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

The Supreme Court Monday allowed National Testing Agency to conduct second round of the NEET (UG) for the COVID-19 affected students and those in containment zones on October 14.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde passed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought the top court's nod in the issue citing special circumstances due to the coronavirus pandemic.

''In view of the circumstances which have necessitated postponement of the examination in the past and in view of the prevailing circumstances, we consider it appropriate to grant permission to the National Testing Agency to conduct a second part of the NEET (UG) 2019 for the COVID affected students and for those in containment zones on October 14, 2020,''&nbsp;the bench said.

The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian,said the result may be declared on October 16, 2020.

The crucial National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which is a pen and paper based test unlike engineering entrance exam JEE, was held on September 13 after being deferred twice in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The exam was originally scheduled for May 3, but was pushed to July 26, and then to September 13.

The apex court had earlier dismissed a plea seeking postponement of JEE (Main) April 2020 and NEET-Undergraduate examinations, which are scheduled to be conducted in September, amid spurt in number of COVID-19 cases, saying precious year of students "cannot be wasted" and life has to go on.

The top court had said career of students "cannot be put under jeopardy for long".

Later, the apex court had dismissed a review plea of ministers of six opposition-ruled states seeking review of its August 17 order allowing holding of NEET and JEE exams physically.

The ministers had claimed that the top court order failed to secure students'' "right to life" and ignored "teething logistical difficulties" to be faced in conducting the exams during the pandemic.

The Supreme Court Monday allowed National Testing Agency to conduct second round of the NEET (UG) for the COVID-19 affected students and those in containment zones on October 14.

The Supreme Court Monday allowed National Testing Agency to conduct second round of the NEET (UG) for the COVID-19 affected students and those in containment zones on October 14. A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde passed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought the top court's nod in the issue citing special circumstances due to the coronavirus pandemic. ''In view of the circumstances which have necessitated postponement of the examination in the past and in view of the prevailing circumstances, we consider it appropriate to grant permission to the National Testing Agency to conduct a second part of the NEET (UG) 2019 for the COVID affected students and for those in containment zones on October 14, 2020,'' the bench said. The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian,said the result may be declared on October 16, 2020. The crucial National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which is a pen and paper based test unlike engineering entrance exam JEE, was held on September 13 after being deferred twice in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The exam was originally scheduled for May 3, but was pushed to July 26, and then to September 13. The apex court had earlier dismissed a plea seeking postponement of JEE (Main) April 2020 and NEET-Undergraduate examinations, which are scheduled to be conducted in September, amid spurt in number of COVID-19 cases, saying precious year of students "cannot be wasted" and life has to go on. The top court had said career of students "cannot be put under jeopardy for long". Later, the apex court had dismissed a review plea of ministers of six opposition-ruled states seeking review of its August 17 order allowing holding of NEET and JEE exams physically. The ministers had claimed that the top court order failed to secure students'' "right to life" and ignored "teething logistical difficulties" to be faced in conducting the exams during the pandemic.

SC allows NTA to conduct second round of NEET exams on October 14

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a plea seeking payment of salary to doctors and healthcare workers on the ground that the Delhi High Court was already seized of the matter.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said the high court had already taken suo motu cognizance of multiple media reports about the non payment of salary.

"In light of the suo motu proceedings being taken up by the Delhi High Court, we dispose of the plea with liberty to petitioner to raise issues, if any before the Delhi High Court," the bench also comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah, said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-india-reports-over-67000-cases-death-toll-rises-to-59449-323152" hreflang="en">COVID-19: India reports over 67,000 cases; death toll rises to 59,449</a>

The top court also noted that the North Delhi Municipal Corporation has started paying salary to doctors.

Senior Advocate K V Vishwanathan, appearing for the petitioner, raised the issue of ASHA Workers who have not been paid salaries. 
The court, however, said the issue does not fall within the purview of the petition before it.

The bench was hearing a plea of Arushi Jain, a private doctor, questioning the Centre's May 15 decision that 14-day quarantine was not mandatory for doctors.

Jain had also alleged in her plea that front line healthcare workers engaged in the fight against COVID-19 are not being paid salaries or their wages are being cut or delayed.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a plea seeking payment of salary to doctors and healthcare workers on the ground that the Delhi High Court was already seized of the matter.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a plea seeking payment of salary to doctors and healthcare workers on the ground that the Delhi High Court was already seized of the matter. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said the high court had already taken suo motu cognizance of multiple media reports about the non payment of salary. "In light of the suo motu proceedings being taken up by the Delhi High Court, we dispose of the plea with liberty to petitioner to raise issues, if any before the Delhi High Court," the bench also comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah, said. Also read: COVID-19: India reports over 67,000 cases; death toll rises to 59,449 The top court also noted that the North Delhi Municipal Corporation has started paying salary to doctors. Senior Advocate K V Vishwanathan, appearing for the petitioner, raised the issue of ASHA Workers who have not been paid salaries. The court, however, said the issue does not fall within the purview of the petition before it. The bench was hearing a plea of Arushi Jain, a private doctor, questioning the Centre's May 15 decision that 14-day quarantine was not mandatory for doctors. Jain had also alleged in her plea that front line healthcare workers engaged in the fight against COVID-19 are not being paid salaries or their wages are being cut or delayed.

SC disposes of plea seeking payment of salary to doctors, healthcare workers

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case.

The single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy also said that the Bihar Government was competent to recommend transferring the case to the CBI. Last month, Sushant's father had filed an FIR against actress Rhea Chakraborty and five others on charges of abetment of suicide. Subsequently, the Bihar government had appealed for CBI probe in the late actor's death case. 
 
The apex court also asked Mumbai Police to hand over all the evidence collected so far in the case to the CBI. State of Maharashtra refused the option to challenge the order, Justice Roy said. 
 
The apex court had, in its last hearing on August 11, reserved its judgment and asked all the parties to file their respective submissions in the case. 
 
Senior lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for Rhea, had raised questions over the manner in which the Bihar Police registered an FIR in the case and argued that the matter has no connection with the FIR registered in Patna. 
 
Claiming innocence in the case, Rhea had stated that her entire financial transactions are crystal clear and there is nothing incriminating against her and she is not involved in any way with respect to the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. 
The CBI has registered an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty and others in connection with the actor`s death after the Centre accepted Bihar Government`s recommendation to transfer the probe in the matter from Patna.

Actress Ankita Lokhande and Sushant's sister Shweta Singh Kirti welcomed the order with social media posts.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CEDza9Ghby7/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;">
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 19% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CEDza9Ghby7/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"><svg height="50px" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 60 60" width="50px" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="none" stroke-width="1"><g fill="#000000" transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></a></div>

<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CEDza9Ghby7/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank">View this post on Instagram</a></div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CEDza9Ghby7/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Justice is the truth in action 🙏🏻 Truth wins .... #1ststeptossrjustice</a>

<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/lokhandeankita/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Ankita Lokhande</a> (@lokhandeankita) on <time datetime="2020-08-19T05:38:06+00:00" style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;">Aug 18, 2020 at 10:38pm PDT</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
There we go!! Finally!! CBI for SSR!! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBITakesOver?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBITakesOver</a>
— shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) <a href="https://twitter.com/shwetasinghkirt/status/1295957307105239040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2020</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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Thank you God! You have answered our prayers!! But it is just the beginning... the first step towards the truth! Full faith on CBI!! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Victoryoffaith?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Victoryoffaith</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GlobalPrayersForSSR?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GlobalPrayersForSSR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Wearefamily?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Wearefamily</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBITakesOver?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBITakesOver</a>
— shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) <a href="https://twitter.com/shwetasinghkirt/status/1295959105106976770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2020</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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Congratulations to my extended Family!! So happy... first step towards victory and unbiased investigation. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeforSushantSingRajput?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeforSushantSingRajput</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OurfullfaithonCBI?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OurfullfaithonCBI</a>
— shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) <a href="https://twitter.com/shwetasinghkirt/status/1295960978656391169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2020</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>

Rhea had earlier filed a petition at the Supreme Court appealing that the case should be handled by the Mumbai police. 
Rajput was found dead at his Mumbai residence on June 14.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case. The single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy also said that the Bihar Government was competent to recommend transferring the case to the CBI.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case. The single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy also said that the Bihar Government was competent to recommend transferring the case to the CBI. Last month, Sushant's father had filed an FIR against actress Rhea Chakraborty and five others on charges of abetment of suicide. Subsequently, the Bihar government had appealed for CBI probe in the late actor's death case. The apex court also asked Mumbai Police to hand over all the evidence collected so far in the case to the CBI. State of Maharashtra refused the option to challenge the order, Justice Roy said. The apex court had, in its last hearing on August 11, reserved its judgment and asked all the parties to file their respective submissions in the case. Senior lawyer Shyam Divan, appearing for Rhea, had raised questions over the manner in which the Bihar Police registered an FIR in the case and argued that the matter has no connection with the FIR registered in Patna. Claiming innocence in the case, Rhea had stated that her entire financial transactions are crystal clear and there is nothing incriminating against her and she is not involved in any way with respect to the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. The CBI has registered an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty and others in connection with the actor`s death after the Centre accepted Bihar Government`s recommendation to transfer the probe in the matter from Patna. Actress Ankita Lokhande and Sushant's sister Shweta Singh Kirti welcomed the order with social media posts. View this post on Instagram Justice is the truth in action 🙏🏻 Truth wins .... #1ststeptossrjustice A post shared by Ankita Lokhande (@lokhandeankita) on Aug 18, 2020 at 10:38pm PDT × There we go!! Finally!! CBI for SSR!! #CBITakesOver — shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) August 19, 2020 × Thank you God! You have answered our prayers!! But it is just the beginning... the first step towards the truth! Full faith on CBI!! #Victoryoffaith #GlobalPrayersForSSR #Wearefamily #CBITakesOver — shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) August 19, 2020 × Congratulations to my extended Family!! So happy... first step towards victory and unbiased investigation. #JusticeforSushantSingRajput #OurfullfaithonCBI — shweta singh kirti (@shwetasinghkirt) August 19, 2020 × Rhea had earlier filed a petition at the Supreme Court appealing that the case should be handled by the Mumbai police. Rajput was found dead at his Mumbai residence on June 14.

Sushant Singh Rajput case: Supreme Court orders for a CBI probe

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan also directed that all the cases registered against migrant workers for allegedly violating lockdown norms under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 should be considered as withdrawn.

The top court had last week reserved for today its order on a suo motu plea over the plight of migrant labourers stranded across the country amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-can-we-stop-it-supreme-court-on-plea-to-monitor-migrants-walking-back-to-their-native-states-298839">'How can we stop it': Supreme Court on plea to monitor migrants walking back to their native states</a>

"We are issuing some further directions. Further affidavits need to be filed now. All states and UTs have to identify stranded migrant workers and transport them back to native places within 15 days," said Justice Bhushan while pronouncing the order.

He said that Shramik special trains need to be provided within 24 hours as demanded.The Centre and states have to prepare a list for identification of migrant workers in a streamlined manner, Justice Bhushan said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/coronavirus-man-who-incited-migrants-to-assemble-in-mumbais-bandra-held-292581">Coronavirus: Man who incited migrants to assemble in Mumbai's Bandra held</a>

"Employment relief needs to be mapped out and skill-mapping of migrant labourers needs to be carried out. Provide all schemes to migrant workers and publicise them," the apex court directed.

The apex court also asked all the States and Union Territories to submit their detailed affidavits on schemes, job creation, etc and fixed the matter for further hearing to July 8.

The top court had last week proposed a period of 15 days for the states to effectuate completion of transport and ferry the stranded migrant workers, who want to go to their native places. All states must create employment for migrants, the court had said.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan also directed that all the cases registered against migrant workers for allegedly violating lockdown norms under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 should be considered as withdrawn. The top court had last week reserved for today its order on a suo motu plea over the plight of migrant labourers stranded across the country amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown. Also read: 'How can we stop it': Supreme Court on plea to monitor migrants walking back to their native states "We are issuing some further directions. Further affidavits need to be filed now. All states and UTs have to identify stranded migrant workers and transport them back to native places within 15 days," said Justice Bhushan while pronouncing the order. He said that Shramik special trains need to be provided within 24 hours as demanded.The Centre and states have to prepare a list for identification of migrant workers in a streamlined manner, Justice Bhushan said. Also read: Coronavirus: Man who incited migrants to assemble in Mumbai's Bandra held "Employment relief needs to be mapped out and skill-mapping of migrant labourers needs to be carried out. Provide all schemes to migrant workers and publicise them," the apex court directed. The apex court also asked all the States and Union Territories to submit their detailed affidavits on schemes, job creation, etc and fixed the matter for further hearing to July 8. The top court had last week proposed a period of 15 days for the states to effectuate completion of transport and ferry the stranded migrant workers, who want to go to their native places. All states must create employment for migrants, the court had said.

Identify stranded migrant workers, send them home within 15 days: SC to States, UTs

The Supreme Court of India has directed all state governments to ensure the free testing of all coronavirus patients in private labs and hospitals. The court said that the current charges kept at Rs.4500 are beyond the reach of the poor.

Supreme Court of India directs government to ensure free coronavirus tests

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked lawyer-cum-petitioner Mohan Babu Agrawal to approach the regular bench of the apex court to mention his matter related to the postponement of Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament on the ground of the spread of coronavirus.

The vacation bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose asked Agrawal to mention it before the regular bench and refused to hear the mentioning.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-government-announces-multiple-visa-restrictions-and-updates-its-travel-advisory-285798">Indian government announces multiple visa restrictions and updates its travel advisory</a>

The Bench stated that this is a vacation bench and will hear urgent matters only.

Agrawal mentioned before the apex court today that the IPL is set to begin on March 29, with the lung opener set to be played at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, between defending champions Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/coronavirus-crisis-mea-appoints-nodal-person-to-coordinate-efforts-285680">Coronavirus crisis: MEA appoints nodal person to coordinate efforts</a>

But as coronavirus is spreading, there should be a postponement of the IPL tournament in India.

Agrawal also mentioned before the top court that people come from abroad for IPL, adding that 30,000 to 50,000 people may attend the IPL matches, and every state is affected by coronavirus outbreak.

The virus, which originated in China, has infected over 1,10,000 people worldwide spreading to over 90 countries.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked lawyer-cum-petitioner Mohan Babu Agrawal to approach the regular bench of the apex court to mention his matter related to the postponement of Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament on the ground of the spread of coronavirus.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked lawyer-cum-petitioner Mohan Babu Agrawal to approach the regular bench of the apex court to mention his matter related to the postponement of Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament on the ground of the spread of coronavirus. The vacation bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose asked Agrawal to mention it before the regular bench and refused to hear the mentioning. Also read: Indian government announces multiple visa restrictions and updates its travel advisory The Bench stated that this is a vacation bench and will hear urgent matters only. Agrawal mentioned before the apex court today that the IPL is set to begin on March 29, with the lung opener set to be played at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, between defending champions Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings. Also read: Coronavirus crisis: MEA appoints nodal person to coordinate efforts But as coronavirus is spreading, there should be a postponement of the IPL tournament in India. Agrawal also mentioned before the top court that people come from abroad for IPL, adding that 30,000 to 50,000 people may attend the IPL matches, and every state is affected by coronavirus outbreak. The virus, which originated in China, has infected over 1,10,000 people worldwide spreading to over 90 countries.

SC refuses urgent hearing on plea seeking postponement of IPL amid coronavirus fears

The UN human rights chief has filed a case in the Supreme Court of India against the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), even as the Centre has said that no foreign institution or individual has any locus standi on internal matters of a sovereign country. 
 
In a statement, the Ministry of External affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that India`s Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed on Monday evening that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed "an intervention application" in the apex court in connection to the CAA.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/caa-protests-home-ministry-to-hold-review-meeting-over-unrest-across-country-269211">CAA protests: Home Ministry to hold review meeting over unrest across country</a> 
 
The CAA fast tracks citizenship of persecuted religious minorities of three Islamic theocratic countries neighbouring India. The law triggered widespread violent protests in India, with the opposition calling it discriminatory against Muslims. 
 
Last week, Delhi witnessed massive violence that resulted in the deaths of 48 people, while over 250 others were injured.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/anti-caa-protests-heres-why-the-police-force-is-being-targetted-and-demonised-271596">Anti-CAA protests: Here's why the police force is being targetted and demonised</a> 
 
The Centre on Tuesday said that the CAA was an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws. 
 
"We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India`s sovereignty," Kumar said. 
 
"We are clear that the CAA is constitutionally valid and complies with all requirements of our constitutional values. It is reflective of our long-standing national commitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of the Partition of India." 
 
India, he said, is a democratic country governed by the rule of law. 
 
"We all have the utmost respect for and full trust in our independent judiciary. We are confident that our sound and legally sustainable position would be vindicated by the honourable Supreme Court," he added.

The UN human rights chief has filed a case in the Supreme Court of India against the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), even as the Centre has said that no foreign institution or individual has any locus standi on internal matters of a sovereign country.

The UN human rights chief has filed a case in the Supreme Court of India against the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), even as the Centre has said that no foreign institution or individual has any locus standi on internal matters of a sovereign country. In a statement, the Ministry of External affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that India`s Permanent Mission in Geneva was informed on Monday evening that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed "an intervention application" in the apex court in connection to the CAA. Also read: CAA protests: Home Ministry to hold review meeting over unrest across country The CAA fast tracks citizenship of persecuted religious minorities of three Islamic theocratic countries neighbouring India. The law triggered widespread violent protests in India, with the opposition calling it discriminatory against Muslims. Last week, Delhi witnessed massive violence that resulted in the deaths of 48 people, while over 250 others were injured. Also read: Anti-CAA protests: Here's why the police force is being targetted and demonised The Centre on Tuesday said that the CAA was an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws. "We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India`s sovereignty," Kumar said. "We are clear that the CAA is constitutionally valid and complies with all requirements of our constitutional values. It is reflective of our long-standing national commitment in respect of human rights issues arising from the tragedy of the Partition of India." India, he said, is a democratic country governed by the rule of law. "We all have the utmost respect for and full trust in our independent judiciary. We are confident that our sound and legally sustainable position would be vindicated by the honourable Supreme Court," he added.

UN body moves SC over CAA, India says no locus standi

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Jammu and Kashmir administration seeking its response on a plea filed by Iltija, daughter of former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, challenging her mother's detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-is-public-safety-act-psa-under-which-former-jk-chief-ministers-omar-abdullah-mehbooba-mufti-are-booked-279895">What is Public Safety Act (PSA) under which former J&amp;K chief ministers Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti are booked</a>

A bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice MR Shah also asked Iltija to file an affidavit that no similar case is pending before any other court and posted the matter for hearing to March 18.

During the hearing, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishna appearing for Iltija assured the court that no petition is pending before any court.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-top-kashmir-politicians-to-stay-in-detention-279304/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The court also asked the counsel&nbsp;about the situation in the Kashmir. "What's the position now? Schools have started? It came in the newspaper," the court said. At the outset, the bench even suggested the counsel approach Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

"Why don't you move the High Court?" the top court said.

Senior counsel responded that High Court had taken a view that it can't go into the administrative issues, to which the bench replied that it's not an administrative issue. 
"Cheap politics among masses," counsel argued while reading out reasons for Mufti's detention. The counsel also said that they (administration) have not referred to a single instance against former Chief Minister of inciting people.

The Jammu and Kashmir administration had, on February 5, invoked PSA against the former Chief Ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah.

Both the former Chief Ministers were detained after the government abrogated Article 370 last year.

Earlier, the bench had also sought response from Jammu and Kashmir administration on a plea of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's sister challenging his detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Jammu and Kashmir administration seeking its response on a plea filed by Iltija, daughter of former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, challenging her mother's detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Jammu and Kashmir administration seeking its response on a plea filed by Iltija, daughter of former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, challenging her mother's detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Also read: What is Public Safety Act (PSA) under which former J&K chief ministers Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti are booked A bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice MR Shah also asked Iltija to file an affidavit that no similar case is pending before any other court and posted the matter for hearing to March 18. During the hearing, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishna appearing for Iltija assured the court that no petition is pending before any court. × The court also asked the counsel about the situation in the Kashmir. "What's the position now? Schools have started? It came in the newspaper," the court said. At the outset, the bench even suggested the counsel approach Jammu and Kashmir High Court. "Why don't you move the High Court?" the top court said. Senior counsel responded that High Court had taken a view that it can't go into the administrative issues, to which the bench replied that it's not an administrative issue. "Cheap politics among masses," counsel argued while reading out reasons for Mufti's detention. The counsel also said that they (administration) have not referred to a single instance against former Chief Minister of inciting people. The Jammu and Kashmir administration had, on February 5, invoked PSA against the former Chief Ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. Both the former Chief Ministers were detained after the government abrogated Article 370 last year. Earlier, the bench had also sought response from Jammu and Kashmir administration on a plea of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's sister challenging his detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.

Supreme Court issues notice to J&K administration on plea over Mufti's detention

The Supreme Court on Monday granted four weeks time to the Election Commission of India to file its reply on a batch of petitions seeking directions to publish details of voter turnout and final vote count on its website once general and assembly election results are declared.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde posted the matter after four weeks on the pleas filed by TMC Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR).

The apex court had, on December 9, 2019, sought a response from the poll panel.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, told the court that RTI has shown that VVPAT slips have been destroyed within four months even though it was to be kept for one year according to the Representation of Peoples Act.

Bhushan said that he will file an application seeking information about the VVPAT as well.Moitra, in the plea, sought directions to the Election Commission to publish on its website the constituency-wise information collated in Form 17C part I and II and Form 20 for every subsequent Parliamentary and Assembly election.

Form 17C Part I is public disclosure and due reporting of account of votes recorded while Part II is the result of counting and Form 20 is the final result sheet.

The pleas sought directions to the poll panel to publish the details within a period of 48 hours from the preparation of the Form and seven days from the declaration of the result of the constituency.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted four weeks time to the Election Commission of India to file its reply on a batch of petitions seeking directions to publish details of voter turnout and final vote count on its website once general and assembly election results are declared.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted four weeks time to the Election Commission of India to file its reply on a batch of petitions seeking directions to publish details of voter turnout and final vote count on its website once general and assembly election results are declared. A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde posted the matter after four weeks on the pleas filed by TMC Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR). The apex court had, on December 9, 2019, sought a response from the poll panel. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, told the court that RTI has shown that VVPAT slips have been destroyed within four months even though it was to be kept for one year according to the Representation of Peoples Act. Bhushan said that he will file an application seeking information about the VVPAT as well.Moitra, in the plea, sought directions to the Election Commission to publish on its website the constituency-wise information collated in Form 17C part I and II and Form 20 for every subsequent Parliamentary and Assembly election. Form 17C Part I is public disclosure and due reporting of account of votes recorded while Part II is the result of counting and Form 20 is the final result sheet. The pleas sought directions to the poll panel to publish the details within a period of 48 hours from the preparation of the Form and seven days from the declaration of the result of the constituency.

Supreme Court grants EC 4 weeks time to file reply on plea seeking voting details after polls

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/shaheen-bagh-sc-says-people-have-right-to-protest-but-there-must-be-balancing-factor-281160">Supreme Court </a>on Monday adjourned the hearing in the matter pertaining to the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/road-at-shaheen-bagh-opened-by-group-of-protesters-blocked-again-police-282148">Shaheen Bagh</a> after the interlocutors submitted their report in a sealed cover.

A division bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising KM Joseph will take up the matter on February 26 after going through the report.

The two Amicus Curiae have submitted their report in a sealed cover to the apex court.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/road-at-shaheen-bagh-opened-by-group-of-protesters-blocked-again-police-282148">Road at Shaheen Bagh opened by group of protesters, blocked again: Police</a>

"We will go through the report," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.

The Supreme Court-appointed mediators senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran had last week engaged with the anti-CAA protestors for shifting the venue from Shaheen Bagh.

The Supreme Court had last week appointed senior advocates Sanjay Hedge, Sadhana Ramachandran and former bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah as interlocutors to talk to the protestors here and urge them to clear the road and protest at an alternate site.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/shaheen-bagh-sc-says-people-have-right-to-protest-but-there-must-be-balancing-factor-281160">Shaheen Bagh: SC says people have right to protest but there must be balancing factor</a>

Thousands of people, including a large number of Muslim women, have been staging a sit-in protest at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh area since mid-December last year against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

A public interest litigation (PIL) in the matter, filed by Nand Kishore Garg and Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others concerned for removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj.

The petition seeks appropriate direction to the respondents, including the Centre, for laying down "detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protest/agitation" leading to obstruction of the public space.

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing in the matter pertaining to the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Shaheen Bagh after the interlocutors submitted their report in a sealed cover.

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing in the matter pertaining to the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Shaheen Bagh after the interlocutors submitted their report in a sealed cover. A division bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising KM Joseph will take up the matter on February 26 after going through the report. The two Amicus Curiae have submitted their report in a sealed cover to the apex court. Also read: Road at Shaheen Bagh opened by group of protesters, blocked again: Police "We will go through the report," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said. The Supreme Court-appointed mediators senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran had last week engaged with the anti-CAA protestors for shifting the venue from Shaheen Bagh. The Supreme Court had last week appointed senior advocates Sanjay Hedge, Sadhana Ramachandran and former bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah as interlocutors to talk to the protestors here and urge them to clear the road and protest at an alternate site. Also read: Shaheen Bagh: SC says people have right to protest but there must be balancing factor Thousands of people, including a large number of Muslim women, have been staging a sit-in protest at Delhi's Shaheen Bagh area since mid-December last year against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). A public interest litigation (PIL) in the matter, filed by Nand Kishore Garg and Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi, sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others concerned for removal of protestors from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj. The petition seeks appropriate direction to the respondents, including the Centre, for laying down "detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protest/agitation" leading to obstruction of the public space.

Supreme Court adjourns Shaheen Bagh matter to February 26 after interlocutors submit report

In a landmark order today, the Supreme Court ordered political parties to share details of criminal cases against their candidates on the party website.

Gravitas: Top Court orders parties to upload candidates' criminal record

Its been 8 years since Nirbhaya was gang raped and left to die. On Thursday, the hearing on the execution of the guilty rapists was postponed again.

Gravitas: Nirbhaya Case: Justice delayed is justice denied

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-scst-amendment-act-2018-279730">Supreme Court </a>on Thursday directed all political parties in the country to uploads details of pending cases against candidates with criminal backgrounds on their website.

India's top court also ordered the political parties to publish the details on social media platforms namely Twitter and Facebook and in at least one local vernacular and one national newspaper.

The court said political parties would have to specify reasons for selecting candidates having pending criminal cases against them on their website.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-seeks-reply-from-centre-and-states-on-plea-to-stop-deaths-in-borewells-278317">Supreme Court </a>said political parties shall submit a report of compliance to the Election Commission of India within 72 hrs of selecting the candidate with pending criminal cases, if the parties fail to do it then the election body would bring it to the notice of the apex court.&nbsp;

The bench added that it appears that there has been an alarming increase in criminalisation of politics in the last four general elections.

Supreme Court on Thursday directed all political parties in the country to uploads details of pending cases against candidates with criminal backgrounds on their website.

Supreme Court on Thursday directed all political parties in the country to uploads details of pending cases against candidates with criminal backgrounds on their website. India's top court also ordered the political parties to publish the details on social media platforms namely Twitter and Facebook and in at least one local vernacular and one national newspaper. The court said political parties would have to specify reasons for selecting candidates having pending criminal cases against them on their website. Supreme Court said political parties shall submit a report of compliance to the Election Commission of India within 72 hrs of selecting the candidate with pending criminal cases, if the parties fail to do it then the election body would bring it to the notice of the apex court. The bench added that it appears that there has been an alarming increase in criminalisation of politics in the last four general elections.

Upload criminal records of candidates on your website: Supreme Court directs political parties

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-question-of-nrc-in-bihar-pm-has-clarified-his-stand-on-it-nitish-kumar-273931">Supreme Court</a> on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. 
 
A five-judge Bench of Justices <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-review-on-all-restrictive-orders-in-jammu-and-kashmir-after-article-370-abrogation-273307">NV Ramana</a>, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC's 5-judge bench, headed by Justice NV Ramana, starts hearing curative petitions filed by two Delhi 2012 gangrape&amp;murder case convicts Vinay&amp;Mukesh, in a chamber hearing.Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by judges. It' the last&amp;final legal remedy available to convicts. <a href="https://t.co/l7Lt8tKoiA">pic.twitter.com/l7Lt8tKoiA</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1216999960861790208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued death warrants in their names for their hanging on January 22. 
 
Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/days-after-death-warrant-nirbhaya-case-convict-files-curative-plea-before-supreme-court-273126">executed</a> on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises. 
 
They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in the national capital on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Asha Devi, mother of 2012 Delhi gang-rape victim: This is a big day for me. I had been struggling for the last 7 years. But the biggest day will be 22nd January when they (convicts) will be hanged. <a href="https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb">https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb</a> <a href="https://t.co/uMPcVfP7Sf">pic.twitter.com/uMPcVfP7Sf</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1217009067983458304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The victim, who was later given the name <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/tihar-jail-to-conduct-dummy-execution-of-nirbhaya-convicts-before-january-22-272825">Nirbhaya</a>, had succumbed to injuries at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment. 
 
A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for the redressal of grievances. Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by the judges. 
 
If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment. 
 
The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks time to file both the curative and mercy petitions.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. A five-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the curative petition of the two death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case. A five-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, RF Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan heard the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh. SC's 5-judge bench, headed by Justice NV Ramana, starts hearing curative petitions filed by two Delhi 2012 gangrape&murder case convicts Vinay&Mukesh, in a chamber hearing.Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by judges. It' the last&final legal remedy available to convicts. pic.twitter.com/l7Lt8tKoiA — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2020 × The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued death warrants in their names for their hanging on January 22. Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be executed on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises. They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in the national capital on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. Asha Devi, mother of 2012 Delhi gang-rape victim: This is a big day for me. I had been struggling for the last 7 years. But the biggest day will be 22nd January when they (convicts) will be hanged. https://t.co/GBfPt9ezIb pic.twitter.com/uMPcVfP7Sf — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2020 × The victim, who was later given the name Nirbhaya, had succumbed to injuries at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment. A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for the redressal of grievances. Curative petitions are decided in-chambers by the judges. If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment. The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks time to file both the curative and mercy petitions.

Supreme Court dismisses Nirbhaya convicts curative pleas

As a major development in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/larger-constitution-bench-of-supreme-court-to-sabarimala-review-petitions-in-january-269501">Sabarimala temple case</a>, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/section-144-cannot-be-used-to-suppress-freedom-of-speech-kapil-sibal-273479">Supreme Court</a> will hear the batch of petitions seeking considerable review of the 2018 judgement which alllowed girls and women of all age groups to visit and offer prayers&nbsp;in the shrine.&nbsp;

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/from-the-corridors-of-judiciary-supreme-court-verdicts-that-held-nations-attention-in-2019-270230">apex court</a> had on January 6 issued a notice informing about the listing. 
 
On December 13, the Supreme Court had said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refers-sabarimala-case-to-larger-constitution-bench-261956">seven-judge bench</a>, which, it had said, will be constituted soon. 
 
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-likely-to-hear-bindu-aminis-plea-on-sabarimala-entry-next-week-266448">Bindu Ammini</a> and Fathima A S, seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine. 
 
"There is a judgment (allowing women entry) in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-devotees-pay-obeisance-at-sabarimala-temple-262681">violence</a>," the court had observed. 
 
The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists. 
 
In November, a man had sprayed chili and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amid-tight-security-arrangements-sabarimala-temple-opens-for-prayer-262585">Sabarimala</a> temple. Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine. 
 
The apex court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter. 
 
The apex court had in the year 2018 allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-visit-sabarimala-temple-as-it-is-our-constitutional-right-trupti-desai-264546">Lord Ayyappa temple</a> at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed. 
 
Allowing their review petitions, the court had referred the matter to a larger bench.

As a major development in Sabarimala temple case, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will hear the batch of petitions seeking considerable review of the 2018 judgement which alllowed girls and women of all age groups to visit and offer prayers in the shrine.

As a major development in Sabarimala temple case, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will hear the batch of petitions seeking considerable review of the 2018 judgement which alllowed girls and women of all age groups to visit and offer prayers in the shrine. The apex court had on January 6 issued a notice informing about the listing. On December 13, the Supreme Court had said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which, it had said, will be constituted soon. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists Bindu Ammini and Fathima A S, seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine. "There is a judgment (allowing women entry) in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any violence," the court had observed. The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists. In November, a man had sprayed chili and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple. Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine. The apex court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter. The apex court had in the year 2018 allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed. Allowing their review petitions, the court had referred the matter to a larger bench.

Nine-judge Supreme Court bench to hear issue of women's entry in Sabarimala temple from today

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/siddaramaiah-holds-meeting-with-rebel-mla-ramalinga-reddy-236030&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiw9tesmbbjAhVl63MBHQx7C9AQFjABegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1-yfHO6BMqXvFpImxZHVmm">Rebel Karnataka MLAs</a> are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said.&nbsp;

The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the 14 MLAs residing at Renaissance Hotel here wrote to Senior Police Inspector, Powai Police Station, over an alleged "threat" from senior Karnataka and Maharashtra Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Ghulam Nabi Azad.&nbsp;

Seeking protection, the leaders urged the police officer to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the leaders are not allowed to meet them.

"We the respected Members of Karnataka Assembly are currently staying at Renaissance Hotel Powai, would like to inform you that we have absolutely no intentions in meeting Shri Mallikarjun Kharge Ji or Ghulam Nabi Azad Ji or any Congress dignitaries or functionaries from Maharashtra and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/five-more-karnataka-congress-mlas-move-supreme-court-235563&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiw9tesmbbjAhVl63MBHQx7C9AQFjADegQIEBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2zzcTb51jNYdb4cknXCfWM">Karnataka Congress team leaders</a> or any other political leaders.

We anticipate a serious threat from them.&nbsp;

We hereby request you to kindly make necessary arrangements to stop these people from meeting us in case the situation arises," the letter read.&nbsp;

Among the legislators who signed the aforesaid letter are Shivram Hebbar, B.C. Patil, Mahesh K, Vishwanath, Muniratnam, Narayan Gowda, R Shankar, H Nagesh, Pratap Patil, Gopalaiah, Ramesh J, MTB Nagraj, Somshekar, and Basavaraja.

On July 11, the dissident MLAs had returned to the hotel here after meeting Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in Bengaluru.&nbsp;

The development came after the Supreme Court had directed them to meet the Speaker and resubmit their resignations afresh.&nbsp;

In a twist to the political stalemate in Karnataka, the apex court had on July 12 ordered a status quo until July 16 on a plea filed by 10 dissident MLAs of Congress and JD(S) seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said. The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs are likely to move the Supreme Court again on Monday, sources said. The legislators are likely to move the court for contempt proceedings against Congress leaders as the top court has ordered a status quo, however, Congress is trying to influence and threaten the MLAs in many ways, sources added. Meanwhile, the 14 MLAs residing at Renaissance Hotel here wrote to Senior Police Inspector, Powai Police Station, over an alleged "threat" from senior Karnataka and Maharashtra Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Ghulam Nabi Azad. Seeking protection, the leaders urged the police officer to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the leaders are not allowed to meet them. "We the respected Members of Karnataka Assembly are currently staying at Renaissance Hotel Powai, would like to inform you that we have absolutely no intentions in meeting Shri Mallikarjun Kharge Ji or Ghulam Nabi Azad Ji or any Congress dignitaries or functionaries from Maharashtra and Karnataka Congress team leaders or any other political leaders. We anticipate a serious threat from them. We hereby request you to kindly make necessary arrangements to stop these people from meeting us in case the situation arises," the letter read. Among the legislators who signed the aforesaid letter are Shivram Hebbar, B.C. Patil, Mahesh K, Vishwanath, Muniratnam, Narayan Gowda, R Shankar, H Nagesh, Pratap Patil, Gopalaiah, Ramesh J, MTB Nagraj, Somshekar, and Basavaraja. On July 11, the dissident MLAs had returned to the hotel here after meeting Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in Bengaluru. The development came after the Supreme Court had directed them to meet the Speaker and resubmit their resignations afresh. In a twist to the political stalemate in Karnataka, the apex court had on July 12 ordered a status quo until July 16 on a plea filed by 10 dissident MLAs of Congress and JD(S) seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs likely to move Supreme Court today

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-pil-seeking-guidelines-for-frisking-of-students-during-examinations-235264">Supreme Court</a> on Friday once again refused to put an interim stay on the installation of CCTV cameras in government schools in Delhi.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta, and Justice Aniruddha Bose had earlier in May refused to the pass an interim order to stay the Delhi government`s decision to install 1.5 lakh CCTV cameras and issued a notice to the government.

Petitioner Amber Tickoo, a third-year law student at National Law University, through advocate Jai Dehadrai had sought directions to the government to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and live-streaming the feeds to the parents of the children.

The petitioner told the court that the government did not take the permission of parents and teachers before taking the decision and submitted that the cameras would "live-stream footage of adolescent students to random strangers".

"Providing a live feed to anyone with a user ID and password jeopardizes the safety and security of young girls... and shall directly give rise to incidents of stalking and voyeurism," the petition said.

The government`s move violates the fundamental right to privacy, it argued."

The decision was in direct contravention to the verdict of the Supreme Court which has unequivocally upheld that Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/ayushmann-khurranas-article-15-wins-big-at-london-indian-film-festival-232101&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiV1ca0oK_jAhWMKY8KHWUbCm4QFjAJegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0P1HVM_qanAnS0xvYZAkdl">Article</a> 21 of the Constitution of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-to-receive-below-average-monsoon-rains-in-next-two-weeks-imd-235233&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjMvITOn6_jAhUHiXAKHaRyCFwQFjAIegQIARAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw37FkdrGQgtsmfhVT8uwxsY">India</a>," the petition added.

It added that no steps have been taken to protect the data recorded by the CCTV cameras and the data is prone to hacking and poses a serious threat to the privacy and security of the children as well as teachers.

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to put an interim stay on the installation of CCTV cameras in government schools in Delhi. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta, and Justice Aniruddha Bose had earlier in May refused to the pass an interim order to stay the Delhi government`s decision to install 1.

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to put an interim stay on the installation of CCTV cameras in government schools in Delhi. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta, and Justice Aniruddha Bose had earlier in May refused to the pass an interim order to stay the Delhi government`s decision to install 1.5 lakh CCTV cameras and issued a notice to the government. Petitioner Amber Tickoo, a third-year law student at National Law University, through advocate Jai Dehadrai had sought directions to the government to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and live-streaming the feeds to the parents of the children. The petitioner told the court that the government did not take the permission of parents and teachers before taking the decision and submitted that the cameras would "live-stream footage of adolescent students to random strangers". "Providing a live feed to anyone with a user ID and password jeopardizes the safety and security of young girls... and shall directly give rise to incidents of stalking and voyeurism," the petition said. The government`s move violates the fundamental right to privacy, it argued." The decision was in direct contravention to the verdict of the Supreme Court which has unequivocally upheld that Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the petition added. It added that no steps have been taken to protect the data recorded by the CCTV cameras and the data is prone to hacking and poses a serious threat to the privacy and security of the children as well as teachers.

Supreme Court refuses to stay installation of CCTV cameras in Delhi government schools

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this.

Shocked to see CJI's image being maligned: PM Modi

CBI Director Alok Verma, who has been <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/cbi-vs-cbi-cleaning-the-rot-within-176144">divested of all duties by the Centre and sent on leave</a>, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that he was appointed for a fixed tenure of two years and cannot even be transferred.

Challenging the government's decision, his counsel and senior advocate Fali S Nariman said Verma was appointed on February 1, 2017 and "the position of law is that there will be a fixed tenure of two years and this gentleman cannot be even transferred".

Making his submission before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph, the advocate said there was no basis for the Central Vigilance Commission to pass such an order recommending to send him on leave.

"There has to be strict interpretation of the Vineet Narain judgment. This is not the transfer and Verma has been denuded of his power and duties...Otherwise there was no use of the Narain judgement and the law...," Nariman said.

The Vineet Narain decision, delivered by the apex court in 1997, relates to the investigation of allegations of corruption against high-ranking public officials in India.

Before 1997, the tenure of the CBI director was not fixed and they could be removed by the government in any manner. But the apex court in the Vineet Narain judgment fixed a tenure of a minimum of two years for the CBI director to allow the officer to work with independence.

Nariman referred to the terms and conditions of appointment and removal of the CBI director and concerned provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.

At the outset, Nariman told the bench, which on November 20 had expressed deep anguish over the purported leak of CBI Director's response to the CVC's findings against him, that the court cannot prohibit the publication of the content of the petition as&nbsp; 
Article 19 of the Constitution is paramount. He also referred to the apex court 2012 judgement in a case on the issue.

The bench was irked over the publication of allegations levelled by agency's DIG Manoj Kumar Sinha in a separate plea.

The senior lawyer said, "If I file something tomorrow in the Registry then it can be published."

He added that if the apex court later prohibits then the matter cannot be published.

When Nariman suggested the apex court to mould a rule to postpone media reporting in some cases of scandalous allegations, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for CBI Deputy SP A K Bassi, the former probe officer of the bribery case against the Special Director CBI Rakesh Asthana, said he has serious reservations about his advice.

The CJI, however, said the court does not intend to pass any orders.

Dhawan said, "It is unfortunate that last time you said that none of us deserve to be heard"

The CJI said, "Unfortunate it may be, but we will hear you today".&nbsp;

The hearing is underway.&nbsp;

CBI Director Alok Verma, who has been divested of all duties by the Centre and sent on leave, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that he was appointed for a fixed tenure of two years and cannot even be transferred.

CBI Director Alok Verma, who has been divested of all duties by the Centre and sent on leave, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that he was appointed for a fixed tenure of two years and cannot even be transferred. Challenging the government's decision, his counsel and senior advocate Fali S Nariman said Verma was appointed on February 1, 2017 and "the position of law is that there will be a fixed tenure of two years and this gentleman cannot be even transferred". Making his submission before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph, the advocate said there was no basis for the Central Vigilance Commission to pass such an order recommending to send him on leave. "There has to be strict interpretation of the Vineet Narain judgment. This is not the transfer and Verma has been denuded of his power and duties...Otherwise there was no use of the Narain judgement and the law...," Nariman said. The Vineet Narain decision, delivered by the apex court in 1997, relates to the investigation of allegations of corruption against high-ranking public officials in India. Before 1997, the tenure of the CBI director was not fixed and they could be removed by the government in any manner. But the apex court in the Vineet Narain judgment fixed a tenure of a minimum of two years for the CBI director to allow the officer to work with independence. Nariman referred to the terms and conditions of appointment and removal of the CBI director and concerned provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. At the outset, Nariman told the bench, which on November 20 had expressed deep anguish over the purported leak of CBI Director's response to the CVC's findings against him, that the court cannot prohibit the publication of the content of the petition as Article 19 of the Constitution is paramount. He also referred to the apex court 2012 judgement in a case on the issue. The bench was irked over the publication of allegations levelled by agency's DIG Manoj Kumar Sinha in a separate plea. The senior lawyer said, "If I file something tomorrow in the Registry then it can be published." He added that if the apex court later prohibits then the matter cannot be published. When Nariman suggested the apex court to mould a rule to postpone media reporting in some cases of scandalous allegations, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for CBI Deputy SP A K Bassi, the former probe officer of the bribery case against the Special Director CBI Rakesh Asthana, said he has serious reservations about his advice. The CJI, however, said the court does not intend to pass any orders. Dhawan said, "It is unfortunate that last time you said that none of us deserve to be heard" The CJI said, "Unfortunate it may be, but we will hear you today". The hearing is underway.

Have fixed tenure of 2 years, that cannot be changed: CBI chief Alok Verma to SC

Sabarimala temple row: Supreme Court agrees to open court hearing; will hear 49 review PILs

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay.

The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017.

"It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution.

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018.

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019.

The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court.

Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the

Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014.

For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9. Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017. "It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019. The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court. Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014. For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court Collegium recommends chief justices to 5 high courts

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central government for details of the decision-making process in the Rafale deal.&nbsp;

PTI reported that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-new-pil-challenging-rafale-deal-on-wednesday-170170">court asked for the details</a> in a sealed cover, while clarifying that it did not want information on the deal's pricing and technical details.&nbsp;

The opposition has accused the Narendra Modi-led government of corruption in the Rafale deal.&nbsp;&nbsp;

An original deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter planes from France's Dassault Aviation had been brokered by the UPA government. Then, in 2015, Modi signed a new government-to-government deal with then French president Francois Hollande to buy 36 of the planes.&nbsp;

The opposition — led by Congress president Rahul Gandhi — says the NDA government is paying three times as much as the UPA government had agreed to pay for every Rafale. The opposition has also accused the government of crony capitalism.&nbsp;

According to India's defence acquisition rules, a foreign company making a large sale to India has to funnel 30% of the money paid to it back into India. That by definition requires it to have an Indian partner or partners.&nbsp;

The original Indian partner in the Rafale deal was the public sector HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd). But HAL was turfed out of the new deal, in favour of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence which has little to no experience in the defence and aerospace industries.&nbsp;

The government had earlier said it was Dassault which chose Reliance and they had nothing to do with it but Hollande, while on a trip to India, recently&nbsp;said it was the Indian government which had suggested Reliance's name.&nbsp;

The Supreme court was on Wednesday hearing various petitions against the Rafale deal. The petitions seek directions from the&nbsp;top court, including asking the Centre to reveal details of the Rafale deal and the comparative prices of the deals brokered by the UPA and the NDA governments.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench hearing the petitions on Wednesday comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central government for details of the decision-making process in the Rafale deal. PTI reported that the court asked for the details in a sealed cover, while clarifying that it did not want information on the deal's pricing and technical details.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central government for details of the decision-making process in the Rafale deal. PTI reported that the court asked for the details in a sealed cover, while clarifying that it did not want information on the deal's pricing and technical details. The opposition has accused the Narendra Modi-led government of corruption in the Rafale deal. An original deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter planes from France's Dassault Aviation had been brokered by the UPA government. Then, in 2015, Modi signed a new government-to-government deal with then French president Francois Hollande to buy 36 of the planes. The opposition — led by Congress president Rahul Gandhi — says the NDA government is paying three times as much as the UPA government had agreed to pay for every Rafale. The opposition has also accused the government of crony capitalism. According to India's defence acquisition rules, a foreign company making a large sale to India has to funnel 30% of the money paid to it back into India. That by definition requires it to have an Indian partner or partners. The original Indian partner in the Rafale deal was the public sector HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd). But HAL was turfed out of the new deal, in favour of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence which has little to no experience in the defence and aerospace industries. The government had earlier said it was Dassault which chose Reliance and they had nothing to do with it but Hollande, while on a trip to India, recently said it was the Indian government which had suggested Reliance's name. The Supreme court was on Wednesday hearing various petitions against the Rafale deal. The petitions seek directions from the top court, including asking the Centre to reveal details of the Rafale deal and the comparative prices of the deals brokered by the UPA and the NDA governments. The Supreme Court bench hearing the petitions on Wednesday comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. (With inputs from PTI)

Rafale deal: Supreme Court asks govt for details of decision-making process

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman.&nbsp;

CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) <a href="https://t.co/FMRLxi5n9t">pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181361902903297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled.&nbsp;

However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra <a href="https://t.co/gRDrl3TpWy">pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045182687709880320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women &amp; views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1045181366109753344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled.&nbsp;

The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9xykP6-Gn1k" width="560"></iframe>

India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."&nbsp;

Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery.

In its landmark judgement pronounced on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (Adultery Provision), thereby decriminalising adultery. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, while reading out the verdict today, described the law as "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" stating that adultery cannot be a criminal offence and that a husband is not the master of a woman. CJI Misra maintained that women must be treated equally as men. Parameters of fundamental rights should include rights of women. Individual dignity important in a sanctified society.System can't treat women unequally. Women can't be asked to think what a society desires:CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Sec 497(Adultery) pic.twitter.com/FMRLxi5n9t — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Equality is the governing principle of a system. Husband is not the master of the wife," the apex court ruled. However, the top court noted that adultery can form the basis for the dissolution of a marriage and can be ground for divorce. Section 497 (Adultery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional: Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra pic.twitter.com/gRDrl3TpWy — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × "Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women and views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage," CJI Misra read out the verdict. Legal subordination of one sex by another is wrong. Social progression of women & views of Justice Nariman in Triple Talaq case considered. Adultery can be grounds for dissolution of marriage: CJI reading verdict on petition challenging validity of Section 497 (Adultery) of IPC — ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018 × The five-judge bench also pronounced that mere adultery cannot be called a crime unless something is added. "It is a matter of absolute privacy," the Court ruled. The apex court had been hearing a clutch of pleas seeking quashing of the adultery provision in the IPC on the ground that it only punishes married men for having extramarital sexual relations with a married woman. India's adultery law states that: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." Another part of the law which drew much criticism was that the law permitted a woman's husband to file a complaint against the man she has sexual intercourse with, but no such provision was available for the wife of the adulterous man.

Adultery not a criminal offence, husband not the master: Supreme Court quashes Section 497

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday refused to give its verdict on the disqualification issue stating that the government must create a law that should bar criminals from contesting polls, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

"Parliament must ensure that criminals must not come to politics," Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra noted while reading out the verdict on PIL seeking to disqualify candidates contesting polls. &nbsp;

The bench said that informed choice is the corner stone of democracy and termed criminalisation of politics of the largest democracy as "unsettling". 
The apex court favoured wider publicity, through print and electronic media about the antecedents of candidates affiliated to political parties.

"Political parties shall be obligated to put all information about their candidates on their websites," it stated.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Parliament must ensure that criminals must not come to politics. No bar on criminal antecedents of political leaders, it's Parliament to make laws: CJI while reading out verdict on PIL seeking to disqualify candidates contesting polls after court frames charges against them. <a href="https://t.co/aOT4L0PdmR">pic.twitter.com/aOT4L0PdmR</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044457739013902336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"No bar on criminal antecedents of political leaders, it's Parliament to make laws," the apex court stated.

It further added that citizens have the right to be informed about the antecedents of their candidates.

The top court described corruption as "economic terrorism" adding that the candidates will have to inform the party about any corruption/criminal cases pending.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had on July 9 reserved the order on the PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to bar lawyer-lawmakers (MPs, MLAs, MLCs) from practising in courts during their tenure in the legislature.

The bench had earlier taken note of the Centre's submission that an MP or an MLA is an elected representative and not a full-time employee of the government, hence the plea was not maintainable.&nbsp;

In August, CJI Misra had pressed for the creation of a law that would bar candidates with criminal records from contesting polls.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We had demanded from SC to ward off candidates from contesting polls against whom charges have been framed in heinous crimes. Validating our demand, SC has directed Parliament to pass a law that can stop criminalization of politics: Lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay <a href="https://t.co/wsYsas4mkJ">pic.twitter.com/wsYsas4mkJ</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1044462535741648896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The apex court described it as the Parliament's "constitutional duty" to bring such a law into force stating that the top court can only "declare a law" and not make one.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday refused to give its verdict on the disqualification issue stating that the government must create a law that should bar criminals from contesting polls, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday refused to give its verdict on the disqualification issue stating that the government must create a law that should bar criminals from contesting polls, news agency ANI reported. "Parliament must ensure that criminals must not come to politics," Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra noted while reading out the verdict on PIL seeking to disqualify candidates contesting polls. The bench said that informed choice is the corner stone of democracy and termed criminalisation of politics of the largest democracy as "unsettling". The apex court favoured wider publicity, through print and electronic media about the antecedents of candidates affiliated to political parties. "Political parties shall be obligated to put all information about their candidates on their websites," it stated. Parliament must ensure that criminals must not come to politics. No bar on criminal antecedents of political leaders, it's Parliament to make laws: CJI while reading out verdict on PIL seeking to disqualify candidates contesting polls after court frames charges against them. pic.twitter.com/aOT4L0PdmR — ANI (@ANI) September 25, 2018 × "No bar on criminal antecedents of political leaders, it's Parliament to make laws," the apex court stated. It further added that citizens have the right to be informed about the antecedents of their candidates. The top court described corruption as "economic terrorism" adding that the candidates will have to inform the party about any corruption/criminal cases pending. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud had on July 9 reserved the order on the PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to bar lawyer-lawmakers (MPs, MLAs, MLCs) from practising in courts during their tenure in the legislature. The bench had earlier taken note of the Centre's submission that an MP or an MLA is an elected representative and not a full-time employee of the government, hence the plea was not maintainable. In August, CJI Misra had pressed for the creation of a law that would bar candidates with criminal records from contesting polls. We had demanded from SC to ward off candidates from contesting polls against whom charges have been framed in heinous crimes. Validating our demand, SC has directed Parliament to pass a law that can stop criminalization of politics: Lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay pic.twitter.com/wsYsas4mkJ — ANI (@ANI) September 25, 2018 × The apex court described it as the Parliament's "constitutional duty" to bring such a law into force stating that the top court can only "declare a law" and not make one. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court refuses to bar tainted lawmakers from contesting polls, puts onus on Parliament 

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary.

"The letter of Justice Chelameswar reveals direct interference of central government in the process of appointment of judges in the High Court. The letter clearly shows that the independence of the Judiciary is in peril now," the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) said in a statement.

It said that lawyers across the country were concerned with the latest revelations made in the letter in which Justice Chelameswar has questioned the probe initiated by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari against District and Sessions Judge Krishna Bhat at the request of the Ministry of Law and Justice, despite his name being recommended for elevation twice by the Collegium.

"More painful for the democracy is that the present Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court has obediently succumbed to the Executive pressure. The present govt is not only deliberately destroying the independence of judiciary but few judges are also abetting it," a statement, released by AILU President and senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and General Secretary Som Dutta Sharma, said.

Condemning the move of inquiry against a recommender of the collegium, the AILU said if the collegium's recommendations cannot be accepted, these should have been referred to the apex court for reconsideration.

"A judge is oath-bound to uphold the Constitution without favour and fear. Chief Justice of Karnataka has failed in the instant case to stick to his oath. It's time to raise voice to save both democracy and the Constitution," the statement said.

Justice Chelameswar had shot off a letter on March 21 to the CJI urging him to consider convening a full court to take up the issue of alleged executive interference in the judiciary. He had also cautioned that "the bonhomie between the judiciary and the government in any State sounds the death knell to democracy".

Justice Chelameswar, who had held the unprecedented January 12 press conference along with three other senior judges raising issues including the allocation of cases by the CJI, had said, "We, the judges of the Supreme

Court of India, is being accused of ceding our independence and our institutional integrity to the Executive's incremental encroachment.

"The executive is always impatient and brooks no disobedience even of the judiciary if it can. Attempts were always made to treat the Chief Justices as the Departmental Heads in the Secretariat. So much for our independence and pre-eminence' as a distinct State organ."

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary. "The letter of Justice Chelameswar reveals direct interference of central government in the process of appointment of judges in the High Court. The letter clearly shows that the independence of the Judiciary is in peril now," the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) said in a statement. It said that lawyers across the country were concerned with the latest revelations made in the letter in which Justice Chelameswar has questioned the probe initiated by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari against District and Sessions Judge Krishna Bhat at the request of the Ministry of Law and Justice, despite his name being recommended for elevation twice by the Collegium. "More painful for the democracy is that the present Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court has obediently succumbed to the Executive pressure. The present govt is not only deliberately destroying the independence of judiciary but few judges are also abetting it," a statement, released by AILU President and senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and General Secretary Som Dutta Sharma, said. Condemning the move of inquiry against a recommender of the collegium, the AILU said if the collegium's recommendations cannot be accepted, these should have been referred to the apex court for reconsideration. "A judge is oath-bound to uphold the Constitution without favour and fear. Chief Justice of Karnataka has failed in the instant case to stick to his oath. It's time to raise voice to save both democracy and the Constitution," the statement said. Justice Chelameswar had shot off a letter on March 21 to the CJI urging him to consider convening a full court to take up the issue of alleged executive interference in the judiciary. He had also cautioned that "the bonhomie between the judiciary and the government in any State sounds the death knell to democracy". Justice Chelameswar, who had held the unprecedented January 12 press conference along with three other senior judges raising issues including the allocation of cases by the CJI, had said, "We, the judges of the Supreme Court of India, is being accused of ceding our independence and our institutional integrity to the Executive's incremental encroachment. "The executive is always impatient and brooks no disobedience even of the judiciary if it can. Attempts were always made to treat the Chief Justices as the Departmental Heads in the Secretariat. So much for our independence and pre-eminence' as a distinct State organ."

Lawyers' body concerned over the revelations made by SC judge Chelameswar

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