The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday defended its directive requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners and staff, saying the idea was to bring in transparency, avoid "potential confusion" and ensure a peaceful yatra.

On July 22, the apex court ordered an interim stay on the directives issued by the BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments.

"It may be noted that the idea behind the directives is transparency and informed choice of the consumer/kanwaria regarding the food they eat during the period of the Yatra, keeping in mind their religious sentiments so that they don't, even accidentally, fall foul of their beliefs," the Uttar Pradesh government said in its reply to pleas challenging the directive.

The directives asking eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes were decried by the opposition as intended to promote religious discrimination.

The Uttar Pradesh government said in its submission to the Supreme Court that care is taken by the state to ensure that persons of all religions, faiths and beliefs coexist and equal importance is given to their festivals.

"It is submitted that the impugned Press Release was issued solely in the interest of ensuring a peaceful completion of the Kanwar Yatra, in which more than 4.07 Crores of Kanwariyas participate annually," it said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-opposition-leader-rahul-gandhi-appears-in-up-court-in-defamation-case-744363">Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi appears in UP court in defamation case</a>

The state government said it has imposed no ban or prohibition on the trade or business of the food sellers (except the restriction on selling non-veg food), and they are free to conduct their business as usual.

"The requirement to display the names and identities of the owners is merely an additional measure to ensure transparency and avoid any potential confusion among the Kanwariyas," it added.

According to the affidavit, the directives do not impose any discrimination and the requirement to display the names and identities applies uniformly to all food sellers along the route, irrespective of their religious or community affiliations. It added that the directive is limited to the route and for less than two weeks.

The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage during the month of Shravan performed by Shiva devotees who carry water from the Ganga from Haridwar and other holy places to offer to Lord Shiva at various places of worship across the state and even beyond the state, said the affidavit, filed through standing counsel Ruchira Goel.

It added that crores of pilgrims take part with religious fervour, many not literate, and walking barefoot. Even small confusions regarding the kind of food they are served, has the potential to hurt their religious sentiments and cause flare ups, especially in a communally sensitive area like Muzaffarnagar, the state government said.

"Such situations would obviously lead to flare ups... A mishap in the form of taking a meal unwittingly of a place that would have otherwise not been of their choice, could, for the Kanwaria, vitiate the entire Yatra, peace and tranquillity in the area, the maintenance of which is the bounden duty of the State," it added.

In 2008, it added, the apex court had even upheld the complete closure of slaughter houses in Gujarat for nine days during a Jain festival while keeping in mind the sentiments of the devotees.

The UP government said it is imperative to take preventive measures that ensure a peaceful and harmonious pilgrimage.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/india-and-china-to-discuss-withdrawal-of-thousands-of-troops-stationed-along-lac-744377">India and China to discuss withdrawal of thousands of troops stationed along LAC</a>

"Past incidents have shown that misunderstandings regarding the type of food being sold have led to tensions and disturbances. The directives are a proactive measure to avoid such situations," it said.

On July 22, the top court had issued notice to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh and said the eateries may be required to display the kind of food they are serving whether they are vegetarian or non-vegetarian.

The top court is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the directives. Among those who filed the petitions are TMC MP Mahua Moitra, academician Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel, and the NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights challenging the directives.

The Kanwar Yatra began on July 22 and ends&nbsp;on August 6. 
 
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday defended its directive requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners and staff, saying the idea was to bring in transparency, avoid "potential confusion" and ensure a peaceful yatra.

The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday defended its directive requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners and staff, saying the idea was to bring in transparency, avoid "potential confusion" and ensure a peaceful yatra. On July 22, the apex court ordered an interim stay on the directives issued by the BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments. "It may be noted that the idea behind the directives is transparency and informed choice of the consumer/kanwaria regarding the food they eat during the period of the Yatra, keeping in mind their religious sentiments so that they don't, even accidentally, fall foul of their beliefs," the Uttar Pradesh government said in its reply to pleas challenging the directive. The directives asking eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes were decried by the opposition as intended to promote religious discrimination. The Uttar Pradesh government said in its submission to the Supreme Court that care is taken by the state to ensure that persons of all religions, faiths and beliefs coexist and equal importance is given to their festivals. "It is submitted that the impugned Press Release was issued solely in the interest of ensuring a peaceful completion of the Kanwar Yatra, in which more than 4.07 Crores of Kanwariyas participate annually," it said. Also Read | Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi appears in UP court in defamation case The state government said it has imposed no ban or prohibition on the trade or business of the food sellers (except the restriction on selling non-veg food), and they are free to conduct their business as usual. "The requirement to display the names and identities of the owners is merely an additional measure to ensure transparency and avoid any potential confusion among the Kanwariyas," it added. According to the affidavit, the directives do not impose any discrimination and the requirement to display the names and identities applies uniformly to all food sellers along the route, irrespective of their religious or community affiliations. It added that the directive is limited to the route and for less than two weeks. The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage during the month of Shravan performed by Shiva devotees who carry water from the Ganga from Haridwar and other holy places to offer to Lord Shiva at various places of worship across the state and even beyond the state, said the affidavit, filed through standing counsel Ruchira Goel. It added that crores of pilgrims take part with religious fervour, many not literate, and walking barefoot. Even small confusions regarding the kind of food they are served, has the potential to hurt their religious sentiments and cause flare ups, especially in a communally sensitive area like Muzaffarnagar, the state government said. "Such situations would obviously lead to flare ups... A mishap in the form of taking a meal unwittingly of a place that would have otherwise not been of their choice, could, for the Kanwaria, vitiate the entire Yatra, peace and tranquillity in the area, the maintenance of which is the bounden duty of the State," it added. In 2008, it added, the apex court had even upheld the complete closure of slaughter houses in Gujarat for nine days during a Jain festival while keeping in mind the sentiments of the devotees. The UP government said it is imperative to take preventive measures that ensure a peaceful and harmonious pilgrimage. Also Read | India and China to discuss withdrawal of thousands of troops stationed along LAC "Past incidents have shown that misunderstandings regarding the type of food being sold have led to tensions and disturbances. The directives are a proactive measure to avoid such situations," it said. On July 22, the top court had issued notice to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh and said the eateries may be required to display the kind of food they are serving whether they are vegetarian or non-vegetarian. The top court is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the directives. Among those who filed the petitions are TMC MP Mahua Moitra, academician Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel, and the NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights challenging the directives. The Kanwar Yatra began on July 22 and ends on August 6. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Kanwar directive on eateries to ensure peace, avoid 'potential confusion': UP govt tells India's Supreme Court

A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday (July 25) ruled that the power of State Legislatures to tax mining lands and quarries is not limited by the Parliament's Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. The judgment was delivered with&nbsp;a 8:1 majority.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Chandrachud, while reading out the verdict himself, said that the parliament does not have the power to tax mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II of the constitution.&nbsp;

The List II of the seventh schedule of Indian constitution lays out the rights of states within the country's federal structure.&nbsp;

Also watch | Norway gears up for seabed mining

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/norway-gears-up-for-seabed-mining-716589/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The entry 50 in the List two states that the "taxes on mineral rights are subject to any limitations imposed by parliament by law relating to mineral development".&nbsp;

The apex court has ruled that the rights of states go beyond the entry 50 of List II of constitution's seventh schedule, and are not limited to it. The judgment said that the parliament, through the MMDR Act, cannot limit the power of the State to legislate on the taxation of mines and quarries within their jurisdiction.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/right-against-adverse-effects-of-climate-change-part-of-right-to-life-indias-supreme-court-708810">'Right against adverse effects of climate change part of right to life': India's Supreme Court</a>

The majority judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Chandrachud said that State Legislatures derive their power to tax mines and quarries under Article 246 read with Entry 49 (tax on lands and buildings) in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.&nbsp;

Justice B.V. Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion.

"Mineral bearing lands fall within the description of 'lands' in Entry 49," CJI Chandrachud held. The Entry 49 describes "taxes on lands and buildings".

<h2>'Royalty is not tax,' Supreme Court rules</h2>

The majority verdict said that royalty paid by the entities who lease mines to the government is not tax.

"Royalty is not a tax. Royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights," CJI Chandrachud noted.

The tax payable to the State Government depends on the "yield" of the mineral-bearing land, the judgment added.

The other judges in the bench included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

(With inputs from agencies)

A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday (July 25) ruled that the power of State Legislatures to tax mining lands and quarries is not limited by the Parliament's Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Thursday (July 25) ruled that the power of State Legislatures to tax mining lands and quarries is not limited by the Parliament's Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. The judgment was delivered with a 8:1 majority. Chief Justice Chandrachud, while reading out the verdict himself, said that the parliament does not have the power to tax mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II of the constitution. The List II of the seventh schedule of Indian constitution lays out the rights of states within the country's federal structure. Also watch | Norway gears up for seabed mining × The entry 50 in the List two states that the "taxes on mineral rights are subject to any limitations imposed by parliament by law relating to mineral development". The apex court has ruled that the rights of states go beyond the entry 50 of List II of constitution's seventh schedule, and are not limited to it. The judgment said that the parliament, through the MMDR Act, cannot limit the power of the State to legislate on the taxation of mines and quarries within their jurisdiction. Also read | 'Right against adverse effects of climate change part of right to life': India's Supreme Court The majority judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Chandrachud said that State Legislatures derive their power to tax mines and quarries under Article 246 read with Entry 49 (tax on lands and buildings) in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Justice B.V. Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion. "Mineral bearing lands fall within the description of 'lands' in Entry 49," CJI Chandrachud held. The Entry 49 describes "taxes on lands and buildings". 'Royalty is not tax,' Supreme Court rules The majority verdict said that royalty paid by the entities who lease mines to the government is not tax. "Royalty is not a tax. Royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights," CJI Chandrachud noted. The tax payable to the State Government depends on the "yield" of the mineral-bearing land, the judgment added. The other judges in the bench included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court rules that royalty on minerals is not tax

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed pleas seeking the cancellation and re-test of the controversy-ridden NEET-UG 2024, holding that there was no data on record to indicate a systemic leak of question papers and other malpractices. Watch in for more details!

India: Supreme Court declines NEET-UG re-test, says 2.4 mn students affected

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court highlighted the “deep trust deficit” among the central government, state governments, and farmers. It recommended forming an independent committee to tackle the farmers’ demands, including a legal assurance for minimum support prices (MSP) for crops.

A bench led by Justice Surya Kant instructed the Central and the Haryana and Punjab state governments to propose names for this committee. Additionally, it ordered a one-week status quo on the Shambhu border near Ambala, where farmers have been stationed since February 13, and which has been closed off.

“We have impressed upon the parties to have instructions regarding the constitution of an independent committee, comprising such eminent persons who can reach out to farmers and other stakeholders, in order to find out viable solution to their demands that can be fair, just and in the interests of one and all. The states of Punjab and Haryana can suggest some names or else they can leave it to us to find out some suitable persons,” the court order said.

“You have to take some initiatives to reach out to farmers. Why would they otherwise want to come to Delhi or agitate? You are sending ministers from here and despite their best intentions there is a trust deficit. They will think you are only thinking about self-interests and ignoring local issues,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta.

The Supreme Court was reviewing a plea from the Haryana government, which contested a March 7 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had established a committee led by a former judge to investigate the death of farmer Shubhkaran Singh during a February confrontation between protesting farmers and Haryana security forces.

The Supreme Court had previously declined to block the High Court’s decision on April 1. Recently, the Haryana government submitted another petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana HC’s July 10 ruling, which mandated that the highway be reopened within a week.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/fine-up-to-120k-10-years-in-jail-bihar-brings-anti-paper-leak-bill-amid-india-neet-row-743823">'Fine up to $120k, 10 years in jail,' Bihar brings anti-paper leak bill</a>

In February, the Haryana government erected barricades on the Ambala-New Delhi national highway in response to a planned march by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) and the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha. The march was intended to advocate for various demands, including a legal guarantee for MSP on crops.

“As a welfare state, you have to make efforts. Some of the demands could be genuine, some may not be acceptable. Some neutral persons, who could communicate when they are wrong and when they are right, are needed,” court said.

“You also can’t block a national block for all times to come. It’s been almost a year. Various high court orders have said you can’t block national highways...it’s a case of deep trust deficit,” the court added.

The court, however, stressed the need for dialogue and mutual trust in resolving contentious issues. “We do not want a fight between Punjab and Haryana... We are proposing a committee to reach out to farmers with consensus of states and the Union of India...to talk to them, get their viewpoints, know and tell them where they are right and wrong,” it said.

<h2>Farmers vow to march to Delhi after meeting Rahul Gandhi at Parliament</h2>

Farmers protesting for changes to the MSP (minimum support price) policy met with Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in the Parliament complex on Wednesday morning.

"Rahul Gandhi will raise the voice of farmers inside Parliament," Amrinder Singh Raja Warring told NDTV. Regarding the farmers' potential plan for another march to Delhi, he stated, "They have all rights to come to Delhi and protest (and) if a private member's bill is required then we will bring that too."

Farmer representative Jagjit Singh Dallewal expressed disappointment in the government's unfulfilled promises. "Swaminathan report implementation is a must. We will continue our march towards Delhi," he said.

(With inputs from agencies)

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court highlighted the “deep trust deficit” among the central government, state governments, and farmers. It recommended forming an independent committee to tackle the farmers’ demands, including a legal assurance for minimum support prices (MSP) for crops.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court highlighted the “deep trust deficit” among the central government, state governments, and farmers. It recommended forming an independent committee to tackle the farmers’ demands, including a legal assurance for minimum support prices (MSP) for crops. A bench led by Justice Surya Kant instructed the Central and the Haryana and Punjab state governments to propose names for this committee. Additionally, it ordered a one-week status quo on the Shambhu border near Ambala, where farmers have been stationed since February 13, and which has been closed off. “We have impressed upon the parties to have instructions regarding the constitution of an independent committee, comprising such eminent persons who can reach out to farmers and other stakeholders, in order to find out viable solution to their demands that can be fair, just and in the interests of one and all. The states of Punjab and Haryana can suggest some names or else they can leave it to us to find out some suitable persons,” the court order said. “You have to take some initiatives to reach out to farmers. Why would they otherwise want to come to Delhi or agitate? You are sending ministers from here and despite their best intentions there is a trust deficit. They will think you are only thinking about self-interests and ignoring local issues,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta. The Supreme Court was reviewing a plea from the Haryana government, which contested a March 7 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had established a committee led by a former judge to investigate the death of farmer Shubhkaran Singh during a February confrontation between protesting farmers and Haryana security forces. The Supreme Court had previously declined to block the High Court’s decision on April 1. Recently, the Haryana government submitted another petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana HC’s July 10 ruling, which mandated that the highway be reopened within a week. Also read: 'Fine up to $120k, 10 years in jail,' Bihar brings anti-paper leak bill In February, the Haryana government erected barricades on the Ambala-New Delhi national highway in response to a planned march by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (Non-Political) and the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha. The march was intended to advocate for various demands, including a legal guarantee for MSP on crops. “As a welfare state, you have to make efforts. Some of the demands could be genuine, some may not be acceptable. Some neutral persons, who could communicate when they are wrong and when they are right, are needed,” court said. “You also can’t block a national block for all times to come. It’s been almost a year. Various high court orders have said you can’t block national highways...it’s a case of deep trust deficit,” the court added. The court, however, stressed the need for dialogue and mutual trust in resolving contentious issues. “We do not want a fight between Punjab and Haryana... We are proposing a committee to reach out to farmers with consensus of states and the Union of India...to talk to them, get their viewpoints, know and tell them where they are right and wrong,” it said. Farmers vow to march to Delhi after meeting Rahul Gandhi at Parliament Farmers protesting for changes to the MSP (minimum support price) policy met with Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in the Parliament complex on Wednesday morning. "Rahul Gandhi will raise the voice of farmers inside Parliament," Amrinder Singh Raja Warring told NDTV. Regarding the farmers' potential plan for another march to Delhi, he stated, "They have all rights to come to Delhi and protest (and) if a private member's bill is required then we will bring that too." Farmer representative Jagjit Singh Dallewal expressed disappointment in the government's unfulfilled promises. "Swaminathan report implementation is a must. We will continue our march towards Delhi," he said. (With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court calls for independent committee amidst ‘deep trust deficit’ in farmers’ protests

India's Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jul&nbsp;23)&nbsp;said that it found no systemic breach in the sanctity of the 2024 NEET-UG medical entrance exam conducted two months ago. The top court said that&nbsp;there is no material to show that the results of the exam are "vitiated entirely and that there was a systemic breach in its sanctity".&nbsp;

The court also ruled out a re-test&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;2024 NEET-UG exam.

“The Court realises that directing a fresh NEET-UG for the present year would be replete with serious consequences which will be for over 24 lakh students who appeared in NEET… and cause disruption of admission schedule, cascading effects on the course of medical education," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/neet-controversy-bihar-aspirant-admits-he-received-question-paper-a-day-before-exam-733444">NEET controversy: Bihar aspirant admits he received question paper a day before exam</a>

"Data on record is not indicative of a systemic leak of the question paper which would indicate a disruption of the sanctity of the exam," the top court said.

Before the Supreme Court order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) confirmed that the paper leak in the NEET-UG case had indeed occurred in Jharkhand’s Hazaribagh. This is the first time that the central agency&nbsp;officially made the claim&nbsp;since it took over the investigation into the case in June.

<h2>NEET controversy: Over 400,000 students to lose 4 marks over contentious question</h2>

Over 400,000 students will now lose four marks&nbsp;after the apex court's&nbsp;ruling on Tuesday&nbsp;that only one correct answer from a set of four answers will be valid. This comes after a&nbsp;student pointed out that "Question No. 29" of the Physics section had two correct answers when it should have only one correct answer.

The students who will lose four marks also include 44 who had scored a perfect 720/720.

The Supreme Court order came after a team of three experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in New Delhi gave a report and put a question related to atoms and their characteristics to rest.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jul 23) said that it found no systemic breach in the sanctity of the 2024 NEET-UG medical entrance exam conducted two months ago.

India's Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jul 23) said that it found no systemic breach in the sanctity of the 2024 NEET-UG medical entrance exam conducted two months ago. The top court said that there is no material to show that the results of the exam are "vitiated entirely and that there was a systemic breach in its sanctity". The court also ruled out a re-test for the 2024 NEET-UG exam. “The Court realises that directing a fresh NEET-UG for the present year would be replete with serious consequences which will be for over 24 lakh students who appeared in NEET… and cause disruption of admission schedule, cascading effects on the course of medical education," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. Also read | NEET controversy: Bihar aspirant admits he received question paper a day before exam "Data on record is not indicative of a systemic leak of the question paper which would indicate a disruption of the sanctity of the exam," the top court said. Before the Supreme Court order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) confirmed that the paper leak in the NEET-UG case had indeed occurred in Jharkhand’s Hazaribagh. This is the first time that the central agency officially made the claim since it took over the investigation into the case in June. NEET controversy: Over 400,000 students to lose 4 marks over contentious question Over 400,000 students will now lose four marks after the apex court's ruling on Tuesday that only one correct answer from a set of four answers will be valid. This comes after a student pointed out that "Question No. 29" of the Physics section had two correct answers when it should have only one correct answer. The students who will lose four marks also include 44 who had scored a perfect 720/720. The Supreme Court order came after a team of three experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in New Delhi gave a report and put a question related to atoms and their characteristics to rest. (With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court rules out re-exam for NEET-UG 2024 after no systemic breach found

The Indian Supreme Court said on Monday (July 22) that a person convicted of attempted murder cannot be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding 10 years unless the punishment is imprisonment for life.

The Indian Supreme Court said on Monday (July 22) that a person convicted of attempted murder cannot be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding 10 years unless the punishment is imprisonment for life. According to a report by the Hindustan Times, clarifying a significant point of law regarding the sentencing under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal highlighted the legislature’s intention and mandated the adherence to the prescribed maximum sentence for attempted murder cases under the first part of the section. A look at first part of Section 307 The first part of Section 307 prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also to pay a fine. On Monday, the Supreme Court bench said, "We have already noted that the maximum imprisonment permissible under the first part of Section 307, IPC, is “imprisonment of either description for a term which may not extend to 10 years and also fine.” Also read | Indian SC halts orders requiring eateries to display owner names along Kanwar Yatra route "When in unambiguous terms the legislature prescribed the maximum corporeal sentence imposable for the conviction under Section 307, IPC, under the first part and when the court concerned upon convicting the accused concerned thought it fit not to impose imprisonment for life, the punishment to be handed down to the convict concerned in any circumstance cannot exceed the punishment prescribed under the first part of Section 307, IPC," the bench added. Hindustan Times reported that this interpretation firmly restricts courts from imposing a sentence exceeding ten years unless the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The second part of Section 307 The second part of the section addresses situations where the victim suffers hurt, and the convict under this part can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. "The parties are at issue only on the expression in the second part or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned," the bench said on Monday. (With inputs from agencies)

Person convicted of attempted murder cannot be jailed beyond 10 years: Indian Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also issued notice in the matter and sought assistance from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani.

The bench also allowed the woman staffer to involve the Union of India and West Bengal government in her petition. The court has asked for a response within three weeks.

<h2>Petitioner's argument</h2>

The advocate arguing for the petitioner said Article 361 can't act as a bar against the investigation.

"It cannot be that there is no investigation. Evidence has to be gathered right now. It cannot be deferred indefinitely," said Senior advocate Shyam Divan.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwja6sDR9LKHAxVOzzgGHYDhBw4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-what-are-electoral-bonds-why-supreme-court-strikes-down-electoral-bonds-scheme-690460" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-what-are-electoral-bonds-why-supreme-court-strikes-down-electoral-bonds-scheme-690460&amp;ved=2ahUKEwja6sDR9LKHAxVOzzgGHYDhBw4QxfQBKAB6BAgREAE">Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial?</a>

In a hard-hitting statement, the petition asked the court "whether sexual harassment and molestation form part of discharging or performing duties by the Governor."

"This court has to decide whether a victim like the Petitioner can be rendered remediless, with the only option being to wait for the accused to demit his office, which delay will then be inexplainable during the trial, and render the entire procedure a mere lip service, without any justice to the victim herein," the plea read.

The advocate argued that any immunity can't be absolute.

<h2>Article 361 of the Indian Constitution</h2>

Article 361(2) of the Constitution states that "no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President, or Governor of a State, in any court, during their term of office."

Watch:&nbsp;Gravitas: China sends spy ships to snoop on India

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-china-sends-spy-ships-to-snoop-on-india-741505/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Such powers cannot be understood to be absolute so as to enable the Governor to do acts which are illegal or which strike at the root of Part III of the Constitution. Moreover, the said immunity cannot impair the police's powers to investigate the offence or even naming the perpetrator in the complaint/FIR, despite specific averments to that effect," the plea added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda.

The Supreme Court of India is finally hearing a petition challenging immunity granted to the governors under Article 361 of the Constitution. The top court on Friday (Jul 19) agreed to hear a plea filed by a woman staffer of West Bengal Raj Bhawan alleging sexual assault by Governor CV Ananda. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also issued notice in the matter and sought assistance from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani. The bench also allowed the woman staffer to involve the Union of India and West Bengal government in her petition. The court has asked for a response within three weeks. Petitioner's argument The advocate arguing for the petitioner said Article 361 can't act as a bar against the investigation. "It cannot be that there is no investigation. Evidence has to be gathered right now. It cannot be deferred indefinitely," said Senior advocate Shyam Divan. Also read: Explained: India Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds. Why are they controversial? In a hard-hitting statement, the petition asked the court "whether sexual harassment and molestation form part of discharging or performing duties by the Governor." "This court has to decide whether a victim like the Petitioner can be rendered remediless, with the only option being to wait for the accused to demit his office, which delay will then be inexplainable during the trial, and render the entire procedure a mere lip service, without any justice to the victim herein," the plea read. The advocate argued that any immunity can't be absolute. Article 361 of the Indian Constitution Article 361(2) of the Constitution states that "no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President, or Governor of a State, in any court, during their term of office." Watch: Gravitas: China sends spy ships to snoop on India × "Such powers cannot be understood to be absolute so as to enable the Governor to do acts which are illegal or which strike at the root of Part III of the Constitution. Moreover, the said immunity cannot impair the police's powers to investigate the offence or even naming the perpetrator in the complaint/FIR, despite specific averments to that effect," the plea added. (With inputs from agencies)

Historic! India's top court to hear plea challenging governor's immunity in sexual assault case

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 19) dismissed the bail plea filed by two of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case.&nbsp;Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, convicted of raping Bano and killing her family during the 2022 Gujarat riots, had moved the petition in the top court.&nbsp;

However, the apex court and its single bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna simply refused to entertain the plea stating it was not 'maintainable'.&nbsp;

"What is this plea... how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived. How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation)," declared Justice&nbsp;Khanna.

"There are two judgments. Earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights).&nbsp;We are not sitting in appeal," the court added.&nbsp;

Notably, both convicts had moved to the SC in March, contending that its January 8 verdict cancelling remission of their sentence was "in the teeth" of a 2002 Constitution bench order.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-teen-virtually-gang-raped-in-metaverse-police-probe-underway-676225">Watch | UK teen virtually 'gang-raped' in metaverse, police probe underway</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-teen-virtually-gang-raped-in-metaverse-police-probe-underway-676225/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<h2>Who is Bilkis Bano?</h2>

Bilkis Bano was a resident of the western Indian state of Gujarat, who akin to numerous others, was attempting to flee the state during the 2002 riots. She was only 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while attempting to escape from her village.

She was&nbsp;hiding in a field with several other family members and her three-year-old daughter on March 3, 2002, when they were attacked by a mob of 20-30 men with sickles, swords, and clubs. As many as 14 members of her family died in the attack, including her baby but Bano survived as she lost consciousness and her attackers left, believing she was dead.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-bilkis-bano-all-you-need-to-know-507718" target="_blank">Also read |&nbsp;Who is Bilkis Bano? All you need to know</a>

Due to the awful nature of the crime&nbsp;and the indignation that ensued, the SC ordered a CBI investigation, and 11 of Bilkis Bano's assailants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the heinous act.

However, on Independence Day (August 15) in 2022, the Gujarat government, under its remission programme, released the 11 rapists. Their release triggered a wave of condemnation from the opposition, activists as well as the civil society.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 19) dismissed the bail plea filed by two of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, convicted of raping Bano and killing her family during the 2022 Gujarat riots, had moved the petition in the top court.

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 19) dismissed the bail plea filed by two of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. Radheyshyam Bhagwandas and Rajubhai Babulal, convicted of raping Bano and killing her family during the 2022 Gujarat riots, had moved the petition in the top court. However, the apex court and its single bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna simply refused to entertain the plea stating it was not 'maintainable'. "What is this plea... how is it even maintainable? Absolutely misconceived. How can we sit on appeal in PIL (public interest litigation)," declared Justice Khanna. "There are two judgments. Earlier judgment (the May ruling) was considered in the second (the January verdict) under Article 32 (which gives every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights). We are not sitting in appeal," the court added. Notably, both convicts had moved to the SC in March, contending that its January 8 verdict cancelling remission of their sentence was "in the teeth" of a 2002 Constitution bench order. Watch | UK teen virtually 'gang-raped' in metaverse, police probe underway × Who is Bilkis Bano? Bilkis Bano was a resident of the western Indian state of Gujarat, who akin to numerous others, was attempting to flee the state during the 2002 riots. She was only 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while attempting to escape from her village. She was hiding in a field with several other family members and her three-year-old daughter on March 3, 2002, when they were attacked by a mob of 20-30 men with sickles, swords, and clubs. As many as 14 members of her family died in the attack, including her baby but Bano survived as she lost consciousness and her attackers left, believing she was dead. Also read | Who is Bilkis Bano? All you need to know Due to the awful nature of the crime and the indignation that ensued, the SC ordered a CBI investigation, and 11 of Bilkis Bano's assailants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the heinous act. However, on Independence Day (August 15) in 2022, the Gujarat government, under its remission programme, released the 11 rapists. Their release triggered a wave of condemnation from the opposition, activists as well as the civil society. (With inputs from agencies)

'What is this plea...': SC refuses to entertain bail petition of Bilkis Bano's rapists

The Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Jul 18) directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to declare the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG examinations by noon on Saturday (Jul 20). The court also ordered that the identity of the students be masked when uploading the results.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwla and Manoj Misra heard the case and delivered the order.&nbsp;

"The petitioners have submitted that it would be appropriate if the results of the NEET-UG 24 exam are published on the website so as to bring about some transparency on the centre-wise marks obtained by candidates," the bench stated.&nbsp;

"We direct the NTA to publish the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG 24 exam while at the same time ensuring that the identity of the students is masked. The results should be declared in relation to each centre and city separately."

&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/neet-ug-scam-accused-who-stole-exam-paper-from-nta-trunk-in-jharkhand-arrested-741451">Also read |&nbsp;NEET-UG scam: Accused who stole exam paper from NTA trunk in Jharkhand arrested</a>

(More to follow)

The Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Jul 18) directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to declare the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG examinations by noon on Saturday (Jul 20).

The Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (Jul 18) directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to declare the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG examinations by noon on Saturday (Jul 20). The court also ordered that the identity of the students be masked when uploading the results. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwla and Manoj Misra heard the case and delivered the order. "The petitioners have submitted that it would be appropriate if the results of the NEET-UG 24 exam are published on the website so as to bring about some transparency on the centre-wise marks obtained by candidates," the bench stated. "We direct the NTA to publish the marks obtained by students in the NEET-UG 24 exam while at the same time ensuring that the identity of the students is masked. The results should be declared in relation to each centre and city separately." Also read | NEET-UG scam: Accused who stole exam paper from NTA trunk in Jharkhand arrested (More to follow)

Supreme Court orders Indian examination agency to publish NEET-UG results masking identity of students

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has been directed by the Supreme Court to publish the NEET-UG 24 test results on its website city-wise and centre-wise by 12 pm on Saturday without&nbsp;disclosing the candidates' names.&nbsp;On Thursday (July 18), the Supreme Court of India began hearing several petitions concerning the NEET-UG 2024 exam row. The petitions were considered on Thursday by a three-judge bench comprising CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. 
 
As proceedings began, CJI asked the attorney for the cancellation of the exam to prove if the leak was systemic. He said, "You have to show us that the leak was so systemic and affected the entire examination to warrant the cancellation of the entire exam."

The judges heard over 40 petitions, including pleas filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and several students who appeared for the examination. The NTA seeks a transfer of all the cases against it pending in many High Courts regarding the NEET-UG controversy, PTI reported. 
 
During the hearing, senior advocate Narendra Hooda, representing the petitioner, called for the results of all students to be declared to bring in some transparency. 
 
The NEET-UG exam was held on May 5 and nearly 24 lakh aspiring medical professionals had appeared in it.

The results were published last month but students could only access their individual scores.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ias-trainee-puja-khedkars-mother-arrested-for-allegedly-threatening-farmers-with-gun-742075">IAS trainee Puja Khedkar’s mother arrested for allegedly threatening farmers with gun</a>

A reevaluation and reversal of the decision are also sought, considering the alleged paper leak and other irregularities.

The court hearing also addressed the issue of 61 students scoring a perfect 720 out of 720 marks in the examination, even after the scores were adjusted.

The discussion centred on the physics question, alleging that it had two correct answers. The NTA counsel explained that 44 out of these 61 students received marks based on an additional answer found in an older NCERT booklet.

The CJI D Y Chandrachud said, "As the matter stands now, 61 students get 720/720, out of whom 44 are students who got extra marks for the two correct options for a question. So the number really is 17."&nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has been directed by the Supreme Court to publish the NEET-UG 24 test results on its website city-wise and centre-wise by 12 pm on Saturday without disclosing the candidates' names.

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has been directed by the Supreme Court to publish the NEET-UG 24 test results on its website city-wise and centre-wise by 12 pm on Saturday without disclosing the candidates' names. On Thursday (July 18), the Supreme Court of India began hearing several petitions concerning the NEET-UG 2024 exam row. The petitions were considered on Thursday by a three-judge bench comprising CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. As proceedings began, CJI asked the attorney for the cancellation of the exam to prove if the leak was systemic. He said, "You have to show us that the leak was so systemic and affected the entire examination to warrant the cancellation of the entire exam." The judges heard over 40 petitions, including pleas filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and several students who appeared for the examination. The NTA seeks a transfer of all the cases against it pending in many High Courts regarding the NEET-UG controversy, PTI reported. During the hearing, senior advocate Narendra Hooda, representing the petitioner, called for the results of all students to be declared to bring in some transparency. The NEET-UG exam was held on May 5 and nearly 24 lakh aspiring medical professionals had appeared in it. The results were published last month but students could only access their individual scores. Also read: IAS trainee Puja Khedkar’s mother arrested for allegedly threatening farmers with gun A reevaluation and reversal of the decision are also sought, considering the alleged paper leak and other irregularities. The court hearing also addressed the issue of 61 students scoring a perfect 720 out of 720 marks in the examination, even after the scores were adjusted. The discussion centred on the physics question, alleging that it had two correct answers. The NTA counsel explained that 44 out of these 61 students received marks based on an additional answer found in an older NCERT booklet. The CJI D Y Chandrachud said, "As the matter stands now, 61 students get 720/720, out of whom 44 are students who got extra marks for the two correct options for a question. So the number really is 17." (With inputs from agencies)

NEET-UG 2024: SC says exam not cancelled, yet; asks NTA to publish results city-wise and centre-wise

US President Joe Biden is considering proposals to reform the Supreme Court, which may include implementing term limits and establishing a new ethics code for the predominantly conservative bench, according to media reports.

With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has delivered several significant setbacks to Democratic priorities in recent years, including the repeal of the nationwide right to abortion. President Biden has increasingly expressed his disagreement with these decisions.

This year the court significantly rolled back the power of federal agencies, while also partially ruling in early July in favour of ex-president Donald Trump's immunity claims.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-convinced-donald-trump-to-pick-jd-vance-as-his-running-mate-741469">Who convinced Donald Trump to pick JD Vance as his running mate?</a>

Biden, who is seeking re-election in November against Donald Trump, has previously opposed calls to overhaul or modify&nbsp;the court of nine lifetime-appointed justices, which includes three nominated by his Republican predecessor.

But this may change soon, according to several US media reports, which cite unnamed sources familiar with the planning.

However, it was unclear whether Biden would come out in support of the measures in near future or in his second term if he wins the presidential election.

Progressive groups are aiming to use the Supreme Court to motivate voters to support Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. They are investing millions of dollars in campaigns designed to educate voters about the impact the next president will have on the high court.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/jd-vance-marine-corps-veteran-bestselling-author-us-senator-10-things-to-know-about-trumps-running-mate-741387" target="_blank">JD Vance: Marine Corps veteran, bestselling author, US Senator- 10 things to know about Trump's running mate</a>&nbsp;

Efforts are concentrated not only on helping Democrats retain the White House but also on maintaining control of the Senate and flipping the House, which is currently led by Republicans. Full control by Democrats could enable Congress to pass proposals for court reform. Advancing legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden is considering proposals to reform the Supreme Court, which may include implementing term limits and establishing a new ethics code for the predominantly conservative bench, according to media reports.

US President Joe Biden is considering proposals to reform the Supreme Court, which may include implementing term limits and establishing a new ethics code for the predominantly conservative bench, according to media reports. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has delivered several significant setbacks to Democratic priorities in recent years, including the repeal of the nationwide right to abortion. President Biden has increasingly expressed his disagreement with these decisions. This year the court significantly rolled back the power of federal agencies, while also partially ruling in early July in favour of ex-president Donald Trump's immunity claims. Also read: Who convinced Donald Trump to pick JD Vance as his running mate? Biden, who is seeking re-election in November against Donald Trump, has previously opposed calls to overhaul or modify the court of nine lifetime-appointed justices, which includes three nominated by his Republican predecessor. But this may change soon, according to several US media reports, which cite unnamed sources familiar with the planning. However, it was unclear whether Biden would come out in support of the measures in near future or in his second term if he wins the presidential election. Progressive groups are aiming to use the Supreme Court to motivate voters to support Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. They are investing millions of dollars in campaigns designed to educate voters about the impact the next president will have on the high court. Also Read: JD Vance: Marine Corps veteran, bestselling author, US Senator- 10 things to know about Trump's running mate Efforts are concentrated not only on helping Democrats retain the White House but also on maintaining control of the Senate and flipping the House, which is currently led by Republicans. Full control by Democrats could enable Congress to pass proposals for court reform. Advancing legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden considering proposals to reform Supreme Court: Report

The Mamata Banerjee-led Bengal government moved Supreme Court on Friday against governor CV Anand Bose for withholding the assent of eight bills. Watch in for more details!

Mamata government vs Governor now reaches Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (Jul&nbsp;12) granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy&nbsp;case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The top court also referred Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the ED to a larger bench.

While granting bail to&nbsp;Kejriwal in the ED case, SC observed that Arvind Kejriwal has suffered imprisonment of 90 days, and it’s conscious he is an elected leader.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-policy-case-delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-cbi-on-arvind-kejriwals-bail-plea-738275" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-policy-case-delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-cbi-on-arvind-kejriwals-bail-plea-738275&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDxJLj6aCHAxWhRmwGHQcnAA8QFnoECAUQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iUDTW1tHBNZOAYyCnkF-h&amp;arm=e&amp;fexp=72519171,72519168" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-policy-case-delhi-hc-issues-notice-to-cbi-on-arvind-kejriwals-bail-plea-738275" target="_blank">Delhi HC issues notice to CBI on Arvind&nbsp;Kejriwal's&nbsp;bail plea</a>

CM Kejriwal's lawyer Rishikesh Kumar said, “The Supreme Court has granted him temporary bail while referring the issue of section 19 and the necessity of arrest to a larger bench. CM Kejriwal will continue to be detained as his bail in the CBI case is still pending. This marks a significant triumph.”

However, the Delhi CM will remain incarcerated since he is in custody in the CBI case in the excise policy matter.

The top court further added that courts can't direct Kejriwal to step down because of his arrest, adding, “It's for him to take a call”.

"It has been directed that Arvind Kejriwal&nbsp;should be released from jail. However, after the trial court had granted him bail, he was also arrested by CBI in a related but separate case. Kejriwal has initiated proceedings in that case also which is pending and coming before the High Court of the 17th. His actual release from the jail will depend on the outcome of the CBI case," said Supreme Court lawyer Shadan Farast on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's bail.&nbsp;

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with a money laundering probe relating to irregularities in the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy 2021-22.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-formally-arrests-kejriwal-delhi-cm-to-file-bail-plea-in-supreme-court-735220" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-formally-arrests-kejriwal-delhi-cm-to-file-bail-plea-in-supreme-court-735220&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjDxJLj6aCHAxWhRmwGHQcnAA8QFnoECAgQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw2yCqXwRhki-cCnMy9ueHs-&amp;arm=e&amp;fexp=72519171,72519168" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-formally-arrests-kejriwal-delhi-cm-to-file-bail-plea-in-supreme-court-735220" target="_blank">CBI 'formally' arrests&nbsp;Kejriwal, Delhi CM to file bail plea in Supreme Court</a>

The CBI has alleged that liquor companies were involved in making the excise policy, which would have earned them a 12% profit.

In it's first reaction to&nbsp;Delhi CM's interim bail judgement, AAP tweeted, ‘Satyamev Jayate'.

On Supreme Court granting interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi Minister Atishi said, "...BJP knew that Arvind Kejriwal&nbsp;has been granted bail by the Rouse Avenue Court, they know that he will get bail by the Supreme Court too. That is why, they hatched another conspiracy and the day on which the bail hearing was scheduled to come up before the Supreme Court, they made CBI arrest Arvind Kejriwal a day before that."

"Why was he arrested by the CBI? Because if he received bail &nbsp;in ED case, he would come out of jail and work for the people of Delhi 10 times faster... I would like to tell the BJP today, one after the other - every court in this country has exposed your conspiracy... every court is granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal. I would like to tell BJP, end your arrogance and stop hatching conspiracy against other parties. Truth can be troubled but not defeated," she added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 12) granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The top court also referred Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the ED to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Jul 12) granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The top court also referred Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the ED to a larger bench. While granting bail to Kejriwal in the ED case, SC observed that Arvind Kejriwal has suffered imprisonment of 90 days, and it’s conscious he is an elected leader. Also read: Delhi HC issues notice to CBI on Arvind Kejriwal's bail plea CM Kejriwal's lawyer Rishikesh Kumar said, “The Supreme Court has granted him temporary bail while referring the issue of section 19 and the necessity of arrest to a larger bench. CM Kejriwal will continue to be detained as his bail in the CBI case is still pending. This marks a significant triumph.” However, the Delhi CM will remain incarcerated since he is in custody in the CBI case in the excise policy matter. The top court further added that courts can't direct Kejriwal to step down because of his arrest, adding, “It's for him to take a call”. "It has been directed that Arvind Kejriwal should be released from jail. However, after the trial court had granted him bail, he was also arrested by CBI in a related but separate case. Kejriwal has initiated proceedings in that case also which is pending and coming before the High Court of the 17th. His actual release from the jail will depend on the outcome of the CBI case," said Supreme Court lawyer Shadan Farast on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's bail. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with a money laundering probe relating to irregularities in the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy 2021-22. Also read: CBI 'formally' arrests Kejriwal, Delhi CM to file bail plea in Supreme Court The CBI has alleged that liquor companies were involved in making the excise policy, which would have earned them a 12% profit. In it's first reaction to Delhi CM's interim bail judgement, AAP tweeted, ‘Satyamev Jayate'. On Supreme Court granting interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi Minister Atishi said, "...BJP knew that Arvind Kejriwal has been granted bail by the Rouse Avenue Court, they know that he will get bail by the Supreme Court too. That is why, they hatched another conspiracy and the day on which the bail hearing was scheduled to come up before the Supreme Court, they made CBI arrest Arvind Kejriwal a day before that." "Why was he arrested by the CBI? Because if he received bail in ED case, he would come out of jail and work for the people of Delhi 10 times faster... I would like to tell the BJP today, one after the other - every court in this country has exposed your conspiracy... every court is granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal. I would like to tell BJP, end your arrogance and stop hatching conspiracy against other parties. Truth can be troubled but not defeated," she added. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court grants interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in excise policy case

SC granted interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate. The apex court referred Kejriwal's plea against the arrest by the ED to a larger bench. The bench clarified that the question of interim bail can be modified by the larger bench.

Arvind Kejriwal granted interim bail but to remain in jail in CBI case

India's Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek alimony from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law that proscribes "order for maintenance of wives, children and parents".&nbsp;The top court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed the&nbsp;petition filed by a Muslim man named Mohd Abdul Samad.&nbsp;A family court had&nbsp;previously directed&nbsp;Samad&nbsp;to pay a monthly allowance of ₹20,000 ($240) to his divorced wife.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/as-long-as-im-alive-pm-modi-targets-congress-over-religion-based-quota-in-gujarat-rally-717143">‘As long as I’m alive…,’ PM Modi targets Congress over religion-based quota in Gujarat rally</a>

"We are dismissing the criminal appeal with the conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women," Justice Nagarathna stated.

The landmark judgment came&nbsp;on the petition by Mohd Abdul Samad who was previously directed by a family court to pay a monthly allowance of ₹20,000 ($240) to his divorced wife. Samad had challenged the direction in Telangana High Court. The high court upheld the direction to pay maintenance, but modified the amount to ₹10,000 ($120).&nbsp;

He then moved the Supreme Court.

The petitioner invoked the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Act, the controversial law formulated by the then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's government to pacify the Muslim conservatives enraged after Supreme Court's progressive verdict in Shah Bano case.&nbsp;

The petitioner in the current case argued that "if the divorced woman has sufficient means, she cannot file for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, however, that is the case with Section 3 of the Act".&nbsp;

Also watch |&nbsp;Gravitas Plus: India has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Here's why

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-india-has-the-lowest-divorce-rate-in-the-world-heres-why-592407/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The court said that maintenance is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right of married women. "This right transcends religious boundaries, reinforcing the principle of gender equality and financial security for all married women," it added.

"Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife, who is a homemaker, is dependent on them emotionally and in other ways. Time has come for Indian men to recognise the indispensable role and sacrifices made by housewives for the family."

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek alimony from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law that proscribes "order for maintenance of wives, children and parents".

India's Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek alimony from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law that proscribes "order for maintenance of wives, children and parents". The top court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih dismissed the petition filed by a Muslim man named Mohd Abdul Samad. A family court had previously directed Samad to pay a monthly allowance of ₹20,000 ($240) to his divorced wife. Also read | ‘As long as I’m alive…,’ PM Modi targets Congress over religion-based quota in Gujarat rally "We are dismissing the criminal appeal with the conclusion that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women," Justice Nagarathna stated. The landmark judgment came on the petition by Mohd Abdul Samad who was previously directed by a family court to pay a monthly allowance of ₹20,000 ($240) to his divorced wife. Samad had challenged the direction in Telangana High Court. The high court upheld the direction to pay maintenance, but modified the amount to ₹10,000 ($120). He then moved the Supreme Court. The petitioner invoked the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Act, the controversial law formulated by the then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's government to pacify the Muslim conservatives enraged after Supreme Court's progressive verdict in Shah Bano case. The petitioner in the current case argued that "if the divorced woman has sufficient means, she cannot file for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, however, that is the case with Section 3 of the Act". Also watch | Gravitas Plus: India has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Here's why × The court said that maintenance is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right of married women. "This right transcends religious boundaries, reinforcing the principle of gender equality and financial security for all married women," it added. "Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife, who is a homemaker, is dependent on them emotionally and in other ways. Time has come for Indian men to recognise the indispensable role and sacrifices made by housewives for the family." (With inputs from agencies)

‘It’s their right, not charity’: Supreme Court delivers landmark alimony order for Muslim women

India's top court witnessed dramatic exchanges between a Lucknow-based lawyer and the Chief Justice of India on Tuesday (Jul 9) after the former lodged a complaint against another Supreme Court judge before the latter. 
 
The lawyer, Ashok Pandey, who has been taken to task repeatedly for filing frivolous petitions, was rebuked by a&nbsp;SC bench for not paying $600 (INR 50,000) cost imposed on him for filing a plea challenging the appointment of Supreme Court advocates as High Court judges.

"You are a practising lawyer, and after you have told the court you will pay Rs 50,000 in costs, you thereafter go abroad. Now you cannot say that you can't pay a cost of Rs 50,000," a bench of Justices AS Oka and George Masih told Pandey.

Pandey replied that he had not taken any case since 2023 and that the foreign trip was financed by his kids. But the bench refused to entertain his request, ordering him to cough up the required amount within a week or two.

Later, he was reprimanded by another bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan for non-payment of INR 100,000 ($1,200) cost&nbsp;imposed last year in connection with his appeal against the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwj14dSZlZqHAxXbzTgGHSIaCmQQvOMEKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/courts-cant-ask-accused-to-share-google-maps-location-as-bail-condition-indian-supreme-court-738964" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/courts-cant-ask-accused-to-share-google-maps-location-as-bail-condition-indian-supreme-court-738964&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj14dSZlZqHAxXbzTgGHSIaCmQQvOMEKAB6BAgOEAE">Courts can’t ask accused to share Google Maps location as bail condition: Indian Supreme Court</a>

Following the&nbsp;arguments with the two benches, Ashok Pandey approached the CJI and alleged misconduct by Justice Gavai.

CJI DY Chandrachud in turn cautioned the lawyer against levelling 'baseless' allegations against his colleague.

"You cannot make allegations like this on the judges of the bench. They never misbehave with lawyers. If you want to challenge the fines, file a review," he said.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiTmYGflZqHAxVb8zgGHeLZC3QQxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/detrimental-to-women-sc-skeptical-over-menstrual-leaves-asks-centre-to-frame-policy-738970" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/detrimental-to-women-sc-skeptical-over-menstrual-leaves-asks-centre-to-frame-policy-738970&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiTmYGflZqHAxVb8zgGHeLZC3QQxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE">'Detrimental to women': SC sceptical over menstrual leaves, asks centre to frame policy</a>

He acknowledged that heated arguments sometimes do take place but advised Pandey against making outright allegations. He added that frivolous PILs filed by lawyers often end up damaging the public's interests and taxpayers' money.

(With inputs from agencies)

India's top court witnessed dramatic exchanges between a Lucknow-based lawyer and the Chief Justice of India on Tuesday (Jul 9) after the former lodged a complaint against another Supreme Court judge before the latter.

India's top court witnessed dramatic exchanges between a Lucknow-based lawyer and the Chief Justice of India on Tuesday (Jul 9) after the former lodged a complaint against another Supreme Court judge before the latter. The lawyer, Ashok Pandey, who has been taken to task repeatedly for filing frivolous petitions, was rebuked by a SC bench for not paying $600 (INR 50,000) cost imposed on him for filing a plea challenging the appointment of Supreme Court advocates as High Court judges. "You are a practising lawyer, and after you have told the court you will pay Rs 50,000 in costs, you thereafter go abroad. Now you cannot say that you can't pay a cost of Rs 50,000," a bench of Justices AS Oka and George Masih told Pandey. Pandey replied that he had not taken any case since 2023 and that the foreign trip was financed by his kids. But the bench refused to entertain his request, ordering him to cough up the required amount within a week or two. Later, he was reprimanded by another bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan for non-payment of INR 100,000 ($1,200) cost imposed last year in connection with his appeal against the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership. Also read: Courts can’t ask accused to share Google Maps location as bail condition: Indian Supreme Court Following the arguments with the two benches, Ashok Pandey approached the CJI and alleged misconduct by Justice Gavai. CJI DY Chandrachud in turn cautioned the lawyer against levelling 'baseless' allegations against his colleague. "You cannot make allegations like this on the judges of the bench. They never misbehave with lawyers. If you want to challenge the fines, file a review," he said. Also read: 'Detrimental to women': SC sceptical over menstrual leaves, asks centre to frame policy He acknowledged that heated arguments sometimes do take place but advised Pandey against making outright allegations. He added that frivolous PILs filed by lawyers often end up damaging the public's interests and taxpayers' money. (With inputs from agencies)

Lawyer lodges complaint against SC judge before the CJI, gets stern warning

Seeking a status report on the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a batch of pleas seeking re-examination of NEET-UG, noted that it was clear that the question paper was indeed leaked. Watch to know more!

NEET-UG probe case: Supreme Court demands 'leak' details from NTA

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) dismissed a plea filed by the West Bengal government challenging the Calcutta High Court's order which directed a CBI investigation into the allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali.

"Why should the State be interested in protecting someone?," a bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan observed, adding that on the last date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the State said the matter be adjourned after the apex court asked this specific query. "Thank you. Dismissed," the Bench said.

The top court was hearing the state government's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's April 10 order.

While hearing the plea on April 29, the apex court had asked the West Bengal government why the state should come in as a petitioner for "protecting the interest" of some private individuals.

In its plea before the apex court, the state government said the high court's order demoralised the entire state machinery, including the police force.

The CBI is already investigating the case of attack on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in Sandeshkhali and has registered three FIRs related to incidents on January 5.

Noting that the investigation will be monitored by the court, the high court directed the CBI to file a comprehensive report on the alleged illegal conversion of agricultural land into water bodies for pisciculture after conducting a thorough inspection of revenue records and physical inspection of land alleged to have been converted.

The high court also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali and submit a comprehensive report to it on the next date of hearing.

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) dismissed a plea filed by the West Bengal government challenging the Calcutta High Court's order which directed a CBI investigation into the allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali.

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) dismissed a plea filed by the West Bengal government challenging the Calcutta High Court's order which directed a CBI investigation into the allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali. "Why should the State be interested in protecting someone?," a bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan observed, adding that on the last date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the State said the matter be adjourned after the apex court asked this specific query. "Thank you. Dismissed," the Bench said. The top court was hearing the state government's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's April 10 order. While hearing the plea on April 29, the apex court had asked the West Bengal government why the state should come in as a petitioner for "protecting the interest" of some private individuals. In its plea before the apex court, the state government said the high court's order demoralised the entire state machinery, including the police force. The CBI is already investigating the case of attack on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in Sandeshkhali and has registered three FIRs related to incidents on January 5. Noting that the investigation will be monitored by the court, the high court directed the CBI to file a comprehensive report on the alleged illegal conversion of agricultural land into water bodies for pisciculture after conducting a thorough inspection of revenue records and physical inspection of land alleged to have been converted. The high court also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali and submit a comprehensive report to it on the next date of hearing.

Sandeshkhali violence: SC rejects Bengal govt’s plea challenging Calcutta HC order for CBI probe

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Jul 8) began hearing pleas regarding the irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduates (NEET-UG) 2024 held on May 5. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made it clear that the sanctity of the examination was "compromised" beyond doubt. "What is the consequence of the leak depends on the extensive nature of the leak," he added.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjtxpb0rZeHAxUGnK8BHYaRC-MQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/neet-paper-leak-row-nta-indefinitely-defers-ug-counselling-new-dates-to-be-announced-soon-738448" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/neet-paper-leak-row-nta-indefinitely-defers-ug-counselling-new-dates-to-be-announced-soon-738448&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjtxpb0rZeHAxUGnK8BHYaRC-MQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE">NEET paper leak row: NTA indefinitely defers UG counselling, new dates to be announced soon</a>

The CJI also said the cancellation of the massive examination, taken by 2.4 million students, was not appropriate. "Cancelling the examination for 24 lakh students is an option of last resort and should be considered only under extreme circumstances," he added.

<h2>CJI hounds examination body</h2>

The CJI also bombarded the National Testing Agency (NTA) with a series of questions and sought its answers by 5pm on Wednesday (Jul 10).

The following are the questions that were asked by the CJI:

-When were the question papers prepared?

- When did the NTA receive these question papers?

- How were the papers secured during their custody?

- When did the NTA dispatch the papers to the designated banks in the cities?

- Which printing press was used and what were the transportation arrangements?

Additionally, the court asked the examination body to make full disclosure in the matter regarding:

-When the leak took place.

-The manner in which the question papers were leaked and disseminated.

-Duration between leak and conduct of the examination.

<h2>SC instructions to CBI</h2>

The CJI instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to provide evidence on the timing and methods of the alleged paper leak before the court. The court also asked the central government to explore the feasibility of employing data analytics to distinguish between tainted and untainted students.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjtxpb0rZeHAxUGnK8BHYaRC-MQxfQBKAB6BAgMEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/question-papers-of-neet-pg-to-be-made-two-hours-before-exams-after-row-over-irregularities-737156" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/question-papers-of-neet-pg-to-be-made-two-hours-before-exams-after-row-over-irregularities-737156&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjtxpb0rZeHAxUGnK8BHYaRC-MQxfQBKAB6BAgMEAE">Question papers of NEET-PG to be made two hours before exams after row over leaks, irregularities</a>

The matter will now be heard on Thursday (Jul 11). &nbsp; 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Jul 8) began hearing pleas regarding the irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduates (NEET-UG) 2024 held on May 5.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (Jul 8) began hearing pleas regarding the irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Undergraduates (NEET-UG) 2024 held on May 5. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made it clear that the sanctity of the examination was "compromised" beyond doubt. "What is the consequence of the leak depends on the extensive nature of the leak," he added. Also read: NEET paper leak row: NTA indefinitely defers UG counselling, new dates to be announced soon The CJI also said the cancellation of the massive examination, taken by 2.4 million students, was not appropriate. "Cancelling the examination for 24 lakh students is an option of last resort and should be considered only under extreme circumstances," he added. CJI hounds examination body The CJI also bombarded the National Testing Agency (NTA) with a series of questions and sought its answers by 5pm on Wednesday (Jul 10). The following are the questions that were asked by the CJI: -When were the question papers prepared? - When did the NTA receive these question papers? - How were the papers secured during their custody? - When did the NTA dispatch the papers to the designated banks in the cities? - Which printing press was used and what were the transportation arrangements? Additionally, the court asked the examination body to make full disclosure in the matter regarding: -When the leak took place. -The manner in which the question papers were leaked and disseminated. -Duration between leak and conduct of the examination. SC instructions to CBI The CJI instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to provide evidence on the timing and methods of the alleged paper leak before the court. The court also asked the central government to explore the feasibility of employing data analytics to distinguish between tainted and untainted students. Also read: Question papers of NEET-PG to be made two hours before exams after row over leaks, irregularities The matter will now be heard on Thursday (Jul 11). (With inputs from agencies)

NEET paper leak row: ‘Re-exam last resort, can’t dispute paper leak,’ Indian SC hounds NTA

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jul 8) asked the Narendra Modi government to frame a policy on menstrual leaves for women after consulting all stakeholders and states. While hearing a petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Tripathi, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said this was a matter of policy and courts don't need to intervene.

The bench then requested the secretary of the ministry of women and child development to deliberate upon the matter and come up with an answer after talking to all concerned parties and stakeholders.

<h2>'Detrimental' effect on women</h2>

The court observed that granting menstrual leaves to women may hurt their employment prospects as companies may not want to offer such leaves to their employees.

“How will the leave encourage more women to be part of the workforce," asked the court, adding granting menstrual leaves may result in women "being shunned from the workforce’...we do not want that.”

<h2>States free to form policy</h2>

The apex court also made it clear that as the matter was being heard in the top court, states were free to form their own policies regarding menstrual leaves.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjouJWNppeHAxUGQ_UHHek-BWwQxfQBKAB6BAgSEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/science/does-brain-structure-change-during-menstruation-research-says-yes-649830" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/science/does-brain-structure-change-during-menstruation-research-says-yes-649830&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjouJWNppeHAxUGQ_UHHek-BWwQxfQBKAB6BAgSEAE">Does brain structure change during menstruation? This is what research says</a>

The states won’t be affected by the consultation process that the centre was expected to initiate soon.

<h2>Previous ruling on menstrual leaves</h2>

Earlier in February, the Supreme Court had rejected a similar plea asking for menstrual leaves for women employees and students.

The court cited the same reason to dismiss the plea, saying it was up to the government to frame a policy.

On the other hand, the centre has taken no stance on this issue yet. However, former women and child development (WCD) minister Smriti Irani said in December last year that menstruation was not a "handicap" and that it shouldn't warrant a specific policy for "paid leave".

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjouJWNppeHAxUGQ_UHHek-BWwQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/entertainment/lifestyle/world-menstrual-hygiene-day-5-tips-every-woman-should-know-1716813113724" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/entertainment/lifestyle/world-menstrual-hygiene-day-5-tips-every-woman-should-know-1716813113724&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjouJWNppeHAxUGQ_UHHek-BWwQxfQBKAB6BAgNEAE">World Menstrual Hygiene Day: 5 Tips Every Woman Should Know</a>

"As a menstruating woman, menstruation and the menstruation cycle is not a handicap, it's a natural part of women's life journey…We should not propose issues where women are denied equal opportunities just because somebody who does not menstruate has a particular viewpoint towards menstruation," Irani had said.

Irani had earlier informed Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, that there was "no proposal under the consideration of the government to make provision for paid menstrual leave mandatory for all workplaces".

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jul 8) asked the Narendra Modi government to frame a policy on menstrual leaves for women after consulting all stakeholders and states.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jul 8) asked the Narendra Modi government to frame a policy on menstrual leaves for women after consulting all stakeholders and states. While hearing a petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Tripathi, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said this was a matter of policy and courts don't need to intervene. The bench then requested the secretary of the ministry of women and child development to deliberate upon the matter and come up with an answer after talking to all concerned parties and stakeholders. 'Detrimental' effect on women The court observed that granting menstrual leaves to women may hurt their employment prospects as companies may not want to offer such leaves to their employees. “How will the leave encourage more women to be part of the workforce," asked the court, adding granting menstrual leaves may result in women "being shunned from the workforce’...we do not want that.” States free to form policy The apex court also made it clear that as the matter was being heard in the top court, states were free to form their own policies regarding menstrual leaves. Also read: Does brain structure change during menstruation? This is what research says The states won’t be affected by the consultation process that the centre was expected to initiate soon. Previous ruling on menstrual leaves Earlier in February, the Supreme Court had rejected a similar plea asking for menstrual leaves for women employees and students. The court cited the same reason to dismiss the plea, saying it was up to the government to frame a policy. On the other hand, the centre has taken no stance on this issue yet. However, former women and child development (WCD) minister Smriti Irani said in December last year that menstruation was not a "handicap" and that it shouldn't warrant a specific policy for "paid leave". Also read: World Menstrual Hygiene Day: 5 Tips Every Woman Should Know "As a menstruating woman, menstruation and the menstruation cycle is not a handicap, it's a natural part of women's life journey…We should not propose issues where women are denied equal opportunities just because somebody who does not menstruate has a particular viewpoint towards menstruation," Irani had said. Irani had earlier informed Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, that there was "no proposal under the consideration of the government to make provision for paid menstrual leave mandatory for all workplaces". (With inputs from agencies)

‘Detrimental to women’: SC sceptical over menstrual leaves, asks centre to frame policy

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts cannot ask accused to share their Google Maps location, to enable tracking their movements, as a condition to grant bail stating that doing so would amount to a violation of&nbsp;privacy&nbsp;rights.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that there can't be conditions that enable the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the&nbsp;privacy.

It also held that no court can impose bail conditions that frustrate the purpose of granting bail itself.

The top court passed the order while examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps location with the investigating officer to access his location is violative of a person's right to&nbsp;privacy.

The apex court set aside the bail condition that required the accused to share their Google Maps location with the police.

"Two things we have said. There cannot be a bail condition defeating the purpose of bail. We have said&nbsp;Google PIN&nbsp;cannot be a condition. Police cannot peep into the accused's private life for bail," said the bench in its verdict passed today.

The detailed judgment will be out later in the day.

The order was passed on an appeal against certain conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court in 2022 in its order granting interim bail to a Nigerian national, Frank Vitus, who was accused in a drug case.

The High Court had ordered the accused man and a co-accused to drop a pin on Google Maps to ensure that their location was available to the investigating officer of the case.

The accused were also asked by the Delhi High Court to get an assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court.

To this, the apex court said that there cannot be bail conditions that defeat the purpose of granting bail.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts cannot ask accused to share their Google Maps location, to enable tracking their movements, as a condition to grant bail stating that doing so would amount to a violation of privacy rights.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that courts cannot ask accused to share their Google Maps location, to enable tracking their movements, as a condition to grant bail stating that doing so would amount to a violation of privacy rights. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that there can't be conditions that enable the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy. It also held that no court can impose bail conditions that frustrate the purpose of granting bail itself. The top court passed the order while examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps location with the investigating officer to access his location is violative of a person's right to privacy. The apex court set aside the bail condition that required the accused to share their Google Maps location with the police. "Two things we have said. There cannot be a bail condition defeating the purpose of bail. We have said Google PIN cannot be a condition. Police cannot peep into the accused's private life for bail," said the bench in its verdict passed today. The detailed judgment will be out later in the day. The order was passed on an appeal against certain conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court in 2022 in its order granting interim bail to a Nigerian national, Frank Vitus, who was accused in a drug case. The High Court had ordered the accused man and a co-accused to drop a pin on Google Maps to ensure that their location was available to the investigating officer of the case. The accused were also asked by the Delhi High Court to get an assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court. To this, the apex court said that there cannot be bail conditions that defeat the purpose of granting bail.

Courts can’t ask accused to share Google Maps location as bail condition: Indian Supreme Court

In the last 17 days, nearly 12 bridges have collapsed across&nbsp;the Indian state of Bihar and the most recent&nbsp;one fell on Thursday&nbsp;(July 4) in Saran district. 
&nbsp; 
As per District Magistrate Aman Samir, this is the third bridge collapse which has happened in Saran in just two days.

In the collapse of the 15-year-old bridge in the Gandaki River, no casualties were reported. The bridge connected villages in Saran to the neighbouring Siwan district.&nbsp;

The cause of the bridge collapse is under investigation. However, the officials spoke about the recent desilting work happening in the area.&nbsp;

Among the three bridges in Saran, two were on the Gandak River, which was just a kilometre apart and had collapsed within&nbsp;two hours on Wednesday (July 3).

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jitan-ram-manjhi-who-once-acted-as-nitishs-backup-cm-in-bihar-finds-his-place-in-modi-30-730228">Jitan Ram Manjhi, who once acted as Nitish's backup CM in Bihar, finds his place in Modi 3.0</a>

The officials&nbsp;constructed one of the bridges in 2004 near the Dodh Nath Temple and the other was a British-era structure.

The third bridge, which was a 15-year-old structure built over the Gandaki, had fallen on Thursday (July 4).

The incident occurred a day after a survey of all old bridges in the state was ordered by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar so that those with urgent repairs could be identified.

The chief minister had appealed for improved bridge maintenance policies from both the rural works&nbsp;and road construction departments.&nbsp;

The bridges have also collapsed in Siwan, Chhapra, Madhubani, Araria, East Champaran and Kishanganj districts.

<h2>PIL filed in SC for structural audit of all bridges in Bihar</h2>

Advocate Brajesh Singh has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court which sought the Bihar government's directions for carrying out a thorough structural audit of all bridges.

The PIL also demanded the&nbsp;constitution of&nbsp;a high-level expert committee for identifying the weak bridges which may need to be strengthened or demolished.

Watch:&nbsp;India: Neet-UG case probe gathers pace

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-neet-ug-case-probe-gathers-pace-735722/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

As per the petition, the collapse of bridges has raised concerns about the bridge infrastructures' safety and reliability in the region, especially taking into account that Bihar is the country's most flood-prone state.

"It is a matter of grave concern that in a state like Bihar, which is the most flood-prone state of India, the total flood-affected area in the state is 68,800 sq. km which is 73.06 per cent of the total geographical area. Hence such routine accrual of the incident of falling bridges in Bihar is more disastrous as the lives of people at large are at stake. Therefore the urgent intervention of this Hon'ble Court is required to save the lives of people, as the under-construction bridges before its accomplishment collapsed routinely," said the petitioner, in the PIL.

Meanwhile, Bihar Development Secretary Chaitanya Prasad said that 11 engineers of the water resources department were suspended, in the wake of the bridge collapse.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

In the last 17 days, nearly 12 bridges have collapsed across the Indian state of Bihar and the most recent one fell on Thursday (July 4) in Saran district. As per District Magistrate Aman Samir, this is the third bridge collapse which has happened in Saran in just two days.

In the last 17 days, nearly 12 bridges have collapsed across the Indian state of Bihar and the most recent one fell on Thursday (July 4) in Saran district. As per District Magistrate Aman Samir, this is the third bridge collapse which has happened in Saran in just two days. In the collapse of the 15-year-old bridge in the Gandaki River, no casualties were reported. The bridge connected villages in Saran to the neighbouring Siwan district. The cause of the bridge collapse is under investigation. However, the officials spoke about the recent desilting work happening in the area. Among the three bridges in Saran, two were on the Gandak River, which was just a kilometre apart and had collapsed within two hours on Wednesday (July 3). Also Read: Jitan Ram Manjhi, who once acted as Nitish's backup CM in Bihar, finds his place in Modi 3.0 The officials constructed one of the bridges in 2004 near the Dodh Nath Temple and the other was a British-era structure. The third bridge, which was a 15-year-old structure built over the Gandaki, had fallen on Thursday (July 4). The incident occurred a day after a survey of all old bridges in the state was ordered by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar so that those with urgent repairs could be identified. The chief minister had appealed for improved bridge maintenance policies from both the rural works and road construction departments. The bridges have also collapsed in Siwan, Chhapra, Madhubani, Araria, East Champaran and Kishanganj districts. PIL filed in SC for structural audit of all bridges in Bihar Advocate Brajesh Singh has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court which sought the Bihar government's directions for carrying out a thorough structural audit of all bridges. The PIL also demanded the constitution of a high-level expert committee for identifying the weak bridges which may need to be strengthened or demolished. Watch: India: Neet-UG case probe gathers pace As per the petition, the collapse of bridges has raised concerns about the bridge infrastructures' safety and reliability in the region, especially taking into account that Bihar is the country's most flood-prone state. "It is a matter of grave concern that in a state like Bihar, which is the most flood-prone state of India, the total flood-affected area in the state is 68,800 sq. km which is 73.06 per cent of the total geographical area. Hence such routine accrual of the incident of falling bridges in Bihar is more disastrous as the lives of people at large are at stake. Therefore the urgent intervention of this Hon'ble Court is required to save the lives of people, as the under-construction bridges before its accomplishment collapsed routinely," said the petitioner, in the PIL. Meanwhile, Bihar Development Secretary Chaitanya Prasad said that 11 engineers of the water resources department were suspended, in the wake of the bridge collapse. (With inputs from agencies)

Bihar bridge collapse: State's 12th bridge falls in Saran in 17 days; PIL seeks structural audit

In a big relief for Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court ruled that he enjoys some immunity from prosecution as former President. Watch in for more details!

Trump hails big win at US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court rules in favour of Donald Trump

In a big relief for Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court ruled that he enjoys some immunity from prosecution as former President . Watch in for more details!

US Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity from prosecution

US: Trump vs Biden on Supreme Court's ruling on immunity

Here, we bring you the news that is trending across WION's social media platforms- The Supreme Court pulls up the National Testing Agency over inconsistent marks calculation in the Neet row.

Neet row: SC pulls up National Testing Agency

A probe into the Neet-UG case gathers pace here in India in the first arrest the Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested two people from the Indian state of Bihar.

India: Neet-UG case probe gathers pace

The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) acknowledged that it mistakenly shared online a document which is related to a pending abortion case, as reported by Bloomberg.&nbsp;

Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe accepted that a document was “inadvertently and briefly uploaded” to the court website but further stated that the ruling “has not been released.”

As per the document, the Supreme Court appeared poised to temporarily permit abortions in cases of medical emergencies in Idaho. The document was inadvertently shared on the website of the court in an astonishing breach of protocol.

In the unsigned document, three Conservatives - Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts - appeared to side with the three Liberals of the court to block the state from enforcing the ban in some of the emergency situations.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/abortion-is-murder-and-republicans-in-texas-are-open-to-punishing-it-with-death-penalty-report-727256">'Abortion is murder,' and Republicans in Texas are open to punishing it with death penalty: Report</a>

The court accepted that they briefly shared a document by mistake but emphasised that no opinion should be considered final till the justices announce it.&nbsp;

The abortion case is seen as the most significant of the current term which is winding down before the July 4 holiday.

In January, the Supreme Court blocked the lower court ruling and&nbsp;permitted Idaho&nbsp;to enforce its abortion law in full while accepting to hear oral arguments.&nbsp;

The ban's other provisions are already in effect and the ruling will not affect them.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the case about?</h2>

The case is related to whether a federal law which regulates emergency room treatment overrides the strict abortion ban in Idaho. If the appeal is dismissed by the court, it will lead to the legal question remaining unresolved.

As per the document shared by Bloomberg, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson separately wrote that the court should have decided on the bigger issue which is likely to come up in another case and is likely to have an impact on other states with abortion restrictions similar to one imposed in Idaho.

Watch:&nbsp;US Supreme Court to allow emergency abortion?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-supreme-court-to-allow-emergency-abortion-735497/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay,” Jackson wrote, as per the document. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires," she added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) acknowledged that it mistakenly shared online a document which is related to a pending abortion case, as reported by Bloomberg.

The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) acknowledged that it mistakenly shared online a document which is related to a pending abortion case, as reported by Bloomberg. Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe accepted that a document was “inadvertently and briefly uploaded” to the court website but further stated that the ruling “has not been released.” As per the document, the Supreme Court appeared poised to temporarily permit abortions in cases of medical emergencies in Idaho. The document was inadvertently shared on the website of the court in an astonishing breach of protocol. In the unsigned document, three Conservatives - Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts - appeared to side with the three Liberals of the court to block the state from enforcing the ban in some of the emergency situations. Also Read: 'Abortion is murder,' and Republicans in Texas are open to punishing it with death penalty: Report The court accepted that they briefly shared a document by mistake but emphasised that no opinion should be considered final till the justices announce it. The abortion case is seen as the most significant of the current term which is winding down before the July 4 holiday. In January, the Supreme Court blocked the lower court ruling and permitted Idaho to enforce its abortion law in full while accepting to hear oral arguments. The ban's other provisions are already in effect and the ruling will not affect them. What is the case about? The case is related to whether a federal law which regulates emergency room treatment overrides the strict abortion ban in Idaho. If the appeal is dismissed by the court, it will lead to the legal question remaining unresolved. As per the document shared by Bloomberg, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson separately wrote that the court should have decided on the bigger issue which is likely to come up in another case and is likely to have an impact on other states with abortion restrictions similar to one imposed in Idaho. Watch: US Supreme Court to allow emergency abortion? "Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay,” Jackson wrote, as per the document. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires," she added. (With inputs from agencies)

'Briefly uploaded' document shows US top court to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) formally arrested Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged liquor policy case inside Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday (June 26).

The chief minister was arrested hours before a plea challenging the stay imposed by the High Court on the grant of regular bail for his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was to be heard in the Supreme Court.

Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI, advocate DP Singh said, "I am seeking permission because he's in custody and investigation is my prerogative. I would like to seek formal custody of Arvind Kejriwal to interrogate and make a formal arrest."

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-policy-case-cbi-arrests-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-from-tihar-jail-735098">Excise Policy Case: CBI arrests Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal from Tihar jail</a>

The permission was sought after the court asked Kejriwal's lawyers where the proceedings would take place since he had not been formally arrested.

CBI had sought the permission of the court to interrogate Kejriwal in the adjoining room before arresting him formally. The court had allowed the agency to carry out the examination and place on record the material they had collected for his arrest.&nbsp;

CBI then informed the court that they had formally arrested Kejriwal and provided the court with all the required documents.

Advocate DP Singh said to the court, "There are certain dates...I got permission under PC Act on 23rd April 2024 and since elections were on and then he was on interim bail, we refrained from investigating him."

<h2>Supreme Court begins hearing Kejriwal's plea</h2>

Supreme Court started hearing Kejriwal's plea which challenged the June 21 order of the Delhi High Court which imposed interim stay on regular bail granted to him in the Delhi excise policy case. He is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal, informed the court that the Delhi High Court ordered a stay on bail order and he wishes to withdraw the plea before the apex court against the interim order. He added that Kejriwal will file&nbsp;a fresh petition to challenge the June 25 order.

Supreme Court permitted Kejriwal to withdraw his plea challenging the June 21 order.&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Delhi Trial Court gives bail to CM Arvind Kejriwal; HC pauses Kejriwal bail order

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-trial-court-gives-bail-to-cm-arvind-kejriwal-hc-pauses-kejriwal-bail-order-733928/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Aam Admi Party (AAP) supremo was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case pertaining to alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy.&nbsp;

He was released on bail for a brief period during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections and addressed several public gatherings while campaigning for AAP before going back to prison a couple of days before the counting of votes on June 4.&nbsp;

The Delhi government had implemented the policy on November 17, 2021. But it was scrapped at the end of September 2022. Corruption allegations have been levelled against the party, which AAP denies.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) formally arrested Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged liquor policy case inside Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday (June 26).

India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) formally arrested Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged liquor policy case inside Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday (June 26). The chief minister was arrested hours before a plea challenging the stay imposed by the High Court on the grant of regular bail for his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was to be heard in the Supreme Court. Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI, advocate DP Singh said, "I am seeking permission because he's in custody and investigation is my prerogative. I would like to seek formal custody of Arvind Kejriwal to interrogate and make a formal arrest." Also Read: Excise Policy Case: CBI arrests Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal from Tihar jail The permission was sought after the court asked Kejriwal's lawyers where the proceedings would take place since he had not been formally arrested. CBI had sought the permission of the court to interrogate Kejriwal in the adjoining room before arresting him formally. The court had allowed the agency to carry out the examination and place on record the material they had collected for his arrest. CBI then informed the court that they had formally arrested Kejriwal and provided the court with all the required documents. Advocate DP Singh said to the court, "There are certain dates...I got permission under PC Act on 23rd April 2024 and since elections were on and then he was on interim bail, we refrained from investigating him." Supreme Court begins hearing Kejriwal's plea Supreme Court started hearing Kejriwal's plea which challenged the June 21 order of the Delhi High Court which imposed interim stay on regular bail granted to him in the Delhi excise policy case. He is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal, informed the court that the Delhi High Court ordered a stay on bail order and he wishes to withdraw the plea before the apex court against the interim order. He added that Kejriwal will file a fresh petition to challenge the June 25 order. Supreme Court permitted Kejriwal to withdraw his plea challenging the June 21 order. Watch: Delhi Trial Court gives bail to CM Arvind Kejriwal; HC pauses Kejriwal bail order The Aam Admi Party (AAP) supremo was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case pertaining to alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy. He was released on bail for a brief period during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections and addressed several public gatherings while campaigning for AAP before going back to prison a couple of days before the counting of votes on June 4. The Delhi government had implemented the policy on November 17, 2021. But it was scrapped at the end of September 2022. Corruption allegations have been levelled against the party, which AAP denies. (With inputs from agencies)

CBI 'formally' arrests Kejriwal, Delhi CM to file bail plea in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court deferred hearing on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea to overturn the Delhi High Court's interim stay on bail order on Monday (June 24).

The Supreme Court deferred hearing on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea to overturn the Delhi High Court's interim stay on bail order on Monday (June 24). The court fixed Wednesday (June 26) as the next hearing date. The High Court is expected to deliver its full verdict on Tuesday. "It is not proper to interfere when the High Court has reserved its judgement," the Supreme Court said. Nonetheless, it acknowledged that the High Court reserving its order in the case of Kejriwal's bail was "unusual." Justice Manoj Misra said, "In stay matters, orders are not reserved but passed on the spot. What has happened here is unusual." The Delhi High Court stayed executing the lower court's ruling until it issued its verdict after the Enforcement Directorate challenged the trial court's decision to give Kejriwal bail. Also read: Who is Bhartruhari Mahtab, pro-tem Speaker of 18th Lok Sabha appointed by President Murmu? Arvind Kejriwal's senior attorney, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the Delhi chief minister ought to be allowed to remain free till the high court rules on the Enforcement Directorate's appeal. He argued that the CM is not a flight risk because he has a bail order in his favour. The Supreme Court noted that it would be prejudging the matter if it issued an order today. "It is not a subordinate court, it is a high court," it stated. "If we pass order now, we will prejudge the issue. This is not a subordinate court..." the court told Kejriwal's lawyers. Watch | Delhi Trial Court gives bail to CM Arvind Kejriwal; HC pauses Kejriwal bail order × If the high court had not given the Enforcement Directorate (ED) an interim stay, the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), who was taken into custody on March 21, would have been free to leave the Tihar prison on Friday. Kejriwal was granted bail in the liquor policy case on Thursday by the Rouse Avenue court in Delhi, following more than two months of incarceration. ED challenged the lower court's bail order in the High Court on Friday morning. The trial court's decision to give Arvind Kejriwal bail was described as "lopsided, perverse, and one-sided" by the additional solicitor general SV Raju before the high court. (With inputs from agencies)

Top court delays hearing on Kejriwal's bail plea, calls High Court's approach 'unusual'

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news

supreme court