Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives? The issue facing us, right from the time of the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, are the allegations that all kinds of powers — constitutional, economic, investigative etc. — are abused.

The scourge of drugs and crime directed attention towards money laundering. The United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted in October 2013 mandates “strengthening international cooperation in preventing and combating the transfer of funds of illicit origin, derived from acts of corruption, including the laundering of funds, and in returning such funds”. The stress, quite evidently, was on getting back economic gains of crime to the “common good” of the society. There existed a global consensus to go after “proceeds of crime”. The PMLA seeks to mitigate such anxieties of the community.

Acting under PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has of late knocked on the doors of the rich and mighty, including politicians, business houses, regional leaders and bookies. But what bothers businesses is the ED’s competence to inflict on citizens a reverse burden of proof, especially in case of pre-trial attachment of property and funds just on basis of reasons to believe of the investigative authority and not concrete facts. So even without an investigation being completed, you can be charged and your property can be attached just because a complaint/investigation exists against you. The germane question is to what extent the burden of proof is placed on an individual and businesses. What happens to rule of being “presumed innocent till proven guilty”? How would it affect prosecution in money laundering and economic offences?

PMLA provides for attachment of property involved in money laundering even before the stage of trial itself, which effectively means that though a citizen is presumed not guilty, he is deprived of control over his property, when the prosecution believes that it comes from tainted money, effectively destroying lives, families, reputations and businesses, just on the basis of investigators’ reason to believe and not on evidence. The rights of the citizen without even a charge being framed ought to be protected. At this stage, what would be cardinal is to protect businesses and reputations. In Babu versus State of Kerala, the Supreme Court articulated that it is true that certain statutes “provide for a presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However, such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact”.

The same rule would also apply to attachment proceedings if not through criminal jurisprudence, assuming that attachment proceedings are civil proceedings, then through articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which introduce the doctrines of proportionality and reasonableness. Thus implying that even where the presumption of tainted activity is provided for in law, all State action has to be based on reasonable ground and no disproportionate action is permissible.

Similar provisions exist in NDPS ACT for offences only under NDPS Act and not for any general or regular crimes outside the ambit of NDPS. PMLA allows invoking the scheduled offences clause under PMLA, wherein a citizen’s property can be confiscated for crimes like murder which are not driven by “commercial gains”. Here the economic effect can even be as low as Rs 500.

Prosecution giving effect to attachments without itself first substantiating foundational facts can fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, as nothing could be more excessive and disproportionate than depriving a person of his reputation and property without establishing, in fact, the presence of the “proceeds of crime” and establishing prima facie “money laundering”. Justice Nariman writing for the majority in Shayara Bano versus Union of India held “Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary…”

An illustration of this would be ED attaching properties worth Rs 200 crore when it can establish foundational fact for only 100 crore. The moment foundational fact jurisprudence comes in, mere reasons to believe would not mean mere suspicion but at least a grave suspicion and reasonably speaking, some more facts than mere grave suspicion. Economic transaction in the modern world is dependent on factors like Registration Act even if money is shifted through hawala, banking transactions and other checks and control. Again, attachment or confiscation without proving foundational fact would also go contrary to the right to reputation which forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case opined in the following terms: “...We have already held that reputation is an inextricable aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in order to sustain and protect the said reputation of an individual has kept the provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a part of the law.”

Hence any attachment under PMLA without conforming to the principle of foundational facts would be susceptible to constitutional challenge as destroying reputations and lives and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality would act as a fetter on state action.

(The authors are advocates in the Supreme Court.)

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-no-place-for-arbitrary-acts-2668751">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives?

Recently the Supreme Court struck down a part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as being “manifestly arbitrary”. Whether the State can be restrained by such principles of “manifest arbitrariness” and “disproportionality” in cases of economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as far as attachment of property is concerned, more so when such acts reveal noble objectives? The issue facing us, right from the time of the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, are the allegations that all kinds of powers — constitutional, economic, investigative etc. — are abused. The scourge of drugs and crime directed attention towards money laundering. The United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted in October 2013 mandates “strengthening international cooperation in preventing and combating the transfer of funds of illicit origin, derived from acts of corruption, including the laundering of funds, and in returning such funds”. The stress, quite evidently, was on getting back economic gains of crime to the “common good” of the society. There existed a global consensus to go after “proceeds of crime”. The PMLA seeks to mitigate such anxieties of the community. Acting under PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has of late knocked on the doors of the rich and mighty, including politicians, business houses, regional leaders and bookies. But what bothers businesses is the ED’s competence to inflict on citizens a reverse burden of proof, especially in case of pre-trial attachment of property and funds just on basis of reasons to believe of the investigative authority and not concrete facts. So even without an investigation being completed, you can be charged and your property can be attached just because a complaint/investigation exists against you. The germane question is to what extent the burden of proof is placed on an individual and businesses. What happens to rule of being “presumed innocent till proven guilty”? How would it affect prosecution in money laundering and economic offences? PMLA provides for attachment of property involved in money laundering even before the stage of trial itself, which effectively means that though a citizen is presumed not guilty, he is deprived of control over his property, when the prosecution believes that it comes from tainted money, effectively destroying lives, families, reputations and businesses, just on the basis of investigators’ reason to believe and not on evidence. The rights of the citizen without even a charge being framed ought to be protected. At this stage, what would be cardinal is to protect businesses and reputations. In Babu versus State of Kerala, the Supreme Court articulated that it is true that certain statutes “provide for a presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However, such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact”. The same rule would also apply to attachment proceedings if not through criminal jurisprudence, assuming that attachment proceedings are civil proceedings, then through articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which introduce the doctrines of proportionality and reasonableness. Thus implying that even where the presumption of tainted activity is provided for in law, all State action has to be based on reasonable ground and no disproportionate action is permissible. Similar provisions exist in NDPS ACT for offences only under NDPS Act and not for any general or regular crimes outside the ambit of NDPS. PMLA allows invoking the scheduled offences clause under PMLA, wherein a citizen’s property can be confiscated for crimes like murder which are not driven by “commercial gains”. Here the economic effect can even be as low as Rs 500. Prosecution giving effect to attachments without itself first substantiating foundational facts can fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution, as nothing could be more excessive and disproportionate than depriving a person of his reputation and property without establishing, in fact, the presence of the “proceeds of crime” and establishing prima facie “money laundering”. Justice Nariman writing for the majority in Shayara Bano versus Union of India held “Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary…” An illustration of this would be ED attaching properties worth Rs 200 crore when it can establish foundational fact for only 100 crore. The moment foundational fact jurisprudence comes in, mere reasons to believe would not mean mere suspicion but at least a grave suspicion and reasonably speaking, some more facts than mere grave suspicion. Economic transaction in the modern world is dependent on factors like Registration Act even if money is shifted through hawala, banking transactions and other checks and control. Again, attachment or confiscation without proving foundational fact would also go contrary to the right to reputation which forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case opined in the following terms: “...We have already held that reputation is an inextricable aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in order to sustain and protect the said reputation of an individual has kept the provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a part of the law.” Hence any attachment under PMLA without conforming to the principle of foundational facts would be susceptible to constitutional challenge as destroying reputations and lives and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality would act as a fetter on state action. (The authors are advocates in the Supreme Court.) (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There is no place for arbitrary acts

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness. &nbsp;

The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the matter (the Nagaraj judgement) to a larger bench.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, S K Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter.

In 2006, a five-judge constitution bench, in its verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court says there is no need to collect data on SC/ST in reservation in promotion in government services <a href="https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy">https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044818155753938944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2018</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 Centre had earlier alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour.

Venugopal had argued that the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up.

Earlier, the top court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday pronounced its verdict on a batch of petitions on quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees, declaring that states don't need to collect quantifiable data on backwardness. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the matter (the Nagaraj judgement) to a larger bench. The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, S K Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter. In 2006, a five-judge constitution bench, in its verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities. Supreme Court says there is no need to collect data on SC/ST in reservation in promotion in government services https://t.co/4S6zBTrPcy — ANI (@ANI) September 26, 2018 × The Centre had earlier alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour. Venugopal had argued that the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up. Earlier, the top court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions. (With inputs from PTI)

No need to collect data on backwardness: Supreme Court on quota benefits for SC/ST 

The Supreme Court will hear the plea of three witnesses in the Kathua gangrape and murder case, alleging that they are being harassed by the state police, on May 16. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today agreed to hear on Wednesday the plea of Sahil Sharma and two others, who are college friends of the juvenile accused in the case.

According to their plea, they had already recorded their statements before the police and the magistrate. The three witnesses had in their statement before the magistrate said they gave their statement to the police under coercion. The petition today alleged that the state police was now asking them to re-appear and re-record their statements and exerting pressure in their families.

The apex court had on May 7 transferred the trial in the sensational Kathua gangrape and murder case of an eight-year-old girl from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab, but refrained from handing over the probe to CBI saying there was no need as the investigation has been conducted and the chargesheet filed.

The victim, from a minority nomadic community, had disappeared from near her home in a village close to Kathua in the Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later. The state police has filed the main chargesheet against seven persons and a separate chargesheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district.

The petition alleged that the state police was now asking them to re-appear and re-record their statements and exerting pressure in their families.

The Supreme Court will hear the plea of three witnesses in the Kathua gangrape and murder case, alleging that they are being harassed by the state police, on May 16. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today agreed to hear on Wednesday the plea of Sahil Sharma and two others, who are college friends of the juvenile accused in the case. According to their plea, they had already recorded their statements before the police and the magistrate. The three witnesses had in their statement before the magistrate said they gave their statement to the police under coercion. The petition today alleged that the state police was now asking them to re-appear and re-record their statements and exerting pressure in their families. The apex court had on May 7 transferred the trial in the sensational Kathua gangrape and murder case of an eight-year-old girl from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab, but refrained from handing over the probe to CBI saying there was no need as the investigation has been conducted and the chargesheet filed. The victim, from a minority nomadic community, had disappeared from near her home in a village close to Kathua in the Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later. The state police has filed the main chargesheet against seven persons and a separate chargesheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district.

SC to hear Kathua witnesses’ plea alleging police harassment on May 16

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/collegium-agrees-unanimously-to-send-justice-km-josephs-name-for-elevation-to-sc-back-to-centre-136144">Collegium agrees unanimously to send Justice KM Joseph's name for elevation to SC back to Centre</a>

The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/without-nepal-indias-history-is-incomplete-pm-modi-at-janakpur-136068">Without Nepal India's history is incomplete: PM Modi at Janakpur</a>

The Prime Minister opened his address in Nepalese dialect and went on to express happiness over visiting the Himalayan nation. He stated that he wanted to visit Janakpur for long.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/former-maharashtra-ats-chief-himanshu-roy-commits-suicide-136091">Former Maharashtra ATS chief Himanshu Roy shoots himself</a>

Former Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) Chief Himanshu Roy committed suicide in Mumbai today by shooting himself with his service revolver. Himanshu Roy allegedly shot himself at his home in Mumbai. He was rushed to the Mumbai Hospital where he was declared dead.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-announces-restrictions-on-us-diplomats-says-they-will-not-be-allowed-to-roam-freely-136125">Pakistan announces restrictions on US diplomats, says they will not be allowed to roam freely</a>

Pakistan's Foreign Office has announced that all the United States diplomats in the country would face restrictions as part of which they will not be able to roam around freely from now.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-syria-has-every-right-to-defend-itself-against-israel-136132">Iran says Syria has every right to defend itself against Israel</a>

Iran on Friday supported Syria's right to defend itself against aggression from Israel, state TV reported, accusing others of remaining silent over the attacks on Tehran's key regional ally.

Collegium agrees unanimously to send Justice KM Joseph's name for elevation to SC back to Centre The Supreme Court collegium has unanimously agreed to send its nomination of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the Supreme Court back to the Centre. Without Nepal India's history is incomplete: PM Modi at Janakpur The Prime Minister opened his address in Nepalese dialect and went on to express happiness over visiting the Himalayan nation. He stated that he wanted to visit Janakpur for long. Former Maharashtra ATS chief Himanshu Roy shoots himself Former Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) Chief Himanshu Roy committed suicide in Mumbai today by shooting himself with his service revolver. Himanshu Roy allegedly shot himself at his home in Mumbai. He was rushed to the Mumbai Hospital where he was declared dead. Pakistan announces restrictions on US diplomats, says they will not be allowed to roam freely Pakistan's Foreign Office has announced that all the United States diplomats in the country would face restrictions as part of which they will not be able to roam around freely from now. Iran says Syria has every right to defend itself against Israel Iran on Friday supported Syria's right to defend itself against aggression from Israel, state TV reported, accusing others of remaining silent over the attacks on Tehran's key regional ally.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked state cricket associations and BCCI&nbsp;office-bearers to give their suggestions on the draft constitution for the apex cricket body, to be approved by it.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition filed by Cricket Association of Bihar against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) officials for not implementing its earlier order allowing Bihar to play national level cricket tournaments, including the Ranji Trophy matches.

The Bench, which also comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilakr and D.Y. Chandrachud, considered the submissions of the BCCI, Committee of Administrators (COA) and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting as amicus curiae, that Bihar would take part in national-level tournaments in the cricketing season commencing from September.

The Bench said a draft constitution would be approved by it, which would be binding on the BCCI. However, it clarified that its order on petitions seeking recall of the 2016 verdict would deal with the validity of the draft constitution.

It asked State cricket bodies and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions with regard to the draft constitution to the amicus curiae before May 11, the next date of hearing.

The Bench also directed Maharashtra Cricket Association, represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to postpone its tomorrow’s election till the next date.

The COA had in October last year filed a draft constitution of the BCCI incorporating suggestions of the Justice R M Lodha panel on reforms in the cash-rich cricket body.

The top court had said the draft constitution should include the suggestions of the Lodha committee in its entirety so that a holistic document can be placed before it for a final decision. It had approved the Lodha panel’s recommendations like ‘one state, one vote’, ‘one member, one post’ and fixing a 70-year age-cap on those occupying BCCI posts.

The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) had on April 20 this year moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against some office-bearers of BCCI for not complying with its order allowing Bihar to participate in Ranji Trophy and other national championships.

The CAB, in its plea, had alleged that the BCCI had neither invited any cricket association to play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, nor allowed any cricket association from Bihar to participate in the tournament held in February.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked state cricket associations and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions on the draft constitution for the apex cricket body, to be approved by it. A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also disposed of a contempt petition filed by Cricket Association of Bihar against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) officials for not implementing its earlier order allowing Bihar to play national level cricket tournaments, including the Ranji Trophy matches. The Bench, which also comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilakr and D.Y. Chandrachud, considered the submissions of the BCCI, Committee of Administrators (COA) and senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is assisting as amicus curiae, that Bihar would take part in national-level tournaments in the cricketing season commencing from September. The Bench said a draft constitution would be approved by it, which would be binding on the BCCI. However, it clarified that its order on petitions seeking recall of the 2016 verdict would deal with the validity of the draft constitution. It asked State cricket bodies and BCCI office-bearers to give their suggestions with regard to the draft constitution to the amicus curiae before May 11, the next date of hearing. The Bench also directed Maharashtra Cricket Association, represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to postpone its tomorrow’s election till the next date. The COA had in October last year filed a draft constitution of the BCCI incorporating suggestions of the Justice R M Lodha panel on reforms in the cash-rich cricket body. The top court had said the draft constitution should include the suggestions of the Lodha committee in its entirety so that a holistic document can be placed before it for a final decision. It had approved the Lodha panel’s recommendations like ‘one state, one vote’, ‘one member, one post’ and fixing a 70-year age-cap on those occupying BCCI posts. The Cricket Association of Bihar (CAB) had on April 20 this year moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against some office-bearers of BCCI for not complying with its order allowing Bihar to participate in Ranji Trophy and other national championships. The CAB, in its plea, had alleged that the BCCI had neither invited any cricket association to play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy, nor allowed any cricket association from Bihar to participate in the tournament held in February.

Give suggestions on BCCI draft constitution, SC tells state cricket bodies

Reserved category constables who underwent a medical examination at a government hospital in Dhar had their castes marked on their chests, an exercise the district police administration said was not authorised.

More than 200 newly recruited constables were examined at the Dhar district hospital from Wednesday to measure their physical parameters like height, weight etc. A couple of police officials were also present during the medical examination by doctors.

Dhar Superintendent of Police Veerendra Singh admitted that castes were marked on the candidates’ chests. “There was no ill will. They must have done it for convenience because the number of constables was very high,” he said.

Sources in the health department said the medical examination of the more than 300 recruits to the district police and special armed force in Dhar began at the district government hospital on Wednesday.&nbsp

The ongoing medical examination, mandatory before joining duty, is being conducted by a medical board headed by Dr Sushil Kumar Khare, a civil surgeon at the district hospital.

Dhar Superintendent of Police Veerendra Singh admitted that castes were marked on the candidates’ chests. "There was no ill will. They must have done it for convenience because the number of constables was very high," he said.

Reserved category constables who underwent a medical examination at a government hospital in Dhar had their castes marked on their chests, an exercise the district police administration said was not authorised. More than 200 newly recruited constables were examined at the Dhar district hospital from Wednesday to measure their physical parameters like height, weight etc. A couple of police officials were also present during the medical examination by doctors. Dhar Superintendent of Police Veerendra Singh admitted that castes were marked on the candidates’ chests. “There was no ill will. They must have done it for convenience because the number of constables was very high,” he said. Sources in the health department said the medical examination of the more than 300 recruits to the district police and special armed force in Dhar began at the district government hospital on Wednesday. The ongoing medical examination, mandatory before joining duty, is being conducted by a medical board headed by Dr Sushil Kumar Khare, a civil surgeon at the district hospital.

SC, ST, OBC markings seen on chests of new recruits, MP police order probe

Even the dead have dignity. They cannot be "named or shamed."

This was the observation of the Supreme Court today as it dealt with the issue of disclosure of the identity of rape victims, including the eight-year-old girl who was raped and brutally murdered recently in Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir.

It said that even in cases where the rape victims were alive and were either minors or of unsound mind, their identities should not be revealed as they have the right to privacy and they cannot live under such a "stigma" throughout their life.

"Think of the dignity of the dead also. It (media reporting) can be done without naming or shaming them. The dead also has dignity," a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said while hearing the matter in which senior lawyer Indira Jaising raked up the issue of section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences.

The bench, which agreed to examine the aspect related to section 228-A of the IPC, also questioned as to how the identity of a minor rape victim could be disclosed even after getting consent from her parents.

"Why should this happen, that the identity of a minor victim be disclosed just because her parents have given consent," the bench asked, adding, "Even if a person is of unsound mind, she has a right to privacy. A minor will become major. Why should this stigma be there for life".

Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, said it was necessary for the apex court to clarify section 228-A of the IPC.

She said there cannot be a "blanket ban" on the media from reporting such incidents and the apex court would have to balance freedom of the press and the rights of the victim.

During the hearing, the bench observed that the issue required clarification. It asked that even in cases where the victim had died, "why should there be disclosure of name".

Jaising, without directly referring to the Kathua incident, said in a recent case, the victim had died which had led to the demand for justice not only in India but also globally.

The bench said it would examine the issue related to section 228-A of the IPC, after which the Centre's counsel sought time to seek instructions. The court then listed the matter for hearing on May 8.

The top court was hearing the petitions filed after the brutal gangrape-and-murder case in Delhi on December 16, 2012, raising concerns over safety and security of women.

Last week, the Delhi High Court had directed 12 media houses to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh each for revealing the identity of the Kathua rape victim. These media houses had apologised in the high court for revealing the details of the victim.

While Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act lays down the procedure for media to report cases of sexual offences against child victims, section 228-A of the IPC deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of such offences. The penal law provides for the jail term of up to two years along with a fine.

The eight-year-old girl from a minority nomadic community had disappeared from near her home in a village near Kathua in Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later.

The state police's Crime Branch, which probed the case, has filed the main charge sheet against seven persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district. The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged and raped inside a place of worship before being killed.

The bench, which agreed to examine the aspect related to section 228-A of the IPC, also questioned as to how the identity of a minor rape victim could be disclosed even after getting consent from her parents.

Even the dead have dignity. They cannot be "named or shamed." This was the observation of the Supreme Court today as it dealt with the issue of disclosure of the identity of rape victims, including the eight-year-old girl who was raped and brutally murdered recently in Kathua in Jammu and Kashmir. It said that even in cases where the rape victims were alive and were either minors or of unsound mind, their identities should not be revealed as they have the right to privacy and they cannot live under such a "stigma" throughout their life. "Think of the dignity of the dead also. It (media reporting) can be done without naming or shaming them. The dead also has dignity," a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said while hearing the matter in which senior lawyer Indira Jaising raked up the issue of section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences. The bench, which agreed to examine the aspect related to section 228-A of the IPC, also questioned as to how the identity of a minor rape victim could be disclosed even after getting consent from her parents. "Why should this happen, that the identity of a minor victim be disclosed just because her parents have given consent," the bench asked, adding, "Even if a person is of unsound mind, she has a right to privacy. A minor will become major. Why should this stigma be there for life". Jaising, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae, said it was necessary for the apex court to clarify section 228-A of the IPC. She said there cannot be a "blanket ban" on the media from reporting such incidents and the apex court would have to balance freedom of the press and the rights of the victim. During the hearing, the bench observed that the issue required clarification. It asked that even in cases where the victim had died, "why should there be disclosure of name". Jaising, without directly referring to the Kathua incident, said in a recent case, the victim had died which had led to the demand for justice not only in India but also globally. The bench said it would examine the issue related to section 228-A of the IPC, after which the Centre's counsel sought time to seek instructions. The court then listed the matter for hearing on May 8. The top court was hearing the petitions filed after the brutal gangrape-and-murder case in Delhi on December 16, 2012, raising concerns over safety and security of women. Last week, the Delhi High Court had directed 12 media houses to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh each for revealing the identity of the Kathua rape victim. These media houses had apologised in the high court for revealing the details of the victim. While Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act lays down the procedure for media to report cases of sexual offences against child victims, section 228-A of the IPC deals with disclosure of the identity of victims of such offences. The penal law provides for the jail term of up to two years along with a fine. The eight-year-old girl from a minority nomadic community had disappeared from near her home in a village near Kathua in Jammu region on January 10. Her body was found in the same area a week later. The state police's Crime Branch, which probed the case, has filed the main charge sheet against seven persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district. The charge sheet revealed chilling details about how the girl was allegedly kidnapped, drugged and raped inside a place of worship before being killed.

Disclosure of rape victims' identity: Even dead have dignity, says SC

The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board has been asked by the Supreme Court to show documents signed by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to prove its claim that it owns the iconic Taj Mahal.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the counsel of the board to show it documents to substantiate that Shah Jahan, who had built the Taj Mahal in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631, had executed a 'waqfnama' in favour of the board.

Waqfnama is a deed or a document through which a person expresses intention to donate a property or land for charitable purposes or waqf.

"Who in India will believe that it (Taj) belongs to the waqf board," asked the bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, and added that such issues must not waste the time of the apex court.

When the waqf board counsel told the court that Shah Jahan had himself declared it a Waqf property, the bench asked the board to show it the original deed executed by the Mughal emperor.

"Show us the signature", the CJI told the counsel, who then sought more time to produce relevant documents.

The court was hearing a 2010 appeal filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over the ownership of the historic monument against the waqf board's decision to declare the Taj Mahal as its property.

The bench also asked the counsel how Shah Jahan could sign a document when he was imprisoned by his son Aurangzeb at the Agra Fort in 1658 after a bitter war of succession. Shah Jahan died in 1666 (rpt 1666) in the fort itself.

It told the counsel that the 17th century monument and other heritage structures, built by the Mughals, were taken over by the British after the Mughal rule. After India's independence, the monuments came under the Government of India and were being managed by the ASI.

The ASI counsel also maintained that there was no waqfnama.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 17.

Another bench of the apex court is also seized of a matter related to Taj Mahal in which the petitioner has sought directions to protect the structure from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area.

The top court has been monitoring the development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Waqfnama is a deed or a document through which a person expresses intention to donate a property or land for charitable purposes or waqf.

The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board has been asked by the Supreme Court to show documents signed by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to prove its claim that it owns the iconic Taj Mahal. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra asked the counsel of the board to show it documents to substantiate that Shah Jahan, who had built the Taj Mahal in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal in 1631, had executed a 'waqfnama' in favour of the board. Waqfnama is a deed or a document through which a person expresses intention to donate a property or land for charitable purposes or waqf. "Who in India will believe that it (Taj) belongs to the waqf board," asked the bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, and added that such issues must not waste the time of the apex court. When the waqf board counsel told the court that Shah Jahan had himself declared it a Waqf property, the bench asked the board to show it the original deed executed by the Mughal emperor. "Show us the signature", the CJI told the counsel, who then sought more time to produce relevant documents. The court was hearing a 2010 appeal filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over the ownership of the historic monument against the waqf board's decision to declare the Taj Mahal as its property. The bench also asked the counsel how Shah Jahan could sign a document when he was imprisoned by his son Aurangzeb at the Agra Fort in 1658 after a bitter war of succession. Shah Jahan died in 1666 (rpt 1666) in the fort itself. It told the counsel that the 17th century monument and other heritage structures, built by the Mughals, were taken over by the British after the Mughal rule. After India's independence, the monuments came under the Government of India and were being managed by the ASI. The ASI counsel also maintained that there was no waqfnama. The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 17. Another bench of the apex court is also seized of a matter related to Taj Mahal in which the petitioner has sought directions to protect the structure from the ill-effects of polluting gases and deforestation in and around the area. The top court has been monitoring the development in the area to protect the Taj Mahal, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

SC asks Waqf board to show signed documents of Shah Jahan on Taj Mahal

"We are being befooled by the executive", was how a "frustrated" Supreme Court said on Tuesday while ruing the fact that around Rs one lakh crore worth of funds meant to protect the environment and benefit the people, was being diverted for other purposes.

Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work. And when the court says something, it is said that there is "judicial overreach and activism".

A bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, made it clear that this huge amount of money, collected under various funds created on the apex court's orders for the protection of the environment, was to be used only for environmental purposes and benefit of the people.

"It is very clear that the amount was used for purposes, other than what it was entrusted. How far you want the court to go? We trusted the executive but they say they will do whatever they want," the bench said.

"First, we have to catch them that you have diverted the money and betrayed the trust. Are we policemen or investigating officers? We are not talking about a small amount," the bench said, adding, "It is very, very frustrating".

It said around Rs 11,700 crore was there in the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), which was created under the top court's order, and the total amount lying in all such funds would come to around Rs one lakh crore.

However, one of the lawyers told the court that around Rs 11,000 crore from CAMPA was already spent and the total amount in it would be around Rs 50,000 crore.

"What we are supposed to do? You people do not work. It is completely beyond imagination," the bench observed, adding, "when we say, it is said there is judicial overreach and judicial activism. We are being befooled by the executive".

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ANS Nadkarni, appearing for ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF&CC), said the court should tell the Union of India as to where and how these funds should be used and where it cannot be used.

"It (money) cannot be used for civic or municipal purposes," he said.

The bench noted that there was around Rs 90,000 to Rs one lakh crore money which was lying with the Centre and the states under various heads consequent to the court orders and directed the secretary of MoEF&CC to make a compilation of all the funds, amounts lying in it as on March 31 this year.

"Secretary of the MoEF&CC is further directed to give us some indication as to how the amount of Rs one lakh crore is intended to be utilised and areas where it should not be utilised," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on May 9.

The issue of usage of these funds for other purposes cropped up when the apex court perused an affidavit filed by the chief secretary of Odisha and observed that the money was being used for the construction of roads, renovation of bus stands and science laboratory in colleges.

"This money is meant for the benefit of the people. It is to be utilised for that only and not as a part of your governance," the court told the counsel representing Odisha.

"It is part of your job as a state. Construction of roads and installing streetlight is your job as a state. People's funds cannot be used for it. Your total expenditure for social cause is not even five per cent," the bench said, adding, "we cannot permit you to do this. This money is for benefit of people and not for benefit of the government".

An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter, said the money collected under these funds were to be used for welfare of tribals in Odisha.

The court allowed the request of Odisha's counsel for three weeks time to file further details and asked its chief secretary to remain present before it on the next date of hearing.

The bench also perused the affidavit filed by Meghalaya and pulled up the state for keeping the funds meant for the welfare of the people only in the bank.

It also took exception to the fact that Meghalaya's affidavit did not even clearly mention how much amount collected under these funds was lying in the banks and observed, "it is too much".

"This is turning out to be a joke," the bench said and termed it a "very badly drafted" affidavit.&nbsp

It granted four weeks to Meghalaya to file a better affidavit and asked the chief secretary of the state to remain present before it on the next date of hearing.&nbsp

The court was also informed that Rs 1,301 crore amount has been collected in Delhi under the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), which the apex court had earlier imposed on commercial vehicles entering Delhi in addition to the toll tax, and another Rs 70.5 crore was collected and lying with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the cent cess levied on the vehicles having engine capacity of more than 2,000 cc.&nbsp

The bench asked the Delhi government and MoEF&CC to apprise it as to how this money would be utilised.

The court was hearing a PIL filed in 1985 by environmentalist M C Mehta who had raised the issue of air pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR).&nbsp

Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work.

"We are being befooled by the executive", was how a "frustrated" Supreme Court said on Tuesday while ruing the fact that around Rs one lakh crore worth of funds meant to protect the environment and benefit the people, was being diverted for other purposes. Severely criticising the government, the apex court observed that it had "trusted" the executive, but the authorities do not work. And when the court says something, it is said that there is "judicial overreach and activism". A bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, made it clear that this huge amount of money, collected under various funds created on the apex court's orders for the protection of the environment, was to be used only for environmental purposes and benefit of the people. "It is very clear that the amount was used for purposes, other than what it was entrusted. How far you want the court to go? We trusted the executive but they say they will do whatever they want," the bench said. "First, we have to catch them that you have diverted the money and betrayed the trust. Are we policemen or investigating officers? We are not talking about a small amount," the bench said, adding, "It is very, very frustrating". It said around Rs 11,700 crore was there in the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), which was created under the top court's order, and the total amount lying in all such funds would come to around Rs one lakh crore. However, one of the lawyers told the court that around Rs 11,000 crore from CAMPA was already spent and the total amount in it would be around Rs 50,000 crore. "What we are supposed to do? You people do not work. It is completely beyond imagination," the bench observed, adding, "when we say, it is said there is judicial overreach and judicial activism. We are being befooled by the executive". Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ANS Nadkarni, appearing for ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF&CC), said the court should tell the Union of India as to where and how these funds should be used and where it cannot be used. "It (money) cannot be used for civic or municipal purposes," he said. The bench noted that there was around Rs 90,000 to Rs one lakh crore money which was lying with the Centre and the states under various heads consequent to the court orders and directed the secretary of MoEF&CC to make a compilation of all the funds, amounts lying in it as on March 31 this year. "Secretary of the MoEF&CC is further directed to give us some indication as to how the amount of Rs one lakh crore is intended to be utilised and areas where it should not be utilised," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on May 9. The issue of usage of these funds for other purposes cropped up when the apex court perused an affidavit filed by the chief secretary of Odisha and observed that the money was being used for the construction of roads, renovation of bus stands and science laboratory in colleges. "This money is meant for the benefit of the people. It is to be utilised for that only and not as a part of your governance," the court told the counsel representing Odisha. "It is part of your job as a state. Construction of roads and installing streetlight is your job as a state. People's funds cannot be used for it. Your total expenditure for social cause is not even five per cent," the bench said, adding, "we cannot permit you to do this. This money is for benefit of people and not for benefit of the government". An advocate, assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the matter, said the money collected under these funds were to be used for welfare of tribals in Odisha. The court allowed the request of Odisha's counsel for three weeks time to file further details and asked its chief secretary to remain present before it on the next date of hearing. The bench also perused the affidavit filed by Meghalaya and pulled up the state for keeping the funds meant for the welfare of the people only in the bank. It also took exception to the fact that Meghalaya's affidavit did not even clearly mention how much amount collected under these funds was lying in the banks and observed, "it is too much". "This is turning out to be a joke," the bench said and termed it a "very badly drafted" affidavit. It granted four weeks to Meghalaya to file a better affidavit and asked the chief secretary of the state to remain present before it on the next date of hearing. The court was also informed that Rs 1,301 crore amount has been collected in Delhi under the Environment Compensation Charge (ECC), which the apex court had earlier imposed on commercial vehicles entering Delhi in addition to the toll tax, and another Rs 70.5 crore was collected and lying with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the cent cess levied on the vehicles having engine capacity of more than 2,000 cc. The bench asked the Delhi government and MoEF&CC to apprise it as to how this money would be utilised. The court was hearing a PIL filed in 1985 by environmentalist M C Mehta who had raised the issue of air pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR).

We are being ‘befooled’ by executive: ‘Frustrated’ SC on diversion of funds meant for protecting environment

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi writes to Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao requesting him for de-reservation of Urdu medium posts.

His request has come due to non-availability of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates in Urdu medium.

According to the 1950 Presidential order in Article 341 of the Indian Constitution, only Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists can be Dalits and not Christians or Muslims.

The order initially said that a non- Hindu could not be regarded as a Scheduled Caste. This order was further amended in 1956 and 1990 to include Sikhs and Buddhists respectively.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Hyderabad: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi writes to Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao requesting him for de reservation of Urdu medium posts due to non availability of ST/SC/BC candidates in Urdu medium. (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/IHYauej0De">pic.twitter.com/IHYauej0De</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/982947148412092418?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 8, 2018</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>

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

His request has come due to non-availability of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates in Urdu medium

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi writes to Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao requesting him for de-reservation of Urdu medium posts. His request has come due to non-availability of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates in Urdu medium. According to the 1950 Presidential order in Article 341 of the Indian Constitution, only Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists can be Dalits and not Christians or Muslims. The order initially said that a non- Hindu could not be regarded as a Scheduled Caste. This order was further amended in 1956 and 1990 to include Sikhs and Buddhists respectively. Hyderabad: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi writes to Telangana CM K Chandrashekar Rao requesting him for de reservation of Urdu medium posts due to non availability of ST/SC/BC candidates in Urdu medium. (file pic) pic.twitter.com/IHYauej0De — ANI (@ANI) April 8, 2018 ×

Asaduddin Owaisi demands de-reservation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking a re-investigation into the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, which heard the matter, dismissed the petition filed by Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis from Abhinav Bharat.

The apex court, which reserved its verdict on March 6, had made it clear that it would not go by "sentiments" but rely on legal submissions to decide on the petition.

The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago.

The petitioner had questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts to hold the conviction of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, who was hanged. He had contended that there was a need to examine whether there was a fourth bullet, which was fired by someone other than Godse.

Phadnis, a trustee of charitable trust Abhinav Bharat, had also sought the expunction of "adverse, unfounded" remarks made by the Kapur Commission in 1969 report against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the setting up of a commission to probe the conspiracy behind the incident.

Phadnis alleged that the Maratha community was "maligned" due to these adverse remarks, which should hence be removed. He said there should be a retrial of the case, which led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949.&nbsp

The court, however, said it did not share his sentiments that Marathas have been maligned and observed,"Maratha people have survived in spite of all this. You are talking about two persons who happened to be from Maharashtra. They do not represent the state. The observation about two persons does not malign whole Marathis."

Phadnis claimed in his affidavit that the alleged conspirators were hanged even before the murder trial had attained legal finality from the top court.

Gandhi was shot dead at point-blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948, by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. Savarkar was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

Phadnis had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016, had dismissed his plea on two grounds — first, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court second, that the Kapur Commission had submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition was filed 46 years later.

The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking a re-investigation into the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. A bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, which heard the matter, dismissed the petition filed by Mumbai-based Pankaj Phadnis from Abhinav Bharat. The apex court, which reserved its verdict on March 6, had made it clear that it would not go by "sentiments" but rely on legal submissions to decide on the petition. The apex court had said the plea seeking retrial of the case was based on academic research but that could not form the basis to reopen the matter which happened years ago. The petitioner had questioned the 'three bullet theory' relied upon by various courts to hold the conviction of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte, who was hanged. He had contended that there was a need to examine whether there was a fourth bullet, which was fired by someone other than Godse. Phadnis, a trustee of charitable trust Abhinav Bharat, had also sought the expunction of "adverse, unfounded" remarks made by the Kapur Commission in 1969 report against Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the setting up of a commission to probe the conspiracy behind the incident. Phadnis alleged that the Maratha community was "maligned" due to these adverse remarks, which should hence be removed. He said there should be a retrial of the case, which led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. The court, however, said it did not share his sentiments that Marathas have been maligned and observed,"Maratha people have survived in spite of all this. You are talking about two persons who happened to be from Maharashtra. They do not represent the state. The observation about two persons does not malign whole Marathis." Phadnis claimed in his affidavit that the alleged conspirators were hanged even before the murder trial had attained legal finality from the top court. Gandhi was shot dead at point-blank range in New Delhi on January 30, 1948, by Godse, a right-wing advocate of Hindu nationalism. The assassination case had led to the conviction and execution of Godse and Apte on November 15, 1949. Savarkar was given benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence. Phadnis had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court which on June 6, 2016, had dismissed his plea on two grounds — first, that the findings of fact have been recorded by the competent court and confirmed right up to the apex court second, that the Kapur Commission had submitted its report and made observations in 1969, while the present petition was filed 46 years later.

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking re-probe into Mahatma Gandhi assassination

A co-owner of Mumbai's Kamala Mills today withdrew from the Supreme Court the plea against his arrest in the case related to the fire tragedy that claimed 14 lives in December last year.

 
Ravi Surajmal Bhandari withdrew his habeas corpus petition after a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked him to approach the trial court to seek bail.

 
A habeas corpus petition is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a court.

 
Bhandari had claimed in his plea that he cannot be held liable for the fire tragedy and had termed his arrest "illegal detention".

 
The apex court, on the last date of hearing, had asked how a habeas corpus can be filed when the person is in judicial custody.

 
Kamala Mills is a huge commercial complex in central Mumbai and houses more than 50 restaurants and hundreds of corporate offices.

 
Bhandari was arrested in January along with fire officer Rajendra Patil and Utkarsh Pandey, who supplied 'hookahs' to the pubs Mojo's Bistro and 1 Above where the fire started. All three are in judicial custody.

 
Fourteen persons were killed and several others injured when a fire broke out at the two pubs in the Kamala Mills compound in central Mumbai on December 29, 2017.

Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked him to approach the trial court to seek bail

A co-owner of Mumbai's Kamala Mills today withdrew from the Supreme Court the plea against his arrest in the case related to the fire tragedy that claimed 14 lives in December last year. Ravi Surajmal Bhandari withdrew his habeas corpus petition after a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked him to approach the trial court to seek bail. A habeas corpus petition is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a court. Bhandari had claimed in his plea that he cannot be held liable for the fire tragedy and had termed his arrest "illegal detention". The apex court, on the last date of hearing, had asked how a habeas corpus can be filed when the person is in judicial custody. Kamala Mills is a huge commercial complex in central Mumbai and houses more than 50 restaurants and hundreds of corporate offices. Bhandari was arrested in January along with fire officer Rajendra Patil and Utkarsh Pandey, who supplied 'hookahs' to the pubs Mojo's Bistro and 1 Above where the fire started. All three are in judicial custody. Fourteen persons were killed and several others injured when a fire broke out at the two pubs in the Kamala Mills compound in central Mumbai on December 29, 2017.

Kamala Mills co-owner withdraws plea against arrest from SC

The Supreme Court will hear the ED&#39;s plea challenging the Delhi High Court order granting interim protection to Karti Chidambaram, son of Congress leader P Chidambaram, in a money laundering case related to the INX Media corruption matter on March 15.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today considered the Enforcement Directorate&#39;s submission for urgent hearing of its appeal and said it would be heard day after tomorrow.

Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for the probe agency, mentioned the ED&#39;s appeal for urgent hearing.

On March 9, the Delhi High Court gave Karti Chidambaram a breather in a money laundering case and restrained the ED from arresting him till March 20.

A CBI court yesterday sent Karti Chidambaram to judicial custody till March 24. The court also refused his plea for urgent hearing on his bail plea which was already listed for March 15.

Following the high court order, he cannot be arrested by the ED if the CBI court grants him bail on March 15.

Karti Chidambaram has approached the high court to strike down the powers of arrest of the ED under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which deal with the rights of people for equality before law and protection of personal liberty.

The plea sought quashing of the enforcement case information report (ECIR) and probe by the ED for the offences under the PMLA.

It sought quashing of the probe by the ED, alleging that it was contrary to the procedure established by law and violates Karti Chidambaram&#39;s fundamental rights.

The ED had registered a case against Karti Chidambaram and others in May last year. It had registered an ECIR, the ED&#39;s equivalent of an FIR, against the accused named in the CBI complaint. These accused included Karti Chidambaram, INX Media and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea.

Advocate appearing for the probe agency mentioned the ED's appeal for urgent hearing

The Supreme Court will hear the ED's plea challenging the Delhi High Court order granting interim protection to Karti Chidambaram, son of Congress leader P Chidambaram, in a money laundering case related to the INX Media corruption matter on March 15. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud today considered the Enforcement Directorate's submission for urgent hearing of its appeal and said it would be heard day after tomorrow. Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for the probe agency, mentioned the ED's appeal for urgent hearing. On March 9, the Delhi High Court gave Karti Chidambaram a breather in a money laundering case and restrained the ED from arresting him till March 20. A CBI court yesterday sent Karti Chidambaram to judicial custody till March 24. The court also refused his plea for urgent hearing on his bail plea which was already listed for March 15. Following the high court order, he cannot be arrested by the ED if the CBI court grants him bail on March 15. Karti Chidambaram has approached the high court to strike down the powers of arrest of the ED under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which deal with the rights of people for equality before law and protection of personal liberty. The plea sought quashing of the enforcement case information report (ECIR) and probe by the ED for the offences under the PMLA. It sought quashing of the probe by the ED, alleging that it was contrary to the procedure established by law and violates Karti Chidambaram's fundamental rights. The ED had registered a case against Karti Chidambaram and others in May last year. It had registered an ECIR, the ED's equivalent of an FIR, against the accused named in the CBI complaint. These accused included Karti Chidambaram, INX Media and its directors, Peter and Indrani Mukerjea.

ED moves SC against HC order giving relief to Karti Chidambaram from arrest

&quot;No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough,&quot; an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016.

Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing &#39;Ram Nagar Trust&#39; to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009.

The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on.

Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust&#39;s lawyer sought a week&#39;s time to submit the same.

This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust.

Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, &quot;No more adjournments. No more &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39;. Enough is enough&quot;.

&quot;That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay,&quot; Justice Patel said.

The famous dialogue &#39;tareekh pe tareekh&#39; from Bollywood movie &#39;Damini&#39; starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process.

Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days.

&quot;Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day&#39;s delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018,&quot; the court said.

The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible.&nbsp;

&quot;The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable,&quot; Justice Patel said.&nbsp;

He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff&#39;s lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes.&nbsp;

&quot;This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one,&quot; the court said.

&quot;We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause,&quot; Justice Patel noted.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay HC said while ruling out adjournments in a case.

"No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough," an irked Bombay High Court said here while ruling out any more adjournments in a case, and imposed a fine of Rs 4.50 lakh on a public charitable trust for failing to file an affidavit since 2016. Justice Gautam Patel last week passed the order directing 'Ram Nagar Trust' to pay Rs 1,000 per day for the 450-day delay (Rs4.5 lakh in total) to the defendant in the suit filed by the trust in 2009. The court noted that in September 2016, the high court had framed issue in the suit and directed both the plaintiff (trust) and the defendants to submit before the registry an affidavit of documents they would be relying on. Last week when the suit came up before Justice Patel, the trust's lawyer sought a week's time to submit the same. This was opposed by the defendants who claimed that time and again adjournments were being sought by the plaintiff trust. Agreeing to this, Justice Patel in his order said, "No more adjournments. No more 'tareekh pe tareekh'. Enough is enough". "That a court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay," Justice Patel said. The famous dialogue 'tareekh pe tareekh' from Bollywood movie 'Damini' starring Sunny Deol has virtually become synonymous with the plight of litigants who have to wait for years and even decades for justice due to frequent delays in the judicial process. Computing the delay from November 25, 2016 till date, the court said this was a period of around 450 days. "Computed at Rs 1000 per day for each day's delay for 450 days, the costs work out to Rs 4,50,000. This amount of Rs 4,50,000 will be paid to the first defendant as costs by 7th March 2018," the court said. The court added that fixing random figures like Rs 5,000 or Rs 25,000 was counter-productive as parties think such costs are negligible. "The costs must be real. They must be sufficient to convey the message that non-compliance with our orders brings consequences; that these consequences are inevitable and unavoidable," Justice Patel said. He refused to accept the contention of the plaintiff's lawyer that it was a charitable trust and that the suit pertained to land for educational purposes. "This is even more shocking. That a trust should be so utterly negligent about its own case is reason enough to warrant immediate action against the trustees and have every one of them removed. A public trust has a higher duty of care, not a lower one," the court said. "We will make exceptions for the poor, the illiterate, the helpless. They will receive our protection. But educated trustees charged with a solemn fiduciary duty will not get a free pass only because they claim to espouse some worthy cause," Justice Patel noted.

No more tareekh pe tareekh: Bombay High Court judge tells lawyer against adjournment

The Supreme Court today said that it was &quot;not satisfied&quot; with the progress made by the CBI&#39;s SIT in the investigation into alleged extra-judicial killings and fake encounters by the Army, Assam Rifles and police in Manipur.

The apex court made the remarks after the special investigation team (SIT) apprised it that 42 cases have so far been registered on such killings.

A bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit also directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to depute three persons to associate with the SIT to carry out investigation in 17 out of the 42 cases.

&quot;We are not satisfied by the progress made by the SIT,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;We make it clear that the association of the NHRC is for the time being in respect of these 17 cases,&quot; it added.

The bench also expressed its displeasure that the status report filed by the SIT did not appear to have the approval of the CBI&#39;s Director.

The top court made it clear that the next status report of the SIT must have the approval of the CBI chief.

The court has posted the matter for further hearing on March 12.

The apex court had on January 16 pulled up the CBI&#39;s SIT for not registering the required number of FIRs as directed by it earlier.

The apex court is hearing a PIL seeking probe into as many as 1,528 cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

The court had on July 14 last year constituted the SIT comprising five CBI officers and ordered registration of FIRs and probe into the alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

The apex court made the remarks after the special investigation team (SIT) apprised it that 42 cases have so far been registered on such killings

The Supreme Court today said that it was "not satisfied" with the progress made by the CBI's SIT in the investigation into alleged extra-judicial killings and fake encounters by the Army, Assam Rifles and police in Manipur. The apex court made the remarks after the special investigation team (SIT) apprised it that 42 cases have so far been registered on such killings. A bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit also directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to depute three persons to associate with the SIT to carry out investigation in 17 out of the 42 cases. "We are not satisfied by the progress made by the SIT," the bench said. "We make it clear that the association of the NHRC is for the time being in respect of these 17 cases," it added. The bench also expressed its displeasure that the status report filed by the SIT did not appear to have the approval of the CBI's Director. The top court made it clear that the next status report of the SIT must have the approval of the CBI chief. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on March 12. The apex court had on January 16 pulled up the CBI's SIT for not registering the required number of FIRs as directed by it earlier. The apex court is hearing a PIL seeking probe into as many as 1,528 cases of extra-judicial killings in Manipur. The court had on July 14 last year constituted the SIT comprising five CBI officers and ordered registration of FIRs and probe into the alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur.

SC 'not satisfied' with CBI's SIT probe into Manipur fake encounters

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give an urgent hearing plea filed by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma seeking removal of certain scenes from the film Padmaavat.

The top court said it will hear the matter on Monday.Earlier on Tuesday, the apex court refused to modify its earlier order on the Sanjay Leela Bhansali magnum opus.

The top court last week set aside the notification passed by the states of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat to ban the release of Padmaavat.

The epic drama, based on 16th-century Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi`s epic poem `Padmavat`, is set to hit the cinema halls on January 25.&nbsp;

The plea sought removal of certain scenes from the film

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give an urgent hearing plea filed by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma seeking removal of certain scenes from the film Padmaavat. The top court said it will hear the matter on Monday.Earlier on Tuesday, the apex court refused to modify its earlier order on the Sanjay Leela Bhansali magnum opus. The top court last week set aside the notification passed by the states of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat to ban the release of Padmaavat. The epic drama, based on 16th-century Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi`s epic poem `Padmavat`, is set to hit the cinema halls on January 25.

No more cuts for Padmaavat, SC refuses urgent hearing

The Supreme Court heard the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-love-jihad-nia-submits-100-page-report-on-hadiya-25262">Kerala Love Jihad case</a> earlier today observing that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) cannot go into the marital status of Hadiya.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; case: Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner Shefin Jahan asked for an investigation under the supervision of a retired judge as ordered by the previous bench.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955675729164886017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

According to the Supreme Court, the NIA probe will have no bearing in deciding the aspects of the legitimacy of the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan which was annulled by the Kerala High Court.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court observed that NIA probe will have no bearing in deciding the aspects of her legitimacy of marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan which was annulled by HC. 
Supreme Court to hear the matter on February 22.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955677603779653632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

Former Union Minister Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Hadiya&#39;s husband Shefin Jahan, asked for an investigation under the supervision of a retired judge. The same was ordered by the previous bench.

&quot;We expect the NIA to file a report &amp; the court to permit the girl to continue her studies. We are happy that she is safe. Let&#39;s see what happens,&quot; A. Raghunath, one of the counsels of Hadiya&#39;s father noted after the hearing. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kerala &#39;Love Jihad&#39; case: A Raghunath, one of the counsel of Hadiya&#39;s father said, &quot;We expect the NIA to file a report &amp; the court to permit the girl to continue her studies. We are happy that she is safe. Let&#39;s see what happens&quot; <a href="https://t.co/lSfKyZqfhF">pic.twitter.com/lSfKyZqfhF</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955678396159160320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 23, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

Another SC hearing is scheduled on February 22.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-love-jihad-case-sc-orders-hadiyas-father-to-produce-her-before-it-23125">Hadiya has been in the news</a> after her <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/hadiya-finally-gets-to-speak-to-her-husband-shes-relieved-from-depression-says-college-dean-25508">conversion to Islam</a> and marriage with Shafin Jahan in Kerala. The Kerala High Court had annulled her marriage and called it an instance of &#39;love jihad&#39;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nia-questioned-hadiyas-husband-shafi-jahan-25860">Hadiya&#39;s husband</a> approached the Supreme court while she stayed at her parental home in Kochi for several weeks. The apex court later freed her from her parents&#39; custody and allowed her to travel to Tamil Nadu for her studies.&nbsp;

The NIA was investigating the case so far.&nbsp;

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court heard the Kerala Love Jihad case earlier today observing that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) cannot go into the marital status of Hadiya. Kerala 'Love Jihad' case: Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioner Shefin Jahan asked for an investigation under the supervision of a retired judge as ordered by the previous bench. — ANI (@ANI) January 23, 2018 × The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. According to the Supreme Court, the NIA probe will have no bearing in deciding the aspects of the legitimacy of the marriage between Hadiya and Shafin Jahan which was annulled by the Kerala High Court. Supreme Court observed that NIA probe will have no bearing in deciding the aspects of her legitimacy of marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan which was annulled by HC. Supreme Court to hear the matter on February 22. — ANI (@ANI) January 23, 2018 × Former Union Minister Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Hadiya's husband Shefin Jahan, asked for an investigation under the supervision of a retired judge. The same was ordered by the previous bench. "We expect the NIA to file a report & the court to permit the girl to continue her studies. We are happy that she is safe. Let's see what happens," A. Raghunath, one of the counsels of Hadiya's father noted after the hearing. Kerala 'Love Jihad' case: A Raghunath, one of the counsel of Hadiya's father said, "We expect the NIA to file a report & the court to permit the girl to continue her studies. We are happy that she is safe. Let's see what happens" pic.twitter.com/lSfKyZqfhF — ANI (@ANI) January 23, 2018 × Another SC hearing is scheduled on February 22. Hadiya has been in the news after her conversion to Islam and marriage with Shafin Jahan in Kerala. The Kerala High Court had annulled her marriage and called it an instance of 'love jihad'. Hadiya's husband approached the Supreme court while she stayed at her parental home in Kochi for several weeks. The apex court later freed her from her parents' custody and allowed her to travel to Tamil Nadu for her studies. The NIA was investigating the case so far.

Kerala love jihad case: NIA cannot go into marital status of Hadiya, says Supreme Court

Shortly after Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh decided to &nbsp; ban Sanjay Leela Bhansali&#39;s magnum opus, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/padmaavat-cleared-by-the-supreme-court-in-four-states-stays-ban-29917">the Supreme Court decided to stay the ban</a> today.

The Supreme Court&#39;s mandate has triggered a wave of reactions from all across the country, especially from leaders belonging to the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/haryana-becomes-fourth-state-to-ban-padmavat-29698">four states</a>.&nbsp;

Rajasthan&#39;s Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria said that he respected SC&#39;s decision and is ready to abide by it.&nbsp;

&quot;My department and I will look for a legal provision if one is possible after reading SC&#39;s decision and then we will move forward,&quot; he noted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We respect the Supreme Court&#39;s decision, will abide by it. My department &amp; I will look for a legal provision, if one is possible, after reading SC&#39;s decision and then we will move forward: Rajasthan Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> <a href="https://t.co/W7eW0AMdQQ">pic.twitter.com/W7eW0AMdQQ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/953901919860285441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

Another reaction came from Haryana&#39;s Health Minister Anil Vij who said that the Supreme Court gave its directive without &quot;listening to our side&quot;.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court gave the decision without listening to our side. Supreme Court is the supreme so will abide by the decision. We will also examine the decision and see if there is a scope of appealing against it: Anil Vij, Haryana Health Minister <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Padmaavat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Padmaavat</a> <a href="https://t.co/XhGluX1kre">pic.twitter.com/XhGluX1kre</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/953916057349062656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

&quot;Supreme Court is the supreme so will abide by the decision. We will also examine the decision and see if there is a scope of appealing against it,&quot; Vij noted.&nbsp;

Deepika Padukone starrer Padmaavat was cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification with a UA certificate last month.

The Board, headed by Prasoon Joshi, called for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-cuts-proposed-on-padmavati-only-5-modifications-says-central-board-of-filmcertification-28132">a few modifications</a> to be made to the content of the film including the one that required the film&#39;s title to be changed from Padmavati to Padmaavat.

The makers of the film were reported to have agreed to the Censor Board&#39;s suggestions after which the movie was set for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/confirmed-padmavat-to-release-on-january-25th-28879">a release on January 25</a>.

Various Rajput groups have been protesting against Padmaavat&#39;s release including the Karni Sena.&nbsp;

Harish Salve, the lawyer representing film&#39;s producers noted in the court today saying, &quot;If somebody has a problem, then he or she can approach appellate tribunal for relief. The state can&#39;t touch the content of a film. Request the Central government to pass a direction to the states for a better and an effective step and solution,&quot;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court's mandate has triggered a wave of reactions from all across the country

Shortly after Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh decided to ban Sanjay Leela Bhansali's magnum opus, the Supreme Court decided to stay the ban today. The Supreme Court's mandate has triggered a wave of reactions from all across the country, especially from leaders belonging to the four states. Rajasthan's Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria said that he respected SC's decision and is ready to abide by it. "My department and I will look for a legal provision if one is possible after reading SC's decision and then we will move forward," he noted. We respect the Supreme Court's decision, will abide by it. My department & I will look for a legal provision, if one is possible, after reading SC's decision and then we will move forward: Rajasthan Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria #Padmaavat pic.twitter.com/W7eW0AMdQQ — ANI (@ANI) January 18, 2018 × Another reaction came from Haryana's Health Minister Anil Vij who said that the Supreme Court gave its directive without "listening to our side". Supreme Court gave the decision without listening to our side. Supreme Court is the supreme so will abide by the decision. We will also examine the decision and see if there is a scope of appealing against it: Anil Vij, Haryana Health Minister #Padmaavat pic.twitter.com/XhGluX1kre — ANI (@ANI) January 18, 2018 × "Supreme Court is the supreme so will abide by the decision. We will also examine the decision and see if there is a scope of appealing against it," Vij noted. Deepika Padukone starrer Padmaavat was cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification with a UA certificate last month. The Board, headed by Prasoon Joshi, called for a few modifications to be made to the content of the film including the one that required the film's title to be changed from Padmavati to Padmaavat. The makers of the film were reported to have agreed to the Censor Board's suggestions after which the movie was set for a release on January 25. Various Rajput groups have been protesting against Padmaavat's release including the Karni Sena. Harish Salve, the lawyer representing film's producers noted in the court today saying, "If somebody has a problem, then he or she can approach appellate tribunal for relief. The state can't touch the content of a film. Request the Central government to pass a direction to the states for a better and an effective step and solution,"

Padmaavat release row: Rajasthan, Haryana say they respect SC decision, will see if can appeal

The Delhi Bar Association (DBA) today threatened to take to the streets if the matter remains&nbsp;unresolved.&nbsp;

&quot;If the matter isn&#39;t resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware,&quot; noted the officials.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If the matter isn&#39;t resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware: Delhi Bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://t.co/YzXxPisPLm">pic.twitter.com/YzXxPisPLm</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952508257800564738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

The DBA officials called the incident &quot;one of its kind&quot;. They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This was a first of its kind incident &amp; a black day for us. The Chief Justice of India should have looked into the matter beforehand. He should have called a meeting to handle things: Delhi Bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://t.co/j6XyXypwr2">pic.twitter.com/j6XyXypwr2</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952504765774114817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

Meanwhile, Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra noted that &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-internal-matter-will-be-resolved-soon-says-bar-councilof-india-29484">a solution will be found&quot;&nbsp;in a few days</a>.

&quot;We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days,&quot; Mishra said earlier today after meeting with Justice Chelameswar.&nbsp;

In addition to this, four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">an open letter to the chief justice of India</a>. &nbsp;

The letter described the judges&#39; agreement with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over the allocation of cases. The retired judges called for the crisis to be resolved &quot;within the judiciary&quot;.

Four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Friday.

The Bar Council of India, on Saturday, announced the formation a 7-member delegation with an aim to reconcile the matter.&nbsp;

The DBA officials called the incident "one of its kind". They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand

The Delhi Bar Association (DBA) today threatened to take to the streets if the matter remains unresolved. "If the matter isn't resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware," noted the officials. If the matter isn't resolved in 7-10 days, we will call all the Bar Associations of India, hold discussions with them and take to the streets, if it comes to that, in order to make people aware: Delhi Bar Association #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/YzXxPisPLm — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018 × The DBA officials called the incident "one of its kind". They criticised the Chief Justice of India for not looking into the matter beforehand. This was a first of its kind incident & a black day for us. The Chief Justice of India should have looked into the matter beforehand. He should have called a meeting to handle things: Delhi Bar Association #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/j6XyXypwr2 — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018 × Meanwhile, Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra noted that "a solution will be found" in a few days. "We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days," Mishra said earlier today after meeting with Justice Chelameswar. In addition to this, four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India. The letter described the judges' agreement with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over the allocation of cases. The retired judges called for the crisis to be resolved "within the judiciary". Four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Friday. The Bar Council of India, on Saturday, announced the formation a 7-member delegation with an aim to reconcile the matter.

SC crisis: 'Will take to streets if matter remains unresolved,' threatens Delhi Bar Association

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) wants a speedy resolution to the matter regarding four Supreme Court judges, President Vikas Singh noted today.&nbsp;

After four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, the Bar Council of India announced the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/judicial-rift-bar-council-forms-7-member-committee-to-resolve-the-matter-29421">formation a 7-member delegation</a> with an aim to reconcile the matter.&nbsp;

SCBA will meet with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and &#39;&#39;if he agrees with our views, we will take further appointment from other judges too and fix a meeting with them,&quot; Singh noted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The first meeting of SCBA will be done with the Chief Justice of India. If he agrees to our views, we will take further appointment from the other judges too and fix a meeting with them: Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourtJudges?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourtJudges</a> <a href="https://t.co/dPff0JG9vA">pic.twitter.com/dPff0JG9vA</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952167282699980800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

SCBA President also noted that a unanimous resolution will be sent to the Chief Justice of India.

In an emergency SCBA meeting, the officials noted that the &quot;differences stated by the 4 judges must be resolved immediately,&quot; Vikas Singh told reporters.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We will send the unanimous resolution to the Chief Justice of India. We want that the matter be resolved as soon as possible: Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court bar Association <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourtJudges?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourtJudges</a> <a href="https://t.co/MU9bRKF0bb">pic.twitter.com/MU9bRKF0bb</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952166706947923968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

The Chairman, Bar Council of India, also shared his views on the matter earlier today.&nbsp;

&#39;&#39;We&#39;ve given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi &amp; political parties to talk about our judiciary, it&#39;s unfortunate,&#39;&#39; Manan Kumar Mishra said.

Mishra also called out to political parties not to politicise the issue.&nbsp;

&#39;&#39;On behalf of Bar Council of India, I request him (Rahul Gandhi) and other political parties to not politicise the matter,&#39;&#39; Mishra said.&nbsp;

SCBA's first meeting will take place along with the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) wants a speedy resolution to the matter regarding four Supreme Court judges, President Vikas Singh noted today. After four Supreme Court judges went public about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, the Bar Council of India announced the formation a 7-member delegation with an aim to reconcile the matter. SCBA will meet with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and ''if he agrees with our views, we will take further appointment from other judges too and fix a meeting with them," Singh noted. The first meeting of SCBA will be done with the Chief Justice of India. If he agrees to our views, we will take further appointment from the other judges too and fix a meeting with them: Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court bar Association #SupremeCourtJudges pic.twitter.com/dPff0JG9vA — ANI (@ANI) January 13, 2018 × SCBA President also noted that a unanimous resolution will be sent to the Chief Justice of India. In an emergency SCBA meeting, the officials noted that the "differences stated by the 4 judges must be resolved immediately," Vikas Singh told reporters. We will send the unanimous resolution to the Chief Justice of India. We want that the matter be resolved as soon as possible: Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court bar Association #SupremeCourtJudges pic.twitter.com/MU9bRKF0bb — ANI (@ANI) January 13, 2018 × The Chairman, Bar Council of India, also shared his views on the matter earlier today. ''We've given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi & political parties to talk about our judiciary, it's unfortunate,'' Manan Kumar Mishra said. Mishra also called out to political parties not to politicise the issue. ''On behalf of Bar Council of India, I request him (Rahul Gandhi) and other political parties to not politicise the matter,'' Mishra said.

Judges' revolt: SCBA wants speedy resolution to the matter, says President Vikas Singh

India&#39;s&nbsp;Central&nbsp;Bureau of&nbsp;Investigation (CBI)&nbsp;claimed&nbsp;in&nbsp;Supreme Court&nbsp;on Friday&nbsp;that it issued a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-refuses-karti-chidambarams-plea-to-move-abroad-19763" target="_blank">lookout notice against&nbsp;Karti&nbsp;Chidambaram</a>,&nbsp;the&nbsp;son of former&nbsp;federal minister&nbsp;P Chidambaram,&nbsp;as he wanted to travel abroad for&nbsp;closing&nbsp;his foreign bank accounts.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The SC was hearing a corruption case against&nbsp;Karti&nbsp;Chidambaram.&nbsp;

Karti&#39;s&nbsp;counsel Kapil Sibal opposed the&nbsp;CBI&#39;s move to submit its finding in a sealed cover to the Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&quot;What he did abroad is part of this sealed cover,&quot;&nbsp;additional&nbsp;solicitor&nbsp;general&nbsp;(ASG)&nbsp;Tushar Mehta told the&nbsp;Bench.&nbsp;Justices&nbsp;A&nbsp;M&nbsp;Khanwilkar&nbsp;and D Y&nbsp;Chandrachud&nbsp;were also part of the Bench hearing the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&quot;Let me say what is contained in the sealed cover. What he has done when he was abroad. He said (during interrogation) he has only one account abroad. But when he went abroad, he closed several&nbsp;bank&nbsp;accounts. I don&#39;t want to say all this as it will embarrass him,&nbsp;but I have been compelled,&quot;&nbsp;the ASG&nbsp;told the&nbsp;Bench.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
To this Sibal countered,&nbsp;&quot;Did you ask a single question about the bank accounts and property?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&quot;They interrogated me (Karti), but not a single question was asked on this,&quot; Sibal said.&nbsp;&quot;If&nbsp;they can show any signature of&nbsp;Karti&nbsp;on any account, they can prosecute him under FEMA or&nbsp;the&nbsp;black&nbsp;money&nbsp;law.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;The case against&nbsp;Karti&nbsp;pertains to a&nbsp;case&nbsp;lodged by the CBI on&nbsp;May 15, alleging irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of&nbsp;Rs&nbsp;305 crore in 2007 when his father was the&nbsp;finance&nbsp;minister during the then United&nbsp;Progressive&nbsp;Alliance&nbsp;(UPA)&nbsp;regime.&nbsp;

Karti Chidambaram wanted to travel abroad to close his foreign bank accounts

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed in Supreme Court on Friday that it issued a lookout notice against Karti Chidambaram, the son of former federal minister P Chidambaram, as he wanted to travel abroad for closing his foreign bank accounts. The SC was hearing a corruption case against Karti Chidambaram. Karti's counsel Kapil Sibal opposed the CBI's move to submit its finding in a sealed cover to the Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. "What he did abroad is part of this sealed cover," additional solicitor general (ASG) Tushar Mehta told the Bench. Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud were also part of the Bench hearing the case. "Let me say what is contained in the sealed cover. What he has done when he was abroad. He said (during interrogation) he has only one account abroad. But when he went abroad, he closed several bank accounts. I don't want to say all this as it will embarrass him, but I have been compelled," the ASG told the Bench. To this Sibal countered, "Did you ask a single question about the bank accounts and property?" "They interrogated me (Karti), but not a single question was asked on this," Sibal said. "If they can show any signature of Karti on any account, they can prosecute him under FEMA or the black money law." The case against Karti pertains to a case lodged by the CBI on May 15, alleging irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to INX Media for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when his father was the finance minister during the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime.

Lookout notice for Karti as he wanted to close foreign accounts: CBI to SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea seeking clarification if a man&#39;s physical relations with his wife below 18 years of age amounts to rape or not.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence.

Earlier, the hearing was to be carried out by the Delhi High Court, but they put it on hold after learning that the SC has taken up for the hearing of a petition on a similar matter.

The HC then asked the parties before it to find out if the issues raised before it in the petitions seeking to make marital rape an offence are similar to those being heard by the apex court.

The NGO, who had filed the plea is opposing this as they argue that while SC is hearing a plea questioning the validity of a provision under the IPC permitting a man to have a physical relationship with his wife, even if she was aged between 15 and 18 years.

The issue before the HC is different as the PILs challenge the constitutionality of Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that it discriminates against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea seeking clarification if a man's physical relations with his wife below 18 years of age amounts to rape or not. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO seeking to make marital rape a criminal offence. Earlier, the hearing was to be carried out by the Delhi High Court, but they put it on hold after learning that the SC has taken up for the hearing of a petition on a similar matter. The HC then asked the parties before it to find out if the issues raised before it in the petitions seeking to make marital rape an offence are similar to those being heard by the apex court. The NGO, who had filed the plea is opposing this as they argue that while SC is hearing a plea questioning the validity of a provision under the IPC permitting a man to have a physical relationship with his wife, even if she was aged between 15 and 18 years. The issue before the HC is different as the PILs challenge the constitutionality of Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that it discriminates against married women being sexually assaulted by their husbands.

SC reserves verdict on criminalising marital rape

The BJP and the Congress today welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Triple Talaq holding it unconstitutional, saying it was a step forward towards gender justice and equality.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan welcomed the judgement on the issue, considered an impediment in the progress of a modern society, and asked the central government to enact a law on it soon.

&quot;We welcome the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq and urge the central government to enact a law soon.&nbsp;

Traditions like Triple Talaq are like mental and social harrassment of our sisters and daughters and are an impediment in the progress of modern Indian society,&quot; Chouhan said on twitter.

Congress leader Salman Khurshid also welcomed the judgement, saying &quot;it is a good decision&quot;.

However, he said the reasoning behind the decision was as important as the decision itself and one should see it before coming to any conclusion.

Union Minister Maneka Gandhi also termed it as &quot;a good judgement&quot;&nbsp;and saying &quot;We welcome it. It is a step forward towards gender justice and gender equality. It is good for women.&quot;

Asked whether the government would bring a law soon, she said, the government will consider making a law on it.

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also welcomed it saying it has paved the way forward for bringing reform.

&quot;Chief Justice has given an astute order; Stayed Triple Talaq for six months and asked Parliament to get off its backsides and legislate,&quot; Swamy said on Twitter.

Swamy said this would bring proximity between Hindus and Muslims and was a big day for Muslim women. 
&quot;We are happy that women, both Hindu and Muslim, are standing together for reform.

&quot;Big day for muslim women. Salute their courageousness, their fearlessness and even their ostracisation. They have stood for real reform and we must salute them and stand by them,&quot; he said.

BJP spokesperson Aman Sinha said the judgement has vindicated the stand of the Narendra Modi government.

Sinha, who is also a senior advocate, said the majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench declaring the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as &quot;unconstitutional&quot;, would give Muslim women the right to lead a dignified life.

&quot;The Supreme Court has upheld the stand taken by the government of India that triple talaq is unconstitutional and discriminatory,&quot; he said.

Referring to the Independence Day speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the senior advocate said, &quot;The Prime Minister had raised the issue of plight of women due to regressive practice of triple talaq and today it has been held unconstitutional.&quot;

&quot;The stand of the government on the issue of Triple Talaq is vindicated. It would give crores of Muslim women right to lead life with dignity and respect,&quot; Sinha said.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims saying it was &quot;void&quot;, &quot;illegal&quot; and &quot;unconstitutional&quot;. 
&nbsp;

Union Minister Maneka Gandhi said the Supreme Court was 'a good judgement'

The BJP and the Congress today welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Triple Talaq holding it unconstitutional, saying it was a step forward towards gender justice and equality. Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan welcomed the judgement on the issue, considered an impediment in the progress of a modern society, and asked the central government to enact a law on it soon. "We welcome the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq and urge the central government to enact a law soon. Traditions like Triple Talaq are like mental and social harrassment of our sisters and daughters and are an impediment in the progress of modern Indian society," Chouhan said on twitter. Congress leader Salman Khurshid also welcomed the judgement, saying "it is a good decision". However, he said the reasoning behind the decision was as important as the decision itself and one should see it before coming to any conclusion. Union Minister Maneka Gandhi also termed it as "a good judgement" and saying "We welcome it. It is a step forward towards gender justice and gender equality. It is good for women." Asked whether the government would bring a law soon, she said, the government will consider making a law on it. BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also welcomed it saying it has paved the way forward for bringing reform. "Chief Justice has given an astute order; Stayed Triple Talaq for six months and asked Parliament to get off its backsides and legislate," Swamy said on Twitter. Swamy said this would bring proximity between Hindus and Muslims and was a big day for Muslim women. "We are happy that women, both Hindu and Muslim, are standing together for reform. "Big day for muslim women. Salute their courageousness, their fearlessness and even their ostracisation. They have stood for real reform and we must salute them and stand by them," he said. BJP spokesperson Aman Sinha said the judgement has vindicated the stand of the Narendra Modi government. Sinha, who is also a senior advocate, said the majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench declaring the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as "unconstitutional", would give Muslim women the right to lead a dignified life. "The Supreme Court has upheld the stand taken by the government of India that triple talaq is unconstitutional and discriminatory," he said. Referring to the Independence Day speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the senior advocate said, "The Prime Minister had raised the issue of plight of women due to regressive practice of triple talaq and today it has been held unconstitutional." "The stand of the government on the issue of Triple Talaq is vindicated. It would give crores of Muslim women right to lead life with dignity and respect," Sinha said. The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims saying it was "void", "illegal" and "unconstitutional".

BJP, Congress welcome top court verdict on triple talaq

The federal government Monday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India&nbsp;over the demonetisation row,&nbsp;saying it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes.

Earlier on July 4,&nbsp;the top court rapped the federal government&nbsp;and asked them to give another chance to &quot;genuine people to deposit old notes&quot;,&nbsp;to which the federal government was given two weeks to respond.

Rebuking the federal government&nbsp;for setting up a deadline for depositing demonetised currency, the top court observed,&nbsp;&quot;One cannot make people suffer if they have genuine reasons, should be allowed to deposit old notes&quot;.

The top court&nbsp;asked the federal government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whether a window can be provided to the people who could not deposit their old Rs. 500 and 1,000 currency notes.

The federal government told the division bench of the apex court that it would file an affidavit in the case.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sudha Mishra and others seeking a direction from it in connection with the deposit of old currency notes of Rs 500 and 1,000.

Following the announcement of demonetising currency notes worth Rs 500 and 1,000 in November last year, the government had instructed people to deposit their old currency notes with the RBI till December 30, 2016. 
&nbsp;

The federal government said it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes

The federal government Monday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India over the demonetisation row, saying it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes. Earlier on July 4, the top court rapped the federal government and asked them to give another chance to "genuine people to deposit old notes", to which the federal government was given two weeks to respond. Rebuking the federal government for setting up a deadline for depositing demonetised currency, the top court observed, "One cannot make people suffer if they have genuine reasons, should be allowed to deposit old notes". The top court asked the federal government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whether a window can be provided to the people who could not deposit their old Rs. 500 and 1,000 currency notes. The federal government told the division bench of the apex court that it would file an affidavit in the case. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sudha Mishra and others seeking a direction from it in connection with the deposit of old currency notes of Rs 500 and 1,000. Following the announcement of demonetising currency notes worth Rs 500 and 1,000 in November last year, the government had instructed people to deposit their old currency notes with the RBI till December 30, 2016.

Window for depositing old notes cannot be extended: Govt dismisses top court request

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