The January 6th capitol riots case against Trump, How the case against another accused with the same charges is banning tells us what's to come for Trump. Conservative judges on U.S. Supreme Court appeared to side with an accused January 6th rioter in his obstruction case on Tuesday. The case could possibly affect the prosecution of Donald Trump who faces the same charge for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.

US: Court to decide whether Trump tried to overturn 202 poll loss

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 16) heard a plea seeking a 100 per cent count of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in polls as opposed to the current practice of verification of only five randomly selected Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) through VVPAT paper slips.&nbsp;

The bench comprised of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. The petitions were filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and others.&nbsp;

During the hearing, India's top court highlighted the issues with the secret ballot voting method, with Justice Khanna telling Prashant Bhushan, counsel for ADR: "We are in our 60s. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers. You may have, but we have not forgotten."&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/patanjali-misleading-ads-case-supreme-court-adjourns-ramdev-contempt-case-to-april-23-711799">You are not so innocent, Supreme Court tells Patanjali in misleading ads case</a>&nbsp;

Justice Khanna was replying to Bhushan, who weighed in on alternate solutions.

Bhushan suggested that going back to the ballot paper was one of the ways.&nbsp;"Earlier there used to be ballot papers. There can be ballot papers. Most European countries have gone back to back to ballot papers," he said.&nbsp;

He said, "We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to give the VVPAT slip to the voters in hand. Otherwise, the slips fall into the machine and the slip can be then given to the voter and it can be put into the ballot box. Then the VVPAT design was changed, it had to be transparent glass, but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass where it is only visible when the light is on for second seconds."&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/imf-raises-global-growth-forecast-for-2024-india-expected-to-grow-68-in-fy25-711960">IMF raises global growth forecast for 2024; India expected to grow 6.8% in FY25</a>&nbsp;

Telling about the source, Bhushan said that it was a poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). Replying to the same, Justice Datta said, "Poll! Let's not believe in these private polls."&nbsp;

Justice Khanna said, "This type of argument may not be acceptable because there is no data about that. A private poll will not be able to. It's possible somebody else will take out a poll to the contrary. Let's not go into all that."&nbsp;

On the European nation's example, Justice Datta asked, "What is the population of Germany?"

"My home state West Bengal's population is more than that of Germany. We need to trust someone. Don't try to bring down the system like this. Don't cite such examples. European examples don't work here," Justice Datta said.

He added it is a "humongous task". "Not possible for any European country to conduct. Let’s not draw analogies and comparisons from Germany and other countries," he further said while replying to senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for another petitioner.&nbsp;

He said human interventions "lead to problems and human weakness can be there, which includes biases as well".&nbsp;

"Machine normally without human intervention will give you accurate results. Yes, the problem arises when there is human intervention or (a human) makes unauthorised changes when they are around the software or machine, if you have any suggestion to avert this, then you can give us that," he added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 16) heard a plea seeking a 100 per cent count of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in polls as opposed to the current practice of verification of only five randomly selected Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) through VVPAT paper slips.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Apr 16) heard a plea seeking a 100 per cent count of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in polls as opposed to the current practice of verification of only five randomly selected Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) through VVPAT paper slips. The bench comprised of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. The petitions were filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and others. During the hearing, India's top court highlighted the issues with the secret ballot voting method, with Justice Khanna telling Prashant Bhushan, counsel for ADR: "We are in our 60s. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers. You may have, but we have not forgotten." Also read: You are not so innocent, Supreme Court tells Patanjali in misleading ads case Justice Khanna was replying to Bhushan, who weighed in on alternate solutions. Bhushan suggested that going back to the ballot paper was one of the ways. "Earlier there used to be ballot papers. There can be ballot papers. Most European countries have gone back to back to ballot papers," he said. He said, "We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to give the VVPAT slip to the voters in hand. Otherwise, the slips fall into the machine and the slip can be then given to the voter and it can be put into the ballot box. Then the VVPAT design was changed, it had to be transparent glass, but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass where it is only visible when the light is on for second seconds." Also read: IMF raises global growth forecast for 2024; India expected to grow 6.8% in FY25 Telling about the source, Bhushan said that it was a poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). Replying to the same, Justice Datta said, "Poll! Let's not believe in these private polls." Justice Khanna said, "This type of argument may not be acceptable because there is no data about that. A private poll will not be able to. It's possible somebody else will take out a poll to the contrary. Let's not go into all that." On the European nation's example, Justice Datta asked, "What is the population of Germany?" "My home state West Bengal's population is more than that of Germany. We need to trust someone. Don't try to bring down the system like this. Don't cite such examples. European examples don't work here," Justice Datta said. He added it is a "humongous task". "Not possible for any European country to conduct. Let’s not draw analogies and comparisons from Germany and other countries," he further said while replying to senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for another petitioner. He said human interventions "lead to problems and human weakness can be there, which includes biases as well". "Machine normally without human intervention will give you accurate results. Yes, the problem arises when there is human intervention or (a human) makes unauthorised changes when they are around the software or machine, if you have any suggestion to avert this, then you can give us that," he added. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court on EVM and VVPAT case: ‘We know what happened when there were ballot papers’

The Supreme Court allowed Idaho, United States to go ahead with the enforcement of a new law which prohibits gender-affirming care for minors on Monday (April 15).

The decision was taken by a divided Supreme Court after two lower federal courts upheld an injunction against the gender-affirming care law even though litigation over the law's constitutionality continued.

All six conservative members of the high court backed the decision. Meanwhile, three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - hinted that they may have kept the law on hold.

"Ordinarily, injunctions like these may go no further than necessary to provide interim relief to the parties," wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a statement which concurred with the decision of the court.

"In this case, however, the district court went much further, prohibiting a state from enforcing any aspect of its duly enacted law against anyone," he added.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/solar-storm-to-make-northern-lights-visible-in-17-us-states-heres-when-to-watch-it-613571">Solar storm to make Northern Lights visible in 17 US states. Here's when to watch the spectacle</a>

However, the court permitted the parents and two children who had filed the case against the law to continue taking treatments as litigation continues.&nbsp;

In this case, the children have been seeking estrogen and puberty blockers, which according to the families and their doctors is important for mental health.

<h2>Supreme Court's decision faces opposition&nbsp;</h2>

Meanwhile, opposing the decision, Jackson said that the high court should not have intervened at such an initial stage in such a high-profile case, disrupting what she said was the legal status quo.

"In my view, we should resist being conscripted into service when our involvement amounts to micromanaging the lower courts' exercise of their discretionary authority in the midst of active litigation," wrote Jackson.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho released a joint statement and called the ruling an "awful result."

"While the court's ruling today importantly does not touch upon the constitutionality of this law, it is nonetheless an awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state," read the joint statement.&nbsp;

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption. Nonetheless, today's result only leaves us all the more determined to defeat this law in the courts entirely, making Idaho a safer state to raise every family," it added.

Watch:&nbsp;One year on from Sudan's war, US to announce additional $100 Million in aid

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/one-year-on-from-sudans-war-us-to-announce-additional-100-million-in-aid-711318/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Meanwhile, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, who had appealed to the court to permit enforcement, issued another statement after the decision.

"The state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that's why I'm proud to defend Idaho's law that ensures children are not subjected to these life-altering drugs and procedures," Labrador said in a statement.&nbsp;

"Those suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support and medical care rooted in biological reality. Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and I'm grateful that we, as the state, have the power -- and duty -- to protect them," he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court allowed Idaho, United States to go ahead with the enforcement of a new law which prohibits gender-affirming care for minors on Monday (April 15).

The Supreme Court allowed Idaho, United States to go ahead with the enforcement of a new law which prohibits gender-affirming care for minors on Monday (April 15). The decision was taken by a divided Supreme Court after two lower federal courts upheld an injunction against the gender-affirming care law even though litigation over the law's constitutionality continued. All six conservative members of the high court backed the decision. Meanwhile, three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - hinted that they may have kept the law on hold. "Ordinarily, injunctions like these may go no further than necessary to provide interim relief to the parties," wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a statement which concurred with the decision of the court. "In this case, however, the district court went much further, prohibiting a state from enforcing any aspect of its duly enacted law against anyone," he added. Also Read: Solar storm to make Northern Lights visible in 17 US states. Here's when to watch the spectacle However, the court permitted the parents and two children who had filed the case against the law to continue taking treatments as litigation continues. In this case, the children have been seeking estrogen and puberty blockers, which according to the families and their doctors is important for mental health. Supreme Court's decision faces opposition Meanwhile, opposing the decision, Jackson said that the high court should not have intervened at such an initial stage in such a high-profile case, disrupting what she said was the legal status quo. "In my view, we should resist being conscripted into service when our involvement amounts to micromanaging the lower courts' exercise of their discretionary authority in the midst of active litigation," wrote Jackson. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho released a joint statement and called the ruling an "awful result." "While the court's ruling today importantly does not touch upon the constitutionality of this law, it is nonetheless an awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state," read the joint statement. "Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption. Nonetheless, today's result only leaves us all the more determined to defeat this law in the courts entirely, making Idaho a safer state to raise every family," it added. Watch: One year on from Sudan's war, US to announce additional $100 Million in aid Meanwhile, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, who had appealed to the court to permit enforcement, issued another statement after the decision. "The state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that's why I'm proud to defend Idaho's law that ensures children are not subjected to these life-altering drugs and procedures," Labrador said in a statement. "Those suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support and medical care rooted in biological reality. Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and I'm grateful that we, as the state, have the power -- and duty -- to protect them," he added. (With inputs from agencies)

SC allows enforcement of ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Idaho

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Apr 15) asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.&nbsp;

The Court has asked the law enforcement agency to file the response by April 24 and the matter would be heard in the week commencing April 29.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is appearing for Kejriwal, has told India's top court that the arrest was made to prevent him from campaigning for the upcoming Lok Sabha Election.&nbsp;

Last week, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received a major setback when the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/election-officials-check-rahul-gandhis-helicopter-in-tamil-nadu-711421">Election officials inspect Rahul Gandhi's helicopter in Tamil Nadu</a>&nbsp;

The HC had said that the material collected by the ED revealed that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said this Court does not consider the issues of political parties, but of investigating agencies.&nbsp;

The court had&nbsp;noted that Kejriwal was&nbsp;allegedly involved in personal capacity in the formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks as the national convenor of the AAP.&nbsp;

Kejriwal had challenged the Delhi High Court order that had upheld his arrest in the case. Hearing the case,&nbsp;a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued notice to the ED.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-polls-congress-releases-list-of-10-candidates-for-general-elections-711250">Congress releases list of 10 candidates, fields Kanhaiya Kumar from North East Delhi</a>&nbsp;

<h2>Kejriwal's custody extended&nbsp;</h2>

Also on Monday, Delhi's Rouse Avenue court extended Kejriwal's judicial custody till April 23. Meanwhile, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann met Kejriwal in Tihar jail Monday and alleged he was being treated like a terrorist.&nbsp;

AAP party said its government in Delhi will start functioning from jail under a "proper format" with the chief minister planning to meet two ministers next week.&nbsp;

Watch this report:&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-liquor-policy-case-supreme-court-to-hear-cm-kejriwals-plea-711432/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>What's the case?&nbsp;</h2>

The case involves alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22. The policy was later scrapped.&nbsp;

The Delhi government had implemented the policy on November 17, 2021. But it was scrapped at the end of September 2022. Corruption allegations were levelled against the party, which AAP denies. &nbsp;

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the federal anti-money laundering agency.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Apr 15) asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Apr 15) asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in a money-laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam. The Court has asked the law enforcement agency to file the response by April 24 and the matter would be heard in the week commencing April 29. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is appearing for Kejriwal, has told India's top court that the arrest was made to prevent him from campaigning for the upcoming Lok Sabha Election. Last week, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received a major setback when the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest. Also read: Election officials inspect Rahul Gandhi's helicopter in Tamil Nadu The HC had said that the material collected by the ED revealed that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said this Court does not consider the issues of political parties, but of investigating agencies. The court had noted that Kejriwal was allegedly involved in personal capacity in the formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks as the national convenor of the AAP. Kejriwal had challenged the Delhi High Court order that had upheld his arrest in the case. Hearing the case, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued notice to the ED. Also read: Congress releases list of 10 candidates, fields Kanhaiya Kumar from North East Delhi Kejriwal's custody extended Also on Monday, Delhi's Rouse Avenue court extended Kejriwal's judicial custody till April 23. Meanwhile, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann met Kejriwal in Tihar jail Monday and alleged he was being treated like a terrorist. AAP party said its government in Delhi will start functioning from jail under a "proper format" with the chief minister planning to meet two ministers next week. Watch this report: × What's the case? The case involves alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22. The policy was later scrapped. The Delhi government had implemented the policy on November 17, 2021. But it was scrapped at the end of September 2022. Corruption allegations were levelled against the party, which AAP denies. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the federal anti-money laundering agency. (With inputs from agencies)

India's top court seeks reply from ED on Arvind Kejriwal's plea against arrest in money laundering case

The Supreme Court of India has tightened the noose around Patanjali ayurved, rejecting a second apology from the company, its founder Baba Ramdev, and managing director Acharya Balkrishna. In this edition of WION Decodes we will explain the case details & the broader implications for the FMCG industry.

The case against Patanjali

What happens when your brand ads boast of something that's not really true?

India's top court has an answer - "We will rip you apart."

The Supreme Court of India has tightened the noose around Patanjali Ayurved, rejecting a second apology from the company, its founder Baba Ramdev, and managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

The top Court bench including Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah directed the state licensing authority to take action against Patanjali and ordered the company to explain its continued defiance through detailed affidavits.

The court's ire was not just directed at Patanjali's misleading advertisements but also at the Uttarakhand government's inaction.

This is the latest in a long-running legal saga that began in August 2022.

What is the court miffed about?

Patanjali's advertisements claiming to cure multiple and serious ailments, including the Covid-19.

The court remarked, "What about all the faceless people who have consumed these Patanjali medicines stated to cure diseases which cannot be cured?"

The next hearing is scheduled for next week.

Background in 10 points

<ul>
	<li>The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition against Patanjali after a series of advertisements boasting that their products could cure chronic illnesses like diabetes, blood pressure, and even COVID-19.&nbsp;These claims directly violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibits misleading advertising of medical products.</li>
	<li>It began after Patanjali launched a product called Coronil in February 2021, just before the second wave of the COVID-19 breakout. Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan attended the product launch event.&nbsp;In its ads, the company claimed Coronil was the "first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19" and the ad poster read the product was certified and recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO).</li>
	<li>However, the troubles began for Patanjali when WHO denied it had certified any natural medicine to cure coronavirus.&nbsp;The IMA immediately launched an attack on Patanjali, calling the WHO certification claim as a "blatant lie" and asked for an explanation from the health minister, who is a doctor too.</li>
	<li>Patanjali's founder, Baba Ramdev took the fight to the IMA by declaring allopathy as a killer of lakhs of people in a video that went viral.</li>
	<li>In response, the IMA sent a legal notice to Ramdev seeking an apology and withdrawal of those statements on allopathy. Patanjali did not stop there.&nbsp;In 2022, the firm's ads in leading newspapers in the country read, "Misconceptions Spread By Allopathy: Save Yourself And The Country From The Misconceptions Spread By Pharma And Medical Industry."</li>
	<li>In response, the IMA filed a case against the firm.</li>
	<li>After several hearings, the Supreme Court in November 2022 threatened Patanjali of heavy fines and warned the firm against misleading ads on curing serious ailments like diabetes &amp; high blood pressure.&nbsp;Patanjali reassured the top court that it would not make off hand claims on super pills or magical medicines in its ads.&nbsp;The company also said, "henceforth, there shall not be any violation of any of the laws, especially relating to advertisement and branding of products."</li>
	<li>Did Patanjali ignore that directive?&nbsp;</li>
	<li>In January, an anonymous letter to the top court showed misleading ads from Patanjali in leading newspapers post the Supreme Court's ruling in November 2023.</li>
	<li>The Supreme court took note and sent contempt notices to Ramdev and the managing director in February 2024. What irked the top court more is the defiance of Patanjali, which did not file a reply to the contempt order.</li>
</ul>

Broader implications

This case exposes the vulnerability of consumers to misleading advertisements by FMCG companies in India. The easy availability of such ads, often preying on gullible individuals, poses a significant public health risk. The Supreme Court's intervention is a crucial step to protect consumers and ensure they are not swayed by false claims about medical products.

However, the bigger question this case raises is the ineffectiveness of the existing legal framework. The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, enacted in 1954, seems to have significant loopholes. Patanjali's repeated offenses highlight the Act's inability to effectively deter misleading advertising. Additionally, the meagre penalties imposed under the Act do little to discourage companies from indulging in such practices.

The Supreme Court's ruling is a welcome intervention. However, a more robust legal framework with stricter penalties and efficient implementation by regulatory bodies is essential to prevent misleading advertisements and protect public health from exploitation.

What happens when your brand ads boast of something that's not really true? India's top court has an answer - "We will rip you apart." The Supreme Court of India has tightened the noose around Patanjali Ayurved, rejecting a second apology from the company, its founder Baba Ramdev, and managing director Acharya Balkrishna.

What happens when your brand ads boast of something that's not really true? India's top court has an answer - "We will rip you apart." The Supreme Court of India has tightened the noose around Patanjali Ayurved, rejecting a second apology from the company, its founder Baba Ramdev, and managing director Acharya Balkrishna. The top Court bench including Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah directed the state licensing authority to take action against Patanjali and ordered the company to explain its continued defiance through detailed affidavits. The court's ire was not just directed at Patanjali's misleading advertisements but also at the Uttarakhand government's inaction. This is the latest in a long-running legal saga that began in August 2022. What is the court miffed about? Patanjali's advertisements claiming to cure multiple and serious ailments, including the Covid-19. The court remarked, "What about all the faceless people who have consumed these Patanjali medicines stated to cure diseases which cannot be cured?" The next hearing is scheduled for next week. Background in 10 points The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition against Patanjali after a series of advertisements boasting that their products could cure chronic illnesses like diabetes, blood pressure, and even COVID-19. These claims directly violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibits misleading advertising of medical products. It began after Patanjali launched a product called Coronil in February 2021, just before the second wave of the COVID-19 breakout. Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan attended the product launch event. In its ads, the company claimed Coronil was the "first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19" and the ad poster read the product was certified and recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO). However, the troubles began for Patanjali when WHO denied it had certified any natural medicine to cure coronavirus. The IMA immediately launched an attack on Patanjali, calling the WHO certification claim as a "blatant lie" and asked for an explanation from the health minister, who is a doctor too. Patanjali's founder, Baba Ramdev took the fight to the IMA by declaring allopathy as a killer of lakhs of people in a video that went viral. In response, the IMA sent a legal notice to Ramdev seeking an apology and withdrawal of those statements on allopathy. Patanjali did not stop there. In 2022, the firm's ads in leading newspapers in the country read, "Misconceptions Spread By Allopathy: Save Yourself And The Country From The Misconceptions Spread By Pharma And Medical Industry." In response, the IMA filed a case against the firm. After several hearings, the Supreme Court in November 2022 threatened Patanjali of heavy fines and warned the firm against misleading ads on curing serious ailments like diabetes & high blood pressure. Patanjali reassured the top court that it would not make off hand claims on super pills or magical medicines in its ads. The company also said, "henceforth, there shall not be any violation of any of the laws, especially relating to advertisement and branding of products." Did Patanjali ignore that directive? In January, an anonymous letter to the top court showed misleading ads from Patanjali in leading newspapers post the Supreme Court's ruling in November 2023. The Supreme court took note and sent contempt notices to Ramdev and the managing director in February 2024. What irked the top court more is the defiance of Patanjali, which did not file a reply to the contempt order. Broader implications This case exposes the vulnerability of consumers to misleading advertisements by FMCG companies in India. The easy availability of such ads, often preying on gullible individuals, poses a significant public health risk. The Supreme Court's intervention is a crucial step to protect consumers and ensure they are not swayed by false claims about medical products. However, the bigger question this case raises is the ineffectiveness of the existing legal framework. The Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, enacted in 1954, seems to have significant loopholes. Patanjali's repeated offenses highlight the Act's inability to effectively deter misleading advertising. Additionally, the meagre penalties imposed under the Act do little to discourage companies from indulging in such practices. The Supreme Court's ruling is a welcome intervention. However, a more robust legal framework with stricter penalties and efficient implementation by regulatory bodies is essential to prevent misleading advertisements and protect public health from exploitation.

Explained: The ads case against Patanjali

The top court in the US state of Arizona, on Tuesday (Apr 9) ruled that the state can enforce its long-dormant 19th-century law that criminalises nearly all abortions. The ruling marks yet another setback for reproductive rights in the state where abortion was already banned starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

<h2>Arizona top court’s ruling</h2>

The 1864 law provides no exceptions for rape or incest and bans abortion in virtually all instances, except when a mother’s life is at stake. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favour of the law by a 4-2 majority.&nbsp;

The decision came after reviewing a 2022 decision by the state Court of Appeals which said doctors couldn’t be charged for performing the procedure in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-says-us-states-should-decide-abortion-law-709026">Donald Trump says US states should decide abortion law, dodges stand on national ban</a>

The ruling was also in favour of an anti-abortion obstetrician Eric Hazelrigg and Republican Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McGrane who took up the defence of the law after Arizona’s attorney general had declined to do so.

Notably, the fight to enforce the 19th-century law has been going on for years, but it was blocked after the US Supreme Court issued the 1973 landmark Roe v Wade ruling which guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion.

However, in June 2022, the SCOTUS overturned the ruling which has led many Republican states to enforce new bans or restrictions on abortion.&nbsp;

Weeks after Roe v Wade was overturned, then-Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a motion to challenge the Planned Parenthood case which had sued the state in 1971 and won.&nbsp;

It is also worth noting that the law that the state’s top court has revived was enacted in 1864 before Arizona even became a US state.&nbsp;

The state would now not only be allowed to ban nearly all abortions but also impose a penalty of up to five years in prison on anyone who performs or helps a woman to get the medical procedure, in line with 19th-century law.&nbsp;

Notably, 14 out of the 50 US states are currently enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy with some exceptions.&nbsp;

<h2>‘A stain on our state’</h2>

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, called the ruling “unconscionable and an affront to freedom,” and said that she would not prosecute any doctor or woman under the “draconian law,” while in her position.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/floridas-top-court-permits-six-week-abortion-ban-but-voters-to-have-their-say-on-issue-706689">Florida's top court upholds 15-week abortion ban, but makes it a ballot measure</a>

“Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state,” she added.&nbsp;

However, pro-choice activists are not going down without a fight. Last week, abortion rights advocates said that they had gathered enough signatures that would allow voters in November to vote on a measure which would enshrine a right to an abortion until fetal viability, in the state’s constitution.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The top court in the US state of Arizona, on Tuesday (Apr 9) ruled that the state can enforce its long-dormant 19th-century law that criminalises nearly all abortions.

The top court in the US state of Arizona, on Tuesday (Apr 9) ruled that the state can enforce its long-dormant 19th-century law that criminalises nearly all abortions. The ruling marks yet another setback for reproductive rights in the state where abortion was already banned starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Arizona top court’s ruling The 1864 law provides no exceptions for rape or incest and bans abortion in virtually all instances, except when a mother’s life is at stake. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favour of the law by a 4-2 majority. The decision came after reviewing a 2022 decision by the state Court of Appeals which said doctors couldn’t be charged for performing the procedure in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Also Read | Donald Trump says US states should decide abortion law, dodges stand on national ban The ruling was also in favour of an anti-abortion obstetrician Eric Hazelrigg and Republican Yavapai County Attorney Dennis McGrane who took up the defence of the law after Arizona’s attorney general had declined to do so. Notably, the fight to enforce the 19th-century law has been going on for years, but it was blocked after the US Supreme Court issued the 1973 landmark Roe v Wade ruling which guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion. However, in June 2022, the SCOTUS overturned the ruling which has led many Republican states to enforce new bans or restrictions on abortion. Weeks after Roe v Wade was overturned, then-Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a motion to challenge the Planned Parenthood case which had sued the state in 1971 and won. It is also worth noting that the law that the state’s top court has revived was enacted in 1864 before Arizona even became a US state. The state would now not only be allowed to ban nearly all abortions but also impose a penalty of up to five years in prison on anyone who performs or helps a woman to get the medical procedure, in line with 19th-century law. Notably, 14 out of the 50 US states are currently enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy with some exceptions. ‘A stain on our state’ Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, called the ruling “unconscionable and an affront to freedom,” and said that she would not prosecute any doctor or woman under the “draconian law,” while in her position. Also Read | Florida's top court upholds 15-week abortion ban, but makes it a ballot measure “Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state,” she added. However, pro-choice activists are not going down without a fight. Last week, abortion rights advocates said that they had gathered enough signatures that would allow voters in November to vote on a measure which would enshrine a right to an abortion until fetal viability, in the state’s constitution. (With inputs from agencies)

Arizona’s top court revives 1864 law which bans nearly all abortions

The Supreme Court has struck a balance between poll candidates' Right to Privacy and the voter's Right to Information. It has clarified that candidates are not mandated to reveal every asset owned by them or their dependence on but only those that significantly influence their Public Image or lifestyle and have a bearing on an elector's choice.

Indian Supreme Court: Candidates don't need to declare all assets

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 11) in a strong rebuke dismissed Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna's latest apology for the company's misleading advertisements. The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the case and said they are not blind and will not show leniency.

The court tore into the Uttarakhand licensing authority for inaction and the central government's response deemed inadequate.

"The apology is on paper. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking," the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said.

The court started the proceedings by criticising Ramdev and Balkrishna for apologising to the media first, not the court. Justice Kohli pointed out the delay in submitting the affidavits, suggesting they prioritised publicity. &nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="http://wionews.com/india-news/patanjali-md-acharya-balkrishna-submits-unqualified-apology-to-supreme-court-over-alleged-misleading-ads-702634" hreflang="en">Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna submits unqualified apology to Supreme Court over alleged misleading ads</a>

Despite defence lawyer Mukul Rohatgi's claims, the court found the affidavits poorly drafted and expressed doubt about their sincerity.

The judge examining the affidavits, Justice Amanullah, expressed strong doubt about their authenticity. He bluntly stated, "These affidavits seem like a mockery of the court process. Who wrote them? It's baffling." &nbsp; 
 
Defence attorney Rohatgi attempted to downplay the issue, claiming a simple mistake. The court countered with, "That's a understatement."

Justice Amanullah then questioned the sincerity of the apology itself. He asked, "Is there any genuine regret here?" &nbsp;

The court remained unimpressed, stating, "Even after our clear orders? &nbsp;An apology alone isn't enough. You must face the consequences of disobeying the court. We won't be lenient in this case."

The court said, "This isn't just about punishing one company, it's about making sure everyone follows the rules. Look, when the government told you to take down those ads, what did you do? You hid behind a technicality, some court decision, to avoid any trouble. That, on top of everything else, shows you just don't respect the law or the people you're supposed to be selling to. Saying 'sorry' and claiming good intentions isn't enough."

Things got even hotter when the court turned to the Uttarakhand government.

They basically asked why nobody in charge of licensing ever did their job. Apparently, three officials were supposed to be suspended immediately.&nbsp;The judges were furious that these government workers did nothing. They said something like, "We take major offence to you calling those officers 'well-meaning.' Don't try to downplay this! We'll tear you apart for this! All they did was shuffle paperwork!"

We have strong objection to the use of the word 'bonafide' for officers. We are not going to take (it) lightly."

"We will rip you apart," it said, saying that officers were just "pushing files".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 11) in a strong rebuke dismissed Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna's latest apology for the company's misleading advertisements.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 11) in a strong rebuke dismissed Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna's latest apology for the company's misleading advertisements. The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the case and said they are not blind and will not show leniency. The court tore into the Uttarakhand licensing authority for inaction and the central government's response deemed inadequate. "The apology is on paper. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking," the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said. The court started the proceedings by criticising Ramdev and Balkrishna for apologising to the media first, not the court. Justice Kohli pointed out the delay in submitting the affidavits, suggesting they prioritised publicity. Also read | Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna submits unqualified apology to Supreme Court over alleged misleading ads Despite defence lawyer Mukul Rohatgi's claims, the court found the affidavits poorly drafted and expressed doubt about their sincerity. The judge examining the affidavits, Justice Amanullah, expressed strong doubt about their authenticity. He bluntly stated, "These affidavits seem like a mockery of the court process. Who wrote them? It's baffling." Defence attorney Rohatgi attempted to downplay the issue, claiming a simple mistake. The court countered with, "That's a understatement." Justice Amanullah then questioned the sincerity of the apology itself. He asked, "Is there any genuine regret here?" The court remained unimpressed, stating, "Even after our clear orders? An apology alone isn't enough. You must face the consequences of disobeying the court. We won't be lenient in this case." The court said, "This isn't just about punishing one company, it's about making sure everyone follows the rules. Look, when the government told you to take down those ads, what did you do? You hid behind a technicality, some court decision, to avoid any trouble. That, on top of everything else, shows you just don't respect the law or the people you're supposed to be selling to. Saying 'sorry' and claiming good intentions isn't enough." Things got even hotter when the court turned to the Uttarakhand government. They basically asked why nobody in charge of licensing ever did their job. Apparently, three officials were supposed to be suspended immediately. The judges were furious that these government workers did nothing. They said something like, "We take major offence to you calling those officers 'well-meaning.' Don't try to downplay this! We'll tear you apart for this! All they did was shuffle paperwork!" We have strong objection to the use of the word 'bonafide' for officers. We are not going to take (it) lightly." "We will rip you apart," it said, saying that officers were just "pushing files". (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court warns Patanjali in misleading ads case says ‘will rip you apart’

India's Supreme Court said that a voter's right to know cannot be stretched to lay out threadbare a politician's life. The court also said that non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by poll candidates do not necessarily mean deviation from a sense of substantial character so as to invalidate their election.

The judgement in which bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar reversed the July 7, 2023 decision of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The High Court had invalidated the April 2019 poll victory of independent candidate Karikho Kri from the 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.

Kri was accused by rival congress candidate Nuney Tayang of suppressing information related to material specifics in his election affidavit.

Also watch&nbsp;|&nbsp;Indian SC: Candidates don't need to declare all assets&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-sc-candidates-dont-need-to-declare-all-assets-709725/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Kri was accused of not disclosing the ownership of certain vehicles, not submitting a ‘no dues certificate’ in the context of electricity and water charges of his government accomodation, and not disclosing dues of municipal and property taxes.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/canada-finally-admits-india-didnt-interfere-in-previous-elections-won-by-justin-trudeau-709736">No Indian interference found in 2021 Canadian elections that Trudeau won, probe report reveals</a>

"Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voter’s ‘right to know’ is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the electorate. His ‘right to privacy’ would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office," Justice Sanjay Kumar said writing for the bench.

The court said "in that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc, unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed."

The bench added that "every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character".

The court then illustrated it with an example.

“For example, a candidate and his family who own several high-priced watches, which would aggregate to a huge figure in terms of monetary value, would obviously have to disclose the same as they constitute an asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle. Suppression of the same would constitute ‘undue influence’ upon the voter as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept away from the voter. However, if a candidate and his family members each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all. Each case would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts.”

The top court said that there is a need to distinguish between substantial and insubstantial issues while considering the validity of a nomination.

"Every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also manifests that this court has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one’s candidature or the result of an election. The very fact that Section 36(4) of the Act of 1951 speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice."

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court said that a voter's right to know cannot be stretched to lay out threadbare a politician's life. The court also said that non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by poll candidates do not necessarily mean deviation from a sense of substantial character so as to invalidate their election.

India's Supreme Court said that a voter's right to know cannot be stretched to lay out threadbare a politician's life. The court also said that non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by poll candidates do not necessarily mean deviation from a sense of substantial character so as to invalidate their election. The judgement in which bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar reversed the July 7, 2023 decision of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The High Court had invalidated the April 2019 poll victory of independent candidate Karikho Kri from the 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. Kri was accused by rival congress candidate Nuney Tayang of suppressing information related to material specifics in his election affidavit. Also watch | Indian SC: Candidates don't need to declare all assets × Kri was accused of not disclosing the ownership of certain vehicles, not submitting a ‘no dues certificate’ in the context of electricity and water charges of his government accomodation, and not disclosing dues of municipal and property taxes. Also read | No Indian interference found in 2021 Canadian elections that Trudeau won, probe report reveals "Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voter’s ‘right to know’ is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the electorate. His ‘right to privacy’ would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office," Justice Sanjay Kumar said writing for the bench. The court said "in that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc, unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in terms of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed." The bench added that "every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character". The court then illustrated it with an example. “For example, a candidate and his family who own several high-priced watches, which would aggregate to a huge figure in terms of monetary value, would obviously have to disclose the same as they constitute an asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle. Suppression of the same would constitute ‘undue influence’ upon the voter as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept away from the voter. However, if a candidate and his family members each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all. Each case would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts.” The top court said that there is a need to distinguish between substantial and insubstantial issues while considering the validity of a nomination. "Every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also manifests that this court has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one’s candidature or the result of an election. The very fact that Section 36(4) of the Act of 1951 speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice." (With inputs from agencies)

Candidates don't need to give 'threadbare' account of their lives to voters: Supreme Court

Indian SC: Candidates don't need to declare all assets

India's Supreme Court has made the 'right against adverse effects of climate change' a part of the right to life, in an unprecedented leap forward to recognise the impact of climate change on human life in the world's most populous democracy.&nbsp;

While the Supreme Court bench presided by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and composed of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra&nbsp;gave the ruling on March 21, the detailed order was only uploaded over the weekend. The top court was hearing a petition to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) from losing its habitat due to power transmission lines.

Also watch |&nbsp;Climate change endangers wine production worldwide

<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/climate-change-endangers-wine-production-worldwide-706487/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world,” a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/climate-threatened-maldives-receives-tibetan-glacier-water-from-china-705369">Climate change-threatened Maldives receives Tibetan glacier water from China</a>

"The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change," it said.

"Despite governmental policy and rules and regulations recognising the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, there is no single or umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns,” the court noted. “However, this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change," it added.

On the right of citizenry to a clean environment, the court said: "Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14)."

<h2>Bid to save Great Indian Bustard's habitat: What is the matter?</h2>

On April 19, 2021, a Supreme Court bench ordered restrictions on the setting-up of overhead transmission lines in an area of about 99,000 square kilometres.

The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Ministry of Power, and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy later sought modification in the top court's directions.&nbsp;

It argued that given New Delhi's international commitments to transition to non-fossil fuels and reduction of emissions, building up the country’s solar and wind energy potential is important. It added that putting high-voltage power lines underground was technically not feasible.

The Supreme Court last week allowed the government's request while recognising technical and land acquisition challenges and prohibitive costs in implementing its April 2021 order.&nbsp;

The court set up a nine-member committee of experts to "assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas, considering factors such as terrain, population density and infrastructure requirements". It also asked the committee "to complete its task and submit a report to this court through the Union Government on or before July 31, 2024".

India's Supreme Court has made the 'right against adverse effects of climate change' a part of the right to life, in an unprecedented leap forward to recognise the impact of climate change on human life in the world's most populous democracy.

India's Supreme Court has made the 'right against adverse effects of climate change' a part of the right to life, in an unprecedented leap forward to recognise the impact of climate change on human life in the world's most populous democracy. While the Supreme Court bench presided by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and composed of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra gave the ruling on March 21, the detailed order was only uploaded over the weekend. The top court was hearing a petition to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) from losing its habitat due to power transmission lines. Also watch | Climate change endangers wine production worldwide × "Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world,” a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said. Also read | Climate change-threatened Maldives receives Tibetan glacier water from China "The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change," it said. "Despite governmental policy and rules and regulations recognising the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, there is no single or umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns,” the court noted. “However, this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change," it added. On the right of citizenry to a clean environment, the court said: "Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14)." Bid to save Great Indian Bustard's habitat: What is the matter? On April 19, 2021, a Supreme Court bench ordered restrictions on the setting-up of overhead transmission lines in an area of about 99,000 square kilometres. The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Ministry of Power, and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy later sought modification in the top court's directions. It argued that given New Delhi's international commitments to transition to non-fossil fuels and reduction of emissions, building up the country’s solar and wind energy potential is important. It added that putting high-voltage power lines underground was technically not feasible. The Supreme Court last week allowed the government's request while recognising technical and land acquisition challenges and prohibitive costs in implementing its April 2021 order. The court set up a nine-member committee of experts to "assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas, considering factors such as terrain, population density and infrastructure requirements". It also asked the committee "to complete its task and submit a report to this court through the Union Government on or before July 31, 2024".

'Right against adverse effects of climate change part of right to life': India's Supreme Court

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change. Watch in for more climate updates!

India: Supreme Court strikes balance between climate and economy

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change. Watch in for more details!

India: Supreme Court links right against climate change to Article 21 & 14

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to academic- activist Shoma Kanti Sen, who was arrested in June 2018 in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih directed that she be released on bail on such conditions as the special court may consider fit and proper.

It said the conditions shall include that Sen shall not leave the state of Maharashtra without the permission of the special court.

"The appellant (Sen) shall inform the investigation officer of the NIA about the address where she shall reside during the period she remains enlarged on bail," the bench said while pronouncing the order.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/my-credibility-is-my-usp-congress-candidate-dr-cp-joshi-from-bhilwara-in-rajasthan-tells-wion-708084">'My credibility is my USP': Congress candidate Dr CP Joshi from Bhilwara in Rajasthan tells WION</a>

It said she shall use only one mobile phone number during the bail period and share it with the investigating officer.

"The appellant shall also ensure that the mobile remains active and charged round the clock so that she remains constantly accessible throughout the period she remains enlarged on bail," it said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-bjp-candidate-from-rajsamand-constituency-mahima-kumari-speaks-to-wion-707800">WION speaks to BJP's pick for Rajsamand battle - Mahima Kumari, daughter-in-law of Mewar's royal family</a>

"During this period, that is the period during which she remains on bail, the appellant shall keep the location status, that is GPS of her mobile phone, active 24 hours a day and her phone shall be paired with that of the investigating officer of the NIA to enable him at any given time to identify the appellant's exact location," the bench said.

It directed that while on bail, Sen shall report to the station house officer of the police station, within whose jurisdiction she shall reside, once every fortnight.

"In the event there is breach of any of these conditions or any other conditions that may be imposed by the special court independently, it would be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail granted to the appellant before the special court…," the bench said.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rescued-pakistani-crew-thanks-indian-navy-706194">Rescued Pakistani crew thanks Indian Navy</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/rescued-pakistani-crew-thanks-indian-navy-706194/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Sen, an English literature professor, and women's rights activist was arrested in connection with the case on June 6, 2018.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017 which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the city's outskirts.

The Pune Police had claimed that the conclave was backed by Maoists.

The probe in the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians have been named as accused, was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to academic- activist Shoma Kanti Sen, who was arrested in June 2018 in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to academic- activist Shoma Kanti Sen, who was arrested in June 2018 in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih directed that she be released on bail on such conditions as the special court may consider fit and proper. It said the conditions shall include that Sen shall not leave the state of Maharashtra without the permission of the special court. "The appellant (Sen) shall inform the investigation officer of the NIA about the address where she shall reside during the period she remains enlarged on bail," the bench said while pronouncing the order. Also Read | 'My credibility is my USP': Congress candidate Dr CP Joshi from Bhilwara in Rajasthan tells WION It said she shall use only one mobile phone number during the bail period and share it with the investigating officer. "The appellant shall also ensure that the mobile remains active and charged round the clock so that she remains constantly accessible throughout the period she remains enlarged on bail," it said. Also Read | WION speaks to BJP's pick for Rajsamand battle - Mahima Kumari, daughter-in-law of Mewar's royal family "During this period, that is the period during which she remains on bail, the appellant shall keep the location status, that is GPS of her mobile phone, active 24 hours a day and her phone shall be paired with that of the investigating officer of the NIA to enable him at any given time to identify the appellant's exact location," the bench said. It directed that while on bail, Sen shall report to the station house officer of the police station, within whose jurisdiction she shall reside, once every fortnight. "In the event there is breach of any of these conditions or any other conditions that may be imposed by the special court independently, it would be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail granted to the appellant before the special court…," the bench said. Watch | Rescued Pakistani crew thanks Indian Navy × Sen, an English literature professor, and women's rights activist was arrested in connection with the case on June 6, 2018. The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017 which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the city's outskirts. The Pune Police had claimed that the conclave was backed by Maoists. The probe in the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians have been named as accused, was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

SC grants bail to activist Shoma Kanti Sen in Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) put on hold the Allahabad High Court order that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional and violative of secularism.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud issued a notice to the Centre&nbsp;and the Uttar Pradesh government on the plea challenging the high court order.

"The object of the Madrasa board are primarily regulatory, and the Allahabad High Court's initial claim that the establishment of the board would violate secularism is not correct," said the bench, which also included Justices JB&nbsp;Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/allahabad-hc-rules-up-board-of-madarsa-education-act-2004-unconstitutional-all-you-need-to-know-703024">Allahabad HC rules 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' unconstitutional: All you need to know</a>

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on March 22 declared the 'UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004' unconstitutional due to violations of secular principles. Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi presided over the case.

While the ruling has been announced, a detailed judgment is awaited&nbsp;which will shed more light on the specifics of the decision and its implications.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the 'UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004'?</h2>

Passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2004, it is an "act to provide for the establishment of a Board of Madrasa Education in the State and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

<h2>How will this ruling affect students?</h2>

The court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to formulate a scheme ensuring that students currently enrolled in Madrasas can seamlessly transition into the formal education system.

<h2>The backstory of the case: How did this start?</h2>

The Allahabad High Court verdict came after Advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore filed a writ petition, challenging various aspects of the Madrasa Board's functioning, including its management by the Minority Welfare Department, involving both the Union of India and the State government.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-sit-probe-finds-13000-illegal-madrasas-found-across-uttar-pradesh-deputy-cm-vows-stringent-action-697567" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-sit-probe-finds-13000-illegal-madrasas-found-across-uttar-pradesh-deputy-cm-vows-stringent-action-697567&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjXwsLk0KqFAxUzT2wGHVDHB-IQFnoECAMQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw3--etShf0nUP8KleecMQEB&amp;arm=e" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-sit-probe-finds-13000-illegal-madrasas-found-across-uttar-pradesh-deputy-cm-vows-stringent-action-697567" target="_blank">India: SIT probe finds 13000 illegal&nbsp;madrasas&nbsp;across Uttar Pradesh</a>

In October 2023, the Uttar Pradesh government formed an SIT to probe madrassas' funds from abroad and also surveyed the Islamic educational institutions in the state.

Earlier, the court had expressed concerns about potential arbitrariness in the administration of educational institutions, emphasising the need for transparency and adherence to principles of equal opportunity and secular governance.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) put on hold the Allahabad High Court order that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional and violative of secularism.

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) put on hold the Allahabad High Court order that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional and violative of secularism. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud issued a notice to the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government on the plea challenging the high court order. "The object of the Madrasa board are primarily regulatory, and the Allahabad High Court's initial claim that the establishment of the board would violate secularism is not correct," said the bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Also read: Allahabad HC rules 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' unconstitutional: All you need to know The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on March 22 declared the 'UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004' unconstitutional due to violations of secular principles. Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi presided over the case. While the ruling has been announced, a detailed judgment is awaited which will shed more light on the specifics of the decision and its implications. What is the 'UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004'? Passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2004, it is an "act to provide for the establishment of a Board of Madrasa Education in the State and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." How will this ruling affect students? The court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to formulate a scheme ensuring that students currently enrolled in Madrasas can seamlessly transition into the formal education system. The backstory of the case: How did this start? The Allahabad High Court verdict came after Advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore filed a writ petition, challenging various aspects of the Madrasa Board's functioning, including its management by the Minority Welfare Department, involving both the Union of India and the State government. Also read: India: SIT probe finds 13000 illegal madrasas across Uttar Pradesh In October 2023, the Uttar Pradesh government formed an SIT to probe madrassas' funds from abroad and also surveyed the Islamic educational institutions in the state. Earlier, the court had expressed concerns about potential arbitrariness in the administration of educational institutions, emphasising the need for transparency and adherence to principles of equal opportunity and secular governance. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court puts on hold Allahabad HC order scrapping UP madrasa law

The Supreme Court granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh in the Delhi excise policy case on Tuesday, after the Enforcement Directorate told the top court that it has "no objection" to his bail.

India: Supreme Court grants bail to AAP MP Sanjay Singh

India's top court has issued a notice to the election commission regarding a petition that advocates for the counting of all voter verified paper audit trail also known as VV Pat as opposed to the current practice of verification of only five randomly selected EVMS through VVPat. Watch in for more details!

India's top court seeks response from EC and Centre on plea for complete count of VVPAT slips

The top court of Florida upheld the state's 15-week abortion ban which paved the way for the implementation of the six-week ban and it was also decided that a&nbsp;ballot initiative would be held to decide if&nbsp;abortion rights should be enshrined&nbsp; in the state's Constitution.&nbsp;

The six-week abortion ban was passed in 2023 but was kept on hold the judgement on the case of the 15-week ban. The six-week ban will come into effect in 30 days.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/florida-bans-children-under-14-from-using-social-media-14-15-year-olds-will-need-parental-consent-704218">Florida bans children under 14 from using social media; 14-15 year olds will need parental consent</a>

<h2>Court gives two rulings on abortion ban</h2>

Florida's Republican-appointed justices on Monday (April 1) agreed by 6-1 that the constitution of the state - especially its privacy protections - did not apply to access to abortion.

The court's ruling upheld the existing 15-week abortion ban which was passed in Florida in 2022.

Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis had almost a year ago signed into law a six-week abortion ban. However, it was decided that the bill would be placed on hold till the legal challenges of the 15-week ban were cleared.

After Monday's ruling, Florida can place into effect the six-week ban within 30 days. Lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, which has its own clinics that provide abortions.

Watch:&nbsp;Florida police officer at the right time, right place

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/florida-police-officer-at-the-right-time-right-place-692091/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Florida Supreme Court, in a separate ruling on Monday (April 1), also decided by 4-3 that a proposed constitutional amendment which will protect access to abortion in the state can be part of the ballots in November when the country's general election is held.

In the ballot question, the Floridians will have to vote 'yes' or 'no' to a statement that reads, "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health."&nbsp;

Viability refers to the time when an unborn child or foetus is likely to survive outside the uterus, which is generally around 24 weeks.

It added that "this amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion".

(With inputs from agencies)

The top court of Florida upheld the state's 15-week abortion ban which paved the way for the implementation of the six-week ban and it was also decided that a ballot initiative would be held to decide if abortion rights should be enshrined in the state's Constitution.

The top court of Florida upheld the state's 15-week abortion ban which paved the way for the implementation of the six-week ban and it was also decided that a ballot initiative would be held to decide if abortion rights should be enshrined in the state's Constitution. The six-week abortion ban was passed in 2023 but was kept on hold the judgement on the case of the 15-week ban. The six-week ban will come into effect in 30 days. Also Read: Florida bans children under 14 from using social media; 14-15 year olds will need parental consent Court gives two rulings on abortion ban Florida's Republican-appointed justices on Monday (April 1) agreed by 6-1 that the constitution of the state - especially its privacy protections - did not apply to access to abortion. The court's ruling upheld the existing 15-week abortion ban which was passed in Florida in 2022. Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis had almost a year ago signed into law a six-week abortion ban. However, it was decided that the bill would be placed on hold till the legal challenges of the 15-week ban were cleared. After Monday's ruling, Florida can place into effect the six-week ban within 30 days. Lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, which has its own clinics that provide abortions. Watch: Florida police officer at the right time, right place The Florida Supreme Court, in a separate ruling on Monday (April 1), also decided by 4-3 that a proposed constitutional amendment which will protect access to abortion in the state can be part of the ballots in November when the country's general election is held. In the ballot question, the Floridians will have to vote 'yes' or 'no' to a statement that reads, "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health." Viability refers to the time when an unborn child or foetus is likely to survive outside the uterus, which is generally around 24 weeks. It added that "this amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion". (With inputs from agencies)

Florida's top court upholds 15-week abortion ban, but makes it a ballot measure

India: AAP MP Sanjay Singh gets bail from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Election Commission & the Indian govt. The move comes as a plea seeks counting of all VVPAT slips in the upcoming general elections. Watch this video for all details.

Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission & Indian govt over VVPAT slips

Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Shri Balakrishna appeared in the Supreme Court on April 02, 2023. During the hearing of Patanjali Ayurved’s “misleading advertisements” case, the Supreme Court slammed the defendants for their inability to file proper affidavits over the company's misleading advertisements.

“Be ready for action,” the Supreme Court told Ramdev. "Not just the Supreme Court, every order passed by the courts across this country has to be respected. This is absolute defiance," the top court added.

Patanjali earlier apologised to the top court which a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also refused to accept.&nbsp;

"You should have made sure that the solemn undertaking should have been in letter and spirit. We can also say that we are sorry for not accepting it. Your apology is not persuading this court. It is more of a lip service," the Supreme Court said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="http://wionews.com/india-news/patanjali-md-acharya-balkrishna-submits-unqualified-apology-to-supreme-court-over-alleged-misleading-ads-702634" hreflang="en">Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna submits unqualified apology to Supreme Court over alleged misleading ads</a>

Ramdev's lawyer, senior advocate Balbir Singh said that the defendants are ready to apologise in court and they are ready for whatever the court says. Ramdev and Balkrishna now have one week to file their affidavits in the matter.

The Supreme Court also lashed out at the central government for 'sitting with their eyes shut' and not taking any action against Ramdev. “This is pretty terrible. The government will have to take some swift action,” the top court said.

This matter started in November last year when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition against Patanjali for making "false" and "misleading" claims in advertisements about its products. IMA said some Patanjali advertisements project allopathy and medical practitioners in poor light. IMA stated that some corporations that produce ayurvedic medicines have made 'disparaging' statements.

Ramdev and Balkrishna will appear in court on the next date of hearing, April 10. In the last hearing, the court ordered Patanjali to stop all electronic and print advertisements of its medicines that had misleading information with immediate effect. 
&nbsp;

Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Shri Balakrishna appeared in the Supreme Court on April 02, 2023. During the hearing of Patanjali Ayurved’s “misleading advertisements” case, the Supreme Court slammed the defendants for their inability to file proper affidavits over the company's misleading advertisements.

Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Shri Balakrishna appeared in the Supreme Court on April 02, 2023. During the hearing of Patanjali Ayurved’s “misleading advertisements” case, the Supreme Court slammed the defendants for their inability to file proper affidavits over the company's misleading advertisements. “Be ready for action,” the Supreme Court told Ramdev. "Not just the Supreme Court, every order passed by the courts across this country has to be respected. This is absolute defiance," the top court added. Patanjali earlier apologised to the top court which a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also refused to accept. "You should have made sure that the solemn undertaking should have been in letter and spirit. We can also say that we are sorry for not accepting it. Your apology is not persuading this court. It is more of a lip service," the Supreme Court said. Also read | Patanjali MD Acharya Balkrishna submits unqualified apology to Supreme Court over alleged misleading ads Ramdev's lawyer, senior advocate Balbir Singh said that the defendants are ready to apologise in court and they are ready for whatever the court says. Ramdev and Balkrishna now have one week to file their affidavits in the matter. The Supreme Court also lashed out at the central government for 'sitting with their eyes shut' and not taking any action against Ramdev. “This is pretty terrible. The government will have to take some swift action,” the top court said. This matter started in November last year when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition against Patanjali for making "false" and "misleading" claims in advertisements about its products. IMA said some Patanjali advertisements project allopathy and medical practitioners in poor light. IMA stated that some corporations that produce ayurvedic medicines have made 'disparaging' statements. Ramdev and Balkrishna will appear in court on the next date of hearing, April 10. In the last hearing, the court ordered Patanjali to stop all electronic and print advertisements of its medicines that had misleading information with immediate effect.

'Absolute defiance': Supreme Court bashes Ramdev in misleading ads case, says ‘be ready for action now’

Supreme Court refused interim relief to the Indian state of Kerala. Kerala wanted to raise additional borrowing of Rs 10,722 crores for the financial year 2023-24. Watch this video for all details.

India's Supreme Court snubs Kerala over financial trouble, refuses interim relief

On Monday (April 1), the Supreme Court issued notices returnable by April 31 and passed an interim order to preserve the current situation regarding the Hindu prayers conducted at the Gyanvapi mosque complex. The court was responding to a plea from the Gyanvapi mosque committee, which contested orders from the Allahabad High Court and Varanasi court permitting 'puja' in the 'Vyas Tehkhana' or the southern cellar of the structure.

"At this stage, bearing in mind the fact that the Namaz is offered by Muslim community unhindered after the orders dated January 17 and January 31 and the offering of pooja by Hindu priest is confined to the area of tehkhana, it is appropriate to maintain status quo so as to enable both the communities to offer worships in the above terms," the CJI DY Chandrachud said while dictating order.

The Chief Justice of India additionally mentioned that the religious practices of Hindus would adhere to the guidelines outlined in the order dated January 31, 2024, and would be subject to the secure guardianship of the receivership.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi represented the mosque committee and informed the court that the trial court and subsequently the Allahabad High Court had issued an unprecedented order. He stated, "The consequence of the order is to provide final relief at the interim stage."

Ahmadi further mentioned that despite the state government not being involved in the case, they enforced the trial court's order in the late hours of the night, allowing the puja to take place immediately after the order was issued. This action, according to Ahmadi, prevented the mosque committee from seeking a stay.

Following inquiries about the mosque's entry and exit points, the Chief Justice of India suggested that the Supreme Court could allow Namaz to continue after entry from the north side, while worship in the south cellar could proceed.

"So if this is the position, we can issue notice to seek replies and post the matter for further hearing in July," the CJI suggested.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/gyanvapi-case-what-does-archaeologist-james-prinseps-200-yr-old-map-reveal-about-the-disputed-indian-site-688533">Also read |&nbsp;Gyanvapi case: What does archaeologist James Prinsep's 200-yr-old map reveal about the disputed Indian site?</a>

However, Ahmadi asserted that his argument is for a complete halt and conveyed to the court that gradually, the committee will lose control of the entire premises due to the manner in which petitions are being lodged in the trial court. He stated that approximately 20 lawsuits have been filed, with one aimed at preventing access to the courtyard.

"History has taught us that what happened in Ayodhya where multiple interim orders were passed and we could protect the mosque."

Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, representing the Hindu party, stated that there is currently no requirement for intervention by the Supreme Court.

"This is a personal right as far as the Vyas family is concerned. For generations, they have been the pujaris. The final relief is not yet granted by the Court," Diwan said.

<h2>Hindu argument on access&nbsp;</h2>

Representing the Hindu side, it was argued that access to the Vyas Tehkhana area is traditionally from the southern side of the Gyanvapi complex, while access to the mosque for Namaz is from the north side. They further said&nbsp;that the Vyas family has historically maintained possession of the Vyas Tehkhana.

Additionally, they stated that idol worship started&nbsp;following the trial court's order, and disrupting these arrangements may not be appropriate.

Prayers began in the Vyas Tehkhana on January 31 following a Varanasi court ruling allowing prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque.

On February 26, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi court's decision permitting Hindu prayers in the Vyas cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque. The court deemed the Uttar Pradesh government's 1993 action of halting Hindu prayers inside the Vyas basement illegal, as it was executed without a written order.

Also watch |&nbsp;ASI releases report on Gyanvapi mosque, finds sculptures of Hindu deity

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/asi-releases-report-on-gyanvapi-mosque-finds-sculptures-of-hindu-deity-684580/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Currently, prayers are being conducted by a Hindu priest appointed by the Kashi Vishwanath temple trust and petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak, who claims that his maternal grandfather Somnath Vyas, also a priest, offered prayers in the cellar until December 1993.

(With inputs from agencies)

On Monday (April 1), the Supreme Court issued notices returnable by April 31 and passed an interim order to preserve the current situation regarding the Hindu prayers conducted at the Gyanvapi mosque complex.

On Monday (April 1), the Supreme Court issued notices returnable by April 31 and passed an interim order to preserve the current situation regarding the Hindu prayers conducted at the Gyanvapi mosque complex. The court was responding to a plea from the Gyanvapi mosque committee, which contested orders from the Allahabad High Court and Varanasi court permitting 'puja' in the 'Vyas Tehkhana' or the southern cellar of the structure. "At this stage, bearing in mind the fact that the Namaz is offered by Muslim community unhindered after the orders dated January 17 and January 31 and the offering of pooja by Hindu priest is confined to the area of tehkhana, it is appropriate to maintain status quo so as to enable both the communities to offer worships in the above terms," the CJI DY Chandrachud said while dictating order. The Chief Justice of India additionally mentioned that the religious practices of Hindus would adhere to the guidelines outlined in the order dated January 31, 2024, and would be subject to the secure guardianship of the receivership. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi represented the mosque committee and informed the court that the trial court and subsequently the Allahabad High Court had issued an unprecedented order. He stated, "The consequence of the order is to provide final relief at the interim stage." Ahmadi further mentioned that despite the state government not being involved in the case, they enforced the trial court's order in the late hours of the night, allowing the puja to take place immediately after the order was issued. This action, according to Ahmadi, prevented the mosque committee from seeking a stay. Following inquiries about the mosque's entry and exit points, the Chief Justice of India suggested that the Supreme Court could allow Namaz to continue after entry from the north side, while worship in the south cellar could proceed. "So if this is the position, we can issue notice to seek replies and post the matter for further hearing in July," the CJI suggested. Also read | Gyanvapi case: What does archaeologist James Prinsep's 200-yr-old map reveal about the disputed Indian site? However, Ahmadi asserted that his argument is for a complete halt and conveyed to the court that gradually, the committee will lose control of the entire premises due to the manner in which petitions are being lodged in the trial court. He stated that approximately 20 lawsuits have been filed, with one aimed at preventing access to the courtyard. "History has taught us that what happened in Ayodhya where multiple interim orders were passed and we could protect the mosque." Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan, representing the Hindu party, stated that there is currently no requirement for intervention by the Supreme Court. "This is a personal right as far as the Vyas family is concerned. For generations, they have been the pujaris. The final relief is not yet granted by the Court," Diwan said. Hindu argument on access Representing the Hindu side, it was argued that access to the Vyas Tehkhana area is traditionally from the southern side of the Gyanvapi complex, while access to the mosque for Namaz is from the north side. They further said that the Vyas family has historically maintained possession of the Vyas Tehkhana. Additionally, they stated that idol worship started following the trial court's order, and disrupting these arrangements may not be appropriate. Prayers began in the Vyas Tehkhana on January 31 following a Varanasi court ruling allowing prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque. On February 26, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi court's decision permitting Hindu prayers in the Vyas cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque. The court deemed the Uttar Pradesh government's 1993 action of halting Hindu prayers inside the Vyas basement illegal, as it was executed without a written order. Also watch | ASI releases report on Gyanvapi mosque, finds sculptures of Hindu deity Currently, prayers are being conducted by a Hindu priest appointed by the Kashi Vishwanath temple trust and petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak, who claims that his maternal grandfather Somnath Vyas, also a priest, offered prayers in the cellar until December 1993. (With inputs from agencies)

Gyanvapi Mosque case: India’s top court refuses to halt Hindu prayers inside complex cellar

India's Supreme Court scrapped the donations to political parties via electoral bonds on February 15, seven years after the scheme was first implemented in&nbsp;2017 and just two months ahead of the Lok Sabha elections 2024.&nbsp;

A report by local media outlet citing documents obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) has now disclosed that the Indian Finance Ministry approved the printing of Rs 10,000 crore ($1.1bn) worth of electoral bonds by the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL)&nbsp;on February 12, just three days before the landmark ruling by the apex court discontinued the bond scheme.&nbsp;

It was a total of 10,000 bonds approved with a value of each of them being Rs 1 crore ($119.9k) each.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Notably, the electoral bond system allowed individuals and corporations to donate money to political parties anonymously.

According to documents seen by Indian Express, the Finance Ministry had instructed the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop the printing process on February 28. It was nearly two weeks after the&nbsp;Supreme Court's ruling that the government asked for putting a halt on the printing of electoral bonds worth nearly more than a billion dollars.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/they-only-know-how-to-cook-congress-mla-gets-embroiled-in-controversy-over-sexist-remark-705887">'They only know how to cook': Congress MLA gets embroiled in controversy over sexist remark</a>

This revelation comes days after SBI disclosed the bond numbers and other relevant information to Election Commission of India (ECI) which further made it public on its website.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Moreover, the exclusive report by the media outlet said that the correspondence between the Finance Ministry and SBI revealed that 8,350 bonds had already been printed and dispatched to SBI by SPMCIL.

<h2>SBI asked to instruct&nbsp;SPMCIL on halt of printing&nbsp;</h2>

The government requested SBI to instruct SPMCIL to stop the printing.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-president-droupadi-muru-confers-bharat-ratna-to-two-former-pms-bjp-veteran-advani-and-others-705864">Indian President Droupadi Murmu confers Bharat Ratna to two former PMs, BJP veteran Advani, and others</a>

Indian Finance Ministry's budget section wrote to SBI, “State Bank of India is requested to kindly communicate immediately to SPMCIL to put a hold on the printing of the remaining 1,650 Electoral Bonds for which approval had been given.”

Following that, there was an email sent from&nbsp;SBI to SPMCIL doing the same. The trail-mail was titled as "Hold on Printing of Electoral Bonds — Electoral Bond Scheme 2018".

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-general-elections-2024-tamil-nadu-cm-mk-stalin-campaigns-for-dmk-candidate-in-salem-705991">India General Elections 2024: Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin campaigns for DMK candidate in Salem</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/india-general-elections-2024-tamil-nadu-cm-mk-stalin-campaigns-for-dmk-candidate-in-salem-705991/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The SBI’s Assistant General Manager of its Transaction Banking Department, in the email had reportedly written, “We have acknowledged the receipt of 4 boxes of Security forms of Electoral Bonds containing total 8350 Bonds email dated 23.02.2024…. As in the light of judgment given by the Honourable Supreme Court we request you to put a hold on the printing of the remaining 1,650 Electoral Bonds for which approval had been given via Budget Division Letter dated 12.01.2024.”

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court scrapped the donations to political parties via electoral bonds on February 15, seven years after the scheme was first implemented in 2017 and just two months ahead of the Lok Sabha elections 2024.

India's Supreme Court scrapped the donations to political parties via electoral bonds on February 15, seven years after the scheme was first implemented in 2017 and just two months ahead of the Lok Sabha elections 2024. A report by local media outlet citing documents obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) has now disclosed that the Indian Finance Ministry approved the printing of Rs 10,000 crore ($1.1bn) worth of electoral bonds by the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India (SPMCIL) on February 12, just three days before the landmark ruling by the apex court discontinued the bond scheme. It was a total of 10,000 bonds approved with a value of each of them being Rs 1 crore ($119.9k) each. Notably, the electoral bond system allowed individuals and corporations to donate money to political parties anonymously. According to documents seen by Indian Express, the Finance Ministry had instructed the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop the printing process on February 28. It was nearly two weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling that the government asked for putting a halt on the printing of electoral bonds worth nearly more than a billion dollars. Also Read | 'They only know how to cook': Congress MLA gets embroiled in controversy over sexist remark This revelation comes days after SBI disclosed the bond numbers and other relevant information to Election Commission of India (ECI) which further made it public on its website. Moreover, the exclusive report by the media outlet said that the correspondence between the Finance Ministry and SBI revealed that 8,350 bonds had already been printed and dispatched to SBI by SPMCIL. SBI asked to instruct SPMCIL on halt of printing The government requested SBI to instruct SPMCIL to stop the printing. Also Read | Indian President Droupadi Murmu confers Bharat Ratna to two former PMs, BJP veteran Advani, and others Indian Finance Ministry's budget section wrote to SBI, “State Bank of India is requested to kindly communicate immediately to SPMCIL to put a hold on the printing of the remaining 1,650 Electoral Bonds for which approval had been given.” Following that, there was an email sent from SBI to SPMCIL doing the same. The trail-mail was titled as "Hold on Printing of Electoral Bonds — Electoral Bond Scheme 2018". Watch | India General Elections 2024: Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin campaigns for DMK candidate in Salem × The SBI’s Assistant General Manager of its Transaction Banking Department, in the email had reportedly written, “We have acknowledged the receipt of 4 boxes of Security forms of Electoral Bonds containing total 8350 Bonds email dated 23.02.2024…. As in the light of judgment given by the Honourable Supreme Court we request you to put a hold on the printing of the remaining 1,650 Electoral Bonds for which approval had been given via Budget Division Letter dated 12.01.2024.” (With inputs from agencies)

Indian govt greenlit printing of $1.19bn electoral bonds days before SC scrapped scheme

A US federal appeals court on late Tuesday (Mar 26) extended its hold on the controversial law in Texas that would allow the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border.

<h2>What did the court say?</h2>

The three-judge panel in the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4), should remain blocked, in a decision issued overnight.&nbsp;

The court noted that the statutes in the new state law “significantly impair the exercise of discretion by federal immigration officials.”&nbsp;

The decision was made by the same court that blocked the controversial immigration law hours after the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling from a different panel which had put the law into effect.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/baltimore-bridge-collapse-joe-biden-appreciates-sos-sent-by-indian-crew-on-ship-704755">Baltimore bridge collapse: Joe Biden appreciates quick SOS sent by Indian crew on ship</a>

The court has also scheduled a hearing on April 3 to review a lower court ruling that last month blocked the law.&nbsp;

“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration—the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens – is exclusively a federal power,” said Judge Priscilla Richman, who voted in favour of blocking the Texas law.&nbsp;

She also cited the 2012 Supreme Court ruling which had struck down a similar law in Arizona.

Richman noted that whatever the state’s criticisms about the federal government’s “actions and inactions” are, it is the president’s role to decide how to deal with “noncitizens illegally present” in the country.&nbsp;

<h2>Previous ruling to be reviewed</h2>

Last month, US District Judge David Ezra in the Texas city of Austin, agreed with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration which argued that the law interferes with the federal government’s power over immigration granted by the US Constitution.&nbsp;

The Justice Department, back in January, sued the state of Texas and its governor to block the law which was supposed to take effect on March 5.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-lets-strict-texas-immigration-law-take-effect-allowing-state-to-detain-deport-migrants-702079">Texas immigration law back on hold after a federal appeals court pauses SC decision</a>

The DOJ argued that the law not only violates the Constitution and federal law which gives the government the power to regulate immigration, but also goes against the precedent set by a 2012 Supreme Court ruling.&nbsp;

SB4, signed by Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott makes illegal entry or reentry a state crime, the violation of which can lead to penalties ranging from 180 days to 20 years in prison.&nbsp;

The law also gives state officials the power to arrest, process and imprison people, a role which had long been reserved for federal authorities.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

A US federal appeals court on late Tuesday (Mar 26) extended its hold on the controversial law in Texas that would allow the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border.

A US federal appeals court on late Tuesday (Mar 26) extended its hold on the controversial law in Texas that would allow the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border. What did the court say? The three-judge panel in the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4), should remain blocked, in a decision issued overnight. The court noted that the statutes in the new state law “significantly impair the exercise of discretion by federal immigration officials.” The decision was made by the same court that blocked the controversial immigration law hours after the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling from a different panel which had put the law into effect. Also Read | Baltimore bridge collapse: Joe Biden appreciates quick SOS sent by Indian crew on ship The court has also scheduled a hearing on April 3 to review a lower court ruling that last month blocked the law. “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration—the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens – is exclusively a federal power,” said Judge Priscilla Richman, who voted in favour of blocking the Texas law. She also cited the 2012 Supreme Court ruling which had struck down a similar law in Arizona. Richman noted that whatever the state’s criticisms about the federal government’s “actions and inactions” are, it is the president’s role to decide how to deal with “noncitizens illegally present” in the country. Previous ruling to be reviewed Last month, US District Judge David Ezra in the Texas city of Austin, agreed with Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration which argued that the law interferes with the federal government’s power over immigration granted by the US Constitution. The Justice Department, back in January, sued the state of Texas and its governor to block the law which was supposed to take effect on March 5. Also Read | Texas immigration law back on hold after a federal appeals court pauses SC decision The DOJ argued that the law not only violates the Constitution and federal law which gives the government the power to regulate immigration, but also goes against the precedent set by a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. SB4, signed by Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott makes illegal entry or reentry a state crime, the violation of which can lead to penalties ranging from 180 days to 20 years in prison. The law also gives state officials the power to arrest, process and imprison people, a role which had long been reserved for federal authorities. (With inputs from agencies)

US court extends block on stringent Texas immigration law

In an unusual move, the Kerala government has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu withholding assent to four bills passed by the state assembly.

The plea, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the matter relates to the acts of the Kerala governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations.

The state government said these bills had been pending with the governor for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose".

"The bills include public interest bills which are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them “as soon as possible” as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-court-extends-ed-custody-of-k-kavitha-till-march-26-in-excise-pmla-case-703534">Delhi court extends ED custody of K Kavitha till March 26 in excise PMLA case</a>

The state government said that on February 23 and 29, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed it that the president has withheld assent to four of the seven bills–University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.

The petition urged the court to declare as unconstitutional the president not granting assent to these bills without assigning a reason.

The Constitution is silent on how much time the president can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-lok-sabha-elections-2024-schedule-phase-seats-and-all-you-need-to-know-703540">Bihar Lok Sabha Elections 2024: Schedule, phase, seats and all you need to know</a>

The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) government has made the Union government, the Secretary to the President of India, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and his additional secretary the parties to the case.

Article 361 of the Constitution says the president, or the governor of a state shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.

Besides several other reliefs, the state government has urged the court to declare as "illegal" Governor Arif Mohammed Khan reserving a total of seven bills, including these four, for the consideration of the president.

"The conduct of the Governor in keeping Bills pending for long and indefinite periods of time, and thereafter reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President without any reasons relatable to the Constitution is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution," the plea said.

Equally, it added, the aid and advice tendered by the Union of India to the president to withhold assent to the four bills, which are wholly within the domain of the state, while disclosing no reason whatsoever, is also manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-navy-hands-over-35-somali-pirates-to-mumbai-police-703526">Indian Navy hands over 35 Somali pirates to Mumbai police</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/indian-navy-hands-over-35-somali-pirates-to-mumbai-police-703526/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Additionally, the actions impugned defeat the rights of the people of the State of Kerala under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, by denying them the benefits of welfare legislation enacted by the State Assembly," it said.

The plea said not dealing with the bills presented for assent for periods as long as 24 months, or seven months to sixteen months, the governor has rendered ineffective and otiose the functioning of a limb of the State under the Constitution, the legislative assembly. "The very existence of the legislative assembly of the State has been rendered meaningless by the Governor, though the Governor is a part of the Legislative Assembly," it said.

The actions of the governor are clearly lacking in bona fides and in good faith, it said. "The actions of the Governor subvert the delicate balance envisaged by the Constitution between the three organs of State, by rendering the functioning of the elected executive, which has drafted and introduced the Bills, and then the State legislature, which has passed the Bills, wholly ineffective and otiose. The actions of the Governor also subvert the federal structure of the Constitution, by reserving for the President (acting on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet) Bills which are wholly within the domain of the State under the Constitution," it said.

The plea said the governor has often been addressing the media and making public criticism of the state government and the chief minister in particular.

"Whether the reservation for the President is as a result of this (criticism) or not, to refer Bills which have been pending before the Governor for as long as two years to the President is a grave injustice to the post that the Governor holds and to his constitutional duties as well. One can only say that at no cost was the Governor prepared to allow the Government of Kerala and the State legislative assembly to function in accordance with the Constitution and the laws," it added.

The state government said the governor carried out what was his constitutional duty only after it had approached the top court last year by granting assent to one bill, while referring the rest of the seven bills to the president on November 28, 2023.

It said, the president has thereafter withheld assent to four of these bills.

"The actions of the Union Government, in advising the President of India to withhold assent to Bills which had been passed by the state legislative assembly as long as 11-24 months back, and which were wholly within the domain of the state government, subverts and disrupts the federal structure of the Constitution of India, and is a grave encroachment into the domain entrusted to the state under the Constitution," it said.

While the Constitution is silent about when the president should give or deny assent to a bill, Article 200 says: When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.

"Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom," it says.

"Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill," it adds.

The apex court had in December 2023 questioned the delay on the part of Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi in disposing of the bills submitted for his assent since January 2020, asking why should state governors wait for parties to move the top court with their grievances.

Like Kerala governor Khan and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Ravi has had frequent run-ins with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin.

&nbsp;

In an unusual move, the Kerala government has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu withholding assent to four bills passed by the state assembly.

In an unusual move, the Kerala government has petitioned the Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu withholding assent to four bills passed by the state assembly. The plea, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the matter relates to the acts of the Kerala governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had anything to do with Centre-state relations. The state government said these bills had been pending with the governor for as long as about two years and his action "subverted" the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence "ineffective and otiose". "The bills include public interest bills which are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the Governor not dealing with each one of them “as soon as possible” as required by the proviso to Article 200," the plea said. Also Read | Delhi court extends ED custody of K Kavitha till March 26 in excise PMLA case The state government said that on February 23 and 29, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed it that the president has withheld assent to four of the seven bills–University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. The petition urged the court to declare as unconstitutional the president not granting assent to these bills without assigning a reason. The Constitution is silent on how much time the president can take in granting assent to a bill passed by a state legislature and referred to the Rashtrapati Bhavan for presidential consideration or for denying consent. Also Read | Bihar Lok Sabha Elections 2024: Schedule, phase, seats and all you need to know The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) government has made the Union government, the Secretary to the President of India, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and his additional secretary the parties to the case. Article 361 of the Constitution says the president, or the governor of a state shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. Besides several other reliefs, the state government has urged the court to declare as "illegal" Governor Arif Mohammed Khan reserving a total of seven bills, including these four, for the consideration of the president. "The conduct of the Governor in keeping Bills pending for long and indefinite periods of time, and thereafter reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President without any reasons relatable to the Constitution is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution," the plea said. Equally, it added, the aid and advice tendered by the Union of India to the president to withhold assent to the four bills, which are wholly within the domain of the state, while disclosing no reason whatsoever, is also manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14. Watch | Indian Navy hands over 35 Somali pirates to Mumbai police × "Additionally, the actions impugned defeat the rights of the people of the State of Kerala under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, by denying them the benefits of welfare legislation enacted by the State Assembly," it said. The plea said not dealing with the bills presented for assent for periods as long as 24 months, or seven months to sixteen months, the governor has rendered ineffective and otiose the functioning of a limb of the State under the Constitution, the legislative assembly. "The very existence of the legislative assembly of the State has been rendered meaningless by the Governor, though the Governor is a part of the Legislative Assembly," it said. The actions of the governor are clearly lacking in bona fides and in good faith, it said. "The actions of the Governor subvert the delicate balance envisaged by the Constitution between the three organs of State, by rendering the functioning of the elected executive, which has drafted and introduced the Bills, and then the State legislature, which has passed the Bills, wholly ineffective and otiose. The actions of the Governor also subvert the federal structure of the Constitution, by reserving for the President (acting on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet) Bills which are wholly within the domain of the State under the Constitution," it said. The plea said the governor has often been addressing the media and making public criticism of the state government and the chief minister in particular. "Whether the reservation for the President is as a result of this (criticism) or not, to refer Bills which have been pending before the Governor for as long as two years to the President is a grave injustice to the post that the Governor holds and to his constitutional duties as well. One can only say that at no cost was the Governor prepared to allow the Government of Kerala and the State legislative assembly to function in accordance with the Constitution and the laws," it added. The state government said the governor carried out what was his constitutional duty only after it had approached the top court last year by granting assent to one bill, while referring the rest of the seven bills to the president on November 28, 2023. It said, the president has thereafter withheld assent to four of these bills. "The actions of the Union Government, in advising the President of India to withhold assent to Bills which had been passed by the state legislative assembly as long as 11-24 months back, and which were wholly within the domain of the state government, subverts and disrupts the federal structure of the Constitution of India, and is a grave encroachment into the domain entrusted to the state under the Constitution," it said. While the Constitution is silent about when the president should give or deny assent to a bill, Article 200 says: When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President. "Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom," it says. "Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill," it adds. The apex court had in December 2023 questioned the delay on the part of Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi in disposing of the bills submitted for his assent since January 2020, asking why should state governors wait for parties to move the top court with their grievances. Like Kerala governor Khan and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Ravi has had frequent run-ins with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin.

India: Kerala goes to Supreme Court against president withholding assent to bills

#Gravitas | The Congress party has accused the Modi government of freezing their bank accounts prior to the general election. The former Congress chief, Rahul Gandhi, stated that the party's entire financial identity has been erased, and they have no money to campaign or support their candidates. Congress' ability to fight elections has been severely damaged. Watch the video for more details!

Congress Accuses Govt of Using Income Tax Department to Cripple Opposition

The matter regarding the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now be heard&nbsp;in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court as officials seek his custody for further interrogation. Meanwhile, the Aam Aadmi Party on Friday withdrew its&nbsp;plea in the Supreme Court against ED arrest as the party has decided to move to lower courts first.

ED’s action against Kejriwal came after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him any protection in regard to the coercive action against him in the excise policy case.

The ED is pursuing Kejriwal in two cases, 1) Delhi liquor excise policy case, and 2) Another case related to alleged kickbacks in a Delhi Jal Board contract to a private firm. The federal agency has so far issued nine summons to the Delhi CM in the cases, all of which have been skipped by Kejriwal. The ED had issued the latest summons for Mar 21.

<h2>AAP mobilising people</h2>

Following the arrest of their leader, AAP workers and legislators are likely to hold massive protests around Delhi against what they say is ‘dictatorship.’ AAP leaders chalked out the strategy for protests late Thursday and declared the people of Delhi “will be out on the roads”.

Watch:&nbsp;Arvind Kejriwal ED update: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal to be presented before court

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/arvind-kejriwal-ed-update-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-to-be-presented-before-court-tomorrow-702858/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“Narendra Modi has started the fight and we will finish it… everyone should be prepared to protest tomorrow,” said AAP’s Delhi unit chief Gopal Rai.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwin9a6Zz4aFAxU_T2wGHRkYARQQxfQBKAB6BAgPEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-police-case-what-are-the-options-available-for-arrested-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-702825" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/excise-police-case-what-are-the-options-available-for-arrested-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-702825&amp;ved=2ahUKEwin9a6Zz4aFAxU_T2wGHRkYARQQxfQBKAB6BAgPEAE">Excise policy case: What are the options available for arrested Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal?</a>

Several small local protests are also being planned across the city. “Smaller local protests are also being planned but for now, the focus will be on the party office on Friday,” a party leader was quoted as saying by Indian Express.

Rai said that AAP workers will start assembling at ITO at 10 am. He also declared that the people of the nation will protest outside the offices of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) across the nation.

<h2>Security beefed up</h2>

Authorities in Delhi have beefed up the security measures, with Delhi police and paramilitary forces such as Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed outside Kejriwal’s residence to control the crowd.

On Thursday evening, as soon as the ED arrived at the CM’s residence in Civil Lines, senior party leaders Atishi, Durgesh Pathak, MLA Sanjeev Jha, Imran Hussain, Rakhi Bidlan, Jarnail Singh, Rohit Mehraulia and scores of party workers and supporters gathered outside.

(With inputs from agencies)

The matter regarding the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now be heard in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court as officials seek his custody for further interrogation.

The matter regarding the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now be heard in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court as officials seek his custody for further interrogation. Meanwhile, the Aam Aadmi Party on Friday withdrew its plea in the Supreme Court against ED arrest as the party has decided to move to lower courts first. ED’s action against Kejriwal came after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him any protection in regard to the coercive action against him in the excise policy case. The ED is pursuing Kejriwal in two cases, 1) Delhi liquor excise policy case, and 2) Another case related to alleged kickbacks in a Delhi Jal Board contract to a private firm. The federal agency has so far issued nine summons to the Delhi CM in the cases, all of which have been skipped by Kejriwal. The ED had issued the latest summons for Mar 21. AAP mobilising people Following the arrest of their leader, AAP workers and legislators are likely to hold massive protests around Delhi against what they say is ‘dictatorship.’ AAP leaders chalked out the strategy for protests late Thursday and declared the people of Delhi “will be out on the roads”. Watch: Arvind Kejriwal ED update: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal to be presented before court × “Narendra Modi has started the fight and we will finish it… everyone should be prepared to protest tomorrow,” said AAP’s Delhi unit chief Gopal Rai. Also read: Excise policy case: What are the options available for arrested Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal? Several small local protests are also being planned across the city. “Smaller local protests are also being planned but for now, the focus will be on the party office on Friday,” a party leader was quoted as saying by Indian Express. Rai said that AAP workers will start assembling at ITO at 10 am. He also declared that the people of the nation will protest outside the offices of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) across the nation. Security beefed up Authorities in Delhi have beefed up the security measures, with Delhi police and paramilitary forces such as Rapid Action Force (RAF) deployed outside Kejriwal’s residence to control the crowd. On Thursday evening, as soon as the ED arrived at the CM’s residence in Civil Lines, senior party leaders Atishi, Durgesh Pathak, MLA Sanjeev Jha, Imran Hussain, Rakhi Bidlan, Jarnail Singh, Rohit Mehraulia and scores of party workers and supporters gathered outside. (With inputs from agencies)

Kejriwal arrest: AAP withdraws plea in SC against ED arrest, will move to lower courts

The Election Commission of India Thursday published the complete electoral bond data given to it by the State Bank of India on orders of the Supreme Court. This data includes bond numbers that would enable donors to be matched with the political parties they donated to.

India: Election Commission publishes electoral bond data

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

US: Court to decide whether Trump tried to overturn 202 poll loss

Supreme Court on EVM and VVPAT case: ‘We know what happened when there were ballot papers’

SC allows enforcement of ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Idaho

India's top court seeks reply from ED on Arvind Kejriwal's plea against arrest in money laundering case

The case against Patanjali

Explained: The ads case against Patanjali

Arizona’s top court revives 1864 law which bans nearly all abortions

Indian Supreme Court: Candidates don't need to declare all assets

Supreme Court warns Patanjali in misleading ads case says ‘will rip you apart’

Candidates don't need to give 'threadbare' account of their lives to voters: Supreme Court

Indian Supreme Court: Candidates don't need to declare all assets

Indian SC: Candidates don't need to declare all assets

'Right against adverse effects of climate change part of right to life': India's Supreme Court

India: Supreme Court strikes balance between climate and economy

India: Supreme Court links right against climate change to Article 21 & 14

SC grants bail to activist Shoma Kanti Sen in Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case

Supreme Court puts on hold Allahabad HC order scrapping UP madrasa law

India: Supreme Court grants bail to AAP MP Sanjay Singh

India's top court seeks response from EC and Centre on plea for complete count of VVPAT slips

Florida's top court upholds 15-week abortion ban, but makes it a ballot measure

India: AAP MP Sanjay Singh gets bail from Supreme Court

Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission & Indian govt over VVPAT slips

'Absolute defiance': Supreme Court bashes Ramdev in misleading ads case, says ‘be ready for action now’

India's Supreme Court snubs Kerala over financial trouble, refuses interim relief

Gyanvapi Mosque case: India’s top court refuses to halt Hindu prayers inside complex cellar

Indian govt greenlit printing of $1.19bn electoral bonds days before SC scrapped scheme