Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court.

The apex court has directed the party to vacate the place by June 15.

Taking into consideration the upcoming general election, a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed AAP to apply to the Land and Development Office of the Government of India for allotment of alternate land in accordance with the law in the meantime.

"In view of the impending general elections, we grant time until June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises," the court said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-cm-kejriwal-agrees-to-cooperate-with-ed-after-skipping-eight-summons-in-a-row-696339">Delhi CM Kejriwal agrees to cooperate with ED after skipping eight summons in a row</a>

<h2>Respect&nbsp;SC's order to vacate the Delhi office, says AAP</h2>

The party released a statement saying that it respected the court's order to vacate its offices in Delhi's Rouse Avenue further expressing hope that it would be allotted land in the same location soon.

Priyanka Kakkar, the AAP's chief national spokesperson, said, "We respect the Supreme Court. The apex court has also directed that the Centre's L&amp;DO (Land and Development Office) allot an alternative land for the AAP's office as soon as possible."&nbsp;

"We hope that the BJP will not do any regressive, discriminatory or dirty politics and, without further delay, allot land for the AAP's office premises at the same location where all the other national parties have been allotted land for office use in Delhi," Kakkar said.

At the time of the hearing in the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Aam Aadmi Party had encroached on the land since 2017.

The court also underscored that the AAP was not a lawful occupant of the land after 2017.

However, senior Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the national capital's ruling party, submitted that the AAP was one of the six national parties and is entitled to land in the New Delhi municipal area, under its status.

"They are telling us as a national party we get nothing. I'm given (land in) Badarpur while everyone else is in better places. A particular government does not want me to be flourishing and working," Singhvi said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party has been given a deadline by the Supreme Court to vacate its headquarters which stands on the plot of land allotted to the High Court. The apex court has directed the party to vacate the place by June 15. Taking into consideration the upcoming general election, a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed AAP to apply to the Land and Development Office of the Government of India for allotment of alternate land in accordance with the law in the meantime. "In view of the impending general elections, we grant time until June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises," the court said. Also read: Delhi CM Kejriwal agrees to cooperate with ED after skipping eight summons in a row Respect SC's order to vacate the Delhi office, says AAP The party released a statement saying that it respected the court's order to vacate its offices in Delhi's Rouse Avenue further expressing hope that it would be allotted land in the same location soon. Priyanka Kakkar, the AAP's chief national spokesperson, said, "We respect the Supreme Court. The apex court has also directed that the Centre's L&DO (Land and Development Office) allot an alternative land for the AAP's office as soon as possible." "We hope that the BJP will not do any regressive, discriminatory or dirty politics and, without further delay, allot land for the AAP's office premises at the same location where all the other national parties have been allotted land for office use in Delhi," Kakkar said. At the time of the hearing in the court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Aam Aadmi Party had encroached on the land since 2017. The court also underscored that the AAP was not a lawful occupant of the land after 2017. However, senior Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the national capital's ruling party, submitted that the AAP was one of the six national parties and is entitled to land in the New Delhi municipal area, under its status. "They are telling us as a national party we get nothing. I'm given (land in) Badarpur while everyone else is in better places. A particular government does not want me to be flourishing and working," Singhvi said. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court orders Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party to vacate headquarters

The State Bank of India (SBI), a state-run lender, has formally requested the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for sharing Electoral Bond data from March 6 to June 30. <o:p></o:p>

This comes in response to the Supreme Court's directive to SBI to disclose details of Electoral Bond donations and the names of political parties receiving contributions by the initial deadline. <o:p></o:p>

The Supreme Court further instructed the Election Commission to publish this information on its website by March 13, 2024.<o:p></o:p>

SBI, in its application before the Supreme Court, argues that the process of retrieving information from various sources and matching data across different silos is time-consuming. <o:p></o:p>

The bank highlights the complexity of decoding Electoral Bonds while maintaining the donors' anonymity. <o:p></o:p>

The data related to the issuance and redemption of the bonds is reportedly stored in separate silos, without a central database, to safeguard donor identities. <o:p></o:p>

The sealed covers containing donor details are deposited at the Main Branch of the Applicant bank in Mumbai. <o:p></o:p>

SBI highlights that unravelling this process requires additional time beyond the initial March 6 deadline.<o:p></o:p>

The Supreme Court's decision on February 15 dealt a significant blow to the Electoral Bond scheme for political funding. <o:p></o:p>

The ruling declared the scheme unconstitutional, citing violations of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to information. <o:p></o:p>

This decision marked a pivotal moment in India's political and financial landscape, challenging the legality of the Electoral Bond system introduced by former finance minister Arun Jaitley in the Union Budget 2017-18.<o:p></o:p>

Electoral Bonds, conceived as a financial instrument for political party donations, now find themselves under intense scrutiny. <o:p></o:p>

The scheme allows citizens of India and domestic companies to contribute to political parties through bonds issued in varying denominations – Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, and Rs 1 crore. <o:p></o:p>

The anonymity of donors was a central tenet of the scheme, with donor details kept in sealed covers at designated branches. <o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from agencies)<o:p></o:p>

The State Bank of India (SBI), a state-run lender, has formally requested the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for sharing Electoral Bond data from March 6 to June 30.

The State Bank of India (SBI), a state-run lender, has formally requested the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for sharing Electoral Bond data from March 6 to June 30. This comes in response to the Supreme Court's directive to SBI to disclose details of Electoral Bond donations and the names of political parties receiving contributions by the initial deadline. The Supreme Court further instructed the Election Commission to publish this information on its website by March 13, 2024. SBI, in its application before the Supreme Court, argues that the process of retrieving information from various sources and matching data across different silos is time-consuming. The bank highlights the complexity of decoding Electoral Bonds while maintaining the donors' anonymity. The data related to the issuance and redemption of the bonds is reportedly stored in separate silos, without a central database, to safeguard donor identities. The sealed covers containing donor details are deposited at the Main Branch of the Applicant bank in Mumbai. SBI highlights that unravelling this process requires additional time beyond the initial March 6 deadline. The Supreme Court's decision on February 15 dealt a significant blow to the Electoral Bond scheme for political funding. The ruling declared the scheme unconstitutional, citing violations of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to information. This decision marked a pivotal moment in India's political and financial landscape, challenging the legality of the Electoral Bond system introduced by former finance minister Arun Jaitley in the Union Budget 2017-18. Electoral Bonds, conceived as a financial instrument for political party donations, now find themselves under intense scrutiny. The scheme allows citizens of India and domestic companies to contribute to political parties through bonds issued in varying denominations – Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, and Rs 1 crore. The anonymity of donors was a central tenet of the scheme, with donor details kept in sealed covers at designated branches. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s SBI urges Supreme Court for electoral bond data extension until June 30

In a sign of the high court’s awareness of the election calendar, the justices took the unusual step of announcing the opinion on the Supreme Court’s website on a day when the court is not in session, instead of issuing it from the bench later this month.

Breaking: US Supreme Court rules in favour of Donald Trump in the Colorado ban case

India's Supreme Court announced a landmark verdict today. It overturned a 1998 verdict that allowed MPs & MLAs to claim immunity in bribery cases. Watch this video for all details.

India's Supreme Court announces landmark verdict on MPs & MLAs claiming immunity in bribery cases

Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei cast his ballot in Tehran on Friday (March 1) and urged the people to participate in the parliamentary elections as over 15,000 candidates compete for seats in the 290-member parliament.&nbsp;

“Pay attention to this, make friends happy and disappoint the evil-wishers,” he reportedly said as he cast his vote at the ballot box.&nbsp;The electoral process of the Islamic Consultative Assembly holds immense importance and is conducted every four years. Iranians partake in selecting politicians for the parliament, while the 88-seat&nbsp;Assembly of Experts, responsible for choosing the supreme leader, undergoes selection every eight years.

The parliamentary elections are the first since the 2022 protests sparked by mandatory hijab laws following the tragic death of Mahsa Amini. There are uncertainties surrounding the voter turnout for this election after the massive protests which received worldwide condemnation, including from the United States.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-irs-launches-crackdown-on-125000-unfiled-high-income-tax-returns-695453">US IRS launches crackdown on 125,000 unfiled high-income tax returns</a>

This election also includes selecting new members for Iran's Assembly of Experts. Media reports said that the initial results are anticipated as early as Saturday (March 2).

Notably, according to Iran's law, the parliament oversees the executive branch, however, the ultimate authority in Iran rests with its supreme leader, wielding absolute power in practice.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/live-long-and-prosper-star-trek-may-hold-the-key-to-effectively-communicating-with-ai-chatbots-695448">'Live long, and prosper': Star Trek may hold the key to effectively communicating with AI chatbots</a>

<h2>Protests over Mahsa Amini's death&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>

Mahsa Amini was allegedly subjected to violence and abuse by the authorities. Her case symbolised the broader discontent with the oppressive enforcement of hijab laws and the treatment of women in Iranian society.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/fresh-gang-violence-erupts-in-haiti-gang-leaderaims-to-capture-police-chief-ministers-695455">Fresh gang violence erupts in Haiti, gang leaderaims to capture Police Chief &amp; Ministers</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/fresh-gang-violence-erupts-in-haiti-gang-leaderaims-to-capture-police-chief-ministers-695455/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Protesters took to the streets in various cities, demanding justice for Mahsa Amini and calling for an end to the mandatory hijab laws. The demonstrations gained momentum through social media and garnered international support, drawing attention to the plight of women in Iran and the need for reform.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei cast his ballot in Tehran on Friday (March 1) and urged the people to participate in the parliamentary elections as over 15,000 candidates compete for seats in the 290-member parliament.

Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei cast his ballot in Tehran on Friday (March 1) and urged the people to participate in the parliamentary elections as over 15,000 candidates compete for seats in the 290-member parliament. “Pay attention to this, make friends happy and disappoint the evil-wishers,” he reportedly said as he cast his vote at the ballot box. The electoral process of the Islamic Consultative Assembly holds immense importance and is conducted every four years. Iranians partake in selecting politicians for the parliament, while the 88-seat Assembly of Experts, responsible for choosing the supreme leader, undergoes selection every eight years. The parliamentary elections are the first since the 2022 protests sparked by mandatory hijab laws following the tragic death of Mahsa Amini. There are uncertainties surrounding the voter turnout for this election after the massive protests which received worldwide condemnation, including from the United States. Also Read | US IRS launches crackdown on 125,000 unfiled high-income tax returns This election also includes selecting new members for Iran's Assembly of Experts. Media reports said that the initial results are anticipated as early as Saturday (March 2). Notably, according to Iran's law, the parliament oversees the executive branch, however, the ultimate authority in Iran rests with its supreme leader, wielding absolute power in practice. Also Read | 'Live long, and prosper': Star Trek may hold the key to effectively communicating with AI chatbots Protests over Mahsa Amini's death Mahsa Amini was allegedly subjected to violence and abuse by the authorities. Her case symbolised the broader discontent with the oppressive enforcement of hijab laws and the treatment of women in Iranian society. Watch | Fresh gang violence erupts in Haiti, gang leaderaims to capture Police Chief & Ministers × Protesters took to the streets in various cities, demanding justice for Mahsa Amini and calling for an end to the mandatory hijab laws. The demonstrations gained momentum through social media and garnered international support, drawing attention to the plight of women in Iran and the need for reform. (With inputs from agencies)

Iran elections underway as over 15,000 candidates vie for seats in 290-member parliament

An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois' Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former US president.

US: Appeals court rejected Donald Trump's plea

US: Supreme Court to hear Trump's Presidential immunity claim

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 26) directed the Centre to set up a fresh selection board to consider the issue of granting permanent commission to women coast guard officers. The top court said that "women cannot be left out" and also warned the government that "if you do not do it, we will."&nbsp;

Indian SC was hearing a plea filed by Indian Coast Guard officer Priyanka Tyagi seeking permanent commission for eligible women officers joining the force under short service commission.&nbsp;

The bench consisted of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra and took note of submissions by Attorney General R Venkataramani.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jaishankar-says-west-front-terrorism-got-befitting-reply-with-uri-and-balakot-strikes-by-india-694160">Uri and Balakot sent their own message to terrorism on Western front, says Jaishankar</a>&nbsp;

During the hearing, Venkataramani said, "I will ask them to file an affidavit. The coast guard is distinctly different from the Navy and Army. The board has been set up and it needs structural changes."&nbsp;

It was said that there were some functional and operational difficulties in granting permanent commissions to Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs).&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the CJI said, "All these functionalities etc argument do not hold water in 2024. Women cannot be left out. If you do not do it, we will do it. So take a look at that."&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/google-ai-tools-fascist-modi-response-angers-india-heres-what-exactly-happened-694087">Google AI tool’s ‘fascist Modi’ response angers India. Here’s what exactly happened</a>&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;23-year-old Indian national killed in Donetsk air strike: Reports&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/23-year-old-indian-national-killed-in-donetsk-air-strike-reports-694141/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Previously, the bench had said that the maritime force must come up with a policy which treats women "fairly".&nbsp;

"You speak of 'nari shakti' (woman power). Now show it here. You are in the deep end of the sea in this matter. You must come up with a policy which treats women fairly," the bench had said.&nbsp;

"Why are you being so patriarchal? You do not want to see the face of women in the coast guard," the bench had asked Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee.&nbsp;

The petitioner was the only Short Service Commission woman officer opting for permanent commission and asked why her case was not considered, the bench said.&nbsp;

"Now, the coast guard must come up with a policy," the bench said.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 26) directed the Centre to set up a fresh selection board to consider the issue of granting permanent commission to women coast guard officers.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 26) directed the Centre to set up a fresh selection board to consider the issue of granting permanent commission to women coast guard officers. The top court said that "women cannot be left out" and also warned the government that "if you do not do it, we will." Indian SC was hearing a plea filed by Indian Coast Guard officer Priyanka Tyagi seeking permanent commission for eligible women officers joining the force under short service commission. The bench consisted of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra and took note of submissions by Attorney General R Venkataramani. Also read: Uri and Balakot sent their own message to terrorism on Western front, says Jaishankar During the hearing, Venkataramani said, "I will ask them to file an affidavit. The coast guard is distinctly different from the Navy and Army. The board has been set up and it needs structural changes." It was said that there were some functional and operational difficulties in granting permanent commissions to Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs). Meanwhile, the CJI said, "All these functionalities etc argument do not hold water in 2024. Women cannot be left out. If you do not do it, we will do it. So take a look at that." Also read: Google AI tool’s ‘fascist Modi’ response angers India. Here’s what exactly happened Watch: 23-year-old Indian national killed in Donetsk air strike: Reports × Previously, the bench had said that the maritime force must come up with a policy which treats women "fairly". "You speak of 'nari shakti' (woman power). Now show it here. You are in the deep end of the sea in this matter. You must come up with a policy which treats women fairly," the bench had said. "Why are you being so patriarchal? You do not want to see the face of women in the coast guard," the bench had asked Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee. The petitioner was the only Short Service Commission woman officer opting for permanent commission and asked why her case was not considered, the bench said. "Now, the coast guard must come up with a policy," the bench said. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian top court asks Centre to ensure women get permanent commission in coast guard

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled on Friday (February 16) that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law and are entitled to the same legal rights as other unborn children.

Are frozen embryos Children? Alabama Supreme Court gives first-of-its-kind decision

The largest hospital in Alabama, United States has placed a halt on vitro fertilisation procedures after the state’s supreme court delivered the first-of-its-kind decision in which it ruled that frozen embryos are “children”.

Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that frozen embryos should be considered children and that any person can be held liable for destroying them accidentally has now started a new debate in the United States.

The southern US state's hospital took the decision to pause its in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) services after the court's ruling as it feared that they could be exposed to criminal prosecution.

The health system of the University of Alabama at Birmingham said that they will continue retrieving eggs from the ovaries of women.&nbsp;

However, it said that the next step they take in the IVF process will be stopped. In the next step, they fertilise the eggs with sperm before they are implanted into the uterus.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-alabama-supreme-court-rules-frozen-embryos-are-children-692287">US: Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are 'children'</a>

"We are saddened that this will impact our patients' attempt to have a baby through IVF," said the leading state medical provider, in a statement.

"But we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments," it added.&nbsp;

<h2>What was the lawsuit and what was the decision made by the court?</h2>

The case has emerged from a wrongful death lawsuit which was filed by three couples after a fertility clinic lost their embryos in 2020.

A person had entered the place where the embryos were kept, handled them and dropped them accidentally. Because of that, the embryos were destroyed.

The couples also took steps to sue the Center for Reproductive Medicine and the Mobile Infirmary Association under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act of the state. The law includes foetuses but does not specifically include embryos which are created from IVF.

Watch:&nbsp;Are frozen embryos Children? Alabama Supreme Court gives first-of-its-kind decision

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/are-frozen-embryos-children-alabama-supreme-court-gives-first-of-its-kind-decision-692484/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, the Alabama Supreme Court in its ruling extended support to the couples and ruled that frozen embryos were considered "children".

The wrongful death law applied to "all unborn children, regardless of their location", the court said, in its decision.

Agreeing with the opinion of the majority, Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote: "Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."

The ruling does not restrict or ban IVF and even the couples who filed the case actively sought out the procedure.

(With inputs from agencies)

The largest hospital in Alabama, United States has placed a halt on vitro fertilisation procedures after the state’s supreme court delivered the first-of-its-kind decision in which it ruled that frozen embryos are “children”.

The largest hospital in Alabama, United States has placed a halt on vitro fertilisation procedures after the state’s supreme court delivered the first-of-its-kind decision in which it ruled that frozen embryos are “children”. Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that frozen embryos should be considered children and that any person can be held liable for destroying them accidentally has now started a new debate in the United States. The southern US state's hospital took the decision to pause its in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) services after the court's ruling as it feared that they could be exposed to criminal prosecution. The health system of the University of Alabama at Birmingham said that they will continue retrieving eggs from the ovaries of women. However, it said that the next step they take in the IVF process will be stopped. In the next step, they fertilise the eggs with sperm before they are implanted into the uterus. Also Read: US: Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are 'children' "We are saddened that this will impact our patients' attempt to have a baby through IVF," said the leading state medical provider, in a statement. "But we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments," it added. What was the lawsuit and what was the decision made by the court? The case has emerged from a wrongful death lawsuit which was filed by three couples after a fertility clinic lost their embryos in 2020. A person had entered the place where the embryos were kept, handled them and dropped them accidentally. Because of that, the embryos were destroyed. The couples also took steps to sue the Center for Reproductive Medicine and the Mobile Infirmary Association under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act of the state. The law includes foetuses but does not specifically include embryos which are created from IVF. Watch: Are frozen embryos Children? Alabama Supreme Court gives first-of-its-kind decision However, the Alabama Supreme Court in its ruling extended support to the couples and ruled that frozen embryos were considered "children". The wrongful death law applied to "all unborn children, regardless of their location", the court said, in its decision. Agreeing with the opinion of the majority, Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote: "Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory." The ruling does not restrict or ban IVF and even the couples who filed the case actively sought out the procedure. (With inputs from agencies)

Alabama's largest hospital pauses IVF after SC says frozen embryos are children

Fali S Nariman, a distinguished constitutional expert and long-standing senior advocate of the Supreme Court, passed away in New Delhi on Wednesday (Feb 21) at the age of 95.

Nariman's legal journey began in November 1950 when he was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court. His exceptional legal acumen led to his designation as a senior advocate in 1961, marking the commencement of a remarkable career that spanned over 70 years.

Initially practicing in the High Court of Bombay, Nariman transitioned to New Delhi in 1972, where he continued his illustrious practice in the Supreme Court of India. Notably, he served as Additional Solicitor General of India from May 1972, following his relocation to Delhi.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/farmers-protest-traffic-advisory-issued-by-delhi-police-as-farmers-attempt-to-enter-capital-692146">Also read |&nbsp;Farmers' protest: Traffic advisory issued by Delhi Police as farmers attempt to enter capital</a>

<h2>Recognition and honours</h2>

Throughout his career, Nariman garnered widespread recognition for his contributions to the legal field. In January 1991, he was honored with the Padma Bhushan, one of India's highest civilian awards, followed by the prestigious Padma Vibhushan in 2007, which further underscored his invaluable impact.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Shri Fali Nariman Ji was among the most outstanding legal minds and intellectuals. He devoted his life to making justice accessible to common citizens. I am pained by his passing away. My thoughts are with his family and admirers. May his soul rest in peace.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1760158148948849094?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Beyond his legal practice, Nariman held various leadership positions that solidified his standing as a global legal authority. He served as the president of the Bar Association of India for nearly two decades, from 1991 to 2010.

Additionally, his role as the vice-chairman of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Paris, from 1989 to 2005, and as the president of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration showcased his international influence and expertise.

Also watch |&nbsp;India Farmers' Protest: Farmers reject govt offer, to continue protest march in New Delhi

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-farmers-protest-farmers-reject-govt-offer-to-continue-protest-march-in-new-delhi-692153/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Furthermore, Nariman's tenure as the chairman of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, from 1995 to 1997, further exemplified his commitment to advancing justice on a global scale.

Fali S Nariman leaves behind a legacy defined by excellence, integrity, and unwavering dedication to the principles of justice. His profound impact on the legal profession, both in India and internationally, will be remembered for generations to come.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Fali S Nariman, a distinguished constitutional expert and long-standing senior advocate of the Supreme Court, passed away in New Delhi on Wednesday (Feb 21) at the age of 95.

Fali S Nariman, a distinguished constitutional expert and long-standing senior advocate of the Supreme Court, passed away in New Delhi on Wednesday (Feb 21) at the age of 95. Nariman's legal journey began in November 1950 when he was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court. His exceptional legal acumen led to his designation as a senior advocate in 1961, marking the commencement of a remarkable career that spanned over 70 years. Initially practicing in the High Court of Bombay, Nariman transitioned to New Delhi in 1972, where he continued his illustrious practice in the Supreme Court of India. Notably, he served as Additional Solicitor General of India from May 1972, following his relocation to Delhi. Also read | Farmers' protest: Traffic advisory issued by Delhi Police as farmers attempt to enter capital Recognition and honours Throughout his career, Nariman garnered widespread recognition for his contributions to the legal field. In January 1991, he was honored with the Padma Bhushan, one of India's highest civilian awards, followed by the prestigious Padma Vibhushan in 2007, which further underscored his invaluable impact. Shri Fali Nariman Ji was among the most outstanding legal minds and intellectuals. He devoted his life to making justice accessible to common citizens. I am pained by his passing away. My thoughts are with his family and admirers. May his soul rest in peace. — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) February 21, 2024 × Beyond his legal practice, Nariman held various leadership positions that solidified his standing as a global legal authority. He served as the president of the Bar Association of India for nearly two decades, from 1991 to 2010. Additionally, his role as the vice-chairman of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Paris, from 1989 to 2005, and as the president of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration showcased his international influence and expertise. Also watch | India Farmers' Protest: Farmers reject govt offer, to continue protest march in New Delhi Furthermore, Nariman's tenure as the chairman of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, from 1995 to 1997, further exemplified his commitment to advancing justice on a global scale. Fali S Nariman leaves behind a legacy defined by excellence, integrity, and unwavering dedication to the principles of justice. His profound impact on the legal profession, both in India and internationally, will be remembered for generations to come. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Renowned constitutional jurist Fali S Nariman passes away aged 95

The United States has proposed a draft United Nations security Council resolution which calls for a temporary ceasefire in the war and opposes Israel's ground offensive in Rafah. All EU countries except Hungary have called for an immediate humanitarian pause in the war. Watch to know more!

Israel-Hamas war | US pushes for UN support temporary Gaza ceasefire

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking at the foundation laying&nbsp;ceremony of the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Sambhal district of north&nbsp;India's Uttar Pradesh state, drew a unique parallel between the present-day politics and the Vedic times of Lord Krishna.&nbsp;

According to ancient Indian texts, Lord Krishna met Sudama when they both were disciples of the sage Sandipani. As a Brahmin living upon the alms of just up to seven households, Sudama lived a life of poverty with his wife and children. At one point in his life, Sudama went to meet his childhood friend Krishna&nbsp;who then had become Dwarkadheesh, or the King of Dwarka in present-day Gujarat state in western India.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-says-world-is-assured-he-is-returning-for-third-term-in-power-top-points-691450">PM Modi says world is assured he is returning for third term in power: Top points</a>

Sudama gave his friend Krishna a small cloth wrapped in rice because that was all he could get as offering due to his limited means. Krishna consumed that rice with tremendous affection in one of the most poignant moments of his life on earth.

It is in this context that India's Prime Minister Modi said that the times have changed so much that if in current times Sudama would give rice to Shri Krishna and its&nbsp;video comes out, "a PIL would be filed in the Supreme Court and the judgment would come that something was given to Lord Krishna in corruption and Lord Krishna was doing corruption."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | UP: At the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Sambhal, PM Modi says "...He (Acharya Pramod Krishnam) said that everyone has something to give but I have nothing, I can only express my feelings. Pramod ji, it is good that you did not give… <a href="https://t.co/j5tYbQv2Q0">pic.twitter.com/j5tYbQv2Q0</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1759460935482118538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"It is better that you expressed your feelings and did not give anything," Modi said, while referring to Acharya Pramod Krishnam, the chairperson of the trust which is developing the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

<h2>What does it mean?</h2>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement could be read in the context of the latest Supreme Court judgment on Electoral Bonds after the top court deemed the promissory banking note in all denominations as "unconstitutional".

Also watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: India's PM Modi inaugurates first Hindu mandir in Abu Dhabi | Temples in Muslim countries

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indias-pm-modi-inaugurates-first-hindu-mandir-in-abu-dhabi-temples-in-muslim-countries-690349/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court earlier this month&nbsp;unanimously struck down the electoral bond scheme which facilitated anonymous political donations. The top court&nbsp;underscored that the scheme violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The Opposition hailed the Supreme Court's verdict and described it&nbsp;as step towards "the end of corruption."

(With inputs from agencies)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking at the foundation laying ceremony of the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Sambhal district of north India's Uttar Pradesh state, drew a unique parallel between the present-day politics and the Vedic times of Lord Krishna.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking at the foundation laying ceremony of the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Sambhal district of north India's Uttar Pradesh state, drew a unique parallel between the present-day politics and the Vedic times of Lord Krishna. According to ancient Indian texts, Lord Krishna met Sudama when they both were disciples of the sage Sandipani. As a Brahmin living upon the alms of just up to seven households, Sudama lived a life of poverty with his wife and children. At one point in his life, Sudama went to meet his childhood friend Krishna who then had become Dwarkadheesh, or the King of Dwarka in present-day Gujarat state in western India. Also read | PM Modi says world is assured he is returning for third term in power: Top points Sudama gave his friend Krishna a small cloth wrapped in rice because that was all he could get as offering due to his limited means. Krishna consumed that rice with tremendous affection in one of the most poignant moments of his life on earth. It is in this context that India's Prime Minister Modi said that the times have changed so much that if in current times Sudama would give rice to Shri Krishna and its video comes out, "a PIL would be filed in the Supreme Court and the judgment would come that something was given to Lord Krishna in corruption and Lord Krishna was doing corruption." #WATCH | UP: At the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Sambhal, PM Modi says "...He (Acharya Pramod Krishnam) said that everyone has something to give but I have nothing, I can only express my feelings. Pramod ji, it is good that you did not give… pic.twitter.com/j5tYbQv2Q0 — ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024 × "It is better that you expressed your feelings and did not give anything," Modi said, while referring to Acharya Pramod Krishnam, the chairperson of the trust which is developing the Hindu shrine Kalki Dham in Uttar Pradesh. What does it mean? Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement could be read in the context of the latest Supreme Court judgment on Electoral Bonds after the top court deemed the promissory banking note in all denominations as "unconstitutional". Also watch | Gravitas: India's PM Modi inaugurates first Hindu mandir in Abu Dhabi | Temples in Muslim countries × A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court earlier this month unanimously struck down the electoral bond scheme which facilitated anonymous political donations. The top court underscored that the scheme violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Opposition hailed the Supreme Court's verdict and described it as step towards "the end of corruption." (With inputs from agencies)

PM Modi recalls Sudama's rice offering to Krishna at Kalki Dham. Know why

The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 19) ordered fresh counting of&nbsp;existing ballot papers instead of a fresh election for the post of Chandigarh mayor.&nbsp; 
 
The court said that the ballot papers of the Chandigarh mayoral elections as well as the entire video recording be produced before it by 2 pm&nbsp;on February 20. The court also asked the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to depute a judicial officer, who will be provided with security, to bring the material safely. 
 
Earlier, the returning officer in the Chandigarh Mayor election Anil Masih reached the Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 19)&nbsp;after being ordered to appear as he had allegedly tampered with the electoral ballots. 
 
This came after a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud questioned the presiding officer Anil Masih, as to why he put ‘X’ marks on eight ballot papers and he said that he had found them to be ‘defaced’. 
 
The top court said that votes will be counted by disregarding the ‘X’ marks. The court stated that it will ask the Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh to nominate a neutral officer to be the returning officer to count the ballots and declare the results, reported Live Law.&nbsp;

Earlier, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Manoj Sonkar quit from the post&nbsp;of Chandigarh Mayor on Sunday (Feb 18) ahead of the Supreme Court hearing about claims of irregularities in the voting procedure.

In the first week of February, the Supreme Court denounced the Returning Officer, who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections, stating that he was "murdering democracy", further directing the preservation of all election records, including ballot papers video footage and other material, through the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that it was very evident that the voting papers were vandalised by the returning officer.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/farmers-protest-government-puts-forward-5-year-plan-to-buy-pulses-maize-at-msp-after-fourth-round-of-talks-691521">Farmers' protest: Indian govt proposes 5-year plan to buy pulses, maize at MSP, Delhi march paused till Feb 21</a>

"Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is the murder of democracy. We are appalled. We will not allow democracy to be murdered this way. The man defaces ballots the moment he sees a cross at the bottom. This man should be prosecuted. Is this the behaviour of the returning officer?"&nbsp;

It ordered that the Chandigarh Corporation meeting, scheduled for February 7, be postponed till further notice.

"Tell the Returning Officer that the Supreme Court is watching him. We will not allow democracy to be murdered like this. The great force in this country is the purity of the electoral process, but what has happened here?," said the bench.

The observations made by the top court came after it viewed footage of the contentious election.

The Supreme Court made these comments at the time of hearing the AAP councillor's&nbsp;plea after the Bharatiya Janata Party won the mayoral election after the Returning Officer scraped eight opposition votes.

Aam Aadmi Party's councillor Kuldeep Dhalor had filed a petition after losing the mayor election to BJP's Party's Manoj Sonkar on Jan 30.

BJP's Sonkar received 16 votes as opposed to Kumar's 12 votes. The action of rejecting eight votes of the AAP-Congress alliance as invalid sparked the allegations of vote tampering.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 19) ordered fresh counting of existing ballot papers instead of a fresh election for the post of Chandigarh mayor. The court said that the ballot papers of the Chandigarh mayoral elections as well as the entire video recording be produced before it by 2 pm on February 20.

The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 19) ordered fresh counting of existing ballot papers instead of a fresh election for the post of Chandigarh mayor. The court said that the ballot papers of the Chandigarh mayoral elections as well as the entire video recording be produced before it by 2 pm on February 20. The court also asked the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to depute a judicial officer, who will be provided with security, to bring the material safely. Earlier, the returning officer in the Chandigarh Mayor election Anil Masih reached the Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 19) after being ordered to appear as he had allegedly tampered with the electoral ballots. This came after a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud questioned the presiding officer Anil Masih, as to why he put ‘X’ marks on eight ballot papers and he said that he had found them to be ‘defaced’. The top court said that votes will be counted by disregarding the ‘X’ marks. The court stated that it will ask the Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh to nominate a neutral officer to be the returning officer to count the ballots and declare the results, reported Live Law. Earlier, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Manoj Sonkar quit from the post of Chandigarh Mayor on Sunday (Feb 18) ahead of the Supreme Court hearing about claims of irregularities in the voting procedure. In the first week of February, the Supreme Court denounced the Returning Officer, who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections, stating that he was "murdering democracy", further directing the preservation of all election records, including ballot papers video footage and other material, through the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that it was very evident that the voting papers were vandalised by the returning officer. Also read: Farmers' protest: Indian govt proposes 5-year plan to buy pulses, maize at MSP, Delhi march paused till Feb 21 "Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is the murder of democracy. We are appalled. We will not allow democracy to be murdered this way. The man defaces ballots the moment he sees a cross at the bottom. This man should be prosecuted. Is this the behaviour of the returning officer?" It ordered that the Chandigarh Corporation meeting, scheduled for February 7, be postponed till further notice. "Tell the Returning Officer that the Supreme Court is watching him. We will not allow democracy to be murdered like this. The great force in this country is the purity of the electoral process, but what has happened here?," said the bench. The observations made by the top court came after it viewed footage of the contentious election. The Supreme Court made these comments at the time of hearing the AAP councillor's plea after the Bharatiya Janata Party won the mayoral election after the Returning Officer scraped eight opposition votes. Aam Aadmi Party's councillor Kuldeep Dhalor had filed a petition after losing the mayor election to BJP's Party's Manoj Sonkar on Jan 30. BJP's Sonkar received 16 votes as opposed to Kumar's 12 votes. The action of rejecting eight votes of the AAP-Congress alliance as invalid sparked the allegations of vote tampering. (With inputs from agencies)

Chandigarh Mayor Polls: SC orders fresh counting of votes, seeks ballots and video recordings

A few months ahead of the general elections, the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme for political parties. Here is a report decoding the verdict and its impact on the upcoming polls. To know more watch this interview with the Former Central Information Commissioner, India, Shailesh Gandhi.

India's court rules against Electoral Bonds ahead of polls

India's Supreme Court has scrapped a seven-year-old election funding system, called "electoral bonds", that allows individuals and companies to donate money to political parties anonymously and without any limits.

India's Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional

Imagine you are an investor in a company that issues shares in a public issue. You suddenly realise the company does not report its results to you and instead gives a fat pay hike to its CEO who happens to be the son of the chairman.&nbsp;

Would you be upset? Would you be upset more if you realise that the CEO in question offered big discounts on the company 's products to his school friends and didn't report it in sales statements?

If your answer is yes, the Supreme Court verdict against electoral bonds should not surprise you.

After the Supreme Court of India's ruling that struck down anonymous/confidential electoral bonds as a means to donate to political parties, I am surprised how middle class investors who are aware of corporate conduct when it comes to investing in shares do not extend the same logic to political parties and processes.

The verdict led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud makes it clear that lack of transparency and denial of appropriate information to the average voter are such that the electoral bond scheme violates the Constitution of India.&nbsp;

Whether you are an investor or a voter, the right you enjoy is based on the principle of conscious, free and informed choice.

This is why the Election Commission and it's corporate counterpart Securities and Exchange Board of India insist on appropriate disclosures -- such as antecedents, assets and related party deals involving key candidates and officials.

Electoral bonds were ostensibly meant to end the influence of black money in elections but much in its design smelt of a quid pro quo that could hide a covert sweetheart camaraderie between donors and their political patrons.&nbsp;

As the scheme was cleared by parliament, it was legal but only in a technical sense, much like a board resolution of a private company. It took the might of the country's highest court to call this bluff as it requires a nuanced understanding of the deeper principles of the Constitution.

True, unlike the erstwhile "Licence Permit Quota Raj" of the pre-1991era, post-reform India has less scope for corruption. But it must be remembered that "licence buying ' by stealth is only a clearer version of corruption. Every policy framed by a government even in a liberal economy is potentially one that creates winners and losers. Every allocation made by a government department in the public interest creates business opportunities for private parties.

Thus, even in the best case scenario, electoral bonds can be used as instruments of influence peddling by business lobbies. That is just sophisticated corruption.

Things can get worse where the ruling party or government through state-controlled banks like the State Bank of India has disproportionate access to confidential information on electoral bonds. What is the guarantee that a corporate donation to an opposition party will not lead to adverse outcomes for the donor?

The SC verdict should thus be only a starting point for deep discussions on how transparency as well as truly free choices should be exercised in political behaviour.

Much like minority shareholders receiving protection from regulators of corporate law, special provisions may be required to ensure a fair regime for political funding to support less privileged voters.

State funding of elections is an idea worth discussing. The vote, in any case, must take precedence over the 'note' in a context where poor voters may be empowered by the ballot but are often misguided through smoke-and-mirror techniques that create an asymmetry of relevant information in addition to noisy propaganda.

Until and unless there's a high level of public awareness, institutions like the judiciary, the academia, mass media and civil society organisations need to play a custodial role in strengthening democracy.

The Association for Democratic Reforms that spearheaded the case against electoral bonds deserves a special mention in this instance. No court can help a democracy in which litigant citizens are not smart enough to build a strong case.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Imagine you are an investor in a company that issues shares in a public issue. You suddenly realise the company does not report its results to you and instead gives a fat pay hike to its CEO who happens to be the son of the chairman.

Imagine you are an investor in a company that issues shares in a public issue. You suddenly realise the company does not report its results to you and instead gives a fat pay hike to its CEO who happens to be the son of the chairman. Would you be upset? Would you be upset more if you realise that the CEO in question offered big discounts on the company 's products to his school friends and didn't report it in sales statements? If your answer is yes, the Supreme Court verdict against electoral bonds should not surprise you. After the Supreme Court of India's ruling that struck down anonymous/confidential electoral bonds as a means to donate to political parties, I am surprised how middle class investors who are aware of corporate conduct when it comes to investing in shares do not extend the same logic to political parties and processes. The verdict led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud makes it clear that lack of transparency and denial of appropriate information to the average voter are such that the electoral bond scheme violates the Constitution of India. Whether you are an investor or a voter, the right you enjoy is based on the principle of conscious, free and informed choice. This is why the Election Commission and it's corporate counterpart Securities and Exchange Board of India insist on appropriate disclosures -- such as antecedents, assets and related party deals involving key candidates and officials. Electoral bonds were ostensibly meant to end the influence of black money in elections but much in its design smelt of a quid pro quo that could hide a covert sweetheart camaraderie between donors and their political patrons. As the scheme was cleared by parliament, it was legal but only in a technical sense, much like a board resolution of a private company. It took the might of the country's highest court to call this bluff as it requires a nuanced understanding of the deeper principles of the Constitution. True, unlike the erstwhile "Licence Permit Quota Raj" of the pre-1991era, post-reform India has less scope for corruption. But it must be remembered that "licence buying ' by stealth is only a clearer version of corruption. Every policy framed by a government even in a liberal economy is potentially one that creates winners and losers. Every allocation made by a government department in the public interest creates business opportunities for private parties. Thus, even in the best case scenario, electoral bonds can be used as instruments of influence peddling by business lobbies. That is just sophisticated corruption. Things can get worse where the ruling party or government through state-controlled banks like the State Bank of India has disproportionate access to confidential information on electoral bonds. What is the guarantee that a corporate donation to an opposition party will not lead to adverse outcomes for the donor? The SC verdict should thus be only a starting point for deep discussions on how transparency as well as truly free choices should be exercised in political behaviour. Much like minority shareholders receiving protection from regulators of corporate law, special provisions may be required to ensure a fair regime for political funding to support less privileged voters. State funding of elections is an idea worth discussing. The vote, in any case, must take precedence over the 'note' in a context where poor voters may be empowered by the ballot but are often misguided through smoke-and-mirror techniques that create an asymmetry of relevant information in addition to noisy propaganda. Until and unless there's a high level of public awareness, institutions like the judiciary, the academia, mass media and civil society organisations need to play a custodial role in strengthening democracy. The Association for Democratic Reforms that spearheaded the case against electoral bonds deserves a special mention in this instance. No court can help a democracy in which litigant citizens are not smart enough to build a strong case. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

SC verdict on election bonds is a vote for informed choice and a bulwark against sophisticated corruption

Indian Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds ahead of elections

Electoral Bonds: India's Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as&nbsp;unconstitutional the so-called 'electoral bonds', in a landmark judgement that&nbsp;ruled that the controversial financial instruments to support political parties can lead to 'quid pro quo'.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Supreme Court says it has delivered a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the Central government’s Electoral Bond scheme which allows for anonymous funding to political parties. <a href="https://t.co/HkBIrDJr9O">pic.twitter.com/HkBIrDJr9O</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1757996330494959886?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A five-judge bench of Chief Justice of Inda DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the Central government's scheme.

The bench stated that the scheme was a violation of the right to information and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution. 
 
The court&nbsp;also asked the State Bank of India (SBI), India's largest public sector lender, to stop issuing the controversial financial instruments.

Electoral&nbsp;bonds were used by individuals and corporates to fund political parties anonymously. 
 
The Supreme Court&nbsp;was looking into several aspects of the constitution with regards to the bonds. 
 
Petitioners had pleaded that not revealing information on contributions to parties were violative of several aspects of the constitution.

They included the amendments to Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, Section 183(3) of the Companies Act, Section 13A(b) of the Income Tax Act and the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 
 
The court had reserved the verdict in November.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/farmers-protest-20-protesters-plan-to-block-trains-demand-pm-modi-to-intervene-690408">Farmers' protest 2.0: Protesters plan to block trains, demand PM Modi to intervene</a>

<h2>Electoral Bonds&nbsp;judgement key highlights:</h2>

- Supreme Court said that the scheme was violative of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

- SC directed the issuing bank, SBI, to stop the issuance of electoral bonds with immediate effect.

- It ordered the State Bank of India to share the details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to the Election Commission and directed the Indian election body to&nbsp;publish the details&nbsp;on its website.

- “This court recognised right to information about social, cultural, political and economical issues, and that it is not limited to state affairs but to further participatory democracy principle," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

- The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

- The top court said infringement to the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money.&nbsp;

The scheme, notified by the government on 2 January, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations that were made to political parties, in a bid to bring about transparency to political funding.

As per the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be bought by a citizen of India or any entity that is either incorporated or established in the country.

An individual can purchase electoral bonds, singly or jointly clubbing with other individuals, without sharing their identity.

(With inputs from agencies)

Electoral Bonds: India's Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as unconstitutional the so-called 'electoral bonds', in a landmark judgement that ruled that the controversial financial instruments to support political parties can lead to 'quid pro quo'.

Electoral Bonds: India's Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 15) struck down as unconstitutional the so-called 'electoral bonds', in a landmark judgement that ruled that the controversial financial instruments to support political parties can lead to 'quid pro quo'. Supreme Court says it has delivered a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the Central government’s Electoral Bond scheme which allows for anonymous funding to political parties. pic.twitter.com/HkBIrDJr9O — ANI (@ANI) February 15, 2024 × A five-judge bench of Chief Justice of Inda DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the Central government's scheme. The bench stated that the scheme was a violation of the right to information and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution. The court also asked the State Bank of India (SBI), India's largest public sector lender, to stop issuing the controversial financial instruments. Electoral bonds were used by individuals and corporates to fund political parties anonymously. The Supreme Court was looking into several aspects of the constitution with regards to the bonds. Petitioners had pleaded that not revealing information on contributions to parties were violative of several aspects of the constitution. They included the amendments to Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, Section 183(3) of the Companies Act, Section 13A(b) of the Income Tax Act and the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court had reserved the verdict in November. Also read: Farmers' protest 2.0: Protesters plan to block trains, demand PM Modi to intervene Electoral Bonds judgement key highlights: - Supreme Court said that the scheme was violative of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. - SC directed the issuing bank, SBI, to stop the issuance of electoral bonds with immediate effect. - It ordered the State Bank of India to share the details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019 till date to the Election Commission and directed the Indian election body to publish the details on its website. - “This court recognised right to information about social, cultural, political and economical issues, and that it is not limited to state affairs but to further participatory democracy principle," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. - The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The top court said infringement to the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money. The scheme, notified by the government on 2 January, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations that were made to political parties, in a bid to bring about transparency to political funding. As per the provisions of the scheme, electoral bonds may be bought by a citizen of India or any entity that is either incorporated or established in the country. An individual can purchase electoral bonds, singly or jointly clubbing with other individuals, without sharing their identity. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional

BREAKING NEWS: India's Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds, calls them 'unconstitutional'

The Gujarat government led by Chief Minister Bhupendrabhai Patel&nbsp;filed a review plea in the Bilkis Bano case with the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The appeal asks the court to strike words that suggest the state&nbsp;was involved with the prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case and requests the removal of any remarks deemed to be critical of the state.

On January 8, the highest court nullified the remission that the Gujarat government had granted to all 11 convicts involved in the gangrape of Gujarat woman Bilkis Bano during the 2002 post-Godhra riot case. The court criticised the state, accusing it of being "complicit" with an accused and abusing its discretion.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-bilkis-bano-all-you-need-to-know-507718" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-bilkis-bano-all-you-need-to-know-507718&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjj96bO4KiEAxWicGwGHbMVAdsQFnoECAIQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw0fvAfffMEovl4YwS5Xi-Ss" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-bilkis-bano-all-you-need-to-know-507718" target="_blank">Who is&nbsp;Bilkis Bano? All you need to know</a>

The Gujarat government has appealed to the Supreme Court for removing the remarks from the records, citing them as unjustified and stressing the prejudice that these remarks have caused.

The review petition states, "It is humbly submitted that the extreme observation made by this Hon'ble Court that the State of Gujarat acted in tandem and was complicit with Respondent No. 3 accused is not only highly unwarranted and against the record of the case but has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner-State of Gujarat."

Watch:&nbsp;Bilkis Bano case: Gujarat government's decision to remit sentences overturned by SC

<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/bilkis-bano-case-gujarat-governments-decision-to-remit-sentences-overturned-by-sc-677947/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Furthermore, the Gujarati administration denied any seizure of authority, claiming that its actions were in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate from 2022.

In August 2022, the 11 convicts, serving life sentences, were granted premature release from jail after the Gujarat government accepted their remission applications based on its 1992 policy, citing their 'good conduct' during imprisonment.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bilkis-bano-gangrape-case-supreme-court-denies-extension-to-convicts-for-return-to-jail-681575">Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court denies more time for convicts to surrender</a>

The Supreme Court then ordered the prisoners who had been freed from Godhra district jail on Independence Day in 2022 to report back to jail in two weeks.

On January 21, the convicts surrendered to Godhra jail authorities. The Supreme Court, in nullifying the remission order, declared that the Gujarat government lacked jurisdiction to grant premature release, citing that the trial for the 2002 case had taken place in Maharashtra.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Gujarat government led by Chief Minister Bhupendrabhai Patel filed a review plea in the Bilkis Bano case with the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The appeal asks the court to strike words that suggest the state was involved with the prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case and requests the removal of any remarks deemed to be critical of the state.

The Gujarat government led by Chief Minister Bhupendrabhai Patel filed a review plea in the Bilkis Bano case with the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The appeal asks the court to strike words that suggest the state was involved with the prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case and requests the removal of any remarks deemed to be critical of the state. On January 8, the highest court nullified the remission that the Gujarat government had granted to all 11 convicts involved in the gangrape of Gujarat woman Bilkis Bano during the 2002 post-Godhra riot case. The court criticised the state, accusing it of being "complicit" with an accused and abusing its discretion. Also read: Who is Bilkis Bano? All you need to know The Gujarat government has appealed to the Supreme Court for removing the remarks from the records, citing them as unjustified and stressing the prejudice that these remarks have caused. The review petition states, "It is humbly submitted that the extreme observation made by this Hon'ble Court that the State of Gujarat acted in tandem and was complicit with Respondent No. 3 accused is not only highly unwarranted and against the record of the case but has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner-State of Gujarat." Watch: Bilkis Bano case: Gujarat government's decision to remit sentences overturned by SC × Furthermore, the Gujarati administration denied any seizure of authority, claiming that its actions were in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate from 2022. In August 2022, the 11 convicts, serving life sentences, were granted premature release from jail after the Gujarat government accepted their remission applications based on its 1992 policy, citing their 'good conduct' during imprisonment. Also read: Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court denies more time for convicts to surrender The Supreme Court then ordered the prisoners who had been freed from Godhra district jail on Independence Day in 2022 to report back to jail in two weeks. On January 21, the convicts surrendered to Godhra jail authorities. The Supreme Court, in nullifying the remission order, declared that the Gujarat government lacked jurisdiction to grant premature release, citing that the trial for the 2002 case had taken place in Maharashtra. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Gujarat govt appeals to Supreme Court for removal of remarks in Bilkis Bano case

Former president Donald Trump's presidential race is becoming a bit of a cause for celebration and anguish. On one hand, he's sweeping every state that he setting foot on and on the other, his many legal challenges are threatening to derail his presidential bid. Now there might be a silver lining in his court battles as the US Supreme Court seems to be inclined to reject attempts to knock Trump off the 2024 ballot. Take a look.

US Supreme Court skeptical of keeping Trump off the ballot

The Indian&nbsp;government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court. As per a report by news agency PTI, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had highlighted that the apex court has "consistently" dismissed the idea, citing it as a sub-judice matter.

"The Supreme Court has been consistently rejecting the proposal for setting up of the Benches of Supreme Court at a place outside Delhi," said the&nbsp;Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-pet-dog-protects-owners-body-from-wild-animals-for-48-hours-amid-heavy-snow-watch-688293">Pet dog protects owner's body from wild animals for 48 hours amid heavy snow. Watch</a>

Presenting its action-taken report on "Judicial Processes and Their Reforms," the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (Feb 7th) revealed that the government has acknowledged its suggestion.

<h2>Access to justice</h2>

In a chapter discussing the recommendations accepted by the government, the panel referred to its previous proposal regarding the feasibility of regional Supreme Court benches.&nbsp;

Emphasising the significance of 'access to justice' as a fundamental right, the committee underscored the long-standing demand for regional benches to ensure justice reaches the doorsteps of citizens.

The committee highlighted that establishing regional benches could alleviate the burden on the judiciary and reduce litigation costs for the common man.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-nirmala-sitharaman-presents-white-paper-on-indian-economy-in-lok-sabha-688314">India: Nirmala Sitharaman presents 'White paper' on Indian economy in Lok Sabha</a>

"The regional benches may also be seen as a solution to the overflowing caseload of the judiciary and to reduce the litigation cost to the common man," it said.

The committee reiterated its persistent recommendation for setting up regional Supreme Court benches and proposed the invocation of Article 130 of the Constitution for this purpose. The panel recommended the setting up of regional benches in four or five locations across India.

Responding to this, the Department of Justice in the law ministry clarified that as per Article 130, the Supreme Court is mandated to sit in Delhi or other locations designated by the Chief Justice of India with the President's approval. It said that the matter of regional benches has been referred twice to the Attorney General for opinion.

Former Attorney&nbsp;Generals have expressed reservations about regional benches, citing concerns about the Supreme Court's unity, integrity, and territorial jurisdiction. They argued against diluting the apex court's authority and warned of potential conflicts arising from divergent views. In March 2016, the then A-G Mukul Rohatgi said that the Supreme Court sitting in regional benches would impair the unity, integrity, importance, and majesty of the apex Court.

In a writ petition regarding the establishment of a National Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court in July 2016 "deemed it proper" to refer the matter to a Constitutional Bench for authoritative pronouncement.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court.

The Indian government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court. As per a report by news agency PTI, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had highlighted that the apex court has "consistently" dismissed the idea, citing it as a sub-judice matter. "The Supreme Court has been consistently rejecting the proposal for setting up of the Benches of Supreme Court at a place outside Delhi," said the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Also read | Pet dog protects owner's body from wild animals for 48 hours amid heavy snow. Watch Presenting its action-taken report on "Judicial Processes and Their Reforms," the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (Feb 7th) revealed that the government has acknowledged its suggestion. Access to justice In a chapter discussing the recommendations accepted by the government, the panel referred to its previous proposal regarding the feasibility of regional Supreme Court benches. Emphasising the significance of 'access to justice' as a fundamental right, the committee underscored the long-standing demand for regional benches to ensure justice reaches the doorsteps of citizens. The committee highlighted that establishing regional benches could alleviate the burden on the judiciary and reduce litigation costs for the common man. Also read | India: Nirmala Sitharaman presents 'White paper' on Indian economy in Lok Sabha "The regional benches may also be seen as a solution to the overflowing caseload of the judiciary and to reduce the litigation cost to the common man," it said. The committee reiterated its persistent recommendation for setting up regional Supreme Court benches and proposed the invocation of Article 130 of the Constitution for this purpose. The panel recommended the setting up of regional benches in four or five locations across India. Responding to this, the Department of Justice in the law ministry clarified that as per Article 130, the Supreme Court is mandated to sit in Delhi or other locations designated by the Chief Justice of India with the President's approval. It said that the matter of regional benches has been referred twice to the Attorney General for opinion. Former Attorney Generals have expressed reservations about regional benches, citing concerns about the Supreme Court's unity, integrity, and territorial jurisdiction. They argued against diluting the apex court's authority and warned of potential conflicts arising from divergent views. In March 2016, the then A-G Mukul Rohatgi said that the Supreme Court sitting in regional benches would impair the unity, integrity, importance, and majesty of the apex Court. In a writ petition regarding the establishment of a National Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court in July 2016 "deemed it proper" to refer the matter to a Constitutional Bench for authoritative pronouncement. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian government gives nod to establish Supreme Court regional benches

The Indian union government has reportedly given its nod to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee advocating the establishment of regional benches for the Supreme Court.

India: Government accpets recommendation for Supreme Court regional branches

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)&nbsp;on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack.&nbsp;

The nine Supreme Court justices heard arguments related to Trump’s appeal of a December 19 ruling by Colorado’s top court which barred him from the state’s Republican primary ballot citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution due to his alleged participation in an insurrection.

WATCH |&nbsp;Former president Trump appeals to turn down the Colorado ruling

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/former-president-trump-appeals-to-turn-down-the-colorado-ruling-688420/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The amendment in question bars “officers of the United States” who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The verdict in this case has major implications for the upcoming November 5 elections.&nbsp;

<h2>What happened in the court?</h2>

The justices – a six-three conservative majority including three judges appointed by Trump – expressed concerns about states having the power on their own to take sweeping actions which would affect a presidential election nationwide.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Jason Murray, who is representing the Colorado voters who brought the case, that if the Colorado court’s decision is upheld, other states would also start disqualification proceedings for their own candidates from either of the parties.&nbsp;

“It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” said Roberts.&nbsp;

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray that the question to confront here is also if a “single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” adding that “whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection, to be president again...it sounds awfully national to me.”

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-barred-from-colorado-ballot-for-role-in-january-6-attack-on-us-capitol-671523">Trump barred from Colorado ballot for role in January 6 attack on US Capitol</a>

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how Section 3 of the US Constitution would impact democracy, telling Murray that his position would be “disenfranchising voters to a significant degree”.&nbsp;

“The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that we be given another chance,” said Murrary bluntly.&nbsp;

Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas representing Trump opened the oral arguments and said that only Congress can disqualify a candidate.&nbsp;

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed,” said Mitchell, adding that the decision would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.”

Meanwhile, Mitchell, after being questioned by Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the amendment in question does not apply to Trump as he was the president and not an “officer of the United States,” adding that the term could only be used for an appointed official of some kind.

Notably, justices spent little time discussing the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection when thousands of Trump supporters, in a bid to stop lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s win, attacked the US Capitol.&nbsp;

<h2>‘Very beautiful process’</h2>

Moments after the arguments concluded at the SCOTUS, the former president spoke to the press from Florida and said he was watching the hearing and thought it went well for him. “In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process,” said Trump.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/michigan-supreme-court-rejects-attempt-to-ban-former-us-president-donald-trump-from-2024-ballot-674242">Colorado Republicans seek intervention by US Supreme Court in Donald Trump's 2024 ballot disqualification</a>

He added, “I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received – I hope it was well-received.”&nbsp;

The Republican frontrunner also pointed out his dominance in the polls and said, “Can you take the person that’s leading everywhere and say, ‘Hey, we're not gonna let you run?’...but I’m leaving it up to the Supreme Court.”

A small crowd of around 20 protesters, some carrying signs reading “Trump Is A Traitor” and “Remove Trump,” were also seen outside the top court ahead of the hearing.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack.

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack. The nine Supreme Court justices heard arguments related to Trump’s appeal of a December 19 ruling by Colorado’s top court which barred him from the state’s Republican primary ballot citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution due to his alleged participation in an insurrection. WATCH | Former president Trump appeals to turn down the Colorado ruling The amendment in question bars “officers of the United States” who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The verdict in this case has major implications for the upcoming November 5 elections. What happened in the court? The justices – a six-three conservative majority including three judges appointed by Trump – expressed concerns about states having the power on their own to take sweeping actions which would affect a presidential election nationwide. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Jason Murray, who is representing the Colorado voters who brought the case, that if the Colorado court’s decision is upheld, other states would also start disqualification proceedings for their own candidates from either of the parties. “It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” said Roberts. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray that the question to confront here is also if a “single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” adding that “whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection, to be president again...it sounds awfully national to me.” ALSO READ | Trump barred from Colorado ballot for role in January 6 attack on US Capitol Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how Section 3 of the US Constitution would impact democracy, telling Murray that his position would be “disenfranchising voters to a significant degree”. “The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that we be given another chance,” said Murrary bluntly. Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas representing Trump opened the oral arguments and said that only Congress can disqualify a candidate. “The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed,” said Mitchell, adding that the decision would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.” Meanwhile, Mitchell, after being questioned by Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the amendment in question does not apply to Trump as he was the president and not an “officer of the United States,” adding that the term could only be used for an appointed official of some kind. Notably, justices spent little time discussing the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection when thousands of Trump supporters, in a bid to stop lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s win, attacked the US Capitol. ‘Very beautiful process’ Moments after the arguments concluded at the SCOTUS, the former president spoke to the press from Florida and said he was watching the hearing and thought it went well for him. “In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process,” said Trump. ALSO READ | Colorado Republicans seek intervention by US Supreme Court in Donald Trump's 2024 ballot disqualification He added, “I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received – I hope it was well-received.” The Republican frontrunner also pointed out his dominance in the polls and said, “Can you take the person that’s leading everywhere and say, ‘Hey, we're not gonna let you run?’...but I’m leaving it up to the Supreme Court.” A small crowd of around 20 protesters, some carrying signs reading “Trump Is A Traitor” and “Remove Trump,” were also seen outside the top court ahead of the hearing. (With inputs from agencies)

US presidential election 2024: Supreme Court seems sceptical of Colorado's decision to kick Trump off ballot

Indian government accepts recommendation for Supreme Court regional branches

The US Supreme Court on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. WION's Susan Tehrani brings you more insights.

US Supreme Court hears landmark case on Trump's re-election eligibility

The Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday (Feb 5) gave an earful to the returning officer over his conduct during the recent mayoral polls in&nbsp;the northern Indian union territory of Chandigarh. The apex court said what happened during the election was a "mockery of democracy".&nbsp;

Led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the three-judge bench made the remark while hearing a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress. The alliance's candidate Kuldeep Kumar&nbsp;lost the mayoral race to Bhartiya Janta Party's (BJP) Manoj Sonkar after&nbsp;the returning officer declared eight votes invalid.&nbsp;

“What is he doing? It’s obvious that he has defaced the ballot…This man has to be prosecuted," said CJI Chandrachud, referring to&nbsp;returning officer Anil Masih after watching a CCTV footage.&nbsp;

“This is a mockery of democracy. It’s murdering democracy. Is this the way he conducts an election? We are appalled by what has happened. We are simply appalled by what has happened,” he added.

Notably, the alliance candidate had 20 votes which meant he could have become the new mayor. However, after Masih declared eight votes invalid,&nbsp;Kumar's effective vote count came down to&nbsp;12 against Sonkar's 16.

The court ordered that "entire records pertaining to the election" be kept in custody of&nbsp;the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.&nbsp;

“We direct that the entire records pertaining to the election of the mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation shall be sequestered under the custody of the registrar general of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This shall include the ballot papers, videography of the entire electoral process and all other material in the custody of the returning officer.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/chandigarh-mayor-elections-bjps-manoj-sonkar-wins-oppn-demands-action-against-presiding-officer-685169">Also read |&nbsp;Chandigarh Mayor elections: BJP’s Manoj Sonkar wins, oppn demands action against presiding officer</a>

<h2>AAP released new video</h2>

Hours after the court's statement, AAP released a new video of Masih allegedly tampering with the ballot papers before declaring them invalid.&nbsp;

"Now accept it, BJP. What can be a greater proof than this? See how the Presiding Officer of BJP openly destroyed the flag of democracy by cancelling the votes himself. This is living proof of BJP's dictatorship," AAP said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
ਹੁਣ ਤਾਂ ਮੰਨ ਜਾਓ <a href="https://twitter.com/BJP4India?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BJP4India</a> ਵਾਲਿਓ! 
 
ਇਸਤੋਂ ਵੱਡਾ ਸਬੂਤ ਹੋਰ ਕੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੈ। ਦੇਖੋ ਕਿਵੇਂ BJP ਦੇ Presiding Officer ਨੇ ਸ਼ਰੇਆਮ ਖ਼ੁਦ ਹੀ ਵੋਟਾਂ ਕੈਂਸਲ ਕਰਕੇ ਉਡਾਈਆਂ ਲੋਕਤੰਤਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਧੱਜੀਆਂ। 
 
ਇਹ ਭਾਜਪਾ ਦੀ ਤਾਨਾਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਦਾ ਜਿਉਂਦਾ ਜਾਗਦਾ ਸਬੂਤ ਹੈ।<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChandigarhMayor?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ChandigarhMayor</a> <a href="https://t.co/BIxIhrwRv6">pic.twitter.com/BIxIhrwRv6</a>
— AAP Punjab (@AAPPunjab) <a href="https://twitter.com/AAPPunjab/status/1754548714507841943?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

AAP chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal attacked BJP saying the "world's biggest party was caught red-handed, stealing votes in Chandigarh election".&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 5) gave an earful to the returning officer over his conduct during the recent mayoral polls in the northern Indian union territory of Chandigarh.

The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 5) gave an earful to the returning officer over his conduct during the recent mayoral polls in the northern Indian union territory of Chandigarh. The apex court said what happened during the election was a "mockery of democracy". Led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the three-judge bench made the remark while hearing a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress. The alliance's candidate Kuldeep Kumar lost the mayoral race to Bhartiya Janta Party's (BJP) Manoj Sonkar after the returning officer declared eight votes invalid. “What is he doing? It’s obvious that he has defaced the ballot…This man has to be prosecuted," said CJI Chandrachud, referring to returning officer Anil Masih after watching a CCTV footage. “This is a mockery of democracy. It’s murdering democracy. Is this the way he conducts an election? We are appalled by what has happened. We are simply appalled by what has happened,” he added. Notably, the alliance candidate had 20 votes which meant he could have become the new mayor. However, after Masih declared eight votes invalid, Kumar's effective vote count came down to 12 against Sonkar's 16. The court ordered that "entire records pertaining to the election" be kept in custody of the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. “We direct that the entire records pertaining to the election of the mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation shall be sequestered under the custody of the registrar general of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This shall include the ballot papers, videography of the entire electoral process and all other material in the custody of the returning officer.” Also read | Chandigarh Mayor elections: BJP’s Manoj Sonkar wins, oppn demands action against presiding officer AAP released new video Hours after the court's statement, AAP released a new video of Masih allegedly tampering with the ballot papers before declaring them invalid. "Now accept it, BJP. What can be a greater proof than this? See how the Presiding Officer of BJP openly destroyed the flag of democracy by cancelling the votes himself. This is living proof of BJP's dictatorship," AAP said. ਹੁਣ ਤਾਂ ਮੰਨ ਜਾਓ @BJP4India ਵਾਲਿਓ! ਇਸਤੋਂ ਵੱਡਾ ਸਬੂਤ ਹੋਰ ਕੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੈ। ਦੇਖੋ ਕਿਵੇਂ BJP ਦੇ Presiding Officer ਨੇ ਸ਼ਰੇਆਮ ਖ਼ੁਦ ਹੀ ਵੋਟਾਂ ਕੈਂਸਲ ਕਰਕੇ ਉਡਾਈਆਂ ਲੋਕਤੰਤਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਧੱਜੀਆਂ। ਇਹ ਭਾਜਪਾ ਦੀ ਤਾਨਾਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਦਾ ਜਿਉਂਦਾ ਜਾਗਦਾ ਸਬੂਤ ਹੈ।#ChandigarhMayor pic.twitter.com/BIxIhrwRv6 — AAP Punjab (@AAPPunjab) February 5, 2024 × AAP chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal attacked BJP saying the "world's biggest party was caught red-handed, stealing votes in Chandigarh election". (With inputs from agencies)

Chandigarh mayor polls: SC calls election 'mockery of democracy' after presiding officer fudges ballots

Mayoral elections in India's union territory Chandigarh are at the centre of a controversy after allegations of poll rigging surfaced. With India's top court lashing out at malpractice in the polls, clouds loom over BJP'S sweeping electoral win.

Supreme Court slams Chandigarh mayoral poll results

The US Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the prestigious Army school, from considering race as a factor in admissions decisions while a legal battle over the practice proceeds in lower courts. 
The justices denied a request from Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, after lower courts refused to halt the practice.

The group was behind a successful Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious collegiate admissions policies in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

No justice publicly dissented from the court's brief order.

"The record before this court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question," the decision stated.

The lawsuit said West Point's admissions practices discriminated against white applicants and violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of equal protection.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/judge-postpones-election-interference-trial-against-donald-trump-686571">Judge postpones election interference trial against Donald Trump</a>

West Point, located in New York state, educates cadets for commissioning into the U.S. Army, counting among its graduates former U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant and current Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based nonprofit, had asked the Supreme Court to decide the request by the academy's application deadline for the class of 2028, which was on Wednesday.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iraq-says-us-airstrikes-a-breach-of-sovereignty-warns-of-drastic-consequences-686533">Iraq says US airstrikes a breach of 'sovereignty', warns of 'drastic consequences'</a>

The US Justice Department told the Supreme court in a filing that it strengthens U.S. national security to have a more diverse corps of officers, many of whom begin their Army careers at West Point. West Point graduates comprise roughly one in five Army officers, one in three generals and nearly half of current four-star generals, the department said.&nbsp;

<h2>'More legitimate'</h2>

"Diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, makes a more effective fighting force - more cohesive and lethal, better able to attract and retain top talent, and more legitimate in the eyes of the nation and the world," the department said in its brief.

<section>
Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-farmer-protests-called-off-after-french-government-announces-concessions-686597">France: Farmer protests called off after French government announces concessions</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/france-farmer-protests-called-off-after-french-government-announces-concessions-686597/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Many US colleges and universities, including the nation's military service academies, used affirmative action policies that considered race as one of numerous factors in admissions to increase their enrollment of Black, Hispanic and certain other minority students.
</section>

"It is disappointing that the young men and women who apply to West Point for the foreseeable future will have their race used as a factor to admit or reject them," Blum, who for years has pursued lawsuits challenging affirmative action policies, said of Friday's decision.

West Point and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern in White Plains, New York, rejected a request by Blum's group for a preliminary injunction on Jan. 3 and rebuffed its request for an emergency injunction the next day. The group appealed Halpern's decisions to the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the group's emergency request on Monday.

The merits of the case are still being contested before Halpern, who has issued a preliminary finding in favor of West Point but not a final decision.

Blum's group sued last September, challenging West Point's admissions process on behalf of two Students for Fair Admissions members - a high school student applying for the first time and a first-year college student applying for the second time. Both of the male students, whose names were withheld due to what they said was a fear of reprisal by West Point, "are fully qualified but white," the group said.

In invalidating admissions policies at Harvard and UNC last year as a violation of the Constitution's equal protection protections, the Supreme Court did not address race in admissions at military academies. 
President Joe Biden's administration, in defending the race-conscious admissions policies used by the military service academies, said that senior military leaders long have recognized that a scarcity of minority officers can create distrust within the armed forces.

"The Army learned that lesson the hard way when decades of unaddressed racial tension and disparities fundamentally threatened the military's ability to protect national security during the Vietnam (war) era," the Justice Department wrote in its brief, noting that the Army was "plagued by accusations that white officers were using minority servicemembers as 'cannon fodder.'"

The other military service academies, opens new tab are: the Naval Academy in Maryland, the Air Force Academy in Colorado, the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut and the Merchant Marine Academy in New York.

Students for Fair Admissions has also sued the Naval Academy over its race-conscious admissions policy. A federal judge in Maryland has scheduled the case to go trial in September. 
&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the prestigious Army school, from considering race as a factor in admissions decisions while a legal battle over the practice proceeds in lower courts.

The US Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the prestigious Army school, from considering race as a factor in admissions decisions while a legal battle over the practice proceeds in lower courts. The justices denied a request from Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, after lower courts refused to halt the practice. The group was behind a successful Supreme Court challenge to race-conscious collegiate admissions policies in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. No justice publicly dissented from the court's brief order. "The record before this court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question," the decision stated. The lawsuit said West Point's admissions practices discriminated against white applicants and violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of equal protection. Also Read | Judge postpones election interference trial against Donald Trump West Point, located in New York state, educates cadets for commissioning into the U.S. Army, counting among its graduates former U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant and current Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based nonprofit, had asked the Supreme Court to decide the request by the academy's application deadline for the class of 2028, which was on Wednesday. Also Read | Iraq says US airstrikes a breach of 'sovereignty', warns of 'drastic consequences' The US Justice Department told the Supreme court in a filing that it strengthens U.S. national security to have a more diverse corps of officers, many of whom begin their Army careers at West Point. West Point graduates comprise roughly one in five Army officers, one in three generals and nearly half of current four-star generals, the department said. 'More legitimate' "Diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, makes a more effective fighting force - more cohesive and lethal, better able to attract and retain top talent, and more legitimate in the eyes of the nation and the world," the department said in its brief. Watch | France: Farmer protests called off after French government announces concessions × Many US colleges and universities, including the nation's military service academies, used affirmative action policies that considered race as one of numerous factors in admissions to increase their enrollment of Black, Hispanic and certain other minority students. "It is disappointing that the young men and women who apply to West Point for the foreseeable future will have their race used as a factor to admit or reject them," Blum, who for years has pursued lawsuits challenging affirmative action policies, said of Friday's decision. West Point and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern in White Plains, New York, rejected a request by Blum's group for a preliminary injunction on Jan. 3 and rebuffed its request for an emergency injunction the next day. The group appealed Halpern's decisions to the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the group's emergency request on Monday. The merits of the case are still being contested before Halpern, who has issued a preliminary finding in favor of West Point but not a final decision. Blum's group sued last September, challenging West Point's admissions process on behalf of two Students for Fair Admissions members - a high school student applying for the first time and a first-year college student applying for the second time. Both of the male students, whose names were withheld due to what they said was a fear of reprisal by West Point, "are fully qualified but white," the group said. In invalidating admissions policies at Harvard and UNC last year as a violation of the Constitution's equal protection protections, the Supreme Court did not address race in admissions at military academies. President Joe Biden's administration, in defending the race-conscious admissions policies used by the military service academies, said that senior military leaders long have recognized that a scarcity of minority officers can create distrust within the armed forces. "The Army learned that lesson the hard way when decades of unaddressed racial tension and disparities fundamentally threatened the military's ability to protect national security during the Vietnam (war) era," the Justice Department wrote in its brief, noting that the Army was "plagued by accusations that white officers were using minority servicemembers as 'cannon fodder.'" The other military service academies, opens new tab are: the Naval Academy in Maryland, the Air Force Academy in Colorado, the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut and the Merchant Marine Academy in New York. Students for Fair Admissions has also sued the Naval Academy over its race-conscious admissions policy. A federal judge in Maryland has scheduled the case to go trial in September.

US Supreme Court allows West Point military academy to continue considering race in admissions

Trouble continues to mount for Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu - in the latest setback back home - Israel's Supreme Court has struck down a controversial law passed by the Netanyahu administration.

Israel's Supreme Court strikes down contentious law | Israel cabinet slams top court's verdict

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