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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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