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

The Supreme Court of India today dubbed the long queues outside banks and post offices as a &quot;serious issue&quot; following the government&#39;s decision to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes.&nbsp;

The bench, comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A R Dave, expressed its reservation on the government&#39;s plea seeking a direction that no other court in the country should entertain petitions challenging the decision.&nbsp;

The attorney general Mukul Rohatgi submitted that any matter challenging the demonetisation issue be heard by the Supreme Court only.

The apex court ordered all the parties involved to be prepared with data and other issues in writing, after it noted that &quot;some measures are required&quot; to provide relief to the people.&nbsp;

The court observed, &quot;the people have to go to the high court. If we shut them from going to the high court, how can we know the magnitude of the problem. People going to different courts indicates the magnitude of the problem.&quot;

Rohatgi assured the court that &quot;there is no dispute, and the queues are getting shorter&quot;.

But the bench questioned the relief measures undertaken by the central government saying, &quot;Last time you said there will be relief for people in the coming days but you have squeezed the exchange limit to Rs 2,000 only. What is the difficulty?&quot;

Elaborating on the steps taken by the government, the AG told the court that there is &quot;no shortage of funds&quot; but stated that after printing, the currency has to be moved to thousands of centres across the country and ATMs have to be re-calibrated.

He added that the farmers have been allowed to withdraw Rs 50,000 and people having weddings at home can withdraw Rs 2.5 lakh.

(WION with inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

The attorney general made a plea to the apex court that any matter challenging the decision be heard only by them

The Supreme Court of India today dubbed the long queues outside banks and post offices as a "serious issue" following the government's decision to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes. The bench, comprising of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A R Dave, expressed its reservation on the government's plea seeking a direction that no other court in the country should entertain petitions challenging the decision. The attorney general Mukul Rohatgi submitted that any matter challenging the demonetisation issue be heard by the Supreme Court only. The apex court ordered all the parties involved to be prepared with data and other issues in writing, after it noted that "some measures are required" to provide relief to the people. The court observed, "the people have to go to the high court. If we shut them from going to the high court, how can we know the magnitude of the problem. People going to different courts indicates the magnitude of the problem." Rohatgi assured the court that "there is no dispute, and the queues are getting shorter". But the bench questioned the relief measures undertaken by the central government saying, "Last time you said there will be relief for people in the coming days but you have squeezed the exchange limit to Rs 2,000 only. What is the difficulty?" Elaborating on the steps taken by the government, the AG told the court that there is "no shortage of funds" but stated that after printing, the currency has to be moved to thousands of centres across the country and ATMs have to be re-calibrated. He added that the farmers have been allowed to withdraw Rs 50,000 and people having weddings at home can withdraw Rs 2.5 lakh. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Demonetisation: Supreme Court says long queues outside banks 'serious issue'

The Supreme Court of India today modified its order asking Karnataka to release Cauvery water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief until September 20. 
 
The apex court has reduced the amount to 12,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water per day from its earlier order of 15,000 cusecs of water to ameliorate the plight of farmers of the neighbouring state. 
 
Karnataka had protested against the verdict seeking modification of the direction to reduce the quantum of water to be released. 
 
After hearings stiff claims and counter-claims of the two states, the court has fixed a further date of hearing on the concept of fair compensation in the matter.&nbsp; 
 
The application asked the court to restrict the release of water to only six days as the state itself was facing a distress situation.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Even the minimum arrangement mentioned by your lordships has caused distress and havoc in the entire southern part of Karnataka, paralysing civil life. The agitation of farmers has been that their dry crop is equalled with that of the farmers in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu&#39;s need for the rice crop consumes more than twice the water which is needed for light crops in Karnataka,&quot; the application said. 
 
Karnataka government said the massive agitation was causing a loss of Rs 500 crore per day.&nbsp; 
 
The Cauvery Supervisory Committee is holding a meeting to decide on the quantum of the river&#39;s water to be released to Tamil Nadu and other states. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

Supreme Court asks the southern state of Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief

The Supreme Court of India today modified its order asking Karnataka to release Cauvery water to neighbouring Tamil Nadu as immediate relief until September 20. The apex court has reduced the amount to 12,000 cusecs of Cauvery river water per day from its earlier order of 15,000 cusecs of water to ameliorate the plight of farmers of the neighbouring state. Karnataka had protested against the verdict seeking modification of the direction to reduce the quantum of water to be released. After hearings stiff claims and counter-claims of the two states, the court has fixed a further date of hearing on the concept of fair compensation in the matter. The application asked the court to restrict the release of water to only six days as the state itself was facing a distress situation. "Even the minimum arrangement mentioned by your lordships has caused distress and havoc in the entire southern part of Karnataka, paralysing civil life. The agitation of farmers has been that their dry crop is equalled with that of the farmers in Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu's need for the rice crop consumes more than twice the water which is needed for light crops in Karnataka," the application said. Karnataka government said the massive agitation was causing a loss of Rs 500 crore per day. The Cauvery Supervisory Committee is holding a meeting to decide on the quantum of the river's water to be released to Tamil Nadu and other states. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India's apex court modifies order on Cauvery water sharing

It said it was concerned about human rights violations in capital cities like Manipur's Imphal even as Indian government defended its forces

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday said it is not the Line of Control (LoC), but the human rights violations happening in the heart of state capitals that it is more concerned about. The Indian government stoutly defended the role of security forces in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern state of Manipur. "It is not the Line of Control (LoC), but the heart of the cities like Imphal, is what we are concerned. Public order needs to be followed," a bench of Justices M B Lokur and U U Lalit said after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that security forces at LoC or during insurgent operations have to act in a particular way. The bench, referring to an earlier constitution bench judgement in the Naga People's Movement of Human Rights (NHRC) case, said law in this regard has already been settled, as it has ruled that though an internal disturbance is a cause for concern, it does not threaten the security of the country. While NHRC counsel and senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam contended that there was "no accountability" in case of human rights violations, Rohatgi said the security personnel have to act "in a particular way" on the LoC or during an insurgent operation. Rohatgi said, "Truth of human rights violations if any can be found through criminal trials. It is a serious situation. Security personnel at a Line of Control (LOC) or during an insurgent operations has to act in a particular way. How else we do it.” He said what happened in the 1980's and retrospective enquiry into those incidents will have serious effect on the Indian Army, whether in Manipur or in Jammu and Kashmir. On the other hand, Subramaniam said "if there are abrogation of human rights, then accountability has to be fixed on the erring personnel. Here there is no accountability". The army or security forces refuse to give any details about cases if there are allegations of human rights violation and asserted that under the Armed Force Special Powers Act (AFSPA) or any other law this cannot be done. "In Manipur, it took three years to get an information regarding a case of alleged human rights violation. NHRC is a responsible fact-finding body. No government can say it is not accountable for violation of human rights," Subramaniam said. (WION with inputs from PTI)

More worried about human rights violation by security forces: India's Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India will today begin its hearing in the appeals filed by the four accused in the landmark December 16 gang rape case which had rocked the nation. 
 
Twenty three-year-old Nirbhaya was brutally assaulted and gang-raped by six people in a moving bus in the capital city of New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012 and thrown out of the vehicle. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. 
 
A special bench of the Indian apex court hearing the plea of convicts awarded death in the case has decided to sit two hours beyond its working time to ensure speedy disposal of the case that has been pending in the court for more than two years. 
 
The convicts Vinay Sharma (23), Akshay Thakur (31), Mukesh (29) and Pawan Gupta (22) were awarded death sentence by a trial court in September 2013 and six months later the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts then approached the Supreme Court which in 2014 had stayed their execution and the matter is pending in the top court since then. 
 
The Delhi High Court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as &#39;extremely fiendish&#39; and &#39;unparalleled in the history of criminal jurisprudence&#39; and said the exemplary punishment was the need of the hour. 
 
Though arguments started in April before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, arguments will have to be made afresh since the combination of judges in the bench has been changed. 
 
The bench comprises Justices Dipak Misra, C. Nagappan and Ms. R. Banumathi. 
 
(ANI)

Jyoti Singh Pandey (23) was assaulted and gang raped by six on December 16, 2012. She died on Dec 29

The Supreme Court of India will today begin its hearing in the appeals filed by the four accused in the landmark December 16 gang rape case which had rocked the nation. Twenty three-year-old Nirbhaya was brutally assaulted and gang-raped by six people in a moving bus in the capital city of New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012 and thrown out of the vehicle. She died in a Singapore hospital on December 29. A special bench of the Indian apex court hearing the plea of convicts awarded death in the case has decided to sit two hours beyond its working time to ensure speedy disposal of the case that has been pending in the court for more than two years. The convicts Vinay Sharma (23), Akshay Thakur (31), Mukesh (29) and Pawan Gupta (22) were awarded death sentence by a trial court in September 2013 and six months later the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction and sentence. All the convicts then approached the Supreme Court which in 2014 had stayed their execution and the matter is pending in the top court since then. The Delhi High Court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as 'extremely fiendish' and 'unparalleled in the history of criminal jurisprudence' and said the exemplary punishment was the need of the hour. Though arguments started in April before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, arguments will have to be made afresh since the combination of judges in the bench has been changed. The bench comprises Justices Dipak Misra, C. Nagappan and Ms. R. Banumathi. (ANI)

Final hearing in India's landmark gang rape case to begin today