Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India. CJI Chandrachud nominated Khanna in a letter written to the Union Law Minister.&nbsp;

As per convention, the outgoing Chief Justice of India nominates the second-most senior judge as his successor, whose recommendation has to be approved by the Union government. CJI Chandrachud took charge of the apex court on 9 Nov 2022 and his tenure will end on November 10.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/law-is-not-blind-supreme-courts-new-justice-statue-sheds-colonial-symbol-of-blindfold-sword-768204">'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword</a>

At an event in Bhutan on October 9, Chandrachud expressed that his mind is occupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past over what he achieved during his tenure and how well he served his role.

"As my tenure is coming to an end, my mind has been heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past. I find myself pondering over questions such as: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?" he said.

<h2>Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the next Chief Justice of India?</h2>

Justice Sanjiv Khanna is a learned fellow in his field, who enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and practised at the district courts at the Tis Hazari complex. Later, he went on to practice in the High Court of Delhi and tribunals.&nbsp;

He also served as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and became the Standing Counsel (Civil) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi in 2004.

On 18 January 2019, Justice Khanna was elevated to a Judge of the Supreme Court, even before becoming a Chief Justice of any High Court.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-confirms-cc1-key-figure-in-plot-to-kill-khalistani-leader-pannun-no-longer-employee-of-indian-govt-768202">US confirms 'CC1,' key figure in plot to kill Khalistani leader Pannun 'no longer' employee of Indian Govt</a>

He is currently the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, and a member of the Governing Counsel of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.

Justice Khanna will have a tenure of little over six months before he retires on 13 May 13 2025, as all judges of the Supreme Court retire by the age of 65.

(With inputs from agencies)

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India. CJI Chandrachud nominated Khanna in a letter written to the Union Law Minister. As per convention, the outgoing Chief Justice of India nominates the second-most senior judge as his successor, whose recommendation has to be approved by the Union government. CJI Chandrachud took charge of the apex court on 9 Nov 2022 and his tenure will end on November 10. Also Read | 'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword At an event in Bhutan on October 9, Chandrachud expressed that his mind is occupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past over what he achieved during his tenure and how well he served his role. "As my tenure is coming to an end, my mind has been heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past. I find myself pondering over questions such as: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?" he said. Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the next Chief Justice of India? Justice Sanjiv Khanna is a learned fellow in his field, who enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and practised at the district courts at the Tis Hazari complex. Later, he went on to practice in the High Court of Delhi and tribunals. He also served as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and became the Standing Counsel (Civil) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi in 2004. On 18 January 2019, Justice Khanna was elevated to a Judge of the Supreme Court, even before becoming a Chief Justice of any High Court. Also Read | US confirms 'CC1,' key figure in plot to kill Khalistani leader Pannun 'no longer' employee of Indian Govt He is currently the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, and a member of the Governing Counsel of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. Justice Khanna will have a tenure of little over six months before he retires on 13 May 13 2025, as all judges of the Supreme Court retire by the age of 65. (With inputs from agencies)

Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna? Next Chief Justice of India to succeed CJI Chandrachud

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind. The sword in one hand of the statue has also been replaced with the Constitution of India, as per Indian media reports.&nbsp;

The statue was commissioned at the orders of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to represent equality before the law.

For decades, the Lady Justice statue has been depicted as a woman wearing a white saree, her eyes blindfolded, holding a scale and a sword. The blindfold was meant to represent equality before the law, implying that justice should be delivered without regard to wealth, power, or status.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iit-graduate-moves-from-indian-railways-to-spacex-his-linkedin-profile-goes-viral-768088">IIT graduate moves from Indian Railways to SpaceX, his LinkedIn profile goes viral</a>

The scales represented balance and fairness, while the sword was meant to represent the power of the law.&nbsp;

With the new statue, however, an attempt is being made to shed the colonial legacy behind emphasising the message that law is not blind in new India. It now stands tall at the judges’ library in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Take a look at the new statue below:
<img alt="New Lady Justice Statue" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="191c977d-9dcc-428c-86eb-b4164b80a24b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202024-10-17T101400.881.png" />
As per top sources associated with the Chief Justice's office, quoted by NDTV, Justice Chandrachud believes that the law is not blind and sees everyone equally.

"Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword symbolises violence, but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws," a source told the publication.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-parliament-built-on-waqf-land-claims-aiudf-chief-badruddin-ajmal-768110">Indian Parliament built on Waqf land, claims AIUDF chief Badruddin Ajmal</a>

The only symbol retained in the new statute is that of the scales, to emphasise that the courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement.

The Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Its origin can be found in the Roman art known as Justitia, which is the personification of Justice in ancient Rome, equivalent to the Greek goddess Dike/Astraea.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind.

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind. The sword in one hand of the statue has also been replaced with the Constitution of India, as per Indian media reports. The statue was commissioned at the orders of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to represent equality before the law. For decades, the Lady Justice statue has been depicted as a woman wearing a white saree, her eyes blindfolded, holding a scale and a sword. The blindfold was meant to represent equality before the law, implying that justice should be delivered without regard to wealth, power, or status. Also Read | IIT graduate moves from Indian Railways to SpaceX, his LinkedIn profile goes viral The scales represented balance and fairness, while the sword was meant to represent the power of the law. With the new statue, however, an attempt is being made to shed the colonial legacy behind emphasising the message that law is not blind in new India. It now stands tall at the judges’ library in the Supreme Court. Take a look at the new statue below: As per top sources associated with the Chief Justice's office, quoted by NDTV, Justice Chandrachud believes that the law is not blind and sees everyone equally. "Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword symbolises violence, but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws," a source told the publication. Also Read | Indian Parliament built on Waqf land, claims AIUDF chief Badruddin Ajmal The only symbol retained in the new statute is that of the scales, to emphasise that the courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement. The Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Its origin can be found in the Roman art known as Justitia, which is the personification of Justice in ancient Rome, equivalent to the Greek goddess Dike/Astraea. (With inputs from agencies)

'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword

Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP), Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, on Tuesday, announced that the SIT investigation into the Tirupati laddoo prasadam case will be suspended until October 3, due to the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court.

The SIT was formed to investigate the sensitive case, and the suspension is a precautionary measure to ensure the investigation's integrity

Rao clarified that the investigation will resume after the Supreme Court issues its directives on October 3. The decision to form the SIT was made considering the severity of the case, and the temporary suspension is necessary to avoid any potential legal complications.

The SIT's investigation will proceed according to the Supreme Court's guidance, ensuring a fair and impartial inquiry.

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee in the preparation of laddoos, which were served as prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan criticised the chief minister, saying there is no conclusive proof yet to substantiate that contaminated ghee was used in preparation of prasadam laddoos.

It questioned the need to make a public statement on the issue when a probe had already been ordered by the state into the allegations.

The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to seek instructions from the Central government on whether an independent investigation is required and posted the matter to October 3 at 3.30 pm.

"We are prima facie of the view that when the investigation was under process, it was not appropriate for the high constitutional authority to make a statement that can affect the sentiments of crores of people. In that view of the matter, we find that it would be appropriate if the Solicitor General assists us on whether the SIT by the state should continue or the investigation should be by an independent agency," said the bench in it's order.

The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the allegations of use of animal fat to make laddoos to serve as prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh, where Lord Venkateswara is worshipped.

During the hearing, the top court asked the Andhra Pradesh government whether the alleged adulterated laddoos had been sent for testing.

Senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), said that there were complaints regarding the quality of laddoos and possible contamination. He also said that the lab report of the NDDB showed contamination and the nature of contamination was under inquiry.

The top court was hearing petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, and ex TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, Surjit Singh Yadav, President of non government organisation Hindu Sena Samiti, historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, chairman managing director (CMD) and the editor-in-chief of Sudarshan, Suresh Chavhanke and others.

The petitions sought court-monitored investigation into the allegations levelled by TDP-led Andhra Pradesh government regarding use of adulterated ghee in preparation of laddoos at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple during the previous YSRCP regime.

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&nbsp;WION&nbsp;audience. 
&nbsp;

Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP), Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, on Tuesday, announced that the SIT investigation into the Tirupati laddoo prasadam case will be suspended until October 3, due to the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court.

Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP), Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, on Tuesday, announced that the SIT investigation into the Tirupati laddoo prasadam case will be suspended until October 3, due to the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court. The SIT was formed to investigate the sensitive case, and the suspension is a precautionary measure to ensure the investigation's integrity Rao clarified that the investigation will resume after the Supreme Court issues its directives on October 3. The decision to form the SIT was made considering the severity of the case, and the temporary suspension is necessary to avoid any potential legal complications. The SIT's investigation will proceed according to the Supreme Court's guidance, ensuring a fair and impartial inquiry. The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for making public allegations about the use of adulterated ghee in the preparation of laddoos, which were served as prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan criticised the chief minister, saying there is no conclusive proof yet to substantiate that contaminated ghee was used in preparation of prasadam laddoos. It questioned the need to make a public statement on the issue when a probe had already been ordered by the state into the allegations. The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to seek instructions from the Central government on whether an independent investigation is required and posted the matter to October 3 at 3.30 pm. "We are prima facie of the view that when the investigation was under process, it was not appropriate for the high constitutional authority to make a statement that can affect the sentiments of crores of people. In that view of the matter, we find that it would be appropriate if the Solicitor General assists us on whether the SIT by the state should continue or the investigation should be by an independent agency," said the bench in it's order. The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking court-monitored investigation into the allegations of use of animal fat to make laddoos to serve as prasadam at the Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh, where Lord Venkateswara is worshipped. During the hearing, the top court asked the Andhra Pradesh government whether the alleged adulterated laddoos had been sent for testing. Senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra, appearing for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), said that there were complaints regarding the quality of laddoos and possible contamination. He also said that the lab report of the NDDB showed contamination and the nature of contamination was under inquiry. The top court was hearing petitions filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, and ex TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, Surjit Singh Yadav, President of non government organisation Hindu Sena Samiti, historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, chairman managing director (CMD) and the editor-in-chief of Sudarshan, Suresh Chavhanke and others. The petitions sought court-monitored investigation into the allegations levelled by TDP-led Andhra Pradesh government regarding use of adulterated ghee in preparation of laddoos at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple during the previous YSRCP regime. 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.

Amid Supreme Court hearing, SIT investigation into Tirupati laddoo prasadam case suspended till Oct 3

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 20) took suo motu cognisance of remarks made by a lower court judge referring to a Muslim-dominated area as ‘mini-Pakistan.’ Karnataka High Court Justice V Srishananda sparked a major controversy during a recent landlord-tenant dispute hearing. Now, the country’s apex court has directed the Karnataka HC to submit a report over the controversial ‘Pakistan’ remarks.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Bengaluru Police is scared of going into a Muslim dominated area ; Gori Palya to catch criminals, that place is like a mini Pakistan - Karantaka Court Judge 
 
Inclusive Karnataka under Congress rule...<a href="https://t.co/zIcCkTcVy8">pic.twitter.com/zIcCkTcVy8</a>
— Mr Sinha (@MrSinha_) <a href="https://twitter.com/MrSinha_/status/1836402334248624473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, said there was an urgent need to lay down guidelines for Constitutional judges regarding their remarks during court hearings.

"Attention has been drawn to media reports to the comments made by Justice...of Karnataka High Court during the court proceedings. We request the Karnataka High Court to submit a report after seeking instructions from the Chief Justice of the high court," the CJI said, adding the SC may form some basic guidelines. The matter will now be heard on Wednesday (Sep 25).

<h2>Context</h2>

During a recent hearing, Justice V Srishananda expressed his views on traffic condition near the Mysore Road flyover. The judge said, “Go towards the Mysore Road Flyover, every autorickshaw has got 10 people… The Mysore Road Flyover from the market to Goripalya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality… However strict an officer you send, he will be beaten. This is not on any channel.”

A clip of the judge making these remarks also went viral on social media.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjU6LSn-9CIAxVgIbkGHeH3EEwQFnoECBYQAQ" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/youtube-channel-of-indian-supreme-court-hacked-showing-videos-promoting-crypto-760322" jsname="UWckNb" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/youtube-channel-of-indian-supreme-court-hacked-showing-videos-promoting-crypto-760322&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjU6LSn-9CIAxVgIbkGHeH3EEwQFnoECBYQAQ">YouTube channel of Indian Supreme Court hacked</a>

A NDTV report highlighted that the judge previously fuelled controversy by making objectionable comments about a woman lawyer.

Justice Srishanananda reportedly told a woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 20) took suo motu cognisance of remarks made by a lower court judge referring to a Muslim-dominated area as ‘mini-Pakistan.

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 20) took suo motu cognisance of remarks made by a lower court judge referring to a Muslim-dominated area as ‘mini-Pakistan.’ Karnataka High Court Justice V Srishananda sparked a major controversy during a recent landlord-tenant dispute hearing. Now, the country’s apex court has directed the Karnataka HC to submit a report over the controversial ‘Pakistan’ remarks. Bengaluru Police is scared of going into a Muslim dominated area ; Gori Palya to catch criminals, that place is like a mini Pakistan - Karantaka Court Judge Inclusive Karnataka under Congress rule...pic.twitter.com/zIcCkTcVy8 — Mr Sinha (@MrSinha_) September 18, 2024 × A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, said there was an urgent need to lay down guidelines for Constitutional judges regarding their remarks during court hearings. "Attention has been drawn to media reports to the comments made by Justice...of Karnataka High Court during the court proceedings. We request the Karnataka High Court to submit a report after seeking instructions from the Chief Justice of the high court," the CJI said, adding the SC may form some basic guidelines. The matter will now be heard on Wednesday (Sep 25). Context During a recent hearing, Justice V Srishananda expressed his views on traffic condition near the Mysore Road flyover. The judge said, “Go towards the Mysore Road Flyover, every autorickshaw has got 10 people… The Mysore Road Flyover from the market to Goripalya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality… However strict an officer you send, he will be beaten. This is not on any channel.” A clip of the judge making these remarks also went viral on social media. Also read: YouTube channel of Indian Supreme Court hacked A NDTV report highlighted that the judge previously fuelled controversy by making objectionable comments about a woman lawyer. Justice Srishanananda reportedly told a woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments. (With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka judge faces SC's ire after calling Muslim-majority area 'mini-Pakistan'

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Tuesday (Sep 17) rebuked the West Bengal government for issuing a notification restricting women doctors from working the night shifts. The notification was issued in the backdrop of the gruesome rape and murder of the 31-year-old trainee doctor&nbsp;in Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. CJI DY Chandrachud asked, “How can you say women cannot work at night?”

“Why limit women doctors? they don't want a concession... women are ready to work in the same shift," the CJI added. He also ordered the West Bengal government to immediately retract the order.

“The solution lies in ensuring proper security measures. West Bengal should amend the notification. It is your responsibility to provide security; you cannot restrict women from working at night. Pilots, army personnel, and others work during the nighttime hours," DY Chandrachud remarked.

<h2>Doctors willing to resume work</h2>

The agitating doctors also assured the Supreme Court of India that they were ready to return to work as soon as the demands discussed in the meeting with West&nbsp;Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on September 16 were fulfilled.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwj_jpuB5cmIAxVNe2wGHdoaGBIQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/another-disturbing-case-from-indias-kolkata-woman-sleeping-next-to-ailing-son-at-hospital-molested-758875" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/another-disturbing-case-from-indias-kolkata-woman-sleeping-next-to-ailing-son-at-hospital-molested-758875&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_jpuB5cmIAxVNe2wGHdoaGBIQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE">Another disturbing case from India`s Kolkata: Woman sleeping next to ailing son at hospital molested</a>

The doctors are supposed to convene a general body meeting later on Tuesday, where the final decision regarding returning to work will be taken.

<h2>No restriction on live-streaming of Kolkata rape and murder case</h2>

The top court on Tuesday also rejected the Bengal government’s demand that live streaming of the court proceedings in the Kolkata rape and murder case be stopped.

The CJI stated, “We will not stop this”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwj_jpuB5cmIAxVNe2wGHdoaGBIQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kolkata-horror-mamata-banerjee-invites-protesting-doctors-again-for-final-meeting-759023" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kolkata-horror-mamata-banerjee-invites-protesting-doctors-again-for-final-meeting-759023&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_jpuB5cmIAxVNe2wGHdoaGBIQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE">Kolkata horror: Mamata Banerjee invites protesting doctors again for `final` meeting</a>

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the West Bengal state government, pleaded before the court that: “Our reputations are also at stake. Why should we be vilified in this fashion to say I am laughing? Where was I laughing? I was not laughing at anything. I was not laughing at what had happened. It is the most heinous crime that was committed.”

Sibal was referring to reports which said he laughed during the hearing of the matter on August 22.

<h2>Bengal top cop replaced</h2>

CM Banerjee on Tuesday appointed Manoj Verma as Kolkata Police chief, replacing Vineet Goyal.

Goyal was sacked on Monday (Sep 16)&nbsp;by the CM, acting on one of the key demands of the agitating doctors.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Tuesday (Sep 17) rebuked the West Bengal government for issuing a notification restricting women doctors from working the night shifts.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Tuesday (Sep 17) rebuked the West Bengal government for issuing a notification restricting women doctors from working the night shifts. The notification was issued in the backdrop of the gruesome rape and murder of the 31-year-old trainee doctor in Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. CJI DY Chandrachud asked, “How can you say women cannot work at night?” “Why limit women doctors? they don't want a concession... women are ready to work in the same shift," the CJI added. He also ordered the West Bengal government to immediately retract the order. “The solution lies in ensuring proper security measures. West Bengal should amend the notification. It is your responsibility to provide security; you cannot restrict women from working at night. Pilots, army personnel, and others work during the nighttime hours," DY Chandrachud remarked. Doctors willing to resume work The agitating doctors also assured the Supreme Court of India that they were ready to return to work as soon as the demands discussed in the meeting with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on September 16 were fulfilled. Also read: Another disturbing case from India`s Kolkata: Woman sleeping next to ailing son at hospital molested The doctors are supposed to convene a general body meeting later on Tuesday, where the final decision regarding returning to work will be taken. No restriction on live-streaming of Kolkata rape and murder case The top court on Tuesday also rejected the Bengal government’s demand that live streaming of the court proceedings in the Kolkata rape and murder case be stopped. The CJI stated, “We will not stop this”. Also read: Kolkata horror: Mamata Banerjee invites protesting doctors again for `final` meeting Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the West Bengal state government, pleaded before the court that: “Our reputations are also at stake. Why should we be vilified in this fashion to say I am laughing? Where was I laughing? I was not laughing at anything. I was not laughing at what had happened. It is the most heinous crime that was committed.” Sibal was referring to reports which said he laughed during the hearing of the matter on August 22. Bengal top cop replaced CM Banerjee on Tuesday appointed Manoj Verma as Kolkata Police chief, replacing Vineet Goyal. Goyal was sacked on Monday (Sep 16) by the CM, acting on one of the key demands of the agitating doctors. (With inputs from agencies)

Kolkata horror: SC scolds West Bengal govt for denying night shifts to women doctors

Madrassas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrassas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh Government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore. 
It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.

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. 
&nbsp;

Madrassas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

Madrassas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court. The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc. The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education. "A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said. "Further, madrassas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court. The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009. "A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school. "A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said. It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning. In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism. Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh Government and others on the pleas against the high court order. The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction. The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system. The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore. It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it." "We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said. The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department. 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.

Madrassas 'unsuitable' place for children to receive proper education: India's child protection agency to SC

More than eight years after a husband was charged with causing dowry death, a court&nbsp;has acquitted him, saying only the fact of the woman's unnatural death within seven years of marriage was not sufficient to prove the charges.

It observed that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman was because of harassment by her husband or in-laws and that suicides were committed by people for various reasons. 
 
Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja was hearing a case against Swatantra Kumar Jaysawal, who was accused of driving her wife to commit suicide.

According to the prosecution, deceased Jyoti married Jaysawal in July 2010 and after being harassed by the accused for dowry, she committed suicide by hanging in October 2015.

Referring to a 2010 verdict of the Supreme Court, the judge said, "There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life." Noting the evidence before it, the court said that it was not convinced about the truthfulness of the charges, nor was the prosecution able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304B (cruelty) and 498A (dowry death) against him," the court said in its judgment passed on August 9.

Noting "discrepancies and contradictions" in the testimonies of the deceased's parents, the court said that they failed to substantiate the prosecution's case.

It said, "Bare perusal of the suicide note shows that the deceased ended her life out of her own will and it is categorically stated that nobody is responsible for her act... The document contradicts and demolishes the allegations of harassment or cruelty made against the accused for meeting the demand of dowry." It said the deceased did not make any complaint against her husband to anyone during her lifetime.

"In view of the material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and due to lack of cogent evidence lead on the record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence coming on record entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt," the judge said, acquitting the husband.

Malviya Nagar police station had registered a case against the accused.

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.

More than eight years after a husband was charged with causing dowry death, a court has acquitted him, saying only the fact of the woman's unnatural death within seven years of marriage was not sufficient to prove the charges.

More than eight years after a husband was charged with causing dowry death, a court has acquitted him, saying only the fact of the woman's unnatural death within seven years of marriage was not sufficient to prove the charges. It observed that there is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman was because of harassment by her husband or in-laws and that suicides were committed by people for various reasons. Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja was hearing a case against Swatantra Kumar Jaysawal, who was accused of driving her wife to commit suicide. According to the prosecution, deceased Jyoti married Jaysawal in July 2010 and after being harassed by the accused for dowry, she committed suicide by hanging in October 2015. Referring to a 2010 verdict of the Supreme Court, the judge said, "There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws' house or at her parents' house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws. Suicides are committed by living human beings for various reasons, some are not able to bear the normal stresses which are common in life." Noting the evidence before it, the court said that it was not convinced about the truthfulness of the charges, nor was the prosecution able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. "The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304B (cruelty) and 498A (dowry death) against him," the court said in its judgment passed on August 9. Noting "discrepancies and contradictions" in the testimonies of the deceased's parents, the court said that they failed to substantiate the prosecution's case. It said, "Bare perusal of the suicide note shows that the deceased ended her life out of her own will and it is categorically stated that nobody is responsible for her act... The document contradicts and demolishes the allegations of harassment or cruelty made against the accused for meeting the demand of dowry." It said the deceased did not make any complaint against her husband to anyone during her lifetime. "In view of the material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and due to lack of cogent evidence lead on the record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence coming on record entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt," the judge said, acquitting the husband. Malviya Nagar police station had registered a case against the accused. 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 court says 'no presumption' that suicide committed by married woman is due to harassment by husband

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to&nbsp;help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority.

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:135,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:1972}">What does the judgement say?</h2>

The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:247,&quot;w&quot;:572,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2084}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/video-women-on-bike-harassed-by-men-on-flooded-road-in-lucknow-4-arrested-746125">Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested</a>

With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas.

The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented.

Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:495,&quot;w&quot;:508,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2332}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-4-dead-200-pilgrims-stranded-as-cloudburst-hits-kedarnath-route-746129">India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route</a>

In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She&nbsp;maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142.

The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden. A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority. What does the judgement say? The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary. Also read | Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas. The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented. Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits. Also read | India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142. The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India backs sub-classification for SCs and STs in 6:1 verdict. Here's what it means

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also issued notice in the matter and sought assistance from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani.

The bench also allowed the woman staffer to involve the Union of India and West Bengal government in her petition. The court has asked for a response within three weeks.

<h2>Petitioner's argument</h2>

The advocate arguing for the petitioner said Article 361 can't act as a bar against the investigation.

"It cannot be that there is no investigation. Evidence has to be gathered right now. It cannot be deferred indefinitely," said Senior advocate Shyam Divan.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwja6sDR9LKHAxVOzzgGHYDhBw4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-what-are-electoral-bonds-why-supreme-court-strikes-down-electoral-bonds-scheme-690460" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-what-are-electoral-bonds-why-supreme-court-strikes-down-electoral-bonds-scheme-690460&amp;ved=2ahUKEwja6sDR9LKHAxVOzzgGHYDhBw4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE">Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial?</a>

In a hard-hitting statement, the petition asked the court "whether sexual harassment and molestation form part of discharging or performing duties by the Governor."

"This court has to decide whether a victim like the Petitioner can be rendered remediless, with the only option being to wait for the accused to demit his office, which delay will then be inexplainable during the trial, and render the entire procedure a mere lip service, without any justice to the victim herein," the plea read.

The advocate argued that any immunity can't be absolute.

<h2>Article 361 of the Indian Constitution</h2>

Article 361(2) of the Constitution states that "no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President, or Governor of a State, in any court, during their term of office."

Watch:&nbsp;Gravitas: China sends spy ships to snoop on India

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-china-sends-spy-ships-to-snoop-on-india-741505/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Such powers cannot be understood to be absolute so as to enable the Governor to do acts which are illegal or which strike at the root of Part III of the Constitution. Moreover, the said immunity cannot impair the police's powers to investigate the offence or even naming the perpetrator in the complaint/FIR, despite specific averments to that effect," the plea added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda.

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also issued notice in the matter and sought assistance from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani. The bench also allowed the woman staffer to involve the Union of India and West Bengal government in her petition. The court has asked for a response within three weeks. Petitioner's argument The advocate arguing for the petitioner said Article 361 can't act as a bar against the investigation. "It cannot be that there is no investigation. Evidence has to be gathered right now. It cannot be deferred indefinitely," said Senior advocate Shyam Divan. Also read: Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial? In a hard-hitting statement, the petition asked the court "whether sexual harassment and molestation form part of discharging or performing duties by the Governor." "This court has to decide whether a victim like the Petitioner can be rendered remediless, with the only option being to wait for the accused to demit his office, which delay will then be inexplainable during the trial, and render the entire procedure a mere lip service, without any justice to the victim herein," the plea read. The advocate argued that any immunity can't be absolute. Article 361 of the Indian Constitution Article 361(2) of the Constitution states that "no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President, or Governor of a State, in any court, during their term of office." Watch: Gravitas: China sends spy ships to snoop on India × "Such powers cannot be understood to be absolute so as to enable the Governor to do acts which are illegal or which strike at the root of Part III of the Constitution. Moreover, the said immunity cannot impair the police's powers to investigate the offence or even naming the perpetrator in the complaint/FIR, despite specific averments to that effect," the plea added. (With inputs from agencies)

Historic! India's top court to hear plea challenging governor's immunity in sexual assault case

Supreme Court of India&nbsp;has dismissed&nbsp;petitions seeking a review of a December 2023 decision that upheld a decision by the Indian Parliament to&nbsp;abrogate&nbsp;the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna concluded that the earlier judgment was impeccable.

"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the bench noted in its May 1 order made public on Tuesday (May 21).

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwitpbHpmp-GAxU5yjgGHRL2AekQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-supreme-court-orders-release-of-newsclick-founder-calls-his-arrest-invalid-721588" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-supreme-court-orders-release-of-newsclick-founder-calls-his-arrest-invalid-721588&amp;ved=2ahUKEwitpbHpmp-GAxU5yjgGHRL2AekQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">India`s Supreme Court orders release of NewsClick founder, calls his arrest `invalid`</a>

In its December 11 decision, the court had upheld the presidential order&nbsp;which&nbsp;took away the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. It refused to intervene after the Solicitor General, the government's advocate, assured the court that&nbsp;the statehood of the Jammu and Kashmir territory would be restored&nbsp;at the earliest.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwitpbHpmp-GAxU5yjgGHRL2AekQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-slams-lackadaisical-approach-of-uttarakhand-govt-to-tackle-forest-fires-721886" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-slams-lackadaisical-approach-of-uttarakhand-govt-to-tackle-forest-fires-721886&amp;ved=2ahUKEwitpbHpmp-GAxU5yjgGHRL2AekQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE">India’s top court slams ‘lackadaisical’ approach of Uttarakhand govt in tackling forest fires</a>

In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had upheld the abrogation of Article 370 granting semi-autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. The court ruled that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the laws and that&nbsp;the abrogation did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court also approved the formation of Ladakh as a separate Union Territory (UT), citing parliament's powers to do so without taking the state assembly's nod. 
 
Petitioners Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Awami National Conference, Muzaffar Iqbal Khan and Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement had contended that the Constitution Bench reached ‘erroneous conclusions’, said reports.

&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India has dismissed petitions seeking a review of a December 2023 decision that upheld a decision by the Indian Parliament to abrogate the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Supreme Court of India has dismissed petitions seeking a review of a December 2023 decision that upheld a decision by the Indian Parliament to abrogate the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna concluded that the earlier judgment was impeccable. "Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the bench noted in its May 1 order made public on Tuesday (May 21). Also read: India`s Supreme Court orders release of NewsClick founder, calls his arrest `invalid` In its December 11 decision, the court had upheld the presidential order which took away the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. It refused to intervene after the Solicitor General, the government's advocate, assured the court that the statehood of the Jammu and Kashmir territory would be restored at the earliest. Also read: India’s top court slams ‘lackadaisical’ approach of Uttarakhand govt in tackling forest fires In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had upheld the abrogation of Article 370 granting semi-autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. The court ruled that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the laws and that the abrogation did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The court also approved the formation of Ladakh as a separate Union Territory (UT), citing parliament's powers to do so without taking the state assembly's nod. Petitioners Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Awami National Conference, Muzaffar Iqbal Khan and Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement had contended that the Constitution Bench reached ‘erroneous conclusions’, said reports. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India rejects petitions seeking review of Article 370 ruling

Following a night of interrogation, a 64-year-old businessman challenged his arrest by the central agency during odd hours. The Supreme Court demanded the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) answer to his plea.

Following a night of interrogation, a 64-year-old businessman challenged his arrest by the central agency during odd hours. The Supreme Court demanded the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) answer to his plea. The petitioner was also granted permission to move the vacation benches for bail by a bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra. "Give notice, with a three-week return period. Dasti notice on the Standing Counsel through the Central Agency Section, in addition," the order said. A 64-year-old businessman named Ram Issrani filed a plea with the court accusing the ED of unlawfully detaining him in connection with an alleged bank fraud case. He stated that he was forced to wait in the ED's office on August 7 and 8, 2018, following that from 10:30 pm to 3:00 am, his statement was recorded. He said that he was kept awake for 20 hours in all and that he was detained on August 8 at 5:30 am. The Bombay High Court declined to invalidate the arrest and remand, leading to the instant appeal. Also read: What is the Enforcement Directorate? What are its recent high profile cases? Though the High Court refused to overturn the arrest, it did object to the central agency recording testimonies of witnesses and accused at unusual hours, which resulted in sleep deprivation. The Court had instructed the ED to publish a circular or instructions about when to record statements after a summons for interrogation is sent out. It reaffirmed that, because it was considered a judicial procedure, an investigation conducted by ED personnel was conducted on a different basis than an inquiry conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was brought up before the Supreme Court that the petitioner was not brought before a magistrate right away after being taken into custody. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, together with Advocates Vijay Agarwal, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Kajal Dalal, and EC Agrawala, represented the businessman before the Supreme Court. (With inputs from agencies)

64-year-old’s plea against odd-hour arrest: Supreme Court seeks ED’s response

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking the formation of an expert panel to look into the alleged side effects of&nbsp;AstraZeneca's&nbsp;Covishield vaccine and create a compensation mechanism for those who died or experienced severe disability after getting inoculated.

The plea has been submitted by Advocate Vishal&nbsp;Tiwari,&nbsp;following&nbsp;AstraZeneca's&nbsp;admission in a UK court that its vaccine, co-developed with the University of Oxford, can cause rare side effects. The company admitted that the vaccine can cause serious injury, including TTS — Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome — which causes people to have blood clots and a low blood platelet count.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjhutbsqOyFAxUVfPUHHV-4C_MQxfQBKAB6BAgJEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/world/what-is-tts-the-rare-sideeffect-caused-by-astrazenecas-covid19-vaccine-1714473211211" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/world/what-is-tts-the-rare-sideeffect-caused-by-astrazenecas-covid19-vaccine-1714473211211&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjhutbsqOyFAxUVfPUHHV-4C_MQxfQBKAB6BAgJEAE">What Is Thrombosis Thrombocytopenia Syndrome or TTS, the Rare Side-effect Caused by Astrazeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine?</a>

AstraZeneca's&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;was licensed&nbsp;to the Serum Institute of India (SII) for mass manufacturing&nbsp;and&nbsp;it was sold under the name&nbsp;‘Covishield’&nbsp;in India.

<h2>The plea</h2>

Tiwari&nbsp;in&nbsp;his&nbsp;plea&nbsp;said that there has been a sudden increase in the number of deaths in India due to heart attacks, which could&nbsp;be linked&nbsp;to the vaccination drive.

"Now after the document filed in UK court by the developer of COVISHEILD we are compelled to think upon the risk and hazardous consequences of COVISHEILD vaccine which have been administered to the citizens in large numbers,"&nbsp;the plea reads.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjhutbsqOyFAxUVfPUHHV-4C_MQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-court-case-rare-side-effects-admission-of-guilt-and-more-all-you-need-to-know-716604" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-court-case-rare-side-effects-admission-of-guilt-and-more-all-you-need-to-know-716604&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjhutbsqOyFAxUVfPUHHV-4C_MQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">AstraZeneca Covid vaccine: Court case, rare side effects, admission of guilt, and more. All you need to know</a>

The plea said that it was only after the&nbsp;government’s&nbsp;assurances and approval that the vaccine&nbsp;was administered&nbsp;in India on such&nbsp;a large&nbsp;level. Tiwari also cited the&nbsp;UK’s&nbsp;Vaccine Damage Payment System to create a similar regime in India to address compensation claims. The plea asks the union government to take up the matter as soon as possible so that&nbsp;‘lives of people are not put at risk in future’.

<h2>The plea seeks three reliefs&nbsp;as&nbsp;mentioned below:</h2>

“(1) Issue directions to Constitute in the interest of health safety a Medical Expert Panel comprising of Medical Experts from All India Institute of Medical Science,&nbsp;Delhi&nbsp;Headed by its Director and Supervised by the Retired Honorable Justice of Supreme Court of India to examine the COVISHEILD VACCINE Side Effects and its risk factors;

(2) Issue directions to the Union of India to Establish a Vaccine Damage Payment System for the Citizens who got severely disabled as a result of a vaccination Drive during Covid 19;

(3) Issue directions to the Union of India to Compensate the People who are severely disabled or died because of the side effects of&nbsp;Corona vaccine&nbsp;administered to them during Covid 19.”

(With inputs from agencies)

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking the formation of an expert panel to look into the alleged side effects of AstraZeneca's Covishield vaccine and create a compensation mechanism for those who died or experienced severe disability after getting inoculated.

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking the formation of an expert panel to look into the alleged side effects of AstraZeneca's Covishield vaccine and create a compensation mechanism for those who died or experienced severe disability after getting inoculated. The plea has been submitted by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, following AstraZeneca's admission in a UK court that its vaccine, co-developed with the University of Oxford, can cause rare side effects. The company admitted that the vaccine can cause serious injury, including TTS — Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome — which causes people to have blood clots and a low blood platelet count. Also read: What Is Thrombosis Thrombocytopenia Syndrome or TTS, the Rare Side-effect Caused by Astrazeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine? AstraZeneca's vaccine was licensed to the Serum Institute of India (SII) for mass manufacturing and it was sold under the name ‘Covishield’ in India. The plea Tiwari in his plea said that there has been a sudden increase in the number of deaths in India due to heart attacks, which could be linked to the vaccination drive. "Now after the document filed in UK court by the developer of COVISHEILD we are compelled to think upon the risk and hazardous consequences of COVISHEILD vaccine which have been administered to the citizens in large numbers," the plea reads. Also read: AstraZeneca Covid vaccine: Court case, rare side effects, admission of guilt, and more. All you need to know The plea said that it was only after the government’s assurances and approval that the vaccine was administered in India on such a large level. Tiwari also cited the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment System to create a similar regime in India to address compensation claims. The plea asks the union government to take up the matter as soon as possible so that ‘lives of people are not put at risk in future’. The plea seeks three reliefs as mentioned below: “(1) Issue directions to Constitute in the interest of health safety a Medical Expert Panel comprising of Medical Experts from All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi Headed by its Director and Supervised by the Retired Honorable Justice of Supreme Court of India to examine the COVISHEILD VACCINE Side Effects and its risk factors; (2) Issue directions to the Union of India to Establish a Vaccine Damage Payment System for the Citizens who got severely disabled as a result of a vaccination Drive during Covid 19; (3) Issue directions to the Union of India to Compensate the People who are severely disabled or died because of the side effects of Corona vaccine administered to them during Covid 19.” (With inputs from agencies)

Plea filed in India’s top court seeking investigation into Covid vaccine Covishield's side effects

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the essentials for a Hindu marriage to be legal under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.&nbsp;

As per a ruling made by the top court on April 19 (Friday), a Hindu marriage must be performed with traditional rites and ceremonies, such as 'saptapadi' (seven steps around the sacred fire commonly known as 'saath phera') for it to be valid.

"Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies such as saptapadi when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage," the court said.&nbsp;

<h2>Evidence of marriage</h2>

The bench said that evidence of these rituals is essential in case of any disputes.

"For a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy arise. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law."

A bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also observed that registration of a Hindu marriage under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act facilitates proof of the marriage.

However, they said it does not confer legitimacy if the marriage was not solemnised according to Section 7 of the Act, which specifies the requirements for a valid Hindu marriage ceremony.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/four-schools-in-delhi-ncr-receive-bomb-threats-prompting-immediate-evacuations-716857">Delhi Bomb Threat: Nearly 100 schools in Delhi, Noida, and Lucknow receive bomb threats, probe underway</a>

"A certificate of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no marriage ceremony performed at all," said the court.

<h2>Hindu Marriage is sacred, not an event for 'song-dance, wining-dining'</h2>

These observations were made as India's highest court decided on a petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of divorce proceedings against her.

While the case was ongoing, the couple came to a mutual understanding, filing a joint application seeking a declaration that their marriage was invalid.

They contended that no marriage ceremony took place, as they did not observe any customs, rites, or rituals.

They also said that, due to "certain exigencies and pressures", they had to obtain a certificate of solemnisation from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.).

Based on this, they had then sought registration under the Uttar Pradesh Registration Rule, 2017 and a "Certificate of Marriage" was issued by the Registrar of Marriages.

The top court, after noting that the marriage was not solemnised, declared that there was no valid marriage.

"A Hindu marriage is a samskara [culture] and a sacrament which has to be accorded its status as an institution of great value in Indian society. Therefore, we urge young men and women to think deeply about the institution of marriage even before they enter upon it and as to how sacred the said institution is, in Indian society."

"A marriage is not an event for 'song and dance' and 'wining and dining' or an occasion to demand and exchange dowry and gifts by undue pressure leading to possible initiation of criminal proceedings thereafter," said the court.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/100-stray-dogs-in-dog-receive-paw-some-doggy-aadhaar-cards-heres-all-you-need-to-know-716979">100 stray dogs in Delhi receive paw-some doggy 'Aadhaar cards'. Here's all you need to know</a>

In a conversation with WION, Neha Sonawane lawyer, founder - Vaakya&nbsp;Legal said, "Practice of Hinduism is not uniform and the customs differ as per caste culture, etc. On the one hand, we want uniformity in marriage laws for the protection of women and, on the other hand, reducing the importance of registration is counterproductive."

Sonawane argued that marriage registration "is the only step in Hindu law which could be said to be a commonality across castes, cultures etc. Registration of marriages not only serves as a better proof of marriage but also helps in controlling child marriage, and polygamy — marriages where the person married a second time without divorcing their first partner. It's essentially a constructive notice&nbsp;to&nbsp;the&nbsp;world."

"Having said that, the judgment is absolutely correct in noting that marriage is an important step and shouldn't be&nbsp;entered&nbsp;lightly," she concluded.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the essentials for a Hindu marriage to be legal under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. As per a ruling made by the top court on April 19 (Friday), a Hindu marriage must be performed with traditional rites and ceremonies, such as 'saptapadi' (seven steps around the sacred fire commonly known as 'saath phera') for it to be valid.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down the essentials for a Hindu marriage to be legal under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. As per a ruling made by the top court on April 19 (Friday), a Hindu marriage must be performed with traditional rites and ceremonies, such as 'saptapadi' (seven steps around the sacred fire commonly known as 'saath phera') for it to be valid. "Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies such as saptapadi when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage," the court said. Evidence of marriage The bench said that evidence of these rituals is essential in case of any disputes. "For a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy arise. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law." A bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also observed that registration of a Hindu marriage under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act facilitates proof of the marriage. However, they said it does not confer legitimacy if the marriage was not solemnised according to Section 7 of the Act, which specifies the requirements for a valid Hindu marriage ceremony. Also read | Delhi Bomb Threat: Nearly 100 schools in Delhi, Noida, and Lucknow receive bomb threats, probe underway "A certificate of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no marriage ceremony performed at all," said the court. Hindu Marriage is sacred, not an event for 'song-dance, wining-dining' These observations were made as India's highest court decided on a petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of divorce proceedings against her. While the case was ongoing, the couple came to a mutual understanding, filing a joint application seeking a declaration that their marriage was invalid. They contended that no marriage ceremony took place, as they did not observe any customs, rites, or rituals. They also said that, due to "certain exigencies and pressures", they had to obtain a certificate of solemnisation from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.). Based on this, they had then sought registration under the Uttar Pradesh Registration Rule, 2017 and a "Certificate of Marriage" was issued by the Registrar of Marriages. The top court, after noting that the marriage was not solemnised, declared that there was no valid marriage. "A Hindu marriage is a samskara [culture] and a sacrament which has to be accorded its status as an institution of great value in Indian society. Therefore, we urge young men and women to think deeply about the institution of marriage even before they enter upon it and as to how sacred the said institution is, in Indian society." "A marriage is not an event for 'song and dance' and 'wining and dining' or an occasion to demand and exchange dowry and gifts by undue pressure leading to possible initiation of criminal proceedings thereafter," said the court. Also read | 100 stray dogs in Delhi receive paw-some doggy 'Aadhaar cards'. Here's all you need to know In a conversation with WION, Neha Sonawane lawyer, founder - Vaakya Legal said, "Practice of Hinduism is not uniform and the customs differ as per caste culture, etc. On the one hand, we want uniformity in marriage laws for the protection of women and, on the other hand, reducing the importance of registration is counterproductive." Sonawane argued that marriage registration "is the only step in Hindu law which could be said to be a commonality across castes, cultures etc. Registration of marriages not only serves as a better proof of marriage but also helps in controlling child marriage, and polygamy — marriages where the person married a second time without divorcing their first partner. It's essentially a constructive notice to the world." "Having said that, the judgment is absolutely correct in noting that marriage is an important step and shouldn't be entered lightly," she concluded. (With inputs from agencies)

Hindu marriage rituals integral to their validity, opines Supreme Court: 'Not just song-dance'

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh in the Delhi liquor policy case.&nbsp;

A bench of the apex court, as per reports, directed that Singh be released on bail on terms and conditions set by the trial court.&nbsp;

"We direct that Sanjay Singh be released on bail on terms and conditions fixed by the trial court. We clarify that the concession given today will not be treated as a precedence. He will be allowed to continue with his political activities." 
 
The ED had said that it does&nbsp;not object to granting bail to Singh during the pendency of proceedings under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

<h2>Sanjay Singh in jail since October 2023</h2>

The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice P B Varale questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) about the need for further custody of Singh.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-aap-leader-atishi-claims-was-told-join-bjp-or-else-ahead-of-2024-lok-sabha-election-706799">Watch | AAP leader Atishi claims was told join BJP 'or else...', ruling party reacts</a>

Hearing Singh's plea challenging his arrest and remand by the ED, the Supreme Court noted that Singh had already spent six months in jail.

The bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED, that no money had been recovered from Singh's possession and suggested that the allegation of him receiving a ₹2 crore ($239,887) bribe could be examined during the trial.&nbsp;

Singh was arrested by the ED on October 4 last year.

Previously, in the high court, the AAP leader had applied for bail, citing that he had been in custody for over three months and that no role had been attributed to him in the predicate offence.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/arvind-kejriwal-in-tihar-jail-new-bank-account-five-visitors-medical-check-ups-and-more-706813">Arvind Kejriwal turns Undertrial no. 670: With books, bank account and medical check ups</a>

However, the probe agency ED at the time opposed Singh's bail plea, alleging his involvement in acquiring, possessing, concealing, dissipating, and using proceeds of crime related to the Delhi liquor scam during the 2021-22 policy period.&nbsp;

The ED also claimed that Singh had illicitly gained money or kickbacks from the liquor policy scam and had conspired with others.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh in the Delhi liquor policy case. A bench of the apex court, as per reports, directed that Singh be released on bail on terms and conditions set by the trial court.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh in the Delhi liquor policy case. A bench of the apex court, as per reports, directed that Singh be released on bail on terms and conditions set by the trial court. "We direct that Sanjay Singh be released on bail on terms and conditions fixed by the trial court. We clarify that the concession given today will not be treated as a precedence. He will be allowed to continue with his political activities." The ED had said that it does not object to granting bail to Singh during the pendency of proceedings under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Sanjay Singh in jail since October 2023 The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice P B Varale questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) about the need for further custody of Singh. Also read | Watch | AAP leader Atishi claims was told join BJP 'or else...', ruling party reacts Hearing Singh's plea challenging his arrest and remand by the ED, the Supreme Court noted that Singh had already spent six months in jail. The bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED, that no money had been recovered from Singh's possession and suggested that the allegation of him receiving a ₹2 crore ($239,887) bribe could be examined during the trial. Singh was arrested by the ED on October 4 last year. Previously, in the high court, the AAP leader had applied for bail, citing that he had been in custody for over three months and that no role had been attributed to him in the predicate offence. Also read | Arvind Kejriwal turns Undertrial no. 670: With books, bank account and medical check ups However, the probe agency ED at the time opposed Singh's bail plea, alleging his involvement in acquiring, possessing, concealing, dissipating, and using proceeds of crime related to the Delhi liquor scam during the 2021-22 policy period. The ED also claimed that Singh had illicitly gained money or kickbacks from the liquor policy scam and had conspired with others. (With inputs from agencies)

Delhi liquor policy case: Supreme Court grants bail to AAP MP Sanjay Singh after ED says it has no objection

The Supreme Court has taken action on Tuesday regarding petitions requesting a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rules, setting April 9 as the next hearing date. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, requested time to address the 20 applications seeking a stay on the CAA Rules until the apex court resolves petitions challenging the Act's constitutional validity.

<h2>No stay on citizenship grant amidst petitioners' appeals</h2>

Despite some petitioners urging for stay, there is currently no halt on the grant of citizenship. Mehta clarified to the bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, that the CAA does not revoke anyone's citizenship.

The Centre notified the CAA rules on March 11, four years post its passage in Parliament. The Act aims to provide Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.

Various opposition parties have criticised the CAA, labelling it 'discriminatory,' 'communal,' and 'anti-constitutional.' However, the Modi government asserts that the Act does not infringe upon anyone's citizenship rights. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has reiterated multiple times that the Act is not designed to revoke the rights of any citizen and provides relief to persecuted non-Muslim minorities from neighboring countries.

Also watch |&nbsp;CAA implemented: SC denies stay on CAA implementation, seeks Centre's response

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/caa-implemented-sc-denies-stay-on-caa-implementation-seeks-centres-response-701871/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h2>Government's justification for CAA</h2>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">Shah, in an interview with ANI, emphasised that the CAA aims to alleviate the suffering of persecuted non-Muslim migrants by offering them Indian citizenship. He clarified that the law is intended to assist Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians who fled religious persecution in their home countries.</div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-is-caa-how-it-fastracks-citizenship-of-religious-minorities-from-parts-of-south-asia-699036">Also read |&nbsp;What is CAA? How it fast-tracks Indian citizenship of religious minorities from South Asian nations</a>

As the Supreme Court awaits the government's response, the debate surrounding the CAA continues. While the government argues for the Act's humanitarian intent, critics raise concerns about its implications on India's secular fabric.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court has taken action on Tuesday regarding petitions requesting a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rules, setting April 9 as the next hearing date.

The Supreme Court has taken action on Tuesday regarding petitions requesting a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rules, setting April 9 as the next hearing date. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, requested time to address the 20 applications seeking a stay on the CAA Rules until the apex court resolves petitions challenging the Act's constitutional validity. No stay on citizenship grant amidst petitioners' appeals Despite some petitioners urging for stay, there is currently no halt on the grant of citizenship. Mehta clarified to the bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, that the CAA does not revoke anyone's citizenship. The Centre notified the CAA rules on March 11, four years post its passage in Parliament. The Act aims to provide Indian citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014. Various opposition parties have criticised the CAA, labelling it 'discriminatory,' 'communal,' and 'anti-constitutional.' However, the Modi government asserts that the Act does not infringe upon anyone's citizenship rights. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has reiterated multiple times that the Act is not designed to revoke the rights of any citizen and provides relief to persecuted non-Muslim minorities from neighboring countries. Also watch | CAA implemented: SC denies stay on CAA implementation, seeks Centre's response Government's justification for CAA Shah, in an interview with ANI, emphasised that the CAA aims to alleviate the suffering of persecuted non-Muslim migrants by offering them Indian citizenship. He clarified that the law is intended to assist Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians who fled religious persecution in their home countries. Also read | What is CAA? How it fast-tracks Indian citizenship of religious minorities from South Asian nations As the Supreme Court awaits the government's response, the debate surrounding the CAA continues. While the government argues for the Act's humanitarian intent, critics raise concerns about its implications on India's secular fabric. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Supreme Court seeks central govt’s response to pleas calling for stay on CAA rules

In the electoral bonds case, India's Supreme Court on Friday (Mar 15) pulled up the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing details like&nbsp;bond numbers, date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption to the Election Commission of India (ECI). It issued a notice to the state-run bank seeking full details. 
 
The&nbsp;unique alphanumeric code printed on each electoral bond would have helped match donors with political parties, but was not shared by SBI after an earlier court order to make the information public on electoral bonds. Following that order, the ECI had published the data - as shared by SBI - on its website late Thursday.

"Judgment of the Constitution Bench required the SBI to furnish to the ECI all details of the electoral bonds and redeemed, including the date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption," said the Chief Justice of India&nbsp;D Y Chandrachud on Friday.

"It is submitted that SBI has not disclosed the unique alpha numeric number of the electoral bonds. SG submits that notice may be issued to the SBI," the CJI added.

"We direct the issue of notice to the SBI returnable by Monday," the apex court ordered.

The bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra reconvened today to hear an application filed by the Election Commission.

In its application, the ECI had sought the return of sealed cover the documents furnished by the commission to the court in adherence to its interim order.

<h2>SBI to explain lapse</h2>

While hearing the EC plea, the top court noted that the data provided by SBI was 'incomplete'.

The CJI also asked who was appearing in the court on behalf of the SBI.

"Who is appearing for the State Bank of India? They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India," said the CJI.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also urged the court to issue a notice to SBI as he emphasised the bank must have something to say over the matter but was not a party to Friday's hearing.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjItve95vWEAxWvcmwGHQ4RAngQvOMEKAB6BAgQEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/election-commission-publishes-electoral-bonds-data-on-its-website-following-sc-order-700154" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/election-commission-publishes-electoral-bonds-data-on-its-website-following-sc-order-700154&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjItve95vWEAxWvcmwGHQ4RAngQvOMEKAB6BAgQEAE">India: Election Commission publishes electoral bonds data on its website following Supreme Court order</a>

“SBI is not a party. They were here because they had moved an application,” he said.

Expressing his displeasure, the CJI said, “They should be here when the matter is going on.”&nbsp;

The court also allowed the ECI request and directed its registry to return the poll bonds data submitted to it to the poll body.

“The Registrar Judicial of this court shall ensure that the data which has been filed by ECI in pursuance of the interim orders of the court is scanned and digitised. This may be completed by 5 PM tomorrow. Once this exercise is completed, the original shall be returned to ECI counsel Amit Sharma, who shall then upload it on the ECI website…,” the court directed.

(With inputs from agencies)

In the electoral bonds case, India's Supreme Court on Friday (Mar 15) pulled up the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing details like bond numbers, date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

In the electoral bonds case, India's Supreme Court on Friday (Mar 15) pulled up the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing details like bond numbers, date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption to the Election Commission of India (ECI). It issued a notice to the state-run bank seeking full details. The unique alphanumeric code printed on each electoral bond would have helped match donors with political parties, but was not shared by SBI after an earlier court order to make the information public on electoral bonds. Following that order, the ECI had published the data - as shared by SBI - on its website late Thursday. "Judgment of the Constitution Bench required the SBI to furnish to the ECI all details of the electoral bonds and redeemed, including the date of purchase, name of purchaser, and the date of purchase/redemption," said the Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Friday. "It is submitted that SBI has not disclosed the unique alpha numeric number of the electoral bonds. SG submits that notice may be issued to the SBI," the CJI added. "We direct the issue of notice to the SBI returnable by Monday," the apex court ordered. The bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra reconvened today to hear an application filed by the Election Commission. In its application, the ECI had sought the return of sealed cover the documents furnished by the commission to the court in adherence to its interim order. SBI to explain lapse While hearing the EC plea, the top court noted that the data provided by SBI was 'incomplete'. The CJI also asked who was appearing in the court on behalf of the SBI. "Who is appearing for the State Bank of India? They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India," said the CJI. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also urged the court to issue a notice to SBI as he emphasised the bank must have something to say over the matter but was not a party to Friday's hearing. Also read: India: Election Commission publishes electoral bonds data on its website following Supreme Court order “SBI is not a party. They were here because they had moved an application,” he said. Expressing his displeasure, the CJI said, “They should be here when the matter is going on.” The court also allowed the ECI request and directed its registry to return the poll bonds data submitted to it to the poll body. “The Registrar Judicial of this court shall ensure that the data which has been filed by ECI in pursuance of the interim orders of the court is scanned and digitised. This may be completed by 5 PM tomorrow. Once this exercise is completed, the original shall be returned to ECI counsel Amit Sharma, who shall then upload it on the ECI website…,” the court directed. (With inputs from agencies)

Electoral bonds: India's Supreme Court criticises lender SBI for not sharing all details, issues notice

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (Mar 11) will hear an application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI), seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month.

<h2>Constitutional bench</h2>

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, J. B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, is set to convene today (Monday, Mar 11) at 10:30 am to deliberate on two petitions.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-sc-rejects-sbis-electoral-bond-disclosure-extension-plea-asks-eci-to-publish-details-by-march-15-698888">India: SC rejects SBI's electoral bond disclosure extension plea; asks ECI to publish details by March 15</a>

Along with SBI's plea seeking extension, the bench will also consider a separate plea, requesting the initiation of contempt action against the SBI. This plea alleges that SBI "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6.

<h2>The scrapping of electoral bonds</h2>

In a significant ruling on February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench invalidated the central government's electoral bonds scheme, which permitted anonymous political funding, deeming it "unconstitutional." The court also mandated disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, their donation amounts, and the recipients by March 13.

Subsequently, the top court directed the SBI, the designated financial institution under the scheme, to furnish details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to date to the Election Commission by March 6. The Commission was instructed to publish this information on its official website by March 13.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-president-accepts-resignation-tendered-by-election-commissioner-arun-goel-ahead-of-lok-sabha-polls-698380">India: Election Commissioner Arun Goel resigns ahead of Lok Sabha polls, president accepts resignation</a>

However, as per news agency PTI, on March 4, the SBI petitioned the apex court for an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties. The bank argued that retrieving information from "each silo" and "decoding" electoral bonds and matching donors to donations due to stringent anonymity measures would be a time-consuming exercise.

The data pertaining to bond issuance and redemption were maintained separately to safeguard donor anonymity.

<h2>SBI's 'mala fide' application</h2>

A subsequent petition was lodged seeking contempt proceedings against the SBI for allegedly flouting the apex court's directives. The petitioners, NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, accused the SBI of filing the extension application at the eleventh hour to prevent public disclosure of donor details before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

"It is submitted that the said application is mala fide and demonstrates a wilful and deliberate disobedience &amp; defiance of the judgement passed by the constitution bench of this court. It is further a clear attempt to undermine the authority of this court," it alleged.

"The petitioner herein is filing the instant petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against State Bank of India for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated February 15 passed by this court … wherein this court directed SBI to submit details of contribution made to the political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6," said the contempt plea.

The plea asserted that electoral bonds are "completely traceable", as evidenced by the SBI's maintenance of donor records. It contended that any form of anonymity in political party finances contradicts the principles of participatory democracy and the public's right to information, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Access to information about electoral bonds, the petition argued, would empower voters to scrutinise, express, and make informed decisions regarding their choices.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (Mar 11) will hear an application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI), seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (Mar 11) will hear an application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI), seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month. Constitutional bench A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, J. B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, is set to convene today (Monday, Mar 11) at 10:30 am to deliberate on two petitions. Also read | India: SC rejects SBI's electoral bond disclosure extension plea; asks ECI to publish details by March 15 Along with SBI's plea seeking extension, the bench will also consider a separate plea, requesting the initiation of contempt action against the SBI. This plea alleges that SBI "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The scrapping of electoral bonds In a significant ruling on February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench invalidated the central government's electoral bonds scheme, which permitted anonymous political funding, deeming it "unconstitutional." The court also mandated disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, their donation amounts, and the recipients by March 13. Subsequently, the top court directed the SBI, the designated financial institution under the scheme, to furnish details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to date to the Election Commission by March 6. The Commission was instructed to publish this information on its official website by March 13. Also read | India: Election Commissioner Arun Goel resigns ahead of Lok Sabha polls, president accepts resignation However, as per news agency PTI, on March 4, the SBI petitioned the apex court for an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties. The bank argued that retrieving information from "each silo" and "decoding" electoral bonds and matching donors to donations due to stringent anonymity measures would be a time-consuming exercise. The data pertaining to bond issuance and redemption were maintained separately to safeguard donor anonymity. SBI's 'mala fide' application A subsequent petition was lodged seeking contempt proceedings against the SBI for allegedly flouting the apex court's directives. The petitioners, NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause, accused the SBI of filing the extension application at the eleventh hour to prevent public disclosure of donor details before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. "It is submitted that the said application is mala fide and demonstrates a wilful and deliberate disobedience & defiance of the judgement passed by the constitution bench of this court. It is further a clear attempt to undermine the authority of this court," it alleged. "The petitioner herein is filing the instant petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against State Bank of India for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated February 15 passed by this court … wherein this court directed SBI to submit details of contribution made to the political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India by March 6," said the contempt plea. The plea asserted that electoral bonds are "completely traceable", as evidenced by the SBI's maintenance of donor records. It contended that any form of anonymity in political party finances contradicts the principles of participatory democracy and the public's right to information, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Access to information about electoral bonds, the petition argued, would empower voters to scrutinise, express, and make informed decisions regarding their choices. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court to hear SBI's electoral bond disclosure delay plea, and contempt allegations against bank

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Mar 11) rejected the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month. Instead, it directed the bank&nbsp;"to disclose the details by the close of business hours of 12 March 2024 (Tuesday)".

Furthermore, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been directed to "compile the information and publish the details on its official website no later than by 15 March 2024 by 5 PM."

<h2>Contempt charges</h2>

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, J. B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra also heard a plea&nbsp;requesting the initiation of contempt action against the SBI. The plea alleged that SBI "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6.

The court has asked SBI to "file an affidavit of its Chairman and Managing Director on compliance with the directions issued above." It warned the bank that it may move ahead with contempt charges if its instructions are flouted.

"While we are not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction at this time, we place SBI on notice that this Court may be inclined to proceed against it for wilful disobedience if SBI does not comply with the directions by the timelines indicated in this order," the court observed.

<h2>The scrapping of electoral bonds</h2>

In a significant ruling on February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench invalidated the central government's electoral bonds scheme, which permitted anonymous political funding, deeming it "unconstitutional." The court also mandated disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, their donation amounts, and the recipients by March 13.

Subsequently, the top court directed the SBI, the designated financial institution under the scheme, to furnish details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to date to the Election Commission by March 6. The Commission was instructed to publish this information on its official website by March 13.

However, as per news agency PTI, on March 4, the SBI petitioned the apex court for an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties. The bank argued that retrieving information from "each silo" and "decoding" electoral bonds and matching donors to donations due to stringent anonymity measures would be a time-consuming exercise.

The data on bond issuance and redemption were maintained separately to safeguard donor anonymity, it said.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Mar 11) rejected the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Mar 11) rejected the State Bank of India's (SBI) plea seeking an extension until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties before the scheme was scrapped last month. Instead, it directed the bank "to disclose the details by the close of business hours of 12 March 2024 (Tuesday)". Furthermore, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been directed to "compile the information and publish the details on its official website no later than by 15 March 2024 by 5 PM." Contempt charges A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, J. B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra also heard a plea requesting the initiation of contempt action against the SBI. The plea alleged that SBI "wilfully and deliberately" disobeyed the apex court's direction to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to the Election Commission by March 6. The court has asked SBI to "file an affidavit of its Chairman and Managing Director on compliance with the directions issued above." It warned the bank that it may move ahead with contempt charges if its instructions are flouted. "While we are not inclined to exercise the contempt jurisdiction at this time, we place SBI on notice that this Court may be inclined to proceed against it for wilful disobedience if SBI does not comply with the directions by the timelines indicated in this order," the court observed. The scrapping of electoral bonds In a significant ruling on February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench invalidated the central government's electoral bonds scheme, which permitted anonymous political funding, deeming it "unconstitutional." The court also mandated disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, their donation amounts, and the recipients by March 13. Subsequently, the top court directed the SBI, the designated financial institution under the scheme, to furnish details of electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to date to the Election Commission by March 6. The Commission was instructed to publish this information on its official website by March 13. However, as per news agency PTI, on March 4, the SBI petitioned the apex court for an extension until June 30 to disclose the details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties. The bank argued that retrieving information from "each silo" and "decoding" electoral bonds and matching donors to donations due to stringent anonymity measures would be a time-consuming exercise. The data on bond issuance and redemption were maintained separately to safeguard donor anonymity, it said. (With inputs from agencies)

India: SC rejects SBI's electoral bond disclosure extension plea, directs it to share info by March 12

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court.

The apex court has directed the party to vacate the place by June 15.

Taking into consideration the upcoming general election, a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed AAP to apply to the Land and Development Office of the Government of India for allotment of alternate land in accordance with the law in the meantime.

"In view of the impending general elections, we grant time until June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises," the court said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-cm-kejriwal-agrees-to-cooperate-with-ed-after-skipping-eight-summons-in-a-row-696339">Delhi CM Kejriwal agrees to cooperate with ED after skipping eight summons in a row</a>

<h2>Respect&nbsp;SC's order to vacate the Delhi office, says AAP</h2>

The party released a statement saying that it respected the court's order to vacate its offices in Delhi's Rouse Avenue further expressing hope that it would be allotted land in the same location soon.

Priyanka Kakkar, the AAP's chief national spokesperson, said, "We respect the Supreme Court. The apex court has also directed that the Centre's L&amp;DO (Land and Development Office) allot an alternative land for the AAP's office as soon as possible."&nbsp;

"We hope that the BJP will not do any regressive, discriminatory or dirty politics and, without further delay, allot land for the AAP's office premises at the same location where all the other national parties have been allotted land for office use in Delhi," Kakkar said.

At the time of the hearing in the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Aam Aadmi Party had encroached on the land since 2017.

The court also underscored that the AAP was not a lawful occupant of the land after 2017.

However, senior Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the national capital's ruling party, submitted that the AAP was one of the six national parties and is entitled to land in the New Delhi municipal area, under its status.

"They are telling us as a national party we get nothing. I'm given (land in) Badarpur while everyone else is in better places. A particular government does not want me to be flourishing and working," Singhvi said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court. The apex court has directed the party to vacate the place by June 15. Taking into consideration the upcoming general election, a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed AAP to apply to the Land and Development Office of the Government of India for allotment of alternate land in accordance with the law in the meantime. "In view of the impending general elections, we grant time until June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises," the court said. Also read: Delhi CM Kejriwal agrees to cooperate with ED after skipping eight summons in a row Respect SC's order to vacate the Delhi office, says AAP The party released a statement saying that it respected the court's order to vacate its offices in Delhi's Rouse Avenue further expressing hope that it would be allotted land in the same location soon. Priyanka Kakkar, the AAP's chief national spokesperson, said, "We respect the Supreme Court. The apex court has also directed that the Centre's L&DO (Land and Development Office) allot an alternative land for the AAP's office as soon as possible." "We hope that the BJP will not do any regressive, discriminatory or dirty politics and, without further delay, allot land for the AAP's office premises at the same location where all the other national parties have been allotted land for office use in Delhi," Kakkar said. At the time of the hearing in the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Aam Aadmi Party had encroached on the land since 2017. The court also underscored that the AAP was not a lawful occupant of the land after 2017. However, senior Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the national capital's ruling party, submitted that the AAP was one of the six national parties and is entitled to land in the New Delhi municipal area, under its status. "They are telling us as a national party we get nothing. I'm given (land in) Badarpur while everyone else is in better places. A particular government does not want me to be flourishing and working," Singhvi said. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court orders Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party to vacate headquarters

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Feb 20)&nbsp;examined the ballot papers cast in the controversy-ridden Chandigarh mayor polls. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI)&nbsp;DY Chandrachud&nbsp;found that all eight dismissed ballot papers were in fact valid and cast in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party candidate.&nbsp;

Later, the Supreme Court bench declared the AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar 'validly elected', while setting aside the previous result.

"The petitioner is declared to be the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation," the bench noted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a> Bench : The petitioner is declared to be the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChandigarhMayorElections?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChandigarhMayorElections</a>
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1759894256637137069?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"From the result sheet, while the petitioner got 12 votes, the 8 votes which were treated as invalid wrongly, were validly passed in favour of the petitioner. Adding the 8 votes would make his tally 20 votes. The 8th respondent on the other hand polled 16 votes," the bench said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
CJI showing the ballots to the lawyers : All 8 have received the stamp for Kuldeep Kumar. The votes are cast for Kuldeep Kumar. What he (returning officer) does is, he puts a single line. Just one line, as seen in the video.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChandigarhMayorElection?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChandigarhMayorElection</a>
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1759870885539074348?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The mayoral polls took place on January 30, and were won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after returning officer Anil Masih declared eight votes of AAP as invalid.&nbsp;The BJP candidate secured 16 votes whereas the joint candidate of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress originally secured 20.

The Supreme Court also grilled Masih for making 'X'&nbsp;marks on the eight ballot papers and later declaring them invalid.

"Mr Masih, yesterday you told us that you put the lines because the ballot papers were defaced. Where is the ballot paper defaced?" the CJI asked.

"We will direct that the votes at the poll shall be recounted and these 8 shall be treated as valid and results be declared on the basis of that," the chief justice remarked, as quoted by Live Law.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
CJI : We will direct that the votes at the poll shall be recounted and these 8 shall be treated as valid and results be declared on the basis of that.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SupremeCourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SupremeCourt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChandigarhMayorElection?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChandigarhMayorElection</a>
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1759872596475302261?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Arguments regarding fresh elections</h2>

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing&nbsp;the winner of the mayoral election, who resigned on Sunday (Feb 18) ahead of court hearing, pleaded with the SC to conduct fresh elections as "there is a vacancy in the post."

"Even if your lordships come to the conclusion that the election has to be set aside, as per statutory mechanism a fresh election has to be done. That will be fair to us too,"&nbsp;Maninder Singh reportedly told the SC bench.

Senior&nbsp;Advocate&nbsp;AM Singhvi, who represented&nbsp;the AAP candidate, vehemently opposed the appeal, saying the fresh elections would let them avail the benefit of the ongoing 'horse-trading.'&nbsp;&nbsp;

"They want fresh election because they want the benefit of the time during which they possibly got people to defect. On a lighter vein, horse-trading is a term insulting horses," Singhvi said.

It must be noted that just a day before the hearing started on Monday (Feb 19), three of AAP’s councillors - Poonam Devi, Neha and Gurcharan Kala - joined the BJP.

<h2>Supreme Court dismissed fresh election plea</h2>

The SC noted that setting aside the entire election process would be inappropriate as infirmity was only found in the counting of votes.&nbsp;

"The setting aside of the election process is a wider relief. We are of the view that setting aside the entire election process is inappropriate as the only infirmity is found in the counting process. Setting aside of the entire election process will compound the destruction of the democratic principles which happened due to the conduct of the Presiding Officer," the court said.

(This is a developing story)

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Feb 20) examined the ballot papers cast in the controversy-ridden Chandigarh mayor polls. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud found that all eight dismissed ballot papers were in fact valid and cast in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party candidate.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Feb 20) examined the ballot papers cast in the controversy-ridden Chandigarh mayor polls. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud found that all eight dismissed ballot papers were in fact valid and cast in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party candidate. Later, the Supreme Court bench declared the AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar 'validly elected', while setting aside the previous result. "The petitioner is declared to be the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation," the bench noted. #BREAKING Bench : The petitioner is declared to be the validly elected candidate for the post of Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.#SupremeCourt #ChandigarhMayorElections — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 20, 2024 × "From the result sheet, while the petitioner got 12 votes, the 8 votes which were treated as invalid wrongly, were validly passed in favour of the petitioner. Adding the 8 votes would make his tally 20 votes. The 8th respondent on the other hand polled 16 votes," the bench said. CJI showing the ballots to the lawyers : All 8 have received the stamp for Kuldeep Kumar. The votes are cast for Kuldeep Kumar. What he (returning officer) does is, he puts a single line. Just one line, as seen in the video.#SupremeCourt #ChandigarhMayorElection — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 20, 2024 × The mayoral polls took place on January 30, and were won by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after returning officer Anil Masih declared eight votes of AAP as invalid. The BJP candidate secured 16 votes whereas the joint candidate of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress originally secured 20. The Supreme Court also grilled Masih for making 'X' marks on the eight ballot papers and later declaring them invalid. "Mr Masih, yesterday you told us that you put the lines because the ballot papers were defaced. Where is the ballot paper defaced?" the CJI asked. "We will direct that the votes at the poll shall be recounted and these 8 shall be treated as valid and results be declared on the basis of that," the chief justice remarked, as quoted by Live Law. CJI : We will direct that the votes at the poll shall be recounted and these 8 shall be treated as valid and results be declared on the basis of that.#SupremeCourt #ChandigarhMayorElection — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 20, 2024 × Arguments regarding fresh elections Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the winner of the mayoral election, who resigned on Sunday (Feb 18) ahead of court hearing, pleaded with the SC to conduct fresh elections as "there is a vacancy in the post." "Even if your lordships come to the conclusion that the election has to be set aside, as per statutory mechanism a fresh election has to be done. That will be fair to us too," Maninder Singh reportedly told the SC bench. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, who represented the AAP candidate, vehemently opposed the appeal, saying the fresh elections would let them avail the benefit of the ongoing 'horse-trading.' "They want fresh election because they want the benefit of the time during which they possibly got people to defect. On a lighter vein, horse-trading is a term insulting horses," Singhvi said. It must be noted that just a day before the hearing started on Monday (Feb 19), three of AAP’s councillors - Poonam Devi, Neha and Gurcharan Kala - joined the BJP. Supreme Court dismissed fresh election plea The SC noted that setting aside the entire election process would be inappropriate as infirmity was only found in the counting of votes. "The setting aside of the election process is a wider relief. We are of the view that setting aside the entire election process is inappropriate as the only infirmity is found in the counting process. Setting aside of the entire election process will compound the destruction of the democratic principles which happened due to the conduct of the Presiding Officer," the court said. (This is a developing story)

Chandigarh mayor polls: SC declares AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner, sets aside previous result

The Indian&nbsp;government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court. As per a report by news agency PTI, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had highlighted that the apex court has "consistently" dismissed the idea, citing it as a sub-judice matter.

"The Supreme Court has been consistently rejecting the proposal for setting up of the Benches of Supreme Court at a place outside Delhi," said the&nbsp;Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-pet-dog-protects-owners-body-from-wild-animals-for-48-hours-amid-heavy-snow-watch-688293">Pet dog protects owner's body from wild animals for 48 hours amid heavy snow. Watch</a>

Presenting its action-taken report on "Judicial Processes and Their Reforms," the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (Feb 7th) revealed that the government has acknowledged its suggestion.

<h2>Access to justice</h2>

In a chapter discussing the recommendations accepted by the government, the panel referred to its previous proposal regarding the feasibility of regional Supreme Court benches.&nbsp;

Emphasising the significance of 'access to justice' as a fundamental right, the committee underscored the long-standing demand for regional benches to ensure justice reaches the doorsteps of citizens.

The committee highlighted that establishing regional benches could alleviate the burden on the judiciary and reduce litigation costs for the common man.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-nirmala-sitharaman-presents-white-paper-on-indian-economy-in-lok-sabha-688314">India: Nirmala Sitharaman presents 'White paper' on Indian economy in Lok Sabha</a>

"The regional benches may also be seen as a solution to the overflowing caseload of the judiciary and to reduce the litigation cost to the common man," it said.

The committee reiterated its persistent recommendation for setting up regional Supreme Court benches and proposed the invocation of Article 130 of the Constitution for this purpose. The panel recommended the setting up of regional benches in four or five locations across India.

Responding to this, the Department of Justice in the law ministry clarified that as per Article 130, the Supreme Court is mandated to sit in Delhi or other locations designated by the Chief Justice of India with the President's approval. It said that the matter of regional benches has been referred twice to the Attorney General for opinion.

Former Attorney&nbsp;Generals have expressed reservations about regional benches, citing concerns about the Supreme Court's unity, integrity, and territorial jurisdiction. They argued against diluting the apex court's authority and warned of potential conflicts arising from divergent views. In March 2016, the then A-G Mukul Rohatgi said that the Supreme Court sitting in regional benches would impair the unity, integrity, importance, and majesty of the apex Court.

In a writ petition regarding the establishment of a National Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court in July 2016 "deemed it proper" to refer the matter to a Constitutional Bench for authoritative pronouncement.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court.

The Indian government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court. As per a report by news agency PTI, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had highlighted that the apex court has "consistently" dismissed the idea, citing it as a sub-judice matter. "The Supreme Court has been consistently rejecting the proposal for setting up of the Benches of Supreme Court at a place outside Delhi," said the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Also read | Pet dog protects owner's body from wild animals for 48 hours amid heavy snow. Watch Presenting its action-taken report on "Judicial Processes and Their Reforms," the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (Feb 7th) revealed that the government has acknowledged its suggestion. Access to justice In a chapter discussing the recommendations accepted by the government, the panel referred to its previous proposal regarding the feasibility of regional Supreme Court benches. Emphasising the significance of 'access to justice' as a fundamental right, the committee underscored the long-standing demand for regional benches to ensure justice reaches the doorsteps of citizens. The committee highlighted that establishing regional benches could alleviate the burden on the judiciary and reduce litigation costs for the common man. Also read | India: Nirmala Sitharaman presents 'White paper' on Indian economy in Lok Sabha "The regional benches may also be seen as a solution to the overflowing caseload of the judiciary and to reduce the litigation cost to the common man," it said. The committee reiterated its persistent recommendation for setting up regional Supreme Court benches and proposed the invocation of Article 130 of the Constitution for this purpose. The panel recommended the setting up of regional benches in four or five locations across India. Responding to this, the Department of Justice in the law ministry clarified that as per Article 130, the Supreme Court is mandated to sit in Delhi or other locations designated by the Chief Justice of India with the President's approval. It said that the matter of regional benches has been referred twice to the Attorney General for opinion. Former Attorney Generals have expressed reservations about regional benches, citing concerns about the Supreme Court's unity, integrity, and territorial jurisdiction. They argued against diluting the apex court's authority and warned of potential conflicts arising from divergent views. In March 2016, the then A-G Mukul Rohatgi said that the Supreme Court sitting in regional benches would impair the unity, integrity, importance, and majesty of the apex Court. In a writ petition regarding the establishment of a National Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court in July 2016 "deemed it proper" to refer the matter to a Constitutional Bench for authoritative pronouncement. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian government gives nod to establish Supreme Court regional benches

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting&nbsp;next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal.

The high court on Thursday allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah and also agreed on the appointment of an advocate commissioner to supervise the survey of the mosque premises.

The hearing was postponed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, until January 9, on a plea filed by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah challenging the May 26 order of the high court transferring to itself all matters related to the dispute pending before a Mathura court.&nbsp;

"List the special leave petition on January 9. All the contentions and issues will be considered on the said date. In case petitioners have any grievance, it will be open to them to file a challenge in accordance with law," the bench ordered.

The bench informed senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, who stated that the high court was taking into consideration interlocutory applications having 'far-reaching ramifications' in the matter and passing orders, that the order of the high court passed on Thursday has not been formally challenged before it.

Ahmadi said that the high court was entertaining application after application even as the issue of its jurisdiction to transfer to itself all matters related to the dispute is under challenge before the apex court.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cardinal-becciu-sent-to-prison-for-55-years-in-historic-vatican-fraud-trial-670354">Cardinal Becciu sent to prison for 5.5 years in historic Vatican fraud trial</a>

Justice Khanna, while refusing to interfere with the high court order passed on Thursday said, "How can we stay the order which is not before us? You challenge the order, then we will see."

Ahmadi said that the high court order was uploaded on its website late on Thursday evening and hence he could not file an appeal.

When Ahmadi pointed out the Supreme Court is going on a winter break from Monday and the high court may pass orders in the matter, Justice Khanna said, "Please tell the high court that this matter is listed on January 9 in the Supreme Court. That will be enough."

"You know the procedure for mentioning the matter during vacations if any adverse order is passed," Justice Khanna told Ahmadi.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal. The high court on Thursday allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah and also agreed on the appointment of an advocate commissioner to supervise the survey of the mosque premises. The hearing was postponed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, until January 9, on a plea filed by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah challenging the May 26 order of the high court transferring to itself all matters related to the dispute pending before a Mathura court. "List the special leave petition on January 9. All the contentions and issues will be considered on the said date. In case petitioners have any grievance, it will be open to them to file a challenge in accordance with law," the bench ordered. The bench informed senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, who stated that the high court was taking into consideration interlocutory applications having 'far-reaching ramifications' in the matter and passing orders, that the order of the high court passed on Thursday has not been formally challenged before it. Ahmadi said that the high court was entertaining application after application even as the issue of its jurisdiction to transfer to itself all matters related to the dispute is under challenge before the apex court. Also read: Cardinal Becciu sent to prison for 5.5 years in historic Vatican fraud trial Justice Khanna, while refusing to interfere with the high court order passed on Thursday said, "How can we stay the order which is not before us? You challenge the order, then we will see." Ahmadi said that the high court order was uploaded on its website late on Thursday evening and hence he could not file an appeal. When Ahmadi pointed out the Supreme Court is going on a winter break from Monday and the high court may pass orders in the matter, Justice Khanna said, "Please tell the high court that this matter is listed on January 9 in the Supreme Court. That will be enough." "You know the procedure for mentioning the matter during vacations if any adverse order is passed," Justice Khanna told Ahmadi. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court refuses to stay Allahabad HC order of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah survey

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

Supreme Court of India upholds abrogation of article 370

Indian capital continues to be shrouded in smog. Odd-Even rule came back in Delhi to curb the pollution. The schools are ordered to be shut. Government and private offices are asked to operate from home. The major contributor of smog in Delhi-NCR is stubble burning.

Indian Supreme Court raps Punjab government over stubble burning amid rising air pollution

'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial

The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis.

The apex court also admitted the central government’s submission that it is willing to undertake the expenses of delivery and if parents desire, facilitate the child's adoption.

In the petition, the woman, who already has two children, said that she was suffering from post-partum psychosis and was not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally, financially, and physically.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reached the decision based on a report by the AIIMS medical board that the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and that the foetus is healthy.

<h2>Violates law&nbsp;</h2>

The court denied permission to terminate the pregnancy since its duration had crossed the 24-week mark and added that letting the married woman to continue with her decision would violate Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

Abortion is allowed under the MTP Act if the pregnancy doesn’t cross 24 weeks mark for married women, for special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women, such as the differently-abled and minors.

"This court is averse to passing such a direction. The petitioner also doesn't wish to do the same," the court said, reported LiveLaw outlet.

The top court also brushed aside an intervention during the proceeding that sought to challenge the upper limit for medical termination.

The court stated that the challenge to the existing law would be addressed through separate proceedings, while the ongoing petition shall remain a matter exclusively between the petitioner and the state.

<h2>‘24-week guideline obsolete’</h2>

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was arguing on behalf of the petitioner, cited a report of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had already termed the 24-week guideline ‘obsolete’.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/higher-reaches-in-kashmir-and-ladakh-receive-fresh-snowfall-valley-witnesses-drop-in-temperature-647395">Higher reaches of Kashmir and Ladakh receive fresh snowfall; valley witnesses drop in temperature</a>

Justice Chandrachud-led bench took up the matter after a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna earlier gave a split verdict.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-wanted-india-to-share-space-technology-seeing-chandrayaan-3s-success-isro-647462">Impressed by Chandrayaan-3, American space experts wanted India to sell its tech to US: ISRO chief</a>

It had questioned why the woman did not seek permission for abortion earlier.

"What was she doing for 26 weeks? She already has two children? Why come now? Do we issue an order for the child's death through a judicial ruling?," Chief Justice Chandrachud had said.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis.

The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis. The apex court also admitted the central government’s submission that it is willing to undertake the expenses of delivery and if parents desire, facilitate the child's adoption. In the petition, the woman, who already has two children, said that she was suffering from post-partum psychosis and was not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally, financially, and physically. The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reached the decision based on a report by the AIIMS medical board that the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and that the foetus is healthy. Violates law The court denied permission to terminate the pregnancy since its duration had crossed the 24-week mark and added that letting the married woman to continue with her decision would violate Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. Abortion is allowed under the MTP Act if the pregnancy doesn’t cross 24 weeks mark for married women, for special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women, such as the differently-abled and minors. "This court is averse to passing such a direction. The petitioner also doesn't wish to do the same," the court said, reported LiveLaw outlet. The top court also brushed aside an intervention during the proceeding that sought to challenge the upper limit for medical termination. The court stated that the challenge to the existing law would be addressed through separate proceedings, while the ongoing petition shall remain a matter exclusively between the petitioner and the state. ‘24-week guideline obsolete’ Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was arguing on behalf of the petitioner, cited a report of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had already termed the 24-week guideline ‘obsolete’. Also read | Higher reaches of Kashmir and Ladakh receive fresh snowfall; valley witnesses drop in temperature Justice Chandrachud-led bench took up the matter after a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna earlier gave a split verdict. Also read | Impressed by Chandrayaan-3, American space experts wanted India to sell its tech to US: ISRO chief It had questioned why the woman did not seek permission for abortion earlier. "What was she doing for 26 weeks? She already has two children? Why come now? Do we issue an order for the child's death through a judicial ruling?," Chief Justice Chandrachud had said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India: Supreme Court turns down woman’s plea to terminate 26-week pregnancy

India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes.

The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) in its September 12 order, which was upheld by CWMA, directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water every day for the next 15 days to Tamil Nadu.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while declining to meddle, said that both CWMA and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) are conducting meetings regularly and also observing the water requirements every 15 days.&nbsp;

The bench further highlighted that both CWMA and CWRC, have experts from the India Meteorological Department (IMD), who have weighed in on all the pertinent aspects like drought, deficit rainfall, and water level in the river and only then passed the order.

"We are therefore of the considered view that the factors which have been taken into consideration by both the authorities cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. In that view, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders," the bench said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, submitted that both the authorities despite having acknowledged there was scanty rainfall since August and the state was eligible for 7,200 cusecs of water, reduced the volume to 5,000 cusecs a day.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-trails-behind-even-bangladesh-pakistan-have-more-women-in-lower-house-of-parliament-638316">India trails behind: Even Bangladesh, Pakistan have more women in Lower House of Parliament</a>

"I am a low riparian state...water flows from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu from where it goes to Puducherry. There is a shortfall of rainfall which has been taken into consideration by the authorities. In a regular year, I would have been eligible for three times more but I am not seeking that. I am seeking what is rightfully mine," Rohatgi said. &nbsp;&nbsp;

He then added that Tamil Nadu has over five lakh acres of standing crop and on top of it is facing a drinking water issue for which more water is required in the Indian state.

"If the drought-like condition was taken into account and the authority calculated it to be 7,200 cusecs per day, then there was no occasion to further bring it down to 5,000 cusecs per day," he submitted.

On the other hand, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said that the state was also facing drought-like conditions, and the release of 5,000 cusecs of water ordered by the authorities is against the "interest".&nbsp;

"We are facing a drinking water crisis, especially in urban areas including in Bengaluru," he said.

"They have taken into account IMD data, rainfall, water level in reservoirs and other relevant data after which they have arrived at the figure of 5,000 cusecs," Bhati said.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes.

India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes. The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) in its September 12 order, which was upheld by CWMA, directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water every day for the next 15 days to Tamil Nadu. A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while declining to meddle, said that both CWMA and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) are conducting meetings regularly and also observing the water requirements every 15 days. The bench further highlighted that both CWMA and CWRC, have experts from the India Meteorological Department (IMD), who have weighed in on all the pertinent aspects like drought, deficit rainfall, and water level in the river and only then passed the order. "We are therefore of the considered view that the factors which have been taken into consideration by both the authorities cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. In that view, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders," the bench said. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, submitted that both the authorities despite having acknowledged there was scanty rainfall since August and the state was eligible for 7,200 cusecs of water, reduced the volume to 5,000 cusecs a day. Also read: India trails behind: Even Bangladesh, Pakistan have more women in Lower House of Parliament "I am a low riparian state...water flows from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu from where it goes to Puducherry. There is a shortfall of rainfall which has been taken into consideration by the authorities. In a regular year, I would have been eligible for three times more but I am not seeking that. I am seeking what is rightfully mine," Rohatgi said. He then added that Tamil Nadu has over five lakh acres of standing crop and on top of it is facing a drinking water issue for which more water is required in the Indian state. "If the drought-like condition was taken into account and the authority calculated it to be 7,200 cusecs per day, then there was no occasion to further bring it down to 5,000 cusecs per day," he submitted. On the other hand, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said that the state was also facing drought-like conditions, and the release of 5,000 cusecs of water ordered by the authorities is against the "interest". "We are facing a drinking water crisis, especially in urban areas including in Bengaluru," he said. "They have taken into account IMD data, rainfall, water level in reservoirs and other relevant data after which they have arrived at the figure of 5,000 cusecs," Bhati said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Cauvery row: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with order directing Karnataka to release water for Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (August 16) released a handbook laying out a detailed glossary of gender-unjust terms that it suggested must not be used in court language.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (August 16) released a handbook laying out a detailed glossary of gender-unjust terms that it suggested must not be used in court language. It mentioned a list of words that perpetuate gender stereotypes and must be avoided while drafting pleadings as well as in orders and judgments. Along with the unjust terms, it also released a list of alternative words which it deemed more accurate or appropriate. “The Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes aims to assist judges and the legal community in identifying, understanding and combating stereotypes about women. It contains a glossary of gender-unjust terms and suggests alternative words or phrases which may be used while drafting pleadings as well as orders and judgments,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. Watch: Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India × The handbook noted how several gender-unjust terms were unfairly utilised by courts in the past. It also tried to justify why their use was considered inappropriate and why it may distort the application of the law. Also read: India`s Supreme Court files complaint against fake WhatsApp forwards under CJI`s name “Stereotypes are typically held against individuals by virtue of their membership of a group. They are assumptions or beliefs that individuals belonging to specific social groups have certain characteristics or traits”, the handbook read. Here is the list of words identified as gender-unjust by the Supreme Court along with the alternate recommended phrase. Gender-unjust terms Alternative (appropriate) language Adulteress Woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage Affair Relationship outside of marriage Bastard Non-marital child or a child whose parents were not married Biological sex/biological male/biological female Sex assigned at birth Born a girl/boy Assigned female/male at birth Career woman Woman Carnal intercourse Sexual intercourse Chaste woman Woman Child prostitute Child who has been trafficked Concubine/keep Woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage Dutiful wife/faithful wife/good wife/obedient wife Wife Easy virtue (e.g a woman of easy virtue) Woman Effeminate (when used pejoratively) Accurately describe the characteristic using a gender neutral term (e.g confident or responsible) Eve teasing Street sexual harassment Faggot Accurately describe the individual's sexual orientation (e.g homosexual or bisexual Fallen woman Woman Feminine hygiene products Menstrual products Forcible rape Rape Harlot Woman Hermaphrodite Intersex Hooker Sex worker Hormonal (to describe a woman's emotional state) Use a gender neutral term to describe the emotion (e.g compassionate or enthusiastic) Housewife Homemaker Indian woman/western woman Woman Ladylike Use a gender neutral description of behaviour or characteristics (e.g amusing or assertive) Layabout/Shirker Unemployed Marriageable age A woman who has attained the legal age required to marry Mistress Woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage Prostitute Sex worker Provider/Breadwinner Employed or earning Provocative clothing/dress Clothing/dress Ravished (e.g she was “ravished” by him) Sexually harassed/assaulted or raped Seductress Woman Sex change Sex reassignment or gender transition Slut Woman Spinster Unmarried woman Transsexual Transgender Transvestite Cross-dresser Unwed mother Mother Violated (e.g he violated her) Sexually harassed/assaulted or raped Whore Woman Woman of loose morals/easy virtue/promiscuous woman/wanton woman Woman Survivor or victim? The handbook noted that an individual who has been affected by sexual violence may identify themselves as either a “survivor” or “victim”. Both terms are applicable unless the individual has expressed a preference in which case the individual's preference should be respected. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

'Housewife, ladylike': India Supreme Court gives alternatives to words that stereotype women

Indian National Congress (INC) leader Rahul Gandhi is officially returning to the parliament after the Lok Sabha Secretariat restored his membership on Monday (August 7).&nbsp;

"In view of order&nbsp;of the Supreme Court of India, the disqualification of Shri Rahul Gandhi&nbsp;has ceased to operate, subject to further judicial pronouncements," read the notification released by the secretariat.&nbsp;

The decision by the secretariat comes days&nbsp;after the Supreme Court put on hold Gandhi's conviction in a 2019 defamation case.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-supreme-court-stays-conviction-of-rahul-gandhi-in-modi-surname-remark-case-622445">Watch |&nbsp;Indian Supreme Court stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in Modi surname remark case</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-supreme-court-stays-conviction-of-rahul-gandhi-in-modi-surname-remark-case-622445/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Why was Gandhi convicted?</h2>

In March 2023,&nbsp;a city court in the western Indian state of Gujarat convicted Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for his alleged 'Modi surname' remarks.&nbsp;

The Indian MP from Wayanad, a district in the southern Indian state of Kerala, made the alleged remarks while addressing a rally at Kolar in Karnataka ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

“Why all the thieves, be it Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi or Narendra Modi, have Modi in their names,” remarked the Congress leader.&nbsp;

Afterwards, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi filed a criminal defamation suit, arguing that the former INC president defamed the entire Modi community with his statements.&nbsp;

"There is a large number of people with Modi surname. Does it mean all members of the Modi community are thieves? He has defamed the community and also me as I carry the surname," said Purnesh Modi.&nbsp;

After lengthy legal proceedings, the&nbsp;court sentenced the Gandhi scion to two years in jail while imposing a fine of Rs 15,000 ($183), under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 499 (defamation), and 500 (punishment for defamation). However, he was granted bail and allowed to pursue other legal routes.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-rahul-gandhi-convicted-in-2019-modi-surname-defamation-case-gets-two-year-jail-term-574899">Also read |&nbsp;India: Rahul Gandhi convicted in 2019 'Modi surname' defamation case, gets two-year jail term</a>

<h2>SC stays the lower court's decision&nbsp;</h2>

Afterwards, Congress reached the apex court to overturn the lower court decision. Last week, the SC, after hearing heated arguments from both sides, decided to impose a stay on the order.&nbsp;

“There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.”

SC added that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication.

“Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court.

After the decision, Gandhi addressed a press conference where he appreciated those who stood in his corner during the ordeal.&nbsp;

"Aaj nahi toh kal, kal nahi toh parson sachai ki jeet hoti hai&nbsp;(Today or tomorrow or the day after, truth always prevails). My path is clear. I am grateful for those who helped us and for the public's love and support towards us."

Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the SC decision, cited&nbsp;Gautam Buddha's quote&nbsp;which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Indian National Congress (INC) leader Rahul Gandhi is officially returning to the parliament after the Lok Sabha Secretariat restored his membership on Monday (August 7).

Indian National Congress (INC) leader Rahul Gandhi is officially returning to the parliament after the Lok Sabha Secretariat restored his membership on Monday (August 7). "In view of order of the Supreme Court of India, the disqualification of Shri Rahul Gandhi has ceased to operate, subject to further judicial pronouncements," read the notification released by the secretariat. The decision by the secretariat comes days after the Supreme Court put on hold Gandhi's conviction in a 2019 defamation case. Watch | Indian Supreme Court stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in Modi surname remark case × Why was Gandhi convicted? In March 2023, a city court in the western Indian state of Gujarat convicted Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for his alleged 'Modi surname' remarks. The Indian MP from Wayanad, a district in the southern Indian state of Kerala, made the alleged remarks while addressing a rally at Kolar in Karnataka ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. “Why all the thieves, be it Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi or Narendra Modi, have Modi in their names,” remarked the Congress leader. Afterwards, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi filed a criminal defamation suit, arguing that the former INC president defamed the entire Modi community with his statements. "There is a large number of people with Modi surname. Does it mean all members of the Modi community are thieves? He has defamed the community and also me as I carry the surname," said Purnesh Modi. After lengthy legal proceedings, the court sentenced the Gandhi scion to two years in jail while imposing a fine of Rs 15,000 ($183), under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 499 (defamation), and 500 (punishment for defamation). However, he was granted bail and allowed to pursue other legal routes. Also read | India: Rahul Gandhi convicted in 2019 'Modi surname' defamation case, gets two-year jail term SC stays the lower court's decision Afterwards, Congress reached the apex court to overturn the lower court decision. Last week, the SC, after hearing heated arguments from both sides, decided to impose a stay on the order. “There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.” SC added that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication. “Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court. After the decision, Gandhi addressed a press conference where he appreciated those who stood in his corner during the ordeal. "Aaj nahi toh kal, kal nahi toh parson sachai ki jeet hoti hai (Today or tomorrow or the day after, truth always prevails). My path is clear. I am grateful for those who helped us and for the public's love and support towards us." Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the SC decision, cited Gautam Buddha's quote which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Rahul Gandhi's parliament membership restored days after SC relief

India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4).<o:p></o:p>

In its verdict, the apex court said, “There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.” The court accepted his affidavit in the contempt petition and observed that Gandhi ought to have been more careful.<o:p></o:p>

Supreme Court said that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication.<o:p></o:p>

Granting relief to the Congress leader, Supreme Court said that the ramifications of the order given by the trial court are wide. “Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a> Supreme Court stays Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark. 
 
The conviction in the case had led to his disqualification as MP. <a href="https://t.co/JCmbPdyVHX">pic.twitter.com/JCmbPdyVHX</a>
— INC TV (@INC_Television) <a href="https://twitter.com/INC_Television/status/1687375243265056768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 4, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Gandhi’s conviction in the 'Modi surname' remark case led to his disqualification as MP. The court was hearing a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi which challenged the verdict delivered by Gujarat HC that had declined to put on hold his conviction.

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</o:p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/call-us-what-you-want-congress-leader-rahul-gandhi-hits-back-at-pm-modi-after-india-row-619295">Congress leader Rahul Gandhi pushes back against PM Modi over INDIA remarks</a>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Heated arguments<o:p></o:p></h2>

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Rahul Gandhi in the court, said that the comments of the former Congress president on the “Modi surname” were not an offence against society, reported news agency ANI.<o:p></o:p>

“First of all, Purnesh Modi’s (complainant) original surname is not Modi…He changed his surname… Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech have sued. Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very ‘small’ community in 13 crores, only people suing are BJP office-holders,” said senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, as quoted by legal website Live Law.<o:p></o:p>

“The judge treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude. This is a non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence. The offence was not against society, not kidnapping, rape, or murder. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi quizzed.

WATCH |&nbsp;Modi surname case I Rahul won’t apologise: ‘Gross abuse of judicial process’

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/modi-surname-case-i-rahul-wont-apologise-gross-abuse-of-judicial-process-621984/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“In the democracy, we have dissent, in democracy we have disagreement. What we call ‘shaleen bhasha’. Gandhi is not a hardened criminal. There are many cases filed by BJP workers, but there was never any conviction. Gandhi has already missed two sessions of the Parliament,” he added.<o:p></o:p>

Replying to the arguments of Singhvi, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for complainant Purnesh Modi, stated that the entire speech was more than 50 minutes long and they have a plethora of clippings of the speech and evidence attached in the Election Commission of India’s record.<o:p></o:p>

The Supreme Court stated that it wanted to know why Gandhi was given the maximum sentence. “Had the judge given a sentence of 1 year and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) would not have been disqualified,” the Supreme Court stated.

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Gandhi back in Parliament,&nbsp;Priyanka&nbsp;Gandhi says 'Satyameva Jayate'</h2>

After the court's order,&nbsp;Gandhi became eligible to return to Parliament as a member as early as Monday, said two officials on Friday, adding that the verdict has paved the way for the revival of his membership of the House.&nbsp;

Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the decision of Supreme Court, cited&nbsp;Gautam Buddha's quote&nbsp;which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”.

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” ~Gautama Buddha," wrote Priyanka Gandhi on X (formerly Twitter). Gandhi further thanked the&nbsp;court for the “fair” decision&nbsp;and said “Satyameva Jayate”.

&nbsp;

<o:p></o:p>

You can&nbsp;now write for&nbsp;wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>. 
 
&nbsp;

<main>
<section>
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-17="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-23="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-32="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>
</section>
</main>

India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4).

India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4). In its verdict, the apex court said, “There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.” The court accepted his affidavit in the contempt petition and observed that Gandhi ought to have been more careful. Supreme Court said that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication. Granting relief to the Congress leader, Supreme Court said that the ramifications of the order given by the trial court are wide. “Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court. #BREAKING Supreme Court stays Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark. The conviction in the case had led to his disqualification as MP. pic.twitter.com/JCmbPdyVHX — INC TV (@INC_Television) August 4, 2023 × Gandhi’s conviction in the 'Modi surname' remark case led to his disqualification as MP. The court was hearing a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi which challenged the verdict delivered by Gujarat HC that had declined to put on hold his conviction. ALSO READ | Congress leader Rahul Gandhi pushes back against PM Modi over INDIA remarks Heated arguments Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Rahul Gandhi in the court, said that the comments of the former Congress president on the “Modi surname” were not an offence against society, reported news agency ANI. “First of all, Purnesh Modi’s (complainant) original surname is not Modi…He changed his surname… Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech have sued. Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very ‘small’ community in 13 crores, only people suing are BJP office-holders,” said senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, as quoted by legal website Live Law. “The judge treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude. This is a non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence. The offence was not against society, not kidnapping, rape, or murder. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi quizzed. WATCH | Modi surname case I Rahul won’t apologise: ‘Gross abuse of judicial process’ “In the democracy, we have dissent, in democracy we have disagreement. What we call ‘shaleen bhasha’. Gandhi is not a hardened criminal. There are many cases filed by BJP workers, but there was never any conviction. Gandhi has already missed two sessions of the Parliament,” he added. Replying to the arguments of Singhvi, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for complainant Purnesh Modi, stated that the entire speech was more than 50 minutes long and they have a plethora of clippings of the speech and evidence attached in the Election Commission of India’s record. The Supreme Court stated that it wanted to know why Gandhi was given the maximum sentence. “Had the judge given a sentence of 1 year and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) would not have been disqualified,” the Supreme Court stated. Gandhi back in Parliament, Priyanka Gandhi says 'Satyameva Jayate' After the court's order, Gandhi became eligible to return to Parliament as a member as early as Monday, said two officials on Friday, adding that the verdict has paved the way for the revival of his membership of the House. Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the decision of Supreme Court, cited Gautam Buddha's quote which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”. “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” ~Gautama Buddha," wrote Priyanka Gandhi on X (formerly Twitter). Gandhi further thanked the court for the “fair” decision and said “Satyameva Jayate”. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India’s Supreme Court stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in 'Modi surname' criminal defamation case

Indian actress Rhea Chakraborty can breathe a sigh of relief. On Wednesday, the NCB told the Supreme Court that it will not challenge the bail granted to Rhea by the Bombay High Court in a drugs case filed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.&nbsp;

The actress went through a media trial back in 2020 after the death of her boyfriend, popular Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput. Days after Rajput's death, Rhea was arrested in a drugs case linked to the actor's demise. She was later released on bail.&nbsp; On Wednesday, reacting to the new development on the case, Rhea shared a cryptic post on Instagram. 
 
Rhea Chakraborty's cryptic post 
 
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Rhea Chakraborty in October 2021. In its order, the Bombay High Court had said that providing money to buy drugs doesn't mean Rhea was involved in any illicit trafficking. The court also added that giving money to someone for consuming drugs doesn't mean they encouraged them to do it. 
 
On Wednesday, the NCB informed the Supreme Court that it was not challenging the bail granted to Rhea. The actress took to her Instagram stories and shared a video of herself and captioned it as, "Gratitude(Sic)" with folded hands emoji. 
 
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh that while the government will not pursue its appeal as regards the grant of bail, the Bombay High Court's interpretation of Section 27A of the NDPS Act should be kept open for the challenge at an appropriate time. 
 
"We are not challenging the grant of bail, but on the interpretation of Section 27A, please keep it open for consideration. Let the order not be a precedent also, "ASG Raju said. 
 
Rhea was arrested on September 8, 2020, and got bail a month later, on October 4, 2020. She was accused of providing and buying drugs for Rajput.&nbsp; 
 
Sushant Singh Rajput was found hanging in his flat in Mumbai on June 14, 2020. Initial investigation stated that the actor died by suicide but his family later alleged that he was murdered.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Indian actress Rhea Chakraborty can breathe a sigh of relief. On Wednesday, the NCB told the Supreme Court that it will not challenge the bail granted to Rhea by the Bombay High Court in a drugs case filed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Indian actress Rhea Chakraborty can breathe a sigh of relief. On Wednesday, the NCB told the Supreme Court that it will not challenge the bail granted to Rhea by the Bombay High Court in a drugs case filed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The actress went through a media trial back in 2020 after the death of her boyfriend, popular Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput. Days after Rajput's death, Rhea was arrested in a drugs case linked to the actor's demise. She was later released on bail. On Wednesday, reacting to the new development on the case, Rhea shared a cryptic post on Instagram. Rhea Chakraborty's cryptic post The Bombay High Court granted bail to Rhea Chakraborty in October 2021. In its order, the Bombay High Court had said that providing money to buy drugs doesn't mean Rhea was involved in any illicit trafficking. The court also added that giving money to someone for consuming drugs doesn't mean they encouraged them to do it. On Wednesday, the NCB informed the Supreme Court that it was not challenging the bail granted to Rhea. The actress took to her Instagram stories and shared a video of herself and captioned it as, "Gratitude(Sic)" with folded hands emoji. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh that while the government will not pursue its appeal as regards the grant of bail, the Bombay High Court's interpretation of Section 27A of the NDPS Act should be kept open for the challenge at an appropriate time. "We are not challenging the grant of bail, but on the interpretation of Section 27A, please keep it open for consideration. Let the order not be a precedent also, "ASG Raju said. Rhea was arrested on September 8, 2020, and got bail a month later, on October 4, 2020. She was accused of providing and buying drugs for Rajput. Sushant Singh Rajput was found hanging in his flat in Mumbai on June 14, 2020. Initial investigation stated that the actor died by suicide but his family later alleged that he was murdered. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Rhea Chakraborty reacts as NCB announces it will not challenge her bail order

supreme-court-of-india

Supreme Court Of India, News on Supreme Court Of India, stories on Supreme Court Of India, articles on Supreme Court Of India, Supreme Court Of India stories at Wion, Supreme Court Of India news, Supreme Court Of India latest news

supreme court-of-india