India’s Supreme Court issued its verdict on Monday (Dec 11) on the Union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.

A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had earlier kept its verdict reserved on September 5.&nbsp;The bench also comprised Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

Below are the key takeaways from the judgment:

<h2>'Article 370 was a temporary provision'</h2>

While reading out the verdict, the CJI made it clear that Article 370 was a temporary provision “on a reading of the historical context in which it was included.”

“It served the transitional purpose to provide for an interim arrangement, till the J&amp;K Constituent Assembly could be formed and it could ratify the Indian Constitution. Second, it served a purpose in the war-like situation prevailing in the state,” the Chief Justice said.

<h2>No internal sovereignty</h2>

CJI Chandrachud said that Jammu and Kashmir holds no internal sovereignty after accession to India. &nbsp;"It was only to further the relationship with the Union which was already defined under Article 370 and the proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh,” he said.&nbsp;

Jammu and Kashmir surrendered its complete sovereignty with the merger, said the CJI.

“The fact that J&amp;K is an integral part of India is evidenced in Section 3 of the J&amp;K Constitution itself, apart from Articles 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution says, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States," said the Chief Justice.

Further, 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." The state's Constitution also provides that this provision cannot be amended.

<h2>Was President’s rule valid?</h2>

The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in J&amp;K in December 2018 since it was not specifically challenged by the petitioner, Chief Justice of India said.

Although, it added, "The President and Parliament are not impeded to take over as Governor/State Legislature after the proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356. There was no prima facie (on the face of it) case that the President's orders were mala fide (in bad faith) or extraneous exercise of power."

<h2>CJI on presidential powers vis-a-vis Jammu and Kashmir</h2>

"We have held that all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to J&amp;K using Article 370(1)(d) in one go. We do not find the use of Presidential power to issue CO 273 was mala fide. Thus we hold the exercise of Presidential Power to be valid," the CJI said.

"The court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India on whether the special circumstances under Article 370 exist. History shows the gradual process of constitutional integration was not going on. It was not as if after 70 years Constitution of India was applied in one go. It was a culmination of the integration process," the apex court observed.

<h2>Elections and restoration of statehood</h2>

The Supreme Court directed the Union to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible. It also directed the&nbsp;Election Commission of India to conduct elections in J&amp;K&nbsp;by September 2024.

"The reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory is upheld as Article 3 allows a portion of State to be made as UT. The question of whether Parliament can convert a State into a Union Territory is left open," the court said.

<h2>Investigation on human rights abuses</h2>

Justice S K Kaul also issued directions regarding the setting up of an&nbsp;'impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee' to investigate the alleged human rights abuses by both state and non-state actors.&nbsp;

"I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation," said Kaul in his observation.

"The Commission must be set up before memory escapes. The exercise must be time-bound. There is an entire generation of youth that has grown up with a feeling of distrust and it is to them that we owe the greatest day of liberation."

(With inputs from agencies)

India’s Supreme Court issued its verdict on Monday (Dec 11) on the Union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.

India’s Supreme Court issued its verdict on Monday (Dec 11) on the Union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had earlier kept its verdict reserved on September 5. The bench also comprised Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant. Below are the key takeaways from the judgment: 'Article 370 was a temporary provision' While reading out the verdict, the CJI made it clear that Article 370 was a temporary provision “on a reading of the historical context in which it was included.” “It served the transitional purpose to provide for an interim arrangement, till the J&K Constituent Assembly could be formed and it could ratify the Indian Constitution. Second, it served a purpose in the war-like situation prevailing in the state,” the Chief Justice said. No internal sovereignty CJI Chandrachud said that Jammu and Kashmir holds no internal sovereignty after accession to India. "It was only to further the relationship with the Union which was already defined under Article 370 and the proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh,” he said. Jammu and Kashmir surrendered its complete sovereignty with the merger, said the CJI. “The fact that J&K is an integral part of India is evidenced in Section 3 of the J&K Constitution itself, apart from Articles 1 and 370 of the Indian Constitution. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution says, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States," said the Chief Justice. Further, 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." The state's Constitution also provides that this provision cannot be amended. Was President’s rule valid? The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in J&K in December 2018 since it was not specifically challenged by the petitioner, Chief Justice of India said. Although, it added, "The President and Parliament are not impeded to take over as Governor/State Legislature after the proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356. There was no prima facie (on the face of it) case that the President's orders were mala fide (in bad faith) or extraneous exercise of power." CJI on presidential powers vis-a-vis Jammu and Kashmir "We have held that all provisions of the Constitution of India can be applied to J&K using Article 370(1)(d) in one go. We do not find the use of Presidential power to issue CO 273 was mala fide. Thus we hold the exercise of Presidential Power to be valid," the CJI said. "The court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the President of India on whether the special circumstances under Article 370 exist. History shows the gradual process of constitutional integration was not going on. It was not as if after 70 years Constitution of India was applied in one go. It was a culmination of the integration process," the apex court observed. Elections and restoration of statehood The Supreme Court directed the Union to restore the statehood of Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible. It also directed the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in J&K by September 2024. "The reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory is upheld as Article 3 allows a portion of State to be made as UT. The question of whether Parliament can convert a State into a Union Territory is left open," the court said. Investigation on human rights abuses Justice S K Kaul also issued directions regarding the setting up of an 'impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee' to investigate the alleged human rights abuses by both state and non-state actors. "I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation," said Kaul in his observation. "The Commission must be set up before memory escapes. The exercise must be time-bound. There is an entire generation of youth that has grown up with a feeling of distrust and it is to them that we owe the greatest day of liberation." (With inputs from agencies)

Article 370: India's top court approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped Jammu and Kashmir's special status

During the Monday (Dec 11) ruling on the abrogation of Article 370, one of the five presiding justices recommended the constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court of India recommended that the TRC be set up to record the human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir "at least since the early 1980s," by both state and non-state actors.

The recommendation was made as the Indian top court issued its verdict on the country's union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. A&nbsp;five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, and comprising Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant,&nbsp;upheld the abrogation of the special Status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.

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">Article 370: India's top court approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped Jammu and Kashmir's special status</a>

<h2>An impartial committee</h2>

Speaking during the ruling, Justice Kaul said: "I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation."

He said that, "To move forward, wounds require healing."&nbsp;

"Inter-generational trauma is felt by people. The first step towards healing the wounds is the acknowledgement of the acts of violations done by the state and its actors," he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-currency-machines-give-in-as-i-t-raids-in-india-recover-42m-from-congress-dhiraj-sahu-668349">Explained - Currency machines 'give in' as I-T raids in India recover $42mn from&nbsp;Congress' Dhiraj Sahu</a>

The final call on whether such a commission would be set up lies with the government.&nbsp;

<h2>What is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?</h2>

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also known as a Truth Commission, is an official body tasked with uncovering past wrongdoings by government and even non-state actors. This is done with the hopes of resolving leftover conflicts from the past.

Justice Kaul's recommendation is along the lines of a similar exercise undertaken by South Africa in the 1990s.

For the South African TRC, the mandate was "to investigate gross human rights violations that were perpetrated during the period of the Apartheid regime from 1960 to 1994, including abductions, killings, torture."

As per the US Institute of Peace, "Its mandate covered both violations by both the state and the liberation movements and allowed the commission to hold special hearings focused on specific sectors, institutions, and individuals."

(With inputs from agencies)

During the Monday (Dec 11) ruling on the abrogation of Article 370, one of the five presiding justices recommended the constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

During the Monday (Dec 11) ruling on the abrogation of Article 370, one of the five presiding justices recommended the constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court of India recommended that the TRC be set up to record the human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir "at least since the early 1980s," by both state and non-state actors. The recommendation was made as the Indian top court issued its verdict on the country's union government’s 2019 decision to amend Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which stripped the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, and comprising Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, upheld the abrogation of the special Status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370. Also read | Article 370: India's top court approves Modi govt's 2019 move that stripped Jammu and Kashmir's special status An impartial committee Speaking during the ruling, Justice Kaul said: "I recommend the setting up of an impartial Truth and Reconciliation committee to investigate and report on the violations of human rights both by the State and non-state actors at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation." He said that, "To move forward, wounds require healing." "Inter-generational trauma is felt by people. The first step towards healing the wounds is the acknowledgement of the acts of violations done by the state and its actors," he added. Also read | Explained - Currency machines 'give in' as I-T raids in India recover $42mn from Congress' Dhiraj Sahu The final call on whether such a commission would be set up lies with the government. What is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission? A Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also known as a Truth Commission, is an official body tasked with uncovering past wrongdoings by government and even non-state actors. This is done with the hopes of resolving leftover conflicts from the past. Justice Kaul's recommendation is along the lines of a similar exercise undertaken by South Africa in the 1990s. For the South African TRC, the mandate was "to investigate gross human rights violations that were perpetrated during the period of the Apartheid regime from 1960 to 1994, including abductions, killings, torture." As per the US Institute of Peace, "Its mandate covered both violations by both the state and the liberation movements and allowed the commission to hold special hearings focused on specific sectors, institutions, and individuals." (With inputs from agencies)

Article 370: SC recommends setting up Truth and Reconciliation Commission to probe human rights abuses in J&K

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.

Article 370 verdict LIVE: Security beefed up in Jammu & Kashmir ahead of Supreme Court verdict

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) elections will be held on December 21 and the results will be declared on the same day after counting of votes. This comes after the Supreme Court recently set aside the stay imposed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, paving the way for the process of electing the new WFI governing body.

The entire process of elections shall adhere to the stipulations and relevant provisions of the ratified constitution of the WFI and the Model Guidelines, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.pu

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/sports/up-warriorz-wpl-auction-2024-live-updates-check-full-squad-captain-batters-bowlers-remaining-purse-more-667922">UP Warriorz WPL Auction 2024 Live Updates: Check full squad, captain, batters, bowlers, remaining purse &amp; more</a>

United World Wrestling suspended the Wrestling Federation of India in August this year due to the delay in holding elections. UWW decided as WFI "failed to conduct elections" in the specified duration. The WFI elections were originally slated to be held on August 12. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is hearing a petition, in August extended the stay on WFI elections till September 25.

The stay order came in the wake of a petition filed by the Haryana Wrestling Association (HWA) which challenged the move to allow the Haryana Amateur Wrestling Association to cast votes in the WFI polls. Elections for the federation, which oversees wrestling in India, were initially planned for June this year.

However, protests by star Indian wrestlers -&nbsp;Bajrang Punia,&nbsp;Sakshi Malik&nbsp;and&nbsp;Vinesh Phogat&nbsp;over sexual harassment allegations against the then WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and cases about state units led to the postponement of polls. An ad hoc committee set up by the Indian Olympic Association (IOC) is running the affairs of WFI at present.

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) elections will be held on December 21 and the results will be declared on the same day after counting of votes. This comes after the Supreme Court recently set aside the stay imposed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, paving the way for the process of electing the new WFI governing body.

The Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) elections will be held on December 21 and the results will be declared on the same day after counting of votes. This comes after the Supreme Court recently set aside the stay imposed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, paving the way for the process of electing the new WFI governing body. The entire process of elections shall adhere to the stipulations and relevant provisions of the ratified constitution of the WFI and the Model Guidelines, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.pu Also Read: UP Warriorz WPL Auction 2024 Live Updates: Check full squad, captain, batters, bowlers, remaining purse & more United World Wrestling suspended the Wrestling Federation of India in August this year due to the delay in holding elections. UWW decided as WFI "failed to conduct elections" in the specified duration. The WFI elections were originally slated to be held on August 12. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is hearing a petition, in August extended the stay on WFI elections till September 25. The stay order came in the wake of a petition filed by the Haryana Wrestling Association (HWA) which challenged the move to allow the Haryana Amateur Wrestling Association to cast votes in the WFI polls. Elections for the federation, which oversees wrestling in India, were initially planned for June this year. However, protests by star Indian wrestlers - Bajrang Punia, Sakshi Malik and Vinesh Phogat over sexual harassment allegations against the then WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and cases about state units led to the postponement of polls. An ad hoc committee set up by the Indian Olympic Association (IOC) is running the affairs of WFI at present.

WFI election set to be held on December 21, results to be declared on same day

Amid a stormy winter session parliament, India's Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the validity of the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution, that had given special status to Jammu and&nbsp;Kashmir. The ruling is expected on December 11.

The Indian government on 5 August 2019 abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution and completed the reorganisation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.&nbsp;

The abrogation of Article 370, the move which snipped Jammu and Kashmir's special status, triggered a protest from the opposition, which termed it a "black day" in the constitutional history of India.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-strategic-partner-but-ones-behind-assassination-plot-should-be-held-accountable-white-house-667394">India strategic partner but ones behind assassination plot should be 'held accountable': White House</a>

The decision, which is now a few days away, comes after the apex court heard 20 pleas' batch, which challenged the government decision.&nbsp;

The hearing, which began on&nbsp;August 2 with a 5-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, went on for a total of 16 days. The court later reserved its verdict on September 5. The judges on the bench include Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bengaluru-atm-robbery-goes-wrong-as-thieves-accidentally-burn-cash-during-heist-667248">Bengaluru ATM robbery goes wrong as thieves accidentally burn cash during heist</a>

The petitions were filed through senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.&nbsp;

<h2>What did the petitions say?&nbsp;</h2>

The petitioners decried the government's decision claiming that it undermines India's federal structure and is a sheer misuse of power that comes with the government's majority in the lower house of the Parliament.

It also termed it a “fraud on the Constitution." Petitioners in 2020 also urged the court to transfer the case to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. However, SC did not accede to this demand.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-unesco-celebrates-garba-and-iftar-embracing-cultural-diversity-667375">Gravitas: UNESCO Celebrates Garba and Iftar: Embracing Cultural Diversity</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/gravitas-unesco-celebrates-garba-and-iftar-embracing-cultural-diversity-667375/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

With the Parliament Winter Session ongoing, Home Minister Amit Shah has unleashed his political war of words against India's former PM Jawaharlal Nehru, criticising his historical policies on Kashmir. He termed it a "blunder" as he suggested that to take the Kashmir issue to the UN was a move uncalled for.&nbsp;

“Nehru himself wrote to Sheikh Abdullah admitting that when our army was winning, we should not have agreed to the ceasefire. He himself admitted they could have negotiated better (at the UN). PoK, which is ours anyway, would have been with us today if the right steps were taken. So much land of the country was lost. I say these were not mistakes. These were two historic blunders," the Home Minister said in Parliament.

“I support the word that was used — Nehruvian blunder. Because of the blunder that was committed during the time of Nehru, Kashmir had to suffer. With responsibility, I want to say that the two big blunders that happened during the tenure of Jawaharlal Nehru, happened due to his decisions, because of which Kashmir had to suffer for years," Shah reportedly added.

(With inputs from agencies)

Amid a stormy winter session parliament, India's Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the validity of the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution, that had given special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

Amid a stormy winter session parliament, India's Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the validity of the scrapping of Article 370 of the Constitution, that had given special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The ruling is expected on December 11. The Indian government on 5 August 2019 abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution and completed the reorganisation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, namely Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The abrogation of Article 370, the move which snipped Jammu and Kashmir's special status, triggered a protest from the opposition, which termed it a "black day" in the constitutional history of India. Also Read | India strategic partner but ones behind assassination plot should be 'held accountable': White House The decision, which is now a few days away, comes after the apex court heard 20 pleas' batch, which challenged the government decision. The hearing, which began on August 2 with a 5-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, went on for a total of 16 days. The court later reserved its verdict on September 5. The judges on the bench include Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant. Also Read | Bengaluru ATM robbery goes wrong as thieves accidentally burn cash during heist The petitions were filed through senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan. What did the petitions say? The petitioners decried the government's decision claiming that it undermines India's federal structure and is a sheer misuse of power that comes with the government's majority in the lower house of the Parliament. It also termed it a “fraud on the Constitution." Petitioners in 2020 also urged the court to transfer the case to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. However, SC did not accede to this demand. Watch | Gravitas: UNESCO Celebrates Garba and Iftar: Embracing Cultural Diversity × With the Parliament Winter Session ongoing, Home Minister Amit Shah has unleashed his political war of words against India's former PM Jawaharlal Nehru, criticising his historical policies on Kashmir. He termed it a "blunder" as he suggested that to take the Kashmir issue to the UN was a move uncalled for. “Nehru himself wrote to Sheikh Abdullah admitting that when our army was winning, we should not have agreed to the ceasefire. He himself admitted they could have negotiated better (at the UN). PoK, which is ours anyway, would have been with us today if the right steps were taken. So much land of the country was lost. I say these were not mistakes. These were two historic blunders," the Home Minister said in Parliament. “I support the word that was used — Nehruvian blunder. Because of the blunder that was committed during the time of Nehru, Kashmir had to suffer. With responsibility, I want to say that the two big blunders that happened during the tenure of Jawaharlal Nehru, happened due to his decisions, because of which Kashmir had to suffer for years," Shah reportedly added. (With inputs from agencies)

India: SC verdict on scrapping of Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu & Kashmir set for Dec 11

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims. The Justice Department has argued against this immunity after accusing them of flooding the country with highly addictive opioids and challenging its legality.&nbsp;

In August, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-halts-purdues-6-billion-opioid-settlement-pending-review-624448">temporarily blocked</a> a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family which controls the drugmaker from future litigation over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic.&nbsp;

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that the family earned tens of billions of dollars while flooding the country with the highly addictive pain medication OxyContin, which played a key role in the opioid epidemic that has caused over half a million deaths across the US.&nbsp;

<h2>How will the $6 billion settlement help people?</h2>

Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes.&nbsp;

The opioid epidemic in the US has caused more than 500,000 overdose deaths over two decades, according to American officials. In 1996, Purdue introduced OxyContin and marketed and promoted it aggressively.&nbsp;

The pain medication has been attributed to kickstarting the epidemic, according to the various plaintiffs who have argued in thousands of lawsuits against Purdue, across the US. The drugmaker has also been accused of encouraging the free-wheeling prescription of their products while hiding the addictive nature of the drugs.

Following an avalanche of litigation which involved legal officials from all 50 US states, in 2021, Purdue pled guilty to three criminal charges over its marketing of OxyContin. The drugmaker also pleaded guilty to misbranding and fraud charges over the marketing of its pain medication, in 2007 and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-charges-for-opioid-sales-337138">2020</a>.

However, the litigation&nbsp;prompted Purdue, in 2019, to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address its debts nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits.&nbsp;

Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company.&nbsp;

The settlement was revised a year later, to include more money from the Sacklers after the Attorneys General of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-states-drop-opposition-to-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan-396799">eight states</a> and the District of Columbia successfully appealed the bankruptcy court approval.

This was after Purdue had reached a bankruptcy settlement with creditors, including various state attorneys general, local governments and the DOJ’s criminal and civil divisions.&nbsp;

As a part of the revised deal, the Sackler family would pay up to $6 billion to a trust to settle claims filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and individual opioid plaintiffs.

A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the Supreme Court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family.

However, the settlement is opposed by the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog and some individual opioid plaintiffs.

<h2>DOJ argues against the settlement</h2>

The temporary block on the bankruptcy deal for Purdue came after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of the settlement and said it would hold oral arguments in December.&nbsp;

The order was filed by the US Trustee, an office within the DOJ that carries out an administrative function and performs a watchdog role in some instances.&nbsp;

The settlement, which was approved by a lower court, gave the families of Raymond Sackler and Mortimer Sackler protection from all future civil claims which would effectively protect their other assets from opioid-related lawsuits.&nbsp;

The objection filed by the DOJ argues that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers.

“The court of appeals’ decision is a roadmap for corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass-tort liability,” US Trustee told the SCOTUS.

Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue over the 11 years before the company filed for bankruptcy protection and later agreed to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration.

Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.”&nbsp;

The company also said that it was confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and the SCOTUS will agree with it.&nbsp;

<h2>How did the Sackler family use bankruptcy as a shield?</h2>

The Sacklers have consistently denied wrongdoing and expressed regret that OxyContin “unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis.” The billionaire family would <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharmas-sackler-family-to-receive-full-immunity-from-opioid-lawsuits-court-rules-598848">receive immunity</a> in exchange for paying the settlement amount, despite not being bankrupt themselves.&nbsp;

The Sacklers would shield themselves through what is called a non-debtor release, which the US Congress initially granted in the context of asbestos litigation.&nbsp;

Simply put, Sacklers for giving billions of dollars to Purdue – which as a part of the settlement deal would transform into a nonprofit and dedicate its assets to addressing the harms of opioid addiction across the US – cannot be held accountable for their role in the opioid crisis and don’t even have to declare bankruptcy to for that protection.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the SCOTUS hearing about?</h2>

In this context, the Supreme Court justices would decide whether members of the Sackler family should be shielded from current and future lawsuits connected with Purdue.&nbsp;

Ellen Isaacs, a former OxyContin user, who lost her son to overdose and is among those who oppose the $6 billion settlement, wrote to the justices saying that the settlement fails to hold the Sacklers responsible.&nbsp;

“In a case where so many lost everything priceless, including their lives, justice is served when the villains keep nothing at all,” she wrote. “But justice is not served by forcing victims, against their will, into a deal that leaves the Sacklers billionaires,” she added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims.

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims. The Justice Department has argued against this immunity after accusing them of flooding the country with highly addictive opioids and challenging its legality. In August, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family which controls the drugmaker from future litigation over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that the family earned tens of billions of dollars while flooding the country with the highly addictive pain medication OxyContin, which played a key role in the opioid epidemic that has caused over half a million deaths across the US. How will the $6 billion settlement help people? Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes. The opioid epidemic in the US has caused more than 500,000 overdose deaths over two decades, according to American officials. In 1996, Purdue introduced OxyContin and marketed and promoted it aggressively. The pain medication has been attributed to kickstarting the epidemic, according to the various plaintiffs who have argued in thousands of lawsuits against Purdue, across the US. The drugmaker has also been accused of encouraging the free-wheeling prescription of their products while hiding the addictive nature of the drugs. Following an avalanche of litigation which involved legal officials from all 50 US states, in 2021, Purdue pled guilty to three criminal charges over its marketing of OxyContin. The drugmaker also pleaded guilty to misbranding and fraud charges over the marketing of its pain medication, in 2007 and 2020. However, the litigation prompted Purdue, in 2019, to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address its debts nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits. Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. The settlement was revised a year later, to include more money from the Sacklers after the Attorneys General of eight states and the District of Columbia successfully appealed the bankruptcy court approval. This was after Purdue had reached a bankruptcy settlement with creditors, including various state attorneys general, local governments and the DOJ’s criminal and civil divisions. As a part of the revised deal, the Sackler family would pay up to $6 billion to a trust to settle claims filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and individual opioid plaintiffs. A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the Supreme Court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family. However, the settlement is opposed by the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog and some individual opioid plaintiffs. DOJ argues against the settlement The temporary block on the bankruptcy deal for Purdue came after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of the settlement and said it would hold oral arguments in December. The order was filed by the US Trustee, an office within the DOJ that carries out an administrative function and performs a watchdog role in some instances. The settlement, which was approved by a lower court, gave the families of Raymond Sackler and Mortimer Sackler protection from all future civil claims which would effectively protect their other assets from opioid-related lawsuits. The objection filed by the DOJ argues that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers. “The court of appeals’ decision is a roadmap for corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass-tort liability,” US Trustee told the SCOTUS. Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue over the 11 years before the company filed for bankruptcy protection and later agreed to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration. Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.” The company also said that it was confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and the SCOTUS will agree with it. How did the Sackler family use bankruptcy as a shield? The Sacklers have consistently denied wrongdoing and expressed regret that OxyContin “unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis.” The billionaire family would receive immunity in exchange for paying the settlement amount, despite not being bankrupt themselves. The Sacklers would shield themselves through what is called a non-debtor release, which the US Congress initially granted in the context of asbestos litigation. Simply put, Sacklers for giving billions of dollars to Purdue – which as a part of the settlement deal would transform into a nonprofit and dedicate its assets to addressing the harms of opioid addiction across the US – cannot be held accountable for their role in the opioid crisis and don’t even have to declare bankruptcy to for that protection. What is the SCOTUS hearing about? In this context, the Supreme Court justices would decide whether members of the Sackler family should be shielded from current and future lawsuits connected with Purdue. Ellen Isaacs, a former OxyContin user, who lost her son to overdose and is among those who oppose the $6 billion settlement, wrote to the justices saying that the settlement fails to hold the Sacklers responsible. “In a case where so many lost everything priceless, including their lives, justice is served when the villains keep nothing at all,” she wrote. “But justice is not served by forcing victims, against their will, into a deal that leaves the Sacklers billionaires,” she added. (With inputs from agencies)

Explained | US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Purdue’s $6bn deal. Will it affect opioid epidemic relief?

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 1) began hearing a petition from rights activists demanding to stop&nbsp;the deportation of Afghan refugees,&nbsp;reported Reuters, citing a lawyer. This comes at a time when&nbsp;authorities are combing refugee settlements to find and deport thousands of Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban takeover.

On October 1, Pakistan said that it would expel more than a million undocumented refugees in the country. Most of these are Afghans. Since the announcement, about 370,000 Afghans have fled from Pakistan.

Pakistan has been maintaining that anti-Pakistan militants were among the undocumented refugees and they receive help from terror apparatus inside Afghanistan.

"Due to the urgency, as thousands of people are suffering on daily basis, I've requested the court to take up the case as early as next week," Umar Ijaz Gilani, a lawyer representing the rights activists was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Watch | Pakistani father shoots daughter for appearing in a viral social media video

<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/pakistani-father-shoots-daughter-for-appearing-in-a-viral-social-media-video-664410/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Gilani said that a three-judge panel heard the case and asked the government, the interior ministry and the foreign ministry in addition to a panel comprising government and top military officials to furnish&nbsp;an explanation.

Thousands of people&nbsp;fled Afghanistan to escape persecution after the Taliban seized power in the country&nbsp;following a chaotic and hasty retreat by US-led Western forces in 2021. Now, the refugees have gone underground in Pakistan to escape deportation as they still fear for their lives on their return to Afghanistan.

Gilani argued&nbsp;that children born to Afghan families in Pakistan cannot be sent back because of their birthright.

He further said that the petition that was heard on Friday was separate from another one that was exclusively focused on seeking Pakistani citizenship for such children.&nbsp; guaranteed by the country's constitution.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-ex-pm-nawaz-sharif-acquitted-in-corruption-cases-ahead-of-general-elections-664316">Pakistan ex-PM Nawaz Sharif acquitted in corruption cases ahead of general elections</a>

There are more than 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees in Pakistan. 1.7 million of these are undocumented.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-election-commission-faces-accusation-of-changing-voting-map-in-favour-of-nawaz-sharif-664337">Pakistan's election commission faces accusation of changing voting map in ex-PM Nawaz Sharif's favour</a>

Despite calls from international bodies and refugee agencies to reconsider its deportation plans, Pakistan has continued conducting door-to-door searches in refugee settlements for people who have not left voluntarily.

According to Reuters,&nbsp;Pakistan is home to more than 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees, about 1.7 million of whom are undocumented.

(With inputs from agencies)

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 1) began hearing a petition from rights activists demanding to stop the deportation of Afghan refugees, reported Reuters, citing a lawyer.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Friday (Dec 1) began hearing a petition from rights activists demanding to stop the deportation of Afghan refugees, reported Reuters, citing a lawyer. This comes at a time when authorities are combing refugee settlements to find and deport thousands of Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban takeover. On October 1, Pakistan said that it would expel more than a million undocumented refugees in the country. Most of these are Afghans. Since the announcement, about 370,000 Afghans have fled from Pakistan. Pakistan has been maintaining that anti-Pakistan militants were among the undocumented refugees and they receive help from terror apparatus inside Afghanistan. "Due to the urgency, as thousands of people are suffering on daily basis, I've requested the court to take up the case as early as next week," Umar Ijaz Gilani, a lawyer representing the rights activists was quoted as saying by Reuters. Watch | Pakistani father shoots daughter for appearing in a viral social media video × Gilani said that a three-judge panel heard the case and asked the government, the interior ministry and the foreign ministry in addition to a panel comprising government and top military officials to furnish an explanation. Thousands of people fled Afghanistan to escape persecution after the Taliban seized power in the country following a chaotic and hasty retreat by US-led Western forces in 2021. Now, the refugees have gone underground in Pakistan to escape deportation as they still fear for their lives on their return to Afghanistan. Gilani argued that children born to Afghan families in Pakistan cannot be sent back because of their birthright. He further said that the petition that was heard on Friday was separate from another one that was exclusively focused on seeking Pakistani citizenship for such children. guaranteed by the country's constitution. Also Read | Pakistan ex-PM Nawaz Sharif acquitted in corruption cases ahead of general elections There are more than 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees in Pakistan. 1.7 million of these are undocumented. Also Read | Pakistan's election commission faces accusation of changing voting map in ex-PM Nawaz Sharif's favour Despite calls from international bodies and refugee agencies to reconsider its deportation plans, Pakistan has continued conducting door-to-door searches in refugee settlements for people who have not left voluntarily. According to Reuters, Pakistan is home to more than 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees, about 1.7 million of whom are undocumented. (With inputs from agencies)

Pakistan Supreme Court begins hearing petition challenging deportation of Afghan refugees

Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the highest US court, died on Friday, according to an official announcement. She was 93.

O'Connor, who stepped down in 2006, died at her home in Phoenix, Arizona, the court said in a statement.

"Sandra Day O'Connor blazed an historic trail as our Nation's first female Justice," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor.

"We celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-a-historic-vote-us-lawmakers-expel-scandal-plagued-politician-george-santos-665217">In a historic vote, US lawmakers expel scandal-plagued politician George Santos</a>

O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by president Ronald Reagan in 1981 and stepped down in 2006.

She wielded enormous influence as the key centrist on a sharply divided bench, where she often displayed a preference for pragmatism over ideology.

O'Connor frequently emerged as a crucial swing vote, breaking with her conservative colleagues and providing the fifth vote to make a liberal majority on several key occasions.

She then sided with the majority that blocked the 2000 Florida recount and effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-ohio-reports-white-lung-syndrome-outbreak-know-what-it-is-665212">US' Ohio reports ‘white lung syndrome’ outbreak. Know what it is</a>

She outraged conservatives a few years later by helping to uphold the University of Michigan Law School's right to run an affirmative action admissions policy.

O'Connor proved the decisive vote on key cases that upheld the government's neutrality towards religion, including a 2005 ruling that it was unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in several courthouses.

Sandra Day was born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas and grew up on her parents' cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona.

A legal dispute over her family's ranch stirred her interest in law and she enrolled at Stanford Law School, where she briefly dated William Rehnquist, a classmate with whom she would eventually serve on the Supreme Court for more than two decades.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/blinkens-israel-visit-blinken-reassures-nato-on-ukraine-665181">Blinken's Israel visit | Blinken reassures NATO on Ukraine</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/blinkens-israel-visit-blinken-reassures-nato-on-ukraine-665181/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Day ultimately married another fellow student, John Jay O'Connor, in 1952. He died in 2009.

Following a five-year break from work when she started a family she served as an Arizona assistant attorney general from 1965 to 1969, when she was appointed to a vacancy in the Arizona state senate.

In 1974, O'Connor ran successfully for trial judge, a position she held until her appointment to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979.

Eighteen months later, Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Upon leaving the court, in part due to her husband's battle with Alzheimer's, O'Connor committed her remaining years to civic engagement.

She founded iCivics in 2009 to teach middle and high school students about civics via online games and other remote learning tools. It reaches millions of students a year, according to its website.

&nbsp;

Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the highest US court, died on Friday, according to an official announcement. She was 93.

Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the highest US court, died on Friday, according to an official announcement. She was 93. O'Connor, who stepped down in 2006, died at her home in Phoenix, Arizona, the court said in a statement. "Sandra Day O'Connor blazed an historic trail as our Nation's first female Justice," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. "We celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot." Also Read | In a historic vote, US lawmakers expel scandal-plagued politician George Santos O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by president Ronald Reagan in 1981 and stepped down in 2006. She wielded enormous influence as the key centrist on a sharply divided bench, where she often displayed a preference for pragmatism over ideology. O'Connor frequently emerged as a crucial swing vote, breaking with her conservative colleagues and providing the fifth vote to make a liberal majority on several key occasions. She then sided with the majority that blocked the 2000 Florida recount and effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. Also Read | US' Ohio reports ‘white lung syndrome’ outbreak. Know what it is She outraged conservatives a few years later by helping to uphold the University of Michigan Law School's right to run an affirmative action admissions policy. O'Connor proved the decisive vote on key cases that upheld the government's neutrality towards religion, including a 2005 ruling that it was unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in several courthouses. Sandra Day was born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas and grew up on her parents' cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. A legal dispute over her family's ranch stirred her interest in law and she enrolled at Stanford Law School, where she briefly dated William Rehnquist, a classmate with whom she would eventually serve on the Supreme Court for more than two decades. Watch | Blinken's Israel visit | Blinken reassures NATO on Ukraine × Day ultimately married another fellow student, John Jay O'Connor, in 1952. He died in 2009. Following a five-year break from work when she started a family she served as an Arizona assistant attorney general from 1965 to 1969, when she was appointed to a vacancy in the Arizona state senate. In 1974, O'Connor ran successfully for trial judge, a position she held until her appointment to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979. Eighteen months later, Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court. Upon leaving the court, in part due to her husband's battle with Alzheimer's, O'Connor committed her remaining years to civic engagement. She founded iCivics in 2009 to teach middle and high school students about civics via online games and other remote learning tools. It reaches millions of students a year, according to its website.

Pioneering US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman in the chamber, dead at 93

Nepal has registered its first same-sex marriage. Five months after the Supreme Court issued an interim order clearing the way for such marriages in the largely conservative country...

Nepal registers first same-sex marriage after landmark court ruling

India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 28) denied bail to Indian state of Tamil Nadu’s minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested in an alleged money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate and was seeking bail on medical grounds.&nbsp;

“Your sickness doesn't appear to be serious or life-threatening,” stated the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justices SC Sharma and Bela M Trivedi, permitted Balaji to withdraw his plea which sought medical bail after the court said that it was not convinced regarding his medical condition being “serious” or “life-threatening”. &nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-closely-monitoring-respiratory-illness-among-children-amid-scare-from-china-663802">India closely monitoring respiratory illness in children amid scare from China</a>

<h2>SC allows Balaji to seek regular bail from another court</h2>

Balaji was allowed by the court to seek regular bail from the appropriate court and stated that the observations recently made by the Madras High Court while refusing his medical bail would not come in the way.&nbsp;

"Any observation made in the interim order against the petitioner on merits shall not come in the way of the petitioner in filing regular bail application," said the bench. &nbsp;

The bench further expressed its disinclination to entertain the matter, after which the bail plea was withdrawn and the court then dismissed the matter as withdrawn. Earlier, the top court had asked Balaji to submit his medical reports on record.&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;India PM Modi visits Tirupati shrine | New Zealand to scrap 'smoking ban'&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-pm-modi-visits-tirupati-shrine-new-zealand-to-scrap-smoking-ban-trending-on-wion-663438/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The high court, while dismissing the bail plea, said that from Balaji’s health report, it did not appear that he had a medical condition which can only be attended if he was released from jail on bail.&nbsp;

On June 14, Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case which was linked to a cash-for-jobs scam, when he held the position of the transport minister in the AIADMK regime.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 28) denied bail to Indian state of Tamil Nadu’s minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested in an alleged money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate and was seeking bail on medical grounds.

India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 28) denied bail to Indian state of Tamil Nadu’s minister V Senthil Balaji, who was arrested in an alleged money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate and was seeking bail on medical grounds. “Your sickness doesn't appear to be serious or life-threatening,” stated the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justices SC Sharma and Bela M Trivedi, permitted Balaji to withdraw his plea which sought medical bail after the court said that it was not convinced regarding his medical condition being “serious” or “life-threatening”. Also read: India closely monitoring respiratory illness in children amid scare from China SC allows Balaji to seek regular bail from another court Balaji was allowed by the court to seek regular bail from the appropriate court and stated that the observations recently made by the Madras High Court while refusing his medical bail would not come in the way. "Any observation made in the interim order against the petitioner on merits shall not come in the way of the petitioner in filing regular bail application," said the bench. The bench further expressed its disinclination to entertain the matter, after which the bail plea was withdrawn and the court then dismissed the matter as withdrawn. Earlier, the top court had asked Balaji to submit his medical reports on record. Watch: India PM Modi visits Tirupati shrine | New Zealand to scrap 'smoking ban' The high court, while dismissing the bail plea, said that from Balaji’s health report, it did not appear that he had a medical condition which can only be attended if he was released from jail on bail. On June 14, Balaji was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case which was linked to a cash-for-jobs scam, when he held the position of the transport minister in the AIADMK regime. (With inputs from agencies)

'Sickness not life-threatening': SC refuses bail to jailed Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji

Pakistan has taken a contentious decision to deport millions of Afghan refugees as the deadline to voluntarily leave has expired. What's behind Pakistan's expulsion of the 'undocumented' migrants? In this report, we delve into Islamabad's justifications for its move and the potential human rights concerns it raises.

Pakistan's Supreme Court to decide on 'illegal migrants' plea on December 1

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Nov 28) rejected a plea which sought a complete ban on the performance or working of artists from Pakistan in the country, and appealed to the petitioner to not be “so narrow-minded”.&nbsp;

A bench of justices comprising SVN Bhatti and Sanjiv Khanna said that they were not inclined to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court which had junked the plea filed by Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, who claimed that he was an artiste and a cine worker.&nbsp;

"You should not press this appeal. Do not be so narrow-minded," stated the bench. Supreme Court further refused the submission of the plea to expunge some remarks which were made against the petitioner by the high court.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-20-year-old-medical-aspirant-found-dead-in-rajasthans-kota-663788">India: 20-year-old medical aspirant found dead in Rajasthan's Kota</a>

The petitioner had sought the direction of the court for the central government to impose a complete ban on companies, Indian citizens, associations and firms from soliciting or employing any work or performance, entering into any association, or taking any services and so on with any Pakistani artist like musicians, singers, cine workers, technicians and lyricists.&nbsp;

<h2>Bombay High Court calls petition ‘a retrograde step’&nbsp;</h2>

The petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court which stated that the measures being sought by the petitioner were a retrograde step in the promotion of peace, unity and cultural harmony, and there is no merit in it. "One must understand that in order to be a patriot, one need not be inimical to those from abroad especially, from the neighbouring country," the court stated.

"A true patriot is a person who is selfless, who is devoted to the cause of his country, which he cannot be unless he is a person who is good at heart. A person who is good at heart would welcome in his country any activity which promotes peace, harmony, and tranquility within the country and across the border," it added.

Watch:&nbsp;India PM Modi visits Tirupati shrine | New Zealand to scrap 'smoking ban'&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-pm-modi-visits-tirupati-shrine-new-zealand-to-scrap-smoking-ban-trending-on-wion-663438/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In its order, the high court had stated that music, arts, sports, dance, culture and so on are the kinds of activities which are above cultures, nationalities and nations, and these events bring unity, harmony, tranquility and peace in the country and between countries. &nbsp;

The high court stated how Pakistan was a participant in the Cricket World Cup. He added that this occurred because the Indian government took appreciable positive steps in the interest of harmony and overall peace in consonance with Article 51 of the Constitution of India which is regarding the promotion of international security and peace.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Nov 28) rejected a plea which sought a complete ban on the performance or working of artists from Pakistan in the country, and appealed to the petitioner to not be “so narrow-minded”.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Nov 28) rejected a plea which sought a complete ban on the performance or working of artists from Pakistan in the country, and appealed to the petitioner to not be “so narrow-minded”. A bench of justices comprising SVN Bhatti and Sanjiv Khanna said that they were not inclined to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court which had junked the plea filed by Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, who claimed that he was an artiste and a cine worker. "You should not press this appeal. Do not be so narrow-minded," stated the bench. Supreme Court further refused the submission of the plea to expunge some remarks which were made against the petitioner by the high court. Also read: India: 20-year-old medical aspirant found dead in Rajasthan's Kota The petitioner had sought the direction of the court for the central government to impose a complete ban on companies, Indian citizens, associations and firms from soliciting or employing any work or performance, entering into any association, or taking any services and so on with any Pakistani artist like musicians, singers, cine workers, technicians and lyricists. Bombay High Court calls petition ‘a retrograde step’ The petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court which stated that the measures being sought by the petitioner were a retrograde step in the promotion of peace, unity and cultural harmony, and there is no merit in it. "One must understand that in order to be a patriot, one need not be inimical to those from abroad especially, from the neighbouring country," the court stated. "A true patriot is a person who is selfless, who is devoted to the cause of his country, which he cannot be unless he is a person who is good at heart. A person who is good at heart would welcome in his country any activity which promotes peace, harmony, and tranquility within the country and across the border," it added. Watch: India PM Modi visits Tirupati shrine | New Zealand to scrap 'smoking ban' In its order, the high court had stated that music, arts, sports, dance, culture and so on are the kinds of activities which are above cultures, nationalities and nations, and these events bring unity, harmony, tranquility and peace in the country and between countries. The high court stated how Pakistan was a participant in the Cricket World Cup. He added that this occurred because the Indian government took appreciable positive steps in the interest of harmony and overall peace in consonance with Article 51 of the Constitution of India which is regarding the promotion of international security and peace. (With inputs from agencies)

SC calls out ‘narrow-mindedness’, rejects plea seeking complete ban on Pak artists

India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal.

The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions. 
 
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and the CJI was requested to ensure that the review petition is taken up before five judges for consideration on November 28, which is the tentative date given by the court registry. 
 
Various other lawyers, who had appeared earlier in the matter, were also present when the request was made by Rohatgi. 
 
“We have also sought an open court hearing. It is tentatively listed on November 28. Let it not be deleted. Apart from this, majority or minority, both views have held that there is a discrimination (against LGBTQ+ couples). If there is discrimination, there also has to be a remedy. This is why we have pressed for an open court hearing,” Rohatgi stated.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-former-sc-judge-indu-malhotra-explains-why-legislation-is-quintessential-in-india-648108">Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India</a>

Responding to the request, the CJI stated that he would go through the review petitions and that they would consider appropriately the lawyers’ plea for an open court hearing. 
 
A review petition generally comes before the same panel of judges and gets circulated in their chambers and a decision is taken without an open court hearing. However, if some merit is found by the judges in the review plea, they are free to allow an open court hearing and oral arguments. 
 
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was among the five judges who were part of the same-sex marriage bench, retired on October 20 which meant that the CJI needed to add a new judge to the bench for the review petitions.

<h2>CJI to assign date for consideration of review petitions</h2>

The CJI will assign a date for considering the review petitions.

The judgement given by the Supreme Court on October 17 by a 3-2 majority had refused to give legal sanction to same-sex marriage and also did not grant constitutional protection to civil unions as well as adoption rights for queer couples.

Watch:&nbsp;Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/same-sex-marriage-indias-top-court-refuses-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-648084/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In the petition filed through Karanjawala &amp; Co by US-based lawyer Udit Sood and 51 other petitioners, Sood said, “The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination.” 
 
“Our Constitution primarily tasks this Hon’ble court — not the respondents (Centre) — with upholding fundamental rights. To find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this Hon’ble court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of power contemplated in our Constitution,” the petition added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal. The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions.

India's Supreme Court will hear on November 28 a bunch of review petitions on its verdict that had refused to recognise same-sex marriages as legal. The October 17 judgment had not granted legal recognition to same-sex couples and stated that only the state legislatures and parliament have the right to validate their marital unions. The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and the CJI was requested to ensure that the review petition is taken up before five judges for consideration on November 28, which is the tentative date given by the court registry. Various other lawyers, who had appeared earlier in the matter, were also present when the request was made by Rohatgi. “We have also sought an open court hearing. It is tentatively listed on November 28. Let it not be deleted. Apart from this, majority or minority, both views have held that there is a discrimination (against LGBTQ+ couples). If there is discrimination, there also has to be a remedy. This is why we have pressed for an open court hearing,” Rohatgi stated. Also read: Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India Responding to the request, the CJI stated that he would go through the review petitions and that they would consider appropriately the lawyers’ plea for an open court hearing. A review petition generally comes before the same panel of judges and gets circulated in their chambers and a decision is taken without an open court hearing. However, if some merit is found by the judges in the review plea, they are free to allow an open court hearing and oral arguments. Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was among the five judges who were part of the same-sex marriage bench, retired on October 20 which meant that the CJI needed to add a new judge to the bench for the review petitions. CJI to assign date for consideration of review petitions The CJI will assign a date for considering the review petitions. The judgement given by the Supreme Court on October 17 by a 3-2 majority had refused to give legal sanction to same-sex marriage and also did not grant constitutional protection to civil unions as well as adoption rights for queer couples. Watch: Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage In the petition filed through Karanjawala & Co by US-based lawyer Udit Sood and 51 other petitioners, Sood said, “The majority ruling is self-contradictory, facially erroneous and deeply unjust. The majority found that queer Indians endure severe discrimination at the hands of the State, declared that discrimination must be prohibited, and then did not take the logical next step of enjoining the discrimination.” “Our Constitution primarily tasks this Hon’ble court — not the respondents (Centre) — with upholding fundamental rights. To find that the petitioners are enduring discrimination, but then turn them away with best wishes for the future, conforms neither with this Hon’ble court’s constitutional obligation towards queer Indians nor with the separation of power contemplated in our Constitution,” the petition added. (With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court to consider petitions on same-sex marriage verdict

Patanjali has been snubbed by the Supreme Court over false advertising. The top court has said it will charge Patanjali with a rupee one crore fine for every false advertisement.

Gravitas: Patanjali snubbed by Supreme Court for false advertising

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Nov 21) issued a harsh warning to Patanjali Ayurved - a company co-founded by popular Yoga guru Baba Ramdev. The apex court told the company to stop making false and misleading claims in advertisements about its medicines as a cure for several diseases, or else be prepared to fork out Rs 1 crore ($120,000) as a penalty for each claim.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (Nov 21) issued a harsh warning to Patanjali Ayurved - a company co-founded by popular Yoga guru Baba Ramdev. The apex court told the company to stop making false and misleading claims in advertisements about its medicines as a cure for several diseases, or else be prepared to fork out Rs 1 crore ($120,000) as a penalty for each claim. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against misleading claims in advertisements with the bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra presiding over it. “All such false and misleading advertisements of Patanjali Ayurved have to stop immediately. The Court will take any such infraction very seriously, and the Court will also consider imposing costs to the extent of Rs. 1 crores on every product regarding which a false claim is made that it can 'cure' a particular disease,” Justice Amanullah orally said. The court said it did not want to deviate and make the case an "Allopathy vs Ayurveda" debate but wanted to get to the root of misleading medical advertisements. The bench has asked the Government of India (GOI) to come up with suitable recommendations after consultations. Apart from the misleading claims, IMA, in the writ petition accused Patanjali of spreading false rumours about COVID-19 and fuelling vaccine hesitancy. Baba Ramdev's comments making a mockery of citizens searching for oxygen cylinders during the second peak were also cited in the complaint. However, after receiving a tap from the SC judges, Patanjali issued an undertaking, saying the company would not publish any such advertisements in the future, and would also ensure that casual statements are not made by it in the media. Also read | 5 Yoga Exercises to Improve Brain Health Patanjali's previous rodeo This is not the first instance when Baba Ramdev has come under the scanner for his comments as well as his company's advertising policies. Last year, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana advised the yoga guru to rein in his beliefs. "What happened to Baba Ramdev? He can popularise his system, but why should he criticise other systems. We all respect him, he popularized yoga but he shouldn't criticize other systems. What is the guarantee that his system will work? He cannot refuse doctor system. He must exercise restraint in abusing other systems," observed the former CJI. Baba Ramdev is a popular figure in India. He founded Patanjali alongside his aide Balkrishna in 2006 and since then, the company has transformed into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. (With inputs from agencies)

'Will impose $120,000 fine': Supreme Court warns yoga guru Baba Ramdev's Patanjali for false advertising

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 21) rapped the Punjab government over the unabated stubble burning which is making Delhi’s air quality toxic.

It said that Punjab farmers are being “made a villain” due to the Punjab government’s failure to make crop residue management completely free.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, while hearing the plea, suggested why should there be any purchase under the minimum support price (MSP) system from farmers who indulge in crop residue burning, irrespective of the fact that citizens and children were affected due to pollution.

<h2>'Farmers are being made villain'</h2>

“Why doesn’t the Punjab government make the process of crop residue 100% free? To burn it, all the farmer needs to do is light a matchstick. Machine for the management of crop residue to farmers is not everything. Even if the machine is given for free, there is diesel cost, manpower, etc,” the Supreme Court said, asking why Punjab cannot fund diesel, manpower, etc., and utilise the byproduct, according to PTI news agency.

“The state of Punjab should also take a cue from the state of Haryana in the manner in which financial incentives are given,” the apex court added.

When the Punjab government, during the hearing, told the court that it is taking steps to control crop residue burning, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the pollution matter, flagged that more than 700 farm fire incidents were reported in the state on Monday.

"What are they (authorities) doing?" Singh told the bench.

Justice Dhulia observed, "The only person who can answer this is the farmers. He can tell you why he is doing it. He is not here. The farmer is being made a villain and the villain has not been heard. He (farmer) must be having some reasons."

<h2>Alternative ways of disposing stubble&nbsp;</h2>

The court also asked Attorney General R Venkatramani to explore “how you can discourage paddy and encourage alternate crops”.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-air-remains-in-very-poor-category-with-aqi-at-323-no-major-relief-from-pollution-for-next-few-days-660996">Delhi air remains in 'very poor' category with AQI at 323; no major relief from pollution for next few days</a>

It was also apprised of the issues faced by farmers in adopting alternative ways of disposing of stubble.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-leader-rahul-gandhi-calls-pm-modi-unlucky-after-indian-cricket-teams-loss-in-world-cup-final-661155">Congress leader Rahul Gandhi blames PM Modi for World Cup loss, says his presence in stadium ‘unlucky’</a>

“We put to the advocate general as to why the state cannot fund even this aspect and utilise the byproduct…,” the apex court said.

“We say so because there are farmers operating on different economic scales where they are able to gain profit even by the byproduct by use of these machines”.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 21) rapped the Punjab government over the unabated stubble burning which is making Delhi’s air quality toxic. It said that Punjab farmers are being “made a villain” due to the Punjab government’s failure to make crop residue management completely free.

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov 21) rapped the Punjab government over the unabated stubble burning which is making Delhi’s air quality toxic. It said that Punjab farmers are being “made a villain” due to the Punjab government’s failure to make crop residue management completely free. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, while hearing the plea, suggested why should there be any purchase under the minimum support price (MSP) system from farmers who indulge in crop residue burning, irrespective of the fact that citizens and children were affected due to pollution. 'Farmers are being made villain' “Why doesn’t the Punjab government make the process of crop residue 100% free? To burn it, all the farmer needs to do is light a matchstick. Machine for the management of crop residue to farmers is not everything. Even if the machine is given for free, there is diesel cost, manpower, etc,” the Supreme Court said, asking why Punjab cannot fund diesel, manpower, etc., and utilise the byproduct, according to PTI news agency. “The state of Punjab should also take a cue from the state of Haryana in the manner in which financial incentives are given,” the apex court added. When the Punjab government, during the hearing, told the court that it is taking steps to control crop residue burning, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae in the pollution matter, flagged that more than 700 farm fire incidents were reported in the state on Monday. "What are they (authorities) doing?" Singh told the bench. Justice Dhulia observed, "The only person who can answer this is the farmers. He can tell you why he is doing it. He is not here. The farmer is being made a villain and the villain has not been heard. He (farmer) must be having some reasons." Alternative ways of disposing stubble The court also asked Attorney General R Venkatramani to explore “how you can discourage paddy and encourage alternate crops”. Also read | Delhi air remains in 'very poor' category with AQI at 323; no major relief from pollution for next few days It was also apprised of the issues faced by farmers in adopting alternative ways of disposing of stubble. Also read | Congress leader Rahul Gandhi blames PM Modi for World Cup loss, says his presence in stadium ‘unlucky’ “We put to the advocate general as to why the state cannot fund even this aspect and utilise the byproduct…,” the apex court said. “We say so because there are farmers operating on different economic scales where they are able to gain profit even by the byproduct by use of these machines”. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian Supreme Court raps Punjab govt over stubble burning, asks it to take cue from Haryana

Russian lawmakers have filed a lawsuit with the national Supreme Court to outlaw the LGBTQ+ international movement as extremist. This is the latest crippling blow against the already troubled LGBTQ+ community.

Russia seeks to outlaw international LGBTQ+ movement

The influential Rajapaksa brothers, who included two former presidents, were found guilty on Tuesday by Sri Lanka's Supreme Court of mismanaging the island's economy and causing its greatest financial crisis. Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), a corruption watchdog, and four other activists filed the lawsuit against prominent former officials, including former presidents Gotabaya and Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Sri Lankan top court rules on economic crisis, says Rajapaksa brothers guilty of economic crisis

The US Supreme Court issued an ethics code on Monday (Nov 13) for its nine justices, after revelations about undisclosed property, luxury trips and gifts sparked a row and mounted pressure on the court.

The justices, in a statement, said that they had established the code of conduct “to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the members of the court.”&nbsp;

“For the most part these rules and principles are not new,” the court said, further adding that “the absence of a code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

The nine-page code includes sections that say justices should not let any outside relationships affect their official conduct or judgment, expounding restrictions on their participation in fundraising and reiterating limits on the accepting of gifts. It also states that justices should not "to any substantial degree" use judicial resources or staff for non-official activities.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sinkhole-discovered-under-iceland-town-sparks-fears-of-massive-volcanic-eruption-658283">Sinkhole under Iceland town adds to panic as residents prepare for eruption</a>

A commentary released with the code elaborating on some of its provisions said that justices who are weighing a speaking engagement should "consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public."

Senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee, called the code a "step in the right direction." But Durbin held open the possibility of further legislative efforts if he determines the code falls short of "the ethical standards which other federal judges are held to."

"We are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal that the highest court in the land not languish with the lowest standard of ethics in our federal government," Durbin said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-foreign-journalists-robbed-at-gunpoint-who-went-to-cover-asia-pacific-summit-658313">US: Foreign journalists who went to cover Asia-Pacific summit robbed at gunpoint</a>

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, called the code "an important first step."

"However, the lack of any way to enforce the code of conduct should any justice decide to ignore it is a glaring omission," Schumer said.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court issued an ethics code on Monday (Nov 13) for its nine justices, after revelations about undisclosed property, luxury trips and gifts sparked a row and mounted pressure on the court.

The US Supreme Court issued an ethics code on Monday (Nov 13) for its nine justices, after revelations about undisclosed property, luxury trips and gifts sparked a row and mounted pressure on the court. The justices, in a statement, said that they had established the code of conduct “to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the members of the court.” “For the most part these rules and principles are not new,” the court said, further adding that “the absence of a code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.” The nine-page code includes sections that say justices should not let any outside relationships affect their official conduct or judgment, expounding restrictions on their participation in fundraising and reiterating limits on the accepting of gifts. It also states that justices should not "to any substantial degree" use judicial resources or staff for non-official activities. Also read: Sinkhole under Iceland town adds to panic as residents prepare for eruption A commentary released with the code elaborating on some of its provisions said that justices who are weighing a speaking engagement should "consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public." Senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee, called the code a "step in the right direction." But Durbin held open the possibility of further legislative efforts if he determines the code falls short of "the ethical standards which other federal judges are held to." "We are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal that the highest court in the land not languish with the lowest standard of ethics in our federal government," Durbin said. Also read: US: Foreign journalists who went to cover Asia-Pacific summit robbed at gunpoint Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, called the code "an important first step." "However, the lack of any way to enforce the code of conduct should any justice decide to ignore it is a glaring omission," Schumer said. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court issues ethics code for justices amid reports of undisclosed property, luxury trips

On November 7, India's Supreme Court gave a clarification over its order to ban firecrackers across the country. The Court stated that the use of firecrackers, which are filled with barium and other banned chemicals, is banned in the entire nation, and not only in the National Capital Region. 
 
The clarification was given by a bench, comprising Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh, when they were hearing an application which was seeking direction to the Rajasthan government for complying with the order of the top court on the on barium crackers and decreasing air and noise pollution. 
 
“At this juncture, no specific order will be necessary in as much as this Court in the course of hearing the petitions has passed several orders, where steps have been indicated to minimise and avoid air as well as noise pollution. Hence the said orders will bind every state in the country, including the state of Rajasthan,” stated a bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh, in its order. 
 
“Therefore, we make it clear that the state of Rajasthan would also take note of this and take all steps to minimise air and noise pollution, not only during the festival season but even thereafter," it added. 
 
The Supreme Court's order came as India is gearing up for Diwali celebrations on November 12. The order raised questions like what type of firecrackers are permitted in the country and what are these firecrackers made of?

<h2>What orders have been issued by the Supreme Court on firecrackers?</h2>

The apex court in October 2018 placed a ban on the sale and production of all crackers except ‘green crackers’ and also those which have reduced emissions or improved crackers. 
 
The sale and manufacture of ‘joined crackers’ (which are long rows of joined crackers) was also banned and the use of barium salts in firecrackers was not permitted. The court had also stated that their noise levels should remain within permissible limits. 
 
This was reiterated by the October in its order issued on October 29, 2021. In September, the Supreme Court turned down a plea submitted by the firecracker manufacturers’ association which sought permission to the use of joined crackers and to add barium salt along with improved additives in the green crackers. 
 
The use and sale of all types of firecrackers in the National Capital Region was banned by the National Green Tribunal in 2020, which stated that the green crackers would only be allowed in towns and cities where air quality was poor or moderate.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/directions-meant-to-regulate-firecrackers-meant-for-entire-india-not-just-delhi-supreme-court-656152">Directions to regulate firecrackers meant for entire India, not just Delhi: Supreme Court</a>

<h2>What are firecrackers made of?</h2>

Generally, the firecrackers are made with four primary ingredients — colouring agents, fuel, oxidiser, and binder. An oxidiser is added to the cracker so that it can catch fire, the fuel helps in sustaining it and colouring agents add the colours and sparkles to the crackers, while the mixture is held in place by the binder till the cracker has been spent completely. 
 
Chemicals such as barium are a type of colouring agent, and they were banned by the court because they harmfully impact the health of human beings. These chemicals cause skin allergies, breathing difficulties, irritation in the respiratory tract, and even cancer. 
 
In a cracker, aluminium, magnesium and titanium emit the white colour, while carbon or iron emit&nbsp;orange colour. 
 
Similarly, sodium compounds work as yellow agents, while copper compounds and strontium carbonates emit blue and red colours, respectively. The green agent is barium chlorate barium nitrate or barium monochloride salts.

<h2>What are green crackers that cause less pollution?</h2>

Former director of the Council of Scientific &amp; Industrial Research’s National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI) Dr Rakesh Kumar, while speaking to The Indian Express in 2018, stated that green crackers have been named so because they “do not contain harmful chemicals” which can cause air pollution. 
 
In the green crackers, the components used in traditional crackers are replaced with others which are “less dangerous” and “less harmful” to the atmosphere. 
 
A network of CSIR labs, which included the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, National Botanical Research Institute and National Chemical Laboratory, had researched the ways of producing green crackers.

WATCH |&nbsp;India: New Delhi puts firecracker ban ahead of Diwali, 3 years in jail if caught bursting crackers

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-new-delhi-puts-firecracker-ban-ahead-of-diwali-3-years-in-jail-if-caught-bursting-crackers-527821/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

These green crackers release water vapour that works as a dust suppressant and emits less-harmful chemicals. Such crackers are divided into three broad categories SWAS, SAFAL and STAR, which have been defined by CSIR. 
 
SWAS stands for “safe water releaser” and it contains a small water pocket which gets released in the form of vapour after the cracker bursts. This release of vapour suppresses the dust. 
 
STAR, which is known as a “safe thermite cracker”, does not contain sulphur and potassium nitrate, and releases reduced particulate matter at lesser sound intensity. 
 
SAFAL refers to safe minimal aluminium in which aluminium is minimally used and magnesium is used instead. This also emits less noise compared to traditional crackers.

(With inputs from agencies)

On November 7, India's Supreme Court gave a clarification over its order to ban firecrackers across the country. The Court stated that the use of firecrackers, which are filled with barium and other banned chemicals, is banned in the entire nation, and not only in the National Capital Region.

On November 7, India's Supreme Court gave a clarification over its order to ban firecrackers across the country. The Court stated that the use of firecrackers, which are filled with barium and other banned chemicals, is banned in the entire nation, and not only in the National Capital Region. The clarification was given by a bench, comprising Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh, when they were hearing an application which was seeking direction to the Rajasthan government for complying with the order of the top court on the on barium crackers and decreasing air and noise pollution. “At this juncture, no specific order will be necessary in as much as this Court in the course of hearing the petitions has passed several orders, where steps have been indicated to minimise and avoid air as well as noise pollution. Hence the said orders will bind every state in the country, including the state of Rajasthan,” stated a bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh, in its order. “Therefore, we make it clear that the state of Rajasthan would also take note of this and take all steps to minimise air and noise pollution, not only during the festival season but even thereafter," it added. The Supreme Court's order came as India is gearing up for Diwali celebrations on November 12. The order raised questions like what type of firecrackers are permitted in the country and what are these firecrackers made of? What orders have been issued by the Supreme Court on firecrackers? The apex court in October 2018 placed a ban on the sale and production of all crackers except ‘green crackers’ and also those which have reduced emissions or improved crackers. The sale and manufacture of ‘joined crackers’ (which are long rows of joined crackers) was also banned and the use of barium salts in firecrackers was not permitted. The court had also stated that their noise levels should remain within permissible limits. This was reiterated by the October in its order issued on October 29, 2021. In September, the Supreme Court turned down a plea submitted by the firecracker manufacturers’ association which sought permission to the use of joined crackers and to add barium salt along with improved additives in the green crackers. The use and sale of all types of firecrackers in the National Capital Region was banned by the National Green Tribunal in 2020, which stated that the green crackers would only be allowed in towns and cities where air quality was poor or moderate. ALSO READ | Directions to regulate firecrackers meant for entire India, not just Delhi: Supreme Court What are firecrackers made of? Generally, the firecrackers are made with four primary ingredients — colouring agents, fuel, oxidiser, and binder. An oxidiser is added to the cracker so that it can catch fire, the fuel helps in sustaining it and colouring agents add the colours and sparkles to the crackers, while the mixture is held in place by the binder till the cracker has been spent completely. Chemicals such as barium are a type of colouring agent, and they were banned by the court because they harmfully impact the health of human beings. These chemicals cause skin allergies, breathing difficulties, irritation in the respiratory tract, and even cancer. In a cracker, aluminium, magnesium and titanium emit the white colour, while carbon or iron emit orange colour. Similarly, sodium compounds work as yellow agents, while copper compounds and strontium carbonates emit blue and red colours, respectively. The green agent is barium chlorate barium nitrate or barium monochloride salts. What are green crackers that cause less pollution? Former director of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research’s National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI) Dr Rakesh Kumar, while speaking to The Indian Express in 2018, stated that green crackers have been named so because they “do not contain harmful chemicals” which can cause air pollution. In the green crackers, the components used in traditional crackers are replaced with others which are “less dangerous” and “less harmful” to the atmosphere. A network of CSIR labs, which included the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, National Botanical Research Institute and National Chemical Laboratory, had researched the ways of producing green crackers. WATCH | India: New Delhi puts firecracker ban ahead of Diwali, 3 years in jail if caught bursting crackers These green crackers release water vapour that works as a dust suppressant and emits less-harmful chemicals. Such crackers are divided into three broad categories SWAS, SAFAL and STAR, which have been defined by CSIR. SWAS stands for “safe water releaser” and it contains a small water pocket which gets released in the form of vapour after the cracker bursts. This release of vapour suppresses the dust. STAR, which is known as a “safe thermite cracker”, does not contain sulphur and potassium nitrate, and releases reduced particulate matter at lesser sound intensity. SAFAL refers to safe minimal aluminium in which aluminium is minimally used and magnesium is used instead. This also emits less noise compared to traditional crackers. (With inputs from agencies)

Explained | What kind of fireworks are allowed across India after SC's ban on crackers?

The Indian Supreme Court has directed chief justices of high courts to set up special benches to monitor and ensure the speedy disposal of cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs)

Indian Supreme Court directive: Set up special benches to expediate cases

Delhi’s Environment Minister Gopal Rai on Tuesday (Nov 7) said that the order of the Supreme Court will be first studied by the government and then the national capital’s odd-even rule will be finalised.

The minister’s reaction came after the government was rapped by the apex court on Tuesday (Nov 7) for the increasing pollution in the National Capital Region and asked if the odd-even scheme, which is aimed at decreasing the number of cars plying on the roads of the capital city, has ever achieved success.

"It's all optics," said the top court, one day after an announcement was made by the Delhi government regarding the implementation of the odd-even scheme in Delhi-NCR from November 13 to November 20.

The transport department gathered on Tuesday to decide the details of the odd-even rule. "But meanwhile we came across some observations made by the Supreme Court. So now instead of announcing the odd-even rules, we will go through the order/observations of the Supreme Court. After studying them, we will incorporate them into the scheme," Gopal Rai stated.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-poor-aqi-what-is-grap-and-its-stages-indian-capitals-pollution-control-plan-655984">Delhi poor AQI: What is GRAP and its stages? Indian capital's pollution control plan</a>

"Odd-even has been implemented in Delhi, but has it ever succeeded? It's all optics," said Justice SK Kaul, as a bench comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SK Kaul heard the case of Delhi pollution.

<h2>SC slams neighbouring states, including Punjab, over Delhi pollution crisis</h2>

The Supreme Court said that Delhi’s air pollution cannot be turned into a political battle, as it held the choking air quality responsible for the "murder of people's health".&nbsp;

The burning of crop residue in neighbouring states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab was held as a key factor behind the deteriorating air pollution in the national capital every winter by the court.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;India's supreme court on Delhi pollution: Odd-even scheme is 'mere optics'

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indias-supreme-court-on-delhi-pollution-odd-even-scheme-is-mere-optics-656162/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The state governments, including Punjab, were asked by the court to take measures to stop the burning of the stubble. "We want it stopped. We don't know how you do it, it's your job. But it must be stopped. Something has to be done immediately," the court stated.&nbsp;

The Delhi government was also not spared by the court either. "Delhi government also must be responsible. There are many buses running that pollute and run at half capacity. You have to attend to the problem," it stated.

For the last five days, Delhi has been facing deteriorating air quality with physical classes in schools getting closed till November 10. The government has ordered to stop non-essential construction work and an embargo has been imposed on a few vehicles as the air quality slipped into the severe category.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi’s Environment Minister Gopal Rai on Tuesday (Nov 7) said that the order of the Supreme Court will be first studied by the government and then the national capital’s odd-even rule will be finalised.

Delhi’s Environment Minister Gopal Rai on Tuesday (Nov 7) said that the order of the Supreme Court will be first studied by the government and then the national capital’s odd-even rule will be finalised. The minister’s reaction came after the government was rapped by the apex court on Tuesday (Nov 7) for the increasing pollution in the National Capital Region and asked if the odd-even scheme, which is aimed at decreasing the number of cars plying on the roads of the capital city, has ever achieved success. "It's all optics," said the top court, one day after an announcement was made by the Delhi government regarding the implementation of the odd-even scheme in Delhi-NCR from November 13 to November 20. The transport department gathered on Tuesday to decide the details of the odd-even rule. "But meanwhile we came across some observations made by the Supreme Court. So now instead of announcing the odd-even rules, we will go through the order/observations of the Supreme Court. After studying them, we will incorporate them into the scheme," Gopal Rai stated. ALSO READ | Delhi poor AQI: What is GRAP and its stages? Indian capital's pollution control plan "Odd-even has been implemented in Delhi, but has it ever succeeded? It's all optics," said Justice SK Kaul, as a bench comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SK Kaul heard the case of Delhi pollution. SC slams neighbouring states, including Punjab, over Delhi pollution crisis The Supreme Court said that Delhi’s air pollution cannot be turned into a political battle, as it held the choking air quality responsible for the "murder of people's health". The burning of crop residue in neighbouring states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab was held as a key factor behind the deteriorating air pollution in the national capital every winter by the court. Watch | India's supreme court on Delhi pollution: Odd-even scheme is 'mere optics' The state governments, including Punjab, were asked by the court to take measures to stop the burning of the stubble. "We want it stopped. We don't know how you do it, it's your job. But it must be stopped. Something has to be done immediately," the court stated. The Delhi government was also not spared by the court either. "Delhi government also must be responsible. There are many buses running that pollute and run at half capacity. You have to attend to the problem," it stated. For the last five days, Delhi has been facing deteriorating air quality with physical classes in schools getting closed till November 10. The government has ordered to stop non-essential construction work and an embargo has been imposed on a few vehicles as the air quality slipped into the severe category. (With inputs from agencies)

Delhi govt to consider SC’s remarks over odd-even rule, after latter calls it ‘mere optics’

Pakistan President Arif Alvi and the country's election body on Thursday (Nov 2) reached a consensus on holding general elections on February 8 next year. This comes after a deadlock over the poll dates continued for months.&nbsp;

Earlier in the day, in a letter by CEC Raja addressed to the president, 11 February was proposed as the election date.&nbsp;&nbsp;Supreme Court while hearing petitions over the delayed polls asked the electoral body to discuss the issue with the president.&nbsp;

The ECP then held a meeting with the Pakistan president. A delegation led by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikander Sultan Raja held discussions with the president at the Aiwan-i-Sadr in Islamabad, reported Dawn.

Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan was also present at the meeting along with the delegation from ECP.&nbsp;“After a detailed discussion, the meeting unanimously agreed to hold general elections in the country on February 8, 2024,” as per a statement by the Presidency.&nbsp;

Anwaar ul Haq Kakar took office as Pakistan's interim prime minister on August 14. Pakistan's National Assembly (lower house of parliament) was dissolved on August 9 on former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif's directions. After that, as per Pakistan's Constitution, the president was obliged to hold elections within 90 days of an early dissolution.

Als Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sizeable-hole-spotted-in-parachute-used-by-astronauts-landing-from-tiangong-space-station-watch-654309">China: Sizeable hole spotted in parachute used by astronauts landing from Tiangong space station. Watch</a>

There had been a bunch of petitions seeking general elections,&nbsp;and just as the poll body made the announcement, the apex court was hearing these pleas.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, during the hearing, urged the election body to give the apex court some clarity over the looming issue of delayed polls.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/know-something-about-aliens-or-ufos-pentagon-wants-to-know-launches-online-reporting-tool-654294">Know something about aliens or UFOs? You can tell Pentagon all about it here</a>

Responding to this, the ECP lawyer Sajeel Swati&nbsp;said, “All arrangements including the drawing of constituencies will be completed by Jan 29,” and added that the final list of constituencies will be published on December 5.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-authorises-the-arrest-of-illegal-foreign-nationals-as-the-deadline-expires-653953">Pakistan authorises the arrest of illegal foreign nationals, as the deadline expires</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/pakistan-authorises-the-arrest-of-illegal-foreign-nationals-as-the-deadline-expires-653953/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In addition the lawyer also confirmed that the poll body is vying to hold polls on a Sunday, keeping in view the ease of the public. “Hence we decided that elections will be held on Feb 11, which is the second Sunday,” the lawyer had added ahead of the reached agreement for February 8 to be the date for the polls.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

The outcome of the elections next year is highly unpredictable. The country's former PM Imran Khan, who was quite popular among the voters and held significant clout, is behind bars while the three-time PM Nawaz Sharif returned to the country after years of self-exile.&nbsp;

WION in a previous article reflected on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/explained-nawaz-sharif-returns-to-pakistan-his-past-present-and-future-650204">Nawaz Sharif's past, present and future</a>&nbsp;and also explained the anticipated dynamics between the Pakistani Army and the stalwart leader.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Former ECP secretary Kanwar Dilshad, while speaking to Dawn, also revealed that following the general elections, Senate elections are expected to be held on March 5-6. “And by my estimates, the president will be elected after March 15-16,” Dilshad reportedly said.

He said that now “ECP is bound to follow the guidelines of the SC." "It was a major decision to announce the date to the court and it would be impossible to walk back from it now," he added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Pakistan President Arif Alvi and the country's election body on Thursday (Nov 2) reached a consensus on holding general elections on February 8 next year. This comes after a deadlock over the poll dates continued for months.

Pakistan President Arif Alvi and the country's election body on Thursday (Nov 2) reached a consensus on holding general elections on February 8 next year. This comes after a deadlock over the poll dates continued for months. Earlier in the day, in a letter by CEC Raja addressed to the president, 11 February was proposed as the election date. Supreme Court while hearing petitions over the delayed polls asked the electoral body to discuss the issue with the president. The ECP then held a meeting with the Pakistan president. A delegation led by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikander Sultan Raja held discussions with the president at the Aiwan-i-Sadr in Islamabad, reported Dawn. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan was also present at the meeting along with the delegation from ECP. “After a detailed discussion, the meeting unanimously agreed to hold general elections in the country on February 8, 2024,” as per a statement by the Presidency. Anwaar ul Haq Kakar took office as Pakistan's interim prime minister on August 14. Pakistan's National Assembly (lower house of parliament) was dissolved on August 9 on former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif's directions. After that, as per Pakistan's Constitution, the president was obliged to hold elections within 90 days of an early dissolution. Als Read | China: Sizeable hole spotted in parachute used by astronauts landing from Tiangong space station. Watch There had been a bunch of petitions seeking general elections, and just as the poll body made the announcement, the apex court was hearing these pleas. Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, during the hearing, urged the election body to give the apex court some clarity over the looming issue of delayed polls. Also Read | Know something about aliens or UFOs? You can tell Pentagon all about it here Responding to this, the ECP lawyer Sajeel Swati said, “All arrangements including the drawing of constituencies will be completed by Jan 29,” and added that the final list of constituencies will be published on December 5. Watch | Pakistan authorises the arrest of illegal foreign nationals, as the deadline expires × In addition the lawyer also confirmed that the poll body is vying to hold polls on a Sunday, keeping in view the ease of the public. “Hence we decided that elections will be held on Feb 11, which is the second Sunday,” the lawyer had added ahead of the reached agreement for February 8 to be the date for the polls. The outcome of the elections next year is highly unpredictable. The country's former PM Imran Khan, who was quite popular among the voters and held significant clout, is behind bars while the three-time PM Nawaz Sharif returned to the country after years of self-exile. WION in a previous article reflected on Nawaz Sharif's past, present and future and also explained the anticipated dynamics between the Pakistani Army and the stalwart leader. Former ECP secretary Kanwar Dilshad, while speaking to Dawn, also revealed that following the general elections, Senate elections are expected to be held on March 5-6. “And by my estimates, the president will be elected after March 15-16,” Dilshad reportedly said. He said that now “ECP is bound to follow the guidelines of the SC." "It was a major decision to announce the date to the court and it would be impossible to walk back from it now," he added. (With inputs from agencies)

Pakistan poll body, Prez agree on 8 Feb next year as general elections date 

The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30).&nbsp;

Amid Trump’s many legal woes, a Colorado court began hearing yet another lawsuit which has sought to bar the Republican from the 2024 presidential election on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by engaging in an insurrection.

The week-long trial began on Monday in a Colorado district court. The lawsuit seeks to bar the state’s top election official from putting Trump on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.&nbsp;

The rarely-used, Civil War-era provision ratified in 1868 of the US Constitution bars people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office after once pledging to support and defend the Constitution.&nbsp;

<h2>What are the arguments?</h2>

During the opening arguments in the lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Eric Olson, an attorney representing voters and the advocacy group said, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol, to stop the peaceful transition of power.”&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-abandons-500-mln-lawsuit-against-former-attorney-michael-cohen-643165">Trump abandons $500 mln lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen</a>

He added, “We are here because Trump claims that after all that, he has the right to be president again…but our Constitution, our shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”

The then-President Trump reportedly spent weeks ahead of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud following his defeat in the 2020 election against Democrat Joe Biden.&nbsp;

The former president then encouraged his supporters to rally in Washington and march on the US Capitol where lawmakers were certifying Biden’s win. On the day, Trump only hours&nbsp;later, urged rioters to go home.

Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gesler, has denied that Trump incited supporters and said it would set a dangerous precedent to disqualify him based on “legal theories that have never been embraced by a state or federal court.”

“People should be able to run for office and shouldn’t be punished for their speech.” Gesler also called the lawsuit “anti-democratic” and urged the judge to throw it out.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fraud-case-temporary-respite-for-ex-us-prez-as-judge-orders-hold-on-cancelling-his-business-licences-643511">Trump fraud case: Temporary respite for ex-US prez as judge orders hold on cancelling his business licences</a>

<h2>‘Long shot’</h2>

The case, as per Reuters citing several legal experts, raises largely untested legal questions and even if the advocacy group manages to win the final decision, it may be taken up by the Supreme Court. The apex court is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees.&nbsp;

US Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, testified for the Colorado lawsuit and said Trump’s attempts to decrease tensions hours after the violence began did very little to calm the lawmakers who were placed under lockdown and later certified the elections.

“I feared that if Republicans were going to continue to challenge the outcome, the mob would return and the scene on the floor could become combustible,” said Swalwell, as quoted by Reuters. &nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fined-10000-for-breaking-gag-order-amid-ongoing-new-york-civil-fraud-trial-651320">Trump fined $10,000 for violating gag order amid ongoing New York civil fraud trial</a>

The former president also faces similar lawsuits brought by advocacy groups in the US states of Michigan and Minnesota.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30).

The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30). Amid Trump’s many legal woes, a Colorado court began hearing yet another lawsuit which has sought to bar the Republican from the 2024 presidential election on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by engaging in an insurrection. The week-long trial began on Monday in a Colorado district court. The lawsuit seeks to bar the state’s top election official from putting Trump on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The rarely-used, Civil War-era provision ratified in 1868 of the US Constitution bars people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office after once pledging to support and defend the Constitution. What are the arguments? During the opening arguments in the lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Eric Olson, an attorney representing voters and the advocacy group said, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol, to stop the peaceful transition of power.” ALSO READ | Trump abandons $500 mln lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen He added, “We are here because Trump claims that after all that, he has the right to be president again…but our Constitution, our shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.” The then-President Trump reportedly spent weeks ahead of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud following his defeat in the 2020 election against Democrat Joe Biden. The former president then encouraged his supporters to rally in Washington and march on the US Capitol where lawmakers were certifying Biden’s win. On the day, Trump only hours later, urged rioters to go home. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gesler, has denied that Trump incited supporters and said it would set a dangerous precedent to disqualify him based on “legal theories that have never been embraced by a state or federal court.” “People should be able to run for office and shouldn’t be punished for their speech.” Gesler also called the lawsuit “anti-democratic” and urged the judge to throw it out. ALSO READ | Trump fraud case: Temporary respite for ex-US prez as judge orders hold on cancelling his business licences ‘Long shot’ The case, as per Reuters citing several legal experts, raises largely untested legal questions and even if the advocacy group manages to win the final decision, it may be taken up by the Supreme Court. The apex court is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees. US Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, testified for the Colorado lawsuit and said Trump’s attempts to decrease tensions hours after the violence began did very little to calm the lawmakers who were placed under lockdown and later certified the elections. “I feared that if Republicans were going to continue to challenge the outcome, the mob would return and the scene on the floor could become combustible,” said Swalwell, as quoted by Reuters. ALSO READ | Trump fined $10,000 for violating gag order amid ongoing New York civil fraud trial The former president also faces similar lawsuits brought by advocacy groups in the US states of Michigan and Minnesota. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Trump should be disqualified from 2024 presidential race for ‘insurrection’ on Jan 6, say lawyers

Defending the tenets of the electoral bond scheme, the Indian government told the Supreme Court that the citizens “don’t have the right to know” the sources of the funding of the political parties.

Responding to the pleas challenging the scheme, the federal government’s counsellor R Venkataramani, in a statement filed before the court on Monday (Oct 30), said that the scheme extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor.

"Firstly, there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions. Secondly, the right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise," he said, according to LiveLaw outlet.

<h2>Right to know cannot be extended to learn about fundings&nbsp;</h2>

He argued that the judgments upholding the citizens’ right to know of the criminal history of party candidates cannot extend&nbsp;to having the right to information regarding the funding of parties.

"Right to know for specific rightful expression was thus conceived. From that, it cannot be said that the right to know for general or broad ends necessarily follows.”

“Therefore, these judgments cannot be read as to suggest that a citizen has a right to information under Art. 19(1)(a) regarding funding of political party. If there is no right under Article 19(1)(a), the further question of locating reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) does not arise.”

The batch of pleas had challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, paving the way for the electoral bonds scheme that hides the identity and other details of donors.

The government said that there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions.

<h2>SC to start hearing pleas on October 31</h2>

“The right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise. Democracy is a wide concept and comprehends many aspects. Right to know for the general health of democracy will be too over-broad,” said Venkataramani’s&nbsp;submissions.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-up-migrant-worker-killed-by-terrorists-in-jammu-and-kashmir-653062">India: Migrant worker from UP killed by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir</a>

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing the batch of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme on October 31.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-eam-s-jaishankar-meets-families-of-indian-detained-in-qatar-652873">India's EAM S Jaishankar meets families of Indians detained in Qatar</a>

The bench consists of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

On October 16, a three-judge bench comprising CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra had referred the matter to a 5-judge bench "in view of the importance of issue raised".

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Defending the tenets of the electoral bond scheme, the Indian government told the Supreme Court that the citizens “don’t have the right to know” the sources of the funding of the political parties.

Defending the tenets of the electoral bond scheme, the Indian government told the Supreme Court that the citizens “don’t have the right to know” the sources of the funding of the political parties. Responding to the pleas challenging the scheme, the federal government’s counsellor R Venkataramani, in a statement filed before the court on Monday (Oct 30), said that the scheme extends the benefit of confidentiality to the contributor. "Firstly, there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions. Secondly, the right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise," he said, according to LiveLaw outlet. Right to know cannot be extended to learn about fundings He argued that the judgments upholding the citizens’ right to know of the criminal history of party candidates cannot extend to having the right to information regarding the funding of parties. "Right to know for specific rightful expression was thus conceived. From that, it cannot be said that the right to know for general or broad ends necessarily follows.” “Therefore, these judgments cannot be read as to suggest that a citizen has a right to information under Art. 19(1)(a) regarding funding of political party. If there is no right under Article 19(1)(a), the further question of locating reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) does not arise.” The batch of pleas had challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, paving the way for the electoral bonds scheme that hides the identity and other details of donors. The government said that there can be no general right to know anything and everything without being subjected to reasonable restrictions. SC to start hearing pleas on October 31 “The right to know as necessary for expression can be for specific ends or purposes and not otherwise. Democracy is a wide concept and comprehends many aspects. Right to know for the general health of democracy will be too over-broad,” said Venkataramani’s submissions. Also read | India: Migrant worker from UP killed by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir A constitution bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing the batch of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme on October 31. Also read | India's EAM S Jaishankar meets families of Indians detained in Qatar The bench consists of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. On October 16, a three-judge bench comprising CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra had referred the matter to a 5-judge bench "in view of the importance of issue raised". (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Citizens don’t have right to know sources of political parties' fundings: Indian govt to Supreme Court

Japan's Supreme Court has said that a law that requires transgender people in the country to undergo sterilisation before gender-change surgery is unconstitutional, reported Nikkei newspaper.

The strilisation requirement was previously denounced by several international organisations including the European court of human rights saying that such a condition was discriminatory and infringed upon human rights.

The Japanese Supreme Court's grand bench consisting 15 justices deemed the condition to sterilise unconstitutional. The court had ruled in 2019 that the requirement was constitutional.

Although the latest decision was welcomed by rights groups, the judges' decision to ask a lower court to deliberate on a separate clause has led to disappointment. This clause requires that genitals of the people who want to change gender resemble those of the gender they wish to change into.

“This decision was very unexpected and I’m very surprised,” The Guardian quoted the unnamed plaintiff who it said was a transgender woman under the age of 50.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the government must now follow up.

&nbsp;“The government is under the obligation to make any laws constitutional so the government now needs to act quickly to remove the clause,” said Kanae Doi, director of HRW in Japan.

The law in Japan mandates that people wishing to undergo sex-change should present diagnosis of gender dysphoria and in addition meet five requirements.

These are,

-Being at least 18 years old.

-Being unmarried

-Not having children who are underage.

-Having genitals that resemble those of the opposite gender.

-Not having reproduction glands or having ones which have lost function permanently.

The lawyers for the plaintiff said that the last two requirement were violative of the plaintiff's constitutional right of pursuit of happiness and living without discrimination.

Transgender rights have remained a controversial issue in Japan.

Japan's Supreme Court has said that a law that requires transgender people in the country to undergo sterilisation before gender-change surgery is unconstitutional, reported Nikkei newspaper.

Japan's Supreme Court has said that a law that requires transgender people in the country to undergo sterilisation before gender-change surgery is unconstitutional, reported Nikkei newspaper. The strilisation requirement was previously denounced by several international organisations including the European court of human rights saying that such a condition was discriminatory and infringed upon human rights. The Japanese Supreme Court's grand bench consisting 15 justices deemed the condition to sterilise unconstitutional. The court had ruled in 2019 that the requirement was constitutional. Although the latest decision was welcomed by rights groups, the judges' decision to ask a lower court to deliberate on a separate clause has led to disappointment. This clause requires that genitals of the people who want to change gender resemble those of the gender they wish to change into. “This decision was very unexpected and I’m very surprised,” The Guardian quoted the unnamed plaintiff who it said was a transgender woman under the age of 50. Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the government must now follow up. “The government is under the obligation to make any laws constitutional so the government now needs to act quickly to remove the clause,” said Kanae Doi, director of HRW in Japan. The law in Japan mandates that people wishing to undergo sex-change should present diagnosis of gender dysphoria and in addition meet five requirements. These are, -Being at least 18 years old. -Being unmarried -Not having children who are underage. -Having genitals that resemble those of the opposite gender. -Not having reproduction glands or having ones which have lost function permanently. The lawyers for the plaintiff said that the last two requirement were violative of the plaintiff's constitutional right of pursuit of happiness and living without discrimination. Transgender rights have remained a controversial issue in Japan.

Japanese Supreme Court deems sterilisation as precondition for sex-change unconstitutional

Pakistani Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 23) declared the trial of civilians in military courts in the wake of violent protests on May 9 unconstitutional.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the five-judge bench said that the suspects' military trial would be conducted in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime.

Notably, the state can still file for a re-appeal before a full court.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict, reports Dawn newspaper.

<h2>Petitioner&nbsp;hails verdict</h2>

Following the verdict, one of the petitioners, Aitzaz Ahsan, spoke to the media and termed the order “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, the constitution and the justice system”, reports Dawn newspaper.

“We were against military courts and we endeavoured against it. The verdict has shown that giving relief is the prerogative of the SC,” he was quoted as saying.

He also alleged that trials had begun even though the government had stated that this would not happen until the apex court was informed.

“The government informed the SC but after the commencement of the trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials [began],” he said.

<h2>The May 9 riots</h2>

The riots were triggered by the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan by paramilitary Rangers on the premises of Islamabad High Court in a corruption case.

These suspects were arrested following the violence on May 9 during which civilian and military installations were specifically targeted.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-former-pm-imran-khan-charged-in-cipher-case-650282">Cipher case: Former Pak PM Imran Khan indicted in leaked documents case</a>

Around 102 persons were detained for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nawaz-sharif-laments-current-economic-condition-of-pakistan-vows-to-work-toward-recovery-649773">Improving relations with neighbour key for Kashmir resolution, says Nawaz Sharif</a>

More than 100 vehicles of police and other security agencies were set on fire.

In response, the law enforcement agencies cracked down hard on Imran Khan’s supporters from his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and arrested over 10,000 members across Pakistan, of which 4,000 of them were from Punjab province only.

The PTI, however, continued to claim that its members were not involved in the attacks, but the government and military rejected it saying they have "irrefutable evidence" of their involvement.

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Pakistani Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 23) declared the trial of civilians in military courts in the wake of violent protests on May 9 unconstitutional. In a 4-1 majority ruling, the five-judge bench said that the suspects' military trial would be conducted in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime.

Pakistani Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 23) declared the trial of civilians in military courts in the wake of violent protests on May 9 unconstitutional. In a 4-1 majority ruling, the five-judge bench said that the suspects' military trial would be conducted in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime. Notably, the state can still file for a re-appeal before a full court. Justice Ijazul Ahsan headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict, reports Dawn newspaper. Petitioner hails verdict Following the verdict, one of the petitioners, Aitzaz Ahsan, spoke to the media and termed the order “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, the constitution and the justice system”, reports Dawn newspaper. “We were against military courts and we endeavoured against it. The verdict has shown that giving relief is the prerogative of the SC,” he was quoted as saying. He also alleged that trials had begun even though the government had stated that this would not happen until the apex court was informed. “The government informed the SC but after the commencement of the trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials [began],” he said. The May 9 riots The riots were triggered by the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan by paramilitary Rangers on the premises of Islamabad High Court in a corruption case. These suspects were arrested following the violence on May 9 during which civilian and military installations were specifically targeted. Also read | Cipher case: Former Pak PM Imran Khan indicted in leaked documents case Around 102 persons were detained for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad. Also read | Improving relations with neighbour key for Kashmir resolution, says Nawaz Sharif More than 100 vehicles of police and other security agencies were set on fire. In response, the law enforcement agencies cracked down hard on Imran Khan’s supporters from his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and arrested over 10,000 members across Pakistan, of which 4,000 of them were from Punjab province only. The PTI, however, continued to claim that its members were not involved in the attacks, but the government and military rejected it saying they have "irrefutable evidence" of their involvement. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Pakistani Supreme Court rules against army trials of ex-PM Imran Khan's supporters

India's Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Tuesday (Oct 17), rejected the pleas for the legalisation of same-sex marriage&nbsp;while clearly stating that it is for the parliament to make laws and the court can only scrutinise and interpret them. 
 
The verdict delivered by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court left many puzzled who failed to understand why the court, even after sympathising with the LGBTQ community and being vocal about their rights, failed to give legal recognition to their marriage and threw the ball in the court of lawmakers. 
 
Speaking exclusively to WION, former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra explained why legislation is needed in the case of same-sex marriage. 
 
"The legal recognition of a relationship like marriage has some legal incidents. There are many incidents in such homosexual relationships. The cases of separation or break up in such relations are as frequent as among heterosexuals. If the homosexual couple adopts a child and then separates, where does the child go? You will have to protect the rights of the child also," said Malhotra, who was India's first woman advocate to become the judge of the apex court.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-courts-verdict-quashed-the-hopes-of-millions-say-lgbt-rights-activists-648059">Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists</a>

"I think we made a lot of progress in this country, but legal recognition means legal implication. You have to protect many aspects of marriage like divorce, domestic violence, separation, alimony and child custody. So you can't do it away with a court verdict. These are matters of legislation and this is how they have to evolve. There are many legal aspects to be considered in&nbsp;it and I also believe that there has to be legislation on it," she added. 
 
Malhotra further emphasised that cases of domestic violence are involved in such relationships, about which people are unaware. Hence, she said that since there are so many legal incidents, this has to come through the law.

<h2>Constitution of the committee – a hope ahead for homosexuals' equal representation?</h2>

Speaking about the constitution of the committee which will look into the issues of homosexuals as was said by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Malhotra said, "Once the committee does the preliminary exercise they will do legislative drafting and then they will table it in the Parliament. The committee constituted will certainly get people to represent the LGBTQ community from the well-established NGOs, which have been working in this direction and have good public representation." 
 
She further emphasised how the government is sympathetic towards homosexuals and is willing to pave the path for them in the future which ensures equal rights to them as well.

WATCH |&nbsp;Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/same-sex-marriage-indias-top-court-refuses-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-648084/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

 
"The very fact that today they are accepted socially and homosexuality has been decriminalised, is the biggest progress with respect to transgenders, homosexuals, gays and lesbians. There was so much social ostracism against them. Today, all that has gone. They are treated with a lot of sympathy and care. The NGOs which have come up are effectively representing this and today, the government is sympathetic to it. The government is mindful of the evolution of society. Since there is so much upheaval and a lot of public view on this, I think the government will progress on this issue. They are coming out with legislation in phases and it is helping them," she said.

You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

India's Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Tuesday (Oct 17), rejected the pleas for the legalisation of same-sex marriage while clearly stating that it is for the parliament to make laws and the court can only scrutinise and interpret them.

India's Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Tuesday (Oct 17), rejected the pleas for the legalisation of same-sex marriage while clearly stating that it is for the parliament to make laws and the court can only scrutinise and interpret them. The verdict delivered by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court left many puzzled who failed to understand why the court, even after sympathising with the LGBTQ community and being vocal about their rights, failed to give legal recognition to their marriage and threw the ball in the court of lawmakers. Speaking exclusively to WION, former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra explained why legislation is needed in the case of same-sex marriage. "The legal recognition of a relationship like marriage has some legal incidents. There are many incidents in such homosexual relationships. The cases of separation or break up in such relations are as frequent as among heterosexuals. If the homosexual couple adopts a child and then separates, where does the child go? You will have to protect the rights of the child also," said Malhotra, who was India's first woman advocate to become the judge of the apex court. ALSO READ | Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists "I think we made a lot of progress in this country, but legal recognition means legal implication. You have to protect many aspects of marriage like divorce, domestic violence, separation, alimony and child custody. So you can't do it away with a court verdict. These are matters of legislation and this is how they have to evolve. There are many legal aspects to be considered in it and I also believe that there has to be legislation on it," she added. Malhotra further emphasised that cases of domestic violence are involved in such relationships, about which people are unaware. Hence, she said that since there are so many legal incidents, this has to come through the law. Constitution of the committee – a hope ahead for homosexuals' equal representation? Speaking about the constitution of the committee which will look into the issues of homosexuals as was said by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Malhotra said, "Once the committee does the preliminary exercise they will do legislative drafting and then they will table it in the Parliament. The committee constituted will certainly get people to represent the LGBTQ community from the well-established NGOs, which have been working in this direction and have good public representation." She further emphasised how the government is sympathetic towards homosexuals and is willing to pave the path for them in the future which ensures equal rights to them as well. WATCH | Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage "The very fact that today they are accepted socially and homosexuality has been decriminalised, is the biggest progress with respect to transgenders, homosexuals, gays and lesbians. There was so much social ostracism against them. Today, all that has gone. They are treated with a lot of sympathy and care. The NGOs which have come up are effectively representing this and today, the government is sympathetic to it. The government is mindful of the evolution of society. Since there is so much upheaval and a lot of public view on this, I think the government will progress on this issue. They are coming out with legislation in phases and it is helping them," she said. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community.&nbsp;

From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on&nbsp;LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative.&nbsp;

<h2>Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India</h2>

The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh.

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-live-india-awaits-historical-judgement-647796">Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage</a>

While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it.&nbsp;

The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;

Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?"

As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle."

They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land."

<h2>'Hope is not lost'</h2>

"In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost."

"By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial</a>

Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity."

However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc.

"On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age."

She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so."

Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active&nbsp;member&nbsp;of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight."

"We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;fight," he said.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture.

India is considered one of the most culturally diverse nations globally. A big part of this culture since ancient times is its queer community. From the sculptures of Khajuraho to characters like Shikhandi in Indian mythology, the LGBTQIA+ community has played a huge role in Indian culture. In spite of that, the community has long been constitutionally deprived of basic rights like marriage. On Tuesday, 17th October 2023, the Indian Supreme court announced a verdict on LGBT rights like marriage and adoption. The top court failed to recognise gay marriage and said that the decision lies with India's legislative. Supreme Court verdict and the queer community in India The verdict has "quashed the hopes of millions," said Queering in Chandigarh (QiC), an LGBT collective based in Indian Union Territory Chandigarh. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, had divided views on the various civil petitions before it. Also read | Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage While the bench concurred that queerness as a concept is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elite, it said the court can't make law, but only interpret it. The justices also said that it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act. Talking to WION, QiC questioned the bench's insistence over separation of power, and said: "It is said that separation of powers is the best safeguard for human liberty in a liberal democracy, but what happens when that separation of powers argument comes to hinder the growth and development of a section of the populace of the democracy?" As per the queer collective, "CJI D Y Chandrachud, while having positivity in his views on the matter, shielded himself and his bench’s decision of not recognising same-sex marriage in India, behind separation of power principle." They said that "despite the various arguments that the CJI came up with to show support and solidarity with the community, he failed to bring about a change in the laws of the land." 'Hope is not lost' "In some form or the other (the judgement), quashed the hopes of millions," said Pranav Puri, a core member of QiC. However, he added that "while today is not the day we get our rights, all hope is not lost." "By recognising that homosexuality is not an urban and elite concept, the five judge bench went in direct contradiction to the stand of the union government, who have been in stern opposition of the case," he added. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial Simran Chawla, founder of QiC noted that "while everybody in the community hoped that the decision would be positive, there was a hint of negativity that was harboured seeing the environment of our social-polity." However, Chawla acknowledged the merit of CJI Chandrachud's judgement regarding section 4 of the Special Marriage Act - which deals with polygamy, minimum age of marriage, soundness of mind of the two parties, etc. "On the aspect of annulment of section 4 of the SMA, I have to stand with the learned CJI, where he said that if we strike down that section, it would send India back to the pre-independence age." She said, "while we want our rights to be added to the pre-existing jurisprudence of the country, any action that gives me my right, but infringes upon the right of the other (which is already in place) should not be done so." Hemakshi (he/him), who is part of India's queer community and an active member of QiC emphasised that the journey ahead would be challenging but affirmed the ongoing commitment to the "fight." "We appreciate the efforts of the queer activists, lawyers and visionaries who have paved the way for us to reach here. We're grateful for them, and we'll continue to join them in this fight," he said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Exclusive | Supreme Court's verdict 'quashed the hopes of millions', say LGBT rights activists

In a landmark 3:2 judgment, the Indian Supreme Court decided not to legalise same-sex marriage and asked the union government to form a committee to examine the rights which can be given to LGBTQ couples. While the judgment may not have been in favour of them, it has paved the way for greater inclusivity for same-sex couples and laid the groundwork for future course of action.&nbsp;

Amit Bisoi, an LGBTQIA++ rights activist hailing from Puri, Odisha said, "There are a lot of positive remarks from three out of the five judges that emerged from today's session." The judgment, while refraining from legalising same-sex marriages, opened the doors to various rights that had been denied to the queer community for far too long, Bisoi said.&nbsp;

"Unmarried queer couples can now adopt children, and transgender persons can marry their chosen partner regardless of sexual orientation."

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-in-32-judgement-indias-top-court-refuses-to-legalise-marriage-equality-647921">Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise marriage equality</a>

"I, as a queer person, believe that what kind of family I want to form, what values I want to teach my future generations is in my hand. I am no one to force anyone to believe in my existence, or no one has the right to come &amp; harass me, my partner, or my family about my life and my choices," Bisoi said.

"Centre should create policies that will protect LGBTQIA++ couples from getting harassed, discriminated, or hated by public eyes. This isn't about a specific community anymore. This is about future generations who will be born next," Bisoi added.&nbsp;

The Indian Supreme Court's judgment, although not the final step, is a leap toward a more accepting society, where love knows no bounds, and every family is embraced for who they are.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-a-look-at-the-history-and-timeline-of-the-case-647760">India same-sex marriage verdict: A look at the history and timeline of the case</a>

Optimistic about the future, Jaspreet Singh, a queer activist, told WION, "Maybe not today, but yes, one day."&nbsp;

They are not giving up on their fight for love and equality.&nbsp;

Another member of the queer community, Adarsh from Cuttack in the east Indian state of Odisha, spoke about the importance of recognising the fundamental right to marriage for all.&nbsp;

"Marriage is just not an act, but rather a right and dignity for those who wish to tie in it in spite of their sex and sexual orientation. Marriages are not meant to define husband or wife but life partners Hence, marriage is a union of soul, which must be in right for all," Adarsh said.&nbsp;

Varun from the south Indian state of Hyderabad pointed out the power of the Supreme Court's ruling when it directed the centre, states, and Union Territories to end discrimination against the queer community.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/same-sex-marriage-verdict-indias-supreme-court-issues-historic-verdict-647963">Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: India's Supreme Court issues historic verdict</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/same-sex-marriage-verdict-indias-supreme-court-issues-historic-verdict-647963/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"I can sue anyone who discriminates against me, just like women can sue for the same."&nbsp;

Varun is hoping that this judgment will reinforce their rights to equal treatment under the law and further legalise same-sex marriages in India.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court's ruling, while disappointing to many, has brought the LGBTQ+ community even closer in pursuit of their rights. It is a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for equal rights and acceptance, fueling the hope that love and equality will eventually triumph.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In a landmark 3:2 judgment, the Indian Supreme Court decided not to legalise same-sex marriage and asked the union government to form a committee to examine the rights which can be given to LGBTQ couples.

In a landmark 3:2 judgment, the Indian Supreme Court decided not to legalise same-sex marriage and asked the union government to form a committee to examine the rights which can be given to LGBTQ couples. While the judgment may not have been in favour of them, it has paved the way for greater inclusivity for same-sex couples and laid the groundwork for future course of action. Amit Bisoi, an LGBTQIA++ rights activist hailing from Puri, Odisha said, "There are a lot of positive remarks from three out of the five judges that emerged from today's session." The judgment, while refraining from legalising same-sex marriages, opened the doors to various rights that had been denied to the queer community for far too long, Bisoi said. "Unmarried queer couples can now adopt children, and transgender persons can marry their chosen partner regardless of sexual orientation." Also Read | Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise marriage equality "I, as a queer person, believe that what kind of family I want to form, what values I want to teach my future generations is in my hand. I am no one to force anyone to believe in my existence, or no one has the right to come & harass me, my partner, or my family about my life and my choices," Bisoi said. "Centre should create policies that will protect LGBTQIA++ couples from getting harassed, discriminated, or hated by public eyes. This isn't about a specific community anymore. This is about future generations who will be born next," Bisoi added. The Indian Supreme Court's judgment, although not the final step, is a leap toward a more accepting society, where love knows no bounds, and every family is embraced for who they are. Also Read | India same-sex marriage verdict: A look at the history and timeline of the case Optimistic about the future, Jaspreet Singh, a queer activist, told WION, "Maybe not today, but yes, one day." They are not giving up on their fight for love and equality. Another member of the queer community, Adarsh from Cuttack in the east Indian state of Odisha, spoke about the importance of recognising the fundamental right to marriage for all. "Marriage is just not an act, but rather a right and dignity for those who wish to tie in it in spite of their sex and sexual orientation. Marriages are not meant to define husband or wife but life partners Hence, marriage is a union of soul, which must be in right for all," Adarsh said. Varun from the south Indian state of Hyderabad pointed out the power of the Supreme Court's ruling when it directed the centre, states, and Union Territories to end discrimination against the queer community. Watch | Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: India's Supreme Court issues historic verdict × "I can sue anyone who discriminates against me, just like women can sue for the same." Varun is hoping that this judgment will reinforce their rights to equal treatment under the law and further legalise same-sex marriages in India. The Supreme Court's ruling, while disappointing to many, has brought the LGBTQ+ community even closer in pursuit of their rights. It is a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for equal rights and acceptance, fueling the hope that love and equality will eventually triumph. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

After Indian SC verdict on same-sex marriage, queer community is hopeful: 'Maybe not today, but yes, one day'

In India, all eyes are on the Supreme Court which will announce today its verdict on the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the country. This is a landmark case for the LBBTQ+ rights in the country and follows a historic judgment by the Supreme Court in 2018 that decriminalized homosexuality.

India's top court to rule on same-sex marriage today

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