had moved the apex court with the BJP's assistance."A situation has been created so that people lose trust in us. Without any discussion they have wanted a trust vote", Kumaraswamy said.

Senior Congress leader and former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah that a floor test in the House will not be appropriate until a clarification is attained on the Supreme Court order allowing freedom to the 15 rebel MLAs from participating in the House proceedings.

"If we go ahead with the confidence motion, if the whip is applicable and they (rebel MLAs) don't come to the house because of the SC order, it will be a big loss to the coalition government," he said.

Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government.

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government. In a letter to the chief minister, he asked him to hold the floor test in the Assembly by 6pm today. On Thursday, Governor, in a letter to Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy, asked him to hold the floor test by 1.30pm on Friday. An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order. Meanwhile, Congress has moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs. The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators. The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the Congress and JD-S cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings. Earlier in the day, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint. "Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker. "Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added. Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy moved confidence motion in the state Assembly at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers. He claimed that the dissenting legislators had moved the apex court with the BJP's assistance."A situation has been created so that people lose trust in us. Without any discussion they have wanted a trust vote", Kumaraswamy said. Senior Congress leader and former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah that a floor test in the House will not be appropriate until a clarification is attained on the Supreme Court order allowing freedom to the 15 rebel MLAs from participating in the House proceedings. "If we go ahead with the confidence motion, if the whip is applicable and they (rebel MLAs) don't come to the house because of the SC order, it will be a big loss to the coalition government," he said. Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. (With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka Governor issues new deadline to chief minister Kumaraswamy for floor test; Congress moves Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/siddaramaiah-holds-meeting-with-rebel-mla-ramalinga-reddy-236030&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiw9tesmbbjAhVl63MBHQx7C9AQFjABegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1-yfHO6BMqXvFpImxZHVmm">Rebel Karnataka MLAs</a> are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said.&nbsp;

The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the 14 MLAs residing at Renaissance Hotel here wrote to Senior Police Inspector, Powai Police Station, over an alleged "threat" from senior Karnataka and Maharashtra Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Ghulam Nabi Azad.&nbsp;

Seeking protection, the leaders urged the police officer to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the leaders are not allowed to meet them.

"We the respected Members of Karnataka Assembly are currently staying at Renaissance Hotel Powai, would like to inform you that we have absolutely no intentions in meeting Shri Mallikarjun Kharge Ji or Ghulam Nabi Azad Ji or any Congress dignitaries or functionaries from Maharashtra and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/five-more-karnataka-congress-mlas-move-supreme-court-235563&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiw9tesmbbjAhVl63MBHQx7C9AQFjADegQIEBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2zzcTb51jNYdb4cknXCfWM">Karnataka Congress team leaders</a> or any other political leaders.

We anticipate a serious threat from them.&nbsp;

We hereby request you to kindly make necessary arrangements to stop these people from meeting us in case the situation arises," the letter read.&nbsp;

Among the legislators who signed the aforesaid letter are Shivram Hebbar, B.C. Patil, Mahesh K, Vishwanath, Muniratnam, Narayan Gowda, R Shankar, H Nagesh, Pratap Patil, Gopalaiah, Ramesh J, MTB Nagraj, Somshekar, and Basavaraja.

On July 11, the dissident MLAs had returned to the hotel here after meeting Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in Bengaluru.&nbsp;

The development came after the Supreme Court had directed them to meet the Speaker and resubmit their resignations afresh.&nbsp;

In a twist to the political stalemate in Karnataka, the apex court had on July 12 ordered a status quo until July 16 on a plea filed by 10 dissident MLAs of Congress and JD(S) seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said. The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said. The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added. Meanwhile, the 14 MLAs residing at Renaissance Hotel here wrote to Senior Police Inspector, Powai Police Station, over an alleged "threat" from senior Karnataka and Maharashtra Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Ghulam Nabi Azad. Seeking protection, the leaders urged the police officer to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the leaders are not allowed to meet them. "We the respected Members of Karnataka Assembly are currently staying at Renaissance Hotel Powai, would like to inform you that we have absolutely no intentions in meeting Shri Mallikarjun Kharge Ji or Ghulam Nabi Azad Ji or any Congress dignitaries or functionaries from Maharashtra and Karnataka Congress team leaders or any other political leaders. We anticipate a serious threat from them. We hereby request you to kindly make necessary arrangements to stop these people from meeting us in case the situation arises," the letter read. Among the legislators who signed the aforesaid letter are Shivram Hebbar, B.C. Patil, Mahesh K, Vishwanath, Muniratnam, Narayan Gowda, R Shankar, H Nagesh, Pratap Patil, Gopalaiah, Ramesh J, MTB Nagraj, Somshekar, and Basavaraja. On July 11, the dissident MLAs had returned to the hotel here after meeting Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in Bengaluru. The development came after the Supreme Court had directed them to meet the Speaker and resubmit their resignations afresh. In a twist to the political stalemate in Karnataka, the apex court had on July 12 ordered a status quo until July 16 on a plea filed by 10 dissident MLAs of Congress and JD(S) seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs likely to move Supreme Court today

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouris-sole-abortion-clinic-awaits-ruling-on-whether-it-can-stay-open-231189">abortion</a>.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.&nbsp;

The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother.&nbsp;

It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights.&nbsp;

The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea.

The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-put-stay-on-installation-of-cctv-cameras-in-government-schools-235310/amp&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgsZCs5LbjAhXH6XMBHdOZCskQFjAFegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Vb-uvNezOp0z2buIMxZU8">Article 21</a> of the Constitution.

Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities.&nbsp;

The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea.

"The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added.

The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea.

"The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences.&nbsp;

Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats. The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights. The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea. The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities. The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea. "The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added. The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea. "The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences. Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea seeking to decriminalise abortion

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls. 
 
A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose heard the petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor. The bench asked her to approach the Delhi High Court, if she wants, for any relief in the case. 
 
The PIL of advocate Anuja Kapoor stated that a girl studying in class 10 in Chhattisgarh had allegedly committed suicide after being allegedly stripped and searched during her board examination by the inspecting officials.&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls.

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose heard the petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor. The bench asked her to approach the Delhi High Court, if she wants, for any relief in the case. The PIL of advocate Anuja Kapoor stated that a girl studying in class 10 in Chhattisgarh had allegedly committed suicide after being allegedly stripped and searched during her board examination by the inspecting officials.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking guidelines for frisking of students during examinations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case. 
 
The apex court had, on March 29, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment for murdering one of his employees. He was directed to surrender by July 7. 
 
Rajagopal had moved the court seeking more time to surrender citing medical grounds. His plea was, however, dismissed by a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, today. 
 
According to the prosecution, an astrologer advised Rajagopal to marry Jeevajothi, the daughter of a Saravana Bhavan employee, in order to become rich, following which he tried to woo her.&nbsp;

Watch: How lust and money led to spectacular fall of India’s ‘Dosa King’&nbsp;

<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/how-lust-and-money-led-to-spectacular-fall-of-indias-dosa-king-232807/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As he could not succeed in his plan, he hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the employee of Saravana hotel, Prince Shantakumar, who was married to Jeevajothi. 
 
Shantakumar was murdered in October 2001 and his dead body was found in Kodaikanal city of Tamil Nadu. 
 
A Sessions Court had convicted Rajagopal and four others to ten years of imprisonment, but later the Madras high court set aside the Sessions court`s order and increased the jail term to life term under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
 
Rajagopal then challenged the high court`s order before the apex court, which was rejected. Upholding the Madras HC&nbsp;judgement, the top court convicted and sentenced Rajagopal to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case. The apex court had, on March 29, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment for murdering one of his employees. He was directed to surrender by July 7. Rajagopal had moved the court seeking more time to surrender citing medical grounds. His plea was, however, dismissed by a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, today. According to the prosecution, an astrologer advised Rajagopal to marry Jeevajothi, the daughter of a Saravana Bhavan employee, in order to become rich, following which he tried to woo her. Watch: How lust and money led to spectacular fall of India’s ‘Dosa King’ × As he could not succeed in his plan, he hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the employee of Saravana hotel, Prince Shantakumar, who was married to Jeevajothi. Shantakumar was murdered in October 2001 and his dead body was found in Kodaikanal city of Tamil Nadu. A Sessions Court had convicted Rajagopal and four others to ten years of imprisonment, but later the Madras high court set aside the Sessions court`s order and increased the jail term to life term under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Rajagopal then challenged the high court`s order before the apex court, which was rejected. Upholding the Madras HC judgement, the top court convicted and sentenced Rajagopal to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court rejects Saravana Bhavan founder's plea seeking time to surrender in murder case

The vacation bench of the Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed seeking 100% verification of the Voter Verified Paper Audited Trails(VVPAT) with the Electronic Voting Machines(EVM).

SC Dismisses New Plea For 100% VVPAT Verification

Top court of India defers Ayodhya case hearing, additional time is allowed to mediation panel till August 15. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya dispute: Mediation panel requested for more time

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