SC refuses to entertain Mayawati's plea against polls rally ban by EC. Election Commission has banned four politicians from campaigning and holding election rally for 48 hrs. Watch complete video to know more.

SC refuses to entertain Mayawati's plea against polls rally ban by EC

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the Centre and asked it to respond to the plea filed by a Pune-based couple. The petition have added that a life of dignity and equality is the most sacrosanct fundamental right and a Muslim woman cannot be prohibited from entering a mosque.

SC admits plea on entry of women in mosques

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the&nbsp;conduct of 'puja' in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aimplb-calls-emergency-meeting-for-ayodhya-land-dispute-205195"> undisputed Ayodhya lands</a>.

"You will not let this country live in peace... Somebody has to always poke, " the apex court told the petitioner.

The court also refused to withdraw the Allahabad High Court orders imposing a Rs 5 lakh cost on the petitioner.

On March 8, the supreme court had appointed a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-mediation-in-ayodhya-case-appoints-three-member-panel-201901">mediation committee </a>for resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

In its hearing, the court had also restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case.

The court-appointed committee held its first sitting on March 13 and heard all parties who attended the proceedings.

The court was hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya between the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh and Ramlalla Virajman.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the conduct of 'puja' in the undisputed Ayodhya lands. "You will not let this country live in peace.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the conduct of 'puja' in the undisputed Ayodhya lands. "You will not let this country live in peace... Somebody has to always poke, " the apex court told the petitioner. The court also refused to withdraw the Allahabad High Court orders imposing a Rs 5 lakh cost on the petitioner. On March 8, the supreme court had appointed a mediation committee for resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. In its hearing, the court had also restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case. The court-appointed committee held its first sitting on March 13 and heard all parties who attended the proceedings. The court was hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya between the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh and Ramlalla Virajman.

Supreme Court refuses 'puja' at Ayodhya, says somebody has to always poke

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the verdict.

On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal.

"Only after we decide the preliminary objection raised by the Centre, we will go into other aspect of the review petitions," the bench said, adding that "only if we overrule the preliminary objection, we will go into other details".

The Centre had claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said those documents cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre had contended that no one can produce them in the court without the permission of the department concerned as those documents are also protected under the Official Secrets Act and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a).

Bhushan had contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

The top court had further noted that according to the AG's submissions "there are three Rafale documents whose publication comes under Official Secrets Act, 1923. These documents were unauthorisedly published. You claim privilege under section 123 of Evidence Act. You want us to adjudicate and strike down the review on this basis".

Bhusahn had submitted a note countering the preliminary objections raised by the centre on maintainability of the review petitions, stating that "preliminary objection are mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

He had said government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and is in public domain.

Bhushan had said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents".

While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act.

It also said that under Section 24 of the RTI Act even security and intelligence establishments are not exempted from disclosing information in relation to corruption and human rights violations.

"The RTI Act brought a revolution. In 2009, your own government said file notings can be made available under the RTI. Let us not go back now," the bench has said.

Bhushan further said that provisions of the RTI Act say public interest outweighs other things and no privilege can be claimed except for documents which pertain to intelligence agencies.

He also said that there is no government-to-government contract in purchasing Rafale jets as there is no sovereign guarantee extended to India by France in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

He had submitted why the government didn't lodge any FIR when these documents started coming out in November 2018.

He had further said that the government has itself filed a detailed CAG report regarding as many as 10 defence purchases and it is untenable on their part to now claim privilege.

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France.

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the verdict. On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal. "Only after we decide the preliminary objection raised by the Centre, we will go into other aspect of the review petitions," the bench said, adding that "only if we overrule the preliminary objection, we will go into other details". The Centre had claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said those documents cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre had contended that no one can produce them in the court without the permission of the department concerned as those documents are also protected under the Official Secrets Act and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a). Bhushan had contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments". The top court had further noted that according to the AG's submissions "there are three Rafale documents whose publication comes under Official Secrets Act, 1923. These documents were unauthorisedly published. You claim privilege under section 123 of Evidence Act. You want us to adjudicate and strike down the review on this basis". Bhusahn had submitted a note countering the preliminary objections raised by the centre on maintainability of the review petitions, stating that "preliminary objection are mala fide and totally untenable arguments". He had said government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and is in public domain. Bhushan had said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents". While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act. It also said that under Section 24 of the RTI Act even security and intelligence establishments are not exempted from disclosing information in relation to corruption and human rights violations. "The RTI Act brought a revolution. In 2009, your own government said file notings can be made available under the RTI. Let us not go back now," the bench has said. Bhushan further said that provisions of the RTI Act say public interest outweighs other things and no privilege can be claimed except for documents which pertain to intelligence agencies. He also said that there is no government-to-government contract in purchasing Rafale jets as there is no sovereign guarantee extended to India by France in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. He had submitted why the government didn't lodge any FIR when these documents started coming out in November 2018. He had further said that the government has itself filed a detailed CAG report regarding as many as 10 defence purchases and it is untenable on their part to now claim privilege.

Supreme Court verdict Wednesday on Centre's preliminary objection in Rafale review pleas

The Supreme Court Monday asked 21 opposition leaders to file within a week their reply on the Election Commission's affidavit on their plea regarding Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in Lok Sabha polls.

The opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu had sought that VVPAT slips of at least 50 per cent of voting machines in each assembly constituency be checked randomly during Lok Sabha polls next month.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Opposition leaders, to file the reply by next Monday. 
The poll panel had on Friday last sought dismissal of the petition.&nbsp;

In its affidavit, the EC had asserted in the apex court that the opposition leaders have been unable to raise any ground for altering the existing system of random counting of VVPAT slips from one polling booth per assembly segment, which was "found to be most suitable" after due studies and tests.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday asked 21 opposition leaders to file within a week their reply on the Election Commission's affidavit on their plea regarding Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in Lok Sabha polls.

The Supreme Court Monday asked 21 opposition leaders to file within a week their reply on the Election Commission's affidavit on their plea regarding Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in Lok Sabha polls. The opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu had sought that VVPAT slips of at least 50 per cent of voting machines in each assembly constituency be checked randomly during Lok Sabha polls next month. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Opposition leaders, to file the reply by next Monday. The poll panel had on Friday last sought dismissal of the petition. In its affidavit, the EC had asserted in the apex court that the opposition leaders have been unable to raise any ground for altering the existing system of random counting of VVPAT slips from one polling booth per assembly segment, which was "found to be most suitable" after due studies and tests.

Counting of VVPAT slips: Supreme Court grants week's time to opposition leaders for filing reply on EC affidavit

India's top court grants time to opposition parties on VVPAT verification case

The Supreme Court Wednesday clarified its last year order on police reforms and said officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service shall be considered for the post of director general of police (DGP).&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the recommendation for the post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and preparation of the panel should be purely on the basis of merit.

The apex court passed the verdict on a modification plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh.&nbsp;

Singh had alleged that July 3, 2018, the directive was being misused by state governments who were ignoring competent senior officers for appointment as DGPs.&nbsp;

The court had in July last year passed a slew of directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGPs to avoid favouritism and nepotism in such high-level appointments.

The Supreme Court Wednesday clarified its last year order on police reforms and said officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service shall be considered for the post of director general of police (DGP).

The Supreme Court Wednesday clarified its last year order on police reforms and said officers who have a minimum of six months tenure left in service shall be considered for the post of director general of police (DGP). A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the recommendation for the post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and preparation of the panel should be purely on the basis of merit. The apex court passed the verdict on a modification plea filed by former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh. Singh had alleged that July 3, 2018, the directive was being misused by state governments who were ignoring competent senior officers for appointment as DGPs. The court had in July last year passed a slew of directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGPs to avoid favouritism and nepotism in such high-level appointments.

Police reforms: DGPs must have at least six months left in tenure on the appointment, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

Article 35A relates to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir.

The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-change-in-stance-on-article-35a-jk-government-seeks-adjournment-of-hearing-in-supreme-court-199493">seeks deferment of hearing</a>.

Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A (relating to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir) in Supreme Court listed for hearing this week from Feb 26-28. <a href="https://t.co/CiGJoYFpj9">pic.twitter.com/CiGJoYFpj9</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1099901233727303680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state.

Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs.

The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported. Article 35A relates to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and seeks deferment of hearing. Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11." The pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A (relating to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir) in Supreme Court listed for hearing this week from Feb 26-28. pic.twitter.com/CiGJoYFpj9 — ANI (@ANI) February 25, 2019 × The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state. Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state. It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs. The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha.

Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Article 35A this week 

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday.

The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

"Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said.&nbsp;

"There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said.

Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium.

The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks.&nbsp;

"Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order.

Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL.

The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it.

The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government.

It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received.

"An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said.

The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process".

It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement".

Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.&nbsp;

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. "Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said. "There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said. Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium. The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks. "Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order. Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL. The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it. The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government. It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received. "An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said. The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process". It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement". Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.

Centre not delaying appointment of judges in higher judiciary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Thursday expressed displeasure over "pubic sparring" between Committee of Administrator (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and its member Diana Edulji over certain issues concerning BCCI and told them not to go public over their differences.

A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and A M Sapre also said that they will appoint three more members to the CoA and the orders to this effect would be passed in chambers.

Earlier CoA had four members and after the resignation of historian Ramchandra Guha and banker Bikram Limaye only two members are now left in CoA.

"We have heard in newspaper reports that some sparring is going on between CoA members...Tell them not to go public with their differences," the bench said, adding that it was partly aware of the issues concerning BCCI.

The Supreme Court Thursday expressed displeasure over "pubic sparring" between Committee of Administrator (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and its member Diana Edulji over certain issues concerning BCCI and told them not to go public over their differences.

The Supreme Court Thursday expressed displeasure over "pubic sparring" between Committee of Administrator (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and its member Diana Edulji over certain issues concerning BCCI and told them not to go public over their differences. A bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and A M Sapre also said that they will appoint three more members to the CoA and the orders to this effect would be passed in chambers. Earlier CoA had four members and after the resignation of historian Ramchandra Guha and banker Bikram Limaye only two members are now left in CoA. "We have heard in newspaper reports that some sparring is going on between CoA members...Tell them not to go public with their differences," the bench said, adding that it was partly aware of the issues concerning BCCI.

SC displeased over 'public sparring' between BCCI CoA chief Rai, member Edulji

The Supreme Court Monday stayed the proceedings of a Chennai court relating to the 1996 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case lodged against AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran. A bench headed by Chief Justice issued a notice to Dhinakaran and sought his reply on the petition filed by ED challenging the Madras High Court order of June 25, 2018.

The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, was not in agreement with the Enforcement Directorate that the trial should continue during the pendency of the appeal before the apex court. The probe agency had filed an appeal against the high court order by which lower court was directed to order the ED to provide copies of the documents of the case to Dhinakaran.

The high court had also dispensed with the appearance of Dhinakaran except when ordered by the trial court. The case against Dhinakaran was that he allegedly acquired USD 1,04,93,313 in foreign exchange without obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India and deposited it in the current account of Dipper Investments Ltd., a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and having an account with Barclays Bank in the UK.

The Supreme Court Monday stayed the proceedings of a Chennai court relating to the 1996 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case lodged against AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran.

The Supreme Court Monday stayed the proceedings of a Chennai court relating to the 1996 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case lodged against AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran. A bench headed by Chief Justice issued a notice to Dhinakaran and sought his reply on the petition filed by ED challenging the Madras High Court order of June 25, 2018. The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, was not in agreement with the Enforcement Directorate that the trial should continue during the pendency of the appeal before the apex court. The probe agency had filed an appeal against the high court order by which lower court was directed to order the ED to provide copies of the documents of the case to Dhinakaran. The high court had also dispensed with the appearance of Dhinakaran except when ordered by the trial court. The case against Dhinakaran was that he allegedly acquired USD 1,04,93,313 in foreign exchange without obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India and deposited it in the current account of Dipper Investments Ltd., a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and having an account with Barclays Bank in the UK.

Relief for TTV Dhinakaran, SC stays trial court proceedings in FERA case

A dozen <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/tensions-high-as-spain-starts-trial-of-catalan-separatists-196885">Catalan separatist</a> leaders went on trial in Madrid on Tuesday over their roles in a failed independence bid that laid bare historical divisions and triggered Spain's biggest political crisis in decades.

Flanked by hundreds of police, pro- and anti-separatist demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court, where the defendants face charges of rebellion, sedition, and misuse of public funds.

Their supporters carried signs reading "Freedom for political prisoners" while a small rival group shouted "Golpista" or "coup plotter", portraying the region's independence declaration of October 2017 as an attempt to dismantle the Spanish state.

In his opening remarks to the trial, which is being transmitted live on national television, a lawyer defending two of the accused said they had the right to seek independence for their region.

"They have the right to defend that idea. It (self-determination) is a synonym of peace, not of war," Andreu Van den Eyndehe told the court.

The politically charged trial comes at a pivotal time for Spain's government, with a snap national election on the cards unless Catalan nationalist lawmakers support the 2019 budget in a vote scheduled for Wednesday.

Democracy under the spotlight

The case also exposes the workings of Spain's democracy - relatively young by western European standards - to their widest scrutiny since a failed coup in 1981.

That attempt, ended by a televised intervention by King Juan Carlos, occurred three years after the current constitution was approved to complete a democratic transition that began in 1975 with dictator Francisco Franco's death.

The constitution bans any Spanish region from seceding.

Supporters of the defendants, who face up to 25 years in prison if convicted, say they are political prisoners and that the trial itself is political. The government says they are being judged solely in line with the rule of law.

None of the 12 is scheduled to speak on the first day of the trial, which is dominated by procedural issues. Nine of them have been jailed without bail since late 2017 or early 2018.

Meanwhile, seven other politicians involved in the independence declaration - including former leader Carles Puigdemont - are in self-imposed exile in different parts of Europe. In Berlin on Tuesday, Puigdemont said the trial marked a stress test for Spain's democracy

The declaration followed a referendum carried out in defiance of a judicial ban, angering some Catalans and much of the rest of Spain.

But there was a shock at home as well as abroad when police used batons and rubber bullets on protesters on the day of the vote.

The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, a human rights group of judges and lawyers, said the trial risked restricting rights and could set a precedent.

Olivier Peter, a lawyer for one of the accused, said the world was looking at authorities in Madrid. "What they want is not to judge but to condemn (for) political reasons," he told reporters on Monday.

Budget bill backdrop

While declining to discuss any move towards Catalan independence, Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has adopted a more conciliatory stance towards the secessionist movement than the conservative government that preceded him and tried to establish a dialogue.

But so far, nationalist lawmakers from the wealthy northeastern region have said they will block the budget bill, citing Sanchez's refusal to include an independence option in the talks.

With his party holding less than a quarter of seats in the lower parliamentary house, the absence of Catalan support for the budget would almost certainly sink the bill and in turn likely prompt a snap election.

In an early morning tweet, Sanchez said he expected both the right and pro-independence lawmakers to vote against his budget. "They both want the same: A divided Catalonia and a divided Spain. We are working for a Catalonia in peace and a united Spain," he said.

Secessionists have called on Catalans to briefly stop work at midday on Tuesday in protest against the trial and to join a rally in Barcelona in the evening. Another big demonstration is planned for Saturday and a general strike on February 21.

After imposing direct rule on Catalonia in October 2017 in response to the independence declaration, the previous conservative government called regional elections to curb the independence movement. But the move backfired as the secessionists retained a slim majority in the Catalan assembly.

The trial is expected to last at least three months, with a final ruling not before June.

A dozen Catalan separatist leaders went on trial in Madrid on Tuesday over their roles in a failed independence bid that laid bare historical divisions and triggered Spain's biggest political crisis in decades.

A dozen Catalan separatist leaders went on trial in Madrid on Tuesday over their roles in a failed independence bid that laid bare historical divisions and triggered Spain's biggest political crisis in decades. Flanked by hundreds of police, pro- and anti-separatist demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court, where the defendants face charges of rebellion, sedition, and misuse of public funds. Their supporters carried signs reading "Freedom for political prisoners" while a small rival group shouted "Golpista" or "coup plotter", portraying the region's independence declaration of October 2017 as an attempt to dismantle the Spanish state. In his opening remarks to the trial, which is being transmitted live on national television, a lawyer defending two of the accused said they had the right to seek independence for their region. "They have the right to defend that idea. It (self-determination) is a synonym of peace, not of war," Andreu Van den Eyndehe told the court. The politically charged trial comes at a pivotal time for Spain's government, with a snap national election on the cards unless Catalan nationalist lawmakers support the 2019 budget in a vote scheduled for Wednesday. Democracy under the spotlight The case also exposes the workings of Spain's democracy - relatively young by western European standards - to their widest scrutiny since a failed coup in 1981. That attempt, ended by a televised intervention by King Juan Carlos, occurred three years after the current constitution was approved to complete a democratic transition that began in 1975 with dictator Francisco Franco's death. The constitution bans any Spanish region from seceding. Supporters of the defendants, who face up to 25 years in prison if convicted, say they are political prisoners and that the trial itself is political. The government says they are being judged solely in line with the rule of law. None of the 12 is scheduled to speak on the first day of the trial, which is dominated by procedural issues. Nine of them have been jailed without bail since late 2017 or early 2018. Meanwhile, seven other politicians involved in the independence declaration - including former leader Carles Puigdemont - are in self-imposed exile in different parts of Europe. In Berlin on Tuesday, Puigdemont said the trial marked a stress test for Spain's democracy The declaration followed a referendum carried out in defiance of a judicial ban, angering some Catalans and much of the rest of Spain. But there was a shock at home as well as abroad when police used batons and rubber bullets on protesters on the day of the vote. The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, a human rights group of judges and lawyers, said the trial risked restricting rights and could set a precedent. Olivier Peter, a lawyer for one of the accused, said the world was looking at authorities in Madrid. "What they want is not to judge but to condemn (for) political reasons," he told reporters on Monday. Budget bill backdrop While declining to discuss any move towards Catalan independence, Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has adopted a more conciliatory stance towards the secessionist movement than the conservative government that preceded him and tried to establish a dialogue. But so far, nationalist lawmakers from the wealthy northeastern region have said they will block the budget bill, citing Sanchez's refusal to include an independence option in the talks. With his party holding less than a quarter of seats in the lower parliamentary house, the absence of Catalan support for the budget would almost certainly sink the bill and in turn likely prompt a snap election. In an early morning tweet, Sanchez said he expected both the right and pro-independence lawmakers to vote against his budget. "They both want the same: A divided Catalonia and a divided Spain. We are working for a Catalonia in peace and a united Spain," he said. Secessionists have called on Catalans to briefly stop work at midday on Tuesday in protest against the trial and to join a rally in Barcelona in the evening. Another big demonstration is planned for Saturday and a general strike on February 21. After imposing direct rule on Catalonia in October 2017 in response to the independence declaration, the previous conservative government called regional elections to curb the independence movement. But the move backfired as the secessionists retained a slim majority in the Catalan assembly. The trial is expected to last at least three months, with a final ruling not before June.

Spain's divisions laid bare as Catalan separatists go on trial

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) General Secretary Ram Madhav on Sunday underlined that the Centre would take steps within its powers once the Supreme Court`s judgment on Ram Janmabhoomi case comes.

At the same time, Madhav said that the central government will respect the judicial process and is committed to building the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

"The saints are not angry but are insisting there should be some forward movement on Ram temple issue. We are equally committed and we are with the saints on the question of building Ram temple there. We are fully committed to building a magnificent (Ram) temple in Ayodhya," he told ANI.

Madhav expressed hope that the ruling on the Ram temple issue would come soon."But as government, we have to respect the judicial process, as the matter is before the Supreme Court. We are hoping that the judgment on this matter comes soon. Once the judgment comes, the government will do whatever is possible within its powers to facilitate construction of the temple there," he added.

The Centre on Tuesday sought direction to release 67 acres acquired land out of which 0.313 acres is disputed. The top court on Monday had cancelled the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit, which was slated for January 29 by a five-judge bench due to the unavailability of one of the judges, Justice SA Bobde. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) General Secretary Ram Madhav on Sunday underlined that the Centre would take steps within its powers once the Supreme Court`s judgment on Ram Janmabhoomi case comes.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) General Secretary Ram Madhav on Sunday underlined that the Centre would take steps within its powers once the Supreme Court`s judgment on Ram Janmabhoomi case comes. At the same time, Madhav said that the central government will respect the judicial process and is committed to building the Ram temple in Ayodhya. "The saints are not angry but are insisting there should be some forward movement on Ram temple issue. We are equally committed and we are with the saints on the question of building Ram temple there. We are fully committed to building a magnificent (Ram) temple in Ayodhya," he told ANI. Madhav expressed hope that the ruling on the Ram temple issue would come soon."But as government, we have to respect the judicial process, as the matter is before the Supreme Court. We are hoping that the judgment on this matter comes soon. Once the judgment comes, the government will do whatever is possible within its powers to facilitate construction of the temple there," he added. The Centre on Tuesday sought direction to release 67 acres acquired land out of which 0.313 acres is disputed. The top court on Monday had cancelled the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit, which was slated for January 29 by a five-judge bench due to the unavailability of one of the judges, Justice SA Bobde. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ram temple issue: Government to take steps within its powers once Supreme Court ruling comes, says Ram Madhav

Within hours of the interim Budget being presented in Parliament Friday, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking that it be quashed on the alleged ground that there is no Constitutional provision for an interim budget.

The petition, filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, submitted that under the Constitution, there is the only provision for presenting a full annual Budget and vote-on-account.

A vote-on-account is an approval taken in an election year for a limited period for government spending; a full-fledged budget is presented later by the newly elected government.

The interim Budget was presented in the Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Piyush Goyal proposing an array of incentives for both middle class and farmers.

The 2019 Lok Sabha elections are scheduled to take place within a few months.

In December last year, the top court had imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Sharma for filing public interest litigation against the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley over an issue related to the Reserve Bank of India's capital reserve.&nbsp;

Within hours of the interim Budget being presented in Parliament Friday, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking that it be quashed on the alleged ground that there is no Constitutional provision for an interim budget.

Within hours of the interim Budget being presented in Parliament Friday, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking that it be quashed on the alleged ground that there is no Constitutional provision for an interim budget. The petition, filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, submitted that under the Constitution, there is the only provision for presenting a full annual Budget and vote-on-account. A vote-on-account is an approval taken in an election year for a limited period for government spending; a full-fledged budget is presented later by the newly elected government. The interim Budget was presented in the Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Piyush Goyal proposing an array of incentives for both middle class and farmers. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections are scheduled to take place within a few months. In December last year, the top court had imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Sharma for filing public interest litigation against the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley over an issue related to the Reserve Bank of India's capital reserve.

Plea in Supreme Court against interim budget

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran issued notice to the RBI on an impleadment application by NGO, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), which has filed a petition in the court claiming that WhatsApp has not fully complied with the central bank's circular which prescribed data localisation norms.

The norms relate to storing of payment related data within India, which has 200 million WhatsApp users.

"Issue notice on the application for impleadment of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as respondent," the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on March 5.

On January 14, the top court had permitted advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, to file an application for impleading RBI as a party in the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had also told the court that RBI was needed to be made a party in the case as issue pertains to data localisation.

In its petition, the NGO has sought direction to restrain the instant messaging platform from proceeding with its payment service unless it fully complied with the provisions of the RBI.

The Centre and WhatsApp had earlier told the court that a grievance officer for India has been appointed by the instant messaging service company.

However, the NGO has claimed that grievance officer has been appointed in the United States of America, which is "preposterous and against the sovereignty of India".

In its plea, the NGO has referred to IT (Intermediary) Rules of 2011 and IT (reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 wherein provision is made for appointment of grievance officer.

It has also said in its affidavit that it would be a paradox if data localisation norms are prescribed in India but companies are allowed to keep data officers in USA.

On August 27 last year, the apex court had agreed to examine the plea which alleged that WhatsApp does not comply with the Indian laws including the provision for appointing a grievance officer.

WhatsApp reportedly has over 200 million users in India and almost one million people are "testing" its payments service. India is one of the largest bases for the Facebook-owned company that has over 1.5 billion users globally.

In its plea, the CASC said that to open a bank account, a customer needs to comply with KYC norms laid down by the RBI and various other formalities.&nbsp;

"WhatsApp is a foreign company with no office or servers in India. To run Payments Service in India, WhatsApp is obligated to have its office and payments in India," it said.

"Moreover, it is also required to have a Grievance Officer for users in India. Yet, it is being allowed to continue with its payments and other services, without any check," the plea claimed.

The petition also alleged that the social media giant does not comply with tax and other laws of India, but its reach was such that it is used by everyone, be it a commoner or even the judges of the apex court.

It said every user has a number on WhatsApp but the messaging platform has no number through which its user can contact it for any grievance redressal.

Pointing to alleged cases of Internet-based crimes, it has claimed that the growth of such incidents was directly proportional to the growth of the user base of messaging services like WhatsApp.

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India.

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran issued notice to the RBI on an impleadment application by NGO, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), which has filed a petition in the court claiming that WhatsApp has not fully complied with the central bank's circular which prescribed data localisation norms. The norms relate to storing of payment related data within India, which has 200 million WhatsApp users. "Issue notice on the application for impleadment of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as respondent," the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on March 5. On January 14, the top court had permitted advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, to file an application for impleading RBI as a party in the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had also told the court that RBI was needed to be made a party in the case as issue pertains to data localisation. In its petition, the NGO has sought direction to restrain the instant messaging platform from proceeding with its payment service unless it fully complied with the provisions of the RBI. The Centre and WhatsApp had earlier told the court that a grievance officer for India has been appointed by the instant messaging service company. However, the NGO has claimed that grievance officer has been appointed in the United States of America, which is "preposterous and against the sovereignty of India". In its plea, the NGO has referred to IT (Intermediary) Rules of 2011 and IT (reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 wherein provision is made for appointment of grievance officer. It has also said in its affidavit that it would be a paradox if data localisation norms are prescribed in India but companies are allowed to keep data officers in USA. On August 27 last year, the apex court had agreed to examine the plea which alleged that WhatsApp does not comply with the Indian laws including the provision for appointing a grievance officer. WhatsApp reportedly has over 200 million users in India and almost one million people are "testing" its payments service. India is one of the largest bases for the Facebook-owned company that has over 1.5 billion users globally. In its plea, the CASC said that to open a bank account, a customer needs to comply with KYC norms laid down by the RBI and various other formalities. "WhatsApp is a foreign company with no office or servers in India. To run Payments Service in India, WhatsApp is obligated to have its office and payments in India," it said. "Moreover, it is also required to have a Grievance Officer for users in India. Yet, it is being allowed to continue with its payments and other services, without any check," the plea claimed. The petition also alleged that the social media giant does not comply with tax and other laws of India, but its reach was such that it is used by everyone, be it a commoner or even the judges of the apex court. It said every user has a number on WhatsApp but the messaging platform has no number through which its user can contact it for any grievance redressal. Pointing to alleged cases of Internet-based crimes, it has claimed that the growth of such incidents was directly proportional to the growth of the user base of messaging services like WhatsApp.

Supreme Court seeks RBI response in data localisation matter of WhatsApp payment service

The Supreme Court Monday directed the Centre to provide it various details including the number of functional detention centres in Assam and the number of foreigners detained there during the last 10 years.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a petition filed by activist Harsh Mander on the condition of detention centres in Assam and the prolonged detention of foreigners there.&nbsp;

The apex court asked the Centre to provide various details about the detention centres, the period of detention of detainees and the status of their cases before the Foreigners Tribunal.&nbsp;

"We would like to know as to how many detention centres are there. We also want to know how many persons are lodged there and since when," the bench said.&nbsp;

The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to provide details as to how many persons are being declared foreigners so far and how many of them have been deported till date. 
&nbsp; 
The bench also sought the year-wise details of foreigners who have illegally entered into India during the last 10 years.&nbsp;

The bench, which has sought details within three weeks form the authority, has now posted the matter for further hearing on February 19. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday directed the Centre to provide it various details including the number of functional detention centres in Assam and the number of foreigners detained there during the last 10 years.

The Supreme Court Monday directed the Centre to provide it various details including the number of functional detention centres in Assam and the number of foreigners detained there during the last 10 years. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a petition filed by activist Harsh Mander on the condition of detention centres in Assam and the prolonged detention of foreigners there. The apex court asked the Centre to provide various details about the detention centres, the period of detention of detainees and the status of their cases before the Foreigners Tribunal. "We would like to know as to how many detention centres are there. We also want to know how many persons are lodged there and since when," the bench said. The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to provide details as to how many persons are being declared foreigners so far and how many of them have been deported till date. The bench also sought the year-wise details of foreigners who have illegally entered into India during the last 10 years. The bench, which has sought details within three weeks form the authority, has now posted the matter for further hearing on February 19.

Supreme Court seeks information on detention centres & foreigners detained in Assam

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

On September 28 last year, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge of the five-judge constitution bench which delivered the verdict allowing all women inside the Sabarimala temple, is on leave till January 30 "due to some medical reasons".

Justice Malhotra had delivered the dissenting judgement in the case.&nbsp;

Lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), mentioned the matter before the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, and sought an urgent listing for hearing the pleas seeking review of the verdict.

The court said that the next date of hearing would be fixed only after Justice Malhotra rejoins.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising the CJI, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Justice Malhotra was scheduled to hear in open court the review petitions from today.&nbsp;

Earlier also, the court had said that it may not start the hearing from January 22 as Justice Malhotra would not be available.&nbsp;

The remarks had come when Nedumpara on January 15 had mentioned the plea and had sought live streaming of the proceedings in the Sabarimala case. 
NADA had sought live streaming of the hearing saying it would ensure that "justice is made accessible to the common man".

Prior to this, the apex court had decided to hear in open court the review petitions against the verdict.&nbsp;

There are around 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were filed following the violent protests in favour and against the verdict.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave. On September 28 last year, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge of the five-judge constitution bench which delivered the verdict allowing all women inside the Sabarimala temple, is on leave till January 30 "due to some medical reasons". Justice Malhotra had delivered the dissenting judgement in the case. Lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), mentioned the matter before the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, and sought an urgent listing for hearing the pleas seeking review of the verdict. The court said that the next date of hearing would be fixed only after Justice Malhotra rejoins. A five-judge Constitution bench comprising the CJI, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Justice Malhotra was scheduled to hear in open court the review petitions from today. Earlier also, the court had said that it may not start the hearing from January 22 as Justice Malhotra would not be available. The remarks had come when Nedumpara on January 15 had mentioned the plea and had sought live streaming of the proceedings in the Sabarimala case. NADA had sought live streaming of the hearing saying it would ensure that "justice is made accessible to the common man". Prior to this, the apex court had decided to hear in open court the review petitions against the verdict. There are around 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were filed following the violent protests in favour and against the verdict.

May not start hearing Sabarimala case till January 30 as Justice Malhotra on leave: Supreme Court

Pakistan Supreme Court Thursday ordered the federal government to promulgate a new law within a fortnight to grant more rights, including fundamental human rights, to the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/activists-urge-pakistan-to-end-illegal-occupation-of-pok-gilgit-baltistan-177997">people of Gilgit-Baltistan in PoK.</a>

A seven-judge bench headed by Justice Saqib Nisar issued a detailed order in response to several petitions filed against constitutional issues and previous reforms in the region.

The bench in the order wrote that the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court extend to Gilgit-Baltistan.

It further said that the region's courts did not have the constitutional power to deal with issues within Pakistan but the people from the region will be able to challenge their top court's decisions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

It also ordered that the people of the region should be given fundamental human rights as provided in the proposed constitutional order, which was made part of the detailed order.

Noting the international status of Kashmir, of which Gilgit-Baltistan is a part, the order said that "as and when the promised plebiscite is organized by the parties to the dispute, it will be up to the people of all of Jammu and Kashmir, and of Gilgit-Baltistan, to make their choice.

It also said until the plebiscite, "It is surely incumbent upon both India as well as Pakistan to ensure that the people of this region enjoy maximum rights for areas within each country's control".

However, it noted that until the plebiscite is held, a proper arrangement must be provided for by Pakistan for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan for purposes of governance within a framework of a constitutional nature, including most importantly the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

Pakistan Supreme Court Thursday ordered the federal government to promulgate a new law within a fortnight to grant more rights, including fundamental human rights, to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan in PoK.

Pakistan Supreme Court Thursday ordered the federal government to promulgate a new law within a fortnight to grant more rights, including fundamental human rights, to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan in PoK. A seven-judge bench headed by Justice Saqib Nisar issued a detailed order in response to several petitions filed against constitutional issues and previous reforms in the region. The bench in the order wrote that the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court extend to Gilgit-Baltistan. It further said that the region's courts did not have the constitutional power to deal with issues within Pakistan but the people from the region will be able to challenge their top court's decisions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It also ordered that the people of the region should be given fundamental human rights as provided in the proposed constitutional order, which was made part of the detailed order. Noting the international status of Kashmir, of which Gilgit-Baltistan is a part, the order said that "as and when the promised plebiscite is organized by the parties to the dispute, it will be up to the people of all of Jammu and Kashmir, and of Gilgit-Baltistan, to make their choice. It also said until the plebiscite, "It is surely incumbent upon both India as well as Pakistan to ensure that the people of this region enjoy maximum rights for areas within each country's control". However, it noted that until the plebiscite is held, a proper arrangement must be provided for by Pakistan for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan for purposes of governance within a framework of a constitutional nature, including most importantly the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

Pakistan Supreme Court orders govt to give more rights to people of Gilgit-Baltistan

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference.

On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief.

DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court.

Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs.

The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs.

It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent.

The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list.

Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms.

The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police.

It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance.

It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP.

The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years.

The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs). The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference. On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief. DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court. Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs. The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs. It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent. The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list. Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms. The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years. However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance. It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP. The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years. The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.

Supreme Court dismisses pleas of 5 states seeking modification of its order on DGPs

A PIL was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court challenging the government's notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system.

The petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeks to quash the government's <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-empowers-security-intelligence-agencies-for-mass-surveillance-185626">December 20 notification.</a>

According to the government's notification, 10 Central probe and snoop agencies are now empowered under the Information Technology (IT) Act for computer interception and analysis, Ministry of Home Affairs officials said.

The 10 agencies notified under the new order are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for Income Tax Department), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J-K, North East and Assam) and the Delhi Police commissioner.&nbsp;

A PIL was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court challenging the government's notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system.

A PIL was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court challenging the government's notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system. The petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeks to quash the government's December 20 notification. According to the government's notification, 10 Central probe and snoop agencies are now empowered under the Information Technology (IT) Act for computer interception and analysis, Ministry of Home Affairs officials said. The 10 agencies notified under the new order are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for Income Tax Department), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J-K, North East and Assam) and the Delhi Police commissioner.

PIL filed in SC against order authorising 10 govt agencies to monitor any computer

Amidst the controversy surrounding the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-judgement-govt-moves-sc-seeking-correction-in-para-which-makes-reference-to-cag-report-pac-184280">Supreme Court's verdict on Rafale deal</a>, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-topple-govt-if-ram-temple-construction-is-opposed-subramanian-swamy-182345">Subramanian Swamy</a> said that Supreme Court should decide if Centre had misled the judiciary and whether the error made in the affidavit was mala fide. 
 
Reacting to Congress leader Anand Sharma's statement that Center had deliberately misled the apex court, Swamy told ANI: "Sharma is no one to say anything on the Government's intentions. It is for the Supreme Court to decide or to say that you misled us or your error was mala fide in Rafale affidavit. At first, Prime Minister Narendra Modi should order a probe to see who drafted it whether it was a bureaucrat or our politician." 
 
Swamy's remarks came after discrepancies were pointed out in certain paragraphs of the apex court judgement on Rafale issue. Congress President Rahul Gandhi had raised questions over the claims of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examining the CAG report, claiming that PAC Chairman Kharge had seen no such report. 
 
Further speaking on the Opposition alliance ahead of the general elections, Swamy said, "A coalition with ideological differences won't be able to stay for long and it will soon start falling apart." 
 
Praising his party, Swamy asserted: "After Vajpayee's rule UPA again came to power as his 'India shining' campaign was not enough to win the election. We also need a glue of 'Hindutva' to form the government at the Centre again and make our party workers work." 
 
Taking a jibe at Congress over their continuous attack on surgical strikes Swamy said, "What can you expect from Congress, they have developed a habit of questioning everything patriotic about this country. They even question surgical strike and sacrifices of our jawans." 
 
Sharpening his attack on the Congress leaders, especially Sidhu, who already received criticism for attending Prime Minister Imran Khan's oath-taking ceremony in Pakistan and for embracing Pakistan Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Swamy said, "Congress leaders like Navjot Singh is creating an impression that he is an anti-national as he cares more for our enemies than our own people," he said.

Amidst the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's verdict on Rafale deal, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker Subramanian Swamy said that Supreme Court should decide if Centre had misled the judiciary and whether the error made in the affidavit was mala fide.

Amidst the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's verdict on Rafale deal, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker Subramanian Swamy said that Supreme Court should decide if Centre had misled the judiciary and whether the error made in the affidavit was mala fide. Reacting to Congress leader Anand Sharma's statement that Center had deliberately misled the apex court, Swamy told ANI: "Sharma is no one to say anything on the Government's intentions. It is for the Supreme Court to decide or to say that you misled us or your error was mala fide in Rafale affidavit. At first, Prime Minister Narendra Modi should order a probe to see who drafted it whether it was a bureaucrat or our politician." Swamy's remarks came after discrepancies were pointed out in certain paragraphs of the apex court judgement on Rafale issue. Congress President Rahul Gandhi had raised questions over the claims of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examining the CAG report, claiming that PAC Chairman Kharge had seen no such report. Further speaking on the Opposition alliance ahead of the general elections, Swamy said, "A coalition with ideological differences won't be able to stay for long and it will soon start falling apart." Praising his party, Swamy asserted: "After Vajpayee's rule UPA again came to power as his 'India shining' campaign was not enough to win the election. We also need a glue of 'Hindutva' to form the government at the Centre again and make our party workers work." Taking a jibe at Congress over their continuous attack on surgical strikes Swamy said, "What can you expect from Congress, they have developed a habit of questioning everything patriotic about this country. They even question surgical strike and sacrifices of our jawans." Sharpening his attack on the Congress leaders, especially Sidhu, who already received criticism for attending Prime Minister Imran Khan's oath-taking ceremony in Pakistan and for embracing Pakistan Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Swamy said, "Congress leaders like Navjot Singh is creating an impression that he is an anti-national as he cares more for our enemies than our own people," he said.

Let SC say if Centre misled judiciary on Rafale: Subramanian Swamy

Amit Shah on SC verdict on Rafale Probe

Rafale Verdict: No Probe Into Rafale Deal; SC dismisses petition

The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a fresh plea seeking imposition of a lifetime ban on lawmakers following their conviction in criminal cases.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the petition filed by NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ through its General Secretary S N Shukla, saying that it was already seized of a similar petition on the same issue.

“We are already examining the same thing in a petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay,” said the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph.

The apex court dismissed the petition as it was already scheduled to hear a similar PIL filed by lawyer and BJP leader Upadhyay tomorrow, who in his plea has sought to bar of convicted politicians for life.

“Why have you filed a separate petition when the court is seized of the same issue in another pending petition. We don’t think we need to hear it. Dismissed,” the bench said.

The bench while listing Upadhyay’s plea for hearing on December 4 had said that it could not lose sight of the fact that the PIL was seeking a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in the criminal case, besides setting up of special courts to expeditiously try criminal cases involving elected representatives.

“We should not lose sight of the fact that the main prayer in the PIL is to impose the lifetime ban on convicted elected representative,” the bench said, adding that the government servants and judicial officers cannot come back after their convictions.

At present, a legislator, when convicted is debarred for six years from contesting elections.

The apex court has been approached with several pleas seeking a lifetime ban on lawmakers as the provision stood for the judiciary and the executive, where one could not hold office post-conviction.

The Centre during the last hearing in the matter had submitted that it had no objection in setting up of special courts for exclusively trying the criminal cases involving elected representatives. However, it has not been in favour of banning the convicted lawmakers for life.

The apex court was earlier informed that 12 special courts set up to try lawmakers exclusively have not been constituted on a uniform pattern, and their number needs to be raised to 19 for trying cases at the sessions level.

It was also suggested to the top court that another 51 such courts are required for magisterial trial cases.

The amicus had further said that special courts were constituted to exclusively deal with all cases including complaint cases against MPs, MLAs including the former ones, irrespective of the fact as to whether the same was committed when the concerned lawmaker was holding the said office

The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a fresh plea seeking imposition of a lifetime ban on lawmakers following their conviction in criminal cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the petition filed by NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ through its General Secretary S N Shukla, saying that it was already seized of a similar petition on the same issue.

The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a fresh plea seeking imposition of a lifetime ban on lawmakers following their conviction in criminal cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the petition filed by NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ through its General Secretary S N Shukla, saying that it was already seized of a similar petition on the same issue. “We are already examining the same thing in a petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay,” said the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph. The apex court dismissed the petition as it was already scheduled to hear a similar PIL filed by lawyer and BJP leader Upadhyay tomorrow, who in his plea has sought to bar of convicted politicians for life. “Why have you filed a separate petition when the court is seized of the same issue in another pending petition. We don’t think we need to hear it. Dismissed,” the bench said. The bench while listing Upadhyay’s plea for hearing on December 4 had said that it could not lose sight of the fact that the PIL was seeking a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in the criminal case, besides setting up of special courts to expeditiously try criminal cases involving elected representatives. “We should not lose sight of the fact that the main prayer in the PIL is to impose the lifetime ban on convicted elected representative,” the bench said, adding that the government servants and judicial officers cannot come back after their convictions. At present, a legislator, when convicted is debarred for six years from contesting elections. The apex court has been approached with several pleas seeking a lifetime ban on lawmakers as the provision stood for the judiciary and the executive, where one could not hold office post-conviction. The Centre during the last hearing in the matter had submitted that it had no objection in setting up of special courts for exclusively trying the criminal cases involving elected representatives. However, it has not been in favour of banning the convicted lawmakers for life. The apex court was earlier informed that 12 special courts set up to try lawmakers exclusively have not been constituted on a uniform pattern, and their number needs to be raised to 19 for trying cases at the sessions level. It was also suggested to the top court that another 51 such courts are required for magisterial trial cases. The amicus had further said that special courts were constituted to exclusively deal with all cases including complaint cases against MPs, MLAs including the former ones, irrespective of the fact as to whether the same was committed when the concerned lawmaker was holding the said office

SC refuses to hear fresh plea seeking life ban on lawmakers after conviction in criminal cases

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated".

The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma.

BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is "sub judice", but took objection to "somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself".

When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, "The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment."

Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI's number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur.

"The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine," he said.

"But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself... Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action," Rao said.

"I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence.

But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It's a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes," he said.

A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI's top brass they did not "deserve" a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief's reply to the CVC's probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials.

K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.&nbsp;

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated".

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated". The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma. BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is "sub judice", but took objection to "somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself". When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, "The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment." Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI's number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur. "The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine," he said. "But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself... Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action," Rao said. "I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence. But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It's a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes," he said. A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI's top brass they did not "deserve" a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief's reply to the CVC's probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials. K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.

SC will examine if allegations politically motivated: BJP on CBI row

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The apex court collegium, headed by the CJI and comprising its four-senior most judges, had on October 30 recommended to the Centre the names of the four judges for the elevation, and they took the oath of office on Friday. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We sent the recommendations at about 11 o'clock on Wednesday and on Wednesday evening, when I was informed that the medical (test of the judges to be elevated) has been done, I myself was very shocked. I couldn't believe it. I said what you are saying. I am as much in awe as you are," the CJI said in an informal chat with journalists covering the apex court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
When a senior journalist asked Justice Gogoi that he has created history as he was the first person from the north-east zone to become the CJI and he got cleared the names of judges from the Centre within 48 hours, he said that the best person would be the Law Minister to answer this. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI, who on Thursday inaugurated the Centre for Research and Planning, an "in-house think tank" also made an important announcement that the apex court would provide translated copies of its judgments to litigants in their mother tongue if they are unable to understand English. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"To start with, we may do it in Hindi," the CJI said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI, who was accompanied by fourth senior most judge Justice S A Bobde and his successor during his interaction with the scribes, dismissed the query as to how he was sure that Justice Bobde would succeed him. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"Yes of course. There can be no doubt on that," Justice Gogoi said and outlined his idea to tackle the cases by the benches of different strength in future. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He said that on Mondays and Fridays, the court takes up miscellaneous cases and there was no need of many three-judge benches and this would increase the number of courts, he said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He also made light of the recent controversy in which second senior most judge Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court could not become the Acting Chief Justice as the Centre notified his junior Justice AS Dave to the post. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The post of Acting Chief Justice in the Gujarat High Court had fallen vacant due to the elevation of Justice Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We all make mistakes and we correct ourselves. Kureshi is the senior-most judge. There is no mystery in it," the CJI said, adding that a second notification corrected the mistake. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Now Justice Kureshi will remain the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court till November 14 and he would be joining the Bombay High Court a day later. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
In response to the query that the Centre has not honoured the recommendations of the collegium to appoint nearly 40 judges in high courts, the CJI said, "I did not say it has not been honoured by the government. I will not say it has not been honoured. It has been kept pending. So that's around 40. Maybe it could be a little more." 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
On the issue of "in-house think tank", the CJI said, it will help in "judicial reforms, judicial jurisprudence and judicial education". 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We have to evolve. Nobody is denying the fact that there is a need for judicial reforms. I have ideas. I have ideas which are being implemented from time to time but these are the people which will be doing the research on the prevailing system in so many jurisprudence and so many jurisdictions," he said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The think tank would give the judges inputs, and academician Mohan Gopal and his small team will give us the "inputs and the inputs will be debated by the jurists. If they are fine we will implement it". 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI said that it wanted to help the litigants who lose their properties after a prolonged legal battle and have been given a judgement in English which they cannot even understand. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He stressed on the need for providing judgements in vernacular languages but rued manpower crunch and other resources in implementing the idea. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

"At this moment it is very difficult to say whether it will be translated in other languages as well. We have a gross deficiency of resources," he said.

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck.

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck. The apex court collegium, headed by the CJI and comprising its four-senior most judges, had on October 30 recommended to the Centre the names of the four judges for the elevation, and they took the oath of office on Friday. "We sent the recommendations at about 11 o'clock on Wednesday and on Wednesday evening, when I was informed that the medical (test of the judges to be elevated) has been done, I myself was very shocked. I couldn't believe it. I said what you are saying. I am as much in awe as you are," the CJI said in an informal chat with journalists covering the apex court. When a senior journalist asked Justice Gogoi that he has created history as he was the first person from the north-east zone to become the CJI and he got cleared the names of judges from the Centre within 48 hours, he said that the best person would be the Law Minister to answer this. The CJI, who on Thursday inaugurated the Centre for Research and Planning, an "in-house think tank" also made an important announcement that the apex court would provide translated copies of its judgments to litigants in their mother tongue if they are unable to understand English. "To start with, we may do it in Hindi," the CJI said. The CJI, who was accompanied by fourth senior most judge Justice S A Bobde and his successor during his interaction with the scribes, dismissed the query as to how he was sure that Justice Bobde would succeed him. "Yes of course. There can be no doubt on that," Justice Gogoi said and outlined his idea to tackle the cases by the benches of different strength in future. He said that on Mondays and Fridays, the court takes up miscellaneous cases and there was no need of many three-judge benches and this would increase the number of courts, he said. He also made light of the recent controversy in which second senior most judge Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court could not become the Acting Chief Justice as the Centre notified his junior Justice AS Dave to the post. The post of Acting Chief Justice in the Gujarat High Court had fallen vacant due to the elevation of Justice Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court. "We all make mistakes and we correct ourselves. Kureshi is the senior-most judge. There is no mystery in it," the CJI said, adding that a second notification corrected the mistake. Now Justice Kureshi will remain the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court till November 14 and he would be joining the Bombay High Court a day later. In response to the query that the Centre has not honoured the recommendations of the collegium to appoint nearly 40 judges in high courts, the CJI said, "I did not say it has not been honoured by the government. I will not say it has not been honoured. It has been kept pending. So that's around 40. Maybe it could be a little more." On the issue of "in-house think tank", the CJI said, it will help in "judicial reforms, judicial jurisprudence and judicial education". "We have to evolve. Nobody is denying the fact that there is a need for judicial reforms. I have ideas. I have ideas which are being implemented from time to time but these are the people which will be doing the research on the prevailing system in so many jurisprudence and so many jurisdictions," he said. The think tank would give the judges inputs, and academician Mohan Gopal and his small team will give us the "inputs and the inputs will be debated by the jurists. If they are fine we will implement it". The CJI said that it wanted to help the litigants who lose their properties after a prolonged legal battle and have been given a judgement in English which they cannot even understand. He stressed on the need for providing judgements in vernacular languages but rued manpower crunch and other resources in implementing the idea. "At this moment it is very difficult to say whether it will be translated in other languages as well. We have a gross deficiency of resources," he said.

CJI in awe as Centre clears names of 4 judges for elevation to SC in 48 hours

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation.

Asia Bibi, a mother of four, has been living on death row since 2010 when she became the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws.

She was condemned for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam after neighbours objected to her drinking water from their glass because she was not Muslim.

Her case has outraged Christians worldwide and been a source of division within Pakistan, where two politicians who sought to help Bibi were assassinated.

A special three-person bench headed by Pakistan's top judge, Chief Justice Saqib Nasir, is due to deliver the verdict at 9am local time (0400 GMT), according to a notice by the court.

Bibi's case is also high on the agenda of religious hardliners in Pakistan, many of whom are fiercely opposed to her release.

The ultra-Islamist Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) party, which makes punishing blasphemy its main campaign rallying cry, earlier this month warned the court against any "concession or softness" for Bibi.

"If there is any attempt to hand her over to a foreign country, there will be terrible consequences," TLP said in a statement.

In November, TLP staged a crippling blockade of the capital after small changes to a religious oath, which it claims was tantamount to blasphemy. Seven people were killed and more than 200 wounded in clashes with the police and TLP’s supporters only dispersed after striking a deal with the military.

Insulting Islam’s prophet is punishable by death under Pakistani law, and blasphemy accusations stir such emotions that they are almost impossible to defend against. Dozens have been killed following blasphemy claims, sometimes by mobs of men.

Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores. The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence.

Bibi has always denied blaspheming and her representatives have claimed she was involved in a dispute with her neighbours and that her accusers had contradicted themselves.

In February, Bibi's husband Ashiq Masih and one of her daughters met with Pope Francis shortly before Rome's ancient Colosseum was lit in red one evening in solidarity with persecuted Christians, and Bibi in particular.

Pope Francis told Bibi's daughter: "I think often of your mother and I pray for her".

At the Rome gathering, Masih said his wife was innocent of blasphemy. "This is just hate against Christians, who are considered impure," he said.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to rule on the final appeal by a Christian woman sentenced to death by hanging over blasphemy allegations, a case that has drawn global attention and condemnation. Asia Bibi, a mother of four, has been living on death row since 2010 when she became the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws. She was condemned for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam after neighbours objected to her drinking water from their glass because she was not Muslim. Her case has outraged Christians worldwide and been a source of division within Pakistan, where two politicians who sought to help Bibi were assassinated. A special three-person bench headed by Pakistan's top judge, Chief Justice Saqib Nasir, is due to deliver the verdict at 9am local time (0400 GMT), according to a notice by the court. Bibi's case is also high on the agenda of religious hardliners in Pakistan, many of whom are fiercely opposed to her release. The ultra-Islamist Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) party, which makes punishing blasphemy its main campaign rallying cry, earlier this month warned the court against any "concession or softness" for Bibi. "If there is any attempt to hand her over to a foreign country, there will be terrible consequences," TLP said in a statement. In November, TLP staged a crippling blockade of the capital after small changes to a religious oath, which it claims was tantamount to blasphemy. Seven people were killed and more than 200 wounded in clashes with the police and TLP’s supporters only dispersed after striking a deal with the military. Insulting Islam’s prophet is punishable by death under Pakistani law, and blasphemy accusations stir such emotions that they are almost impossible to defend against. Dozens have been killed following blasphemy claims, sometimes by mobs of men. Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores. The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence. Bibi has always denied blaspheming and her representatives have claimed she was involved in a dispute with her neighbours and that her accusers had contradicted themselves. In February, Bibi's husband Ashiq Masih and one of her daughters met with Pope Francis shortly before Rome's ancient Colosseum was lit in red one evening in solidarity with persecuted Christians, and Bibi in particular. Pope Francis told Bibi's daughter: "I think often of your mother and I pray for her". At the Rome gathering, Masih said his wife was innocent of blasphemy. "This is just hate against Christians, who are considered impure," he said.

Pakistan's Supreme Court to rule on Christian woman facing death over blasphemy

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No. 1 and No. 2 accused each other of irregularities and started investigating each other instead of the welter of corruption cases plaguing India.

But we ought to have known better. Ever since the Modi government came to power, fighting corruption has been its chosen plank. The problem, however, is the "Gujarat model" of picking favourite officers to fight politically promised battles is not an easy one. Simply put, we are witnessing a case of Chanakya-era style of a Hindu king using handpicked loyalists in his durbar-style governance being superimposed on a Westminster system of administration inherited from British rule under which the civil servants are largely independent.

In the Westminster system, you usually trust the bureaucracy, of which the CBI is a part, and do not violate its procedures. When officers don't play ball, you transfer them gently to nondescript departments. The civil servant is not really a servant, as we learned in the hilarious episodes of the BBC comedy, Yes, Minister. However, the Modi government has bitten off more than it can chew -- or at least wants to. Last week, former BJP minister and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leading critic now, Arun Shourie, joked that in Gujarat, civil servants were "civil...(pause)...servants".

Whether it is in surprising the country with a demonetisation of high-value currency notes or in the running of the country's premier investigation agency, the Modi government has relied on its chosen people rather than traditional processes, and has substantially bypassed the bureaucracy than enlist its help. This brings in risks of the kind the government has been facing already.

It is, of course, a huge challenge when corruption is endemic in the system and you use the bureaucracy to tackle corruption. While we may shed a tear or two for the ostensibly noble intent of the Modi government, we may add that it is not advisable to rush in where angels fear to tread. What seems to have happened in the CBI case is that the No.1, Alok Verma, felt sidelined.

Experience tells me that army officers, police officers and bureaucrats take their hierarchical prestige very seriously, and being sidelined in favour of a junior can trigger sparks of vengeance. So we can see a comic Yes, Minister episode assuming the dark colours of a Netflix-run Sacred Games with its thriller skulduggery. With very un-sacred consequences, as we witnessed last week, when the government moved like Pakistan's coup-loving army one dark night to remove the two warring super cops from office. With the matter now placed firmly under the Supreme Court's supervision, a new chapter has begun.

For too long, we have had a public discourse in which the CBI (technically under the Home Ministry) being described as a "caged parrot" on the one hand, even as it claims to be an autonomous sleuthing body. It is therefore natural that CBI director Alok Verma could take his removal to the Supreme Court and gain public sympathy and opposition support. A Catch-22 situation arises for the Modi government because if you interfere in the CBI, you are proving allegations of a caged parrot and if you don't you are seen doing nothing to fight corruption.

The Central Vigilance Commission is looking into allegations against Alok Verma. Not for nothing, the CVC is described as a postman who forwards corruption complaints. It is officially not an investigating agency and usually works with the CBI as a partner. More important, the government has to approve the CVC taking up any investigation into corruption cases. There are also questions on how senior officials could be appointed to the CBI with CVC clearance in the first place when there were allegations pending against them.

Now, consider the irony of the fact that a government accused of corruption is approving a probe into the affairs of a man who is heading the very agency that gives teeth to the largely toothless CVC!

I can almost hear you say: "Where is the Lok Pal when you need her?"&nbsp;

Though a law was passed in 2013 to set up a Lok Pal, for technical reasons the law that enables the appointment of a constitutional ombudsman to probe allegations of serious corruption has been a non-starter.&nbsp;

In the light of all this, I do believe there is a silver lining when the CBI's state of affairs lands up in the Supreme Court. There is something fundamentally wrong in the system when the CVC is toothless, the Lok Pal is absent, the CBI is a caged parrot in perception or reality and there are widespread allegations of political corruption. The highest court of the land should treat the CBI mess as an opportunity to get a clean-up done. Not just in the current standoff. It should hopefully do something in the long-term interest of fighting corruption and maladministration.

It is not yet clear if the Supreme Court will overstep its brief as far as the current case is concerned, but, given the court's far-reaching pronouncements on issues ranging from privacy to gay rights, one hopes those pleading in the larger public interest will goad it to do something more. I for one would prefer the Supreme Court to have a permanent interest in the functioning of the CBI pending the appointment of a Lok Pal. India's premier investigating agency could do with some judicial muscle. 
 
(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/this-mess-is-an-opportunity-for-supreme-court-to-give-cbi-some-muscle-2152231.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No.

If you are an optimist like I am, you would see a silver lining in the royal mess we are witnessing in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has lately been rechristened as the Central Bureau of Infighting after its No. 1 and No. 2 accused each other of irregularities and started investigating each other instead of the welter of corruption cases plaguing India. But we ought to have known better. Ever since the Modi government came to power, fighting corruption has been its chosen plank. The problem, however, is the "Gujarat model" of picking favourite officers to fight politically promised battles is not an easy one. Simply put, we are witnessing a case of Chanakya-era style of a Hindu king using handpicked loyalists in his durbar-style governance being superimposed on a Westminster system of administration inherited from British rule under which the civil servants are largely independent. In the Westminster system, you usually trust the bureaucracy, of which the CBI is a part, and do not violate its procedures. When officers don't play ball, you transfer them gently to nondescript departments. The civil servant is not really a servant, as we learned in the hilarious episodes of the BBC comedy, Yes, Minister. However, the Modi government has bitten off more than it can chew -- or at least wants to. Last week, former BJP minister and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leading critic now, Arun Shourie, joked that in Gujarat, civil servants were "civil...(pause)...servants". Whether it is in surprising the country with a demonetisation of high-value currency notes or in the running of the country's premier investigation agency, the Modi government has relied on its chosen people rather than traditional processes, and has substantially bypassed the bureaucracy than enlist its help. This brings in risks of the kind the government has been facing already. It is, of course, a huge challenge when corruption is endemic in the system and you use the bureaucracy to tackle corruption. While we may shed a tear or two for the ostensibly noble intent of the Modi government, we may add that it is not advisable to rush in where angels fear to tread. What seems to have happened in the CBI case is that the No.1, Alok Verma, felt sidelined. Experience tells me that army officers, police officers and bureaucrats take their hierarchical prestige very seriously, and being sidelined in favour of a junior can trigger sparks of vengeance. So we can see a comic Yes, Minister episode assuming the dark colours of a Netflix-run Sacred Games with its thriller skulduggery. With very un-sacred consequences, as we witnessed last week, when the government moved like Pakistan's coup-loving army one dark night to remove the two warring super cops from office. With the matter now placed firmly under the Supreme Court's supervision, a new chapter has begun. For too long, we have had a public discourse in which the CBI (technically under the Home Ministry) being described as a "caged parrot" on the one hand, even as it claims to be an autonomous sleuthing body. It is therefore natural that CBI director Alok Verma could take his removal to the Supreme Court and gain public sympathy and opposition support. A Catch-22 situation arises for the Modi government because if you interfere in the CBI, you are proving allegations of a caged parrot and if you don't you are seen doing nothing to fight corruption. The Central Vigilance Commission is looking into allegations against Alok Verma. Not for nothing, the CVC is described as a postman who forwards corruption complaints. It is officially not an investigating agency and usually works with the CBI as a partner. More important, the government has to approve the CVC taking up any investigation into corruption cases. There are also questions on how senior officials could be appointed to the CBI with CVC clearance in the first place when there were allegations pending against them. Now, consider the irony of the fact that a government accused of corruption is approving a probe into the affairs of a man who is heading the very agency that gives teeth to the largely toothless CVC! I can almost hear you say: "Where is the Lok Pal when you need her?" Though a law was passed in 2013 to set up a Lok Pal, for technical reasons the law that enables the appointment of a constitutional ombudsman to probe allegations of serious corruption has been a non-starter. In the light of all this, I do believe there is a silver lining when the CBI's state of affairs lands up in the Supreme Court. There is something fundamentally wrong in the system when the CVC is toothless, the Lok Pal is absent, the CBI is a caged parrot in perception or reality and there are widespread allegations of political corruption. The highest court of the land should treat the CBI mess as an opportunity to get a clean-up done. Not just in the current standoff. It should hopefully do something in the long-term interest of fighting corruption and maladministration. It is not yet clear if the Supreme Court will overstep its brief as far as the current case is concerned, but, given the court's far-reaching pronouncements on issues ranging from privacy to gay rights, one hopes those pleading in the larger public interest will goad it to do something more. I for one would prefer the Supreme Court to have a permanent interest in the functioning of the CBI pending the appointment of a Lok Pal. India's premier investigating agency could do with some judicial muscle. (This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

This mess is an opportunity for Supreme Court to give CBI some muscle

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would consider according to an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against various CBI officials, including Rakesh Asthana, who was divested of his responsibilities as the agency's special director.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi considered the submission of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause that there were wider issues of corruption affecting the probe agency and the PIL needed to be heard urgently.

The bench, which also comprised Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, asked Mr Bhushan to provide details and said it would consider granting an urgent hearing on the petition.

The NGO has sought relief including court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of corruption against CBI officials including Mr Asthana, who along with CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma had been divested of powers and sent on leave.

The unprecedented internal feud between CBI Director and Mr Asthana had reached the top court on Wednesday which agreed to hear on October 26 the former's plea assailing the Centre's decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave.

Mr Verma has assailed the decision of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) by which Joint Director M Nageswara Rao, a 1986 batch Odisha-cadre IPS officer, has been given the charge as head of the probe agency.

The feud between Mr Verma and Mr Asthana escalated recently leading to registration of an FIR against Mr Asthana and others including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is presently in CBI's custody, in an alleged bribery case.

The FIR was lodged on a written complaint of Satish Babu Sana on October 15. It alleged that Mr Kumar, the IO in a case, was repeatedly calling him to the CBI office to harass and compel him to pay a bribe of Rs. 5 crores for giving him a clean chit.

Mr Asthana and Mr Kumar both challenged the FIR in the Delhi High Court, which on Tuesday ordered CBI to maintain status quo on the criminal proceedings against Mr Asthana.

The Centre, the CVC and the DoPT intervened and decided to send the CBI Director and the Special Director on leave.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would consider according to an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against various CBI officials, including Rakesh Asthana, who was divested of his responsibilities as the agency's special director.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would consider according to an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against various CBI officials, including Rakesh Asthana, who was divested of his responsibilities as the agency's special director. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi considered the submission of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause that there were wider issues of corruption affecting the probe agency and the PIL needed to be heard urgently. The bench, which also comprised Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, asked Mr Bhushan to provide details and said it would consider granting an urgent hearing on the petition. The NGO has sought relief including court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of corruption against CBI officials including Mr Asthana, who along with CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma had been divested of powers and sent on leave. The unprecedented internal feud between CBI Director and Mr Asthana had reached the top court on Wednesday which agreed to hear on October 26 the former's plea assailing the Centre's decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave. Mr Verma has assailed the decision of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) by which Joint Director M Nageswara Rao, a 1986 batch Odisha-cadre IPS officer, has been given the charge as head of the probe agency. The feud between Mr Verma and Mr Asthana escalated recently leading to registration of an FIR against Mr Asthana and others including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is presently in CBI's custody, in an alleged bribery case. The FIR was lodged on a written complaint of Satish Babu Sana on October 15. It alleged that Mr Kumar, the IO in a case, was repeatedly calling him to the CBI office to harass and compel him to pay a bribe of Rs. 5 crores for giving him a clean chit. Mr Asthana and Mr Kumar both challenged the FIR in the Delhi High Court, which on Tuesday ordered CBI to maintain status quo on the criminal proceedings against Mr Asthana. The Centre, the CVC and the DoPT intervened and decided to send the CBI Director and the Special Director on leave.

SC to hear PIL seeking SIT probe into graft allegations against CBI officials

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

A welcome step by the new CJI

This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons.&nbsp;

Imposition of fees and charges

Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself.

Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge.

Also in the other courts 
 
Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases.&nbsp;

User charges 
 
In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings.

Fees/fines and charges in courts 
 
At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules.

Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules.

Mediation and other alternative methods 
 
It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate.

In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem.

In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India.

Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record.

Explosion to grow

We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges.

Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin.

State funds or Court replenishment Fund

All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees.&nbsp;

It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. 
 
(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/to-reduce-pending-cases-in-courts-fines-and-fees-are-a-good-way-to-go-2146799.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date. A welcome step by the new CJI This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons. Imposition of fees and charges Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself. Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge. Also in the other courts Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases. User charges In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings. Fees/fines and charges in courts At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules. Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules. Mediation and other alternative methods It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate. In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem. In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India. Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record. Explosion to grow We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges. Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin. State funds or Court replenishment Fund All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees. It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. (This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

To reduce pending cases in courts, fines and fees are a good way to go

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary.&nbsp;

In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. &nbsp;

There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders.&nbsp;

The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. 
 
The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships.&nbsp; 
 
The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc.&nbsp;

In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. &nbsp;

It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018.

In later years, those desirous of visiting the Supreme Court of India’s landmark verdicts that enforced gender equality and the Right to Live with Dignity can find plenty of material if they only delve into September 2018. The gush of judgements has left most people dazzled and some disgruntled. Reactions varied, from uninhibited praise to outright disapproval. Nonetheless, the apex court’s performance gave people in general an occasion to reiterate their faith in the judiciary. In some instances the court demolished established traditions, in another, it overturned its earlier verdict — because those rulings had failed in the constitutional test. Seizing upon the convenience at hand, political parties have reacted differently. So have social organisations and activists of varied hues. There were three verdicts last month, which were of a social-churning nature to the extent of ensuring gender justice, and they are perhaps all the more significant because they have set the tone for an India where equality and a life with dignity are not to be confined to statute books, but be seen where they are needed the most. They are important also because they have come despite stiff resistance from vested groups — social, religious and political. Some of them are already preparing to seek judicial reviews against the orders. The first pathbreaking ruling to come was the court’s decision to decriminalise same-sex relationships. The LGBT community had been for years waging a battle against the provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that had turned them into criminals over their sexual orientation. In 2009, the Delhi High Court had shown the way by striking down the criminality clause, in the Naz Foundation case. The High Court had said that the Section relating to criminality violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. But its efforts went in vain as the Supreme Court restored the criminal provision. Early last month, the court showed courage in overturning its own verdict on the ground that the criminalisation part of Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to live with dignity — both enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental rights. It can now be proudly said that India is no longer on the list of 70-plus nations that criminalise same-sex relationships. The second historic ruling of a social kind was another instance of decriminalisation: That of adultery. The apex court knocked down Section 497 of the IPC on the grounds that the provision had not treated men and women equally, that it was arbitrary, and that it was violative of the right to equality and the right to equal opportunity to women. One of the judges on the five-judge Bench, Justice RF Nariman, stated that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The judges agreed that adultery can be a civil offence, and be cited as a reason for divorce etc. In the third instance of a similar kind, in the last week of September, a five-judge Bench through a majority verdict, directed that the venerated Sabarimala temple in Kerala be opened up for women of all ages. Certain provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which apply to the Sabarimala temple, banned women of menstruating age from entering the shrine, reigned supreme until now. It does seem that the Supreme Court has with a messianic zeal, decided to break old, though far from rusty, shackles. These three judgements were preceded by another historic court ruling, rendering as unconstitutional the practice of instant triple divorce (by the male, of course) among Indian Muslims. One does hope that more such verdicts will follow, and contribute to the creation of as equal a society as is possible. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Dazzling array of Supreme Court verdicts enforces gender justice and dignity 

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