The Supreme Court on Monday said that the time has come to decriminalise defamation. The top court’s remark is a shift from its 2016 judgment that had upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, saying that the right to reputation falls under the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, says a Bar and Bench report. In the 2016 judgment, the Supreme Court had upheld Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Now, Section 499 has been replaced by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the IPC in 2024.&nbsp;The remark was made by the Supreme Court bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Monday as it heard a plea challenging a summons issued by a magistrate and subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court to the online publication The Wire in a criminal defamation case filed by a Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/murdochs-dell-ellison-to-have-a-role-in-tiktok-after-deal-says-trump-1758476539209">Murdochs, Dell, Ellison to have a role in TikTok after deal, says Trump</a>&nbsp;The criminal defamation case was filed against the online publication and its reporter over a 2016 news article alleging the professor’s involvement in compiling a 200-page controversial dossier titled “Jawaharlal Nehru University: The Den of Secessionism and Terrorism”, which called JNU a “den of organised sex racket”.The complaint alleged that the editor did not verify the authenticity of the dossier and used it to benefit its magazine financially, defaming the complainant’s reputation.&nbsp;During the hearing, while agreeing to issue notice on the matter, Justice MM Sundresh observed in an oral comment, “I think time has come to decriminalise all this...”&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-afraid-of-our-talent-says-piyush-goyal-after-us-h-1b-visa-fee-hike-urges-indians-to-return-innovate-in-india-1758458036830">‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing The Wire, concurred with the court’s observation, supporting the need for reform.&nbsp;Defamation remains a criminal offence in India under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a provision that replaced Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.&nbsp;In the Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India case in 2016, the top court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, ruling that it served as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and was a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty.&nbsp;WATCH: Is Social Media Stealing Your Kids Attention?<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-social-media-stealing-your-kids-attention-1758543652838/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-social-media-stealing-your-kids-attention-1758543652838/embed</a>&nbsp;

In the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India case in 2016, the top court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, ruling that it served as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and was a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the time has come to decriminalise defamation. The top court’s remark is a shift from its 2016 judgment that had upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, saying that the right to reputation falls under the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, says a Bar and Bench report. In the 2016 judgment, the Supreme Court had upheld Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Now, Section 499 has been replaced by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the IPC in 2024. The remark was made by the Supreme Court bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Monday as it heard a plea challenging a summons issued by a magistrate and subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court to the online publication The Wire in a criminal defamation case filed by a Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor. Also Read: Murdochs, Dell, Ellison to have a role in TikTok after deal, says Trump The criminal defamation case was filed against the online publication and its reporter over a 2016 news article alleging the professor’s involvement in compiling a 200-page controversial dossier titled “Jawaharlal Nehru University: The Den of Secessionism and Terrorism”, which called JNU a “den of organised sex racket”. The complaint alleged that the editor did not verify the authenticity of the dossier and used it to benefit its magazine financially, defaming the complainant’s reputation. During the hearing, while agreeing to issue notice on the matter, Justice MM Sundresh observed in an oral comment, “I think time has come to decriminalise all this...” Also Read: ‘Afraid of our talent,’ says Piyush Goyal after US H-1B visa fee hike, urges Indians to return, innovate in India Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing The Wire, concurred with the court’s observation, supporting the need for reform. Defamation remains a criminal offence in India under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a provision that replaced Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India case in 2016, the top court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, ruling that it served as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and was a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty. WATCH: Is Social Media Stealing Your Kids Attention? https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-social-media-stealing-your-kids-attention-1758543652838/embed

In the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India case in 2016, the top court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, ruling that it served as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and was a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty.

‘Time has come to decriminalise defamation law,’ says Supreme Court in a shift from its 2016 ruling

On Monday (September 22), the Supreme Court directed the Union government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to submit their responses on how they plan to guarantee an ‘unbiased, impartial, and swift’ investigation into the tragic Air India crash that occurred on June 12 in Gujarat. The court was responding to a petition filed by the Safety Matters Foundation, which has called for a court-monitored investigation conducted by an independent entity.&nbsp;Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotishwar Singh, who were presiding over the case, issued notices to both the government and the DGCA, seeking their replies within two weeks. The petition challenged the premature release of a preliminary report by the DGCA that seemed to suggest pilot error as a key cause, particularly pointing to the movement of the fuel control switches from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ shortly after takeoff, leading to engine failure.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/somalia-bound-cargo-ship-loaded-with-rice-and-sugar-catches-fire-off-gujarat-porbandar-coast-1758524786632">Somalia-bound cargo ship loaded with rice and sugar catches fire off Gujarat coast</a>&nbsp;During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that over three months had passed since the crash with no clear answers on what caused the incident, why it occurred, and what measures were being implemented to prevent a recurrence. He also flagged the potential conflict of interest in the investigation panel, which includes three members from the DGCA—an organisation already facing scrutiny for possible negligence.&nbsp;While acknowledging the need for an unbiased probe, the bench raised concerns about releasing sensitive information before the investigation finished. The justices questioned the petitioner's call for the flight data recorder to be made public at this stage, emphasising that the final outcome of the inquiry should be shared once it is complete, to avoid premature leaks that could distort the findings.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/2-held-vehicle-seized-in-connection-with-attack-on-assam-rifles-convoy-in-manipur-that-killed-two-soldiers-1758428487104">2 held, vehicle seized in connection with attack on Assam Rifles Convoy in Manipur that killed two soldiers</a>&nbsp;The court also warned against selectively disclosing information that could harm the dignity of those involved. Referring to the pilots, who tragically lost their lives in the crash, the bench stressed that the public release of incomplete or skewed details could affect their families and reputations. It warned that any attempt to release such details prematurely could lead to misrepresentation.&nbsp;The court made it clear that its focus was on ensuring a thorough, impartial, and prompt investigation, but it refrained from making any decisions regarding the public disclosure of the probe's findings at this stage. The investigation into the crash, is being led by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India, with international cooperation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and representatives from Boeing.

The Supreme Court has asked the Union government and DGCA to ensure a fair, impartial, and swift investigation into the June 12 Air India crash in Gujarat

On Monday (September 22), the Supreme Court directed the Union government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to submit their responses on how they plan to guarantee an ‘unbiased, impartial, and swift’ investigation into the tragic Air India crash that occurred on June 12 in Gujarat. The court was responding to a petition filed by the Safety Matters Foundation, which has called for a court-monitored investigation conducted by an independent entity. Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotishwar Singh, who were presiding over the case, issued notices to both the government and the DGCA, seeking their replies within two weeks. The petition challenged the premature release of a preliminary report by the DGCA that seemed to suggest pilot error as a key cause, particularly pointing to the movement of the fuel control switches from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ shortly after takeoff, leading to engine failure. Also Read: Somalia-bound cargo ship loaded with rice and sugar catches fire off Gujarat coast During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that over three months had passed since the crash with no clear answers on what caused the incident, why it occurred, and what measures were being implemented to prevent a recurrence. He also flagged the potential conflict of interest in the investigation panel, which includes three members from the DGCA—an organisation already facing scrutiny for possible negligence. While acknowledging the need for an unbiased probe, the bench raised concerns about releasing sensitive information before the investigation finished. The justices questioned the petitioner's call for the flight data recorder to be made public at this stage, emphasising that the final outcome of the inquiry should be shared once it is complete, to avoid premature leaks that could distort the findings. Also Read: 2 held, vehicle seized in connection with attack on Assam Rifles Convoy in Manipur that killed two soldiers The court also warned against selectively disclosing information that could harm the dignity of those involved. Referring to the pilots, who tragically lost their lives in the crash, the bench stressed that the public release of incomplete or skewed details could affect their families and reputations. It warned that any attempt to release such details prematurely could lead to misrepresentation. The court made it clear that its focus was on ensuring a thorough, impartial, and prompt investigation, but it refrained from making any decisions regarding the public disclosure of the probe's findings at this stage. The investigation into the crash, is being led by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India, with international cooperation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and representatives from Boeing.

The Supreme Court has asked the Union government and DGCA to ensure a fair, impartial, and swift investigation into the June 12 Air India crash in Gujarat

Air India Crash: SC demands 'impartial and expeditious' investigation, seeks government response

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) declined to suspend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety but has stayed certain provisions, including one that grants the collector authority to determine whether a Waqf property is government-owned and issue related orders. The bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, issued this interim ruling on whether the provisions should be stayed or not. Additionally, the court put on hold a provision requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years in order to establish a Waqf.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/waqf-bill-debate-in-india-how-are-waqf-assets-managed-in-other-countries-see-list-8917665">Waqf bill debate in India: How are waqf assets managed in other countries? See list</a><h2>What is the Waqf Board?</h2>The Waqf Board is a statutory body responsible for overseeing properties donated by Muslims for religious, charitable, or community purposes. These properties—known as Waqf—can include mosques, graveyards, madrasas, dargahs, agricultural land, schools, shops, and other community institutions. Once designated as Waqf, these properties cannot be sold, transferred, or inherited.&nbsp;Across India, 30 state Waqf boards manage approximately 9.4 lakh acres of land and 8.7 lakh properties, valued at over ₹1.2 lakh crore. This makes the Waqf Board the third-largest landowner in the country, following Indian Railways and the armed forces. These properties are administered by "mutawallis" (trustees) under the boards’ supervision. However, the system often faces challenges like property disputes, illegal occupation, and concerns over accountability.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/waqf-bill-to-be-tabled-in-lok-sabha-april-2-why-is-oppn-against-it-what-is-the-row-8914426">Waqf Bill to be tabled in Lok Sabha April 2. Why is opposition against it, what is the row?</a><h2>What is the Waqf Act?</h2>The Waqf Act governs the administration and management of Waqf properties. The original law, enacted in 1954, was replaced by the Waqf Act of 1955 and subsequently amended in 1995 and again in 2013. Under the Waqf Act, all Waqf properties must be surveyed, registered with state boards, and published in official gazettes. The Act also established the Central Waqf Council to guide government policies and oversee the functioning of state boards. Special tribunals are designated to resolve Waqf property disputes, with the possibility of appeals to higher courts.&nbsp;According to the 1995 Waqf Act, Waqf is defined as the permanent dedication of property for purposes that align with Islamic law, such as religious, charitable, or pious activities. The law mandates that each state establish a Waqf Board as the custodian of such properties.<h3>The New Amendment</h3>The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential approval in April 2025, after being passed by Parliament, and became law. The amendment introduced significant changes, such as requiring Waqf properties to be registered with district collectors, allowing for government-appointed members on Waqf boards, and including both women and non-Muslims in the management of Waqf. While the government asserts that these reforms are designed to improve transparency and accountability, critics argue that they are politically charged and unfairly target Muslim interests.

The Supreme Court temporarily suspended parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including provisions on property classification and eligibility for creating Waqf. However, key provisions of the law remain intact

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) declined to suspend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety but has stayed certain provisions, including one that grants the collector authority to determine whether a Waqf property is government-owned and issue related orders. The bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, issued this interim ruling on whether the provisions should be stayed or not. Additionally, the court put on hold a provision requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years in order to establish a Waqf. Also Read: Waqf bill debate in India: How are waqf assets managed in other countries? See list What is the Waqf Board? The Waqf Board is a statutory body responsible for overseeing properties donated by Muslims for religious, charitable, or community purposes. These properties—known as Waqf—can include mosques, graveyards, madrasas, dargahs, agricultural land, schools, shops, and other community institutions. Once designated as Waqf, these properties cannot be sold, transferred, or inherited. Across India, 30 state Waqf boards manage approximately 9.4 lakh acres of land and 8.7 lakh properties, valued at over ₹1.2 lakh crore. This makes the Waqf Board the third-largest landowner in the country, following Indian Railways and the armed forces. These properties are administered by "mutawallis" (trustees) under the boards’ supervision. However, the system often faces challenges like property disputes, illegal occupation, and concerns over accountability. Also Read: Waqf Bill to be tabled in Lok Sabha April 2. Why is opposition against it, what is the row? What is the Waqf Act? The Waqf Act governs the administration and management of Waqf properties. The original law, enacted in 1954, was replaced by the Waqf Act of 1955 and subsequently amended in 1995 and again in 2013. Under the Waqf Act, all Waqf properties must be surveyed, registered with state boards, and published in official gazettes. The Act also established the Central Waqf Council to guide government policies and oversee the functioning of state boards. Special tribunals are designated to resolve Waqf property disputes, with the possibility of appeals to higher courts. According to the 1995 Waqf Act, Waqf is defined as the permanent dedication of property for purposes that align with Islamic law, such as religious, charitable, or pious activities. The law mandates that each state establish a Waqf Board as the custodian of such properties. The New Amendment The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential approval in April 2025, after being passed by Parliament, and became law. The amendment introduced significant changes, such as requiring Waqf properties to be registered with district collectors, allowing for government-appointed members on Waqf boards, and including both women and non-Muslims in the management of Waqf. While the government asserts that these reforms are designed to improve transparency and accountability, critics argue that they are politically charged and unfairly target Muslim interests.

The Supreme Court temporarily suspended clauses of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including provisions on property classification and eligibility for creating Waqf. However, key provisions of the law remain intact

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: SC suspends key clauses while upholding others. Here's what the order said

The Supreme Court dismissed the sexual harassment complaint filed by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) against the vice-chancellor under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) as it was time-barred, but ordered that this judgment be made a part of the resume of the vice-chancellor. The alleged incident took place in April 2023, but the complaint was lodged only in December 2023, beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.&nbsp;In the rare order, the top court said on Friday that the incident of alleged sexual harassment may be forgiven, but it should haunt him forever.&nbsp;While dismissing the case due to a statutory time limit for filing such complaints, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale ensured that the “offence” did not go unpunished. The bench insisted that the wrongdoing of the vice chancellor could not be allowed to fade into obscurity, said a Livelaw report.&nbsp;“In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally,” the bench said.&nbsp;<h2>LCC rejected initial complaint, citing time limit</h2>&nbsp;The petition was dismissed after the court observed that the survivor had lodged a formal complaint on December 26, 2023, several months after the alleged incidents took place in April 2023. The complaint was initially registered with the Local Complaint Committee (LCC), which had rejected it as “time-barred,” noting that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of three months and even beyond the extendable limit of six months.&nbsp;According to the complainant, the vice chancellor joined in July 2019 and since then had subjected her to unwelcome advances, sexual demands, and threats to her career, culminating in an incident in April 2023 when he allegedly pressured her to accompany him on a resort trip. She claimed that when she refused, he warned that her career would suffer.The woman’s promotion was put on hold in October 2019 till the Executive Council cleared her elevation on April 2, 2022.&nbsp;WATCH: Anti-Immigration Protesters, Anti-Racism Protesters, Police Clash<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/anti-immigration-protesters-anti-racism-protesters-police-clash-1757784941999/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/anti-immigration-protesters-anti-racism-protesters-police-clash-1757784941999/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>‘Threatened appellant that her career would suffer badly’</h2>&nbsp;“The appellant was called upon by the Vice-Chancellor in his office again in April 2023, where he asked the appellant to accompany him on a trip to a resort, which the appellant flatly refused. Thereupon, he threatened the appellant that her career would suffer badly,” the judgment said.On August 29, 2023, the woman was removed as Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies.A single judge of the Calcutta High Court later revived the complaint, holding that the intimidation and hostile work environment continued after April 2023, keeping the complaint within the prescribed time limit. However, a division bench overturned this decision in December 2024.

According to the complainant, the vice chancellor joined in July 2019 and since then had subjected her to unwelcome advances, sexual demands, and threats to her career, culminating in an incident in April 2023 when he allegedly pressured her to accompany him on a resort trip.

The Supreme Court dismissed the sexual harassment complaint filed by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) against the vice-chancellor under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) as it was time-barred, but ordered that this judgment be made a part of the resume of the vice-chancellor. The alleged incident took place in April 2023, but the complaint was lodged only in December 2023, beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In the rare order, the top court said on Friday that the incident of alleged sexual harassment may be forgiven, but it should haunt him forever. While dismissing the case due to a statutory time limit for filing such complaints, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale ensured that the “offence” did not go unpunished. The bench insisted that the wrongdoing of the vice chancellor could not be allowed to fade into obscurity, said a Livelaw report. “In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally,” the bench said. LCC rejected initial complaint, citing time limit The petition was dismissed after the court observed that the survivor had lodged a formal complaint on December 26, 2023, several months after the alleged incidents took place in April 2023. The complaint was initially registered with the Local Complaint Committee (LCC), which had rejected it as “time-barred,” noting that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of three months and even beyond the extendable limit of six months. According to the complainant, the vice chancellor joined in July 2019 and since then had subjected her to unwelcome advances, sexual demands, and threats to her career, culminating in an incident in April 2023 when he allegedly pressured her to accompany him on a resort trip. She claimed that when she refused, he warned that her career would suffer. The woman’s promotion was put on hold in October 2019 till the Executive Council cleared her elevation on April 2, 2022. WATCH: Anti-Immigration Protesters, Anti-Racism Protesters, Police Clash https://www.wionews.com/videos/anti-immigration-protesters-anti-racism-protesters-police-clash-1757784941999/embed ‘Threatened appellant that her career would suffer badly’ “The appellant was called upon by the Vice-Chancellor in his office again in April 2023, where he asked the appellant to accompany him on a trip to a resort, which the appellant flatly refused. Thereupon, he threatened the appellant that her career would suffer badly,” the judgment said. On August 29, 2023, the woman was removed as Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies. A single judge of the Calcutta High Court later revived the complaint, holding that the intimidation and hostile work environment continued after April 2023, keeping the complaint within the prescribed time limit. However, a division bench overturned this decision in December 2024.

According to the complainant, the vice chancellor joined in July 2019 and since then had subjected her to unwelcome advances, sexual demands, and threats to her career, culminating in an incident in April 2023 when he allegedly pressured her to accompany him on a resort trip.

‘Should haunt him forever’: SC dismisses sexual harassment case against NUJS V-C, orders mention in resume

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India to accept Aadhaar as the 12th valid proof for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar along with the 11 other documents it has permitted to be presented for identification purposes. The top court, however, added that the Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship, and the ECI is entitled to verify if it is genuine. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, made it clear that Aadhaar will not be considered as proof of citizenship, and said that the EC will be entitled to verify the authenticity of the Aadhaar card.&nbsp;“Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship. However, keeping in view S.23(4) of the RP (Representation of People) Act, Aadhaar card is one document for the purpose of establishing identity of any person…The Aadhar card…shall be accepted for establishing the identity of any person for inclusion or exclusion in the revised voters list of state of Bihar,” the bench ordered.&nbsp;<h2>‘Authorities entitled to verify authenticity of Aadhaar card’</h2>&nbsp;“The Aadhaar card, in this regard, shall be treated as the 12th document by the authorities. However, it is clarified that the authorities shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself,” it stated. The case has been posted for the next hearing on September 15.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bench passed the interim order after considering the response of Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD), AIMIM and other petitioners on the poll panel’s submission that 99.5 per cent of the 7.24 crore electors in the draft electoral roll &nbsp;of Bihar had filed their eligibility documents in the SIR exercise.Appearing for the RJD, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that though the court had earlier directed that Aadhaar must be accepted as proof of identity in addition to the other 11 documents, it was not being done so and alleged that this amounted to contempt of Supreme Court orders.&nbsp;<h2>‘99.6% of Bihar’s 7.24 crore voters have already submitted requisite documents’</h2>&nbsp;Appearing for the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the poll body had the power to examine citizenship for the purposes of the voters list and that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship.Dwivedi said that 99.6 per cent of the 7.24 crore voters in Bihar have already submitted the requisite documents. Aadhaar was allowed for those excluded in the draft, but no one had any complaint that a large number of persons were excluded, he added.Justice Kant said the ECI need not treat the Aadhar card as proof of citizenship but only for identity purposes. “Law is very clear on Aadhaar. Aadhaar is one of the official documents… You (ECI) will take it and examine it,” he said.&nbsp;WATCH: Nepal: Social Media Ban Ignites Kathmandu Chaos; Curfew Imposed, Army Deployed<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-social-media-ban-ignites-kathmandu-chaos-curfew-imposed-army-deployed-1757331312265/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-social-media-ban-ignites-kathmandu-chaos-curfew-imposed-army-deployed-1757331312265/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>‘Genuine citizens of this country are entitled to vote’</h2>&nbsp;Acknowledging concerns expressed by the EC about the genuineness of Aadhaar, Justice Kant said the poll body was free to verify it. “Those who are genuine citizens of this country, they are entitled to vote. Those who are claiming citizenship on the basis of forged documents, they are not,” the judge added.Justice Bagchi said that one of the provisions of the Representation of People Act specifically refers to Aadhaar as a document of residence. Except for the birth certificate and passport, the other documents in the list of 11 specified by the ECI were not documents of citizenship, he said.&nbsp;SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year.&nbsp;While the government has accused the Opposition of politicising electoral reforms, the Opposition contends that the SIR’s timing, methodology and documentation requirements threaten the fundamental right to vote of genuine electors, particularly among the poor, migrants, and minorities.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, made it clear that Aadhaar will not be considered as proof of citizenship. They said that the Election Commission of India will be entitled to verify the authenticity of the Aadhaar card.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India to accept Aadhaar as the 12th valid proof for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar along with the 11 other documents it has permitted to be presented for identification purposes. The top court, however, added that the Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship, and the ECI is entitled to verify if it is genuine. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, made it clear that Aadhaar will not be considered as proof of citizenship, and said that the EC will be entitled to verify the authenticity of the Aadhaar card. “Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship. However, keeping in view S.23(4) of the RP (Representation of People) Act, Aadhaar card is one document for the purpose of establishing identity of any person…The Aadhar card…shall be accepted for establishing the identity of any person for inclusion or exclusion in the revised voters list of state of Bihar,” the bench ordered. ‘Authorities entitled to verify authenticity of Aadhaar card’ “The Aadhaar card, in this regard, shall be treated as the 12th document by the authorities. However, it is clarified that the authorities shall be entitled to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the Aadhaar card itself,” it stated. The case has been posted for the next hearing on September 15. The bench passed the interim order after considering the response of Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD), AIMIM and other petitioners on the poll panel’s submission that 99.5 per cent of the 7.24 crore electors in the draft electoral roll of Bihar had filed their eligibility documents in the SIR exercise. Appearing for the RJD, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that though the court had earlier directed that Aadhaar must be accepted as proof of identity in addition to the other 11 documents, it was not being done so and alleged that this amounted to contempt of Supreme Court orders. ‘99.6% of Bihar’s 7.24 crore voters have already submitted requisite documents’ Appearing for the ECI, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that the poll body had the power to examine citizenship for the purposes of the voters list and that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as proof of citizenship. Dwivedi said that 99.6 per cent of the 7.24 crore voters in Bihar have already submitted the requisite documents. Aadhaar was allowed for those excluded in the draft, but no one had any complaint that a large number of persons were excluded, he added. Justice Kant said the ECI need not treat the Aadhar card as proof of citizenship but only for identity purposes. “Law is very clear on Aadhaar. Aadhaar is one of the official documents… You (ECI) will take it and examine it,” he said. WATCH: Nepal: Social Media Ban Ignites Kathmandu Chaos; Curfew Imposed, Army Deployed https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-social-media-ban-ignites-kathmandu-chaos-curfew-imposed-army-deployed-1757331312265/embed ‘Genuine citizens of this country are entitled to vote’ Acknowledging concerns expressed by the EC about the genuineness of Aadhaar, Justice Kant said the poll body was free to verify it. “Those who are genuine citizens of this country, they are entitled to vote. Those who are claiming citizenship on the basis of forged documents, they are not,” the judge added. Justice Bagchi said that one of the provisions of the Representation of People Act specifically refers to Aadhaar as a document of residence. Except for the birth certificate and passport, the other documents in the list of 11 specified by the ECI were not documents of citizenship, he said. SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year. While the government has accused the Opposition of politicising electoral reforms, the Opposition contends that the SIR’s timing, methodology and documentation requirements threaten the fundamental right to vote of genuine electors, particularly among the poor, migrants, and minorities.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, made it clear that Aadhaar will not be considered as proof of citizenship. They said that the Election Commission of India will be entitled to verify the authenticity of the Aadhaar card.

Accept Aadhaar as 12th valid document for voter roll revision in Bihar: SC tells ECI

The Supreme Court on Monday transferred three writ petitions by online money game companies pending in three high courts to itself. The petitions, filed by the gaming companies, were pending before the Delhi High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 ("Online Gaming Act"), which prohibits online money games and activities linked to them.&nbsp;The Supreme Court said that any such petition filed before the high courts stands transferred to the Supreme Court for hearing. The court acted on a petition filed by the central government seeking the consolidation of petitions.&nbsp;Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan wrote in the order that the high courts are directed to transfer the entire record of the petitions within one week digitally.&nbsp;"This is at the instance of the Union of India with the following prayers. We transfer as prayed for is allowed. The proceedings from the Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts stand transferred to this Court. Respective High Courts are directed to transfer the entire records with all interlocutory applications filed within 1 week. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time," the bench was quoted as saying by Live Law.<h2>What is the Online Gaming Act 2025?</h2>The central government last month passed the Online Gaming Act 2025 in the parliament, seeking a ban on money games. The law's provisions include a fine of Rs 1 crore, or jail term, or both for those guilty of promoting online money gaming. The law, however, spares those seeking to play such games.&nbsp;The online gaming companies had appealed to the government not to pass the legislation, arguing that many of these games were skill-based and that thousands of people stood to lose their jobs.&nbsp;After the bill became a law, many companies challenged it before the Delhi High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the Karnataka High Court.&nbsp;The petitioners submitted before the courts that the Act prohibits even those games which involve skills and not mere chance, especially e-sports.&nbsp;The bill was passed on August 21 and received the Presidential Assent on August 22.

The Supreme Court on Monday transferred three writ petitions by online money gaming companies pending in three high courts to itself.

The Supreme Court on Monday transferred three writ petitions by online money game companies pending in three high courts to itself. The petitions, filed by the gaming companies, were pending before the Delhi High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 ("Online Gaming Act"), which prohibits online money games and activities linked to them. The Supreme Court said that any such petition filed before the high courts stands transferred to the Supreme Court for hearing. The court acted on a petition filed by the central government seeking the consolidation of petitions. Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan wrote in the order that the high courts are directed to transfer the entire record of the petitions within one week digitally. "This is at the instance of the Union of India with the following prayers. We transfer as prayed for is allowed. The proceedings from the Karnataka, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts stand transferred to this Court. Respective High Courts are directed to transfer the entire records with all interlocutory applications filed within 1 week. Let this transfer be done digitally to save time," the bench was quoted as saying by Live Law. What is the Online Gaming Act 2025? The central government last month passed the Online Gaming Act 2025 in the parliament, seeking a ban on money games. The law's provisions include a fine of Rs 1 crore, or jail term, or both for those guilty of promoting online money gaming. The law, however, spares those seeking to play such games. The online gaming companies had appealed to the government not to pass the legislation, arguing that many of these games were skill-based and that thousands of people stood to lose their jobs. After the bill became a law, many companies challenged it before the Delhi High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the Karnataka High Court. The petitioners submitted before the courts that the Act prohibits even those games which involve skills and not mere chance, especially e-sports. The bill was passed on August 21 and received the Presidential Assent on August 22.

Online money-gaming law: The Supreme Court of India transfered the petitions filed by gaming companies in the Delhi High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Online money-game law: Supreme Court transfers 3 High Court petitions to itself

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre and several flood-hit states, including Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, to respond to concerns that rampant illegal tree cutting has worsened natural calamities such as landslides and flash floods. The development comes after the Supreme Court took note of videos showing large numbers of timber logs being washed down the hills by floodwaters.&nbsp;"We have seen unprecedented landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. From the media reports it is noticed that in the flood a huge number of wood was flowing along. Prima facie it appears that there has been illegal felling of trees. Thus issue notice to respondents. Returnable in two weeks," CJI BR Gavai said, news agency PTI reported.<h3>Court issues notice to the centre</h3>The top court was hearing a petition that attributed such disasters, including illegal felling of trees, primarily to unchecked deforestation. A bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notices to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), and the governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab.&nbsp;The petition, filed by Anamika Rana, has been scheduled for hearing in two weeks. The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure necessary remedial steps are considered in the meantime.

The notice was issued by the bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), and the governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre and several flood-hit states, including Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, to respond to concerns that rampant illegal tree cutting has worsened natural calamities such as landslides and flash floods. The development comes after the Supreme Court took note of videos showing large numbers of timber logs being washed down the hills by floodwaters. "We have seen unprecedented landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. From the media reports it is noticed that in the flood a huge number of wood was flowing along. Prima facie it appears that there has been illegal felling of trees. Thus issue notice to respondents. Returnable in two weeks," CJI BR Gavai said, news agency PTI reported. Court issues notice to the centre The top court was hearing a petition that attributed such disasters, including illegal felling of trees, primarily to unchecked deforestation. A bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notices to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), and the governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab. The petition, filed by Anamika Rana, has been scheduled for hearing in two weeks. The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure necessary remedial steps are considered in the meantime.

The notice was issued by the bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), and the governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Punjab.

SC points to illegal tree-cutting as culprit behind floods, landslides; seeks response from centre, affected states

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre’s nationwide rollout of 20 per cent Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP-20), allowing the continued implementation of the Union government’s ethanol blending policy. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran on Monday heard the petition filed by advocate Akshay Malhotra. The petitioner referred to a 2021 NITI Aayog Report, which he said raised concerns about older vehicles not being compliant with E20. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the petitioner was not against ethanol blending but was merely seeking an option of ethanol-free petrol for vehicles manufactured before 2023.&nbsp;The petitioner acknowledged E20 is a “logical progression as far as fuel is concerned” and said he was not contesting the higher blend, but only challenging “non-availability of E10 petrol”.&nbsp;He added that only the vehicles manufactured after April 2023 are compatible with E20 petrol and referred to reports saying the use of E20 caused a six per cent drop in fuel efficiency.He again referred to the NITI Aayog report to point at concerns regarding the lack of availability of E10 or E0 petrol option.&nbsp;The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, opposed the petition, saying that the petitioner was only a “name-lender”, adding that there was a huge lobby.The AG reportedly said the E20 policy was benefiting the nation’s sugarcane farmers and saving foreign exchange. “Will people outside the country dictate what kind of fuel India should use?” AG asked.After hearing the Attorney General’s submission, CJI Gavai pronounced, “Dismissed”.&nbsp;The controversy over E20 petrol’s effect on fuel efficiency and mileage has been going on, even as both Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari and the Petroleum Ministry have dismissed the claims as “rumours” and listed the benefits of E20 petrol.The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas also cited an NITI Aayog study on ethanol and backed the usage of E20 petrol. It said that E20 not only gives “better acceleration and better ride quality”, but also benefits the farmers of the country.The Centre added that E20 petrol also lowers carbon emissions by approximately 30 per cent as compared to E10 fuel.&nbsp;WATCH: SCO Summit 2025: SCO strongly condemns Pahalgam Terror attack after PM Modi's address<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-sco-strongly-condemns-pahalgam-terror-attack-after-pm-modi-s-address-1756723413157/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-sco-strongly-condemns-pahalgam-terror-attack-after-pm-modi-s-address-1756723413157/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Referring to the claims that E20 reduces mileage, Gadkari said, “This is not even a discussion. I don’t know if I should say this, politically—it appears the petroleum lobby is manipulating it.”&nbsp;The Petroleum Ministry said improves petrol’s research octane number (RON) and added that vehicle mileage depends on several factors like driving habits, maintenance practices, tyre pressure, and even air conditioning load, and not just fuel type.

The Attorney General of India R Venkataramani opposed the petition and said that the petitioner was only a “name-lender”, adding that there was a huge lobby. The AG further said the E20 policy was benefiting the nation’s sugarcane farmers and saving foreign exchange.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre’s nationwide rollout of 20 per cent Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP-20), allowing the continued implementation of the Union government’s ethanol blending policy. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran on Monday heard the petition filed by advocate Akshay Malhotra. The petitioner referred to a 2021 NITI Aayog Report, which he said raised concerns about older vehicles not being compliant with E20. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the petitioner was not against ethanol blending but was merely seeking an option of ethanol-free petrol for vehicles manufactured before 2023. The petitioner acknowledged E20 is a “logical progression as far as fuel is concerned” and said he was not contesting the higher blend, but only challenging “non-availability of E10 petrol”. He added that only the vehicles manufactured after April 2023 are compatible with E20 petrol and referred to reports saying the use of E20 caused a six per cent drop in fuel efficiency. He again referred to the NITI Aayog report to point at concerns regarding the lack of availability of E10 or E0 petrol option. The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, opposed the petition, saying that the petitioner was only a “name-lender”, adding that there was a huge lobby. The AG reportedly said the E20 policy was benefiting the nation’s sugarcane farmers and saving foreign exchange. “Will people outside the country dictate what kind of fuel India should use?” AG asked. After hearing the Attorney General’s submission, CJI Gavai pronounced, “Dismissed”. The controversy over E20 petrol’s effect on fuel efficiency and mileage has been going on, even as both Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari and the Petroleum Ministry have dismissed the claims as “rumours” and listed the benefits of E20 petrol. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas also cited an NITI Aayog study on ethanol and backed the usage of E20 petrol. It said that E20 not only gives “better acceleration and better ride quality”, but also benefits the farmers of the country. The Centre added that E20 petrol also lowers carbon emissions by approximately 30 per cent as compared to E10 fuel. WATCH: SCO Summit 2025: SCO strongly condemns Pahalgam Terror attack after PM Modi's address https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-sco-strongly-condemns-pahalgam-terror-attack-after-pm-modi-s-address-1756723413157/embed Referring to the claims that E20 reduces mileage, Gadkari said, “This is not even a discussion. I don’t know if I should say this, politically—it appears the petroleum lobby is manipulating it.” The Petroleum Ministry said improves petrol’s research octane number (RON) and added that vehicle mileage depends on several factors like driving habits, maintenance practices, tyre pressure, and even air conditioning load, and not just fuel type.

The Attorney General of India R Venkataramani opposed the petition and said that the petitioner was only a “name-lender”, adding that there was a huge lobby. The AG further said the E20 policy was benefiting the nation’s sugarcane farmers and saving foreign exchange.

SC dismisses PIL against E20 petrol; AG says petitioner only a ‘name-lender’ for huge lobby

The Supreme Court on Friday rapped the political parties over their inaction in assisting the people of Bihar who were left out of the draft electoral rolls during the special intensive revision (SIR) in filing claims and objections. The top court expressed surprise at the lack of involvement by political parties in correcting names of voters deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. &nbsp;The apex court’s remarks came after the Election Commission said none of the major political parties in Bihar filed any objections over the draft rolls.The top court also said that claim forms can be submitted along with Aadhaar card or any other 11 acceptable documents.&nbsp;The top court expressed surprise after the poll body said Bihar had over 1.68 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) of political parties, but only two objections have been filed so far despite vehement criticism by the opposition. Around 65 lakh voters have been dropped from the draft electoral rolls published by the ECI on August 1.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-vote-theft-allegations-insult-of-the-constitution-cec-refutes-oppn-s-charge-of-bias-in-bihar-s-sir-1755423718094">‘Vote theft allegations an insult, few leaders misleading voters:’ CEC refutes Oppn’s charge of bias</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi resumed hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise. The petitions were filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam.&nbsp;“All 12 political parties in Bihar shall issue specific directions to party workers to assist people in filing and submission of requisite forms with any 11 documents in Form 6 or Aadhaar card,” the bench said.&nbsp;Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-should-we-share-videos-of-mothers-sisters-here-s-why-ec-is-refusing-to-share-cctv-footage-amid-rahul-gandhi-s-vote-chori-charge-1755430017254">‘Should we share videos of mothers, sisters?’: Here's why EC is refusing to share CCTV footage amid Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote&nbsp;chori’&nbsp;charge</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;“We will allow online submission of claims of deleted voters with Aadhaar card or any other acceptable documents for Bihar SIR,” said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.&nbsp;“All the political parties shall file the status report by the next date of hearing on the claim form they had facilitated in filing by excluded voters,” the bench added and posted the matter for hearing on September 8.&nbsp;&nbsp;During the hearing, the Election Commission informed the court that while 85,000 new voters had been added in the ongoing revision, only two objections had been filed by booth-level agents of political parties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-stop-false-narrative-and-give-proof-election-commission-slams-rahul-gandhi-over-voter-fraud-claims-1755168179147">'Stop false narrative and give proof’: Election Commission slams Rahul Gandhi over 'voter fraud' claims</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;On August 14, the Election Commission uploaded details of 65 lakh deleted voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls on district magistrates’ websites, following a Supreme Court order.&nbsp;Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had said at a press conference that Electoral Registration Officers and Booth Level Officers bear responsibility for the accuracy of rolls, which are shared digitally and physically with parties and the public. Draft rolls in Bihar, published on August 1, remain open for claims and objections until September 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-vote-theft-row-escalates-leader-of-opposition-rahul-gandhi-election-commission-trade-fire-1755532732108/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-vote-theft-row-escalates-leader-of-opposition-rahul-gandhi-election-commission-trade-fire-1755532732108/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Defending the exercise, Kumar said it was a “matter of grave concern” that some parties were spreading “misinformation”, stressing that India’s election system is a “multi-layered, decentralised construct as envisaged by law.”&nbsp;In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court said it could set aside the results of the special intensive revision if illegality was proven. The hearing will continue, with the final rolls due on September 30.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise after the Election Commission said that Bihar has over 1.68 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) of political parties, but only two objections have been filed so far despite vehement criticism of the electoral roll revision by the opposition.

The Supreme Court on Friday rapped the political parties over their inaction in assisting the people of Bihar who were left out of the draft electoral rolls during the special intensive revision (SIR) in filing claims and objections. The top court expressed surprise at the lack of involvement by political parties in correcting names of voters deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The apex court’s remarks came after the Election Commission said none of the major political parties in Bihar filed any objections over the draft rolls. The top court also said that claim forms can be submitted along with Aadhaar card or any other 11 acceptable documents. The top court expressed surprise after the poll body said Bihar had over 1.68 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) of political parties, but only two objections have been filed so far despite vehement criticism by the opposition. Around 65 lakh voters have been dropped from the draft electoral rolls published by the ECI on August 1. Also Read: ‘Vote theft allegations an insult, few leaders misleading voters:’ CEC refutes Oppn’s charge of bias The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi resumed hearing a batch of petitions challenging the SIR exercise. The petitions were filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and former Bihar MLA Mujahid Alam. “All 12 political parties in Bihar shall issue specific directions to party workers to assist people in filing and submission of requisite forms with any 11 documents in Form 6 or Aadhaar card,” the bench said. Also Read: ‘Should we share videos of mothers, sisters?’: Here's why EC is refusing to share CCTV footage amid Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ charge “We will allow online submission of claims of deleted voters with Aadhaar card or any other acceptable documents for Bihar SIR,” said the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. “All the political parties shall file the status report by the next date of hearing on the claim form they had facilitated in filing by excluded voters,” the bench added and posted the matter for hearing on September 8. During the hearing, the Election Commission informed the court that while 85,000 new voters had been added in the ongoing revision, only two objections had been filed by booth-level agents of political parties. Also Read: 'Stop false narrative and give proof’: Election Commission slams Rahul Gandhi over 'voter fraud' claims On August 14, the Election Commission uploaded details of 65 lakh deleted voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls on district magistrates’ websites, following a Supreme Court order. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had said at a press conference that Electoral Registration Officers and Booth Level Officers bear responsibility for the accuracy of rolls, which are shared digitally and physically with parties and the public. Draft rolls in Bihar, published on August 1, remain open for claims and objections until September 1. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-vote-theft-row-escalates-leader-of-opposition-rahul-gandhi-election-commission-trade-fire-1755532732108/embed Defending the exercise, Kumar said it was a “matter of grave concern” that some parties were spreading “misinformation”, stressing that India’s election system is a “multi-layered, decentralised construct as envisaged by law.” In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court said it could set aside the results of the special intensive revision if illegality was proven. The hearing will continue, with the final rolls due on September 30.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise after the Election Commission said that Bihar has over 1.68 lakh booth-level agents (BLAs) of political parties, but only two objections have been filed so far despite vehement criticism of the electoral roll revision by the opposition.

Supreme Court raps parties for ‘inaction’ over missing Bihar voters, tells EC to accept Aadhaar or any 11 documents

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18) agreed to hear on August 22 the dispute between the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) over the future of the Indian Super League (ISL), following the non-renewal of contracts that has left 11 clubs facing uncertainty. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar listed the plea after amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that FSDL must honour its contract to conduct the ISL during the agreement period.&nbsp;"If it does not, the AIFF should be directed to terminate the contract and float a tender. Otherwise the players suffer and after repeated non-payment, we can be sanctioned by the FIFA," Sankaranarayanan said. The crisis stems from FSDL’s decision on July 11 to place the 2025-26 ISL season “on hold”, citing uncertainty over the renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) with AIFF. The move has already led at least three clubs to pause first-team operations or suspend salaries.&nbsp;Last week, the 11 ISL clubs — including Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC and Mohammedan Sporting — wrote to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey warning that they face “the real possibility of shutting down entirely.”&nbsp;Traditional giants Mohun Bagan Super Giant and East Bengal did not sign the letter. The clubs said the deadlock has “paralysed professional football in India” and threatens to undo over a decade of investment in youth development, infrastructure, and community outreach.&nbsp;"Over the past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes and professional teams that have elevated India's footballing credibility both domestically and internationally," the clubs wrote in the letter. "This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse. The current standstill has created immediate and severe consequences. With operations suspended and no certainty on league continuity, several clubs face the real possibility of shutting down entirely," they said. &nbsp;Meanwhile, the larger issue of governance in Indian football remains pending. On April 30, the top court reserved its verdict on the draft AIFF constitution prepared by former judge L Nageswara Rao.<h2>The draft proposes sweeping reforms, including:</h2><ul><li>A maximum of 12 years in office (two consecutive four-year terms, with a mandatory four-year cooling-off after eight years),</li><li>An age cap of 70 years for office-bearers</li><li>An executive committee of 14 members, including five eminent players (two women)</li><li>Provision for no-confidence motions to remove office-bearers, including the president</li><li>The Supreme Court will take up the ISL crisis on Friday (August 22)</li></ul>

Supreme Court to hear ISL clubs’ plea on August 22 as Indian football faces existential crisis

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18) agreed to hear on August 22 the dispute between the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) over the future of the Indian Super League (ISL), following the non-renewal of contracts that has left 11 clubs facing uncertainty. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar listed the plea after amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that FSDL must honour its contract to conduct the ISL during the agreement period. "If it does not, the AIFF should be directed to terminate the contract and float a tender. Otherwise the players suffer and after repeated non-payment, we can be sanctioned by the FIFA," Sankaranarayanan said. The crisis stems from FSDL’s decision on July 11 to place the 2025-26 ISL season “on hold”, citing uncertainty over the renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) with AIFF. The move has already led at least three clubs to pause first-team operations or suspend salaries. Last week, the 11 ISL clubs — including Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC and Mohammedan Sporting — wrote to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey warning that they face “the real possibility of shutting down entirely.” Traditional giants Mohun Bagan Super Giant and East Bengal did not sign the letter. The clubs said the deadlock has “paralysed professional football in India” and threatens to undo over a decade of investment in youth development, infrastructure, and community outreach. "Over the past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes and professional teams that have elevated India's footballing credibility both domestically and internationally," the clubs wrote in the letter. "This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse. The current standstill has created immediate and severe consequences. With operations suspended and no certainty on league continuity, several clubs face the real possibility of shutting down entirely," they said. Meanwhile, the larger issue of governance in Indian football remains pending. On April 30, the top court reserved its verdict on the draft AIFF constitution prepared by former judge L Nageswara Rao. The draft proposes sweeping reforms, including: A maximum of 12 years in office (two consecutive four-year terms, with a mandatory four-year cooling-off after eight years), An age cap of 70 years for office-bearers An executive committee of 14 members, including five eminent players (two women) Provision for no-confidence motions to remove office-bearers, including the president The Supreme Court will take up the ISL crisis on Friday (August 22)

The clubs wrote a letter to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey last week, saying the crisis arising out of the non-renewal of the Master Rights Agreement between the national federation and the ISL organisers, FSDL, has ‘paralysed professional football in India’

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India will re-examine the court's previous order in which&nbsp;it had asked the authorities in Delhi to place all stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) inside shelters. The order has triggered a furore among animal lovers, with many questioning the feasibility of putting all such dogs in captivity, especially&nbsp;in the absence of such facilities in the national capital.&nbsp;A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the case on Thursday. The bench will comprise Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, reported Live Law.&nbsp;Earlier today, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that the Supreme Court would "look into the matter".&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amid-raging-dog-debate-karnataka-mlc-s-boast-got-2500-killed-1755089583521">Also read: Amid raging dog debate, Karnataka MLC's boast: ‘Got 2500 killed’</a>&nbsp;On Tuesday, BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi said that there were no such shelters in the national capital. She also claimed that creating this infrastructure may require Rs 15000 crore. She said that in the absence of stray dogs, canines from neighbouring states will flood Delhi.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-blanket-removals-are-cruel-rahul-gandhi-backs-stray-dogs-after-supreme-court-s-order-1754981921090">Also read: 'Blanket removals are cruel': Rahul Gandhi backs stray dogs after Supreme Court's order</a>&nbsp;Congress MP Rahul Gandhi also criticized&nbsp;the Supreme Court's directive, saying stray dogs weren't a problem that could be erased.&nbsp;Today, CJI BR Gavai said the court would examine the issue of dog relocation after an advocate raised the matter.&nbsp;Gandhi today said that the order to remove stray dogs wasn't good.&nbsp;"We are very hopeful. The order was so bad, and there has been a lot of chaos over it for the past two days...I don't think Justice Pardiwala would have thought that the media would work intelligently; he must have thought that his word was the last. But the media questioned it...The order was rubbish, and everyone knew that it could not be done," she said.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India will re-examine the court's previous order in which it had asked the authorities in Delhi to place all stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) inside shelters.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India will re-examine the court's previous order in which it had asked the authorities in Delhi to place all stray dogs in the National Capital Region (NCR) inside shelters. The order has triggered a furore among animal lovers, with many questioning the feasibility of putting all such dogs in captivity, especially in the absence of such facilities in the national capital. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the case on Thursday. The bench will comprise Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, reported Live Law. Earlier today, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that the Supreme Court would "look into the matter". Also read: Amid raging dog debate, Karnataka MLC's boast: ‘Got 2500 killed’ On Tuesday, BJP leader and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi said that there were no such shelters in the national capital. She also claimed that creating this infrastructure may require Rs 15000 crore. She said that in the absence of stray dogs, canines from neighbouring states will flood Delhi. Also read: 'Blanket removals are cruel': Rahul Gandhi backs stray dogs after Supreme Court's order Congress MP Rahul Gandhi also criticized the Supreme Court's directive, saying stray dogs weren't a problem that could be erased. Today, CJI BR Gavai said the court would examine the issue of dog relocation after an advocate raised the matter. Gandhi today said that the order to remove stray dogs wasn't good. "We are very hopeful. The order was so bad, and there has been a lot of chaos over it for the past two days...I don't think Justice Pardiwala would have thought that the media would work intelligently; he must have thought that his word was the last. But the media questioned it...The order was rubbish, and everyone knew that it could not be done," she said.

Delhi stray dog matter: A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria will hear the case.

3-judge Supreme Court bench to examine Delhi stray dog matter tomorrow

The Supreme Court has ordered the release of all convicts languishing in jail despite completing their said jail term. State governments and&nbsp;Union Territories (UTs) across India have been asked to take note and expedite the process accordingly. On July 29, Justices&nbsp;BV Nagarathna&nbsp;and&nbsp;KV Viswanathan in a judgement ordered authorities to check if there were any convicts who continued to be in jail even after completing their sentence. And if any such person was found, they should be released, said the apex court.&nbsp;The court order read: “Copy of this order should be circulated by the Registry of the Court to the home Secretaries of all states and UTs to ascertain whether any accused or convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence. If so, issue directions for the release of such convicts if not wanted in any other cases.”

The Supreme Court has ordered the release of all convicts languishing in jail despite completing their said jail term. 

The Supreme Court has ordered the release of all convicts languishing in jail despite completing their said jail term. State governments and Union Territories (UTs) across India have been asked to take note and expedite the process accordingly. On July 29, Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan in a judgement ordered authorities to check if there were any convicts who continued to be in jail even after completing their sentence. And if any such person was found, they should be released, said the apex court. The court order read: “Copy of this order should be circulated by the Registry of the Court to the home Secretaries of all states and UTs to ascertain whether any accused or convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence. If so, issue directions for the release of such convicts if not wanted in any other cases.”

The Supreme Court has ordered the release of all convicts languishing in jail despite completing their said jail term.&nbsp;

Release convicts languishing in jail beyond their sentence: Supreme Court to state governments

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday (Aug 13) said that he would look into the Supreme Court order banning stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR. The CJI's reassurance comes amid uproar over the Indian top court's Monday order that gave concerned authorities the task of picking up thousands of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks and housing them in dedicated dog shelters, which are yet to be set up. The CJI's statement, made two days after the SC order, comes as a ray of hope for animal activists who, for the past couple of days, have been flagging that the action ordered by the SC was, in fact, unlawful.<h2>What did CJI Gavai say?</h2>On Wednesday, the issue of the street dog relocation order was raised before the CJI. He was also made aware of the fact that a previous court order bars the relocation and killing of stray dogs in India. The counsel, as per reports, pointed out a May 2024 order issued by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari, which observed that "Exhibiting compassion to all living beings is a Constitutional value."In response, fanning the hopes of thousands of animal lovers and activists around the nation, the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of India said, "I will look into this".<h2>What did the Supreme Court say in its controversial order on Street dogs?</h2>On Monday (Aug 11), the Supreme Court of India, taking suo motu cognisance of the stray dog population in Delhi-NCR, directed authorities to begin removing street dogs from all localities. They have been asked to catch stray dogs and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic bodies. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that all localities should be made free of stray dogs and there should not be any compromise. It also instructed that no captured animal will be released back on the streets. The Supreme Court justices also ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. "If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance," said Justice Pardiwala.

‘Will look into it’: Chief Justice of India responds to uproar over Supreme Court's Delhi-NCR stray dog ban

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday (Aug 13) said that he would look into the Supreme Court order banning stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR. The CJI's reassurance comes amid uproar over the Indian top court's Monday order that gave concerned authorities the task of picking up thousands of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks and housing them in dedicated dog shelters, which are yet to be set up. The CJI's statement, made two days after the SC order, comes as a ray of hope for animal activists who, for the past couple of days, have been flagging that the action ordered by the SC was, in fact, unlawful. What did CJI Gavai say? On Wednesday, the issue of the street dog relocation order was raised before the CJI. He was also made aware of the fact that a previous court order bars the relocation and killing of stray dogs in India. The counsel, as per reports, pointed out a May 2024 order issued by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari, which observed that "Exhibiting compassion to all living beings is a Constitutional value." In response, fanning the hopes of thousands of animal lovers and activists around the nation, the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of India said, "I will look into this". What did the Supreme Court say in its controversial order on Street dogs? On Monday (Aug 11), the Supreme Court of India, taking suo motu cognisance of the stray dog population in Delhi-NCR, directed authorities to begin removing street dogs from all localities. They have been asked to catch stray dogs and house them in dedicated dog shelters to be set up by civic bodies. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that all localities should be made free of stray dogs and there should not be any compromise. It also instructed that no captured animal will be released back on the streets. The Supreme Court justices also ordered contempt proceedings against any individual or organisation that attempts to obstruct the authorities from carrying out the capture drive. "If any individual or organisation comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance," said Justice Pardiwala.

‘Will look into it’: Chief Justice of India responds to uproar over Supreme Court's Delhi-NCR stray dog ban

As the Supreme Court passed an order to move stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters, many have voiced their opinion on the judgement passed by the Bench on Monday (August 11). The apex court has given authorities 8 weeks to create and move all dogs to shelters. It has also warned against sterilising and releasing them back into the localities. As the suo moto case was being heard, the Bench mentioned legal action would be taken against those obstructing the court’s orders. This case was heard amid rising cases of dog-biting incidents. Many have raised questions about ABC (Animal Birth Control) initiatives.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-unscientific-never-worked-peta-slams-sc-order-for-removal-of-1-million-stray-dogs-in-delhi-ncr-1754909835698">‘Unscientific, NEVER worked’: PETA slams SC order to remove stray dogs in Delhi</a> Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta said, “The people of Delhi had been troubled for quite some time now on this issue. This problem had taken a formidable form and is now standing before Delhi, and providing a solution is very important. We will prepare a proper plan on this issue."

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | On SC order to move all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelter in 8 weeks, Delhi CM Rekha Gupta says, &quot; The people of Delhi had been troubled for quite some time now on this issue. This problem had taken a formidable form and is now standing before Delhi, and providing a… <a href="https://t.co/Y0DhLRvxVY">pic.twitter.com/Y0DhLRvxVY</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1954862088389808200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram also weighed in on the matter, he posted on X, “The Supreme Court's directions on stray dogs must be implemented in every city and town It is not difficult to round up stray dogs and put them in proper dog shelters All that a town needs is government or municipal land on the outskirts of a town; levelling the land and fencing it; and putting the dogs in the enclosed space Of course, provisions must be made for food and water There are cost-effective ways to find the food and water for the dogs ABC methods must and can be thought of in due course, but the first task is to round up the stray dogs and put them in a protected place Streets must be free and safe for all people especially children and elderly people.”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The Supreme Court&#39;s directions on stray dogs must be implemented in every city and town It is not difficult to round up stray dogs and put them in proper dog shelters All that a town needs is government or municipal land on the outskirts of a town; levelling the land and…&mdash; P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) <a href="https://twitter.com/PChidambaram_IN/status/1954812642373382549?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>The Internet is divided:</h2>&nbsp;X user Manish wrote, “Supreme Court has done severe injustice with today's order on stray dogs, it literally acting as if we are living in an autocratic country and not a democratic one. Personal interests seemed to have taken precedence over justice. From a compassionate country we are going in the direction of becoming ruthless China.”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Supreme court has done severe injustice with today&#39;s order on stray dogs, it literally acting as if we are living in a autocratic country and not a democratic one. Personal interests seemed to have taken precedence over justice. From a compassionate country we are going in the… <a href="https://t.co/4ZUQ3zOPru">pic.twitter.com/4ZUQ3zOPru</a>&mdash; Manish🇮🇳 (@manibhaii16) <a href="https://twitter.com/manibhaii16/status/1954799483352478045?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Another asked, “BUT how well will all those dogs be taken care of in those shelters? Will the Indian local government euthanise many of them just to get rid of them?”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">BUT how well will all those dogs be taken care of in those shelters? Will the Indian local govt euthanise many of them just to get rid of them?? Those facilities and their workers should be extremely carefully monitored&mdash; FutureisMars (@FutureisMars) <a href="https://twitter.com/FutureisMars/status/1954820249540288897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Then came the poignant questions: “Indian courts have again showed that they pass judgements without understanding the issue. Judges want 5000 dogs to be put in shelters in 8 weeks. Do they understand how much land is required for such shelters? And how much upkeep is required to ensure hygiene and medical care even for a shelter for 20-30 dogs?”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">indian courts have again showed that they pass judgements without understanding issue judges want 5000 dogs to be put in shelter in 8 weeks .do thy understand how much land is required to for such shelters. and how much upkeep is required to ensure hygience and medical care even…&mdash; nitin (@0502nitin) <a href="https://twitter.com/0502nitin/status/1954825506978746679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>The court's judgement simplified:</h2>&nbsp;<ul><li>Stray dogs will be picked up from all localities in Delhi-NCR.</li><li>Any person or activist obstructing the Supreme Court's orders will face legal action.</li><li>The Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) have 2 months to create shelters for the stray dogs.</li><li>The Bench has clarified that no dog will be sterilised and re-released in the same locality.</li><li>A helpline to report cases of dog bites should be made functional within a week.</li><li>The public should be made aware of where rabies vaccines are available; details should be published.</li></ul>

As the Supreme Court passed an order to move stray dog in Delhi-NCR to shelters, many have voiced their opinion on the judgement passed by the Bench on Monday (August 11). 

As the Supreme Court passed an order to move stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters, many have voiced their opinion on the judgement passed by the Bench on Monday (August 11). The apex court has given authorities 8 weeks to create and move all dogs to shelters. It has also warned against sterilising and releasing them back into the localities. As the suo moto case was being heard, the Bench mentioned legal action would be taken against those obstructing the court’s orders. This case was heard amid rising cases of dog-biting incidents. Many have raised questions about ABC (Animal Birth Control) initiatives. Also read: ‘Unscientific, NEVER worked’: PETA slams SC order to remove stray dogs in Delhi Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta said, “The people of Delhi had been troubled for quite some time now on this issue. This problem had taken a formidable form and is now standing before Delhi, and providing a solution is very important. We will prepare a proper plan on this issue."

As the Supreme Court passed an order to move stray dog in Delhi-NCR to shelters, many have voiced their opinion on the judgement passed by the Bench on Monday (August 11).&nbsp;

What about upkeep, will they be euthanised?: Internet divided on Supreme Court's judgement on moving stray dogs to shelters

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik to respond to the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) appeal seeking to enhance his life sentence to the death penalty in a 2017 terror funding case. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Shalinder Kaur granted Malik four weeks to file his reply and scheduled the next hearing for November 10. During proceedings, NIA's special counsel, Advocate Akshai Malik, cited a previous court order dated August 9, 2024, in which Yasin Malik had stated his intention to represent himself. That order also mandated his appearance via video conferencing due to security concerns. However, Malik failed to appear virtually at the latest hearing, prompting the bench to reiterate its directive for his online presence at the next session. In 2022, Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The trial court ruled that the case did not meet the Supreme Court's "rarest of rare" threshold for capital punishment. Malik's claim of leading a non-violent, Gandhian-style movement was also rejected. The NIA's case, filed in 2017, accused Malik and others of conspiring with Pakistan-based terrorist groups to foment unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. In March 2022, charges were framed against Malik and several co-accused, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Shabbir Ahmad Shah, Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin, Rashid Engineer, Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Shahid-ul-Islam, Altaf Ahmad Shah (alias Fantoosh), Nayeem Khan and Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias Bitta Karate). Three individuals, Kamran Yusuf, Javed Ahmad Bhatt, and Syeda Aasiya Firdous Andrabi, were discharged from the case. In a related development, a UAPA Tribunal led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court recently upheld the Union Home Ministry's decision to extend the ban on the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) for another five years. Originally imposed in 2019, the ban was renewed on March 15, 2024. The tribunal emphasised that "no tolerance" should be shown toward organisations that openly advocate secessionism. The tribunal's findings challenged Malik's assertion that he abandoned armed resistance in 1994. Evidence presented included his alleged visits to terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and his involvement in mobilising illegal funds for violent activities and protests in the Kashmir Valley. The NIA's 2018 charge sheet also outlined a leadership hierarchy within the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), identifying SAS Geelani, Malik, and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq as key figures under the "Joint Resistance Leadership" banner.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.&nbsp;

In 2022, Kashmiri separatist leader Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik to respond to the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) appeal seeking to enhance his life sentence to the death penalty in a 2017 terror funding case. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Shalinder Kaur granted Malik four weeks to file his reply and scheduled the next hearing for November 10. During proceedings, NIA's special counsel, Advocate Akshai Malik, cited a previous court order dated August 9, 2024, in which Yasin Malik had stated his intention to represent himself. That order also mandated his appearance via video conferencing due to security concerns. However, Malik failed to appear virtually at the latest hearing, prompting the bench to reiterate its directive for his online presence at the next session. In 2022, Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The trial court ruled that the case did not meet the Supreme Court's "rarest of rare" threshold for capital punishment. Malik's claim of leading a non-violent, Gandhian-style movement was also rejected. The NIA's case, filed in 2017, accused Malik and others of conspiring with Pakistan-based terrorist groups to foment unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. In March 2022, charges were framed against Malik and several co-accused, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Shabbir Ahmad Shah, Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin, Rashid Engineer, Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Shahid-ul-Islam, Altaf Ahmad Shah (alias Fantoosh), Nayeem Khan and Farooq Ahmad Dar (alias Bitta Karate). Three individuals, Kamran Yusuf, Javed Ahmad Bhatt, and Syeda Aasiya Firdous Andrabi, were discharged from the case. In a related development, a UAPA Tribunal led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court recently upheld the Union Home Ministry's decision to extend the ban on the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) for another five years. Originally imposed in 2019, the ban was renewed on March 15, 2024. The tribunal emphasised that "no tolerance" should be shown toward organisations that openly advocate secessionism. The tribunal's findings challenged Malik's assertion that he abandoned armed resistance in 1994. Evidence presented included his alleged visits to terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and his involvement in mobilising illegal funds for violent activities and protests in the Kashmir Valley. The NIA's 2018 charge sheet also outlined a leadership hierarchy within the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), identifying SAS Geelani, Malik, and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq as key figures under the "Joint Resistance Leadership" banner. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In 2022, Kashmiri separatist leader Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Terror funding case: Delhi High Court seeks Yasin Malik's response in NIA's death penalty appeal

After the Supreme Court of India ordered the removal of stray dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR, animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India has slammed the top court’s directive, calling the move “unscientific”, adding that it will cause uproar in communities and chaos and suffering for the dogs. The group said that the move is not only “cruel” but “displacement has NEVER worked.”&nbsp;Earlier on Monday (Aug 11), the top court passed a directive for authorities in Delhi NCR to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and move them to dog shelters. The court also warned of legal consequences against any individual or organisation that tries to obstruct the authorities from picking up stray dogs. In its order, the court said that the “situation is extremely grim.” It added, “Immediate steps need to be taken to take care of the menace of dog bites leading to rabies.”&nbsp;Responding to the Supreme Court ruling, PETA India said in a statement on Monday (Aug 11), “Communities think of neighbourhood dogs as family, and the displacement and jailing of dogs is not scientific and has NEVER worked.”&nbsp;&nbsp;It added, “Per a population survey conducted in 2022-23, Delhi has around 10 lakh community dogs, with less than half sterilised. Forced removal of some 10 lakh community dogs from Delhi's streets will cause uproar in communities that care deeply for them and chaos and suffering for the dogs on a large scale.”&nbsp;The statement further added that it will ultimately do nothing to curb the dog population, reduce rabies, or prevent dog bite incidents in the city. PETA further explained that it is not feasible to build enough shelters for dogs. It added that displacing dogs can result in territorial fights and lead to problems like starvation.&nbsp;“Ultimately, dogs make their way back into the same territories, especially when puppies continue to be born. That’s why, the government has required that community dogs be sterilised since 2001-a procedure which calms them-and during which time they are also vaccinated against rabies.”&nbsp;PETA also criticised the Delhi government for failing to implement an effective dog sterilisation program, saying that if they had, there would be hardly any dogs on the road today. It added, “it would not be too late to start implementing an effective sterilisation program now. Instead of wasting time, effort, and public resources on ineffective and inhumane displacement drives, an effective sterilisation program is still the solution and urgent need.”&nbsp;It also recommended other important efforts, including “a closure of illegal pet shops and breeders that contribute to animal abandonment, and encouraging the public to take in a dog in need from an animal shelter or the street.” &nbsp;

PETA India has slammed the Supreme Court order directing the removal of stray dogs from Delhi NCR, saying it is “unscientific”, adding that “displacement has NEVER worked.”

After the Supreme Court of India ordered the removal of stray dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR, animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India has slammed the top court’s directive, calling the move “unscientific”, adding that it will cause uproar in communities and chaos and suffering for the dogs. The group said that the move is not only “cruel” but “displacement has NEVER worked.” Earlier on Monday (Aug 11), the top court passed a directive for authorities in Delhi NCR to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and move them to dog shelters. The court also warned of legal consequences against any individual or organisation that tries to obstruct the authorities from picking up stray dogs. In its order, the court said that the “situation is extremely grim.” It added, “Immediate steps need to be taken to take care of the menace of dog bites leading to rabies.” Responding to the Supreme Court ruling, PETA India said in a statement on Monday (Aug 11), “Communities think of neighbourhood dogs as family, and the displacement and jailing of dogs is not scientific and has NEVER worked.” It added, “Per a population survey conducted in 2022-23, Delhi has around 10 lakh community dogs, with less than half sterilised. Forced removal of some 10 lakh community dogs from Delhi's streets will cause uproar in communities that care deeply for them and chaos and suffering for the dogs on a large scale.” The statement further added that it will ultimately do nothing to curb the dog population, reduce rabies, or prevent dog bite incidents in the city. PETA further explained that it is not feasible to build enough shelters for dogs. It added that displacing dogs can result in territorial fights and lead to problems like starvation. “Ultimately, dogs make their way back into the same territories, especially when puppies continue to be born. That’s why, the government has required that community dogs be sterilised since 2001-a procedure which calms them-and during which time they are also vaccinated against rabies.” PETA also criticised the Delhi government for failing to implement an effective dog sterilisation program, saying that if they had, there would be hardly any dogs on the road today. It added, “it would not be too late to start implementing an effective sterilisation program now. Instead of wasting time, effort, and public resources on ineffective and inhumane displacement drives, an effective sterilisation program is still the solution and urgent need.” It also recommended other important efforts, including “a closure of illegal pet shops and breeders that contribute to animal abandonment, and encouraging the public to take in a dog in need from an animal shelter or the street.”

PETA India has slammed the Supreme Court order directing the removal of stray dogs from Delhi NCR, saying it is “unscientific”, adding that “displacement has NEVER worked.”

‘Unscientific, NEVER worked’: PETA slams SC order for removal of 1 million stray dogs in Delhi NCR

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the recent and recurring episodes of stray dogs biting people, including children and infants. On Monday (August 11), the apex court ordered authorities to pick up dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR and also noted legal action will be taken against those hindering the process. The Bench said, “If any individual or organisation that comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance.”&nbsp;The court noted that the order has been passed in public interest amid rising cases of pertaining to bites and attacks by stray dogs. Court asked, “All these animal activists, will they be able bring back who have fallen prey to rabies."&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/football-isl-clubs-issue-ultimatum-to-aiff-ask-to-move-to-supreme-court-amid-league-s-uncertain-future-1754714716528">ISL clubs issue ultimatum to AIFF, ask to move to Supreme Court amid league's uncertain future</a>&nbsp;Further added, “We are not doing this for us—it is for the public interest. So no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest. Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to far-off places.”&nbsp;Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, hearing the suo moto case, was stern on their stands that no dog should be sterilised and released back into the localities. “Whether sterilised or not sterilised, society should be free from stray dogs. You should not find a single stray dog moving around in any locality of the city or in the outskirts. It's the first step. We have noticed one very absurd and unreasonable rule: if you pick up a stray dog from one part, you sterilise the dog and put him at the same place, that is absolutely absurd and doesn't make any sense at all. Why should that stray dog come back to the locality and for what?" the Bench asked.&nbsp;<h2>What will change hereafter:</h2><ul><li>Stray dogs will be picked up from all localities in Delhi-NCR.</li><li>Any person or activist obstructing the Supreme Court's orders will face legal action.</li><li>The Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) have 2 months to create shelters for the stray dogs.</li><li>The Bench has clarified that no dog will be sterilised and re-released in the same locality.</li><li>A helpline to report cases of dog bites should be made functional within a week.</li><li>The public should be made aware of where rabies vaccines are available; details should be published.</li></ul>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 On Monday (August 11), the Supreme Court of India ordered authorities to pick up dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR and also noted legal action will be taken against those hindering the process.

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the recent and recurring episodes of stray dogs biting people, including children and infants. On Monday (August 11), the apex court ordered authorities to pick up dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR and also noted legal action will be taken against those hindering the process. The Bench said, “If any individual or organisation that comes in the way of picking stray dogs or rounding them up, we will proceed to take action against any such resistance.” The court noted that the order has been passed in public interest amid rising cases of pertaining to bites and attacks by stray dogs. Court asked, “All these animal activists, will they be able bring back who have fallen prey to rabies." Also read: ISL clubs issue ultimatum to AIFF, ask to move to Supreme Court amid league's uncertain future Further added, “We are not doing this for us—it is for the public interest. So no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest. Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to far-off places.” Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, hearing the suo moto case, was stern on their stands that no dog should be sterilised and released back into the localities. “Whether sterilised or not sterilised, society should be free from stray dogs. You should not find a single stray dog moving around in any locality of the city or in the outskirts. It's the first step. We have noticed one very absurd and unreasonable rule: if you pick up a stray dog from one part, you sterilise the dog and put him at the same place, that is absolutely absurd and doesn't make any sense at all. Why should that stray dog come back to the locality and for what?" the Bench asked. What will change hereafter: Stray dogs will be picked up from all localities in Delhi-NCR. Any person or activist obstructing the Supreme Court's orders will face legal action. The Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) have 2 months to create shelters for the stray dogs. The Bench has clarified that no dog will be sterilised and re-released in the same locality. A helpline to report cases of dog bites should be made functional within a week. The public should be made aware of where rabies vaccines are available; details should be published.

On Monday (August 11), the Supreme Court of India ordered authorities to pick up dogs from all localities in Delhi NCR and also noted legal action will be taken against those hindering the process.

'Will activists bring back those fallen prey to rabies?': Supreme Court orders all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to be moved to shelters

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission to furnish by August 9 the details of around 65 lakh electors left out from the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar.&nbsp;A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh asked the counsel for the poll panel to furnish the details of deleted voters, the data which has been already shared with the political parties, and give a copy to the NGO, Association For Democratic Reforms.&nbsp;The NGO, which has challenged the June 24 order of the Election Commission directing for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, filed a fresh application seeking direction to the poll panel to publish the names of around 65 lakh deleted voters with the mention whether they are dead, permanently migrated or not considered for any other reason.&nbsp;The bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, that the reason for deletion would come in subsequent time as it is now only a draft list.&nbsp;However, Bhushan contended that some political parties have been given a list of deleted voters but they have not further clarified whether the said voter is dead or migrated.&nbsp;The bench told the ECI's counsel, "We will see every voter likely to be affected and get the required information. You (ECI) file a reply by Saturday and let Mr Bhushan look at it and then we can see what is disclosed and what is not disclosed." Bhushan alleged that 75 percent of voters, who have filled the enumeration form have not furnished any supporting documents mentioned in the list of 11 documents and their names were included on the recommendation of Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the poll panel.&nbsp;The bench said it is commencing hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the June 24 order of the poll panel on August 12 and the NGO can make these averments on that day.&nbsp;Terming the Election Commission a constitutional authority deemed to act in accordance with law, the top court had said on July 29 that it will step in immediately if there is "mass exclusion" in the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar.&nbsp;It had fixed a timeline for considering a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's SIR exercise in Bihar and said the hearing on the issue will be held on August 12 and 13.&nbsp;Earlier, observing there should be "en masse inclusion" instead of "en masse exclusion” in the ongoing SIR exercise of voters' list in poll-bound Bihar, the top court asked the Election Commission to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter ID documents.&nbsp;Underscoring the "presumption of genuineness" of the two documents, the top court also refused to stay the publication of the draft electoral roll in Bihar.&nbsp;The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll on September 30 amid opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote.&nbsp;On August 1, the poll panel came out with the much-anticipated 'draft electoral rolls' in Bihar, enlisting 7.24 crore voters but knocking off more than 65 lakh names, claiming that most of the persons concerned had died or migrated.&nbsp;The draft electoral rolls, prepared as part of the SIR, which has caused much controversy as the exercise was ordered with just a few months left for assembly polls, are available for voters online.&nbsp;The EC has said it was making available printed copies, district-wise, to representatives of political parties so that anomalies, if any, could be flagged during the 'claims and objections' phase, which would continue till September 1 before the 'final rolls' are published.&nbsp;The reasons cited by the EC for non-inclusion of previously registered voters in the draft rolls included death (22.34 lakh), "permanently shifted/absent" (36.28 lakh) and "already enrolled (at more than one places)" (7.01 lakh).&nbsp;The EC affidavit in the top court has justified its ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll on September 30 amid opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Election Commission to furnish by August 9 the details of around 65 lakh electors left out from the draft electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh asked the counsel for the poll panel to furnish the details of deleted voters, the data which has been already shared with the political parties, and give a copy to the NGO, Association For Democratic Reforms. The NGO, which has challenged the June 24 order of the Election Commission directing for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, filed a fresh application seeking direction to the poll panel to publish the names of around 65 lakh deleted voters with the mention whether they are dead, permanently migrated or not considered for any other reason. The bench told advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, that the reason for deletion would come in subsequent time as it is now only a draft list. However, Bhushan contended that some political parties have been given a list of deleted voters but they have not further clarified whether the said voter is dead or migrated. The bench told the ECI's counsel, "We will see every voter likely to be affected and get the required information. You (ECI) file a reply by Saturday and let Mr Bhushan look at it and then we can see what is disclosed and what is not disclosed." Bhushan alleged that 75 percent of voters, who have filled the enumeration form have not furnished any supporting documents mentioned in the list of 11 documents and their names were included on the recommendation of Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the poll panel. The bench said it is commencing hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the June 24 order of the poll panel on August 12 and the NGO can make these averments on that day. Terming the Election Commission a constitutional authority deemed to act in accordance with law, the top court had said on July 29 that it will step in immediately if there is "mass exclusion" in the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. It had fixed a timeline for considering a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's SIR exercise in Bihar and said the hearing on the issue will be held on August 12 and 13. Earlier, observing there should be "en masse inclusion" instead of "en masse exclusion” in the ongoing SIR exercise of voters' list in poll-bound Bihar, the top court asked the Election Commission to continue accepting Aadhaar and voter ID documents. Underscoring the "presumption of genuineness" of the two documents, the top court also refused to stay the publication of the draft electoral roll in Bihar. The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll on September 30 amid opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote. On August 1, the poll panel came out with the much-anticipated 'draft electoral rolls' in Bihar, enlisting 7.24 crore voters but knocking off more than 65 lakh names, claiming that most of the persons concerned had died or migrated. The draft electoral rolls, prepared as part of the SIR, which has caused much controversy as the exercise was ordered with just a few months left for assembly polls, are available for voters online. The EC has said it was making available printed copies, district-wise, to representatives of political parties so that anomalies, if any, could be flagged during the 'claims and objections' phase, which would continue till September 1 before the 'final rolls' are published. The reasons cited by the EC for non-inclusion of previously registered voters in the draft rolls included death (22.34 lakh), "permanently shifted/absent" (36.28 lakh) and "already enrolled (at more than one places)" (7.01 lakh). The EC affidavit in the top court has justified its ongoing SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying it adds to the purity of the election by "weeding out ineligible persons" from the electoral rolls. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The draft roll was published on August 1 and the final roll on September 30 amid opposition claims that the ongoing exercise will deprive crores of eligible citizens from their right to vote.

Supreme Court asks ECI to provide details on reasons for deleting 6.5 million voters from electoral roll

<div id="text-element-with-ad">
Justice BR Gavai, son of politician, doesn't want post-retirement politics:&nbsp; India is set to get its first Buddhist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai takes charge on Wednesday (May 14). Son of RS Gavai, the veteran politician who was former governor of three states, the incoming CJI, however, does not want to take up any political posts post retirement. Here is what you should know about BR Gavai, and his views on various burning issues affecting Indian judiciary.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;<iframe width="600" height="auto" style="width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 4/3;" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" class="external-video publive-iframes-block" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/screenshot/0605_WION_COURT_8AM/00000002.jpg&amp;videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/0605_WION_COURT_8AM.mp4/index.m3u8&amp;duration=111&amp;tags=India, Supreme Court, World News, WION" title="India: Supreme Court publishes full details of judicial appointments" id="PL_iframe_block-mam55fkn-rtunstqe-np1nodnd"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
<h2>Who is Justice Gavai?</h2>
&nbsp;Appointed by President Draupadi Murmu on April 29, Justice Gavai will be taking over as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on May 14.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
He will serve six months as the Supreme Court of India's chief justice, and will retire on November 23.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad"></div>
He was born on November 24, 1960 in a village of Amravati district in the western state of Maharashtra.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
&nbsp;
<h2>Son of veteral politician RS Gavai</h2>
His father Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai, known popularly as Dadasaheb Gavai, was a veteran politician who served as governor of the states of Bihar, Sikkim and Kerala.
As a leader of the Ambedkarite movement, RS Gavai converted to Buddism and founded the Republican Party of India (Gavai). He was earlier the the president of Republican Party of India.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-justice-br-gavai-supreme-court-judge-set-to-take-oath-as-next-chief-justice-of-india-on-may-14-8968418">Who is Justice BR Gavai? Supreme Court judge set to take oath as next Chief Justice of India on May 14</a>
RS Gavai was also a member of both houses of Indian Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, besides serving in the Maharashtra local legislative council for 30 years, including as the leader of opposition.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
&nbsp;
<h2>Justice Gavai's carreer</h2>
 Having joined the bar on 15 March 1985,&nbsp; B R Gavai was the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur, Amravati Municipal Corporation and Amravati University.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/colonel-sofiya-qureshi-who-co-led-operation-sindoor-briefing-was-once-lauded-by-supreme-court-9049044">Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who co-led Operation Sindoor briefing, was once lauded by Supreme Court</a>
From 14 November 2003, Justice Gavai served as additional judge of the Bombay High Court and became a permanent judge on 12 November 2005.&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
<h2>Justice Gavai on politics-judge connections: 'Governor post is below CJI post'</h2>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
Gavai, despite coming from the family of a legendary politician, said he did not hold any wish to join politics after his retirement in November this year.&nbsp;
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
&ldquo;I will not take any post-retirement [political] assignments,&rdquo; Justice Gavai said, asserting that he I did not have any political ambition.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-br-gavai-appointed-as-the-52nd-chief-justice-of-india-9016004">Justice BR Gavai appointed as the 52nd Chief Justice of India</a>
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
He was speaking to journalists in the context of a former Indian chief justice taking up the assignment of a state's governor, which is a political appointment. "I cannot speak on behalf of others,&rdquo;&nbsp; Gavai said, while noting that governor post is below the post of chief justice in protocol.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
However, he did not see anything wrong in judges interacting with politicians, or people from any walk of life.
Poingint out his own recent visit to the northeastern Manipur amid ethnic tensions, Gavai said:&nbsp;&ldquo;As a judge you do not live in ivory towers and unless you meet people from different walks of life, you will not understand the issue afflicting them.&rdquo;
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad"></div>
<h2>On the Pahalgam terror attack</h2>
Justice Gavai convened a full court meeting in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22. He led the meeting as the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was not present.
&ldquo;When the country is in crisis, the Supreme Court cannot remain aloof. We are also part of the nation,&rdquo; Gavai pointed out, adding that the judges were shocked when they heard about the terror strike, which killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-recommends-names-of-justice-gavai-surya-kant-for-elevation-as-apex-court-judges-217172">Supreme Court Collegium recommends names of Justice Gavai, Surya Kant for elevation as apex court judges</a>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
The Supreme Court had issued statement to condole the deaths. &ldquo;After all, we are also responsible citizens of the country and get affected by such incidents&hellip; We are also concerned as citizens. When the whole country is mourning, the Supreme Court cannot remain aloof,&rdquo; he said.&nbsp;
</div>
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
<h2>Parliament is supreme, said Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar. Justice Gavai thinks...</h2>
&nbsp;
Indian Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that Parliament is supreme. But Justice Gavai has a different take on it.
&ldquo;The Constitution is supreme," he was quoted as saying in PTI news agency.&nbsp;
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad"></div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad"></div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad"></div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
Justice Gavai also noted that 21 out of 33 Supreme Court judges have made public the details of their assets, and the remaining ones would be providing details shortly.
</div>
<div id="text-element-with-ad">
Speaking on cash discovery row involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, he said the apex court-appointed committee has indicted him and the issue is referred to President Droupadi Murmu and the prime minister for subsequent action.
</div>

BR Gavai, set to be first Buddhist Chief Justice of India, is the son of a politician but won't take up political posts. He speaks on judiciary and politics.  India News

Justice BR Gavai, son of politician, doesn't want post-retirement politics: India is set to get its first Buddhist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai takes charge on Wednesday (May 14). Son of RS Gavai, the veteran politician who was former governor of three states, the incoming CJI, however, does not want to take up any political posts post retirement. Here is what you should know about BR Gavai, and his views on various burning issues affecting Indian judiciary. Who is Justice Gavai? Appointed by President Draupadi Murmu on April 29, Justice Gavai will be taking over as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on May 14. He will serve six months as the Supreme Court of India's chief justice, and will retire on November 23. He was born on November 24, 1960 in a village of Amravati district in the western state of Maharashtra. Son of veteral politician RS Gavai His father Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai, known popularly as Dadasaheb Gavai, was a veteran politician who served as governor of the states of Bihar, Sikkim and Kerala. As a leader of the Ambedkarite movement, RS Gavai converted to Buddism and founded the Republican Party of India (Gavai). He was earlier the the president of Republican Party of India. Who is Justice BR Gavai? Supreme Court judge set to take oath as next Chief Justice of India on May 14 RS Gavai was also a member of both houses of Indian Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, besides serving in the Maharashtra local legislative council for 30 years, including as the leader of opposition. Justice Gavai's carreer Having joined the bar on 15 March 1985, B R Gavai was the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur, Amravati Municipal Corporation and Amravati University. Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who co-led Operation Sindoor briefing, was once lauded by Supreme Court From 14 November 2003, Justice Gavai served as additional judge of the Bombay High Court and became a permanent judge on 12 November 2005. Justice Gavai on politics-judge connections: 'Governor post is below CJI post' Gavai, despite coming from the family of a legendary politician, said he did not hold any wish to join politics after his retirement in November this year. “I will not take any post-retirement [political] assignments,” Justice Gavai said, asserting that he I did not have any political ambition. Justice BR Gavai appointed as the 52nd Chief Justice of India He was speaking to journalists in the context of a former Indian chief justice taking up the assignment of a state's governor, which is a political appointment. "I cannot speak on behalf of others,” Gavai said, while noting that governor post is below the post of chief justice in protocol. However, he did not see anything wrong in judges interacting with politicians, or people from any walk of life. Poingint out his own recent visit to the northeastern Manipur amid ethnic tensions, Gavai said: “As a judge you do not live in ivory towers and unless you meet people from different walks of life, you will not understand the issue afflicting them.” On the Pahalgam terror attack Justice Gavai convened a full court meeting in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22. He led the meeting as the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was not present. “When the country is in crisis, the Supreme Court cannot remain aloof. We are also part of the nation,” Gavai pointed out, adding that the judges were shocked when they heard about the terror strike, which killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists. Supreme Court Collegium recommends names of Justice Gavai, Surya Kant for elevation as apex court judges The Supreme Court had issued statement to condole the deaths. “After all, we are also responsible citizens of the country and get affected by such incidents… We are also concerned as citizens. When the whole country is mourning, the Supreme Court cannot remain aloof,” he said. Parliament is supreme, said Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar. Justice Gavai thinks... Indian Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had remarked that Parliament is supreme. But Justice Gavai has a different take on it. “The Constitution is supreme," he was quoted as saying in PTI news agency. Justice Gavai also noted that 21 out of 33 Supreme Court judges have made public the details of their assets, and the remaining ones would be providing details shortly. Speaking on cash discovery row involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, he said the apex court-appointed committee has indicted him and the issue is referred to President Droupadi Murmu and the prime minister for subsequent action.

BR Gavai, set to be first Buddhist Chief Justice of India, is the son of a politician but won't take up political posts in future

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on Thursday administered the oath of office to Justice K Vinod Chandran as a judge of the Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Centre cleared the appointment of Justice Chandran to the Apex Court on the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium.
In a post on social media platform X, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal announced that the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), was pleased to appoint Justice K Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as a Supreme Court judge.
Earlier, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the name of Patna High Court Chief Justice Chandran for elevation as a judge of the Apex Court.
"While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that there is no representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court from the High Court of Kerala," said a statement released by SC Collegium.
Justice Chandran was appointed as a judge of the Kerala High Court in November 2011 and was elevated to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on March 29, 2023.
"He has served as a Judge of the High Court for more than 11 years and as a Chief Justice of a big High Court for more than a year. During his long tenure as a Judge and Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr Justice Chandran has acquired significant experience in diverse fields of law," the SC Collegium said.
In its meeting, the apex court Collegium deliberated on and discussed the names of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of the High Courts eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Born on April 25, 1963, Justice Chandran stands at serial no. 13 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges.
He obtained a law degree from Thiruvananthapuram's Kerala Law Academy Law College and started practice in 1991.
Before elevation, he served as Special Government Pleader (Taxes) of the Kerala government from 2007 to 2011.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India news | On Monday, the Centre cleared the appointment of Justice Chandran to the Apex Court on the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on Thursday administered the oath of office to Justice K Vinod Chandran as a judge of the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Centre cleared the appointment of Justice Chandran to the Apex Court on the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium. In a post on social media platform X, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal announced that the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), was pleased to appoint Justice K Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as a Supreme Court judge. Earlier, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the name of Patna High Court Chief Justice Chandran for elevation as a judge of the Apex Court. "While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that there is no representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court from the High Court of Kerala," said a statement released by SC Collegium. Justice Chandran was appointed as a judge of the Kerala High Court in November 2011 and was elevated to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on March 29, 2023. "He has served as a Judge of the High Court for more than 11 years and as a Chief Justice of a big High Court for more than a year. During his long tenure as a Judge and Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr Justice Chandran has acquired significant experience in diverse fields of law," the SC Collegium said. In its meeting, the apex court Collegium deliberated on and discussed the names of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of the High Courts eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court. Born on April 25, 1963, Justice Chandran stands at serial no. 13 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges. He obtained a law degree from Thiruvananthapuram's Kerala Law Academy Law College and started practice in 1991. Before elevation, he served as Special Government Pleader (Taxes) of the Kerala government from 2007 to 2011. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: K Vinod Chandran takes oath as Supreme Court judge

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to examine pleas challenging the delimitation clause in the 2023 Nari Shakti Vandan Act which reserves one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale was not inclined to entertain the petitions filed by one Jaya Thakur and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The bench pointed out Jaya Thakur's petition challenged the bill, which had become the Act, whereas the NFIW challenged the delimitation clause of the law.
While Thakur's plea was dismissed as infructuous, the court was not inclined to examine NFIW's plea under Article 32 saying it could move the high court or any other appropriate forum.
The NFIW challenged the constitutional validity of Article 334A (1) or Clause 5 of the 2023 Act where it rendered delimitation of constituencies a prerequisite to the implementation of the Act.
On November 3, 2023, the top court while hearing Thakur's plea said it would be "very difficult" for the court to strike down a part of the women's reservation law which would come into effect after the census.
It refused to issue a notice on Thakur's plea and asked the counsel for the petitioner to serve the copy on the lawyer representing the Centre.
On September 21, 2023, the watershed bill to reserve one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for women received the parliamentary nod.
The constitutional amendment bill was passed by the Lok Sabha with near unanimity and the Rajya Sabha with unanimity.
The law would take some time before implementation, as the next census and the subsequent delimitation exercise -- redrawing of Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies -- would ascertain the particular seats being earmarked for women.
c
While there was quota within quota for women from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the opposition demanded the benefit to be extended to other backward classes.
There were efforts to pass the bill in Parliament since 1996 and a last such attempt was made in 2010, when Rajya Sabha approved a bill for women's reservation, but it could not be passed in Lok Sabha.
Data showed women MPs account for nearly 15 per cent of the Lok Sabha strength whereas their representation was below 10 per cent in many state assemblies.
On September 29, 2023, President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the bill.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION&nbsp;audience.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to examine pleas challenging the delimitation clause in the 2023 Nari Shakti Vandan Act which reserves one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to examine pleas challenging the delimitation clause in the 2023 Nari Shakti Vandan Act which reserves one-third seats for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and P B Varale was not inclined to entertain the petitions filed by one Jaya Thakur and the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench pointed out Jaya Thakur's petition challenged the bill, which had become the Act, whereas the NFIW challenged the delimitation clause of the law. While Thakur's plea was dismissed as infructuous, the court was not inclined to examine NFIW's plea under Article 32 saying it could move the high court or any other appropriate forum. The NFIW challenged the constitutional validity of Article 334A (1) or Clause 5 of the 2023 Act where it rendered delimitation of constituencies a prerequisite to the implementation of the Act. On November 3, 2023, the top court while hearing Thakur's plea said it would be "very difficult" for the court to strike down a part of the women's reservation law which would come into effect after the census. It refused to issue a notice on Thakur's plea and asked the counsel for the petitioner to serve the copy on the lawyer representing the Centre. On September 21, 2023, the watershed bill to reserve one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies for women received the parliamentary nod. The constitutional amendment bill was passed by the Lok Sabha with near unanimity and the Rajya Sabha with unanimity. The law would take some time before implementation, as the next census and the subsequent delimitation exercise -- redrawing of Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies -- would ascertain the particular seats being earmarked for women. c While there was quota within quota for women from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the opposition demanded the benefit to be extended to other backward classes. There were efforts to pass the bill in Parliament since 1996 and a last such attempt was made in 2010, when Rajya Sabha approved a bill for women's reservation, but it could not be passed in Lok Sabha. Data showed women MPs account for nearly 15 per cent of the Lok Sabha strength whereas their representation was below 10 per cent in many state assemblies. On September 29, 2023, President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the bill. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Indian SC refuses to hear pleas against 2023 Women Reservation Act

Switzerland has unilaterally decided to suspend the most favoured nation (MFN) clause in its Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with India. The move comes after the Supreme Court of India's ruling in the Nestle case. The move is expected to have a significant impact on the operations of Indian companies in Switzerland as well as Swiss investments in India.

<h2>Supreme Court’s ruling</h2>

In a statement released on December 11, the Swiss finance department cited the 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court as the reason to remove India’s MFN status.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwinsO6n2aaKAxURefUHHYwSCuQQxfQBKAB6BAgSEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/evms-not-tempered-when-you-win-supreme-court-rejects-plea-seeking-use-of-ballot-papers-779386" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/evms-not-tempered-when-you-win-supreme-court-rejects-plea-seeking-use-of-ballot-papers-779386&amp;ved=2ahUKEwinsO6n2aaKAxURefUHHYwSCuQQxfQBKAB6BAgSEAE">`EVMs not tampered when you win?` Supreme Court rejects plea seeking use of ballot papers</a>

In its ruling, the top court held that the MFN status between the two nations doesn’t apply automatically when a nation joins the Organisation for Economic Co-operation or OECD, especially when India already has a taxation treaty in place with that country.

<h2>History of the case</h2>

The case stems from Lithuania and Colombia joining the OECD grouping, nations with which India had signed tax agreements. Under the OECD, partner nations offer each other 'more favourable' tax treatment under the MFN clause.

Switzerland on the other hand made this assumption that 5 per cent rate for dividends would apply to the India-Switzerland tax treaty under the MFN clause, instead of the 10 per cent rate mentioned in the bilateral treaty. India’s Supreme Court in its ruling said that prior tax treaty should take precedence and not the MFN clause.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwinsO6n2aaKAxURefUHHYwSCuQQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-reviews-controversial-remarks-on-uniform-civil-code-by-justice-yadav-at-vhp-event-782983" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-reviews-controversial-remarks-on-uniform-civil-code-by-justice-yadav-at-vhp-event-782983&amp;ved=2ahUKEwinsO6n2aaKAxURefUHHYwSCuQQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">Indian Supreme Court reviews controversial remarks on Uniform Civil Code by Justice Yadav at VHP event</a>

In October 2023, while ruling in a case brought against Nestle, the apex court noted that the MFN clause "was not directly applicable in the absence of 'notification' in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act".

Now, in line with the Supreme Court’s order, Switzerland will start levying a 10 per cent tax (instead of the current 5 per cent) on dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities who claim refunds for Swiss withholding tax and for Swiss tax residents who claim foreign tax credits.

(With inputs from agencies)

Switzerland has unilaterally decided to suspend the most favoured nation (MFN) clause in its Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with India. The move comes after the Supreme Court of India's ruling in the Nestle case.

Switzerland has unilaterally decided to suspend the most favoured nation (MFN) clause in its Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with India. The move comes after the Supreme Court of India's ruling in the Nestle case. The move is expected to have a significant impact on the operations of Indian companies in Switzerland as well as Swiss investments in India. Supreme Court’s ruling In a statement released on December 11, the Swiss finance department cited the 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court as the reason to remove India’s MFN status. Also read: `EVMs not tampered when you win?` Supreme Court rejects plea seeking use of ballot papers In its ruling, the top court held that the MFN status between the two nations doesn’t apply automatically when a nation joins the Organisation for Economic Co-operation or OECD, especially when India already has a taxation treaty in place with that country. History of the case The case stems from Lithuania and Colombia joining the OECD grouping, nations with which India had signed tax agreements. Under the OECD, partner nations offer each other 'more favourable' tax treatment under the MFN clause. Switzerland on the other hand made this assumption that 5 per cent rate for dividends would apply to the India-Switzerland tax treaty under the MFN clause, instead of the 10 per cent rate mentioned in the bilateral treaty. India’s Supreme Court in its ruling said that prior tax treaty should take precedence and not the MFN clause. Also read: Indian Supreme Court reviews controversial remarks on Uniform Civil Code by Justice Yadav at VHP event In October 2023, while ruling in a case brought against Nestle, the apex court noted that the MFN clause "was not directly applicable in the absence of 'notification' in accordance with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act". Now, in line with the Supreme Court’s order, Switzerland will start levying a 10 per cent tax (instead of the current 5 per cent) on dividends payable to Indian tax residents and entities who claim refunds for Swiss withholding tax and for Swiss tax residents who claim foreign tax credits. (With inputs from agencies)

Switzerland suspends India’s ‘most favoured nation’ status after SC’s Nestle ruling

The Supreme Court of India listed eight points that are required to be considered while deciding the permanent alimony amount during the hearing of a divorce settlement case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna V Varale laid down the formula amid heated debate in the country around alimony, harassment and extortion by wife and in-laws. The debate was triggered by recent death of a techie from Uttar Pradesh state, who died by suicide after accusing his wife and her family of extortion.

Now, the new formula will work as a go-to guide for all courts in the country while deciding alimony amount in divorce cases.

&nbsp;Here are the eight factors that the Supreme Court of India has listed:

<ol>
	<li>Status of the parties, social and financial</li>
	<li>Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children</li>
	<li>Parties individual qualifications and employment statuses</li>
	<li>Independent income or assets owned by the applicant</li>
	<li>Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home</li>
	<li>Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities</li>
	<li>Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife</li>
	<li>Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities</li>
</ol>

The apex court however clarified that these factors must not be taken as a straight jacket formula' but a "guideline".

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwij_ererKGKAxUXyDgGHVwfKysQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/growing-tendency-to-misuse-section-498a-indian-supreme-court-amid-bengaluru-techies-suicide-783274" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/growing-tendency-to-misuse-section-498a-indian-supreme-court-amid-bengaluru-techies-suicide-783274&amp;ved=2ahUKEwij_ererKGKAxUXyDgGHVwfKysQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">`Growing tendency to misuse Section 498A`: Indian Supreme Court amid Bengaluru techie`s suicide</a>

Citing a previous judgment in the alimony matter (Kiran Jyot Maini v Anish Pramod Patel), the Supreme Court noted that it was “necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony should not penalise the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife."

Meanwhile, in a separate case, the Supreme Court noted Wednesday (Dec 11) that the laws against marital cruelty were increasingly being misused by women, saying the provisions can’t be used as a "personal tool to unleash vendetta".

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwij_ererKGKAxUXyDgGHVwfKysQxfQBKAB6BAgREAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bengaluru-techie-suicide-case-fir-filed-against-atul-subhashs-wife-and-3-others-783182" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bengaluru-techie-suicide-case-fir-filed-against-atul-subhashs-wife-and-3-others-783182&amp;ved=2ahUKEwij_ererKGKAxUXyDgGHVwfKysQxfQBKAB6BAgREAE">Bengaluru Techie Suicide Case: FIR filed against Atul Subhash`s wife and 3 others</a>

The death of the UP techie has sparked a national outrage over the misuse of laws by women in dowry and alimony cases.

(With inputs from agencies)

<a href="https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/11181469">Get help &amp; support for suicide</a>

If you or someone you know wants help for mental well-being, don’t hesitate to talk to a professional. You can contact local authorities and also encourage the person to contact a suicide prevention hotline using the information in the above link. WION is not associated with any of these organisations and does not make any recommendations.

The Supreme Court of India listed eight points that are required to be considered while deciding the permanent alimony amount during the hearing of a divorce settlement case.

The Supreme Court of India listed eight points that are required to be considered while deciding the permanent alimony amount during the hearing of a divorce settlement case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna V Varale laid down the formula amid heated debate in the country around alimony, harassment and extortion by wife and in-laws. The debate was triggered by recent death of a techie from Uttar Pradesh state, who died by suicide after accusing his wife and her family of extortion. Now, the new formula will work as a go-to guide for all courts in the country while deciding alimony amount in divorce cases. Here are the eight factors that the Supreme Court of India has listed: Status of the parties, social and financial Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children Parties individual qualifications and employment statuses Independent income or assets owned by the applicant Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities The apex court however clarified that these factors must not be taken as a straight jacket formula' but a "guideline". Also read: `Growing tendency to misuse Section 498A`: Indian Supreme Court amid Bengaluru techie`s suicide Citing a previous judgment in the alimony matter (Kiran Jyot Maini v Anish Pramod Patel), the Supreme Court noted that it was “necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony should not penalise the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife." Meanwhile, in a separate case, the Supreme Court noted Wednesday (Dec 11) that the laws against marital cruelty were increasingly being misused by women, saying the provisions can’t be used as a "personal tool to unleash vendetta". Also read: Bengaluru Techie Suicide Case: FIR filed against Atul Subhash`s wife and 3 others The death of the UP techie has sparked a national outrage over the misuse of laws by women in dowry and alimony cases. (With inputs from agencies) Get help & support for suicide If you or someone you know wants help for mental well-being, don’t hesitate to talk to a professional. You can contact local authorities and also encourage the person to contact a suicide prevention hotline using the information in the above link. WION is not associated with any of these organisations and does not make any recommendations.

India: SC devises eight-point formula for deciding alimony amid outrage over techie’s death

India’s top court Monday (Dec 9) told the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to do more to create jobs and not over-rely on providing free ration to poor. While hearing a matter related to the Food Security Act (FSA), the Supreme Court of India noted that state governments can abuse the scheme to appease people, knowing very well that it’s the central government that has to foot the bill.

"If the states were asked to provide free ration, many of them would say they cannot, citing financial crunch, and hence the focus should be on generating more employment," the court observed. The court also noted whether states government should be asked to pay for the ration.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjuiKfg8ZyKAxXTi68BHVtPBykQxfQBKAB6BAgPEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/do-you-have-a-better-deal-indias-jaishankar-responds-about-getting-cheap-oil-from-russia-782718" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/do-you-have-a-better-deal-indias-jaishankar-responds-about-getting-cheap-oil-from-russia-782718&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjuiKfg8ZyKAxXTi68BHVtPBykQxfQBKAB6BAgPEAE">Do you have a better deal?: India`s Jaishankar responds on getting `cheap oil` from Russia</a>

The court was hearing a case related to food security of the migrant workers. The apex court had earlier issued a directive that those eligible for food grains and ration cards under the law must receive their cards before Nov 19, 2024. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the central government in the court, said that the Union was providing free ration to over 80 crore (800 million) under the National Food Security Act 2013.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjuiKfg8ZyKAxXTi68BHVtPBykQxfQBKAB6BAgMEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/video-six-dead-in-mumbai-bus-crash-detained-driver-blames-brake-failure-782817" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/video-six-dead-in-mumbai-bus-crash-detained-driver-blames-brake-failure-782817&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjuiKfg8ZyKAxXTi68BHVtPBykQxfQBKAB6BAgMEAE">Video: Six dead in Mumbai bus crash, detained driver blames brake failure</a>

However, Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned that over 20 to 30 million people were left out of the scheme. During the proceedings, Bhushan and Mehta got into a heated exchange. Mehta argued that Bhushan was trying to run the government and frame policies himself. In response, Bhushan said Mehta was making this allegation because he had ‘exposed some emails’ against the Solicitor General which damaged his reputation.

The court will now hear the matter on January 8 next year.

(With inputs from agencies)

India’s top court Monday (Dec 9) told the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to do more to create jobs and not over-rely on providing free ration to poor.

India’s top court Monday (Dec 9) told the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to do more to create jobs and not over-rely on providing free ration to poor. While hearing a matter related to the Food Security Act (FSA), the Supreme Court of India noted that state governments can abuse the scheme to appease people, knowing very well that it’s the central government that has to foot the bill. "If the states were asked to provide free ration, many of them would say they cannot, citing financial crunch, and hence the focus should be on generating more employment," the court observed. The court also noted whether states government should be asked to pay for the ration. Also read: Do you have a better deal?: India`s Jaishankar responds on getting `cheap oil` from Russia The court was hearing a case related to food security of the migrant workers. The apex court had earlier issued a directive that those eligible for food grains and ration cards under the law must receive their cards before Nov 19, 2024. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the central government in the court, said that the Union was providing free ration to over 80 crore (800 million) under the National Food Security Act 2013. Also read: Video: Six dead in Mumbai bus crash, detained driver blames brake failure However, Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned that over 20 to 30 million people were left out of the scheme. During the proceedings, Bhushan and Mehta got into a heated exchange. Mehta argued that Bhushan was trying to run the government and frame policies himself. In response, Bhushan said Mehta was making this allegation because he had ‘exposed some emails’ against the Solicitor General which damaged his reputation. The court will now hear the matter on January 8 next year. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Top court asks Modi govt to create more jobs, not rely on free ration scheme

The Supreme Court of India issued a judgement aimed at limiting the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ on Wednesday (Nov 13). A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued pan-India guidelines on a nationwide scale, setting a standardised process for demolishing properties.

This ruling was issued in response to petitions contesting the use of bulldozers on properties linked to individuals accused of crimes, a practice that has become known as ‘bulldozer justice’ in some Indian states. Officials have previously claimed that only illegal structures were being targeted in these cases. However, many petitioners argued that such actions bypassed legal procedures.

“It is a dream of every person, every family to have a shelter above their heads. A house is an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals' stability and security,” the court’s ruling stated.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jharkhand-assembly-election-kick-start-with-phase-1-polling-along-with-karnataka-bypolls-on-3-seats-775742">Jharkhand assembly election phase 1 polling starts with Karnataka bypolls</a>

<h2>'Construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations'</h2>

“For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench emphasised.

The court raised questions on whether authorities could demolish a home if only one resident faced accusations, effectively leaving others homeless. “Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution,” the bench said.

“Such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law,” the court observed.

"The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible," the court added.

"The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’," the court observed.

<h2>Demolition guidelines</h2>

Using its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid out specific demolition guidelines. It mandated that demolitions cannot proceed without a show cause notice, allowing the recipient 15 days (or the time specified in local laws) to respond.

“It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period,” the court said.

The show cause notice must include details of the alleged unauthorised construction, the specific violation, and the justification for demolition. Authorities are required to allow the accused to present their side before issuing a final order and 15 days will then be granted to allow the property owner to remove the unauthorised construction, with authorities stepping in only if no appeal halts the order.

The bench warned that violations of these guidelines could lead to contempt proceedings. Officers responsible for wrongful demolitions will be held liable for the restoration of the demolished property, with the costs deducted from their salaries.

Furthermore, the court directed all municipal authorities to establish a digital portal within three months, detailing show-cause notices and final orders for illegal structures.

The supreme&nbsp;court added that these directions do not apply to unauthorised structures on public spaces like roads, streets, footpaths, or water bodies, or in cases where a court has issued&nbsp;an&nbsp;order.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India issued a judgement aimed at limiting the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ on Wednesday (Nov 13). A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued pan-India guidelines on a nationwide scale, setting a standardised process for demolishing properties.

The Supreme Court of India issued a judgement aimed at limiting the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ on Wednesday (Nov 13). A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued pan-India guidelines on a nationwide scale, setting a standardised process for demolishing properties. This ruling was issued in response to petitions contesting the use of bulldozers on properties linked to individuals accused of crimes, a practice that has become known as ‘bulldozer justice’ in some Indian states. Officials have previously claimed that only illegal structures were being targeted in these cases. However, many petitioners argued that such actions bypassed legal procedures. “It is a dream of every person, every family to have a shelter above their heads. A house is an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals' stability and security,” the court’s ruling stated. Also read: Jharkhand assembly election phase 1 polling starts with Karnataka bypolls 'Construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations' “For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench emphasised. The court raised questions on whether authorities could demolish a home if only one resident faced accusations, effectively leaving others homeless. “Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution,” the bench said. “Such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law,” the court observed. "The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible," the court added. "The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’," the court observed. Demolition guidelines Using its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid out specific demolition guidelines. It mandated that demolitions cannot proceed without a show cause notice, allowing the recipient 15 days (or the time specified in local laws) to respond. “It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period,” the court said. The show cause notice must include details of the alleged unauthorised construction, the specific violation, and the justification for demolition. Authorities are required to allow the accused to present their side before issuing a final order and 15 days will then be granted to allow the property owner to remove the unauthorised construction, with authorities stepping in only if no appeal halts the order. The bench warned that violations of these guidelines could lead to contempt proceedings. Officers responsible for wrongful demolitions will be held liable for the restoration of the demolished property, with the costs deducted from their salaries. Furthermore, the court directed all municipal authorities to establish a digital portal within three months, detailing show-cause notices and final orders for illegal structures. The supreme court added that these directions do not apply to unauthorised structures on public spaces like roads, streets, footpaths, or water bodies, or in cases where a court has issued an order. (With inputs from agencies)

'Demolition costs to be deducted from officers' salaries,' SC sets guidelines to curb 'bulldozer justice'

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that recruitment rules for appointment in government jobs cannot be changed midway unless it is prescribed. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that ‘rules of the game’ once set before the start of recruitment process cannot be tinkered with midway.

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that recruitment rules for appointment in government jobs cannot be changed midway unless it is prescribed. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that ‘rules of the game’ once set before the start of recruitment process cannot be tinkered with midway. Also read: Canada censors Australia Today, India blasts Canada's 'hypocrisy' The selection rules should not be arbitrary and be in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, the bench also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra said. The top court unanimously held that transparency and non-discrimination should be the hallmarks of the public recruitment process and candidates should not be taken by surprise by change of rules midway. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: Government job recruitment rules can’t change midway unless prescribed: Supreme Court

Pooja Kapoor adding the story

40-year-old Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi is the first jihadist to stand trial at the tribunal in The Hague and will be sentenced by a three-judge bench.

&nbsp;

Last month, Mahdi pleaded guilty to destroying nine monuments in Timbuktu and the centuries-old door of the historic Sidi Yahia mosque in 2012.

&nbsp;

After videos of him and other Islamist extremists razing mausoleums with bulldozers,Mahdi had apologised to people.

The residents of Timbuktu, which has now been restored, say they are ready to forgive him., AFP reported.

This is the first verdict to focus solely on cultural devastation as a war crime.

El-Boukhari Ben Essayouti, who headed &nbsp;the reconstruction of the monuments with UNESCO assistance, told AFP that &nbsp;Mahdi`s trial was an important lesson.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/deb1-20160927023913.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Clinton criticised Trump for not releasing his tax returns and said that decision raised questions about whether he was as rich and charitable as he has claimed to be. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The trial &quot;has to be useful for something, showing to everyone that in the same way that we cannot kill another person with impunity, we cannot just destroy a world heritage site with impunity either,&quot; he said.

Revered as a centre of Islamic learning during its golden age in the 15th and 16th centuries, it was however considered idolatrous by the jihadists who swept across Mali`s remote north in early 2012.

As the head of the so-called Hisbah or &quot;Manners Brigade,&quot; it was Mahdi, a former teacher and Islamic scholar, who gave the orders to ransack the sites.Apologising for his actions at the court, he said he had been overtaken by &quot;evil spirits&quot;, urging Muslims not to follow his example, and saying he wanted to seek the pardon of all Malians.

Prosecutors say Mahdi, born in 1975, was a member of the Ansar Dine, one of the jihadist groups linked to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb which seized the northern territory before being mostly chased out by a French-led military intervention in January 2013.

Prosecutors have asked for a jail term of between nine and 11 years, which they said would recognise both the severity of the crime and the fact that Mahdi was the first person to plead guilty before the court.

&quot;The verdict is eagerly awaited,&quot; said Lassana Cisse, Mali`s national heritage director, adding that it must be a &quot;punishment which sets an example.&quot;

Even though the list of UNESCO world heritage sites appears to be growing there is little hope that those behind attacks on monuments in Iraq and Syria will find themselves in the dock any time soon.

Neither country is a signatory to the ICC`s founding Rome Statute, meaning that without a mandate from the UN Security Council an ICC investigation into such crimes is not yet possible.

Pooja Kapoor adding the story 40-year-old Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi is the first jihadist to stand trial at the tribunal in The Hague and will be sentenced by a three-judge bench.

Pooja Kapoor adding the story 40-year-old Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi is the first jihadist to stand trial at the tribunal in The Hague and will be sentenced by a three-judge bench. Last month, Mahdi pleaded guilty to destroying nine monuments in Timbuktu and the centuries-old door of the historic Sidi Yahia mosque in 2012. After videos of him and other Islamist extremists razing mausoleums with bulldozers,Mahdi had apologised to people. The residents of Timbuktu, which has now been restored, say they are ready to forgive him., AFP reported. This is the first verdict to focus solely on cultural devastation as a war crime. El-Boukhari Ben Essayouti, who headed the reconstruction of the monuments with UNESCO assistance, told AFP that Mahdi`s trial was an important lesson. Clinton criticised Trump for not releasing his tax returns and said that decision raised questions about whether he was as rich and charitable as he has claimed to be. (Reuters) × The trial "has to be useful for something, showing to everyone that in the same way that we cannot kill another person with impunity, we cannot just destroy a world heritage site with impunity either," he said. Revered as a centre of Islamic learning during its golden age in the 15th and 16th centuries, it was however considered idolatrous by the jihadists who swept across Mali`s remote north in early 2012. As the head of the so-called Hisbah or "Manners Brigade," it was Mahdi, a former teacher and Islamic scholar, who gave the orders to ransack the sites.Apologising for his actions at the court, he said he had been overtaken by "evil spirits", urging Muslims not to follow his example, and saying he wanted to seek the pardon of all Malians. Prosecutors say Mahdi, born in 1975, was a member of the Ansar Dine, one of the jihadist groups linked to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb which seized the northern territory before being mostly chased out by a French-led military intervention in January 2013. Prosecutors have asked for a jail term of between nine and 11 years, which they said would recognise both the severity of the crime and the fact that Mahdi was the first person to plead guilty before the court. "The verdict is eagerly awaited," said Lassana Cisse, Mali`s national heritage director, adding that it must be a "punishment which sets an example." Even though the list of UNESCO world heritage sites appears to be growing there is little hope that those behind attacks on monuments in Iraq and Syria will find themselves in the dock any time soon. Neither country is a signatory to the ICC`s founding Rome Statute, meaning that without a mandate from the UN Security Council an ICC investigation into such crimes is not yet possible.

India's Supreme Court orders Jet Airways liquidation, cites resolution plan failures

In a big relief to madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Law and set aside an Allahabad High Court verdict quashing it on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism.

Besides the curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the Madarsa Act made room for religious education as well.

The Allahabad High Court erred in holding that the law is violative of the principle of secularism, said a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-suspected-lashkar-e-taiba-terrorist-gunned-down-in-kashmirs-bandipora-773554">India: Suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist gunned down in Kashmir’s Bandipora</a>

"We have upheld the validity of the UP madrassa law and moreover a statute can be struck down only if the State lacks the legislative competence," the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.

The order came as a big relief to teachers and students of UP madrasas as the high court had ordered closure of the seminaries and relocation of students to other schools in the state.

The SC said the legislative scheme of the law was to standardise the level of education being prescribed in madrassas.

The top court on October 22 reserved its verdict on pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court judgement.

The bench heard a battery of lawyers on behalf of eight petitioners, including Anjum Kadari, besides Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government, for almost two days before reserving the verdict.

On March 22, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act as "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism and asked the state government to accommodate madrasa students in the formal schooling system.

In a breather for about 17 lakh madrasa students, the SC stayed the HC order on April 5.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a big relief to madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Law and set aside an Allahabad High Court verdict quashing it on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism.

In a big relief to madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Law and set aside an Allahabad High Court verdict quashing it on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism. Besides the curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the Madarsa Act made room for religious education as well. The Allahabad High Court erred in holding that the law is violative of the principle of secularism, said a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Also read: India: Suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist gunned down in Kashmir’s Bandipora "We have upheld the validity of the UP madrassa law and moreover a statute can be struck down only if the State lacks the legislative competence," the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict. The order came as a big relief to teachers and students of UP madrasas as the high court had ordered closure of the seminaries and relocation of students to other schools in the state. The SC said the legislative scheme of the law was to standardise the level of education being prescribed in madrassas. The top court on October 22 reserved its verdict on pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court judgement. The bench heard a battery of lawyers on behalf of eight petitioners, including Anjum Kadari, besides Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government, for almost two days before reserving the verdict. On March 22, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act as "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism and asked the state government to accommodate madrasa students in the formal schooling system. In a breather for about 17 lakh madrasa students, the SC stayed the HC order on April 5. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: Supreme Court upholds UP Madrasa Act, says secularism not violated

In a majority 7:2 ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that states are not empowered under the Constitution to take over all privately-owned resources for distribution to serve the "common good".

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, however, said states can stake claim over private properties in certain cases.

The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Krishna Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good".

It overturned several verdicts that had adopted the socialist theme and ruled that states can take over all private properties for common good.

Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on all aspects.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-suspected-lashkar-e-taiba-terrorist-gunned-down-in-kashmirs-bandipora-773554">India: Suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist gunned down in Kashmir’s Bandipora</a>

The top court had, in the Minerva Mills case of 1980, declared two provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any court on any ground" and accorded precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental rights of individuals, as unconstitutional.

Article 31C protects a law made under Articles 39(b) and (c) empowering the State to take over material resources of the community, including private properties, for distribution to subserve the common good.

The top court had heard 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners' Association (POA) in 1992.

The POA has opposed Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. Inserted in 1986, the chapter empowers State authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land on which those are built if 70 per cent of the occupants make such a request for restoration purposes.

The MHADA Act was enacted in pursuance of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and makes it obligatory for the State to create a policy towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good".

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a majority 7:2 ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that states are not empowered under the Constitution to take over all privately-owned resources for distribution to serve the "common good".

In a majority 7:2 ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that states are not empowered under the Constitution to take over all privately-owned resources for distribution to serve the "common good". A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, however, said states can stake claim over private properties in certain cases. The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Krishna Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good". It overturned several verdicts that had adopted the socialist theme and ruled that states can take over all private properties for common good. Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on all aspects. Also read: India: Suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist gunned down in Kashmir’s Bandipora The top court had, in the Minerva Mills case of 1980, declared two provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any court on any ground" and accorded precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental rights of individuals, as unconstitutional. Article 31C protects a law made under Articles 39(b) and (c) empowering the State to take over material resources of the community, including private properties, for distribution to subserve the common good. The top court had heard 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners' Association (POA) in 1992. The POA has opposed Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. Inserted in 1986, the chapter empowers State authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land on which those are built if 70 per cent of the occupants make such a request for restoration purposes. The MHADA Act was enacted in pursuance of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and makes it obligatory for the State to create a policy towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good". Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

India: States can’t claim all private properties for public good, says Supreme Court

The new Lady Justice statue which among other changes does not feature blindfold inside the library of the Supreme Court of India didn’t sit well with the SC Bar Association (SCBA). The association has since questioned the rationale behind the changes made to the statute.

The SCBA passed a resolution against the changes made to the apex court’s emblem and the Lady Justice statue without consulting its members.

The new Lady Justice statue which was unveiled recently, was without the blindfold and the sword in hand of the traditional statue was replaced with the Indian constitution book.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/social-media-erupts-after-supreme-court-changes-the-look-of-lady-justice-statue-768741">Social media erupts after India's Supreme Court changes the look of Lady Justice statue</a>

If you look at the traditional figure of Lady Justice, it is represented with a blindfold, robe and sword. This has its deep roots in ancient Greek and Roman iconography.

However, the new statue is being seen as an attempt to leave the colonial legacy behind while underlining the message that the law is not blind in new India.&nbsp;

“It is observed by the Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar Association that recently some radical changes have been brought in by the Supreme Court unilaterally like a change of its emblem, change in the statue of Lady Justice without consultation with the Bar. We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are clueless on the rationale behind these changes,” the resolution&nbsp;reads.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-image-of-terrorist-behind-ganderbal-attack-surfaces-his-ak-series-rifle-raises-concerns-770149">India: Image of terrorist behind Ganderbal attack surfaces, his AK series rifle raises concerns</a>

The SCBA also objected to the proposed museum in the erstwhile judges’ library, claiming that it had previously requested a cafe-cum-lounge for its members, as the current cafeteria is inadequate to meet their needs.

“Now a museum has apparently been proposed in the erstwhile Judges Library whereas we had demanded a Library, Cafe cum Lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Bar. We are concerned that despite our objection raised against the proposed Museum in the erstwhile Judges library, work has started for the museum,” SCBA added&nbsp;in the resolution.

(With inputs from agencies)

The new Lady Justice statue which among other changes does not feature blindfold inside the library of the Supreme Court of India didn’t sit well with the SC Bar Association (SCBA).

The new Lady Justice statue which among other changes does not feature blindfold inside the library of the Supreme Court of India didn’t sit well with the SC Bar Association (SCBA). The association has since questioned the rationale behind the changes made to the statute. The SCBA passed a resolution against the changes made to the apex court’s emblem and the Lady Justice statue without consulting its members. The new Lady Justice statue which was unveiled recently, was without the blindfold and the sword in hand of the traditional statue was replaced with the Indian constitution book. Also Read | Social media erupts after India's Supreme Court changes the look of Lady Justice statue If you look at the traditional figure of Lady Justice, it is represented with a blindfold, robe and sword. This has its deep roots in ancient Greek and Roman iconography. However, the new statue is being seen as an attempt to leave the colonial legacy behind while underlining the message that the law is not blind in new India. “It is observed by the Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar Association that recently some radical changes have been brought in by the Supreme Court unilaterally like a change of its emblem, change in the statue of Lady Justice without consultation with the Bar. We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are clueless on the rationale behind these changes,” the resolution reads. Also Read | India: Image of terrorist behind Ganderbal attack surfaces, his AK series rifle raises concerns The SCBA also objected to the proposed museum in the erstwhile judges’ library, claiming that it had previously requested a cafe-cum-lounge for its members, as the current cafeteria is inadequate to meet their needs. “Now a museum has apparently been proposed in the erstwhile Judges Library whereas we had demanded a Library, Cafe cum Lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Bar. We are concerned that despite our objection raised against the proposed Museum in the erstwhile Judges library, work has started for the museum,” SCBA added in the resolution. (With inputs from agencies)

Bar association upset over Indian Supreme Court's new 'Lady Justice' statue, calls it 'radical change'

In the latest move to shed away the colonial past of the Indian judiciary, the Supreme Court of India unveiled a new Lady Justice statue in its library. The new figurine had undergone major symbolic changes, including the removal of her blindfold, representing that the law is not blind.

Some welcomed this move, while others criticised it, questioning whether this move represents a break from impartiality.

If you look at the traditional figure of Lady Justice, it is represented with a blindfold, robe and sword. This has its deep roots in ancient Greek and Roman iconography.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-supreme-court-greenlights-proceedings-against-gurmeet-ram-rahim-singh-in-2015-sacrilege-case-768636">India: Supreme Court greenlights proceedings against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in 2015 sacrilege case</a>

In ancient Greece, the goddess Themis was often portrayed holding scales and a sword, symbolising divine law and justice. Similarly, in Roman mythology, the figurine of Lady Justice was inspired by Justitia, their goddess of justice.

In India, the same statute is used to symbolise equality before the law, ensuring that justice is served without any partiality or prejudice to wealth, status or influence. It is from the blindfold that Indian courts got the saying "Law is blind,"&nbsp;when it comes to prejudices.

The sword represents the authority of the law and its double edge signifies that justice is capable of both protecting and punishing. The scales represented balance and fairness which emphasise that courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement.

It was when India was under British rule&nbsp;that the Lady Justice became part of the Indian Judicial system. Since then, it has become an indispensable symbol of the judicial system.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/major-relief-for-sadhguru-indian-supreme-court-dismisses-case-against-his-isha-foundation-768633">Major relief for Sadhguru: Indian Supreme Court dismisses case against his Isha Foundation</a>

Now, a major change was made to this symbol by removing the blindfold and also replacing the sword with the Indian Constitution. The Lady Justice statue has also seen a transformation in its attire- from western robes to traditional Indian sarees.

<h2>Netizens react to new Lady Justice statue</h2>

The new statue also drew mixed reactions on social media.

One user wrote, “The thing Lady Justice needs the most is a watch,” likely referring to delays in the Indian judicial system.&nbsp;

Another user pointed out that removing the blindfold reflected “tremendous self-awareness,” adding that the law in India is “anything but impartial.”

Another user argued, "It was never blind.... It meant law will not be bias on any caste, religion and gender before serving justice.”

Some even gave suggestions like, "Put blindfold on judge eyes for fair judgment."

However, many were disappointed by the mere optics. "Yet law has failed to provide justice in many cases going on from the past months and years. Blindfolded or not, hardly matters!" said one user.

(With inputs from agencies)

In the latest move to shed away the colonial past of the Indian judiciary, the Supreme Court of India unveiled a new Lady Justice statue in its library. The new figurine had undergone major symbolic changes, including the removal of her blindfold, representing that the law is not blind.

In the latest move to shed away the colonial past of the Indian judiciary, the Supreme Court of India unveiled a new Lady Justice statue in its library. The new figurine had undergone major symbolic changes, including the removal of her blindfold, representing that the law is not blind. Some welcomed this move, while others criticised it, questioning whether this move represents a break from impartiality. If you look at the traditional figure of Lady Justice, it is represented with a blindfold, robe and sword. This has its deep roots in ancient Greek and Roman iconography. Also Read | India: Supreme Court greenlights proceedings against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in 2015 sacrilege case In ancient Greece, the goddess Themis was often portrayed holding scales and a sword, symbolising divine law and justice. Similarly, in Roman mythology, the figurine of Lady Justice was inspired by Justitia, their goddess of justice. In India, the same statute is used to symbolise equality before the law, ensuring that justice is served without any partiality or prejudice to wealth, status or influence. It is from the blindfold that Indian courts got the saying "Law is blind," when it comes to prejudices. The sword represents the authority of the law and its double edge signifies that justice is capable of both protecting and punishing. The scales represented balance and fairness which emphasise that courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement. It was when India was under British rule that the Lady Justice became part of the Indian Judicial system. Since then, it has become an indispensable symbol of the judicial system. Also Read | Major relief for Sadhguru: Indian Supreme Court dismisses case against his Isha Foundation Now, a major change was made to this symbol by removing the blindfold and also replacing the sword with the Indian Constitution. The Lady Justice statue has also seen a transformation in its attire- from western robes to traditional Indian sarees. Netizens react to new Lady Justice statue The new statue also drew mixed reactions on social media. One user wrote, “The thing Lady Justice needs the most is a watch,” likely referring to delays in the Indian judicial system. Another user pointed out that removing the blindfold reflected “tremendous self-awareness,” adding that the law in India is “anything but impartial.” Another user argued, "It was never blind.... It meant law will not be bias on any caste, religion and gender before serving justice.” Some even gave suggestions like, "Put blindfold on judge eyes for fair judgment." However, many were disappointed by the mere optics. "Yet law has failed to provide justice in many cases going on from the past months and years. Blindfolded or not, hardly matters!" said one user. (With inputs from agencies)

Social media erupts after India's Supreme Court changes the look of Lady Justice statue