Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast.

The top court, which dwelt in detail on the severity of the offence, however, did not agree with the vehement plea of the prosecution that the convicts be awarded the death penalty for snuffing out innocent lives in the blast on May 21, 1996.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, in its 190-page judgment, spared the four convicts -- Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza, Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey and Javed Ahmed Khan -- the gallows on the ground of delay.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-man-found-guilty-of-raping-impregnating-9-year-old-girl-gets-life-sentence-612846">US: Man found guilty of raping, impregnating 9-year-old girl gets life sentence</a>

It said though the offence "falls within the category of rarest of rare cases", the delay of 27 years in all and 14 years in the trial court in deciding the case are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts.

“The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the present accused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases.”

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-police-arrest-four-men-for-allegedly-aiding-overseas-activists-612850">Hong Kong police arrest four men for allegedly aiding overseas activists</a>

"In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned and their bail bonds stand cancelled," it said, ordering convicts Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza and Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey, who were earlier acquitted by the Delhi High Court, to surrender to jail forthwith to serve the life term.

Watch | Russian expert claims the US is working on weaponising asteroids against their enemies

<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/russian-expert-claims-the-us-is-working-on-weaponising-asteroids-against-their-enemies-612836/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The top court was very critical of the delay in trial against the convicts and said it compromised the "national interest".

"The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge in charge, or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest," it said.

It said an expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man.

"Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention," it said.

Expressing dismay, the bench said it was forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of "influential persons" which was evident from the fact that out of several accused only a few were put to trial.

"In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels," it said.

The verdict dealt with the circumstantial evidence and the facts relating to the recovery and arrests of the convicts in minute detail.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast.

Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast. The top court, which dwelt in detail on the severity of the offence, however, did not agree with the vehement plea of the prosecution that the convicts be awarded the death penalty for snuffing out innocent lives in the blast on May 21, 1996. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, in its 190-page judgment, spared the four convicts -- Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza, Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey and Javed Ahmed Khan -- the gallows on the ground of delay. Also Read | US: Man found guilty of raping, impregnating 9-year-old girl gets life sentence It said though the offence "falls within the category of rarest of rare cases", the delay of 27 years in all and 14 years in the trial court in deciding the case are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts. “The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the present accused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases.” Also Read | Hong Kong police arrest four men for allegedly aiding overseas activists "In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned and their bail bonds stand cancelled," it said, ordering convicts Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza and Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey, who were earlier acquitted by the Delhi High Court, to surrender to jail forthwith to serve the life term. Watch | Russian expert claims the US is working on weaponising asteroids against their enemies × The top court was very critical of the delay in trial against the convicts and said it compromised the "national interest". "The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge in charge, or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest," it said. It said an expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. "Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention," it said. Expressing dismay, the bench said it was forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of "influential persons" which was evident from the fact that out of several accused only a few were put to trial. "In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels," it said. The verdict dealt with the circumstantial evidence and the facts relating to the recovery and arrests of the convicts in minute detail. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

1996 Delhi blasts case: India’s Supreme Court gives life term without remission to four convicts

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others. The “series of futuristic upgrades” were implemented under the vision of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, said the apex court.&nbsp;

<h2>What were the changes made?</h2>

The Indian top court reopened on Monday after the six-week summer vacation, during which it received a technological upgrade. This comes as a part of the new “e-initiatives” in the SC under which the “facility of free Wi-Fi is made available for advocates, litigants, media persons and other stakeholders visiting the Supreme Court of India,” said a statement by the court.&nbsp; 
 
It also indicated that as of now, this facility is available in CJI’s court, court numbers two to five, corridor and Plaza in front as well as both waiting areas in front of the plaza, canteen and Press Lounge –I and II which were to take effect starting July 3. It will be extended to all courtrooms, Bar Library–I and II, Ladies Bar Room, and Bar Lounge in a “phased manner”.&nbsp;

“We have made courts 1 to 5 WiFi-enabled. The bar rooms are Wi-Fi-enabled as well. All courtrooms will now be like that – no books and papers – which is not to say that we will not rely on books and papers at all,” said the CJI, at the beginning of the day’s proceedings on Monday.&nbsp;

He added, “Please give me feedback on whether everything is working well”. The steps were taken as part of the e-initiatives by the Indian SC, said an apex court official, as per the PTI news agency.&nbsp;

<h2>Other ‘futuristic upgrades’ to SC courtrooms</h2>

In a subsequent statement, the top court also said, “A series of futuristic upgrades have been implemented in Court No. 1 to 3 at the Supreme Court of India under the dynamic vision of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to enhance the use of technology in Judicial Systems.”&nbsp;

The top court has also reportedly sought to go green by making optimal use of technology in justice delivery systems. The courtrooms will now have “a state-of-the-art Digital Video Conferencing (VC) system” for better and more efficient communication and collaboration.

It will also enable remote participation and virtual meetings in courtrooms making them more accessible. “Cable cubbies have been integrated into these courtrooms…(the cubbies) are equipped with LAN connections, HDMI outputs, USB C&amp;A ports along with power sockets,” said the apex court.&nbsp;

It added, “The use of these (cubbies) would help in the integrated use of Multimedia devices while ensuring a clutter-free environment.”&nbsp;

Additionally, the courtrooms have been equipped with a “futuristic LED video wall” for a high-resolution display of camera feeds and also enhances the visual impact of presentations, evidence, and video recordings, creating an immersive and engaging experience, reported PTI.&nbsp;

Addressing the audio-related changes to the courtrooms of the top court, they have been equipped with Front of House (FOH) speakers which have been placed with under-table&nbsp;speakers along with suitable amplifiers to ensure “that every voice and audio source is heard with exceptional clarity.”&nbsp;

This is in addition to new software developed by the Indian Supreme Court which will allow advocates to upload reference material and citations relating to their case. The apex court is also working on software to provide an e-pass facility to the advocates and litigants to access courtrooms, said the SC&nbsp;in a statement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
 
 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others. The “series of futuristic upgrades” were implemented under the vision of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, said the apex court. What were the changes made? The Indian top court reopened on Monday after the six-week summer vacation, during which it received a technological upgrade. This comes as a part of the new “e-initiatives” in the SC under which the “facility of free Wi-Fi is made available for advocates, litigants, media persons and other stakeholders visiting the Supreme Court of India,” said a statement by the court. It also indicated that as of now, this facility is available in CJI’s court, court numbers two to five, corridor and Plaza in front as well as both waiting areas in front of the plaza, canteen and Press Lounge –I and II which were to take effect starting July 3. It will be extended to all courtrooms, Bar Library–I and II, Ladies Bar Room, and Bar Lounge in a “phased manner”. “We have made courts 1 to 5 WiFi-enabled. The bar rooms are Wi-Fi-enabled as well. All courtrooms will now be like that – no books and papers – which is not to say that we will not rely on books and papers at all,” said the CJI, at the beginning of the day’s proceedings on Monday. He added, “Please give me feedback on whether everything is working well”. The steps were taken as part of the e-initiatives by the Indian SC, said an apex court official, as per the PTI news agency. Other ‘futuristic upgrades’ to SC courtrooms In a subsequent statement, the top court also said, “A series of futuristic upgrades have been implemented in Court No. 1 to 3 at the Supreme Court of India under the dynamic vision of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to enhance the use of technology in Judicial Systems.” The top court has also reportedly sought to go green by making optimal use of technology in justice delivery systems. The courtrooms will now have “a state-of-the-art Digital Video Conferencing (VC) system” for better and more efficient communication and collaboration. It will also enable remote participation and virtual meetings in courtrooms making them more accessible. “Cable cubbies have been integrated into these courtrooms…(the cubbies) are equipped with LAN connections, HDMI outputs, USB C&A ports along with power sockets,” said the apex court. It added, “The use of these (cubbies) would help in the integrated use of Multimedia devices while ensuring a clutter-free environment.” Additionally, the courtrooms have been equipped with a “futuristic LED video wall” for a high-resolution display of camera feeds and also enhances the visual impact of presentations, evidence, and video recordings, creating an immersive and engaging experience, reported PTI. Addressing the audio-related changes to the courtrooms of the top court, they have been equipped with Front of House (FOH) speakers which have been placed with under-table speakers along with suitable amplifiers to ensure “that every voice and audio source is heard with exceptional clarity.” This is in addition to new software developed by the Indian Supreme Court which will allow advocates to upload reference material and citations relating to their case. The apex court is also working on software to provide an e-pass facility to the advocates and litigants to access courtrooms, said the SC in a statement. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Indian Supreme Court receives ‘series of futuristic upgrades’ with paperless courtrooms, free WiFi

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage".

<h2>India supports same-sex marriage</h2>

Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing</a>

On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31&nbsp;per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions.

<h2>The Pew Research Center survey&nbsp;</h2>

Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage.

It came up with results that&nbsp;can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India.

<h2>India and same-sex marriages</h2>

Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case.&nbsp;However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms.&nbsp;

While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal.

As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage."&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/child-rights-activist-says-same-sex-marriage-denies-kids-one-parents-love-585347">Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love</a>

Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points.&nbsp;

The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process.

<h2>Global opinion on same-sex marriage</h2>

Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two&nbsp;per cent supporting it.&nbsp;

The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs.

In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<img alt="A map and bar chart that shows same-sex marriage attitudes and legality across 24 countries." src="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SR_2023.06.14_LGBTQ.global_2.png?w=640" />

Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre.

However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression.

In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage.

In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so.&nbsp;

South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five&nbsp;per cent supporting same-sex marriage.

The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage". India supports same-sex marriage Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31 per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions. The Pew Research Center survey Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage. It came up with results that can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India. India and same-sex marriages Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case. However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms. While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal. As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage." Also read | Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points. The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process. Global opinion on same-sex marriage Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two per cent supporting it. The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs. In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions. Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre. However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression. In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage. In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so. South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five per cent supporting same-sex marriage. The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Global survey finds broad acceptance of same-sex marriage in India

The Supreme Court of India made a remark on Wednesday that may start a new debate over love marriages in India. The Supreme Court asserted that the majority of divorces in the country are the result of love marriages. In the past as well, the court has made many remarks that didn’t go down well with people, especially the young population.&nbsp;

A two-judge bench of BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol was hearing a transfer petition arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The counsel informed the court that the marriage was a love dispute. The counsel informed the court that the marriage was a love marriage.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-to-grow-67-in-2024-remain-one-of-the-few-bright-spots-un-report-593221">India to grow 6.7% in 2024, remain one of the few 'bright spots': UN report</a>

Justice Gavai remarked, “Most divorces are arising from love marriages only,” Bar &amp; Bench reported.&nbsp;

The Bench finally called for a mediation between the couple.

Earlier this month, the top court said it can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown" of a marriage, whether it is by mutual consent, or even if one of the parties opposes it.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said it is obvious that the top court should be fully convinced and satisfied that marriage is “totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation" and therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pm-modi-to-visit-australia-despite-quad-meet-cancellation-593298">PM Modi to visit Australia despite Quad meet cancellation: Aus PM</a>

The court further said that a marriage that has been irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. In order to do this, several factors are to be considered, such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage, when the parties had last cohabited, and the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members.&nbsp;

Other factors which are considered during the hearing of divorces cases are:

-orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time

-cumulative impact on the personal relationship

-how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by the intervention of the court or through mediation

-when the last attempt was made

The top court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown” in the exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and can grant a divorce by mutual consent while dispensing with the 6-month waiting period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India made a remark on Wednesday that may start a new debate over love marriages in India. The Supreme Court asserted that the majority of divorces in the country are the result of love marriages.

The Supreme Court of India made a remark on Wednesday that may start a new debate over love marriages in India. The Supreme Court asserted that the majority of divorces in the country are the result of love marriages. In the past as well, the court has made many remarks that didn’t go down well with people, especially the young population. A two-judge bench of BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol was hearing a transfer petition arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The counsel informed the court that the marriage was a love dispute. The counsel informed the court that the marriage was a love marriage. Also Read | India to grow 6.7% in 2024, remain one of the few 'bright spots': UN report Justice Gavai remarked, “Most divorces are arising from love marriages only,” Bar & Bench reported. The Bench finally called for a mediation between the couple. Earlier this month, the top court said it can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown" of a marriage, whether it is by mutual consent, or even if one of the parties opposes it. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said it is obvious that the top court should be fully convinced and satisfied that marriage is “totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation" and therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. Also Read | PM Modi to visit Australia despite Quad meet cancellation: Aus PM The court further said that a marriage that has been irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. In order to do this, several factors are to be considered, such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage, when the parties had last cohabited, and the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members. Other factors which are considered during the hearing of divorces cases are: -orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time -cumulative impact on the personal relationship -how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by the intervention of the court or through mediation -when the last attempt was made The top court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown” in the exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and can grant a divorce by mutual consent while dispensing with the 6-month waiting period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India: Most divorces arising from love marriages only, says Supreme Court

Delhi Police on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that some preliminary inquiry may be needed to be conducted before an FIR can be registered into a complaint by wrestlers alleging sexual harassment by Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. 
 
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that some preliminary inquiry may be needed but if this court orders, then FIR can be registered. Mehta said that the authorities think that some inquiry should be there. 
 
The Chief Justice replied that the court would also not want to do something unless there is some material. The bench asked Mehta to furnish the material on Friday and pointed out that the matter involves a minor. 
 
On April 25, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Narender Hooda mentioned the petition before the court, a plea filed by wrestlers.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/rishabh-pant-set-to-miss-2023-icc-odi-world-cup-claims-report-586195">Rishabh Pant set to miss 2023 ICC ODI World Cup, claims report</a> 
 
The top court had said: "There are serious allegations of sexual harassment in the petition, which is instituted by professional international wrestlers who have represented India. The matter requires the consideration of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Issue notice, returnable on 28 April 2023. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the NCT of Delhi." 
 
The bench, in its order, said: "The complaints which form a part of an attachment to the petition in a sealed cover shall again be resealed and placed together with the petition under Article 32 on the next date of listing, to protect the complainants." 
 
The plea filed by wrestlers said they attempted several times to convince Delhi Police to register an FIR, but they failed. 
 
The plea said women athletes, who make our nation proud, are facing sexual harassment, and instead of getting the support they deserve, they are being forced to run from pillar to post to get justice. 
 
It said the accused person in this case is an influential person and is misusing the process of law to evade justice and further manipulating the legal system and obstructing justice. 
 
The plea said, "It is crucial that the police take all complaints of sexual harassment seriously and register FIRs promptly and not create yet another obstacle by delaying the registration of FIR." 
 
"Failure to do so not only undermines the credibility of the police department but also emboldens perpetrators of sexual harassment, making it more difficult for women to come forward and report such incidents."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Delhi Police on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that some preliminary inquiry may be needed to be conducted before an FIR can be registered into a complaint by wrestlers alleging sexual harassment by Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

Delhi Police on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that some preliminary inquiry may be needed to be conducted before an FIR can be registered into a complaint by wrestlers alleging sexual harassment by Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that some preliminary inquiry may be needed but if this court orders, then FIR can be registered. Mehta said that the authorities think that some inquiry should be there. The Chief Justice replied that the court would also not want to do something unless there is some material. The bench asked Mehta to furnish the material on Friday and pointed out that the matter involves a minor. On April 25, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Narender Hooda mentioned the petition before the court, a plea filed by wrestlers. Also Read: Rishabh Pant set to miss 2023 ICC ODI World Cup, claims report The top court had said: "There are serious allegations of sexual harassment in the petition, which is instituted by professional international wrestlers who have represented India. The matter requires the consideration of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Issue notice, returnable on 28 April 2023. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the NCT of Delhi." The bench, in its order, said: "The complaints which form a part of an attachment to the petition in a sealed cover shall again be resealed and placed together with the petition under Article 32 on the next date of listing, to protect the complainants." The plea filed by wrestlers said they attempted several times to convince Delhi Police to register an FIR, but they failed. The plea said women athletes, who make our nation proud, are facing sexual harassment, and instead of getting the support they deserve, they are being forced to run from pillar to post to get justice. It said the accused person in this case is an influential person and is misusing the process of law to evade justice and further manipulating the legal system and obstructing justice. The plea said, "It is crucial that the police take all complaints of sexual harassment seriously and register FIRs promptly and not create yet another obstacle by delaying the registration of FIR." "Failure to do so not only undermines the credibility of the police department but also emboldens perpetrators of sexual harassment, making it more difficult for women to come forward and report such incidents." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Preliminary probe required before FIR can be filed: Delhi Police to India's top court on wrestlers' plea

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent."

Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society."

He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-has-no-data-to-prove-same-sex-marriage-is-an-urban-elitist-concept-says-chief-justice-of-india-584141">Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India</a>

He labelled&nbsp;this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address."

As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat."

"I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added.

The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-why-same-sex-couples-in-india-are-seeking-conjugal-rights-when-homosexuality-is-decriminalised-583772">Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised</a>

He further said&nbsp;that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights."

Jahgirdar claimed&nbsp;that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men."

He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent." Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society." He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent." Also read | Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India He labelled this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address." As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat." "I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added. The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager." Also read | Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised He further said that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights." Jahgirdar claimed that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men." He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love

Indian Supreme Court is hearing final arguments this week in a historic group of petitions to legalize same-sex marriage. The hearings are being livestreamed online in what the court calls the public interest.

Indian Supreme Court hears final arguments on same-sex union this week

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the central government's ban on the telecast of the Malayalam language channel 'MediaOne', ruling that "national security claims can't be made out of thin hair." A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud observed that the State can't impose unreasonable restrictions on the press as such an action would have chilling effects on press freedom.

The top court alleged that the State is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law.

"National security claims cannot be made out of thin air, there must be material facts backing it," said the bench.

The bench also set aside a Kerala High Court&nbsp;order, which had upheld the Centre's ban on the channel on "security grounds."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-embraces-open-source-software-to-boost-tech-industry-amid-layoffs-579487">India embraces open-source software to boost tech industry amid layoffs</a>

Kerala's ruling party and opposition leaders have both welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to quash the ban and said the order gives hope to people fighting to protect democratic principles and the Constitution.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I welcome the SupremeCourt decision revoking the ban on Malayalam TV channel <a href="https://twitter.com/MediaOne?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MediaOne</a>. "National security can't deny people their rights... it was raised by the MHA in a cavalier manner," said the SC:<a href="https://t.co/pFqCnz2tQ8">https://t.co/pFqCnz2tQ8</a> 
The judgement robustly affirms press freedom. Shabash!
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShashiTharoor/status/1643502516301119488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 5, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Thiruvananthapuram MP&nbsp;Shashi Tharoor took to Twitter and applauded the move. He said: "I welcome the SupremeCourt decision revoking the ban on Malayalam TV channel @MediaOne."

"The judgement robustly affirms press freedom. Shabash!," added the Congress leader. MediaOne editor Pramod Raman also posted a tweet saying, "Thanks to all".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
എല്ലാവർക്കും നന്ദി! <a href="https://t.co/T9apdKxvkg">pic.twitter.com/T9apdKxvkg</a>
— Pramod Raman (@PramodRaman10) <a href="https://twitter.com/PramodRaman10/status/1643507092823904256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 5, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

India's apex court said that a channel's critical views on government policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment and that an independent press is necessary for a robust democracy.

It said the "press has a duty to speak truth to power and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on freedom of press compels citizens to think along the same tangent."

"Homogenised views on issues that range from socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose great dangers to democracy," added the bench. It also said that "non-renewal of license for a channel is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-man-kills-his-12th-wife-after-being-stopped-from-drinking-reports-579461">Indian man kills his 12th wife after being stopped from drinking: Reports</a>

The top court, as per PTI, also said that the government's non-disclosure of reasons for the denial of security reasons and disclosure only to the court in sealed cover amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. "Sealed cover procedure cannot be introduced to cover harms that cannot be remedied by public immunity proceedings," said the bench.&nbsp;It further said courts should appoint an amicus curiae to assess the claims of confidentiality and assist the court in coming out with a reasoned order.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the central government's ban on the telecast of the Malayalam language channel 'MediaOne', ruling that "national security claims can't be made out of thin hair.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the central government's ban on the telecast of the Malayalam language channel 'MediaOne', ruling that "national security claims can't be made out of thin hair." A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud observed that the State can't impose unreasonable restrictions on the press as such an action would have chilling effects on press freedom. The top court alleged that the State is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. "National security claims cannot be made out of thin air, there must be material facts backing it," said the bench. The bench also set aside a Kerala High Court order, which had upheld the Centre's ban on the channel on "security grounds." Also read | India embraces open-source software to boost tech industry amid layoffs Kerala's ruling party and opposition leaders have both welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to quash the ban and said the order gives hope to people fighting to protect democratic principles and the Constitution. I welcome the SupremeCourt decision revoking the ban on Malayalam TV channel @MediaOne. "National security can't deny people their rights... it was raised by the MHA in a cavalier manner," said the SC:https://t.co/pFqCnz2tQ8 The judgement robustly affirms press freedom. Shabash! — Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) April 5, 2023 × Thiruvananthapuram MP Shashi Tharoor took to Twitter and applauded the move. He said: "I welcome the SupremeCourt decision revoking the ban on Malayalam TV channel @MediaOne." "The judgement robustly affirms press freedom. Shabash!," added the Congress leader. MediaOne editor Pramod Raman also posted a tweet saying, "Thanks to all". എല്ലാവർക്കും നന്ദി! pic.twitter.com/T9apdKxvkg — Pramod Raman (@PramodRaman10) April 5, 2023 × India's apex court said that a channel's critical views on government policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment and that an independent press is necessary for a robust democracy. It said the "press has a duty to speak truth to power and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on freedom of press compels citizens to think along the same tangent." "Homogenised views on issues that range from socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose great dangers to democracy," added the bench. It also said that "non-renewal of license for a channel is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech." Also read | Indian man kills his 12th wife after being stopped from drinking: Reports The top court, as per PTI, also said that the government's non-disclosure of reasons for the denial of security reasons and disclosure only to the court in sealed cover amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. "Sealed cover procedure cannot be introduced to cover harms that cannot be remedied by public immunity proceedings," said the bench. It further said courts should appoint an amicus curiae to assess the claims of confidentiality and assist the court in coming out with a reasoned order. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

'National security claims cannot be made out of thin air': Indian SC quashes centre's ban on MediaOne

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms. Justice Chandrachud was speaking at a belated celebration of International Women's Day organised by Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee, said media reports.

He said that the glossary was a mission he undertook a few years ago and was nearing its completion. Justice Chandrachud drew attention at the use of words in court matters which denigrate women

"One project I had started a few years ago is a legal glossary of inappropriate terms in the discourse on gender. For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship. Women have been called 'keeps' in judgements where there were applications for quashing of FIRs under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is important for us to bring focus on these terms not to be little a judge but to understand why use of these terms belies our openness to gender sensitisation." he said as quoted by Bar and Bench dot com.

India's top judge added that the purpose of the list was not to belittle judges but to make everyone understand “our problems within the mind.” These, he said, were preconceived notions, biases and more

“Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” said Justice Chadrachud.

He revealed that the glossary was prepared by a committee chaired by Moushumi Bhattacharya, Calcutta High Court Judge. Other people who were involved in making of the glossary were Delhi High Court Judge Justice Prathiba M. Singh, former judges Prabha Sridevan and Gita Mittal, and Jhuma Sen, Advocate, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court, also an adjunct faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata.

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms. Justice Chandrachud was speaking at a belated celebration of International Women's Day organised by Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee, said media reports. He said that the glossary was a mission he undertook a few years ago and was nearing its completion. Justice Chandrachud drew attention at the use of words in court matters which denigrate women "One project I had started a few years ago is a legal glossary of inappropriate terms in the discourse on gender. For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship. Women have been called 'keeps' in judgements where there were applications for quashing of FIRs under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is important for us to bring focus on these terms not to be little a judge but to understand why use of these terms belies our openness to gender sensitisation." he said as quoted by Bar and Bench dot com. India's top judge added that the purpose of the list was not to belittle judges but to make everyone understand “our problems within the mind.” These, he said, were preconceived notions, biases and more “Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” said Justice Chadrachud. He revealed that the glossary was prepared by a committee chaired by Moushumi Bhattacharya, Calcutta High Court Judge. Other people who were involved in making of the glossary were Delhi High Court Judge Justice Prathiba M. Singh, former judges Prabha Sridevan and Gita Mittal, and Jhuma Sen, Advocate, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court, also an adjunct faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Supreme Court of India to release glossary of inappropriate gendered terms

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step. The centre in its affidavit reportedly told the Supreme Court (SC) that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically.&nbsp;

On Monday (March 13th) the court was scheduled to hear pleas seeking the validation, and this submission comes just a day ahead.&nbsp;A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala will be presiding over the hearing.

LiveLaw reports that the centre in its affidavit stated that marriage between individuals of opposite sexes is "socially, culturally and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/strangers-in-the-eyes-of-law-wion-speaks-with-hyderabad-gay-couple-569191">'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage</a>

"Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a 'husband', a biological woman as a 'wife' and the children born out of the union between the two-who are reared by the biological man as father and the biological&nbsp;woman&nbsp;as&nbsp;mother," it said.

In India, homosexual relationships were decriminalised on 6th September 2018.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-steps-closer-to-decide-legal-status-of-same-sex-couples-550037">India's top court steps closer to decide legal status of same-sex couples</a>

Pushing for the recognition of only heterosexual marriages, it said that such marriages are "the norm throughout history" and claimed that they are "foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State."

It also claimed that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages will give rise to complications in matters related to adoption, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, etc.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step.

As India's top court readies to hear a batch of pleas seeking validation for same-sex marriages, the nation's central government has submitted an affidavit opposing the step. The centre in its affidavit reportedly told the Supreme Court (SC) that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically. On Monday (March 13th) the court was scheduled to hear pleas seeking the validation, and this submission comes just a day ahead. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala will be presiding over the hearing. LiveLaw reports that the centre in its affidavit stated that marriage between individuals of opposite sexes is "socially, culturally and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation." Also read | 'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage "Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same-sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a 'husband', a biological woman as a 'wife' and the children born out of the union between the two-who are reared by the biological man as father and the biological woman as mother," it said. In India, homosexual relationships were decriminalised on 6th September 2018. Also read | India's top court steps closer to decide legal status of same-sex couples Pushing for the recognition of only heterosexual marriages, it said that such marriages are "the norm throughout history" and claimed that they are "foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State." It also claimed that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages will give rise to complications in matters related to adoption, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, etc. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history'

Supreme Court of India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Lok Sabha is the lower house of Parliament of India and its members are elected directly by the people.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, in a unanimous verdict, held that this norm will continue to hold good till a law on the issue is made by Parliament.

The apex court said if the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha is not there, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be in the committee to decide names of the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners for appointment.

The bench delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, stressed on purity in the election process and said democracy is intrinsically linked to the will of the people.

Justice Rastogi, who concurred with the lead judgement authored by Justice Joseph, delivered a separate verdict with his reasoning.

The apex court said that election in a democracy should undoubtedly be fair and the buck stops with the Election Commission to ensure that its purity is maintained.

It said, in a democracy, the purity of election must be maintained or else it would lead to disastrous consequences.

The Supreme Court bench said that Election Commission must act within constitutional framework and within the law.&nbsp;

An Election Commission, which does not ensure free and fair role in the process, guarantees breakdown of rule of law, which is the bedrock of the democracy, it added.

The bench said that democracy is fragile and would collapse if "lip service" is paid to rule of law.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Supreme Court of India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court of India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Lok Sabha is the lower house of Parliament of India and its members are elected directly by the people. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, in a unanimous verdict, held that this norm will continue to hold good till a law on the issue is made by Parliament. The apex court said if the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha is not there, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be in the committee to decide names of the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners for appointment. The bench delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, stressed on purity in the election process and said democracy is intrinsically linked to the will of the people. Justice Rastogi, who concurred with the lead judgement authored by Justice Joseph, delivered a separate verdict with his reasoning. The apex court said that election in a democracy should undoubtedly be fair and the buck stops with the Election Commission to ensure that its purity is maintained. It said, in a democracy, the purity of election must be maintained or else it would lead to disastrous consequences. The Supreme Court bench said that Election Commission must act within constitutional framework and within the law. An Election Commission, which does not ensure free and fair role in the process, guarantees breakdown of rule of law, which is the bedrock of the democracy, it added. The bench said that democracy is fragile and would collapse if "lip service" is paid to rule of law. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Indian Supreme Court delivers major verdict related to Election Commission

The Indian government on Monday accepted Supreme Court's suggestion to form an expert-level committee to look into the allegations made by Hindenburg against the Adani group and protect the investors.

The Indian government on Monday accepted Supreme Court's suggestion to form an expert-level committee to look into the allegations made by Hindenburg against the Adani group and protect the investors. Earlier, market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had also given its nod to the committee. Representing the centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, added that the government will like to have a say in the composition of the panel. "We will suggest names of the experts to be included in the committee in a sealed cover. Some names may appeal to the Supreme Court, and some may not. But these names should not be discussed and opposed by the petitioners. The SC can choose from the list," he said in front of a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala. Mehta added no such message should go out to the investors that SEBI was incapable of handling the situation. "Our instructions are that existing structure - SEBI and other agencies - are fully equipped not only regime wise but otherwise also, in taking care of the situation." Last Friday, the apex court, taking a grim view of the rout in shares of the Adani group stated that investors had suffered losses running into several billion dollars. The court suggested that a mechanism was needed to protect the investors and put forth the idea of an expert committee. WATCH | Gravitas: Adani firms' losses swell to $120 billion The decision by the centre to greenlit the committee comes on the same day as a Bloomberg report claiming that Adani group had halved its revenue growth plans. Additionally, the company was looking to scale down fresh capital expenditure. Gautam Adani's conglomerate has tapered its revenue growth to 15 per cent to 20 per cent for the next financial year, down from the previous target of 40 per cent. The idea behind managing the expectations regarding revenue growth is to rebuild investor confidence, the publication added. On Tuesday, a Reuters report claimed that the Adani group had roped in US-based firm Grant Thornton LLC to conduct an independent audit of some of the companies. Read more: Adani group halves revenue growth, scales down capex plans after Hindenburg jolt: Report After the Hindenburg report came out, Adani and its affiliate companies have lost more than $120 billion in market value so far. The Hindenburg report accused the Adani group of stock manipulation using tax havens whilst having unsustainable debt. The report and the damning allegations made in it forced the Adani group to call off its $2.5 billion share sale. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Adani-Hindenburg: To protect investors, Indian govt. says yes to Supreme Court panel probe

The Supreme Court of India on February 10 dismissed the petition&nbsp;filed by Hindu Sena President Vishnu Gupta, seeking a ban on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)&nbsp;in the wake of the controversial documentary series titled: 'India: The Modi Question.'&nbsp;A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh said that the petition filed by the Hindu Sena president was "absolutely misconcieved", the Hindu reported.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-supreme-court-issues-notice-to-govt-on-pleas-against-blocking-bbcs-documentary-on-gujarat-riots-558599">Also read |&nbsp;India: Supreme Court issues notice to govt over blocking BBC's documentary on Gujarat riots</a>

The petition claimed that the media outlet's documentary was surreptitiously intended to disturb the 'peace and national integrity' in the county which had led to "India's overall growth since 2014 under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi."

Pinky Anand, the senior advocate for the petitioner, highlighted that the government-blocked BBC documentary was timed to create 'anti-India propaganda' at a time when India's economic power was on the rise.&nbsp;

"Today you have a position, when you have an Indian as the British Prime Minister. India is rising as an economic power," she said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/propaganda-piece-and-colonial-mindset-india-slams-bbc-documentary-on-2002-gujarat-riots-554189">Also read |&nbsp;‘Propaganda piece, reveals colonial mindset’: India slams BBC documentary on 2002 Gujarat riots</a>

The petitioner said, "Anti-India lobby and media, particularly the BBC, cannot digest the national growth and seem&nbsp;to be biased. A representation to the Home Ministry on January 27 has so far not yielded a response."

The Supreme Court said that there was no merit in the petition and rejected it.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on February 10 dismissed the petition filed by Hindu Sena President Vishnu Gupta, seeking a ban on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the wake of the controversial documentary series titled: 'India: The Modi Question.

The Supreme Court of India on February 10 dismissed the petition filed by Hindu Sena President Vishnu Gupta, seeking a ban on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the wake of the controversial documentary series titled: 'India: The Modi Question.' A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh said that the petition filed by the Hindu Sena president was "absolutely misconcieved", the Hindu reported. Also read | India: Supreme Court issues notice to govt over blocking BBC's documentary on Gujarat riots The petition claimed that the media outlet's documentary was surreptitiously intended to disturb the 'peace and national integrity' in the county which had led to "India's overall growth since 2014 under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi." Pinky Anand, the senior advocate for the petitioner, highlighted that the government-blocked BBC documentary was timed to create 'anti-India propaganda' at a time when India's economic power was on the rise. "Today you have a position, when you have an Indian as the British Prime Minister. India is rising as an economic power," she said. Also read | ‘Propaganda piece, reveals colonial mindset’: India slams BBC documentary on 2002 Gujarat riots The petitioner said, "Anti-India lobby and media, particularly the BBC, cannot digest the national growth and seem to be biased. A representation to the Home Ministry on January 27 has so far not yielded a response." The Supreme Court said that there was no merit in the petition and rejected it. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

'Absolutely misconceived': Supreme Court of India dismisses plea seeking ban on BBC

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court&nbsp;of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.&nbsp;The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling&nbsp;in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google.&nbsp;Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store.&nbsp;

After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users.&nbsp;

The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform.&nbsp;

CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers.&nbsp;

Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like&nbsp;mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive.&nbsp;

Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform.&nbsp;

A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward."&nbsp;

"We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google. Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store. After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users. The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform. CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers. Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive. Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform. A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward." "We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Google to cooperate with India antitrust watchdog after Android ruling

India's Supreme Court on Monday, in a 4-1 majority ruling, backed the&nbsp;Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 denominations.&nbsp;The five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court passed its judgement and said that the decision could not be faulted just because it was initiated by the central government.&nbsp;

The bench headed by supreme court Justice S A Nazeer had taken a batch of 58 petitions challenging several different aspects of the&nbsp; Modi government’s demonetisation decision. According to reports, the petitions also called for the apex court to strike the decision.&nbsp;

Justice BR Gavai, reading out the SC order by the bench said that whether the objective of the move was achieved or not, is “not relevant”. “There has to be great restraint in matters of economic policy. Court cannot supplant the wisdom of the executive with its wisdom,” the court order added.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-supreme-court-to-examine-2016-demonetisation-decision-asks-for-affidavits-524831">India's Supreme Court to examine 2016 demonetisation decision, asks govt, RBI to file affidavits</a>

However, one judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, expressed strong dissent and called the note ban by the government “vitiated and unlawful”. Justice Nagarathna based her argument on the government’s 2016 decision citing its powers under section 26(2) of the RBI Act and said that the Reserve Bank of India should have independently recommended demonetisation as opposed to basing it on the Centre’s advice.&nbsp;

She said, “After perusing the documents and records submitted by Centre and RBI, phrases like ‘as desired by Centre government’ show there was no independent application of mind by RBI.” Meanwhile, the other judges said that the Centre is required to act in consultation with the RBI and noted that there was at least a six-month back and forth between the two entities before the decision was announced.&nbsp; 
 
“The central government's decision was after RBI board’s approval which shows in-built safeguard against centre’s powers. It cannot be said that there is excessive delegation of power under the RBI Act to the Centre which is answerable to the Parliament,” the apex court noted.&nbsp;

<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/indias-supreme-court-2016-demonetisation-valid-58-petitions-challenged-decisison-548697/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Additionally, since the move is an executive’s economic policy it cannot be reversed. In this case, Justice Nagarathna also said that the decision could have been initiated through the Parliament as opposed to being an executive order.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/five-years-of-demonetisation-what-has-changed-in-the-indian-economy-427634">Five years of demonetisation: What has changed in the Indian economy?&nbsp;</a>

The supreme court justice Nagarathna also went on to call demonetisation with a doubt, “well-intentioned” as it “targeted evils” such as black money, terror funding, and counterfeiting. However, “Best intention and noble objects are not under question. The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legal analysis, and not on the objects of demonetisation,” she noted.&nbsp;

In addition to the three aforementioned Justices Nazeer, Gavai and Nagarathna, the other members of the five-judge bench of the apex court were Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. The SC also argues that the exercise cannot be struck down as it was not hit by the doctrine of proportionality and that a period of 52 days given to exchange the notes was “not unreasonable”.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India's Supreme Court on Monday, in a 4-1 majority ruling, backed the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs.

India's Supreme Court on Monday, in a 4-1 majority ruling, backed the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 denominations. The five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court passed its judgement and said that the decision could not be faulted just because it was initiated by the central government. The bench headed by supreme court Justice S A Nazeer had taken a batch of 58 petitions challenging several different aspects of the Modi government’s demonetisation decision. According to reports, the petitions also called for the apex court to strike the decision. Justice BR Gavai, reading out the SC order by the bench said that whether the objective of the move was achieved or not, is “not relevant”. “There has to be great restraint in matters of economic policy. Court cannot supplant the wisdom of the executive with its wisdom,” the court order added. ALSO READ | India's Supreme Court to examine 2016 demonetisation decision, asks govt, RBI to file affidavits However, one judge, Justice BV Nagarathna, expressed strong dissent and called the note ban by the government “vitiated and unlawful”. Justice Nagarathna based her argument on the government’s 2016 decision citing its powers under section 26(2) of the RBI Act and said that the Reserve Bank of India should have independently recommended demonetisation as opposed to basing it on the Centre’s advice. She said, “After perusing the documents and records submitted by Centre and RBI, phrases like ‘as desired by Centre government’ show there was no independent application of mind by RBI.” Meanwhile, the other judges said that the Centre is required to act in consultation with the RBI and noted that there was at least a six-month back and forth between the two entities before the decision was announced. “The central government's decision was after RBI board’s approval which shows in-built safeguard against centre’s powers. It cannot be said that there is excessive delegation of power under the RBI Act to the Centre which is answerable to the Parliament,” the apex court noted. × Additionally, since the move is an executive’s economic policy it cannot be reversed. In this case, Justice Nagarathna also said that the decision could have been initiated through the Parliament as opposed to being an executive order. ALSO READ | Five years of demonetisation: What has changed in the Indian economy? The supreme court justice Nagarathna also went on to call demonetisation with a doubt, “well-intentioned” as it “targeted evils” such as black money, terror funding, and counterfeiting. However, “Best intention and noble objects are not under question. The measure has been regarded as unlawful only on a purely legal analysis, and not on the objects of demonetisation,” she noted. In addition to the three aforementioned Justices Nazeer, Gavai and Nagarathna, the other members of the five-judge bench of the apex court were Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. The SC also argues that the exercise cannot be struck down as it was not hit by the doctrine of proportionality and that a period of 52 days given to exchange the notes was “not unreasonable”. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India: Supreme Court upholds government’s demonetisation decision with a 4-1 majority

Taking another progressive step, the Supreme Court of India on Monday prohibited the use of rather inhumane 'two-finger test' in cases of rape and sexual assaults.

Taking another progressive step, the Supreme Court of India on Monday prohibited the use of rather inhumane 'two-finger test' in cases of rape and sexual assaults. Stating it was 'regrettable' that such practice continued, the Supreme Court bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made the observations. "This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases alleging rape and sexual assault. The so called test has no scientific basis." Stating the test re-victimises and re-traumatises the women, the court warned that, "the two finger test must not be conducted." "The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the truth." Also watch: India: Supreme Court livestreams proceedings heard by five-judge bench The bench made the observations while restoring conviction in a rape case and called the practice 'patriarchal' and 'sexist'. "The probative value of a woman's testimony does not depend on her sexual history. It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped merely because she is sexually active." In the concluding statements, the bench ordered the union government and state governments to ensure that guidelines laid down by the Department of Health and Family Welfare are implemented in government and private hospitals. Read more: India's Supreme Court starts live-streaming cases, in historic first The Indian Supreme Court lately has been taking a modern and progressive stance in dismantling the archaic ideas about the customs in society. As reported by WION, the SC in August said that unmarried partnerships and queer relationships can also be considered family. "Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships," said the court. Read more: Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family Further building upon its statement, the bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna asserted that atypical family units are also entitled to equal protection of the law. "A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Supreme Court bans 'two-finger' test for rape & sexual assault; calls it patriarchal & sexist

Following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion has become a topic of active discussion across the planet. Now, the Indian Supreme Court, hearing an abortion case has observed that all women, irrespective of their marital status should have the same rights to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion has become a topic of active discussion across the planet. Now, the Indian Supreme Court, hearing an abortion case has observed that all women, irrespective of their marital status should have the same rights to end an unwanted pregnancy. Reportedly, the Supreme Court was hearing the case of a 25-year-old woman who had conceived during a live-in relationship. However, since the relationship had ended and she wanted to abort the pregnancy, she was denied as the Indian laws do not have a provision for women in such cases. The court noted that it will seek to interpret the law to include 'unmarried woman' and 'single woman' under the provision that allows abortion till up to 24 weeks. As reported by WION, according to the abortion laws in India, a woman may choose to end their pregnancy up to 20 weeks if their doctor recommends it, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MPT), a law passed by the Parliament in 1971. Moreover, special categories of women such as survivors of sexual abuse, minors, rape victims, incest, and disabled women can seek termination up to 24 weeks. And therein lies the blindspot for unmarried women. Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules, 2003 states that women who have a change of marital status during pregnancy, either by way of widowhood or divorce may undergo abortion up to 24 weeks. Read more: Roe v. Wade overturned: Comparative analysis of Indian and American abortion laws Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala picked up on this specific gap in the legislation and made the observation: “Going by the legislative intent, a widow has lost support of her life partner and in divorce too, there is loss of support from life partner. This logic will equally apply to a woman who has been abandoned,” “Take a case where a married woman is neither divorced nor widowed but deserted. She is cast away and has no source of livelihood. Should the law be understood to mean that because she is technically not divorced, she cannot have the right to abort her pregnancy?” the bench further added. Read more: Is abortion legal in India? What does the law say? The court further added that the new interpretation of the law should also account for the situation when a birth control device fails. In such conditions, abortion is allowed till 20 weeks. However, the court wants the legislation to remain uniform and allow 24 weeks for all women. “Why should we not say that such a right be extended up to 24 weeks as all women are equally circumstanced to suffer the same mental agony of an unwanted pregnancy due to failure of birth control device,” The progressive stance taken by the Indian Supreme Court comes in stark contrast with the position taken by the US court. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married & unmarried women

FIFA's ban on the All India Football Federation (AIFF) can be lifted soon after the Supreme Court of India on Monday (August 22) dissolved the three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA) to hand back the charge to the current administration of the board led by acting general secretary Sunando Dhar.&nbsp;

FIFA had imposed a ban on AIFF due to third-party interference last week and said it won't lift the ban until the board's administration is once again completely in charge of the national football body and the CoA is repealed. FIFA's key demand has now been met by the AIFF after CoA's dismissal by the Supreme Court.

As per a report in The Indian Express, the Supreme Court of India bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud passed an oral order on Monday demanding the CoA to hand over the baton back to the AIFF administration. “The day-to-day management of AIFF shall be looked after by the AIFF administration led by the acting secretary general exclusively," the SC bench said.

"As a consequence, the CoA will cease to be in charge," the bench added confirming CoA's ouster from AIFF. The SC had appointed a three-member&nbsp; Committee of Administrators to run the daily affairs at AIFF after dismissing former president Praful Patel, who illegally continued to hold his position despite completing three four-years terms.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/dire-consequences-what-fifas-ban-on-aiff-means-for-indian-football-507519">Dire consequences! What FIFA's ban on AIFF means for Indian football</a>

However, FIFA has a strict stance against third-party interference in the running of a national football federation. The world governing body issued a warning to the AIFF after CoA's appointment before imposing a ban last week. However, the Supreme Court's latest order can see FIFA revoke its ban on Indian football.

FIFA had said it will lift the ban on AIFF only after the ‘repeal of the CoA mandate in full’ and when the board's administration is fully in charge of its day-to-day affairs. FIFA's ban has already had&nbsp;a catastrophic impact on Indian clubs as Gokulam Kerala's women's team was last week ruled out of the AFC Club Championship due to the ban.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/fifa-suspends-aiff-with-immediate-effect-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ban-and-how-it-can-be-lifted-507318">FIFA suspends AIFF with immediate effect: All you need to know about the ban and how it can be lifted</a>

The ban has also impacted other Indian clubs and the national teams as they have been barred from participating in any international tournaments. As it stands, India have also been stripped off the hosting rights for the upcoming FIFA Women's U-17 World Cup which was scheduled to be hosted by the country later this year.

&nbsp;

FIFA's ban on the All India Football Federation (AIFF) can be lifted soon after the Supreme Court of India on Monday (August 22) dissolved the three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA) to hand back the charge to the current administration of the board led by acting general secretary Sunando Dhar.

FIFA's ban on the All India Football Federation (AIFF) can be lifted soon after the Supreme Court of India on Monday (August 22) dissolved the three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA) to hand back the charge to the current administration of the board led by acting general secretary Sunando Dhar. FIFA had imposed a ban on AIFF due to third-party interference last week and said it won't lift the ban until the board's administration is once again completely in charge of the national football body and the CoA is repealed. FIFA's key demand has now been met by the AIFF after CoA's dismissal by the Supreme Court. As per a report in The Indian Express, the Supreme Court of India bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud passed an oral order on Monday demanding the CoA to hand over the baton back to the AIFF administration. “The day-to-day management of AIFF shall be looked after by the AIFF administration led by the acting secretary general exclusively," the SC bench said. "As a consequence, the CoA will cease to be in charge," the bench added confirming CoA's ouster from AIFF. The SC had appointed a three-member Committee of Administrators to run the daily affairs at AIFF after dismissing former president Praful Patel, who illegally continued to hold his position despite completing three four-years terms. Also Read: Dire consequences! What FIFA's ban on AIFF means for Indian football However, FIFA has a strict stance against third-party interference in the running of a national football federation. The world governing body issued a warning to the AIFF after CoA's appointment before imposing a ban last week. However, the Supreme Court's latest order can see FIFA revoke its ban on Indian football. FIFA had said it will lift the ban on AIFF only after the ‘repeal of the CoA mandate in full’ and when the board's administration is fully in charge of its day-to-day affairs. FIFA's ban has already had a catastrophic impact on Indian clubs as Gokulam Kerala's women's team was last week ruled out of the AFC Club Championship due to the ban. Also Read: FIFA suspends AIFF with immediate effect: All you need to know about the ban and how it can be lifted The ban has also impacted other Indian clubs and the national teams as they have been barred from participating in any international tournaments. As it stands, India have also been stripped off the hosting rights for the upcoming FIFA Women's U-17 World Cup which was scheduled to be hosted by the country later this year.

FIFA's ban on AIFF likely to be lifted soon as Supreme Court dissolves CoA

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the setting up of a three-member Committee of Administrators (COA) to take over the affairs of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Najmi Waziri said the "persistent recalcitrance" of the IOA to comply with the Sports Code made it imperative that its affairs be put in the hands of the COA comprising former Supreme Court judge Justice Anil R. Dave, former Chief Election Commissioner Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, and former Secretary of Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup.

The court directed the executive committee of IOA to forthwith hand over the charge to the newly appointed committee and said that the members of the CoA will be assisted by three eminent sportspersons, namely, Shooter Olympian Abhinav Bindra, Long Jump Olympian Anju Bobby George, and Archer Olympian Bombayla Devi Laishram. The IOA is recognised by the International Olympic Committee as the National Olympic Committee for India.

The court, which considered in detail the issues concerning the tenure of office bearers and voting rights, struck down the post of "Life President"&nbsp;and any such permanent post for an individual in the IOA for being illegal and said that the maximum term for the President and likewise to all Office Bearers and members of the EC has to be limited to 3 tenures as per the law.

It said that sportspersons, both men and women, should be included in the general and executive committees of the sports body.&nbsp;

"There is every reason to acknowledge women's significant presence in the sporting world. Sports administration is not a male preserve. It is a matter of record that in all its 95 years of existence the IOA has never had a woman as its President or Secretary General. Surely women do aspire to be in significant positions in the decision-making process. Their presence both in the GB (general body), as well as the EC (executive committee) of the IOA, will lend to the fruition of their valid aspirations. Accordingly, women shall comprise half of the category of sportspersons with voting rights in the General Body as well as in the EC," the court said.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/harsh-decision-former-indian-football-team-captain-bhaichung-bhutia-reacts-after-fifas-ban-on-aiff-507403">'Harsh decision': Former Indian football team captain Bhaichung Bhutia reacts to FIFA's ban on AIFF</a>

The court's order was passed on a petition by senior advocate Rahul Mehra seeking strict compliance by the IOA and the National Sports Federations with the Sports Code and judicial dicta.

"The history of persistent recalcitrance of the IOA for almost half a century to comply with the Sports Code, despite its consistent assurance to the Government, the societal concerns, and the larger public good, make it imperative that the IOA's affairs be put in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA)," it said.

"Accordingly, persons of eminence from the fields of law, public administration, elections, and international relations are appointed as members of the CoA, to be assisted by eminent sportspersons, as Consultants," the court ordered.

It directed the centre to not grant recognition or facilities to any sports bodies that do not comply with the sports code and further called for the implementation of "structural reforms" to remove the mismanagement in the sports bodies and to democratize these institutions.

"This Court is of the view that the Sports Code must be made applicable to every constituent of every NSF, including IOA as well as its constituents". "Accordingly, respondent No.1/Union of India is directed not to grant recognition or any facility (monetary or otherwise) to the IOA or to any NSF and/or any of its affiliated Associations, if they refuse to comply with the Sports Code as directed by this Court," it said.

"The Central and State Governments may well consider passing a comprehensive legislation with regard to recognition and management of sports bodies incorporating the best practices and the IOC Charter without which no facility (monetary or otherwise) should be granted by any State and Union of India," the court said.

The court recorded the present petition highlighted that "the electoral colleges of most of the sports bodies are controlled by a few individuals where genuine sportsmen find it difficult to get elected and play an important role in management&nbsp;and IOA Constitution in vogue stipulates that President of IOA can be for life".

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/dire-consequences-what-fifas-ban-on-aiff-means-for-indian-football-507519">Dire consequences! What FIFA's ban on AIFF means for Indian football</a>

The court said the government monitoring of compliance is expected to be prompt, robust, and meticulous at all times and a sports federation that does not comply with the law of the land would receive no recognition from the government and the same applies to IOA as well.

"If the compliance is not done by IOA, within the time specified hereinabove, its recognition by the Government shall stand suspended. The urgency for cooperation with the CoA and onus for compliance with the Sports Code is upon the IOA," it said.

It clarified, that the COA shall assist in the preparation and adoption of the constitution of IOA as per the Sports Code and court rulings and facilitate the holding of elections and the handing over of the affairs of the body to a democratically elected body in terms of its constitution which will be adopted, preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date the CoA members give their assent.

The honorarium payable to the CoA members and facilities to be extended to them will be akin to what may be fixed by the Supreme Court in the case related to the All India Football Federation and for the moment, as interim honorarium, a deposit of Rs 3 lakh per month shall be made with each CoA member and Rs 1.5 lakh each with the consultant sportsperson, the court said. 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the setting up of a three-member Committee of Administrators (COA) to take over the affairs of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the setting up of a three-member Committee of Administrators (COA) to take over the affairs of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). A bench of Justices Manmohan and Najmi Waziri said the "persistent recalcitrance" of the IOA to comply with the Sports Code made it imperative that its affairs be put in the hands of the COA comprising former Supreme Court judge Justice Anil R. Dave, former Chief Election Commissioner Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, and former Secretary of Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup. The court directed the executive committee of IOA to forthwith hand over the charge to the newly appointed committee and said that the members of the CoA will be assisted by three eminent sportspersons, namely, Shooter Olympian Abhinav Bindra, Long Jump Olympian Anju Bobby George, and Archer Olympian Bombayla Devi Laishram. The IOA is recognised by the International Olympic Committee as the National Olympic Committee for India. The court, which considered in detail the issues concerning the tenure of office bearers and voting rights, struck down the post of "Life President" and any such permanent post for an individual in the IOA for being illegal and said that the maximum term for the President and likewise to all Office Bearers and members of the EC has to be limited to 3 tenures as per the law. It said that sportspersons, both men and women, should be included in the general and executive committees of the sports body. "There is every reason to acknowledge women's significant presence in the sporting world. Sports administration is not a male preserve. It is a matter of record that in all its 95 years of existence the IOA has never had a woman as its President or Secretary General. Surely women do aspire to be in significant positions in the decision-making process. Their presence both in the GB (general body), as well as the EC (executive committee) of the IOA, will lend to the fruition of their valid aspirations. Accordingly, women shall comprise half of the category of sportspersons with voting rights in the General Body as well as in the EC," the court said. Also Read: 'Harsh decision': Former Indian football team captain Bhaichung Bhutia reacts to FIFA's ban on AIFF The court's order was passed on a petition by senior advocate Rahul Mehra seeking strict compliance by the IOA and the National Sports Federations with the Sports Code and judicial dicta. "The history of persistent recalcitrance of the IOA for almost half a century to comply with the Sports Code, despite its consistent assurance to the Government, the societal concerns, and the larger public good, make it imperative that the IOA's affairs be put in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA)," it said. "Accordingly, persons of eminence from the fields of law, public administration, elections, and international relations are appointed as members of the CoA, to be assisted by eminent sportspersons, as Consultants," the court ordered. It directed the centre to not grant recognition or facilities to any sports bodies that do not comply with the sports code and further called for the implementation of "structural reforms" to remove the mismanagement in the sports bodies and to democratize these institutions. "This Court is of the view that the Sports Code must be made applicable to every constituent of every NSF, including IOA as well as its constituents". "Accordingly, respondent No.1/Union of India is directed not to grant recognition or any facility (monetary or otherwise) to the IOA or to any NSF and/or any of its affiliated Associations, if they refuse to comply with the Sports Code as directed by this Court," it said. "The Central and State Governments may well consider passing a comprehensive legislation with regard to recognition and management of sports bodies incorporating the best practices and the IOC Charter without which no facility (monetary or otherwise) should be granted by any State and Union of India," the court said. The court recorded the present petition highlighted that "the electoral colleges of most of the sports bodies are controlled by a few individuals where genuine sportsmen find it difficult to get elected and play an important role in management and IOA Constitution in vogue stipulates that President of IOA can be for life". Also Read: Dire consequences! What FIFA's ban on AIFF means for Indian football The court said the government monitoring of compliance is expected to be prompt, robust, and meticulous at all times and a sports federation that does not comply with the law of the land would receive no recognition from the government and the same applies to IOA as well. "If the compliance is not done by IOA, within the time specified hereinabove, its recognition by the Government shall stand suspended. The urgency for cooperation with the CoA and onus for compliance with the Sports Code is upon the IOA," it said. It clarified, that the COA shall assist in the preparation and adoption of the constitution of IOA as per the Sports Code and court rulings and facilitate the holding of elections and the handing over of the affairs of the body to a democratically elected body in terms of its constitution which will be adopted, preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date the CoA members give their assent. The honorarium payable to the CoA members and facilities to be extended to them will be akin to what may be fixed by the Supreme Court in the case related to the All India Football Federation and for the moment, as interim honorarium, a deposit of Rs 3 lakh per month shall be made with each CoA member and Rs 1.5 lakh each with the consultant sportsperson, the court said.

Delhi HC appoints committee of administrators to take over affairs of Indian Olympic Association

A panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.

"Whenever there is a raid on any brothel since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised," the pandel said in one of its guidelines.

"Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children," it added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sex-workers-fighting-for-human-rights-are-worlds-most-at-risk-activists-405755">Also read |&nbsp;Sex workers fighting for human rights are world’s most ‘at risk activists’</a>

"It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this the country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

However, the Central government has expressed reservations about the recommendation ''that voluntary sex work is not illegal and that only running a brothel is prohibited, with no action taken against sex workers,'' according to Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud.

Some of the recommendations, made by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna, have been accepted by the Government of India and the Apex Court has now ordered states to implement them.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-firm-handling-immigration-for-govt-accused-of-paying-for-sex-while-deporting-migrants-470621">Also read |&nbsp;UK firm handling immigration for govt accused of paying for sex while deporting migrants</a>

“Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action," the Supreme Court said.

It has given six weeks to the Central government to react and implement the recommendations and file its response by July 27, 2022.

The court also directed that Aadhar Cards shall be issued to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certificate.&nbsp;

It is issued by UIDAI (Unique Identity - Aadhaar to all Residents of India) and submitted by the Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society, along with the Aadhar enrolment form/application.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV here:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

A panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.

A panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised. "Whenever there is a raid on any brothel since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised," the pandel said in one of its guidelines. "Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children," it added. Also read | Sex workers fighting for human rights are world’s most ‘at risk activists’ "It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this the country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." However, the Central government has expressed reservations about the recommendation ''that voluntary sex work is not illegal and that only running a brothel is prohibited, with no action taken against sex workers,'' according to Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud. Some of the recommendations, made by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna, have been accepted by the Government of India and the Apex Court has now ordered states to implement them. Also read | UK firm handling immigration for govt accused of paying for sex while deporting migrants “Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action," the Supreme Court said. It has given six weeks to the Central government to react and implement the recommendations and file its response by July 27, 2022. The court also directed that Aadhar Cards shall be issued to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certificate. It is issued by UIDAI (Unique Identity - Aadhaar to all Residents of India) and submitted by the Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society, along with the Aadhar enrolment form/application. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here:

India's Supreme Court panel recommends that voluntary sex work is not illegal

The Supreme Court of India has decided to pause its hearing on the sedition law. This will impact hundreds who have been charged under the colonial era relic.

India's Sedition law: Colonial-Era law comes under lens

India's central government has told the Supreme Court that it is not favour of working from home and prefers the option of carpool.

It comes after the apex court had asked state governments of the country to take solid steps in curbing smog that has increased severely after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-delhi-shuts-down-schools-power-plants-amid-air-pollution-crises-430060/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said : ''On work-from-home for central government employees, we have said that work has already suffered due to Covid. The number of central government vehicles in Delhi-NCR is not too high. There are more cons than pros when it comes to WFH... it will have a limited impact. We have advised carpooling.''

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-set-to-seal-3-billion-predator-drone-deal-with-us-by-current-fiscal-429862" hreflang="en">India set to seal $3 billion Predator drone deal with US by current fiscal</a>

State governments in NCR have been directed to allow work from home for at least 50 per cent of their employees in offices in NCR till Sunday and encourage private establishments to follow suit. Trucks carrying non-essential items have been banned from entering Delhi till Sunday.

More children are in hospital with breathing problems as pollution levels remain dangerously high in the city of 20 million.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-how-indias-lunar-orbiter-chandrayaan-2-avoided-collision-with-nasas-lro-429955" hreflang="en">How India’s Lunar Orbiter Chandrayaan-2 avoided Collision with NASA’s LRO</a>

India's capital has shut schools and coal plants as it battles dangerous levels of air pollution in the region.

The move comes after India led the charge at the weekend to weaken anti-coal pledges at the UN COP26 climate summit, with critics saying it prioritised economic growth over the planet's future.

Delhi's air quality improved marginally, registering the 24-hour average air quality index (AQI) at 375 on Wednesday from 403 the day before. Authorities, however, said no major improvement is likely till Sunday.

(With inputs from agencies)

India's central government has told the Supreme Court that it is not favour of working from home and prefers the option of carpool. It comes after the apex court had asked state governments of the country to take solid steps in curbing smog that has increased severely after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights.

India's central government has told the Supreme Court that it is not favour of working from home and prefers the option of carpool. It comes after the apex court had asked state governments of the country to take solid steps in curbing smog that has increased severely after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said : ''On work-from-home for central government employees, we have said that work has already suffered due to Covid. The number of central government vehicles in Delhi-NCR is not too high. There are more cons than pros when it comes to WFH... it will have a limited impact. We have advised carpooling.'' Also read | India set to seal $3 billion Predator drone deal with US by current fiscal State governments in NCR have been directed to allow work from home for at least 50 per cent of their employees in offices in NCR till Sunday and encourage private establishments to follow suit. Trucks carrying non-essential items have been banned from entering Delhi till Sunday. More children are in hospital with breathing problems as pollution levels remain dangerously high in the city of 20 million. Also read | How India’s Lunar Orbiter Chandrayaan-2 avoided Collision with NASA’s LRO India's capital has shut schools and coal plants as it battles dangerous levels of air pollution in the region. The move comes after India led the charge at the weekend to weaken anti-coal pledges at the UN COP26 climate summit, with critics saying it prioritised economic growth over the planet's future. Delhi's air quality improved marginally, registering the 24-hour average air quality index (AQI) at 375 on Wednesday from 403 the day before. Authorities, however, said no major improvement is likely till Sunday. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian govt tells Supreme Court it is not in favour of work from home, prefers carpool to curb Delhi pollution

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a verdict by the Bombay High Court in a sexual assault case.

In a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the apex court has&nbsp;ruled that the most important ingredient in a rape case is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact with the child.

The purpose of the law cannot be to allow the offender to escape the meshes of the law, it added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-china-to-hold-14th-round-of-talks-today-to-resolve-border-standoff-430216" hreflang="en">India, China to hold 14th round of talks today to resolve border standoff</a>

A bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said, ''We have held that when the legislature has expressed clear intention, the courts cannot create ambiguity in the provision. It is right that courts cannot be overzealous in creating ambiguity.''

''Such a narrow interpretation adopted by the high court in the impugned order would have had a cascading effect on the safety of women and children,'' it added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-parliament-passes-bill-for-chemical-castration-of-habitual-rapists-430233" hreflang="en">Pakistan parliament passes bill for chemical castration of habitual rapists&nbsp;</a>

In response, the National Commission for Women (NCW) said in a statement, "The Commission welcomes the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict today and believes that the apex court's decision in the matter will uphold the legal and constitutional safeguard for women and children."&nbsp;

The High Court had acquitted a 39-year-old man under the POCSO Act after he had been found guilty of sexual sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment.

He was charged with the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under IPC section 354. 
&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a verdict by the Bombay High Court in a sexual assault case. In a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the apex court has ruled that the most important ingredient in a rape case is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact with the child.

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a verdict by the Bombay High Court in a sexual assault case. In a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the apex court has ruled that the most important ingredient in a rape case is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact with the child. The purpose of the law cannot be to allow the offender to escape the meshes of the law, it added. Also read | India, China to hold 14th round of talks today to resolve border standoff A bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said, ''We have held that when the legislature has expressed clear intention, the courts cannot create ambiguity in the provision. It is right that courts cannot be overzealous in creating ambiguity.'' ''Such a narrow interpretation adopted by the high court in the impugned order would have had a cascading effect on the safety of women and children,'' it added. Also read | Pakistan parliament passes bill for chemical castration of habitual rapists In response, the National Commission for Women (NCW) said in a statement, "The Commission welcomes the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict today and believes that the apex court's decision in the matter will uphold the legal and constitutional safeguard for women and children." The High Court had acquitted a 39-year-old man under the POCSO Act after he had been found guilty of sexual sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. He was charged with the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under IPC section 354. (With inputs from agencies)

India's SC sets aside lower court's ruling that skin-to-skin contact is essential for sexual offence case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking directions to issue specific guidelines to ensure students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes.

A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar, Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari issued notice to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Department of Higher Education on a PIL filed by Javed Abidi Foundation.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-third-covid-wave-may-peak-between-oct-nov-intensity-to-be-less-than-second-wave-scientist-409500" hreflang="en">India’s third COVID wave may peak between Oct-Nov, intensity to be less than second wave: Scientist</a>

The top court also directed the petitioner to place on record all applications to government authorities and their responses and allowed the petitioner to carry out amendment in the petition within two weeks from today.

The foundation has sought guidelines for all States, UTs and academic institutions so as to ensure that students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes.

The PIL has also sought protection and enforcement of the fundamental right to equality and right to life of students with disabilities with regard to the conduct of online classes and examinations by educational institutions during the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19 pandemic</a>.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-could-soon-be-exporting-covid-vaccines-again-as-production-jumps-409337" hreflang="en">India could soon be exporting Covid vaccines again as production jumps</a>

"The universities, colleges are conducting online classes during the pandemic without considering the various challenges faced by students with disabilities and meeting their access needs and without providing reasonable accommodations to them. Students with disabilities are in a deplorable state with no access to lectures, study materials or assistance for those students who need individualized support," the plea said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking directions to issue specific guidelines to ensure students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking directions to issue specific guidelines to ensure students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes. A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar, Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari issued notice to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Department of Higher Education on a PIL filed by Javed Abidi Foundation. Also read | India’s third COVID wave may peak between Oct-Nov, intensity to be less than second wave: Scientist The top court also directed the petitioner to place on record all applications to government authorities and their responses and allowed the petitioner to carry out amendment in the petition within two weeks from today. The foundation has sought guidelines for all States, UTs and academic institutions so as to ensure that students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes. The PIL has also sought protection and enforcement of the fundamental right to equality and right to life of students with disabilities with regard to the conduct of online classes and examinations by educational institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also read | India could soon be exporting Covid vaccines again as production jumps "The universities, colleges are conducting online classes during the pandemic without considering the various challenges faced by students with disabilities and meeting their access needs and without providing reasonable accommodations to them. Students with disabilities are in a deplorable state with no access to lectures, study materials or assistance for those students who need individualized support," the plea said.

SC seeks response from Centre on PIL regarding students with disabilities and online classes

In a big setback for telecom companies, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their plea seeking correction of alleged errors in Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) calculation. 
 
A bench headed by Justice L&nbsp;Nageswara Rao said all applications were dismissed. On Monday, the apex court already said it would pass its order on applications filed by, Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Tele Services Ltd, alleging arithmetical errors in the calculation of AGR dues payable by them. 
 
The top court, citing an earlier order in the matter, had noted the order clearly point out that no re-assessment of AGR related dues can be done. The telcos submitted that arithmetical errors can be rectified and there are cases of duplication of entries.

Also read |&nbsp;Will not hear arguments on reassessment of AGR related dues "even for a second": SC to telcos 
 
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, had submitted they were not blaming the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) for it, and there are arithmetical entries. Rohatgi added that they want to bring these errors to the attention of the concerned department, for their rectification. 
 
The bench reiterated that the apex court order had made it clear that there can't be any re-assessment. 
 
Rohatgi responded figures are "not cast in stone" and added, tribunals don't have the power of review but they can correct arithmetical errors. He submitted that they were not seeking an extension of time. 
 
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing Tata Tele Services Ltd, submitted rectification of errors in calculation can be done. 
 
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted he has not received any instructions from the DoT on allowing correction of errors. 
 
The bench had said that it has said not just once, but twice and thrice that AGR demand can't be recomputed. 
 
Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing Airtel, said there are cases of duplication and also of payments made but not accounted for. He submitted, "I don't want to pay thousands of crores on account of these errors". 
 
Mehta said he can take instructions on this within two days. "It may be little hazardous for me to make statement without taking instructions..", said Mehta.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-gives-vodafone-idea-airtel-10-years-to-pay-agr-dues-to-government-324447">Supreme Court gives Vodafone-Idea, Airtel 10 years to pay AGR dues to government</a> 
 
In September last year, the top court had given 10 years'&nbsp;time to telcos, who were struggling to pay Rs 93,520 crore in AGR dues outstanding amount to the government. 
 
The apex court had said that telecom operators shall make the payment of 10 per cent of the total dues as demanded by DoT by March 31, 2021. The bench had said the rest of the amount was to be paid in yearly instalments commencing from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2031.

In a big setback for telecom companies, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their plea seeking correction of alleged errors in Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) calculation.

In a big setback for telecom companies, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their plea seeking correction of alleged errors in Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) calculation. A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao said all applications were dismissed. On Monday, the apex court already said it would pass its order on applications filed by, Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Tele Services Ltd, alleging arithmetical errors in the calculation of AGR dues payable by them. The top court, citing an earlier order in the matter, had noted the order clearly point out that no re-assessment of AGR related dues can be done. The telcos submitted that arithmetical errors can be rectified and there are cases of duplication of entries. Also read | Will not hear arguments on reassessment of AGR related dues "even for a second": SC to telcos Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, had submitted they were not blaming the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) for it, and there are arithmetical entries. Rohatgi added that they want to bring these errors to the attention of the concerned department, for their rectification. The bench reiterated that the apex court order had made it clear that there can't be any re-assessment. Rohatgi responded figures are "not cast in stone" and added, tribunals don't have the power of review but they can correct arithmetical errors. He submitted that they were not seeking an extension of time. Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing Tata Tele Services Ltd, submitted rectification of errors in calculation can be done. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted he has not received any instructions from the DoT on allowing correction of errors. The bench had said that it has said not just once, but twice and thrice that AGR demand can't be recomputed. Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing Airtel, said there are cases of duplication and also of payments made but not accounted for. He submitted, "I don't want to pay thousands of crores on account of these errors". Mehta said he can take instructions on this within two days. "It may be little hazardous for me to make statement without taking instructions..", said Mehta. Also read | Supreme Court gives Vodafone-Idea, Airtel 10 years to pay AGR dues to government In September last year, the top court had given 10 years' time to telcos, who were struggling to pay Rs 93,520 crore in AGR dues outstanding amount to the government. The apex court had said that telecom operators shall make the payment of 10 per cent of the total dues as demanded by DoT by March 31, 2021. The bench had said the rest of the amount was to be paid in yearly instalments commencing from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2031.

SC dismisses telecom companies' plea seeking correction in AGR calculation

Concerned over the "enormous misuse"&nbsp;of the colonial era penal law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to 'silence'&nbsp;people like Mahatma Gandhi and to suppress the freedom movement.

Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said its main concern was the "misuse of law" and issued the notice to the Centre.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bjp-will-make-sedition-law-even-more-stringent-rajnath-singh-209977">BJP will make sedition law even more stringent: Rajnath Singh</a>

The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that "brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India" a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

"Mr Attorney (General), we want to ask some questions. This is the colonial-era law and the same law was used by the British to suppress the freedom movement. It was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Gokhale and others."

"Is it still necessary to keep this in statute even after 75 years of independence?",&nbsp;asked the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

Observing that the provision on sedition has been put to "enormous misuse", it also referred to alarming misuse of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back and observed: "It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut wood, cut the entire forest."

"A factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people,"&nbsp;the CJI said, adding that if a particular party or people do not want to hear a voice, they will use this law to implicate others.

The bench wondered at the continuance of the sedition law in the statute book for the last 75 years and said: "We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/will-make-sedition-law-more-stringent-rajnath-singh-219016">Will make sedition law more stringent: Rajnath Singh</a>

The bench said that it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and "there is no accountability"

In a hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said that if a police officer in a remote village wanted to fix a person then he can easily do so by using such provisions.

Moreover, said the bench, there was a very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases and these are the issues which are needed to be decided.

The CJI, on being told that another bench headed Justice U U Lalit has been hearing a similar plea which has been fixed for further consideration on July 27, said he would take a call on posting of the matters and notify the date of hearing.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was asked to assist the bench in dealing with the case, defended the provision and said it be allowed to remain in the statute book and the court may lay down guidelines to curb the misuse.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Editors Guild of India, said that a separate plea has been filed by the journalists' body challenging the validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC and that plea can also be tagged along with the present one.

He said that besides challenging the validity, the Guild has also sought framing of guidelines to curb misuse.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-power-on-earth-can-restore-article-370-bjp-tells-mehbooba-mufti-337597">'No power on earth' can restore Article 370: BJP tells Mehbooba Mufti</a>

The bench was hearing the fresh plea by a former army officer, Major-General S G Vombatkere (Retd), challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC on grounds that it causes a "chilling effect" on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.

The bench, referring to the credentials of Vombatkere, said that he gave his entire life to the country and his motive in the filing of the case cannot be questioned.

The former Army officer challenged the constitutional validity of the sedition law on the ground that it causes a "chilling effect" on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.

His plea said Section 124-A is wholly unconstitutional and should be "unequivocally and unambiguously struck down".

"The petitioner contends that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of 'disaffection towards Government' etc. Is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible 'Chilling Effect' on speech," the plea said.

The petition said there is a need to take into account the "march of the times and the development of the law" before dealing with Section 124-A.

Earlier, a separate bench had sought a response from the Centre on the plea challenging the validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.&nbsp;

Concerned over the "enormous misuse" of the colonial era penal law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to 'silence' people like Mahatma Gandhi and to suppress the freedom movement.

Concerned over the "enormous misuse" of the colonial era penal law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to 'silence' people like Mahatma Gandhi and to suppress the freedom movement. Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said its main concern was the "misuse of law" and issued the notice to the Centre. Also read | BJP will make sedition law even more stringent: Rajnath Singh The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that "brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India" a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. "Mr Attorney (General), we want to ask some questions. This is the colonial-era law and the same law was used by the British to suppress the freedom movement. It was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Gokhale and others." "Is it still necessary to keep this in statute even after 75 years of independence?", asked the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy. Observing that the provision on sedition has been put to "enormous misuse", it also referred to alarming misuse of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back and observed: "It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut wood, cut the entire forest." "A factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people," the CJI said, adding that if a particular party or people do not want to hear a voice, they will use this law to implicate others. The bench wondered at the continuance of the sedition law in the statute book for the last 75 years and said: "We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws." Also read | Will make sedition law more stringent: Rajnath Singh The bench said that it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and "there is no accountability" In a hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said that if a police officer in a remote village wanted to fix a person then he can easily do so by using such provisions. Moreover, said the bench, there was a very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases and these are the issues which are needed to be decided. The CJI, on being told that another bench headed Justice U U Lalit has been hearing a similar plea which has been fixed for further consideration on July 27, said he would take a call on posting of the matters and notify the date of hearing. Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was asked to assist the bench in dealing with the case, defended the provision and said it be allowed to remain in the statute book and the court may lay down guidelines to curb the misuse. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Editors Guild of India, said that a separate plea has been filed by the journalists' body challenging the validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC and that plea can also be tagged along with the present one. He said that besides challenging the validity, the Guild has also sought framing of guidelines to curb misuse. Also read | 'No power on earth' can restore Article 370: BJP tells Mehbooba Mufti The bench was hearing the fresh plea by a former army officer, Major-General S G Vombatkere (Retd), challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC on grounds that it causes a "chilling effect" on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right. The bench, referring to the credentials of Vombatkere, said that he gave his entire life to the country and his motive in the filing of the case cannot be questioned. The former Army officer challenged the constitutional validity of the sedition law on the ground that it causes a "chilling effect" on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right. His plea said Section 124-A is wholly unconstitutional and should be "unequivocally and unambiguously struck down". "The petitioner contends that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of 'disaffection towards Government' etc. Is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible 'Chilling Effect' on speech," the plea said. The petition said there is a need to take into account the "march of the times and the development of the law" before dealing with Section 124-A. Earlier, a separate bench had sought a response from the Centre on the plea challenging the validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.

Why aren't you repealing British era sedition law used against Gandhi, SC asks Centre

All sentiments, including religion, are subservient to the Right to Life, the Supreme Court said on Friday and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to inform by July 19 whether it would reconsider its decision to hold a "symbolic"&nbsp;Kanwar Yatra.

"One thing is clear; we cannot allow the Uttar Pradesh government to hold 100 per cent physical Kanwar Yatra in view of Covid. We are all citizens of India. This suo motu case is taken as Article 21 applies to all of us. It is to safeguard all of us", the top court said.

The Centre told the top court that the state governments must not permit any kind of Kanwar yatra&nbsp;in view of the pandemic and arrangements should be made for water from the Ganges to be available through tankers at designated places.

The Uttarakhand government earlier this week cancelled the annual ritual that sees thousands of Shiva devotees called 'kanwariyas' travel mostly on foot to collect water from the Ganges and bring it back to their villages.

Uttar Pradesh is going ahead with a pared-down 'symbolic'&nbsp;version.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and B R Gavai said the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and asked the Uttar Pradesh government whether it was willing to reconsider its decision to hold a yatra at all.

The apex court's direction came after the Uttar Pradesh government told the bench it has decided after relevant discussions to hold a 'symbolic'&nbsp;Kanwar Yatra with appropriate Covid restrictions.

"Total ban on the yatra will be inappropriate," senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, told the court.

He said they have filed an affidavit stating that a symbolic yatra would be held with the minimum presence of devotees and also keeping in mind religious sentiments.

The top court after perusing the affidavit of the UP government which explained how 'symbolic' Kanwar Yatra will take place in the state, noted that it has pointed out to Vaidyanathan that given the Covid pandemic and the fear that looms over all the citizens of India of a third wave of the pandemic whether the authorities would be in a position to reconsider holding or the allowing, for compelling religious reasons, of this yatra in physical form at all.

It noted in its order that Vaidyanathan responded positively to the court's suggestion and asked for time to come out with an additional affidavit by July 19, to apprise this Court as to whether there can be a reconsideration of holding the physical 'Kanwar yatra' at all.

On July 14, the top court took suo motu cognisance of media reports on the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to allow the yatra amid the Covid pandemic and sought responses from the state as well as the Centre "given the disparate political voices" on the matter.

The top court had said it was a 'little disturbed'&nbsp;to read that Uttar Pradesh has chosen to continue with the 'Kanwar Yatra', while Uttarakhand had decided against it.

All sentiments, including religion, are subservient to the Right to Life, the Supreme Court said on Friday and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to inform by July 19 whether it would reconsider its decision to hold a "symbolic" Kanwar Yatra.

All sentiments, including religion, are subservient to the Right to Life, the Supreme Court said on Friday and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to inform by July 19 whether it would reconsider its decision to hold a "symbolic" Kanwar Yatra. "One thing is clear; we cannot allow the Uttar Pradesh government to hold 100 per cent physical Kanwar Yatra in view of Covid. We are all citizens of India. This suo motu case is taken as Article 21 applies to all of us. It is to safeguard all of us", the top court said. The Centre told the top court that the state governments must not permit any kind of Kanwar yatra in view of the pandemic and arrangements should be made for water from the Ganges to be available through tankers at designated places. The Uttarakhand government earlier this week cancelled the annual ritual that sees thousands of Shiva devotees called 'kanwariyas' travel mostly on foot to collect water from the Ganges and bring it back to their villages. Uttar Pradesh is going ahead with a pared-down 'symbolic' version. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and B R Gavai said the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and asked the Uttar Pradesh government whether it was willing to reconsider its decision to hold a yatra at all. The apex court's direction came after the Uttar Pradesh government told the bench it has decided after relevant discussions to hold a 'symbolic' Kanwar Yatra with appropriate Covid restrictions. "Total ban on the yatra will be inappropriate," senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, told the court. He said they have filed an affidavit stating that a symbolic yatra would be held with the minimum presence of devotees and also keeping in mind religious sentiments. The top court after perusing the affidavit of the UP government which explained how 'symbolic' Kanwar Yatra will take place in the state, noted that it has pointed out to Vaidyanathan that given the Covid pandemic and the fear that looms over all the citizens of India of a third wave of the pandemic whether the authorities would be in a position to reconsider holding or the allowing, for compelling religious reasons, of this yatra in physical form at all. It noted in its order that Vaidyanathan responded positively to the court's suggestion and asked for time to come out with an additional affidavit by July 19, to apprise this Court as to whether there can be a reconsideration of holding the physical 'Kanwar yatra' at all. On July 14, the top court took suo motu cognisance of media reports on the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to allow the yatra amid the Covid pandemic and sought responses from the state as well as the Centre "given the disparate political voices" on the matter. The top court had said it was a 'little disturbed' to read that Uttar Pradesh has chosen to continue with the 'Kanwar Yatra', while Uttarakhand had decided against it.

Supreme Court asks UP to reconsider Kanwar Yatra decision

Courts in India have been feeding the world with sensational headlines and some of them sound straight out of Page 3.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indian-court-live-in-relationships-morally-unacceptable-385918/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

An Indian court recently called the rising death toll due to oxygen shortage a genocide. Another court went on to suggest that the country's Election Commission be booked for murder.

On Monday, a lower court slammed a state government for carelessness. It could have done so in parliamentary language. Instead, it chose to say that the state's medical infrastructure is ram bharose, meaning at the mercy of God.

Right now they are being cheered mostly because they are seen echoing the sentiment of Indians suffering from vaccine shortage and a devastating second wave of the Wuhan virus. All is&nbsp;not well in India and that is true. There is anger, rising frustration, even resentment with the authorities.

But is it a court's job to play to the gallery? It should be left to the political parties. The judiciary's job is to protect the law of the land, ensure separation of power, checks and balances and make sure that the executive and the legislature do not overstep their limits.

However, it is something Indian courts are now being accused of - overstepping their limits.

On May 12, an Indian court decided to play moral police. It denied protection to a couple in a live-in relationship.

The court said: "If such protection is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed."

It went on to say that live-in relations are morally and socially not acceptable.

Is it a court's job to decide what is morally or socially acceptable? No, it is not.

What a court is supposed to do is decide what is legally acceptable and legally speaking, Indians have the right to life. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian constitution and it's the job of the court to protect this right.

Under no circumstance can it refuse to do this job even if it goes against the morals of a judge. Criminality and morality are two different things.&nbsp;

Indians have the right to privacy, our relationships are private matters. These are spaces that judges cannot enter.

While refusing to protect a live-in couple, the court said: "As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in relationship which is morally and socially not acceptable."

Live-in relationships have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India as early as 2006. India's apex court had said that a woman is "free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes".

In India, the decision of the apex court is binding on all lower courts.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court judgement in 2010 said: "The acceptance of premarital sex and live-in relationships is viewed by some as an attack on the centrality of marriage. While there can be no doubt that in India, marriage is an important social institution, we must also keep our minds open to the fact that there are certain individuals or groups who do not hold the same view."

It is the reason they say the law is blind and it's because the law is not supposed to be biased. Indian courts must move beyond lecturing people on morals.

They must move beyond normalising sexual offence by asking a victim to tie rakhi to the accused.&nbsp;

Courts cannot question the genuineness of rape allegations just because the survivor chose to drink with the accused. Courts cannot grant divorces because a woman does not believe in traditional markers like sindoor because such judicial overreach is not welcome.

Courts in India have been feeding the world with sensational headlines and some of them sound straight out of Page 3. Watch: An Indian court recently called the rising death toll due to oxygen shortage a genocide.

Courts in India have been feeding the world with sensational headlines and some of them sound straight out of Page 3. Watch: An Indian court recently called the rising death toll due to oxygen shortage a genocide. Another court went on to suggest that the country's Election Commission be booked for murder. On Monday, a lower court slammed a state government for carelessness. It could have done so in parliamentary language. Instead, it chose to say that the state's medical infrastructure is ram bharose, meaning at the mercy of God. Right now they are being cheered mostly because they are seen echoing the sentiment of Indians suffering from vaccine shortage and a devastating second wave of the Wuhan virus. All is not well in India and that is true. There is anger, rising frustration, even resentment with the authorities. But is it a court's job to play to the gallery? It should be left to the political parties. The judiciary's job is to protect the law of the land, ensure separation of power, checks and balances and make sure that the executive and the legislature do not overstep their limits. However, it is something Indian courts are now being accused of - overstepping their limits. On May 12, an Indian court decided to play moral police. It denied protection to a couple in a live-in relationship. The court said: "If such protection is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed." It went on to say that live-in relations are morally and socially not acceptable. Is it a court's job to decide what is morally or socially acceptable? No, it is not. What a court is supposed to do is decide what is legally acceptable and legally speaking, Indians have the right to life. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian constitution and it's the job of the court to protect this right. Under no circumstance can it refuse to do this job even if it goes against the morals of a judge. Criminality and morality are two different things. Indians have the right to privacy, our relationships are private matters. These are spaces that judges cannot enter. While refusing to protect a live-in couple, the court said: "As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in relationship which is morally and socially not acceptable." Live-in relationships have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India as early as 2006. India's apex court had said that a woman is "free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes". In India, the decision of the apex court is binding on all lower courts. The Supreme Court judgement in 2010 said: "The acceptance of premarital sex and live-in relationships is viewed by some as an attack on the centrality of marriage. While there can be no doubt that in India, marriage is an important social institution, we must also keep our minds open to the fact that there are certain individuals or groups who do not hold the same view." It is the reason they say the law is blind and it's because the law is not supposed to be biased. Indian courts must move beyond lecturing people on morals. They must move beyond normalising sexual offence by asking a victim to tie rakhi to the accused. Courts cannot question the genuineness of rape allegations just because the survivor chose to drink with the accused. Courts cannot grant divorces because a woman does not believe in traditional markers like sindoor because such judicial overreach is not welcome.

Courts in India are resorting to judicial overreach

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital.

The stay, however, will not restrain the high court from monitoring the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> management-related issues, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.

The top court, in an urgent hearing, directed that a meeting be held between officials of the Centre and Delhi government by this evening to discuss various aspects of augmenting the oxygen supply to the national capital.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-crisis-over-180-cryogenic-oxygen-containers-transported-by-indian-air-force-382829">COVID-19 crisis: Over 180 cryogenic oxygen containers transported by Indian Air Force</a>

This is an all-India pandemic situation and we will have to find ways to ensure oxygen supply to the national capital as we are answerable to people of Delhi, it said.

"We are also in Delhi. We are helpless and have been on phone. We can imagine what citizens are going through," Justice Chandrachud said, adding that his office is hearing cries from people including lawyers seeking help.

The top court said it cannot review its order of April 30 and the Centre will have to inch towards the supply of 700 MT of oxygen daily for Delhi and asked the Union government to place before it a plan by Thursday morning as to how it will revamp the supply to 700MT.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-accounts-for-46-per-cent-of-worlds-new-covid-19-cases-quarter-of-deaths-who-382992">India accounts for 46 per cent of world's new COVID-19 cases, quarter of deaths: WHO</a>

It suggested that a committee of experts and doctors including those from the private sector may be constituted to ascertain the situation in Delhi and take into account the COVID-19 situation which had been prevailing in Mumbai.

The top court, in a nearly two-hour hearing, said that putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to Delhi and questioned the Centre about the supply it has made to the national capital since May 3.

The bench said, "Let us ensure lives are saved" and by enhancing supply of around 150MT per day the quantity will come up to 700MT and number of lives will be saved.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/11-patients-die-at-government-hospital-in-chennai-probe-ordered-382886">11 patients die at government hospital in Chennai, probe ordered</a>

It was hearing the Centre's appeal against Delhi High Court's Tuesday order of issuing contempt notice and seeking personal appearance of its officials for non-compliance with the directions on supply of oxygen to treat COVID-19 patients.

The bench aid that it had ordered supply of 700 MT oxygen to Delhi daily from May 3 as the "pandemic in Delhi is at a very critical stage".

"Putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to the city, let us ensure lives are saved," said the bench which also comprised justice MR Shah.

"This is not adversarial litigation. Centre, Delhi governments are elected and doing their best to serve COVID-19 patients,"&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.

"Tell us how much oxygen you have allocated to Delhi in the last three days," the bench said.

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital.

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital. The stay, however, will not restrain the high court from monitoring the COVID-19 management-related issues, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said. The top court, in an urgent hearing, directed that a meeting be held between officials of the Centre and Delhi government by this evening to discuss various aspects of augmenting the oxygen supply to the national capital. Also read | COVID-19 crisis: Over 180 cryogenic oxygen containers transported by Indian Air Force This is an all-India pandemic situation and we will have to find ways to ensure oxygen supply to the national capital as we are answerable to people of Delhi, it said. "We are also in Delhi. We are helpless and have been on phone. We can imagine what citizens are going through," Justice Chandrachud said, adding that his office is hearing cries from people including lawyers seeking help. The top court said it cannot review its order of April 30 and the Centre will have to inch towards the supply of 700 MT of oxygen daily for Delhi and asked the Union government to place before it a plan by Thursday morning as to how it will revamp the supply to 700MT. Also read | India accounts for 46 per cent of world's new COVID-19 cases, quarter of deaths: WHO It suggested that a committee of experts and doctors including those from the private sector may be constituted to ascertain the situation in Delhi and take into account the COVID-19 situation which had been prevailing in Mumbai. The top court, in a nearly two-hour hearing, said that putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to Delhi and questioned the Centre about the supply it has made to the national capital since May 3. The bench said, "Let us ensure lives are saved" and by enhancing supply of around 150MT per day the quantity will come up to 700MT and number of lives will be saved. Also read | 11 patients die at government hospital in Chennai, probe ordered It was hearing the Centre's appeal against Delhi High Court's Tuesday order of issuing contempt notice and seeking personal appearance of its officials for non-compliance with the directions on supply of oxygen to treat COVID-19 patients. The bench aid that it had ordered supply of 700 MT oxygen to Delhi daily from May 3 as the "pandemic in Delhi is at a very critical stage". "Putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to the city, let us ensure lives are saved," said the bench which also comprised justice MR Shah. "This is not adversarial litigation. Centre, Delhi governments are elected and doing their best to serve COVID-19 patients," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said. "Tell us how much oxygen you have allocated to Delhi in the last three days," the bench said.

SC stays Delhi HC order on contempt proceedings against Centre's officials over oxygen supply

The Supreme Court has turned down the plea for protection for makers and actors of web series 'Tandav.' The plea was filed by the director Ali Abbas Zafar and actors Saif Ali Khan and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub among others.&nbsp;

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan only issued a notice on clubbing of various FIRs registered across the country and asked actor Zeeshan Ayyub and others to move to High Courts for quashing of FIRs or bail in relation to the case.&nbsp;

Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman requested an order of no coercive action against the cast and producers of the web series. However, the bench refused to grant relief. 'Approach High Court,'&nbsp;said the top court.

During the hearing, the apex court noted that it may consider the request for clubbing the FIRs, but it cannot take the power of the High Court under CrPC.&nbsp;

The observation was made after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi requested the court to grant the petitioners no coercive step order, club the FIRS and issue notice to the parties.&nbsp; 
 
The top court also observed that freedom of speech was not absolute during its hearing on pleas seeking a stay on FIRs against actors and producers of 'Tandav' which released on Amazon Prime earlier this month.

Luthra argued that the director of the web series is being harassed. "Is this way liberty should be protected in the country and FIRs are being filed across the country," he added. The bench observed that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and it is subjected to restrictions.

Nariman submitted that apologies have been made, and despite that several FIRs have been filed in six states. Justice Bhushan replied: "You want the FIRs to be quashed, then why can`t you approach the High Courts?"

Nariman said the web series makers have removed the objectionable content and still there are cases being filed against them. The top court questioned, why petitioners have moved the court under Article 32.

The bench said the police can file closure reports too if apologies have been made.

The initial FIR was filed against Zafar and others for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of people. Zafar, on behalf of the cast and crew, had issued an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/tandav-director-ali-abbas-zafar-issues-apology-no-intention-to-hurt-sentiments-357521">unconditional apology</a> and assured that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/tandav-controversy-ali-abbas-zafar-to-implement-changes-in-series-amid-backlash-357877">changes would be made in the series </a>after seeking advice from the I&amp;B Ministry.&nbsp; 
 
The multi-starrer show features Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia, Sunil Grover, Tigmanshu Dhulia and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub among others.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has turned down the plea for protection for makers and actors of web series 'Tandav.' The plea was filed by the director Ali Abbas Zafar and actors Saif Ali Khan and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub among others.

The Supreme Court has turned down the plea for protection for makers and actors of web series 'Tandav.' The plea was filed by the director Ali Abbas Zafar and actors Saif Ali Khan and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub among others. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan only issued a notice on clubbing of various FIRs registered across the country and asked actor Zeeshan Ayyub and others to move to High Courts for quashing of FIRs or bail in relation to the case. Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman requested an order of no coercive action against the cast and producers of the web series. However, the bench refused to grant relief. 'Approach High Court,' said the top court. During the hearing, the apex court noted that it may consider the request for clubbing the FIRs, but it cannot take the power of the High Court under CrPC. The observation was made after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi requested the court to grant the petitioners no coercive step order, club the FIRS and issue notice to the parties. The top court also observed that freedom of speech was not absolute during its hearing on pleas seeking a stay on FIRs against actors and producers of 'Tandav' which released on Amazon Prime earlier this month. Luthra argued that the director of the web series is being harassed. "Is this way liberty should be protected in the country and FIRs are being filed across the country," he added. The bench observed that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and it is subjected to restrictions. Nariman submitted that apologies have been made, and despite that several FIRs have been filed in six states. Justice Bhushan replied: "You want the FIRs to be quashed, then why can`t you approach the High Courts?" Nariman said the web series makers have removed the objectionable content and still there are cases being filed against them. The top court questioned, why petitioners have moved the court under Article 32. The bench said the police can file closure reports too if apologies have been made. The initial FIR was filed against Zafar and others for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of people. Zafar, on behalf of the cast and crew, had issued an unconditional apology and assured that changes would be made in the series after seeking advice from the I&B Ministry. The multi-starrer show features Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia, Sunil Grover, Tigmanshu Dhulia and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub among others.

'Tandav' controversy: SC refuses to grant protection against arrest to makers, actors

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest.

A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman said that states and Union Territories (UTs) should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each and every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception as also areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part is left uncovered.

The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to check human rights abuses.

It said further that the CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage and it shall be mandatory for the Centre, states and UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for the maximum period possible, at least one year.

''In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of: Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest,''&nbsp;said the bench, also comprising Justices K M Joseph and Aniruddha Bose.

''As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station,''&nbsp;the bench said in its order.

The top court said that in September this year, it had impleaded all the states and UTs in the matter to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the April 3, 2018 order.

The apex court, while dealing with a matter related to custodial torture, had in July this year taken note of a 2017 case in which it had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all the police stations to check human rights abuses, videography of crime scene and setting up of a Central Oversight Committee and such a panel in every state and Union Territory.

In its 12-page order, the bench noted that till November 24, compliance affidavits and action is taken reports were filed by 14 states and the majority of them have failed to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station and other details.

It said that state-level oversight committee (SLOC) must consist of secretary or additional secretary of the home department, secretary or additional secretary of the finance department; director-general or inspector general of police and chairperson or member of the state women's commission.

It said district level oversight committee (DLOC) should comprise of -- divisional commissioner or regional commissioner or revenue commissioner division of district, district magistrate and superintendent of police and mayor of a municipality within the district or head of 'zilla panchayat' in rural areas. It also specified the duties of SLOC which included purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and equipment, obtain budgetary allocation for the same.

It said DLOC shall have the obligations including interact with station house officer (SHO) about its functioning and to review footage stored from CCTVs in various police stations to ''check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported''. 
It said adequate funds be allocated for this by the states and UTs at the earliest.

It said duty and responsibility for working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be of the SHO of police station concerned.

It said in areas where there is either no electricity or internet, it shall be the duty of states and UTs to provide the same expeditiously using any mode of providing power, including solar or wind.

''Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same,''&nbsp;it said.

It said SLOC and central oversight body shall give directions to all police stations and agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside police stations, offices of investigative agencies about the coverage of concerned premises by CCTV and this shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language.

''It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights,''&nbsp;it said.

It said authorities would implement its order ''both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.''

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest.

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest. A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman said that states and Union Territories (UTs) should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each and every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception as also areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part is left uncovered. The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to check human rights abuses. It said further that the CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage and it shall be mandatory for the Centre, states and UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for the maximum period possible, at least one year. ''In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of: Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest,'' said the bench, also comprising Justices K M Joseph and Aniruddha Bose. ''As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station,'' the bench said in its order. The top court said that in September this year, it had impleaded all the states and UTs in the matter to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the April 3, 2018 order. The apex court, while dealing with a matter related to custodial torture, had in July this year taken note of a 2017 case in which it had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all the police stations to check human rights abuses, videography of crime scene and setting up of a Central Oversight Committee and such a panel in every state and Union Territory. In its 12-page order, the bench noted that till November 24, compliance affidavits and action is taken reports were filed by 14 states and the majority of them have failed to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station and other details. It said that state-level oversight committee (SLOC) must consist of secretary or additional secretary of the home department, secretary or additional secretary of the finance department; director-general or inspector general of police and chairperson or member of the state women's commission. It said district level oversight committee (DLOC) should comprise of -- divisional commissioner or regional commissioner or revenue commissioner division of district, district magistrate and superintendent of police and mayor of a municipality within the district or head of 'zilla panchayat' in rural areas. It also specified the duties of SLOC which included purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and equipment, obtain budgetary allocation for the same. It said DLOC shall have the obligations including interact with station house officer (SHO) about its functioning and to review footage stored from CCTVs in various police stations to ''check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported''. It said adequate funds be allocated for this by the states and UTs at the earliest. It said duty and responsibility for working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be of the SHO of police station concerned. It said in areas where there is either no electricity or internet, it shall be the duty of states and UTs to provide the same expeditiously using any mode of providing power, including solar or wind. ''Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same,'' it said. It said SLOC and central oversight body shall give directions to all police stations and agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside police stations, offices of investigative agencies about the coverage of concerned premises by CCTV and this shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. ''It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights,'' it said. It said authorities would implement its order ''both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.''

SC directs Centre to install CCTV cameras in all interrogation offices, lock-ups

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