Eleven men convicted of the brutal mass sexual assault of Gujarat woman Bilkis Bano surrendered at a Godhra prison hours before the Supreme Court-mandated two-week deadline to surrender, set on January 8, ended.&nbsp;The apex court revoked the remission and premature release granted to these individuals by the Gujarat government on August 15, 2022.

The surrendered individuals—Radheshyam Shah, Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Kesar Vohania, Baka Vohania, Raju Soni, Ramesh Chandana, Shailesh Bhatt, Bipin Joshi, Pradip Modhiya, and Mitesh Bhatt—made their way from Singwad in Dahod district to the Godhra sub-jail in Panchmahal district just before midnight. They reportedly arrived in two separate vehicles.

Also watch |&nbsp;Bilkis Bano case: SC overturns early release of all 11 convicts

<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-sc-overturns-early-release-of-all-11-convicts-677843/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Ahead of the expected surrender, multiple units of personnel from the Panchmahal district police of Gujarat state were reportedly deployed for security outside the Godhra sub-jail since late Sunday evening.&nbsp;

Authorities at the Godhra sub-jail verified the surrender at 11:45 pm on Sunday, the Indian Express reported.&nbsp;

The development follows the Supreme Court's dismissal of the convicts' petitions seeking more time to surrender, where reasons such as the ill-health of ageing parents, a family wedding, and crop harvest were cited. On January 8, the top court nullified the Gujarat government's decision to grant remission and added that the state had overstepped its jurisdiction.

The court's observation came as the men faced trial and were convicted in neighbouring&nbsp;Maharashtra state and not in Gujarat.&nbsp;

<h2>Convicts were released under Gujarat govt's remission policy</h2>

The convicts, sentenced to life for sexually assaulting Bilkis Bano and killing her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots, were released on August 15, 2022, based on the Gujarat government's 1992 remission policy. Bilkis Bano had challenged the state government's move before the apex court.

Bano, who was 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time of the incident, survived a brutal gang rape while fleeing with her family from Randhikpur in the aftermath of the 2002 Sabarmati train carnage. While fleeing, a total of 14 family members of her household, including her three-year-old daughter, died.

(With inputs from agencies)

Eleven men convicted of the brutal mass sexual assault of Gujarat woman Bilkis Bano surrendered at a Godhra prison hours before the Supreme Court-mandated two-week deadline to surrender, set on January 8, ended.

Eleven men convicted of the brutal mass sexual assault of Gujarat woman Bilkis Bano surrendered at a Godhra prison hours before the Supreme Court-mandated two-week deadline to surrender, set on January 8, ended. The apex court revoked the remission and premature release granted to these individuals by the Gujarat government on August 15, 2022. The surrendered individuals—Radheshyam Shah, Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Kesar Vohania, Baka Vohania, Raju Soni, Ramesh Chandana, Shailesh Bhatt, Bipin Joshi, Pradip Modhiya, and Mitesh Bhatt—made their way from Singwad in Dahod district to the Godhra sub-jail in Panchmahal district just before midnight. They reportedly arrived in two separate vehicles. Also watch | Bilkis Bano case: SC overturns early release of all 11 convicts × Ahead of the expected surrender, multiple units of personnel from the Panchmahal district police of Gujarat state were reportedly deployed for security outside the Godhra sub-jail since late Sunday evening. Authorities at the Godhra sub-jail verified the surrender at 11:45 pm on Sunday, the Indian Express reported. The development follows the Supreme Court's dismissal of the convicts' petitions seeking more time to surrender, where reasons such as the ill-health of ageing parents, a family wedding, and crop harvest were cited. On January 8, the top court nullified the Gujarat government's decision to grant remission and added that the state had overstepped its jurisdiction. The court's observation came as the men faced trial and were convicted in neighbouring Maharashtra state and not in Gujarat. Convicts were released under Gujarat govt's remission policy The convicts, sentenced to life for sexually assaulting Bilkis Bano and killing her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots, were released on August 15, 2022, based on the Gujarat government's 1992 remission policy. Bilkis Bano had challenged the state government's move before the apex court. Bano, who was 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time of the incident, survived a brutal gang rape while fleeing with her family from Randhikpur in the aftermath of the 2002 Sabarmati train carnage. While fleeing, a total of 14 family members of her household, including her three-year-old daughter, died. (With inputs from agencies)

Bilkis Bano gang rape case: All 11 convicts surrender after Supreme Court's order against early release

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 22) told the southern Tamil Nadu government to not reject permissions for the live streaming of the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony on the sole ground that other communities are living in the locality.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by a Tamil Nadu member of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who alleged that the state government had banned live telecast of the Ayodhya temple ceremonies&nbsp;and the conduct of poojas&nbsp;and bhajans (rituals) to mark the occasion taking place in the northern city of Ayodhya on Monday.&nbsp;

"It is respectfully submitted that State Government run by DMK political party has banned live telecast of the auspicious occasion of 'Pran Pratishtha' of Lord Ram at Ayodhya in all the temples across the state of Tamil Nadu," the plea stated.&nbsp;

During&nbsp;the hearing, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said the state government would be in trouble if it rejected permissions based on the ground that a minority community was living nearby.

"You regulate it, don't reject on this reason (that there are other communities). If you reject on this reason, you will be in a problem," said Justice Khanna, responding to TN&nbsp;Additional Advocate General (AAG) who asked what if the event was conducted near a mosque.

"If such an order( banning religious ceremonies of others in areas inhabited primarily by members of one religion), were implemented across the state, then wherever there are minorities, they will never be able to hold prayer meetings," the judge added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ayodhya-ram-mandir-inauguration-ram-mandirs-consecration-ceremony-explained-682194">Watch | Ayodhya Ram Mandir Inauguration: Ram Mandir's consecration ceremony explained</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/ayodhya-ram-mandir-inauguration-ram-mandirs-consecration-ceremony-explained-682194/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Sitharaman's allegations&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>

The court order comes a day after Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman criticised the state government over reports of its decision to ban live streaming of the ceremony.&nbsp;

The minister claimed that the state police was stopping privately held temples from organising events while more than 200 temples dedicated to Lord Ram in the state were also directed to fall in line.&nbsp; 
 
"They are threatening organisers that they will rip off pandals. Strongly condemn this anti-Hindu, hateful action," Sitharaman said in&nbsp;a post on X, and enclosed the news clipping.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Justice Datta : If such an order( banning religious ceremonies of others in areas inhabited primarily by members of one religion), were implemented across the state, then wherever there are minorities, they will never be able to hold prayer meetings.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TamilNadu?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TamilNadu</a>
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1749306011414917489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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 href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-inauguration-live-temple-consecration-ceremony-pran-pratistha-pm-modi-yogi-news-hd-photos-streaming-22-jan-682119">Also read |&nbsp;Ayodhya Ram Mandir Inauguration Live: PM Modi arrives in temple town as history awaits momentous ceremony</a>

However, the DMK government denied the allegations saying it was a "motivated report to bring disrepute to the state government".&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 22) told the southern Tamil Nadu government to not reject permissions for the live streaming of the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony on the sole ground that other communities are living in the locality.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 22) told the southern Tamil Nadu government to not reject permissions for the live streaming of the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony on the sole ground that other communities are living in the locality. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by a Tamil Nadu member of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who alleged that the state government had banned live telecast of the Ayodhya temple ceremonies and the conduct of poojas and bhajans (rituals) to mark the occasion taking place in the northern city of Ayodhya on Monday. "It is respectfully submitted that State Government run by DMK political party has banned live telecast of the auspicious occasion of 'Pran Pratishtha' of Lord Ram at Ayodhya in all the temples across the state of Tamil Nadu," the plea stated. During the hearing, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said the state government would be in trouble if it rejected permissions based on the ground that a minority community was living nearby. "You regulate it, don't reject on this reason (that there are other communities). If you reject on this reason, you will be in a problem," said Justice Khanna, responding to TN Additional Advocate General (AAG) who asked what if the event was conducted near a mosque. "If such an order( banning religious ceremonies of others in areas inhabited primarily by members of one religion), were implemented across the state, then wherever there are minorities, they will never be able to hold prayer meetings," the judge added. Watch | Ayodhya Ram Mandir Inauguration: Ram Mandir's consecration ceremony explained × Sitharaman's allegations The court order comes a day after Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman criticised the state government over reports of its decision to ban live streaming of the ceremony. The minister claimed that the state police was stopping privately held temples from organising events while more than 200 temples dedicated to Lord Ram in the state were also directed to fall in line. "They are threatening organisers that they will rip off pandals. Strongly condemn this anti-Hindu, hateful action," Sitharaman said in a post on X, and enclosed the news clipping. Justice Datta : If such an order( banning religious ceremonies of others in areas inhabited primarily by members of one religion), were implemented across the state, then wherever there are minorities, they will never be able to hold prayer meetings.#TamilNadu — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 22, 2024 × Also read | Ayodhya Ram Mandir Inauguration Live: PM Modi arrives in temple town as history awaits momentous ceremony However, the DMK government denied the allegations saying it was a "motivated report to bring disrepute to the state government". (With inputs from agencies)

Ram Mandir I 'You will be in problem', Indian SC tells Tamil Nadu govt on rejecting screening requests

The five Supreme Court judges who delivered the landmark 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute have been invited to the consecration (pran-pratishtha) ceremony of the Ram Mandir to be held on January 22.

Ex-chief justice's Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde and current Chief Justice DY Chandrachud alongside&nbsp;Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer have been extended the invitation.&nbsp;

Apart from the five judges, the invites have also been sent to&nbsp;over 50 jurists and prominent lawyers. In total, over 7,000 guests have been invited, including 3,000 VVIPs, priests, politicians, actors and sports stars.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The temple is central to the beliefs of Hindus and has been built after a long legal process which culminated with the decision by the five-judge bench .&nbsp;

Under the unanimous verdict, the land upon which the Babri masjid was razed was given to the Hindu side while the Muslims were granted a piece of land to build a mosque, far away from the contentious spot.&nbsp;

In the 1,045-page verdict, the court stated that "on a balance&nbsp;probabilities, the evidence of possessory claim of the Hindus...stands on a better footing than the evidence given by the Muslims."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ayodhya-ram-mandir-preparation-in-full-swing-for-ram-temple-inauguration-678543">Watch |&nbsp;Ayodhya Ram Mandir: Preparation in full swing for Ram Temple inauguration</a>

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" data-gtm-yt-inspected-20="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ayodhya-ram-mandir-preparation-in-full-swing-for-ram-temple-inauguration-678543/embed" width="560"></iframe>

Under the verdict, the disputed 2.77 acres of land was transferred to a trust, set up by the Indian government for the construction of the Ram Temple. Consequently, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra was set up in February 2020, comprising of 15 trustees to oversee the funding as well as the construction of the holy site.

As for the Muslim side, the foundation stone for the proposed mosque is yet to be laid. The mosque will be constructed&nbsp;25 kilometres from Ayodhya and is expected to house&nbsp;the biggest Quran in the world with dimensions reading 21 feet high and 36 feet wide, according to Haji Arafat Shaikh,&nbsp;chairman of the Masjid Muhammad Bin Abdullah’s Development Committee.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-mandir-a-timeline-of-ayodhya-land-dispute-leading-up-to-inauguration-680969">Also read |&nbsp;Ram Mandir: A timeline of Ayodhya land dispute leading up to inauguration&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;

<h2>Ram temple consecration ceremony</h2>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside several eminent personalities will be attending the consecration ceremony of the temple on January 22, over three years after laying the foundation stone (Bhumi puja) in August 2020.

The 51-inch Ram Lalla idol, sculpted by&nbsp;Mysuru-based sculptor Arun Yogiraj,&nbsp;has already been brought to the sanctum sanctorum.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The five Supreme Court judges who delivered the landmark 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute have been invited to the consecration (pran-pratishtha) ceremony of the Ram Mandir to be held on January 22.

The five Supreme Court judges who delivered the landmark 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute have been invited to the consecration (pran-pratishtha) ceremony of the Ram Mandir to be held on January 22. Ex-chief justice's Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde and current Chief Justice DY Chandrachud alongside Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer have been extended the invitation. Apart from the five judges, the invites have also been sent to over 50 jurists and prominent lawyers. In total, over 7,000 guests have been invited, including 3,000 VVIPs, priests, politicians, actors and sports stars. The temple is central to the beliefs of Hindus and has been built after a long legal process which culminated with the decision by the five-judge bench . Under the unanimous verdict, the land upon which the Babri masjid was razed was given to the Hindu side while the Muslims were granted a piece of land to build a mosque, far away from the contentious spot. In the 1,045-page verdict, the court stated that "on a balance probabilities, the evidence of possessory claim of the Hindus...stands on a better footing than the evidence given by the Muslims." Watch | Ayodhya Ram Mandir: Preparation in full swing for Ram Temple inauguration Under the verdict, the disputed 2.77 acres of land was transferred to a trust, set up by the Indian government for the construction of the Ram Temple. Consequently, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra was set up in February 2020, comprising of 15 trustees to oversee the funding as well as the construction of the holy site. As for the Muslim side, the foundation stone for the proposed mosque is yet to be laid. The mosque will be constructed 25 kilometres from Ayodhya and is expected to house the biggest Quran in the world with dimensions reading 21 feet high and 36 feet wide, according to Haji Arafat Shaikh, chairman of the Masjid Muhammad Bin Abdullah’s Development Committee. Also read | Ram Mandir: A timeline of Ayodhya land dispute leading up to inauguration Ram temple consecration ceremony Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside several eminent personalities will be attending the consecration ceremony of the temple on January 22, over three years after laying the foundation stone (Bhumi puja) in August 2020. The 51-inch Ram Lalla idol, sculpted by Mysuru-based sculptor Arun Yogiraj, has already been brought to the sanctum sanctorum. (With inputs from agencies)

Ram Mandir: 5-judge Supreme Court bench that delivered Ayodhya verdict given consecration ceremony invitation

In a historic decision, Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed the death penalty that a special court had imposed on the now-deceased military dictator Pervez Musharraf in connection with a high treason case.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment in the hearing of a key case that would settle the issue of lifetime disqualification of some leading politicians, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan.

The verdict is expected to determine once and for all the controversy around the period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and the Elections Act 2017.

A 2018 judgment by a five-member bench of the apex court had declared that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) was for life, but changes made in the Elections Act 2017 on June 26, 2023, by a coalition government led by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) restricted it to a five-year term only.

A seven-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, conducted the hearing on Friday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/explained-without-bat-with-caretaker-pm-how-pakistan-elections-remain-a-delayed-affair-677160">Also read |&nbsp;Explained | Why Pakistan’s national elections remain a delayed affair</a>

During the hearing, the chief justice remarked that the Supreme Court verdict on lifetime disqualification and the amendments to the Elections Act 2017 could not co-exist. He also stated that discrepancies in the apex court's interpretation and the law could result in confusion in the upcoming general elections.

At the hearing's conclusion, the chief justice said a short order would be issued without specifying a time for its announcement.

"We will try to come up with a shorter order as soon as possible. Probably not today, but it will be very soon, God willing," he said.

During the hearing, which spanned several days, the court heard many lawyers, garnering their views on the duration of disqualification.

The remarks made by the chief justice and some other judges indicated they were not comfortable with the lifelong ban on convicted politicians, the Pakistani media reported.

However, it was not clear if the limit of disqualification should be imposed through a court order or an amendment to the Constitution.

Most of the arguments were in favour of nullifying the concept of the lifelong ban and limiting it to a five-year term. However, the chief justice repeatedly said that he also wanted to hear arguments supporting lifelong disqualification and asked lawyers to come forward.

Sharif, former prime minister and also a frontrunner for the fourth term in the February 8 general elections, was disqualified in the Panama Papers case in 2017. His rival Imran Khan, who was disqualified in the Toshakhana corruption case last year, also was hit by the same law.

However, Sharif got a kind of relief when his party-led government amended the election laws last year to limit the disqualification to five years, which allowed him to file nomination papers for the upcoming elections.

The controversy was not over as his candidature has been challenged as the interpretation of Article 62 (1) (f) clashed with the changes made in the Elections Act 2017. The outcome of the hearing would decide the future for both Sharif and Khan, as well as many other politicians.

Seventy-four-year-old Sharif's case was final until the period of disqualification was reduced. However, 71-year-old Khan's disqualification has not attained finality, and his appeal against it is still pending.

Also watch |&nbsp;Pakistan IED blast: Roadside blast claims lives of 6 police officials

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-ied-blast-roadside-blast-claims-lives-of-6-police-officials-677896/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Incarcerated Khan's nomination papers for the February 8 general elections were rejected on December 30 based on disqualification due to his conviction in the offence of "moral turpitude" in a corruption case and other reasons, a government official had reasoned.

Earlier, the issue came into the focus of the Supreme Court last month during the hearing of a petition of a politician from Dera Ghazi Khan, Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who was disqualified for producing a fake graduation degree.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment in the hearing of a key case that would settle the issue of lifetime disqualification of some leading politicians, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment in the hearing of a key case that would settle the issue of lifetime disqualification of some leading politicians, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. The verdict is expected to determine once and for all the controversy around the period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and the Elections Act 2017. A 2018 judgment by a five-member bench of the apex court had declared that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) was for life, but changes made in the Elections Act 2017 on June 26, 2023, by a coalition government led by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) restricted it to a five-year term only. A seven-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, conducted the hearing on Friday. Also read | Explained | Why Pakistan’s national elections remain a delayed affair During the hearing, the chief justice remarked that the Supreme Court verdict on lifetime disqualification and the amendments to the Elections Act 2017 could not co-exist. He also stated that discrepancies in the apex court's interpretation and the law could result in confusion in the upcoming general elections. At the hearing's conclusion, the chief justice said a short order would be issued without specifying a time for its announcement. "We will try to come up with a shorter order as soon as possible. Probably not today, but it will be very soon, God willing," he said. During the hearing, which spanned several days, the court heard many lawyers, garnering their views on the duration of disqualification. The remarks made by the chief justice and some other judges indicated they were not comfortable with the lifelong ban on convicted politicians, the Pakistani media reported. However, it was not clear if the limit of disqualification should be imposed through a court order or an amendment to the Constitution. Most of the arguments were in favour of nullifying the concept of the lifelong ban and limiting it to a five-year term. However, the chief justice repeatedly said that he also wanted to hear arguments supporting lifelong disqualification and asked lawyers to come forward. Sharif, former prime minister and also a frontrunner for the fourth term in the February 8 general elections, was disqualified in the Panama Papers case in 2017. His rival Imran Khan, who was disqualified in the Toshakhana corruption case last year, also was hit by the same law. However, Sharif got a kind of relief when his party-led government amended the election laws last year to limit the disqualification to five years, which allowed him to file nomination papers for the upcoming elections. The controversy was not over as his candidature has been challenged as the interpretation of Article 62 (1) (f) clashed with the changes made in the Elections Act 2017. The outcome of the hearing would decide the future for both Sharif and Khan, as well as many other politicians. Seventy-four-year-old Sharif's case was final until the period of disqualification was reduced. However, 71-year-old Khan's disqualification has not attained finality, and his appeal against it is still pending. Also watch | Pakistan IED blast: Roadside blast claims lives of 6 police officials Incarcerated Khan's nomination papers for the February 8 general elections were rejected on December 30 based on disqualification due to his conviction in the offence of "moral turpitude" in a corruption case and other reasons, a government official had reasoned. Earlier, the issue came into the focus of the Supreme Court last month during the hearing of a petition of a politician from Dera Ghazi Khan, Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who was disqualified for producing a fake graduation degree.

Pakistan Supreme Court reserves verdict in lifetime disqualification case

India's supreme court has quashed the remission of 11 convicts in the bilkis bano gang rape case... Overruling the Gujarat government's 2022 decision the top court stated that the case was not under the state's jurisdiction and that the sentence convicting the eleven will be upheld... In a blow to the Gujarat government, the Supreme Court ruled that the state reflected a lack of competency in granting remission to the convicts... The apex court has argued that it is not Gujarat rather the Maharashtra government that has jurisdiction to rule on the case...

Bilkis Bano case: SC overturns early release of all 11 convicts

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 8) in its verdict cancelled Gujarat's government order allowing the early release of Bilkis Bano's rapists last year. The court also said&nbsp;Bano's petition challenging the remission order is entirely valid and maintainable.

Justice BV Nagarathna, alongside Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the verdict and came down heavily&nbsp;on the state government saying it could not have passed the remission order.

"It is not the government of state within whose territory the offence occurred who can pass remission order. Thus, orders of remission have to be quashed," said Justice Nagarathna.&nbsp;

"We strike down the remission orders on ground of usurpation of powers by the Gujarat government," he added.

The court has directed all 11 convicts to report to jail authorities within two weeks.

The court made it clear&nbsp;it was the state of Maharashtra that could have only passed the remission orders as the offenders were sentenced there.

The court minced no words in stating that the state of Gujarat suppressed facts and kept the SC in the dark, referring to the May 13, 2022 judgment (which directed the Gujarat government to consider remission of convicts).&nbsp;&nbsp;

"Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with Respondent No. 3 (convict) in this case. This Court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only a usurpation of power by the State," said Justice&nbsp;Nagarathna.&nbsp;

"Taking advantage of May 13 order of this Court... Other convicts also filed remission applications and this Gujarat government passed remission orders."

<h2>Who is Bilkis Bano?</h2>

Bilkis Bano was one of the numerous&nbsp;residents of Gujarat who was attempting to flee the state during the 2002 Gujarat riots. She was only 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while attempting to escape from her village.

She was five months pregnant at the time and&nbsp;was hiding in a field with several other family members and her three-year-old daughter on March 3 when they were attacked by a mob of 20-30 men with sickles, swords, and clubs. Fourteen members of her family died in the attack, including her baby.&nbsp;

Due to the awful nature of the crime&nbsp;and the indignation that ensued, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation, and 11 of Bilkis Bano's assailants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the heinous act.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-bilkis-bano-all-you-need-to-know-507718">Also read |&nbsp;Who is Bilkis Bano? All you need to know</a>

However, on Independence Day (August 15) in 2022, the Gujarat government, under its remission programme, released the 11 rapists.

These inmates had served more than 15 years in prison when one of them petitioned the Supreme Court for their early release. Sujal Mayatra, the collector of Panchmahals, presided over the panel that investigated the inmates' premature release.

The convicts were given a hero's welcome upon their release while several were seen posing with big political leaders of the state. Consequently, their release triggered a wave of condemnation from the opposition, activists as well as the civil society.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 8) in its verdict cancelled Gujarat's government order allowing the early release of Bilkis Bano's rapists last year. The court also said Bano's petition challenging the remission order is entirely valid and maintainable.

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 8) in its verdict cancelled Gujarat's government order allowing the early release of Bilkis Bano's rapists last year. The court also said Bano's petition challenging the remission order is entirely valid and maintainable. Justice BV Nagarathna, alongside Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the verdict and came down heavily on the state government saying it could not have passed the remission order. "It is not the government of state within whose territory the offence occurred who can pass remission order. Thus, orders of remission have to be quashed," said Justice Nagarathna. "We strike down the remission orders on ground of usurpation of powers by the Gujarat government," he added. The court has directed all 11 convicts to report to jail authorities within two weeks. The court made it clear it was the state of Maharashtra that could have only passed the remission orders as the offenders were sentenced there. The court minced no words in stating that the state of Gujarat suppressed facts and kept the SC in the dark, referring to the May 13, 2022 judgment (which directed the Gujarat government to consider remission of convicts). "Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with Respondent No. 3 (convict) in this case. This Court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only a usurpation of power by the State," said Justice Nagarathna. "Taking advantage of May 13 order of this Court... Other convicts also filed remission applications and this Gujarat government passed remission orders." Who is Bilkis Bano? Bilkis Bano was one of the numerous residents of Gujarat who was attempting to flee the state during the 2002 Gujarat riots. She was only 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while attempting to escape from her village. She was five months pregnant at the time and was hiding in a field with several other family members and her three-year-old daughter on March 3 when they were attacked by a mob of 20-30 men with sickles, swords, and clubs. Fourteen members of her family died in the attack, including her baby. Due to the awful nature of the crime and the indignation that ensued, the Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation, and 11 of Bilkis Bano's assailants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the heinous act. Also read | Who is Bilkis Bano? All you need to know However, on Independence Day (August 15) in 2022, the Gujarat government, under its remission programme, released the 11 rapists. These inmates had served more than 15 years in prison when one of them petitioned the Supreme Court for their early release. Sujal Mayatra, the collector of Panchmahals, presided over the panel that investigated the inmates' premature release. The convicts were given a hero's welcome upon their release while several were seen posing with big political leaders of the state. Consequently, their release triggered a wave of condemnation from the opposition, activists as well as the civil society. (With inputs from agencies)

Bilkis Bano case: India SC cancels Gujarat government's order to release 11 convicts who raped her

Bilkis Bano case: All 11 convicts to go back to jail as SC quashes remission decision

Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court overturns early release of all 11 convicts

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) refused to entertain a plea against a Allahabad High Court order, dismissing a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) seeking declaration of the site as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of Shahi Eidgah Mosque from the site in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.

According to a report by LiveLaw, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard a special leave petition filed by lawyer Mahek Maheswari (the petitioner), after the dismissal of the PIL by the high court in October last year.

Maheswari sought the recognition of the disputed site as the birthplace of the Hindu God Krishna. He urged the land to be handed over to Hindus for the establishment of a trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-west-bengal-govt-tells-sc-it-filed-appeal-challenging-high-courts-verdict-on-adolescent-girls-676955">West Bengal govt tells SC it filed appeal challenging high court's verdict on adolescent girls</a>

Hearing the case, Justice Khanna told the counsel appearing for Maheswari that the PIL was not required as several civil suits on the matter were pending, LiveLaw reported.&nbsp;

In response, the counsel said that the high court only dismissed Maheswari's plea on the grounds that other suits were pending. In reply, Khanna said, "Let's not have multiplicity of litigation. You filed it as PIL, which is why it was rejected. File it as otherwise, we will see."

On being asked if the petitioner was at liberty to file a separate petition, Khanna said it had been clarified in the impugned judgment, LiveLaw further reported.&nbsp;

Maheshwari challenged the high court's order in the Supreme Court, saying that the high court's dismissal overlooked important facts and failed to delve into the merits of the case. He contended the PIL was in the public interest, defending the fundamental rights of Hindus under the Constitutions Article 25 and Article 26.

The petitioner also sought a court-monitored GPRS-based excavation by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) of the disputed structure as an interim measure.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) refused to entertain a plea against a Allahabad High Court order, dismissing a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) seeking declaration of the site as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of Shahi Eidgah Mosque from the site in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura.

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) refused to entertain a plea against a Allahabad High Court order, dismissing a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) seeking declaration of the site as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of Shahi Eidgah Mosque from the site in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura. According to a report by LiveLaw, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard a special leave petition filed by lawyer Mahek Maheswari (the petitioner), after the dismissal of the PIL by the high court in October last year. Maheswari sought the recognition of the disputed site as the birthplace of the Hindu God Krishna. He urged the land to be handed over to Hindus for the establishment of a trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan. Also read: West Bengal govt tells SC it filed appeal challenging high court's verdict on adolescent girls Hearing the case, Justice Khanna told the counsel appearing for Maheswari that the PIL was not required as several civil suits on the matter were pending, LiveLaw reported. In response, the counsel said that the high court only dismissed Maheswari's plea on the grounds that other suits were pending. In reply, Khanna said, "Let's not have multiplicity of litigation. You filed it as PIL, which is why it was rejected. File it as otherwise, we will see." On being asked if the petitioner was at liberty to file a separate petition, Khanna said it had been clarified in the impugned judgment, LiveLaw further reported. Maheshwari challenged the high court's order in the Supreme Court, saying that the high court's dismissal overlooked important facts and failed to delve into the merits of the case. He contended the PIL was in the public interest, defending the fundamental rights of Hindus under the Constitutions Article 25 and Article 26. The petitioner also sought a court-monitored GPRS-based excavation by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) of the disputed structure as an interim measure. (With inputs from agencies)

Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Indian Supreme Court dismisses plea for removal of mosque

The US Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal after he was barred from Colorado's Republican primary ballot. Colorado Supreme Court on December 19 last year disqualified Trump from the state's primary based on the 14th Amendment, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The justices have expedited the process, scheduling oral arguments for February 8, well ahead of the Colorado Republican primary slated for March 5. Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, filed his appeal on Wednesday (Jan 4).

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-urges-us-supreme-court-to-summarily-reverse-colorado-presidential-primary-ballot-ban-676361">Donald Trump urges US Supreme Court to 'summarily reverse' Colorado presidential primary ballot ban</a>

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision, in response to a challenge by Republican and unaffiliated voters, found Trump ineligible under the constitutional provision barring those who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office. The US Supreme Court has not yet addressed a separate appeal from the Colorado Republican Party on the same matter.

<h2>Potential advantage for Donald Trump?</h2>

The legal battle has put the US Supreme Court, with its conservative majority including three Trump-appointed justices, into a highly charged political dispute.&nbsp;

Detractors aim to thwart Trump's campaign to reclaim the presidency, while his supporters decry the efforts as election interference.

Trump's spokesperson, Steven Cheung, applauded the decision, and claimed that the disqualification attempts were a "well-funded effort by left-wing political activists."

<h2>What does it mean</h2>

The Colorado case not only poses challenges to Trump's presidential aspirations but also places the Supreme Court in a precarious position. The outcome will likely influence wider efforts to disqualify Trump from other state ballots, with implications reaching beyond Colorado and Maine, where similar legal battles are underway.

Also watch |&nbsp;WION Rewind 2023: This year saw Trump rising from the ashes

<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/wion-rewind-2023-this-year-saw-trump-rising-from-the-ashes-673475/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Colorado ruling marks the first instance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment being used to deem a presidential candidate ineligible. Trump's legal team argues that this is an unprecedented judicial intervention in preventing voters from casting ballots for a major-party presidential candidate.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal after he was barred from Colorado's Republican primary ballot. Colorado Supreme Court on December 19 last year disqualified Trump from the state's primary based on the 14th Amendment, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

The US Supreme Court on Friday (Jan 5) agreed to hear former President Donald Trump's appeal after he was barred from Colorado's Republican primary ballot. Colorado Supreme Court on December 19 last year disqualified Trump from the state's primary based on the 14th Amendment, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. The justices have expedited the process, scheduling oral arguments for February 8, well ahead of the Colorado Republican primary slated for March 5. Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, filed his appeal on Wednesday (Jan 4). Also read | Donald Trump urges US Supreme Court to 'summarily reverse' Colorado presidential primary ballot ban The Colorado Supreme Court's decision, in response to a challenge by Republican and unaffiliated voters, found Trump ineligible under the constitutional provision barring those who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office. The US Supreme Court has not yet addressed a separate appeal from the Colorado Republican Party on the same matter. Potential advantage for Donald Trump? The legal battle has put the US Supreme Court, with its conservative majority including three Trump-appointed justices, into a highly charged political dispute. Detractors aim to thwart Trump's campaign to reclaim the presidency, while his supporters decry the efforts as election interference. Trump's spokesperson, Steven Cheung, applauded the decision, and claimed that the disqualification attempts were a "well-funded effort by left-wing political activists." What does it mean The Colorado case not only poses challenges to Trump's presidential aspirations but also places the Supreme Court in a precarious position. The outcome will likely influence wider efforts to disqualify Trump from other state ballots, with implications reaching beyond Colorado and Maine, where similar legal battles are underway. Also watch | WION Rewind 2023: This year saw Trump rising from the ashes × The Colorado ruling marks the first instance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment being used to deem a presidential candidate ineligible. Trump's legal team argues that this is an unprecedented judicial intervention in preventing voters from casting ballots for a major-party presidential candidate. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president in 2024

The government of the Indian state of West Bengal told the Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 4) that it filed an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court judgement which advised adolescent girls to “control sexual urges” and young men to train themselves to respect women.

The government of the Indian state of West Bengal told the Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 4) that it filed an appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court judgement which advised adolescent girls to “control sexual urges” and young men to train themselves to respect women. On December 8 last year, the Supreme Court criticised the high court's verdict by calling it “highly objectionable and completely unwarranted.”' The apex court initiated a suo motu writ petition in the matter and observed that judges were not expected to preach while writing judgements. According to a report by the news agency PTI, the matter came up for hearing on Thursday before a bench of justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who appeared for the West Bengal government, told the bench that the state filed an appeal in the apex court against the high court's verdict on Oct 18, 2023. Also read: India’s Supreme Court tells judges to ‘not preach’ after ‘control sexual urge’ advice by Calcutta High Court “The appeal was listed today before another bench of this court. That bench unfortunately could not sit,” Ahmadi said. PTI reported the Supreme Court bench observed the suo motu writ petition and the appeal filed by West Bengal will have to be heard together. “In the course of this, so many findings have been recorded. Where from these concepts come, we don’t know. But we want to deal with each and everything which is said. Your assistance is required,” the bench said and asked the registry to list the suo moto writ petition the special leave petition (SLP) filed by the state on Jan 12 after getting approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI). What did the high court say A division bench of the high court, while announcing an order in the case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), observed that it was normal for adolescents to seek the company of the opposite sex but it isn't "normal for them to engage in sex devoid of any commitment and dedication." The bench also said that every female adolescent should control sexual urges as in the eyes of society she will be a loser when she gives in to enjoy sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Bengal files appeal against high court judgement advising adolescent girls to 'control sexual urges'

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 4) rejected a plea filed by the family member of Indian national Nikhil Gupta, accused by the US of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Under the petition, Gupta&nbsp;requested the court to grant consular access and legal aid to challenge his indictment and extradition.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Indian court said the case was delicate and it could not intervene or grant consular access to Gupta to challenge his indictment as it respected the jurisdiction of a foreign court.&nbsp;

"Considering the public international law and comity of courts, we can't intervene," the Supreme Court said.

The Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Gupta's family last month on his behalf wherein he claimed&nbsp;that the Czech prison authorities forced him to consume beef and pork, despite being a devout Hindu.&nbsp;

Gupta also claimed that he was denied consular access, the right to contact his family in India and the freedom to seek legal representation.&nbsp;

"The circumstances (of the arrest in Prague) were marked by irregularities, with no formal arrest warrant presented, and the apprehension executed by self-claimed US agents rather than local Czech authorities," the petition stated.&nbsp;

According to&nbsp;Vladimir Repka, a spokesperson for the Czech Ministry of Justice, Gupta was arrested at the request of the US which later also submitted an extradition request.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-govt-employee-directed-foiled-plot-to-kill-khalistani-leader-pannun-us-664480">Watch |&nbsp;'Indian govt employee' directed foiled plot to kill khalistani leader Pannun: US</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-govt-employee-directed-foiled-plot-to-kill-khalistani-leader-pannun-us-664480/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>What did the US allege?</h2>

Washington alleged last year that Gupta attempted to kill Pannun after he was assured by an Indian government official that a purported Gujarat case against him would be taken care of.

Described as CC-1 in the US Justice Department papers, Gupta has also been&nbsp;accused of dabbling in international narcotics and weapons trafficking.

"The defendant conspired from India to assassinate, right here in New York City, a US citizen of Indian origin who has publicly advocated for the establishment of a sovereign state for Sikhs," Damian Williams, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said in a statement.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pannun-murder-plot-family-claims-nikhil-gupta-forced-to-eat-pork-and-beef-670023">Also read |&nbsp;Pannun murder plot: Family claims Nikhil Gupta forced to eat 'pork and beef'&nbsp;</a>

Gupta is charged with murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. Each count carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison.

The allegations by the US came in the backdrop of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claiming he had 'credible allegations' that New Delhi was involved in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 4) rejected a plea filed by the family member of Indian national Nikhil Gupta, accused by the US of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Jan 4) rejected a plea filed by the family member of Indian national Nikhil Gupta, accused by the US of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. Under the petition, Gupta requested the court to grant consular access and legal aid to challenge his indictment and extradition. The Indian court said the case was delicate and it could not intervene or grant consular access to Gupta to challenge his indictment as it respected the jurisdiction of a foreign court. "Considering the public international law and comity of courts, we can't intervene," the Supreme Court said. The Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Gupta's family last month on his behalf wherein he claimed that the Czech prison authorities forced him to consume beef and pork, despite being a devout Hindu. Gupta also claimed that he was denied consular access, the right to contact his family in India and the freedom to seek legal representation. "The circumstances (of the arrest in Prague) were marked by irregularities, with no formal arrest warrant presented, and the apprehension executed by self-claimed US agents rather than local Czech authorities," the petition stated. According to Vladimir Repka, a spokesperson for the Czech Ministry of Justice, Gupta was arrested at the request of the US which later also submitted an extradition request. Watch | 'Indian govt employee' directed foiled plot to kill khalistani leader Pannun: US × What did the US allege? Washington alleged last year that Gupta attempted to kill Pannun after he was assured by an Indian government official that a purported Gujarat case against him would be taken care of. Described as CC-1 in the US Justice Department papers, Gupta has also been accused of dabbling in international narcotics and weapons trafficking. "The defendant conspired from India to assassinate, right here in New York City, a US citizen of Indian origin who has publicly advocated for the establishment of a sovereign state for Sikhs," Damian Williams, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said in a statement. Also read | Pannun murder plot: Family claims Nikhil Gupta forced to eat 'pork and beef' Gupta is charged with murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. Each count carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison. The allegations by the US came in the backdrop of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claiming he had 'credible allegations' that New Delhi was involved in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian Supreme Court rejects plea by Nikhil Gupta, accused by US in Pannun murder plot

The Supreme Court of Western Australia allowed a 62-year-old woman to remove sperm from the dead body of her husband so that it could be used in posthumous fertilisation.

Australia: Supreme Court allows woman to remove sperm from her dead husband

The Supreme Court of Western Australia allowed a 62-year-old woman to remove sperm from the dead body of her husband so that it could be used in posthumous fertilisation.

An urgent court application was submitted by the woman after the death of her 61-year-old husband late last year. The dead body of her husband was taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, however, the court was informed that the woman was forced to apply for an order after the hospital promptly failed to make a “designated officer” available who could look into the woman's request of removing the sperm from the dead body of her husband and storing it, while the sperm still remained viable.

While hearing the application, the court got to know that the couple - whose names were not published due to legal reasons - had two children, however, both of them tragically died in separate accidents.

After the deaths of their children, the couple had discussed having another child, however, the woman was advised by a fertility expert that she could not conceive because of her age. When the man's sperm were tested, it was found that it remained viable.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australias-lost-ancient-colony-where-thousands-once-lived-now-found-672943">Australia's lost ancient colony, where thousands once lived, now found</a>

The court was also informed that a 20-year-old cousin had volunteered to go through the IVF procedure and become a surrogate for the couple. However, the couple was living in a different country, and the woman thought the couple was required to legally live in the country for a particular period of time before going ahead with the surrogacy.

<h2>Couple failed to go for surrogacy</h2>

However, the couple missed the opportunity to move because of the pandemic, work commitments and the death of the woman's mother-in-law. While giving a verdict on the application, Judge Fiona Seaward permitted the woman to remove the sperm, however, not use it because that would need a separate court order.

“These orders are limited to permitting the removal of the spermatozoa and do not constitute authorisation for the spermatozoa to be used by the applicant, and do not in any way consider whether the applicant can or could meet any statutory criteria in that regard,” the judge said.&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Bushfire in Pilliga State Forest ravage Australia&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/bushfire-in-pilliga-state-forest-ravage-australia-english-news-wion-671608/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Currently, Western Australia does not permit posthumous fertilisation. The woman for taking the next step and using the sperm needs to apply for the case to get transferred to another jurisdiction which allows the procedure.

Seaward, in her decision, also reprimanded the hospital for not being able to make a “designated officer” available in a timely manner to the woman, which would have stopped the woman from filing a hasty court application.

“It is disappointing that it appears that, once again, an applicant has been required to attend court on an urgent basis and in traumatic circumstances to obtain an order that may, if the designated officer considered all criteria to be met, be granted in a faster and more streamlined manner,” she said.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of Western Australia allowed a 62-year-old woman to remove sperm from the dead body of her husband so that it could be used in posthumous fertilisation. An urgent court application was submitted by the woman after the death of her 61-year-old husband late last year. The dead body of her husband was taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, however, the court was informed that the woman was forced to apply for an order after the hospital promptly failed to make a “designated officer” available who could look into the woman's request of removing the sperm from the dead body of her husband and storing it, while the sperm still remained viable. While hearing the application, the court got to know that the couple - whose names were not published due to legal reasons - had two children, however, both of them tragically died in separate accidents. After the deaths of their children, the couple had discussed having another child, however, the woman was advised by a fertility expert that she could not conceive because of her age. When the man's sperm were tested, it was found that it remained viable. Also read: Australia's lost ancient colony, where thousands once lived, now found The court was also informed that a 20-year-old cousin had volunteered to go through the IVF procedure and become a surrogate for the couple. However, the couple was living in a different country, and the woman thought the couple was required to legally live in the country for a particular period of time before going ahead with the surrogacy. Couple failed to go for surrogacy However, the couple missed the opportunity to move because of the pandemic, work commitments and the death of the woman's mother-in-law. While giving a verdict on the application, Judge Fiona Seaward permitted the woman to remove the sperm, however, not use it because that would need a separate court order. “These orders are limited to permitting the removal of the spermatozoa and do not constitute authorisation for the spermatozoa to be used by the applicant, and do not in any way consider whether the applicant can or could meet any statutory criteria in that regard,” the judge said. Watch: Bushfire in Pilliga State Forest ravage Australia Currently, Western Australia does not permit posthumous fertilisation. The woman for taking the next step and using the sperm needs to apply for the case to get transferred to another jurisdiction which allows the procedure. Seaward, in her decision, also reprimanded the hospital for not being able to make a “designated officer” available in a timely manner to the woman, which would have stopped the woman from filing a hasty court application. “It is disappointing that it appears that, once again, an applicant has been required to attend court on an urgent basis and in traumatic circumstances to obtain an order that may, if the designated officer considered all criteria to be met, be granted in a faster and more streamlined manner,” she said. (With inputs from agencies)

Australia's Supreme Court allows 62-year-old woman to remove sperm from her dead husband

A transgender teacher was fired from two private schools in India after school authorities came to know about her sexual orientation. The teacher took the matter to the apex court and the Supreme Court of India has agreed to look into the matter.&nbsp;

The incident came to light on Tuesday and the matter will be listed for hearing after four weeks.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/why-are-indian-truckers-on-nationwide-strike-what-are-they-protesting-675789">Why are Indian truckers on nationwide strike? What are they protesting?</a>

The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwla and Manoj Mishra said on Tuesday that they “will see what they can do”. The three-judge bench has also issued notices to the Centre, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh governments on the pleas of the transgender woman.&nbsp;

<h2>Teacher fired over her sexual orientation</h2>

The two incidents took place at private schools in Jamnagar Gujarat and Kheri in Uttar Pradesh, where the services of a transgender teacher were immediately ended when they came to know about her sexuality. The top court also sought responses from the heads of both schools.

"The grievance of the petitioner is that her services were terminated in schools of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat after her gender identity was revealed. The petitioner says that she cannot pursue her remedies in two different high courts," the bench said.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/scammers-con-devotees-ahead-of-ram-mandir-consecration-ceremony-vhp-issues-statement-675805">Scammers con devotees ahead of Ram Mandir consecration ceremony; VHP issues statement</a>

The transgender teacher was given a letter of appointment in a Uttar Pradesh school and also taught there for six days before being removed, as per the counsel of the teacher.&nbsp;

In another school in Gujarat, she was given the letter of appointment and later denied the opportunity to join after her sexual identity was known, the lawyer said.&nbsp;

The petitioner is now seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights.&nbsp;

<h2>What does the law say?</h2>

In 2014, the Supreme Court's verdict in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India &amp; Ors. recognised the transgender as the third sex.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kashmir-valley-witnesses-extreme-cold-wave-conditions-parts-of-dal-lake-frozen-675832">Kashmir Valley witnesses extreme cold wave conditions, parts of Dal Lake frozen</a>

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice AK Sikri observed that the nonexistence of law recognising transgender as a third gender could not be identified as a ground to discriminate against them in availing equal opportunities in education and employment.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

A transgender teacher was fired from two private schools in India after school authorities came to know about her sexual orientation. The teacher took the matter to the apex court and the Supreme Court of India has agreed to look into the matter.

A transgender teacher was fired from two private schools in India after school authorities came to know about her sexual orientation. The teacher took the matter to the apex court and the Supreme Court of India has agreed to look into the matter. The incident came to light on Tuesday and the matter will be listed for hearing after four weeks. Also Read | Why are Indian truckers on nationwide strike? What are they protesting? The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwla and Manoj Mishra said on Tuesday that they “will see what they can do”. The three-judge bench has also issued notices to the Centre, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh governments on the pleas of the transgender woman. Teacher fired over her sexual orientation The two incidents took place at private schools in Jamnagar Gujarat and Kheri in Uttar Pradesh, where the services of a transgender teacher were immediately ended when they came to know about her sexuality. The top court also sought responses from the heads of both schools. "The grievance of the petitioner is that her services were terminated in schools of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat after her gender identity was revealed. The petitioner says that she cannot pursue her remedies in two different high courts," the bench said. Also Read | Scammers con devotees ahead of Ram Mandir consecration ceremony; VHP issues statement The transgender teacher was given a letter of appointment in a Uttar Pradesh school and also taught there for six days before being removed, as per the counsel of the teacher. In another school in Gujarat, she was given the letter of appointment and later denied the opportunity to join after her sexual identity was known, the lawyer said. The petitioner is now seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights. What does the law say? In 2014, the Supreme Court's verdict in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India & Ors. recognised the transgender as the third sex. Also Read | Kashmir Valley witnesses extreme cold wave conditions, parts of Dal Lake frozen The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice AK Sikri observed that the nonexistence of law recognising transgender as a third gender could not be identified as a ground to discriminate against them in availing equal opportunities in education and employment. (With inputs from agencies)

India SC to look into plea of teacher fired by two private schools for being transgender

Staying on with more news from Israel there is trouble that continues to mount for the beleaguered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in the latest. Setback at home the Israeli Supreme Court has now struck down a controversial law that Netanyahu's Administration passed on Monday.

Israel's Supreme Court strikes down contentious law

Pakistan's Supreme Court office has returned an appeal seeking to set aside the three-year conviction of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Toshakhana corruption case. The Toshakhana case is based on the allegations that the former premier violated the Toshakhana or state repository rules.

Pakistan Supreme Court: Imran's plea in Toshakhana case suffers from deficiencies

Colorado Supreme Court judges—who ruled against Donald Trump, prohibiting him from contesting in the state's primary next year citing his role in the Jan 6 attacks—have been receiving online threats, according to a report.

The report by Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organisation that conducts public interest research, has claimed to have found "significant violent rhetoric" against the justices and Democrats on the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social.

They found that some social media users posted justices' email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses, reports NBC News.

<h2>Online vitriol by Trump's supporters</h2>

"This ends when we kill these f--kers," a user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that was used by several Jan. 6 rioters.

"What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" asked another user. "A good start."

Many of the online hate posts had details about the methods that can be used to kill Trump’s so-called enemies.

Speaking to NBC News, President of the Advance Democracy Daniel J Jones expressed concerns over the consistency of the violent threats and rhetoric being used against the judges.

“We are seeing significant violent language and threats being made against the Colorado justices and others perceived to be behind yesterday’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling," Jones, a former FBI investigator and staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

"The normalisation of this type of violent rhetoric — and lack of remedial action by social media entities — is cause for significant concern," he said.

"Trump’s statements, which have sought to delegitimize and politicize the actions of the courts, is serving as a key driver of the violent rhetoric. Political leaders on both sides of the political aisle need to speak out against these calls for violence, and social media platforms need to reassess their role in hosting and promoting this rhetoric.”

<h2>Donald Trump reacts</h2>

The former president slammed the ruling on Truth Social, saying, “WHAT A SHAME FOR OUR COUNTRY!!! A SAD DAY IN AMERICA!!!”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-insists-he-hasnt-read-hitlers-mein-kampf-after-backlash-on-remarks-against-migrants-671963">Trump insists he hasn’t read Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ after backlash on remarks against migrants</a>

Trump’s campaign had previously said it would “swiftly file an appeal” to the US Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a six to three majority.&nbsp;

<h2>Biden responds to Colorado court ruling</h2>

In his first response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Biden told reporters Wednesday there is “no question” Trump supported an insurrection on the US Capitol. “Well I think certainly it’s self-evident,” said the incumbent president.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/attacks-against-canada-wont-justin-trudeau-says-tonal-shift-in-ties-with-india-671891">‘Attacks against Canada won’t make problem go away’, says Trudeau, cites 'tonal shift' on India’s part</a>

“You saw it all. Now whether the 14th Amendment applies, I’ll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection.” He added, “No question about it — none, zero. And he seems to be doubling down on everything.”&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Colorado Supreme Court judges—who ruled against Donald Trump, prohibiting him from contesting in the state's primary next year citing his role in the Jan 6 attacks—have been receiving online threats, according to a report.

Colorado Supreme Court judges—who ruled against Donald Trump, prohibiting him from contesting in the state's primary next year citing his role in the Jan 6 attacks—have been receiving online threats, according to a report. The report by Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organisation that conducts public interest research, has claimed to have found "significant violent rhetoric" against the justices and Democrats on the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social. They found that some social media users posted justices' email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses, reports NBC News. Online vitriol by Trump's supporters "This ends when we kill these f--kers," a user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that was used by several Jan. 6 rioters. "What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" asked another user. "A good start." Many of the online hate posts had details about the methods that can be used to kill Trump’s so-called enemies. Speaking to NBC News, President of the Advance Democracy Daniel J Jones expressed concerns over the consistency of the violent threats and rhetoric being used against the judges. “We are seeing significant violent language and threats being made against the Colorado justices and others perceived to be behind yesterday’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling," Jones, a former FBI investigator and staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "The normalisation of this type of violent rhetoric — and lack of remedial action by social media entities — is cause for significant concern," he said. "Trump’s statements, which have sought to delegitimize and politicize the actions of the courts, is serving as a key driver of the violent rhetoric. Political leaders on both sides of the political aisle need to speak out against these calls for violence, and social media platforms need to reassess their role in hosting and promoting this rhetoric.” Donald Trump reacts The former president slammed the ruling on Truth Social, saying, “WHAT A SHAME FOR OUR COUNTRY!!! A SAD DAY IN AMERICA!!!” Also read | Trump insists he hasn’t read Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ after backlash on remarks against migrants Trump’s campaign had previously said it would “swiftly file an appeal” to the US Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a six to three majority. Biden responds to Colorado court ruling In his first response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, Biden told reporters Wednesday there is “no question” Trump supported an insurrection on the US Capitol. “Well I think certainly it’s self-evident,” said the incumbent president. Also read | ‘Attacks against Canada won’t make problem go away’, says Trudeau, cites 'tonal shift' on India’s part “You saw it all. Now whether the 14th Amendment applies, I’ll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection.” He added, “No question about it — none, zero. And he seems to be doubling down on everything.” (With inputs from agencies)

Colorado Supreme Court judges receiving online hate after ruling against Donald Trump: Report

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.&nbsp;

Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement.&nbsp;

The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-more-than-110-people-have-been-killed-after-earthquake-in-gansu-province-671082">China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province</a>

Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18).&nbsp;

The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-to-cough-700mn-as-part-of-antitrust-settlement-week-after-defeat-against-epic-games-671324">Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games</a>

In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.”

Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old.

According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-loyalists-placed-in-pentagon-state-department-may-reshape-us-foreign-policy-report-671254">Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report</a>

<h2>Sidhwaney’s arrest</h2>

The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings. Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement. The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show. ALSO READ | China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18). The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts. “The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida. ALSO READ | Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.” Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old. According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment. ALSO READ | Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report Sidhwaney’s arrest The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill Supreme Court justice

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting&nbsp;next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal.

The high court on Thursday allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah and also agreed on the appointment of an advocate commissioner to supervise the survey of the mosque premises.

The hearing was postponed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, until January 9, on a plea filed by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah challenging the May 26 order of the high court transferring to itself all matters related to the dispute pending before a Mathura court.&nbsp;

"List the special leave petition on January 9. All the contentions and issues will be considered on the said date. In case petitioners have any grievance, it will be open to them to file a challenge in accordance with law," the bench ordered.

The bench informed senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, who stated that the high court was taking into consideration interlocutory applications having 'far-reaching ramifications' in the matter and passing orders, that the order of the high court passed on Thursday has not been formally challenged before it.

Ahmadi said that the high court was entertaining application after application even as the issue of its jurisdiction to transfer to itself all matters related to the dispute is under challenge before the apex court.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cardinal-becciu-sent-to-prison-for-55-years-in-historic-vatican-fraud-trial-670354">Cardinal Becciu sent to prison for 5.5 years in historic Vatican fraud trial</a>

Justice Khanna, while refusing to interfere with the high court order passed on Thursday said, "How can we stay the order which is not before us? You challenge the order, then we will see."

Ahmadi said that the high court order was uploaded on its website late on Thursday evening and hence he could not file an appeal.

When Ahmadi pointed out the Supreme Court is going on a winter break from Monday and the high court may pass orders in the matter, Justice Khanna said, "Please tell the high court that this matter is listed on January 9 in the Supreme Court. That will be enough."

"You know the procedure for mentioning the matter during vacations if any adverse order is passed," Justice Khanna told Ahmadi.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal.

The Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 15) refused to put a hold on the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque sitting next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura on a plea by the Muslim side, and asked them to challenge the order by way of an appeal. The high court on Thursday allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah and also agreed on the appointment of an advocate commissioner to supervise the survey of the mosque premises. The hearing was postponed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, until January 9, on a plea filed by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah challenging the May 26 order of the high court transferring to itself all matters related to the dispute pending before a Mathura court. "List the special leave petition on January 9. All the contentions and issues will be considered on the said date. In case petitioners have any grievance, it will be open to them to file a challenge in accordance with law," the bench ordered. The bench informed senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, who stated that the high court was taking into consideration interlocutory applications having 'far-reaching ramifications' in the matter and passing orders, that the order of the high court passed on Thursday has not been formally challenged before it. Ahmadi said that the high court was entertaining application after application even as the issue of its jurisdiction to transfer to itself all matters related to the dispute is under challenge before the apex court. Also read: Cardinal Becciu sent to prison for 5.5 years in historic Vatican fraud trial Justice Khanna, while refusing to interfere with the high court order passed on Thursday said, "How can we stay the order which is not before us? You challenge the order, then we will see." Ahmadi said that the high court order was uploaded on its website late on Thursday evening and hence he could not file an appeal. When Ahmadi pointed out the Supreme Court is going on a winter break from Monday and the high court may pass orders in the matter, Justice Khanna said, "Please tell the high court that this matter is listed on January 9 in the Supreme Court. That will be enough." "You know the procedure for mentioning the matter during vacations if any adverse order is passed," Justice Khanna told Ahmadi. (With inputs from agencies)

India: Supreme Court refuses to stay Allahabad HC order of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah survey

India where the top Court will hear opposition leader Mahua Moitra's petition on January 3rd against her expulsion from Parliament. The Trinamool Congress Party MP was expelled from the Lok Sabha after an Ethics Committee report held her guilty of unethical conduct.

India's top court to hear Mahua Moitra's plea on January 3rd

Nikhil Gupta, the man accused of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on US soil, has filed a&nbsp;petition in the Supreme Court seeking intervention from the Indian government to release him from prison in the Czech Republic.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Gupta's family on his behalf wherein he claims that the Czech prison authorities forced him to consume beef and pork, despite being a devout Hindu.&nbsp;

Gupta also claimed that he was denied consular access, the right to contact his family in India and the freedom to seek legal representation.&nbsp;

"The circumstances (of the arrest in Prague) were marked by irregularities, with no formal arrest warrant presented, and the apprehension executed by self-claimed US agents rather than local Czech authorities," the petition stated.&nbsp;

The apex court heard the petition and adjourned the case&nbsp;till January 4.

According to&nbsp;Vladimir Repka, a spokesperson for the Czech Ministry of Justice, Gupta was arrested at the request of the US which later also submitted an extradition request.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/canadian-minister-dodges-direct-question-on-nijjar-killing-evidence-wion-649352">Watch |&nbsp;Canadian minister dodges direct question on Nijjar killing evidence&nbsp;</a>

<iframe allow="accelerometer; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-7="true" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="lazy" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/canadian-minister-dodges-direct-question-on-nijjar-killing-evidence-wion-649352/embed?autoplay=0" title="live tv" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>What did the US allege?</h2>

It was last month that Washington alleged that Gupta had attempted to kill Pannun after he was assured by the Indian government official directing him that a purported Gujarat case against him would be taken care of.

Described as CC-1 in the US Justice Department papers, he has also been&nbsp;accused of dabbling in international narcotics and weapons trafficking.

"The defendant conspired from India to assassinate, right here in New York City, a US citizen of Indian origin who has publicly advocated for the establishment of a sovereign state for Sikhs," Damian Williams, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said in a statement.

Gupta is charged with murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. Each count carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-charges-indian-national-with-conspiracy-to-assassinate-sikh-separatist-664387">Also read |&nbsp;US charges Indian national with conspiracy to assassinate Khalistani separatist Pannun</a>

The allegations by the US came in the backdrop of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claiming he had 'credible allegations' that New Delhi was involved in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar.&nbsp;

After Trudeau's allegations concerning Nijjar, diplomatic animosity reached a tipping point between the two nations,&nbsp;with a&nbsp;series of mutual expulsions of diplomats taking place.&nbsp;

New Delhi was the first to temporarily suspend certain visa services which put Ottawa in a fix. However, despite the allegations, the Canadian government is yet to present proof to back up its allegations.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Nikhil Gupta, the man accused of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on US soil, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking intervention from the Indian government to release him from prison in the Czech Republic.

Nikhil Gupta, the man accused of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on US soil, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking intervention from the Indian government to release him from prison in the Czech Republic. The Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Gupta's family on his behalf wherein he claims that the Czech prison authorities forced him to consume beef and pork, despite being a devout Hindu. Gupta also claimed that he was denied consular access, the right to contact his family in India and the freedom to seek legal representation. "The circumstances (of the arrest in Prague) were marked by irregularities, with no formal arrest warrant presented, and the apprehension executed by self-claimed US agents rather than local Czech authorities," the petition stated. The apex court heard the petition and adjourned the case till January 4. According to Vladimir Repka, a spokesperson for the Czech Ministry of Justice, Gupta was arrested at the request of the US which later also submitted an extradition request. Watch | Canadian minister dodges direct question on Nijjar killing evidence What did the US allege? It was last month that Washington alleged that Gupta had attempted to kill Pannun after he was assured by the Indian government official directing him that a purported Gujarat case against him would be taken care of. Described as CC-1 in the US Justice Department papers, he has also been accused of dabbling in international narcotics and weapons trafficking. "The defendant conspired from India to assassinate, right here in New York City, a US citizen of Indian origin who has publicly advocated for the establishment of a sovereign state for Sikhs," Damian Williams, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said in a statement. Gupta is charged with murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire. Each count carries a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison. Also read | US charges Indian national with conspiracy to assassinate Khalistani separatist Pannun The allegations by the US came in the backdrop of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claiming he had 'credible allegations' that New Delhi was involved in the killing of Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. After Trudeau's allegations concerning Nijjar, diplomatic animosity reached a tipping point between the two nations, with a series of mutual expulsions of diplomats taking place. New Delhi was the first to temporarily suspend certain visa services which put Ottawa in a fix. However, despite the allegations, the Canadian government is yet to present proof to back up its allegations. (With inputs from agencies)

Accused of plotting to kill Khalistani terrorist Pannun, Nikhil Gupta files petition in Supreme Court

A judge in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has pleaded for euthanasia after alleging that she was sexually harassed at her workplace, media reports said on Thursday (Dec 14). In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud which went viral on social media, the judge said she was sexually harassed by "one particular district judge and his associates."

"I complained to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad, and the Administrative Judge (High Court Judge) in 2022. No action has been taken till date. No one even bothered to ask me: WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE YOU DISTRESSED?" she said.

The judge said she complained to the Internal Complaints Committee of the high court in July this year, adding it took six months and thousands of emails just to start an enquiry- which she called a farce and a sham.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-supreme-court-files-complaint-against-fake-whatsapp-forwards-under-cjis-name-625462">India's Supreme Court files complaint against fake WhatsApp forwards under CJI's name</a>

"The witnesses in the enquiry are immediate subordinates of the district judge. How the committee expects the witnesses to depose against their boss is beyond my understanding," the judge told the CJI in her letter.

<h3>Here's a look at the letter:</h3>

<h3><img alt="A look at the letter" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fe237095-3ff2-4899-b3c1-b209de8869be" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/CJi%20letter.jpeg" /></h3>

The judge also said the enquiry would now be conducted with the district judge being in control of all witnesses. "We all know the fate of such an enquiry."

"What justice will I give to others when I am myself hopeless? I have no will to live anymore. I have been rendered to a walking corpse in the last year and a half. There is no purpose in carrying this soulless and lifeless body around anymore. There is no purpose left in my life," she further said and urged CJI Chandrachud to permit her to end her life in a dignified way.

CJI Chandrachud has now sought a report from the Allahabad High Court administration on the status of the enquiry.&nbsp;

A judge in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has pleaded for euthanasia after alleging that she was sexually harassed at her workplace, media reports said on Thursday (Dec 14).

A judge in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has pleaded for euthanasia after alleging that she was sexually harassed at her workplace, media reports said on Thursday (Dec 14). In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud which went viral on social media, the judge said she was sexually harassed by "one particular district judge and his associates." "I complained to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad, and the Administrative Judge (High Court Judge) in 2022. No action has been taken till date. No one even bothered to ask me: WHAT HAPPENED, WHY ARE YOU DISTRESSED?" she said. The judge said she complained to the Internal Complaints Committee of the high court in July this year, adding it took six months and thousands of emails just to start an enquiry- which she called a farce and a sham. Also read: India's Supreme Court files complaint against fake WhatsApp forwards under CJI's name "The witnesses in the enquiry are immediate subordinates of the district judge. How the committee expects the witnesses to depose against their boss is beyond my understanding," the judge told the CJI in her letter. Here's a look at the letter: The judge also said the enquiry would now be conducted with the district judge being in control of all witnesses. "We all know the fate of such an enquiry." "What justice will I give to others when I am myself hopeless? I have no will to live anymore. I have been rendered to a walking corpse in the last year and a half. There is no purpose in carrying this soulless and lifeless body around anymore. There is no purpose left in my life," she further said and urged CJI Chandrachud to permit her to end her life in a dignified way. CJI Chandrachud has now sought a report from the Allahabad High Court administration on the status of the enquiry.

'No will to live anymore': Indian judge alleges sexual harassment at workplace; CJI seeks status report

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States.

The lower court ruling has been on hold pending a decision by the nation's top court on whether it would hear the case.

The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the closely watched case next year and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.

A conservative-dominated federal appeals court imposed restrictions in August on the use of mifepristone, which accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would limit use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10, and block it from being distributed by mail.

It would also require the abortion pill to be prescribed by a doctor.

Anti-abortion groups are seeking to have mifepristone banned, claiming despite its long track record that it is unsafe.

At a hearing in May, the three judges pushed back against government arguments that the decision on whether to allow the use of mifepristone should be left to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the drug more than 20 years ago.

The case stems from a ruling by a conservative US District Court judge in Texas that would have banned mifepristone.

The 5th Circuit Court blocked a ban on the abortion pill, but imposed restrictions on access, after which the baton was handed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives wield a 6-3 majority.

The Supreme Court temporarily preserved access to mifepristone, freezing the rulings by the lower courts, and the drug remains on the market for the time being.

It is the most significant abortion case to reach the nine-member Supreme Court since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure in June of last year.

Mifepristone is one component of a two-drug regimen that can be used through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

It has a long safety record, and the FDA estimates 5.6 million Americans have used it to terminate pregnancies since it was approved in 2000.

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States.

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States. The lower court ruling has been on hold pending a decision by the nation's top court on whether it would hear the case. The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the closely watched case next year and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June. A conservative-dominated federal appeals court imposed restrictions in August on the use of mifepristone, which accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States. The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would limit use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10, and block it from being distributed by mail. It would also require the abortion pill to be prescribed by a doctor. Anti-abortion groups are seeking to have mifepristone banned, claiming despite its long track record that it is unsafe. At a hearing in May, the three judges pushed back against government arguments that the decision on whether to allow the use of mifepristone should be left to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the drug more than 20 years ago. The case stems from a ruling by a conservative US District Court judge in Texas that would have banned mifepristone. The 5th Circuit Court blocked a ban on the abortion pill, but imposed restrictions on access, after which the baton was handed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives wield a 6-3 majority. The Supreme Court temporarily preserved access to mifepristone, freezing the rulings by the lower courts, and the drug remains on the market for the time being. It is the most significant abortion case to reach the nine-member Supreme Court since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure in June of last year. Mifepristone is one component of a two-drug regimen that can be used through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. It has a long safety record, and the FDA estimates 5.6 million Americans have used it to terminate pregnancies since it was approved in 2000.

US Supreme Court agrees to rule on abortion pill restrictions

With the stormy Indian Parliament winter session ongoing, the country's Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the validity of the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution. The Indian government on 5 August 2019 abrogated Article 370 of the Consitution and completed the reorganisation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Decoding Article 370: Indian top court to deliver verdict today

Supreme Court backs scrapping of J&K special status....a five-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Of India Dy Chandrachud rules article 370 was a temporary provision

India's top court backs scrapping of J&K's special status

The Indian Supreme Court announced the verdict on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370. The article had granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. But it was abrogated in 2019 by government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Indian government integrated Kashmir on the same footing as the rest of India.

SC verdict on Article 370: Here's what India's apex court ruled

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the government's decision to abrogate Article 370, which bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and said steps should be taken to conduct elections in the assembly by September 30 next year.

"Wounds Require Healing": Justice Kaul's separate order on Article 370

After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

It also declared valid the central government’s move to carve out a separate union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August that year.

While pronouncing the verdict on Monday (Dec 11), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the top court came out with three judgements in response to a cluster of petitions filed against the government.

The three judgements pertained to.

1) Whether substitution of ‘constituent assembly’ by legislative assembly by using Article 370(1)(d) was valid.

2) Whether the Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 and subsequent extensions valid, and;

3) Whether the J&amp;K Reorganisation Act bifurcating the state into two Union Territories was constitutionally valid.

But before delving into the judgement, let’s see what Article 370 was.

<h2>What was Article 370?</h2>

Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir its own Constitution and decision-making rights for all matters barring defence, communications and foreign affairs. Its removal ended the special status to the state.

Contained within Article 370 was Article 35A, which allowed the erstwhile state to define who it acknowledged as permanent residents and gave special rights, such as government jobs and owning property.

However, as mentioned in the constitution, and pointed out by the court during the judgement, Article 370 was a temporary measure.

In 1951 a Constitution Assembly was elected for Jammu and Kashmir to formulate the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir within the ambit of Indian Constitution, and ‘subjects in respect of which the state should accede to the Union of India.'

And it was understood that this Assembly would have the authority to determine the future course of Article 370.

<h2>Validity of legislative assembly and president’s proclamation</h2>

In the 2019 Presidential orders, Parliament brought a provision giving new meaning to “constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, and then assumed the powers of the Legislative Assembly through President's rule to revoke Article 370.

The petitioners objected to it asking whether these actions could be taken by the Union assuming powers of the state when it is under President’s rule.

The top court upheld the proclamations by referring to the landmark 1994 ruling in ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ which dealt with the powers and limitations of the Governor under President’s rule.

CJI DY Chandrachud said that the governor (President in J&amp;K’s case) can assume “all or any” roles of the state legislature and such action must be tested judicially only in extraordinary cases.

Citing an interpretation of the Bommai ruling, the SC said that there is “no prima facie case that the President’s orders were malafide or extraneous exercise of power.”

"The J&amp;K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President," said Chief Justice Chandrachud.

<h2>J&amp;K’s sovereignty &nbsp;</h2>

While delving into the topic of Jammu and Kashmir having a special status which allowed it to enjoy autonomy within the federal structure of the Indian political system under Article 370, the Supreme Court held that J&amp;K did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India in 1947.

“The state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states. Whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty when it joined the Union of India, we have held no,” CJI said.

During the rule of Maharaja (king) Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the princely Jammu and Kashmir state, he proclaimed that he would retain his sovereignty, the court said.

However, his successor Karan Singh issued another proclamation that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state, it noted.

The court ruled that the subsequent proclamation had the effect of a merger like every other princely state that had joined India.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-top-court-approves-modi-govts-2019-move-that-stripped-jammu-and-kashmir-of-its-special-status-668426">India: SC approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped J&amp;K's special status</a>

The court concluded that Jammu and Kashmir has always been an integral part of India, with CJI Chandrachud citing Section 3 of the J&amp;K Constitution itself, apart from Article 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-wounds-require-healing-sc-recommends-setting-up-impartial-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-668450">Article 370: SC recommends setting up commission to probe human rights abuses</a>

Article 3 of the J&amp;K Constitution reads: “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.”

<h2>Article 370 a ‘temporary’ provision </h2>

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to revoke Article 370 saying that it was a temporary, transitional provision.

While delivering its judgement, the bench said it took a textual reading of the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution dealing with temporary provisions.

“We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purposes to serve an interim process. It was for a temporary purpose because of war conditions in the State. Textual reading also shows it is a temporary provision and thus it was placed in part 21 of the Constitution,” Justice Chandrachud said.

&nbsp;

After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

After 16 days of hearing, the Indian Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling upheld the Narendra Modi government’s decision in 2019 to scrap Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that had guaranteed special autonomous status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. It also declared valid the central government’s move to carve out a separate union territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August that year. While pronouncing the verdict on Monday (Dec 11), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the top court came out with three judgements in response to a cluster of petitions filed against the government. The three judgements pertained to. 1) Whether substitution of ‘constituent assembly’ by legislative assembly by using Article 370(1)(d) was valid. 2) Whether the Presidential rule imposed in December 2018 and subsequent extensions valid, and; 3) Whether the J&K Reorganisation Act bifurcating the state into two Union Territories was constitutionally valid. But before delving into the judgement, let’s see what Article 370 was. What was Article 370? Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir its own Constitution and decision-making rights for all matters barring defence, communications and foreign affairs. Its removal ended the special status to the state. Contained within Article 370 was Article 35A, which allowed the erstwhile state to define who it acknowledged as permanent residents and gave special rights, such as government jobs and owning property. However, as mentioned in the constitution, and pointed out by the court during the judgement, Article 370 was a temporary measure. In 1951 a Constitution Assembly was elected for Jammu and Kashmir to formulate the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir within the ambit of Indian Constitution, and ‘subjects in respect of which the state should accede to the Union of India.' And it was understood that this Assembly would have the authority to determine the future course of Article 370. Validity of legislative assembly and president’s proclamation In the 2019 Presidential orders, Parliament brought a provision giving new meaning to “constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, to mean “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir”, and then assumed the powers of the Legislative Assembly through President's rule to revoke Article 370. The petitioners objected to it asking whether these actions could be taken by the Union assuming powers of the state when it is under President’s rule. The top court upheld the proclamations by referring to the landmark 1994 ruling in ‘SR Bommai v Union of India’ which dealt with the powers and limitations of the Governor under President’s rule. CJI DY Chandrachud said that the governor (President in J&K’s case) can assume “all or any” roles of the state legislature and such action must be tested judicially only in extraordinary cases. Citing an interpretation of the Bommai ruling, the SC said that there is “no prima facie case that the President’s orders were malafide or extraneous exercise of power.” "The J&K constituent assembly was not intended to be a permanent body. It was formed only to frame the Constitution. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President," said Chief Justice Chandrachud. J&K’s sovereignty While delving into the topic of Jammu and Kashmir having a special status which allowed it to enjoy autonomy within the federal structure of the Indian political system under Article 370, the Supreme Court held that J&K did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India in 1947. “The state of Jammu and Kashmir does not have internal sovereignty different from other states. Whether Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty or internal sovereignty when it joined the Union of India, we have held no,” CJI said. During the rule of Maharaja (king) Hari Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the princely Jammu and Kashmir state, he proclaimed that he would retain his sovereignty, the court said. However, his successor Karan Singh issued another proclamation that the Indian Constitution would prevail over all other laws in the state, it noted. The court ruled that the subsequent proclamation had the effect of a merger like every other princely state that had joined India. Also read | India: SC approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped J&K's special status The court concluded that Jammu and Kashmir has always been an integral part of India, with CJI Chandrachud citing Section 3 of the J&K Constitution itself, apart from Article 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Also read | Article 370: SC recommends setting up commission to probe human rights abuses Article 3 of the J&K Constitution reads: “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.” Article 370 a ‘temporary’ provision The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to revoke Article 370 saying that it was a temporary, transitional provision. While delivering its judgement, the bench said it took a textual reading of the historical context for the inclusion of Article 370 and the placement of Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution dealing with temporary provisions. “We hold that Article 370 is a temporary provision. It was introduced to serve transitional purposes to serve an interim process. It was for a temporary purpose because of war conditions in the State. Textual reading also shows it is a temporary provision and thus it was placed in part 21 of the Constitution,” Justice Chandrachud said.

Explained: Article 370 - How India Supreme Court answered key questions on Kashmir special status

The apex court upheld the Modi government's decision to abrogate Article 370, which bestowed special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and said steps should be taken to conduct elections in the assembly by September 30 next year.

Cheif Justice of India: President had the power to abrogate section 370

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