The Supreme Court of India on Friday directed all states to compensate&nbsp;victims of&nbsp;cow vigilantism, stating that&nbsp;they are under an obligation to do so.

The top court also asked states to file a compliance report on the measures they had taken to curb cow vigilantism.&nbsp;

The states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh filed their compliance reports today, ANI reported. The court has asked the remaining states to file their compliance reports soon.&nbsp;

The next hearing in the matter will take place on October 31.

On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism.

The top court has been hearing a petition from Tushar Gandhi, calling for measures against cow vigilantism. His lawyer, Indira Jaisingh, had highlighted more than 60 incidents across the country.

Instances of mob lynchings and killings by cow vigilantes have been reported across the country.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had asked all the states to appoint a senior police officer as Nodal officer in every district to keep an eye on vigilante groups. It has also directed top bureaucrats in every state to ensure highway patrolling to prevent future incidents.

The first incident was reported from Uttar Pradesh&#39;s Dadri in&nbsp;2015 in which a Muslim man,&nbsp;Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched on suspicion of stealing and slaughtering a stolen cow calf.

On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism

The Supreme Court of India on Friday directed all states to compensate victims of cow vigilantism, stating that they are under an obligation to do so. The top court also asked states to file a compliance report on the measures they had taken to curb cow vigilantism. The states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh filed their compliance reports today, ANI reported. The court has asked the remaining states to file their compliance reports soon. The next hearing in the matter will take place on October 31. On September 6, the top court had suggested a set of tough steps to states to counter instances of cow vigilantism. The top court has been hearing a petition from Tushar Gandhi, calling for measures against cow vigilantism. His lawyer, Indira Jaisingh, had highlighted more than 60 incidents across the country. Instances of mob lynchings and killings by cow vigilantes have been reported across the country. The Supreme Court had asked all the states to appoint a senior police officer as Nodal officer in every district to keep an eye on vigilante groups. It has also directed top bureaucrats in every state to ensure highway patrolling to prevent future incidents. The first incident was reported from Uttar Pradesh's Dadri in 2015 in which a Muslim man, Mohammad Akhlaq, was lynched on suspicion of stealing and slaughtering a stolen cow calf.

States under obligation to compensate cow vigilantism victims: Supreme Court

The BJP and the Congress today welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Triple Talaq holding it unconstitutional, saying it was a step forward towards gender justice and equality.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan welcomed the judgement on the issue, considered an impediment in the progress of a modern society, and asked the central government to enact a law on it soon.

&quot;We welcome the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq and urge the central government to enact a law soon.&nbsp;

Traditions like Triple Talaq are like mental and social harrassment of our sisters and daughters and are an impediment in the progress of modern Indian society,&quot; Chouhan said on twitter.

Congress leader Salman Khurshid also welcomed the judgement, saying &quot;it is a good decision&quot;.

However, he said the reasoning behind the decision was as important as the decision itself and one should see it before coming to any conclusion.

Union Minister Maneka Gandhi also termed it as &quot;a good judgement&quot;&nbsp;and saying &quot;We welcome it. It is a step forward towards gender justice and gender equality. It is good for women.&quot;

Asked whether the government would bring a law soon, she said, the government will consider making a law on it.

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also welcomed it saying it has paved the way forward for bringing reform.

&quot;Chief Justice has given an astute order; Stayed Triple Talaq for six months and asked Parliament to get off its backsides and legislate,&quot; Swamy said on Twitter.

Swamy said this would bring proximity between Hindus and Muslims and was a big day for Muslim women. 
&quot;We are happy that women, both Hindu and Muslim, are standing together for reform.

&quot;Big day for muslim women. Salute their courageousness, their fearlessness and even their ostracisation. They have stood for real reform and we must salute them and stand by them,&quot; he said.

BJP spokesperson Aman Sinha said the judgement has vindicated the stand of the Narendra Modi government.

Sinha, who is also a senior advocate, said the majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench declaring the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as &quot;unconstitutional&quot;, would give Muslim women the right to lead a dignified life.

&quot;The Supreme Court has upheld the stand taken by the government of India that triple talaq is unconstitutional and discriminatory,&quot; he said.

Referring to the Independence Day speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the senior advocate said, &quot;The Prime Minister had raised the issue of plight of women due to regressive practice of triple talaq and today it has been held unconstitutional.&quot;

&quot;The stand of the government on the issue of Triple Talaq is vindicated. It would give crores of Muslim women right to lead life with dignity and respect,&quot; Sinha said.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims saying it was &quot;void&quot;, &quot;illegal&quot; and &quot;unconstitutional&quot;. 
&nbsp;

Union Minister Maneka Gandhi said the Supreme Court was 'a good judgement'

The BJP and the Congress today welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Triple Talaq holding it unconstitutional, saying it was a step forward towards gender justice and equality. Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan welcomed the judgement on the issue, considered an impediment in the progress of a modern society, and asked the central government to enact a law on it soon. "We welcome the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq and urge the central government to enact a law soon. Traditions like Triple Talaq are like mental and social harrassment of our sisters and daughters and are an impediment in the progress of modern Indian society," Chouhan said on twitter. Congress leader Salman Khurshid also welcomed the judgement, saying "it is a good decision". However, he said the reasoning behind the decision was as important as the decision itself and one should see it before coming to any conclusion. Union Minister Maneka Gandhi also termed it as "a good judgement" and saying "We welcome it. It is a step forward towards gender justice and gender equality. It is good for women." Asked whether the government would bring a law soon, she said, the government will consider making a law on it. BJP MP Subramanian Swamy also welcomed it saying it has paved the way forward for bringing reform. "Chief Justice has given an astute order; Stayed Triple Talaq for six months and asked Parliament to get off its backsides and legislate," Swamy said on Twitter. Swamy said this would bring proximity between Hindus and Muslims and was a big day for Muslim women. "We are happy that women, both Hindu and Muslim, are standing together for reform. "Big day for muslim women. Salute their courageousness, their fearlessness and even their ostracisation. They have stood for real reform and we must salute them and stand by them," he said. BJP spokesperson Aman Sinha said the judgement has vindicated the stand of the Narendra Modi government. Sinha, who is also a senior advocate, said the majority verdict of the five-judge Constitution bench declaring the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as "unconstitutional", would give Muslim women the right to lead a dignified life. "The Supreme Court has upheld the stand taken by the government of India that triple talaq is unconstitutional and discriminatory," he said. Referring to the Independence Day speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the senior advocate said, "The Prime Minister had raised the issue of plight of women due to regressive practice of triple talaq and today it has been held unconstitutional." "The stand of the government on the issue of Triple Talaq is vindicated. It would give crores of Muslim women right to lead life with dignity and respect," Sinha said. The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims saying it was "void", "illegal" and "unconstitutional".

BJP, Congress welcome top court verdict on triple talaq

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) is illegal.&nbsp;

The court passed the ruling by&nbsp;a 3:2 majority.&nbsp;

The five judges hearing the matter were of five different faiths -- there was a Sikh, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, and a Parsi.&nbsp;

The five judgements were read out separately.

The two judges who upheld the practice were Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice Nazir.&nbsp;

The court has passed a six-month injunction against the practice, in which time it has asked Parliament to legislate on it and bring in a law. &nbsp;

CJI Khehar said that &quot;all parties must decide (on triple talaq), keeping politics aside.&quot;&nbsp;

The court added that the injunction would continue should the government not be able to bring in legislation within six months.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UPDATE?src=hash">#UPDATE</a> Justice Nariman,Lalit and Kurien say <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash">#TripleTalaq</a> is unconstitutional, oppose view of Justice Nazir and CJI Khehar
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/899865860487036929">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC has asked govt to bring legislation within 6 months. CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash">#TripleTalaq</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/899864137500512256">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Judgement ka swagat aur samarthan karti hun. Muslim mahilon ke liye bahut etihaasik din hai: Shayara Bano <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash">#TripleTalaq</a> victim &amp; petitioner <a href="https://t.co/L9yhzlFnBT">pic.twitter.com/L9yhzlFnBT</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/899874862784626688">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Prime Minister Modi hailed the judgement, calling it historic.&nbsp;

&quot;It grands equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Judgment of the SC on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash">#TripleTalaq</a> is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment: PM Modi
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/899908096218103808">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The centre had earlier assured the SC during the hearing that if triple talaq is deemed invalid, it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I feel the judgement will be in my favour. Time has changed &amp; a law will certainly be made: Saira Bano, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash">#TripleTalaq</a> victim and petitioner <a href="https://t.co/nujQXikn92">pic.twitter.com/nujQXikn92</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/899847284770324480">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;The government will come out with the law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the court holds triple talaq as invalid,&quot; Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench.

Rohatgi also told the top court bench that the practice of triple talaq violates Muslim women&#39;s right to equality within the community.

The SC had earlier refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once and said it will focus on one matter at a time.

The central government, on May 11, told the court that it opposes triple talaq and wants to fight for women&rsquo;s &nbsp;equality and gender justice.

Counsel for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Kapil Sibal told, the court that Triple Talaq comes under the Muslim board and therefore the top court should not interfere in it.

&nbsp;While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the triple talaq, the court said it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not.

In December last year, the Allahabad High Court said the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word &quot;talaq&quot; thrice was &quot;unconstitutional&quot;.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The court passed the ruling by a 3:2 majority

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) is illegal. The court passed the ruling by a 3:2 majority. The five judges hearing the matter were of five different faiths -- there was a Sikh, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, and a Parsi. The five judgements were read out separately. The two judges who upheld the practice were Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice Nazir. The court has passed a six-month injunction against the practice, in which time it has asked Parliament to legislate on it and bring in a law. CJI Khehar said that "all parties must decide (on triple talaq), keeping politics aside." The court added that the injunction would continue should the government not be able to bring in legislation within six months. #UPDATE Justice Nariman,Lalit and Kurien say #TripleTalaq is unconstitutional, oppose view of Justice Nazir and CJI Khehar — ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2017 × SC has asked govt to bring legislation within 6 months. CJI Khehar said that all parties must decide keeping politics aside. #TripleTalaq — ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2017 × Judgement ka swagat aur samarthan karti hun. Muslim mahilon ke liye bahut etihaasik din hai: Shayara Bano #TripleTalaq victim & petitioner pic.twitter.com/L9yhzlFnBT — ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2017 × Prime Minister Modi hailed the judgement, calling it historic. "It grands equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment," he said. Judgment of the SC on #TripleTalaq is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment: PM Modi — ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2017 × The centre had earlier assured the SC during the hearing that if triple talaq is deemed invalid, it would come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims. I feel the judgement will be in my favour. Time has changed & a law will certainly be made: Saira Bano, #TripleTalaq victim and petitioner pic.twitter.com/nujQXikn92 — ANI (@ANI) August 22, 2017 × "The government will come out with the law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the court holds triple talaq as invalid," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench. Rohatgi also told the top court bench that the practice of triple talaq violates Muslim women's right to equality within the community. The SC had earlier refused to hear all the three cases of polygamy, nikah and halala at once and said it will focus on one matter at a time. The central government, on May 11, told the court that it opposes triple talaq and wants to fight for women’s equality and gender justice. Counsel for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Kapil Sibal told, the court that Triple Talaq comes under the Muslim board and therefore the top court should not interfere in it. While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the triple talaq, the court said it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not. In December last year, the Allahabad High Court said the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word "talaq" thrice was "unconstitutional".

Triple talaq verdict: Supreme Court rules practice is illegal

In a setback for the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court of India today (August 22) observed that the National Eligibility Cum Admissions Test (NEET) would be the only basis for admissions to the state&#39;s medical colleges.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra directed the Tamil Nadu government to start counselling for admissions to the MBBS and BDS seats in the state based on the NEET and complete the process by September 4.

The ruling came after the central government told the court that it was not in favour of the recent ordinance passed by Tamil Nadu government to exempt it from the NEET.&nbsp;

The top court was hearing a plea filed by six students from Tamil Nadu that the state government conduct counselling for the medical seats solely on the basis of the merit list prepared on the basis of NEET marks.

On August 17, it had put on hold till August 22 the counselling for medical seats in the state and asked the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the state government to find a balanced solution to deal with the interests of state board students and those who cleared NEET.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) conducted the NEET examination on May 7.

The National Eligibility and Entrance Test was made mandatory for admission in the MBBS and the BDS courses across India last year. The exam replaced the All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all individual MBBS exams conducted by states or colleges.&nbsp;

Tamil Nadu became the first state to introduce Bills&nbsp;to exempt students from appearing for the NEET. Many medical colleges.

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The top court had put on hold the counselling for medical seats in the state

In a setback for the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court of India today (August 22) observed that the National Eligibility Cum Admissions Test (NEET) would be the only basis for admissions to the state's medical colleges. A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra directed the Tamil Nadu government to start counselling for admissions to the MBBS and BDS seats in the state based on the NEET and complete the process by September 4. The ruling came after the central government told the court that it was not in favour of the recent ordinance passed by Tamil Nadu government to exempt it from the NEET. The top court was hearing a plea filed by six students from Tamil Nadu that the state government conduct counselling for the medical seats solely on the basis of the merit list prepared on the basis of NEET marks. On August 17, it had put on hold till August 22 the counselling for medical seats in the state and asked the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the state government to find a balanced solution to deal with the interests of state board students and those who cleared NEET. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) conducted the NEET examination on May 7. The National Eligibility and Entrance Test was made mandatory for admission in the MBBS and the BDS courses across India last year. The exam replaced the All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all individual MBBS exams conducted by states or colleges. Tamil Nadu became the first state to introduce Bills to exempt students from appearing for the NEET. Many medical colleges.

NEET to be the only basis of admissions: Supreme Court to Tamil Nadu govt

The nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment over the issue of whether the right to privacy is fundamental right or not.

The federal government has told the top court that even though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is a &quot;wholly qualified right&quot;. It maintains that the right to life transcends the right to privacy.

The government made this submission before the nine-judge Constitution bench that is hearing the Aadhaar Card privacy matter on July 26.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that &quot;privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy&quot;.

The Attorney General told the court that under special circumstances, the government can interfere in a matter that comes under a wholly qualified right. An absolute right cannot be reduced or amended, he said.

The petitioners maintain that the twelve-digit biometric unique identification Aadhaar card is a threat to the right to privacy. They completed their argument in the top court on July 20.&nbsp;

In June, the top court had ruled that from July 1, every person eligible to obtain the Aadhaar card must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing Income Tax Returns as well as applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN).

&nbsp;

The government had earlier told the top court that the fundamental right to privacy was a 'wholly qualified right'

The nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment over the issue of whether the right to privacy is fundamental right or not. The federal government has told the top court that even though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is a "wholly qualified right". It maintains that the right to life transcends the right to privacy. The government made this submission before the nine-judge Constitution bench that is hearing the Aadhaar Card privacy matter on July 26. Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that "privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy". The Attorney General told the court that under special circumstances, the government can interfere in a matter that comes under a wholly qualified right. An absolute right cannot be reduced or amended, he said. The petitioners maintain that the twelve-digit biometric unique identification Aadhaar card is a threat to the right to privacy. They completed their argument in the top court on July 20. In June, the top court had ruled that from July 1, every person eligible to obtain the Aadhaar card must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing Income Tax Returns as well as applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN).

Supreme Court reserves judgment on right to privacy being a fundamental right

The Supreme Court of India has rejected a plea seeking its approval for the termination of the&nbsp;pregnancy of a 10-year-old rape survivor who is 32-weeks (eight months) pregnant.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud, had asked Chandigarh&#39;s Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) to examine the rape survivor and the consequences if the termination of pregnancy was allowed.

It took note of the report of the medical board set up by PGI&nbsp;that termination of pregnancy was neither good for the girl nor for the foetus.

The court also suggested that the federal government set up a permanent medical board in each state to take prompt decisions in such cases.&nbsp;

The bench asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to consider its suggestion&nbsp;in view of the fact that the frequency of such cases before the top court had increased.

The PIL was filed after a Chandigarh district court on July 18 refused to let the girl undergo the abortion after it was confirmed that she was 26 weeks pregnant.

Her advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava had argued before the court that as per doctors, the pelvic bones of the girl were not fully developed and a full-term pregnancy at her tender age was extremely risky. 
 
Courts allow medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Exception can be made if the foetus is genetically abnormal.

The petition had requested the top court to frame appropriate guidelines to set up a permanent medical board in each district of India for expedient termination of pregnancies in exceptional cases involving child rape survivors and under the best-possible medical facilities.

It had also asked the top court to direct the government to amend Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, so as to permit termination of pregnancy of more than 20 weeks, particularly involving child rape survivors after obtaining the opinion of a permanently constituted medical board.

The girl was allegedly repeatedly raped by her maternal uncle, a hotel worker, over the past few months. He has been arrested.

Her father is a watchman and mother works as a domestic help.

The top court considered the report of the medical board that termination of pregnancy was neither good for the girl nor for the foetus

The Supreme Court of India has rejected a plea seeking its approval for the termination of the pregnancy of a 10-year-old rape survivor who is 32-weeks (eight months) pregnant. The bench, comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud, had asked Chandigarh's Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) to examine the rape survivor and the consequences if the termination of pregnancy was allowed. It took note of the report of the medical board set up by PGI that termination of pregnancy was neither good for the girl nor for the foetus. The court also suggested that the federal government set up a permanent medical board in each state to take prompt decisions in such cases. The bench asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to consider its suggestion in view of the fact that the frequency of such cases before the top court had increased. The PIL was filed after a Chandigarh district court on July 18 refused to let the girl undergo the abortion after it was confirmed that she was 26 weeks pregnant. Her advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava had argued before the court that as per doctors, the pelvic bones of the girl were not fully developed and a full-term pregnancy at her tender age was extremely risky. Courts allow medical termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Exception can be made if the foetus is genetically abnormal. The petition had requested the top court to frame appropriate guidelines to set up a permanent medical board in each district of India for expedient termination of pregnancies in exceptional cases involving child rape survivors and under the best-possible medical facilities. It had also asked the top court to direct the government to amend Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, so as to permit termination of pregnancy of more than 20 weeks, particularly involving child rape survivors after obtaining the opinion of a permanently constituted medical board. The girl was allegedly repeatedly raped by her maternal uncle, a hotel worker, over the past few months. He has been arrested. Her father is a watchman and mother works as a domestic help.

India's top court rejects plea for termination of 10-year-old rape survivor's pregnancy

The federal government Monday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India&nbsp;over the demonetisation row,&nbsp;saying it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes.

Earlier on July 4,&nbsp;the top court rapped the federal government&nbsp;and asked them to give another chance to &quot;genuine people to deposit old notes&quot;,&nbsp;to which the federal government was given two weeks to respond.

Rebuking the federal government&nbsp;for setting up a deadline for depositing demonetised currency, the top court observed,&nbsp;&quot;One cannot make people suffer if they have genuine reasons, should be allowed to deposit old notes&quot;.

The top court&nbsp;asked the federal government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whether a window can be provided to the people who could not deposit their old Rs. 500 and 1,000 currency notes.

The federal government told the division bench of the apex court that it would file an affidavit in the case.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sudha Mishra and others seeking a direction from it in connection with the deposit of old currency notes of Rs 500 and 1,000.

Following the announcement of demonetising currency notes worth Rs 500 and 1,000 in November last year, the government had instructed people to deposit their old currency notes with the RBI till December 30, 2016. 
&nbsp;

The federal government said it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes

The federal government Monday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India over the demonetisation row, saying it was not ready to extend the window period for depositing old currency notes. Earlier on July 4, the top court rapped the federal government and asked them to give another chance to "genuine people to deposit old notes", to which the federal government was given two weeks to respond. Rebuking the federal government for setting up a deadline for depositing demonetised currency, the top court observed, "One cannot make people suffer if they have genuine reasons, should be allowed to deposit old notes". The top court asked the federal government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), whether a window can be provided to the people who could not deposit their old Rs. 500 and 1,000 currency notes. The federal government told the division bench of the apex court that it would file an affidavit in the case. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sudha Mishra and others seeking a direction from it in connection with the deposit of old currency notes of Rs 500 and 1,000. Following the announcement of demonetising currency notes worth Rs 500 and 1,000 in November last year, the government had instructed people to deposit their old currency notes with the RBI till December 30, 2016.

Window for depositing old notes cannot be extended: Govt dismisses top court request

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the counselling and admission into Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs) across the country on the basis of the results of the IIT-JEE (Advance) 2017&nbsp;by vacating its stay on it.

The top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra vacated its stay ordered last Friday, but asked the high courts not to interfere in the petitions regarding counselling and admission to the IITs to avoid any confusion.

Counselling is a process in which a candidate, who clears the entrance examination, chooses the best college and stream according to his or her choice based on their rank.

The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, asked the IITs to give an undertaking that such mistakes will not recur and make sure that no situation in which bonus marks have to be awarded arose in future.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the IITs, said such a situation will not arise in future. 
 
The bench said the 2005 judgement in Guru Nanak University case will not apply in the present matter as there were a huge number of students involved and there was a system of negative marking in the exam.

The apex court also noted that an experts&#39; body of IITs had met twice to decide that bonus marks should be awarded across the board for the wrong questions.

The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions saying the court will go by its earlier judgement of 2005 and bonus marks cannot be given to those who have not attempted the wrong questions.

The AG had, however, pointed out that there was negative marking for every unsuccessful question and there may be some students who had opted not to answer &quot;the said vague questions fearing negative marking&quot;.

Therefore, across the board bonus marks were given to the candidates, Venugopal had told the court, adding that otherwise the IITs would have to strike down the marks.

The AG had also said that it was difficult to re-evaluate the answersheets of over two lakh students who took the examination and awarding of bonus marks across board was the most practical solution.

The apex court had on June 30 issued notice to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on a plea seeking quashing of the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list.

The petition, filed by an IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court&#39;s direction to declare that the action of awarding bonus marks to candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced)- 2017 examination was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students.

Since then several other students had approached the apex court seeking quashing of rank list.

Several IIT aspirants in their pleas had sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks for the incorrect questions to the candidates who had attempted the right answers.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the counselling and admission into Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs) across the country on the basis of the results of the IIT-JEE (Advance) 2017 by vacating its stay on it. The top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra vacated its stay ordered last Friday, but asked the high courts not to interfere in the petitions regarding counselling and admission to the IITs to avoid any confusion. Counselling is a process in which a candidate, who clears the entrance examination, chooses the best college and stream according to his or her choice based on their rank. The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, asked the IITs to give an undertaking that such mistakes will not recur and make sure that no situation in which bonus marks have to be awarded arose in future. Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the IITs, said such a situation will not arise in future. The bench said the 2005 judgement in Guru Nanak University case will not apply in the present matter as there were a huge number of students involved and there was a system of negative marking in the exam. The apex court also noted that an experts' body of IITs had met twice to decide that bonus marks should be awarded across the board for the wrong questions. The Supreme Court had on July 7 restrained the IITs from conducting further counselling and admissions saying the court will go by its earlier judgement of 2005 and bonus marks cannot be given to those who have not attempted the wrong questions. The AG had, however, pointed out that there was negative marking for every unsuccessful question and there may be some students who had opted not to answer "the said vague questions fearing negative marking". Therefore, across the board bonus marks were given to the candidates, Venugopal had told the court, adding that otherwise the IITs would have to strike down the marks. The AG had also said that it was difficult to re-evaluate the answersheets of over two lakh students who took the examination and awarding of bonus marks across board was the most practical solution. The apex court had on June 30 issued notice to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on a plea seeking quashing of the IIT-JEE 2017 rank list. The petition, filed by an IIT aspirant Aishwarya Agarwal, had sought the court's direction to declare that the action of awarding bonus marks to candidates who had appeared in the JEE (Advanced)- 2017 examination was wrong and violated her right, as well as that of other students. Since then several other students had approached the apex court seeking quashing of rank list. Several IIT aspirants in their pleas had sought a direction for preparation of the all-India rank list after rectifying the scores of JEE (Advanced) and also award marks for the incorrect questions to the candidates who had attempted the right answers.

Supreme Court lifts stay on IIT-JEE admissions

India&rsquo;s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the government&#39;s decision to link Aadhaar to one&rsquo;s PAN card for filing Income Tax returns. But, it refused to make it compulsory for those who don&rsquo;t have an Aadhaar card or have not yet applied for one,&nbsp;till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-GeEbPDpnXY"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of linking Aadhaar with PAN or Permanent Account Number. WION brings you more on this (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Those who have enrolled but have not yet received&nbsp;their Aadhaar card are also exempted.

The tax provision, pushed by the Centre, said that those who file I-T returns without an Aadhaar-linked PAN card would have their PAN declared invalid.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked the government to take appropriate steps to ensure there was no leakage of data from the Aadhaar scheme. 
&nbsp; 
&quot;The government to take proper and appropriate steps and the scheme in this regard has to be devised at the earliest till confidence among the citizens that the data would not be leaked,&quot; the bench said. 
&nbsp; 
The bench, however, clarified that it had not touched upon the issue of the right to privacy and concerns that the Aadhaar scheme affected the human dignity, which, it said, had to be decided by the Constitution bench. 
&nbsp; 
The bench made it clear that there was no conflict between the impugned provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Aadhaar Act. 
&nbsp; 
It also said that PAN cards without Aadhaar number would not be treated invalid till the Constitution bench decided the larger issue of right to privacy. 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said it is compulsory to link Aadhaar to one's PAN card for filing taxes, but only if you already have an Aadhaar card

India’s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the government's decision to link Aadhaar to one’s PAN card for filing Income Tax returns. But, it refused to make it compulsory for those who don’t have an Aadhaar card or have not yet applied for one, till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy. The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of linking Aadhaar with PAN or Permanent Account Number. WION brings you more on this (WION) × Those who have enrolled but have not yet received their Aadhaar card are also exempted. The tax provision, pushed by the Centre, said that those who file I-T returns without an Aadhaar-linked PAN card would have their PAN declared invalid. A bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked the government to take appropriate steps to ensure there was no leakage of data from the Aadhaar scheme. "The government to take proper and appropriate steps and the scheme in this regard has to be devised at the earliest till confidence among the citizens that the data would not be leaked," the bench said. The bench, however, clarified that it had not touched upon the issue of the right to privacy and concerns that the Aadhaar scheme affected the human dignity, which, it said, had to be decided by the Constitution bench. The bench made it clear that there was no conflict between the impugned provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Aadhaar Act. It also said that PAN cards without Aadhaar number would not be treated invalid till the Constitution bench decided the larger issue of right to privacy.

Is it compulsory to link Aadhaar with PAN card?

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India Thursday reserved its verdict on batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of talaq practice among Muslims.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days during which various parties including the government, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and various others made the submissions.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, had begun the hearing on May 11.

The members of the bench are from different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim.

The bench had made it clear that it would examine whether the practice of triple talaq among Muslims is fundamental to their religion and had also said for the time being it will not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and &quot;nikah halala&quot;.

It had also said that the issue of polygamy and &quot;nikah halala&quot;&nbsp;would be kept pending and will be dealt with later.

&quot;Nikah Halala&quot;&nbsp;is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her going through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called &quot;Iddat&quot;&nbsp;and then returning to him.

The apex court had on its own taken cognisance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.

The hearing assumed significance as the apex court has heard the matter during the summer vacation.

(PTI)

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India Thursday reserved its verdict on batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of talaq practice among Muslims. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar heard the issue for six days during which various parties including the government, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and various others made the submissions. The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, had begun the hearing on May 11. The members of the bench are from different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim. The bench had made it clear that it would examine whether the practice of triple talaq among Muslims is fundamental to their religion and had also said for the time being it will not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and "nikah halala". It had also said that the issue of polygamy and "nikah halala" would be kept pending and will be dealt with later. "Nikah Halala" is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her going through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced, observing the separation period called "Iddat" and then returning to him. The apex court had on its own taken cognisance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands. The hearing assumed significance as the apex court has heard the matter during the summer vacation. (PTI)

Triple Talaq: India's top court reserves verdict

After asserting that Triple Talaq cannot be branded as unconstitutional, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said the Supreme Court 
should not be hearing the matter in the first place.

The argument began when Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one&#39;s faith and belief. To this Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, one of the five judges 
constituting the bench asked if they should not hear the matter at all.

&quot;Yes, you should not hear,&quot; replied Sibal. Earlier today, Sibal asked the Supreme Court how a 1400-year-old practice be branded &#39;unconstitutional&#39;.&quot;

Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?&quot; Sibal asked the apex court.

Sibal further argued that just like the Hindus&#39; faith about Lord Ram&#39;s birth at Ayodhya cannot be questioned, Triple Talaq, which is also a matter of faith for Muslims should not be questioned. Meanwhile, the bench also questioned the AIMPLB on the position of e-divorce given on WhatsApp in Islam.

The federal government yesterday assured the top court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if Triple Talaq was upheld as invalid.

&quot;The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the court holds Triple Talaq as invalid,&quot; Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench.

Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that Triple Talaq violates Muslim women&#39;s right to equality within the community, and also within the country. Earlier in the hearing, the 
apex court refused to hear all the three cases of Polygamy, Nikah and Halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time.

The Attorney General and top law officers representing the federal government arguing in front of the five-judge Constitution bench said the top court should hear other cases also, 
besides Triple Talaq. However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present.&nbsp;

On the second day of the hearing last Friday, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, had told the top court that the controversial Islamic divorce system cannot be justified whatsoever.

Citing examples, Khurshid told the court that the Triple Talaq practice cannot be validated constitutionally.&quot;There was a discussion that whether Triple Talaq is valid constitutionally.

Substantiating my view with reasons and examples, I asserted that it cannot be justified and cannot be given the law&#39;s validation,&quot; Khurshid said during the hearing.The Centre, earlier on 
May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice.&nbsp;

However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that triple talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim board and therefore, in 
his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it.&quot; The Central Government makes rules but in my opinion the apex court should not interfere into it,&quot; Sibal said.

While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the top court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or 
not. A five-judge bench of the apex court further observed that it would not hear polygamy issue along with the triple talaq case.

Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim personal law over instantaneous 
application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala.

Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in 
the name of &#39;personal law&#39;. In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word &quot;talaq&quot; thrice &quot;unconstitutional.&quot;

&quot;Triple talaq is unconstitutional. It violates the rights of Muslim women,&quot; ruled the high court, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution.&nbsp;

(ANI)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

AIMPLB counsel Kapil Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one's faith and belief

After asserting that Triple Talaq cannot be branded as unconstitutional, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said the Supreme Court should not be hearing the matter in the first place. The argument began when Sibal said that the top court should not decide or interfere in one's faith and belief. To this Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, one of the five judges constituting the bench asked if they should not hear the matter at all. "Yes, you should not hear," replied Sibal. Earlier today, Sibal asked the Supreme Court how a 1400-year-old practice be branded 'unconstitutional'." Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?" Sibal asked the apex court. Sibal further argued that just like the Hindus' faith about Lord Ram's birth at Ayodhya cannot be questioned, Triple Talaq, which is also a matter of faith for Muslims should not be questioned. Meanwhile, the bench also questioned the AIMPLB on the position of e-divorce given on WhatsApp in Islam. The federal government yesterday assured the top court that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if Triple Talaq was upheld as invalid. "The government will come out with law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the court holds Triple Talaq as invalid," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench. Rohatgi also conveyed to the apex court bench that Triple Talaq violates Muslim women's right to equality within the community, and also within the country. Earlier in the hearing, the apex court refused to hear all the three cases of Polygamy, Nikah and Halala at once, saying it will focus on one matter at a time. The Attorney General and top law officers representing the federal government arguing in front of the five-judge Constitution bench said the top court should hear other cases also, besides Triple Talaq. However, the top court said that they have limited time, so all the matters could not be covered at present. On the second day of the hearing last Friday, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, had told the top court that the controversial Islamic divorce system cannot be justified whatsoever. Citing examples, Khurshid told the court that the Triple Talaq practice cannot be validated constitutionally."There was a discussion that whether Triple Talaq is valid constitutionally. Substantiating my view with reasons and examples, I asserted that it cannot be justified and cannot be given the law's validation," Khurshid said during the hearing.The Centre, earlier on May 11, told the apex court that it opposes the triple talaq practice and wants to fight for women equality and gender justice. However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) counsel Kapil Sibal told the apex court that triple talaq is a matter that comes under the Muslim board and therefore, in his opinion, the top court should not interfere in it." The Central Government makes rules but in my opinion the apex court should not interfere into it," Sibal said. While hearing several pleas filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq, the top court observed that it would examine whether the issue is fundamental to religion or not. A five-judge bench of the apex court further observed that it would not hear polygamy issue along with the triple talaq case. Relentless debates on the validity and plausibility of this practice were instigated soon after one petitioner, Shayara Banu, challenged the Muslim personal law over instantaneous application of triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat), polygamy and nikah-halala. Supporting the stance of ending the practice of triple talaq, the Allahabad High Court had earlier asserted that the rights of any person, including Muslim women, cannot be violated in the name of 'personal law'. In December last year, the Allahabad High Court termed the Islamic practice of divorcing a woman by uttering the word "talaq" thrice "unconstitutional." "Triple talaq is unconstitutional. It violates the rights of Muslim women," ruled the high court, adding that no personal law board was above the Constitution. (ANI)

Top court should not be hearing triple talaq, argues All India Muslim Personal Law Board

Observing that while there were schools of thought which termed triple talaq as legal, India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday called the practice as the &quot;worst&quot; and &quot;not desirable&quot; form of marriage dissolution.

The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of continued hearing on the matter. The court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions on the Islamic practice.

There are &quot;school of thoughts (which) say that triple talaq is legal, but it is the worst and not desirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims.&quot;

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who was appearing for one of the victims, called the one-sided termination of marriage &quot;abhorrent&quot;.

He said the practice violated the constitutional right to equality since the option of triple talaq was avaliable only to the husband and not to the wife

&quot;The right of triple talaq is available only to the husband and not to the wife and it breaches the Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution,&quot; Jethmalani said.

&quot;There is no saving grace for this method of granting divorce. One-sided termination of marriage is abhorrent, and hence, avoidable,&quot; he said.

&quot;Triple talaq makes a distinction on the ground of sex and this method is abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can or will save this sinful, repugnant practice which is contrary to the constitutional provisions,&quot; he added.

No law can allow a wife to become an ex-wife &quot;at the fancy of the husband&quot; and it is &quot;the highest kind unconstitutional behaviour&quot;, Jethmalani said.

The high-profile hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq is continuing after the lunch break.&nbsp;

Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, told the bench that triple talaq was not an issue where judicial scrutiny was required and that women have the right to say &#39;no&#39; by stipulating a condition to this effect in the &quot;nikahnama&quot; (marriage contract).

The court asked Salman Khurshid to prepare a list of Islamic and non-Islamic countries where triple talaq has been banned.

The bench was then informed that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not allow triple talaq as a form to dissolve marriages.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

 
&nbsp;

The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of the hearing

Observing that while there were schools of thought which termed triple talaq as legal, India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday called the practice as the "worst" and "not desirable" form of marriage dissolution. The observation by a five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, came on the second day of continued hearing on the matter. The court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions on the Islamic practice. There are "school of thoughts (which) say that triple talaq is legal, but it is the worst and not desirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims." Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, who was appearing for one of the victims, called the one-sided termination of marriage "abhorrent". He said the practice violated the constitutional right to equality since the option of triple talaq was avaliable only to the husband and not to the wife "The right of triple talaq is available only to the husband and not to the wife and it breaches the Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution," Jethmalani said. "There is no saving grace for this method of granting divorce. One-sided termination of marriage is abhorrent, and hence, avoidable," he said. "Triple talaq makes a distinction on the ground of sex and this method is abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can or will save this sinful, repugnant practice which is contrary to the constitutional provisions," he added. No law can allow a wife to become an ex-wife "at the fancy of the husband" and it is "the highest kind unconstitutional behaviour", Jethmalani said. The high-profile hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq is continuing after the lunch break. Former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in his personal capacity, told the bench that triple talaq was not an issue where judicial scrutiny was required and that women have the right to say 'no' by stipulating a condition to this effect in the "nikahnama" (marriage contract). The court asked Salman Khurshid to prepare a list of Islamic and non-Islamic countries where triple talaq has been banned. The bench was then informed that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not allow triple talaq as a form to dissolve marriages. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Triple talaq worst form of marriage dissolution, observes India's top court

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, will at 2 pm today deliver the verdict on the appeals against the death penalty filed by four death-row convicts&nbsp;in the December 16 Nirbhaya gang rape case.&nbsp;

A Delhi trial court as well as the Delhi High Court had sentenced all four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Vinay Sharma and Mukesh -- to death&nbsp;for the gang rape of a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in 2012.

The convicts had challenged the death penalty given by the Delhi High Court and trial court in the Supreme Court.

The matter is being heard by the top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra and consisting of Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.&nbsp;

The top court is unlikely to grant relief to the accused.&nbsp;

Justice Dipak Misra, who does not hesitate to give the death sentence, has upheld rape as depravity which is not curable.

On December 16, 2012, six people gang raped a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in a moving bus. Eleven days after her assault, she was transferred to a hospital in Singapore for treatment but succumbed to her injuries two 
days later.&nbsp;

One of the accused, Ram Singh, hanged himself in prison. The other accused, who was a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted in August last year and will serve the maximum sentence of three years in a reform 
home. 
 
Ahead of the verdict, Nirbhaya&#39;s mother said that she has full faith in the judiciary and is sure that the top court will give justice to her daughter.

&quot;We have full faith in the judicial system and I am sure that the Supreme Court will announce death sentence in its verdict for the guilty. I am sure the Supreme Court will give justice to my daughter. This will set an example for the world,&quot; said Nirbhaya&#39;s mother.

Nirbhaya&#39;s father also said that he is sure of the fact that the top court will award death sentence to the convicts.&quot;They will be awarded death sentence. Leave Supreme Court, even God will not forgive such people,&quot; said Nirbhaya&#39;s father. 
 
(WION with inputs from ANI)

On December 16, 2012, six people gang raped a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in a moving bus. She succumbed to her injuries on December 29

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, will at 2 pm today deliver the verdict on the appeals against the death penalty filed by four death-row convicts in the December 16 Nirbhaya gang rape case. A Delhi trial court as well as the Delhi High Court had sentenced all four convicts -- Akshay, Pawan, Vinay Sharma and Mukesh -- to death for the gang rape of a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in 2012. The convicts had challenged the death penalty given by the Delhi High Court and trial court in the Supreme Court. The matter is being heard by the top court bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra and consisting of Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan. The top court is unlikely to grant relief to the accused. Justice Dipak Misra, who does not hesitate to give the death sentence, has upheld rape as depravity which is not curable. On December 16, 2012, six people gang raped a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in a moving bus. Eleven days after her assault, she was transferred to a hospital in Singapore for treatment but succumbed to her injuries two days later. One of the accused, Ram Singh, hanged himself in prison. The other accused, who was a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted in August last year and will serve the maximum sentence of three years in a reform home. Ahead of the verdict, Nirbhaya's mother said that she has full faith in the judiciary and is sure that the top court will give justice to her daughter. "We have full faith in the judicial system and I am sure that the Supreme Court will announce death sentence in its verdict for the guilty. I am sure the Supreme Court will give justice to my daughter. This will set an example for the world," said Nirbhaya's mother. Nirbhaya's father also said that he is sure of the fact that the top court will award death sentence to the convicts."They will be awarded death sentence. Leave Supreme Court, even God will not forgive such people," said Nirbhaya's father. (WION with inputs from ANI)

India: Top court to deliver verdict on death penalty in 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case today

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday asked the government&nbsp;to consider making law to regulate NGOs as well as the&nbsp;funds given to them, saying that existing guidelines are not sufficient.&nbsp; 
 
Observing that the present guidelines may not be systematic enough, the top court advised&nbsp;the government to give statutory status to the process of registration, accreditation and funding of NGOs.

The top court, which&nbsp;was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), asked&nbsp;the Centre to apprise it within eight weeks whether it intended to continue with the present guidelines or would likely to regulate the NGO through legislation.&nbsp; 
 
Earlier Wednesday, the Council for Advancement of People&#39;s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), told the court it had recommended registration of 159 FIRs against various NGOs for alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds disbursed to them.&nbsp;

CAPART, which disburses funds to voluntary organisations working in rural areas, said it had initially blacklisted 718 NGOs for not following the due process and not submitting their accounting details. 
 
On January 10, the Supreme Court had said public money cannot go unaccounted for and those misappropriating must be prosecuted.

The court reprimanded the government for doling out crores of rupees to lakhs of NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations without being aware of the repercussion of non-auditing.

The bench had also warned that &quot;mere blacklisting&quot; of these organisations would not suffice and civil and criminal action should be initiated by CAPART/other government departments for misappropriating public money received by them from various government departments.

In September 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the apex court that less than 10 per cent of over 30 lakh NGOs functioning across the country had submitted their returns or balance sheets and other financial details. 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India said the existing guidelines to regulate NGOs were not enough

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday asked the government to consider making law to regulate NGOs as well as the funds given to them, saying that existing guidelines are not sufficient. Observing that the present guidelines may not be systematic enough, the top court advised the government to give statutory status to the process of registration, accreditation and funding of NGOs. The top court, which was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), asked the Centre to apprise it within eight weeks whether it intended to continue with the present guidelines or would likely to regulate the NGO through legislation. Earlier Wednesday, the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), told the court it had recommended registration of 159 FIRs against various NGOs for alleged misappropriation or misuse of funds disbursed to them. CAPART, which disburses funds to voluntary organisations working in rural areas, said it had initially blacklisted 718 NGOs for not following the due process and not submitting their accounting details. On January 10, the Supreme Court had said public money cannot go unaccounted for and those misappropriating must be prosecuted. The court reprimanded the government for doling out crores of rupees to lakhs of NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations without being aware of the repercussion of non-auditing. The bench had also warned that "mere blacklisting" of these organisations would not suffice and civil and criminal action should be initiated by CAPART/other government departments for misappropriating public money received by them from various government departments. In September 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the apex court that less than 10 per cent of over 30 lakh NGOs functioning across the country had submitted their returns or balance sheets and other financial details. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's top court asks government to consider making law to regulate NGOs

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday questioned the federal government for its decision to make it necessary to get an Aadhaar card to get a&nbsp;Permanent Account Number (PAN) card.

PAN cards are necessary for filing taxes, a legal requirement.&nbsp;

The top court said it&nbsp;will decide on whether Aadhaar card can be made mandatory, for filing of Income Tax (I-T) returns, next week.&nbsp;

&quot;How can you make Aadhaar card mandatory when we have passed an order to make it optional?,&quot; the top court asked the government.

The government had last month proposed making Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income-tax returns as well as for obtaining and retaining the permanent account number (PAN) in its official amendment of the finance bill.

The Attorney General of India defended the government, stating that making Aadhaar mandatory was the &quot;only option&quot; since fake PAN cards were being used to divert funds to shell companies.

In a separate ruling last month, the Supreme Court had also said the government cannot require&nbsp;citizens to have an Aadhaar card&nbsp;to benefit from government welfare schemes.

The ruling came after the government announced that the 12-digit card will be required for almost 36 central schemes, including: free mid-day meals for school children, scholarships, various other schemes for backward castes and the differently-abled.

The court had also said that a seven-judge bench needed to be constituted for authoritatively deciding a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme on grounds including that it infringes&nbsp;on the Right to Privacy of citizens.

 
(WION)

The Attorney General of India, defended the centre in court, stating that fake PAN cards were being used to divert funds to shell companies

India's top court, the Supreme Court of India, Friday questioned the federal government for its decision to make it necessary to get an Aadhaar card to get a Permanent Account Number (PAN) card. PAN cards are necessary for filing taxes, a legal requirement. The top court said it will decide on whether Aadhaar card can be made mandatory, for filing of Income Tax (I-T) returns, next week. "How can you make Aadhaar card mandatory when we have passed an order to make it optional?," the top court asked the government. The government had last month proposed making Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income-tax returns as well as for obtaining and retaining the permanent account number (PAN) in its official amendment of the finance bill. The Attorney General of India defended the government, stating that making Aadhaar mandatory was the "only option" since fake PAN cards were being used to divert funds to shell companies. In a separate ruling last month, the Supreme Court had also said the government cannot require citizens to have an Aadhaar card to benefit from government welfare schemes. The ruling came after the government announced that the 12-digit card will be required for almost 36 central schemes, including: free mid-day meals for school children, scholarships, various other schemes for backward castes and the differently-abled. The court had also said that a seven-judge bench needed to be constituted for authoritatively deciding a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme on grounds including that it infringes on the Right to Privacy of citizens. (WION)

India: Top court questions govt over making Aadhaar mandatory for procuring PAN cards

The Supreme Court today allowed civic agency NDMC to e-auction five-star hotel Taj Mansingh, presently being run by Tata Group firm Indian Hotels Company (IHCL), in the heart of the national capital.

A bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and RF Nariman allowed the plea of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that the Tata Group firm cannot have the right to refusal in the auctioning of the hotel.

The bench, however, asked the civic body to grant six months &quot;breathing time&quot; to the company in vacating the hotel in case they lose out in the e-auction.

The court also said that the &quot;blemish-free&quot; record of Tata Group firm IHCL may be taken into account by NDMC while auctioning the iconic property.

The civic body had on March 3 told the apex court that it wants to e-auction the hotel.

The court had earlier asked the IHCL, which challenged a Delhi High Court order allowing auction of the hotel, to file objections, if any, within a week.

The IHCL had told the apex court that it was &quot;not clear&quot; why NDMC wanted to auction the prime property which gave the &quot;best revenue&quot; to it.

The company had submitted that NDMC expert report suggests that the council would &quot;lose revenue&quot; if the hotel was auctioned to other players.

The apex court had on November 21 last year directed that status quo be maintained with regard to NDMC&#39;s auctioning process of Taj Mansingh Hotel.

IHCL had on November 8 last year approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court&#39;s order that cleared the decks for auctioning of the iconic property.

The apex court had asked the NDMC to reconsider its decision to auction the five-star hotel in the wake of the Attorney General(AG) and Solicitor General&#39;s (SG) opinion not to initiate any such process.

It had noted the fact that the opinions of both top law officers against the auctioning of the hotel was not placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration.

The bench had also taken note of the fact that there was an internal opinion of top NDMC officials against auctioning process.

When the bench had asked Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who was appearing for NDMC, whether the body agreed to reconsider the decision of going ahead with the auctioning process, he had replied, &quot;No&quot;.

To this, the bench had said, &quot;Why are you not agreeing to reconsider the decision. It is not a matter of right. Do you not want to be fair to the party who has been paying the rent continuously for 30 years.&quot;

The division bench of the high court had on October 27 last year dismissed the IHCL&#39;s plea challenging the move by NDMC to auction the property, saying the company has &quot;no right&quot; for renewal of the licence period and NDMC was &quot;within its power&quot; to secure maximum consideration for grant of licence for the property located at the prime location of 1, Man Singh Road in Lutyen&#39;s Delhi.

The IHCL had moved the division bench of the high court against the September 5 last year judgement of a single judge who had not acceded to the firm&#39;s request for renewal of licence for a further period, saying it was not entitled for the extension.

The property, owned by NDMC, was given to the IHCL on a lease of 33 years. The lease had ended in 2011 and the company was given nine temporary extensions since then on various grounds, with three of them granted last year itself.

The NDMC had earlier said it was in the process of assessing the assets of the hotel in preparation for the much-delayed auction.

The IHCL had earlier approached the single judge bench of the high court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the NDMC from interfering in any manner with the possession, right to operate, run and maintain the hotel premises.

(PTI)

The court allowed the plea of the civic body that the Tata Group firm cannot have the right to refusal in the auctioning of the hotel

The Supreme Court today allowed civic agency NDMC to e-auction five-star hotel Taj Mansingh, presently being run by Tata Group firm Indian Hotels Company (IHCL), in the heart of the national capital. A bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and RF Nariman allowed the plea of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that the Tata Group firm cannot have the right to refusal in the auctioning of the hotel. The bench, however, asked the civic body to grant six months "breathing time" to the company in vacating the hotel in case they lose out in the e-auction. The court also said that the "blemish-free" record of Tata Group firm IHCL may be taken into account by NDMC while auctioning the iconic property. The civic body had on March 3 told the apex court that it wants to e-auction the hotel. The court had earlier asked the IHCL, which challenged a Delhi High Court order allowing auction of the hotel, to file objections, if any, within a week. The IHCL had told the apex court that it was "not clear" why NDMC wanted to auction the prime property which gave the "best revenue" to it. The company had submitted that NDMC expert report suggests that the council would "lose revenue" if the hotel was auctioned to other players. The apex court had on November 21 last year directed that status quo be maintained with regard to NDMC's auctioning process of Taj Mansingh Hotel. IHCL had on November 8 last year approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court's order that cleared the decks for auctioning of the iconic property. The apex court had asked the NDMC to reconsider its decision to auction the five-star hotel in the wake of the Attorney General(AG) and Solicitor General's (SG) opinion not to initiate any such process. It had noted the fact that the opinions of both top law officers against the auctioning of the hotel was not placed before the Ministry of Home Affairs for consideration. The bench had also taken note of the fact that there was an internal opinion of top NDMC officials against auctioning process. When the bench had asked Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who was appearing for NDMC, whether the body agreed to reconsider the decision of going ahead with the auctioning process, he had replied, "No". To this, the bench had said, "Why are you not agreeing to reconsider the decision. It is not a matter of right. Do you not want to be fair to the party who has been paying the rent continuously for 30 years." The division bench of the high court had on October 27 last year dismissed the IHCL's plea challenging the move by NDMC to auction the property, saying the company has "no right" for renewal of the licence period and NDMC was "within its power" to secure maximum consideration for grant of licence for the property located at the prime location of 1, Man Singh Road in Lutyen's Delhi. The IHCL had moved the division bench of the high court against the September 5 last year judgement of a single judge who had not acceded to the firm's request for renewal of licence for a further period, saying it was not entitled for the extension. The property, owned by NDMC, was given to the IHCL on a lease of 33 years. The lease had ended in 2011 and the company was given nine temporary extensions since then on various grounds, with three of them granted last year itself. The NDMC had earlier said it was in the process of assessing the assets of the hotel in preparation for the much-delayed auction. The IHCL had earlier approached the single judge bench of the high court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the NDMC from interfering in any manner with the possession, right to operate, run and maintain the hotel premises. (PTI)

India: Supreme Court allows NDMC to e-auction Taj Mansingh hotel

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court, Thursday fixed for May 11 the hearing of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the practices of Triple Talaq,&nbsp;Nikah Halala&nbsp;and polygamy among Muslims. 
 
The top court said the matter will be heard by a constitution bench, PTI reported.

A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said the matter will be heard by a Constitution bench during the summer vacation.

The top court was to hear today various petitions challenging the legitimacy of triple talaq and polygamy in the Muslim community.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said the federal government told the court Triple Talaq was unconstitutional. 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">
According to us its unconstitutional, and we have given our view in the court. Let us see what happens: Mukul Rohatgi,AG <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tripletalaq?src=hash">#tripletalaq</a> <a href="https://t.co/EmCqlftI9w">pic.twitter.com/EmCqlftI9w</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/847423617956691968">March 30, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The practice of Nikah Halala&nbsp;implies that a man cannot remarry a woman after Triple Talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and her new husband dies or divorces her. 
 
Triple talaq allows Muslim men instant divorce by saying the word talaq&nbsp;three times.

The federal government had earlier submitted a list of issues for adjudication to the top court including the question of whether the fundamental right to practice and propagate one&#39;s religion protected the practice of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala&nbsp;and polygamy among Muslims.

The federal government had opposed the practices of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and Polygamy among Muslims in October, saying they violated the laws of gender equality and secularism.

Referring to the legal issues framed by the Centre,&nbsp;the court had said in February all of them related to constitutional issues and needed to be dealt with by a larger bench. 
 
Several women have also filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the practice.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), however, claims that any order against Triple Talaq would be an infringement on their right to follow and profess any religion.

The Muslim body told the top court on March 27 that the pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable since the issues fell outside the realm of judiciary.

The AIMPLB had said there was a need for &quot;judicial restraint&quot; before going into constitutional interpretation of the practices&nbsp;unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable.

The top court had earlier said it would decide issues pertaining to the &quot;legal&quot; aspects of the practices of Triple Talaq,&nbsp;Nikah Halala&nbsp;and polygamy and would not deal with the question whether divorce under Muslim law needed to be supervised by courts as it fell&nbsp;under the legislative domain.

In its affidavit, the Ministry of Law and Justice had referred the constitutional principles of gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries to drive home the point that the practice of triple talaq and polygamy needed to be adjudicated upon afresh by the apex court. 
 
The apex court had taken suo motu cognizance of the question of whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or their husband marrying again. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court has fixed the hearing of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Triple Talaq for May 11

India's top court, the Supreme Court, Thursday fixed for May 11 the hearing of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the practices of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and polygamy among Muslims. The top court said the matter will be heard by a constitution bench, PTI reported. A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said the matter will be heard by a Constitution bench during the summer vacation. The top court was to hear today various petitions challenging the legitimacy of triple talaq and polygamy in the Muslim community. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said the federal government told the court Triple Talaq was unconstitutional. According to us its unconstitutional, and we have given our view in the court. Let us see what happens: Mukul Rohatgi,AG #tripletalaq pic.twitter.com/EmCqlftI9w — ANI (@ANI_news) March 30, 2017 × The practice of Nikah Halala implies that a man cannot remarry a woman after Triple Talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and her new husband dies or divorces her. Triple talaq allows Muslim men instant divorce by saying the word talaq three times. The federal government had earlier submitted a list of issues for adjudication to the top court including the question of whether the fundamental right to practice and propagate one's religion protected the practice of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and polygamy among Muslims. The federal government had opposed the practices of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and Polygamy among Muslims in October, saying they violated the laws of gender equality and secularism. Referring to the legal issues framed by the Centre, the court had said in February all of them related to constitutional issues and needed to be dealt with by a larger bench. Several women have also filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the practice. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), however, claims that any order against Triple Talaq would be an infringement on their right to follow and profess any religion. The Muslim body told the top court on March 27 that the pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable since the issues fell outside the realm of judiciary. The AIMPLB had said there was a need for "judicial restraint" before going into constitutional interpretation of the practices unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable. The top court had earlier said it would decide issues pertaining to the "legal" aspects of the practices of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala and polygamy and would not deal with the question whether divorce under Muslim law needed to be supervised by courts as it fell under the legislative domain. In its affidavit, the Ministry of Law and Justice had referred the constitutional principles of gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries to drive home the point that the practice of triple talaq and polygamy needed to be adjudicated upon afresh by the apex court. The apex court had taken suo motu cognizance of the question of whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or their husband marrying again. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India's top court directs constitution bench to hear Triple Talaq petitions in May

India&#39;s top court on Wednesday asked the central government to frame guidelines for rehabilitation of persons who have been cured of their mental illness, observing that the issue was &quot;very sensitive&quot;.

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar observed that after mentally ill persons are cured, not even their family members are willing to take them back home.

&quot;It is a very, very sensitive issue. You (Centre) should apply your mind. When a person goes to a mental asylum and after treatment he is cured, no body is willing to take him back to home. You (Centre) should think over it,&quot; the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, said.

The apex court told solicitor general Ranjit Kumar, representing the Centre, that the government &quot;cannot allow a person to be kept&quot; in a mental asylum or a nursing home after he or she is fully cured of the ailment.

&quot;They have to be brought back to civil society. You will have to frame a policy,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;It is very easily achievable. You give us a model scheme. We will then put it to the state governments and ask them. Give us a scheme,&quot; the court told the Centre.

The Solicitor General, however, told the bench that they needed some time as two ministries -- Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Justice -- were involved in this process.

The apex court gave eight weeks time to the Centre for this.

&quot;The proposal made to the Centre by this court has been tentatively accepted and the Union of India will frame guidelines/scheme for rehabilitation of mentally sick persons, who are in a mental asylum or a nursing home, and have been fully cured after treatment,&quot; the bench said. 
 
(PTI)

'It is very easily achievable. You give us a model scheme. We will then put it to the state governments,' the court told the government

India's top court on Wednesday asked the central government to frame guidelines for rehabilitation of persons who have been cured of their mental illness, observing that the issue was "very sensitive". A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar observed that after mentally ill persons are cured, not even their family members are willing to take them back home. "It is a very, very sensitive issue. You (Centre) should apply your mind. When a person goes to a mental asylum and after treatment he is cured, no body is willing to take him back to home. You (Centre) should think over it," the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, said. The apex court told solicitor general Ranjit Kumar, representing the Centre, that the government "cannot allow a person to be kept" in a mental asylum or a nursing home after he or she is fully cured of the ailment. "They have to be brought back to civil society. You will have to frame a policy," the bench said. "It is very easily achievable. You give us a model scheme. We will then put it to the state governments and ask them. Give us a scheme," the court told the Centre. The Solicitor General, however, told the bench that they needed some time as two ministries -- Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Justice -- were involved in this process. The apex court gave eight weeks time to the Centre for this. "The proposal made to the Centre by this court has been tentatively accepted and the Union of India will frame guidelines/scheme for rehabilitation of mentally sick persons, who are in a mental asylum or a nursing home, and have been fully cured after treatment," the bench said. (PTI)

Top court asks Indian govt to frame guidelines for rehabilitation of mentally ill

India&#39;s top court said on Thursday that it will set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear and decide on a batch of petitions relating to the practice of triple talaq, &#39;nikah halala&#39; and polygamy among Muslims.

Triple talaq allows Muslim men instant divorce by saying the word &quot;talaq&quot; three times

The practice of &#39;Nikah Halala&#39; implies that a man cannot remarry a woman after Triple Talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and her new husband dies or divorces her.

The Centre had submitted a list of issues for adjudication to the top court including the question of whether the fundamental right to practice and propagate one&#39;s religion protected the practice of Triple Talaq, &#39;Nikah Halala&#39; and polygamy among Muslims, PTI reported.

Referring to the legal issues framed by the Centre, the court said all of them related to constitutional issues and needed to be dealt with by a larger bench.

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar took on record three sets of issues framed by parties with regard to the cases and said the questions for consideration of the constitution bench would be decided on March 30.

The bench, also comprising Justices NV Ramana and DV Chandrachud, said &quot;the issues are very important. These issues cannot be scuttled&quot;.

The bench also made it clear that it is willing to sit on Saturdays and Sundays to decide on the issue as it was very important.&nbsp;

The BJP-led NDA government has opposed such practices among Muslims on grounds like gender equality, secularism and binding international covenants.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The top court said all issues referred to it by the central government were constitutional and needed to be dealt by a larger bench

India's top court said on Thursday that it will set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear and decide on a batch of petitions relating to the practice of triple talaq, 'nikah halala' and polygamy among Muslims. Triple talaq allows Muslim men instant divorce by saying the word "talaq" three times The practice of 'Nikah Halala' implies that a man cannot remarry a woman after Triple Talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and her new husband dies or divorces her. The Centre had submitted a list of issues for adjudication to the top court including the question of whether the fundamental right to practice and propagate one's religion protected the practice of Triple Talaq, 'Nikah Halala' and polygamy among Muslims, PTI reported. Referring to the legal issues framed by the Centre, the court said all of them related to constitutional issues and needed to be dealt with by a larger bench. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar took on record three sets of issues framed by parties with regard to the cases and said the questions for consideration of the constitution bench would be decided on March 30. The bench, also comprising Justices NV Ramana and DV Chandrachud, said "the issues are very important. These issues cannot be scuttled". The bench also made it clear that it is willing to sit on Saturdays and Sundays to decide on the issue as it was very important. The BJP-led NDA government has opposed such practices among Muslims on grounds like gender equality, secularism and binding international covenants. (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's top court refers Triple Talaq petitions to Constitution bench

India&#39;s top court, the Supreme Court, has adjourned to February 8 the hearing in the Aircel-Maxis case.

The top court expressed its displeasure at the fact that Malaysian-based Maxis company owner T Ananda Krishnan, an accused in the case, and and Ralph Marshall, an officer of the company, were not present for the hearing despite summons. It warned Aircel that if they did not appear before it, the court would put a stay on the merger of Aircel with Reliance Communications and tell the federal government to auction Aircel and utlilise that money to pay bank loans.

Maxis currently holds over 99 per cent stake in Aircel according to the CAG report. 
 
The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar said the court that any person could not take a loan from the bank and flee the country. &quot;We know that even the government will not support anyone who flees the law. If the owner of Maxis does not appear before court, the Supreme Court knows how to deal with the matter. If Aircel shares are transferred to Reliance, then where will the Rs 20,000 crores of loans due to banks go. Will that money disappear in thin air. The court said it would put a stay on the transfer of shares from Aircel to Reliance and tell the federal government to auction Aircel. In case any company would bid higher than Reliance, then the shares would be given to that company and the money utilised to pay the bank loans.&quot;

Malaysian tycoon Ananda Krishnan is currently a fugitive under Interpol and is resisting arrest in Malaysia.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court, in its last hearing on January 6, had barred Aircel from transferring the ownership of its 2G licenses, and had threatened to cancel the airwaves permits if Marshall and T Ananda Krishnan did not appear before it on February 3.

It had also restrained Maxis from earning any revenue from Aircel-Maxis&#39;s 65 million mobile phone connections, stating that it would not permit someone to benefit from the allotted spectrum unless he submitted to the process of the law.

A Delhi court had yesterday (February 2) ruled that former communications minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran would not undergo trial for corruption in the Aircel-Maxis deal.

They have been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of helping Malaysian communications service provider Maxis acquire telecom Aircel in exchange for a kickback of approximately Rs 700 crores. Former owner of Aircel, C Sivasankaran, had accused Dayanidhi Maran of withholding crucial permissions and clearances as a pressure tactic till he sold his company to Maxis in 2006.

Subramanian Swamy&#39;s case against Chidambaram 
 
The main plaintiff -- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, was to present his case of an alleged illegality committed by then finance minister P Chidambaram in providing Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to the Rs 3,500 crore deal in 2006. The BJP leader has also accused Maran of being a co-conspirator in the case.

Earlier in January, the top court had given an assurance that it would look into the question of alleged irregularity committed by Chidambaram.

Yesterday&#39;s ruling acquiting the Maran brothers was downplayed by Subramanian Swamy who said that the main case was the &quot;illegal&quot; FIPB clearance given to the firm which would be heard by the top court today.

&quot;They were charged with a petty crime of having arm-twisting Sivasankaran, on that they have been led free. But the main case of illegal FIPB clearance given by Chidambaram, which is my case coming up before the Supreme Court tomorrow, there Mr Maran is a co-conspirator. That case is the main case. Now let the CBI appeal against this order and tag it along with my case and then we will get some results,&quot; Swamy had told ANI earlier.

In 2014, the CBI had filed charges against the Maran brothers, Malaysian tycoon T Ananda Krishnan, his aide Ralph Marshall, Sun TV, UK&#39;s Astro All Asia Networks, &nbsp;Malaysia&#39;s South Asia Entertainment Holdings and Maxis Communications, and then additional secretary (Telecom) J S Sarma who died during the course of the probe.

They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The special CBI court had also discharged the Maran brothers, Kalanithi&#39;s wife Kavery Kalanithi, South Asia FM Managing Director K Shanmugam and two companies -- SAFL and Sun Direct TV in two different cases due to lack of evidence.

Enforcement Directorate moves top court against special court&#39;s order

Inda&#39;s main economic law enforcement agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), also moved the top court against the special court&#39;s order which discharged the Maran brothers and other accused of corruption in the Aircel-Maxis case.&nbsp;

The ED also urged the Supreme Court not to&nbsp;release the properties attached in the case. A &nbsp;bench headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar and comprising Justice NV Ramanna and DY Chandrachud had earlier said they would hear the matter at 2 pm today. 
 
(WION with inputs from ANI)

"If the owner of Maxis does not appear before court, will ask federal government to auction Aircel," the top court warned

India's top court, the Supreme Court, has adjourned to February 8 the hearing in the Aircel-Maxis case. The top court expressed its displeasure at the fact that Malaysian-based Maxis company owner T Ananda Krishnan, an accused in the case, and and Ralph Marshall, an officer of the company, were not present for the hearing despite summons. It warned Aircel that if they did not appear before it, the court would put a stay on the merger of Aircel with Reliance Communications and tell the federal government to auction Aircel and utlilise that money to pay bank loans. Maxis currently holds over 99 per cent stake in Aircel according to the CAG report. The Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar said the court that any person could not take a loan from the bank and flee the country. "We know that even the government will not support anyone who flees the law. If the owner of Maxis does not appear before court, the Supreme Court knows how to deal with the matter. If Aircel shares are transferred to Reliance, then where will the Rs 20,000 crores of loans due to banks go. Will that money disappear in thin air. The court said it would put a stay on the transfer of shares from Aircel to Reliance and tell the federal government to auction Aircel. In case any company would bid higher than Reliance, then the shares would be given to that company and the money utilised to pay the bank loans." Malaysian tycoon Ananda Krishnan is currently a fugitive under Interpol and is resisting arrest in Malaysia. The Supreme Court, in its last hearing on January 6, had barred Aircel from transferring the ownership of its 2G licenses, and had threatened to cancel the airwaves permits if Marshall and T Ananda Krishnan did not appear before it on February 3. It had also restrained Maxis from earning any revenue from Aircel-Maxis's 65 million mobile phone connections, stating that it would not permit someone to benefit from the allotted spectrum unless he submitted to the process of the law. A Delhi court had yesterday (February 2) ruled that former communications minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran would not undergo trial for corruption in the Aircel-Maxis deal. They have been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of helping Malaysian communications service provider Maxis acquire telecom Aircel in exchange for a kickback of approximately Rs 700 crores. Former owner of Aircel, C Sivasankaran, had accused Dayanidhi Maran of withholding crucial permissions and clearances as a pressure tactic till he sold his company to Maxis in 2006. Subramanian Swamy's case against Chidambaram The main plaintiff -- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, was to present his case of an alleged illegality committed by then finance minister P Chidambaram in providing Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to the Rs 3,500 crore deal in 2006. The BJP leader has also accused Maran of being a co-conspirator in the case. Earlier in January, the top court had given an assurance that it would look into the question of alleged irregularity committed by Chidambaram. Yesterday's ruling acquiting the Maran brothers was downplayed by Subramanian Swamy who said that the main case was the "illegal" FIPB clearance given to the firm which would be heard by the top court today. "They were charged with a petty crime of having arm-twisting Sivasankaran, on that they have been led free. But the main case of illegal FIPB clearance given by Chidambaram, which is my case coming up before the Supreme Court tomorrow, there Mr Maran is a co-conspirator. That case is the main case. Now let the CBI appeal against this order and tag it along with my case and then we will get some results," Swamy had told ANI earlier. In 2014, the CBI had filed charges against the Maran brothers, Malaysian tycoon T Ananda Krishnan, his aide Ralph Marshall, Sun TV, UK's Astro All Asia Networks, Malaysia's South Asia Entertainment Holdings and Maxis Communications, and then additional secretary (Telecom) J S Sarma who died during the course of the probe. They were chargesheeted for alleged offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The special CBI court had also discharged the Maran brothers, Kalanithi's wife Kavery Kalanithi, South Asia FM Managing Director K Shanmugam and two companies -- SAFL and Sun Direct TV in two different cases due to lack of evidence. Enforcement Directorate moves top court against special court's order Inda's main economic law enforcement agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), also moved the top court against the special court's order which discharged the Maran brothers and other accused of corruption in the Aircel-Maxis case. The ED also urged the Supreme Court not to release the properties attached in the case. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar and comprising Justice NV Ramanna and DY Chandrachud had earlier said they would hear the matter at 2 pm today. (WION with inputs from ANI)

India's top court adjourns hearing in Aircel-Maxis case, continues stay on merger with Reliance

India&#39;s top court on Monday directed the federal government to apprise it of the steps which can be taken to verify the identity of mobile users in the country. 
 
The court was considering the PIL filed by an NGO that proper verification was required as mobile phones were now being used for banking as well.

&quot;You should tell us as to what mechanism you are going to have to scrutinise the identity of mobile users,&quot; the bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Lok Niti Foundation which had sought&nbsp;direction from the government to put in place a proper mechanism to check the authenticity of information provided by mobile users.

The petition also stated verification of mobile phone subscribers was necessary to avoid fake identities which caused a grave risk to national security.

&quot;Unverified SIM cards pose a serious threat to the country&#39;s security as these are routinely used in criminal and terrorist activities,&quot; the petition said.

The top court has asked the government to apprise it of the steps taken to verify identity of around 50 million mobile users in the next two weeks. 
 
Telecom regulator suggests verification through Aadhaar-based e-KYC

Telecom regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), on Monday suggested the verification of existing mobile subscribers through the Aadhaar based e-Know Your Customer (eKYC).

In its recommendation to the telecom department, &nbsp;TRAI suggested free talk-time or data could be offered by operators as incentives to facilitate the process.&nbsp;The Telecom regulator said citing the police, that&nbsp;hundreds of SIM cards have been obtained on fake documents, posing a risk to the country&#39;s security.

The biometrically-linked Aadhar card is a unique identification card issued by the government which contains an individual&#39;s bank and income tax details. This enables the government to effectively track a person&#39;s&nbsp;financial history. &nbsp;Over 92 per cent of India&#39;s population -&nbsp;over 1 billion people -&nbsp;have Aadhar cards. 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court considered a plea which said proper verification was required as mobile phones are now being used for banking as well

India's top court on Monday directed the federal government to apprise it of the steps which can be taken to verify the identity of mobile users in the country. The court was considering the PIL filed by an NGO that proper verification was required as mobile phones were now being used for banking as well. "You should tell us as to what mechanism you are going to have to scrutinise the identity of mobile users," the bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Lok Niti Foundation which had sought direction from the government to put in place a proper mechanism to check the authenticity of information provided by mobile users. The petition also stated verification of mobile phone subscribers was necessary to avoid fake identities which caused a grave risk to national security. "Unverified SIM cards pose a serious threat to the country's security as these are routinely used in criminal and terrorist activities," the petition said. The top court has asked the government to apprise it of the steps taken to verify identity of around 50 million mobile users in the next two weeks. Telecom regulator suggests verification through Aadhaar-based e-KYC Telecom regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), on Monday suggested the verification of existing mobile subscribers through the Aadhaar based e-Know Your Customer (eKYC). In its recommendation to the telecom department, TRAI suggested free talk-time or data could be offered by operators as incentives to facilitate the process. The Telecom regulator said citing the police, that hundreds of SIM cards have been obtained on fake documents, posing a risk to the country's security. The biometrically-linked Aadhar card is a unique identification card issued by the government which contains an individual's bank and income tax details. This enables the government to effectively track a person's financial history. Over 92 per cent of India's population - over 1 billion people - have Aadhar cards. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Scrutinise identity of mobile users: India's top court to govt

India&#39;s top court, the&nbsp;Supreme Court, said on Friday it would hear a plea at the start of next week that seeks to postpone the government&#39;s annual budget, due to be delivered on February 1, until after five forthcoming state elections are held.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calls for the delay over concerns that Prime Minister Narendra Modi&#39;s government could seek to influence the outcome of the polls with populist spending promises.

Election rules in the world&#39;s largest democracy do not allow governments to offer such giveaways. Modi&#39;s government announced last autumn that it would deliver its budget a month earlier than usual, in a move to pre-empt the polls.

Modi&#39;s Bharatiya Janata Party wants to do well in Uttar Pradesh, a battleground state with a population of more than 200 million that, were it a country, would be holding the biggest election in the world this year.

&quot;The budget should be presented in April. The government should not release it in February, as the state elections are starting soon,&quot; said lawyer ML Sharma, who filed the deferment plea earlier this month.

Sharma said the central government should be restrained from declaring any relief for the poll-bound states in the budget until voting is over, as they would violate the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) that governs India&#39;s elections.

Uttar Pradesh will vote in seven phases starting on February 11 with Modi&#39;s party, which swept the state in the 2014 general election, seeking to oust the ruling Samajwadi Party in a contest vital to his chances of winning a second term in 2019.

The election round will kick off in Punjab and Goa on February 4, followed by Uttarakhand and Manipur. Results in all five elections will be announced in mid-March.

A Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, will begin hearing the case on Monday, but it is not clear how quickly it will deliver a ruling. The finance ministry started printing the budget documents on Thursday.

(Reuters)

The petition said the ruling government could sway votes by introducing sops in the budget to influence upcoming regional polls

India's top court, the Supreme Court, said on Friday it would hear a plea at the start of next week that seeks to postpone the government's annual budget, due to be delivered on February 1, until after five forthcoming state elections are held. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calls for the delay over concerns that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government could seek to influence the outcome of the polls with populist spending promises. Election rules in the world's largest democracy do not allow governments to offer such giveaways. Modi's government announced last autumn that it would deliver its budget a month earlier than usual, in a move to pre-empt the polls. Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party wants to do well in Uttar Pradesh, a battleground state with a population of more than 200 million that, were it a country, would be holding the biggest election in the world this year. "The budget should be presented in April. The government should not release it in February, as the state elections are starting soon," said lawyer ML Sharma, who filed the deferment plea earlier this month. Sharma said the central government should be restrained from declaring any relief for the poll-bound states in the budget until voting is over, as they would violate the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) that governs India's elections. Uttar Pradesh will vote in seven phases starting on February 11 with Modi's party, which swept the state in the 2014 general election, seeking to oust the ruling Samajwadi Party in a contest vital to his chances of winning a second term in 2019. The election round will kick off in Punjab and Goa on February 4, followed by Uttarakhand and Manipur. Results in all five elections will be announced in mid-March. A Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, will begin hearing the case on Monday, but it is not clear how quickly it will deliver a ruling. The finance ministry started printing the budget documents on Thursday. (Reuters)

India's top court to hear plea to defer annual budget till state polls are over

The agitation against Jallikattu in south Indian state, Tamil Nadu, shows no signs of abating with many business establishments, schools and colleges in capital city Chennai declaring they will be shut tomorrow, media outlets reported. Music maestro AR Rahman, who hails from Tamil Nadu, also declared on Twitter that he would fast on Friday to express his solidarity with the pro-Jallikattu protesters.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I&#39;m fasting tomorrow to support the spirit of 
Tamilnadu!
&mdash; A.R.Rahman (@arrahman) <a href="https://twitter.com/arrahman/status/822044036823326720">January 19, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Hundred thousands of demonstrators protested across the state on Thursday against the Supreme Court&#39;s earlier order banning Jallikattu. State chief minister O Panneerselvam&#39;s assurances that his government had the support of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his federal government did not seem to cut any ice with them.

The Indian government&#39;s top legal adviser, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, defended the government&#39;s stand allowing use of bulls in events like Jallikattu in the top court, stating that the federal government had no power to enact a law on the subject.

Rohatgi said the Tamil Nadu government had the power to enact a law on Jallikattu since sports as a subject fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state government. He, however, asserted that animals should not be harmed or cruelly treated during such events.

Panneerselvam met PM Modi earlier in the day and pressed him for immediate steps for promulgation of an ordinance. He was told that the matter was sub judice, but the government would support any step taken by the state government, news agency, PTI, reported.

Forty-nine legislators of the AIADMK party that is in power in Tamil Nadu will meet Indian interior minister Rajnath Singh tomorrow, seeking his government&#39;s help to allow Jallikattu, PTI reported.

&quot;We will seek the central government&#39;s help to conduct jallikattu, this is an emotional issue for our people,&quot; an AIADMK leader told PTI.

 
Wave of protests across Tamil Nadu

Businesses, theatres, schools and transporters have declared a day-long strike tomorrow supporting the &nbsp;demand for immediate permission to allow the bull-taming sport.

Five-time World Chess Champion Vishwanathan Anand extended his support to holding the bull taming sport, saying it was a cultural symbol.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/jallikattu?src=hash">#jallikattu</a> is a cultural symbol . Respect it. Im all for animal rights but here that is not the point.tradition &amp; livelihood are .
&mdash; Viswanathan Anand (@vishy64theking) <a href="https://twitter.com/vishy64theking/status/821930810509033472">January 19, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&quot;Jallikatu bigger than Holi or Diwali in Tamil Nadu,&quot; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder Art of Living told WION.

<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vVd_PEiuD-I" width="770"></iframe></center>

 
&nbsp;

At the epicentre of the agitation, Chennai&#39;s Marina Beach, protesters staged protests by way of forming human chains, taking out motorcycle rallies, playing folk music, dancing, singing, and holding skits.

They rejected the statements of PM Modi and O Panneerselvam saying these were known excuses and disappointing, PTI reported.

In Madurai, where the sport has been held for centuries, agitators stopped trains pressing for their demand.

Protests continued to be held in other parts of the state as well, including Salem, Coimbatore, Karur, Tiruchirappalli and Erode, and neighbouring union territory, Puducherry.

Protests to continue tomorrow

The Madras High Courts Advocates Association has announced boycott of courts tomorrow.

The Tamil Nadu Traders&#39; Federation and unions of auto-rickshaw and taxis operators and cinema houses have announced a shutdown tomorrow.

Leader of the opposition in the state assembly, M K Stalin, urged the state government to call an all-party meeting immediately and convene a session of the Assembly to take steps to ensure Jallikattu.

Opposition party DMK has also called for rail blockade across the state tomorrow.&nbsp;

Jallikattu is a centuries-old sport that is played among certain land-owning communities of Tamil Nadu, but was banned by India&#39;s highest court last year after animal advocacy group PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) said the sport of bull-taming is cruel as the animals are drugged and are then subdued by young men with their bare hands.

The restriction on playing Jallikattu sparked statewide demonstrations in the run-up to Pongal (January 14), a harvest festival, during which the sport is played.

Top court refuses to hear plea

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a plea which sought that India&#39;s highest court should hear the matter on the Jalikattu row pertaining to public protest at Marina beach. The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to approach the Madras High Court, India&#39;s news agency ANI reported, even as Tamil Nadu chief minister Panneerselvam met PM Modi in Delhi today to push for an ordinance on the bull-taming sport. 
 
Watch:

<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjRzjSvXQOM" width="770"></iframe></center>

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The pro-Jallikattu protesters got a shot in the arm with prominent Tamil personalities supporting them

The agitation against Jallikattu in south Indian state, Tamil Nadu, shows no signs of abating with many business establishments, schools and colleges in capital city Chennai declaring they will be shut tomorrow, media outlets reported. Music maestro AR Rahman, who hails from Tamil Nadu, also declared on Twitter that he would fast on Friday to express his solidarity with the pro-Jallikattu protesters. I'm fasting tomorrow to support the spirit of Tamilnadu! — A.R.Rahman (@arrahman) January 19, 2017 × Hundred thousands of demonstrators protested across the state on Thursday against the Supreme Court's earlier order banning Jallikattu. State chief minister O Panneerselvam's assurances that his government had the support of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his federal government did not seem to cut any ice with them. The Indian government's top legal adviser, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, defended the government's stand allowing use of bulls in events like Jallikattu in the top court, stating that the federal government had no power to enact a law on the subject. Rohatgi said the Tamil Nadu government had the power to enact a law on Jallikattu since sports as a subject fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state government. He, however, asserted that animals should not be harmed or cruelly treated during such events. Panneerselvam met PM Modi earlier in the day and pressed him for immediate steps for promulgation of an ordinance. He was told that the matter was sub judice, but the government would support any step taken by the state government, news agency, PTI, reported. Forty-nine legislators of the AIADMK party that is in power in Tamil Nadu will meet Indian interior minister Rajnath Singh tomorrow, seeking his government's help to allow Jallikattu, PTI reported. "We will seek the central government's help to conduct jallikattu, this is an emotional issue for our people," an AIADMK leader told PTI. Wave of protests across Tamil Nadu Businesses, theatres, schools and transporters have declared a day-long strike tomorrow supporting the demand for immediate permission to allow the bull-taming sport. Five-time World Chess Champion Vishwanathan Anand extended his support to holding the bull taming sport, saying it was a cultural symbol. #jallikattu is a cultural symbol . Respect it. Im all for animal rights but here that is not the point.tradition & livelihood are . — Viswanathan Anand (@vishy64theking) January 19, 2017 × "Jallikatu bigger than Holi or Diwali in Tamil Nadu," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder Art of Living told WION. At the epicentre of the agitation, Chennai's Marina Beach, protesters staged protests by way of forming human chains, taking out motorcycle rallies, playing folk music, dancing, singing, and holding skits. They rejected the statements of PM Modi and O Panneerselvam saying these were known excuses and disappointing, PTI reported. In Madurai, where the sport has been held for centuries, agitators stopped trains pressing for their demand. Protests continued to be held in other parts of the state as well, including Salem, Coimbatore, Karur, Tiruchirappalli and Erode, and neighbouring union territory, Puducherry. Protests to continue tomorrow The Madras High Courts Advocates Association has announced boycott of courts tomorrow. The Tamil Nadu Traders' Federation and unions of auto-rickshaw and taxis operators and cinema houses have announced a shutdown tomorrow. Leader of the opposition in the state assembly, M K Stalin, urged the state government to call an all-party meeting immediately and convene a session of the Assembly to take steps to ensure Jallikattu. Opposition party DMK has also called for rail blockade across the state tomorrow. Jallikattu is a centuries-old sport that is played among certain land-owning communities of Tamil Nadu, but was banned by India's highest court last year after animal advocacy group PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) said the sport of bull-taming is cruel as the animals are drugged and are then subdued by young men with their bare hands. The restriction on playing Jallikattu sparked statewide demonstrations in the run-up to Pongal (January 14), a harvest festival, during which the sport is played. Top court refuses to hear plea The Supreme Court has refused to hear a plea which sought that India's highest court should hear the matter on the Jalikattu row pertaining to public protest at Marina beach. The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to approach the Madras High Court, India's news agency ANI reported, even as Tamil Nadu chief minister Panneerselvam met PM Modi in Delhi today to push for an ordinance on the bull-taming sport. Watch: (WION with inputs from agencies)

Protests against bull-taming sport paralyse Tamil Nadu; Schools, colleges to shut in Chennai

The political play around Jallikattu, instead of pointing towards conflicting cultural values as assumed, points more towards a society which is increasingly becoming politically conservative aided and abetted by a political class which shows no commitment towards progressive law making. The political class, which should be responsible for progressive legislations, has become hostage to a conservative social component which neither respects reasoned judgements of the courts nor is supportive of progressive agenda pursued by minority interest groups. 
 
The reasons are many but the political class cannot abdicate its responsibility when it comes to cases like Jallikattu. Be it the Cauvery issue or Jallikattu, regional parties at state level have started to come together to challenge the order of the highest court of the land. The politicians, fearing the wrath of popular sentiment in both cases, allowed the public to take the law in its own hands to prove the point that courts have failed to gauge public sentiment. 
&nbsp; 
I wonder what would have happened if our founding fathers would have welted under popular sentiment when they decided to work on the Hindu Remarriage Act. It never happened and because of the commitment towards building an equal and progressive India, a lot of changes could be introduced in the Hindu code bills. Unfortunately, similar steps were not initiated for Muslims in India but it does point to the fact that taking unpopular decisions and persuading people to adopt them is also part of a politician&rsquo;s portfolio. 
&nbsp; 
Both Jallikattu and Cauvery also became an issue of identity instead of cruelty towards animals in the former and sharing of water in the latter case. The former also waded into the choppy waters of North vs South divide and cultural relativism. 
&nbsp; 
Both positions are misplaced. No tradition or cultural practice is eternal when it comes to human evolution and what is defined as core to a culture continues to shift and change through time. Jallikattu is neither a language (which too is not monolithic) nor central to the Tamil identity. It is a cultural practice confined to rural communities which through centuries have treated the bull sport as a cultural-business exercise around which several interest groups survived. To say that to ban Jallikattu is to impinge on Tamil identity is to argue that bursting of fire crackers is essential to the tradition of Diwali. In modern societies, the concept of cruelty and violence extends towards animals and does not restrict itself to humans. Even if one is to argue that violence is in-built into certain cultural practices, it does not make them divine or correct. The beauty of man lies in correction and compassion and not in continuation of a practice. 
&nbsp; 
Many would also argue that such practices are like initiation rituals proving primacy of culture over nature like in the case of bull fights in Spain. The former has been debated in the court and latter remains a political and social controversy where judicial verdict has not been pronounced. 
&nbsp; 
Even in the case of triple talaq, the government in its affidavit says that it is not an essential part or practice of religion. The reform is being resisted tooth and nail by vested groups. Similar is the case of BCCI where political parties cutting across political parties refused to reform the sporting body and the Supreme Court had to intervene in the matter. The BCCI President himself continued to stall the reforms till the end till the court read the riot act. 
&nbsp; 
All the above examples point to one thing, that despite being an old democracy with liberal laws (barring some like 377) the conservative political mood is on the rise whereby liberal opinion is treated as being disrespecting towards the idea of faith and identity. This was earlier reserved for certain sections of the political class which now is being extended towards judiciary at the peril of our federal structure. In Jallikattu, both DMK and ADMK not only pushed the central government to bring an ordinance but also defied the order of the court. Rather than taking a progressive position on society and culture, both the parties have chosen to fan identity-based ethnic sentiments. What is dangerous in this process is that progressive legislative agenda is slipping out of the hand of the politicians and falling into the domain of the courts. 
&nbsp; 
A classic example in this case is when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi went against the court order when it came to the Shah Bano judgement. A decision which should have come from the Parliament came as a judicial pronouncement but got annulled by the Parliament in end. It is imperative that the political brass should not use judgements to mobilise people on streets. It is not to say that the majesty of the courts will be compromised by challenging a judgement but once it has been pronounced then it has to be tackled judicially or else the very disregard of it would threaten the federal structure of the country which depends on balance of power between the executive, legislature and courts. 
&nbsp; 
India as an old and mature democracy must work on strengthening the federal structure within the rubric of the Constitution rather than fueling a sense of persecution between states or centre and state. If this is to continue then every decision would become open to a political contest. There are decisions which need to be contested and there are some which need to be rested and Jallikattu falls in latter case. 
 
(WION) 
&nbsp;

To say that to ban Jallikattu is to impinge on Tamil identity is to argue that bursting of fire crackers is essential to the tradition of Diwali

The political play around Jallikattu, instead of pointing towards conflicting cultural values as assumed, points more towards a society which is increasingly becoming politically conservative aided and abetted by a political class which shows no commitment towards progressive law making. The political class, which should be responsible for progressive legislations, has become hostage to a conservative social component which neither respects reasoned judgements of the courts nor is supportive of progressive agenda pursued by minority interest groups. The reasons are many but the political class cannot abdicate its responsibility when it comes to cases like Jallikattu. Be it the Cauvery issue or Jallikattu, regional parties at state level have started to come together to challenge the order of the highest court of the land. The politicians, fearing the wrath of popular sentiment in both cases, allowed the public to take the law in its own hands to prove the point that courts have failed to gauge public sentiment. I wonder what would have happened if our founding fathers would have welted under popular sentiment when they decided to work on the Hindu Remarriage Act. It never happened and because of the commitment towards building an equal and progressive India, a lot of changes could be introduced in the Hindu code bills. Unfortunately, similar steps were not initiated for Muslims in India but it does point to the fact that taking unpopular decisions and persuading people to adopt them is also part of a politician’s portfolio. Both Jallikattu and Cauvery also became an issue of identity instead of cruelty towards animals in the former and sharing of water in the latter case. The former also waded into the choppy waters of North vs South divide and cultural relativism. Both positions are misplaced. No tradition or cultural practice is eternal when it comes to human evolution and what is defined as core to a culture continues to shift and change through time. Jallikattu is neither a language (which too is not monolithic) nor central to the Tamil identity. It is a cultural practice confined to rural communities which through centuries have treated the bull sport as a cultural-business exercise around which several interest groups survived. To say that to ban Jallikattu is to impinge on Tamil identity is to argue that bursting of fire crackers is essential to the tradition of Diwali. In modern societies, the concept of cruelty and violence extends towards animals and does not restrict itself to humans. Even if one is to argue that violence is in-built into certain cultural practices, it does not make them divine or correct. The beauty of man lies in correction and compassion and not in continuation of a practice. Many would also argue that such practices are like initiation rituals proving primacy of culture over nature like in the case of bull fights in Spain. The former has been debated in the court and latter remains a political and social controversy where judicial verdict has not been pronounced. Even in the case of triple talaq, the government in its affidavit says that it is not an essential part or practice of religion. The reform is being resisted tooth and nail by vested groups. Similar is the case of BCCI where political parties cutting across political parties refused to reform the sporting body and the Supreme Court had to intervene in the matter. The BCCI President himself continued to stall the reforms till the end till the court read the riot act. All the above examples point to one thing, that despite being an old democracy with liberal laws (barring some like 377) the conservative political mood is on the rise whereby liberal opinion is treated as being disrespecting towards the idea of faith and identity. This was earlier reserved for certain sections of the political class which now is being extended towards judiciary at the peril of our federal structure. In Jallikattu, both DMK and ADMK not only pushed the central government to bring an ordinance but also defied the order of the court. Rather than taking a progressive position on society and culture, both the parties have chosen to fan identity-based ethnic sentiments. What is dangerous in this process is that progressive legislative agenda is slipping out of the hand of the politicians and falling into the domain of the courts. A classic example in this case is when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi went against the court order when it came to the Shah Bano judgement. A decision which should have come from the Parliament came as a judicial pronouncement but got annulled by the Parliament in end. It is imperative that the political brass should not use judgements to mobilise people on streets. It is not to say that the majesty of the courts will be compromised by challenging a judgement but once it has been pronounced then it has to be tackled judicially or else the very disregard of it would threaten the federal structure of the country which depends on balance of power between the executive, legislature and courts. India as an old and mature democracy must work on strengthening the federal structure within the rubric of the Constitution rather than fueling a sense of persecution between states or centre and state. If this is to continue then every decision would become open to a political contest. There are decisions which need to be contested and there are some which need to be rested and Jallikattu falls in latter case. (WION)

Regional pride, sport and state of the nation

The Election Commission of India (EC) warned political parties that it will take &quot;stern action&quot; if the model code of conduct or poll laws are violated by them in the five poll-bound states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa and Manipur.

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) came into effect just after the announcement of the polls on January 4.

The Election Commission said that peace and tranquillity during the poll&nbsp;process is &quot;absolutely essential for free and peaceful conduct of elections in the country&quot;.

The poll body cited a recent judgement of the Supreme Court, India&#39;s top court, that barred political parties from using religion, caste, language and race to appeal for votes during elections.&nbsp;

&quot;As you are kindly aware the model code of conduct and various provisions of IPC, inter alia, provide that political parties and their leaders should desist from making statements to the effect of creating disharmony between different sections of society on the basis of religion as the same disturb peace and tranquillity of the society which is absolutely essential for free and peaceful conduct of elections,&quot; it said.

The election body&#39;s letter to the national and state parties added: &quot;The Commission will not remain a silent spectator if the provisions of law or MCC are violated and no one can do it with impunity. The Commission will take stern actions for any violation under all powers available.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
EC says it will take &quot;stern action&quot; under all the powers available for any violation of the model code of conduct <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews">@WIONews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONbreaking">@WIONbreaking</a>
&mdash; raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) <a href="https://twitter.com/raghvendra_rao/status/818816536445992963">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
EC reminds pol parties of recent SC judgement that said religion can&#39;t be used to garner votes during polls <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews">@WIONews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONbreaking">@WIONbreaking</a>
&mdash; raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) <a href="https://twitter.com/raghvendra_rao/status/818816829149691904">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Statements which disturb peace, tranquility of society will be sternly dealt with, EC tells political parties <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews">@WIONews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONbreaking">@WIONbreaking</a>
&mdash; raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) <a href="https://twitter.com/raghvendra_rao/status/818817075728650240">January 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Election Commission&nbsp;has also said that the photographs of political leaders on all hoardings and advertisements in the five poll-bound states should&nbsp;be removed or covered as the Model Code of Conduct is in place.&nbsp;

The pictures on hoardings that project the achievements of any political functionary or political party should be either covered or removed, the Election Commission said.

&quot;...all those hoardings, advertisements which seek or purport to project the achievements of any living political functionary or political party and which carry their photos or name or party symbol should be removed forthwith,&quot; the election body said.

The poll panel said that such images or hoardings &quot;undoubtedly amount to their (individual/party) election campaign at public cost&quot;.

&quot;...No political party or functionary can use public resources and incur or authorise expenditure from public exchequer to eulogise himself or itself or enhance his/its own or any political leader&#39;s image,&quot; it said.

The commission gave these fresh directions by reiterating its instructions issued on December 12, 2004 after the chief electoral officer of Goa raised the issue after the election schedule was announced on January 4.

It, however, made it clear that hoardings put up by the government which convey messages on family planning or social welfare schemes &quot;may be allowed to be displayed&quot;.

(With inputs from the PTI) 
&nbsp;

The election body also ordered that pictures of political leaders on hoardings be removed as the Model Code of Conduct is in place

The Election Commission of India (EC) warned political parties that it will take "stern action" if the model code of conduct or poll laws are violated by them in the five poll-bound states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa and Manipur. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) came into effect just after the announcement of the polls on January 4. The Election Commission said that peace and tranquillity during the poll process is "absolutely essential for free and peaceful conduct of elections in the country". The poll body cited a recent judgement of the Supreme Court, India's top court, that barred political parties from using religion, caste, language and race to appeal for votes during elections. "As you are kindly aware the model code of conduct and various provisions of IPC, inter alia, provide that political parties and their leaders should desist from making statements to the effect of creating disharmony between different sections of society on the basis of religion as the same disturb peace and tranquillity of the society which is absolutely essential for free and peaceful conduct of elections," it said. The election body's letter to the national and state parties added: "The Commission will not remain a silent spectator if the provisions of law or MCC are violated and no one can do it with impunity. The Commission will take stern actions for any violation under all powers available." EC says it will take "stern action" under all the powers available for any violation of the model code of conduct @WIONews @WIONbreaking — raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) January 10, 2017 × EC reminds pol parties of recent SC judgement that said religion can't be used to garner votes during polls @WIONews @WIONbreaking — raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) January 10, 2017 × Statements which disturb peace, tranquility of society will be sternly dealt with, EC tells political parties @WIONews @WIONbreaking — raghvendra_rao (@raghvendra_rao) January 10, 2017 × The Election Commission has also said that the photographs of political leaders on all hoardings and advertisements in the five poll-bound states should be removed or covered as the Model Code of Conduct is in place. The pictures on hoardings that project the achievements of any political functionary or political party should be either covered or removed, the Election Commission said. "...all those hoardings, advertisements which seek or purport to project the achievements of any living political functionary or political party and which carry their photos or name or party symbol should be removed forthwith," the election body said. The poll panel said that such images or hoardings "undoubtedly amount to their (individual/party) election campaign at public cost". "...No political party or functionary can use public resources and incur or authorise expenditure from public exchequer to eulogise himself or itself or enhance his/its own or any political leader's image," it said. The commission gave these fresh directions by reiterating its instructions issued on December 12, 2004 after the chief electoral officer of Goa raised the issue after the election schedule was announced on January 4. It, however, made it clear that hoardings put up by the government which convey messages on family planning or social welfare schemes "may be allowed to be displayed". (With inputs from the PTI)

India Assembly polls: Election Commission warns political parties of 'stern action' if poll code violated

The Supreme Court of India, India&#39;s top court, today pulled up the Centre for not putting in place a regulatory mechanism to monitor the funds and their utilisation by NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations.

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar directed the Rural Development Secretary and Director of Council for Advancement of People&#39;s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), which comes under Rural Development Ministry, to be present before it this afternoon with all relevant records.

The bench, also comprising Justice N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud, asked the officials to inform it whether Comptroller and Auditor General&nbsp;(CAG) audit of NGOs post 2009 was carried out or not.

The bench also asked whether General Financial Rules 2005 made by Ministry of Finance were complied with or not.

The court, was hearing a petition filed by advocate M L Sharma, seeking monitoring of funds given to NGOs and their utilisation by them.

(PTI)

The bench headed by the Chief Justice asked the officials to inform it whether the CAG audit of NGOs after 2009 was carried out or not.

The Supreme Court of India, India's top court, today pulled up the Centre for not putting in place a regulatory mechanism to monitor the funds and their utilisation by NGOs, societies and voluntary organisations. A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar directed the Rural Development Secretary and Director of Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), which comes under Rural Development Ministry, to be present before it this afternoon with all relevant records. The bench, also comprising Justice N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud, asked the officials to inform it whether Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit of NGOs post 2009 was carried out or not. The bench also asked whether General Financial Rules 2005 made by Ministry of Finance were complied with or not. The court, was hearing a petition filed by advocate M L Sharma, seeking monitoring of funds given to NGOs and their utilisation by them. (PTI)

India's top court pulls up federal govt for lack of regulatory mechanism to monitor NGO funds

The Supreme Court today asked the government why banks were not able to provide money to customers despite fixing a&nbsp;withdrawal limit. It asked the government whether there could be assured minimum withdrawal from banks.

&quot;Can we say that this will be the minimum assured weekly withdrawal amount that a person can get from the bank,&quot; the bench asked. It fixed the matter for further hearing on December 14.

The bench headed by chief justice TS Thakur also asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to apprise it about the federal government&#39;s stand on barring district cooperative banks from accepting demonetised currency notes. It also asked the government whether district cooperative banks could be allowed to accept deposits with certain conditions.

On November 24, the government filed an affidavit in the apex court on demonetisation, stating that the &quot;bold move&quot; would eradicate black money and slush funds which had created a &quot;parallel economy&quot; since independence, hitting the poor and the middle class.

The Supreme Court had agreed to hear pleas of 14 cooperative banks of Kerala on November 29, seeking its nod to transact business like other banks seeking demonetisation of any currency note higher than Rs 100 denomination.&nbsp;

On December 2, the top court had asked the government to spell out the measures taken to ease the inconvenience and suffering of people in rural areas because of demonetisation.&nbsp;

The attorney general had said the government was aware of the situation in cooperative banks which lacked proper infrastructure and mechanism as compared to scheduled banks.

While hearing a batch of pleas challenging various aspects of demonetisation, the court had said that all parties should sit together and prepare a list of categories of cases which could be referred to high courts and those that could be heard by the top court.

Rohatgi also asked the court to put a stay on various demonetisation-related cases in high courts.

The bench said that it would take up this issue on next date of hearing.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court of India also asked the federal government whether cooperative banks can be allowed to accept old currency

The Supreme Court today asked the government why banks were not able to provide money to customers despite fixing a withdrawal limit. It asked the government whether there could be assured minimum withdrawal from banks. "Can we say that this will be the minimum assured weekly withdrawal amount that a person can get from the bank," the bench asked. It fixed the matter for further hearing on December 14. The bench headed by chief justice TS Thakur also asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to apprise it about the federal government's stand on barring district cooperative banks from accepting demonetised currency notes. It also asked the government whether district cooperative banks could be allowed to accept deposits with certain conditions. On November 24, the government filed an affidavit in the apex court on demonetisation, stating that the "bold move" would eradicate black money and slush funds which had created a "parallel economy" since independence, hitting the poor and the middle class. The Supreme Court had agreed to hear pleas of 14 cooperative banks of Kerala on November 29, seeking its nod to transact business like other banks seeking demonetisation of any currency note higher than Rs 100 denomination. On December 2, the top court had asked the government to spell out the measures taken to ease the inconvenience and suffering of people in rural areas because of demonetisation. The attorney general had said the government was aware of the situation in cooperative banks which lacked proper infrastructure and mechanism as compared to scheduled banks. While hearing a batch of pleas challenging various aspects of demonetisation, the court had said that all parties should sit together and prepare a list of categories of cases which could be referred to high courts and those that could be heard by the top court. Rohatgi also asked the court to put a stay on various demonetisation-related cases in high courts. The bench said that it would take up this issue on next date of hearing. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Demonetisation: Top court questions government on cash crunch in banks

In a special hearing in the infamous December 16 Delhi gangrape-cum-murder case, the Supreme Court of India today saw the Amicus Curiae and senior advocate Sanjay Hegde contend that the conviction of the accused was based on wrong assumptions.&nbsp;

Hegde, who was appointed to assist the court, said the police had failed to show that there was a &quot;conspirational relationship&quot; among the accused.&nbsp;

&quot;A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy,&quot; he argued.

Hegde submitted that the prosecution argument lacked evidence showing that the accused had &quot;foreseen the offence of murder&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;The prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons.&quot;&nbsp;

The apex court had appointed senior advocates Hegde and Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.

While Ramachandran will assist the court in the appeals of convicts Mukesh and Pawan, Hegde will assist in appeals of other two convicts, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Kumar Singh.

The 23-year-old paramedic, Jyoti Singh Pandey, was brutally assaulted and gangraped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29.

(WION with inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

Amicus curiae Hegde said the prosecution argument lacked evidence that the accused had 'foreseen' the plan to murder

In a special hearing in the infamous December 16 Delhi gangrape-cum-murder case, the Supreme Court of India today saw the Amicus Curiae and senior advocate Sanjay Hegde contend that the conviction of the accused was based on wrong assumptions. Hegde, who was appointed to assist the court, said the police had failed to show that there was a "conspirational relationship" among the accused. "A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy," he argued. Hegde submitted that the prosecution argument lacked evidence showing that the accused had "foreseen the offence of murder". "The prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons." The apex court had appointed senior advocates Hegde and Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter. While Ramachandran will assist the court in the appeals of convicts Mukesh and Pawan, Hegde will assist in appeals of other two convicts, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Kumar Singh. The 23-year-old paramedic, Jyoti Singh Pandey, was brutally assaulted and gangraped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Delhi gangrape case:  No murder conspiracy, says Supreme Court adviser

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said it is not inclined to entertain BJP spokesperson Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay's plea

The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a plea by a BJP leader and lawyer seeking to play the Indian national anthem in all courts before the start of proceedings, news agency Press Trust of India reports. The plea was filed by BJP spokesperson Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay. "Whether right or wrong, our order should not be overstretched. Bar (referring to Upadhyay) should show some retrain," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said. This comes two days after the apex court ordered all film theatres in the country to play the national anthem before screenings. Earlier in the morning, Upadhyay mentioned the plea before the bench. The bench then asked the Attorney General for the Centre’s response to the plea but refused to entertain it after he submitted that the petitioner should file a proper application. In its November 30 order, the apex court had said that "love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one a sense committed patriotism and nationalism." (WION with inputs from PTI)

National anthem in courts? India's Supreme Court refuses to hear plea

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday passed an interim order making it mandatory for all cinema halls to play the national anthem.&nbsp;

In its order, the court stated that it is compulsory for all those in the movie hall to stand up while the national anthem is being played as a mark of respect.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation on the basis of a petition filed by Shyam Narayan Chouksey, who runs an NGO in Bhopal. 
&nbsp; 
The judges said, &quot;When the national anthem is played it is imperative for everyone to show honor and respect. It would instill a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism.&quot;

&quot;The time has come that people must feel and show respect to the national anthem, the symbol of constitutional patriotism.&quot;

The judgement had a mixed response on social media.&nbsp;

While some claimed it would strengthen the national integrity of the country, others were of the view that it was a violation of their fundamental right.&nbsp;

It has caused equal confusion among constitutional experts who are trying to analyse the judgement in the light of the Indian constitution.&nbsp;

Earlier last year, Madras high court had said that people are not bound to stand for the anthem in cinema halls.

Commenting on the order, Anup Surendranath, a constitutional expert and former registrar at the Supreme Court of India said, &quot;I am really surprised to have come across that it is included in the interim order, which makes it a law under article 141 of the Indian constitution to be implemented within 10 days. The judgement contradicts earlier case laws where courts have stated that it is not compulsory for anyone to stand up for the national anthem.&quot;

A prominent leader from Janata Dal (United), refusing to come on record, said the judgement would further help push the right wing propaganda of causing jingoism in the name of nationalism in the country.

&quot;No one should have a problem with the national anthem being played or people standing for them, but what is important is to keep in view that such a judgement would give legitimacy to right wing goons who have beaten up handicapped for not standing for national anthem in cinema halls,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

It is pertinent to mention that in the recent past several incidents have occurred, where individuals have been beaten up for not standing up for the national anthem. Recently a differently abled writer and an activist was thrashed in a cinema hall in Goa for not standing for the national anthem.&nbsp;

Some of the people WION spoke to said that it will cause chaos in situations of emergency inside the theater.&nbsp;

Rahul, a young student at Delhi University said, &quot;I do not have any problems in standing for national anthem but it seems that the court has not considered the fact that in emergency situations, it will end up causing chaos and even disaster whith gates of the cinema halls being closed. Otherwise, I dont think there is any reason for the youth of the country to differ with the judgement.&quot;

However, political scientists like Abhay Kumar Dubey of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) believe that rather than forcing people and cinema halls to play and stand for national anthem, it is important that laws meant for protecting the dignity of national flag and anthem be implemented properly.&nbsp;

&quot;In my opinions these issues are not of universal value, if you look at various democracies, you will find that it terms of law, democracies are at variance, in this particular aspect, the presiding deity should be liberalism rather than Nation-list outlook. I think what is important is that laws be implemented properly which calls for punishing people insulting the national anthem or the national flag.&quot;

Government in the meanwhile has responded positively to the order and has assured the court that all measures will be taken to implement the order within 10 days.&nbsp;

(WION)

 
&nbsp;

Some claim it will strengthen national integrity, others are of the view that it is a violation of their fundamental right

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday passed an interim order making it mandatory for all cinema halls to play the national anthem. In its order, the court stated that it is compulsory for all those in the movie hall to stand up while the national anthem is being played as a mark of respect. The court was hearing a public interest litigation on the basis of a petition filed by Shyam Narayan Chouksey, who runs an NGO in Bhopal. The judges said, "When the national anthem is played it is imperative for everyone to show honor and respect. It would instill a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism." "The time has come that people must feel and show respect to the national anthem, the symbol of constitutional patriotism." The judgement had a mixed response on social media. While some claimed it would strengthen the national integrity of the country, others were of the view that it was a violation of their fundamental right. It has caused equal confusion among constitutional experts who are trying to analyse the judgement in the light of the Indian constitution. Earlier last year, Madras high court had said that people are not bound to stand for the anthem in cinema halls. Commenting on the order, Anup Surendranath, a constitutional expert and former registrar at the Supreme Court of India said, "I am really surprised to have come across that it is included in the interim order, which makes it a law under article 141 of the Indian constitution to be implemented within 10 days. The judgement contradicts earlier case laws where courts have stated that it is not compulsory for anyone to stand up for the national anthem." A prominent leader from Janata Dal (United), refusing to come on record, said the judgement would further help push the right wing propaganda of causing jingoism in the name of nationalism in the country. "No one should have a problem with the national anthem being played or people standing for them, but what is important is to keep in view that such a judgement would give legitimacy to right wing goons who have beaten up handicapped for not standing for national anthem in cinema halls," he said. It is pertinent to mention that in the recent past several incidents have occurred, where individuals have been beaten up for not standing up for the national anthem. Recently a differently abled writer and an activist was thrashed in a cinema hall in Goa for not standing for the national anthem. Some of the people WION spoke to said that it will cause chaos in situations of emergency inside the theater. Rahul, a young student at Delhi University said, "I do not have any problems in standing for national anthem but it seems that the court has not considered the fact that in emergency situations, it will end up causing chaos and even disaster whith gates of the cinema halls being closed. Otherwise, I dont think there is any reason for the youth of the country to differ with the judgement." However, political scientists like Abhay Kumar Dubey of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) believe that rather than forcing people and cinema halls to play and stand for national anthem, it is important that laws meant for protecting the dignity of national flag and anthem be implemented properly. "In my opinions these issues are not of universal value, if you look at various democracies, you will find that it terms of law, democracies are at variance, in this particular aspect, the presiding deity should be liberalism rather than Nation-list outlook. I think what is important is that laws be implemented properly which calls for punishing people insulting the national anthem or the national flag." Government in the meanwhile has responded positively to the order and has assured the court that all measures will be taken to implement the order within 10 days. (WION)

The case for, against making national anthem in India's cinema halls compulsory

Refusing to accept the Indian government&#39;s recommendations on the appointment of judges of the various high courts, the Supreme Court of India today said that it has sent back the names of 43 judges for reconsideration.

The government told the court on Tuesday that it had cleared the names of 34 out of the 77 recommended by the apex court Collegium for appointment.&nbsp;

&quot;We have reiterated 43 names for the appointment as judges of high courts which were rejected by the government and have been sent back for reconsideration,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and A R Dave said.

The government apprised the court that no file was pending with regard to the appointment of judges. This came after the apex court had rapped the government for delay in the process, saying the entire institution cannot be brought to a grinding halt.

The apex court maintained that it would not tolerate &quot;logjam in judges&#39; appointment&quot; and would intervene to &quot;fasten accountability as the justice delivery system is collapsing&quot;.

It had even warned that it may summon the secretaries of the PMP and the law and justice ministry to ascertain the factual position.

(WION with inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

The court has sent back 43 names for reconsideration after the govt rejected their appointment as high court judges

Refusing to accept the Indian government's recommendations on the appointment of judges of the various high courts, the Supreme Court of India today said that it has sent back the names of 43 judges for reconsideration. The government told the court on Tuesday that it had cleared the names of 34 out of the 77 recommended by the apex court Collegium for appointment. "We have reiterated 43 names for the appointment as judges of high courts which were rejected by the government and have been sent back for reconsideration," a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and A R Dave said. The government apprised the court that no file was pending with regard to the appointment of judges. This came after the apex court had rapped the government for delay in the process, saying the entire institution cannot be brought to a grinding halt. The apex court maintained that it would not tolerate "logjam in judges' appointment" and would intervene to "fasten accountability as the justice delivery system is collapsing". It had even warned that it may summon the secretaries of the PMP and the law and justice ministry to ascertain the factual position. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Will not tolerate logjam in judges' appointment: Supreme Court of India