In India itself, 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: Verdict to be out on same-sex marriage as the top court is set to rule on it today

A five-judge bench rendered a verdict on Oct 17 that did not give any legal recognition to same-sex marriage in India. Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud said that the responsibility to establish laws pertaining to marriage lies with the Indian parliament.

Same-sex marriage verdict | India fails to recognise gay marriage

<p>A five-judge bench rendered a verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17) that did not give any&nbsp;legal recognition to same-sex marriage in India.</p>

<p>After considering arguments between April and May in the significant case, Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud declared that the court was not the appropriate body to make determinations in this matter, saying&nbsp;that the responsibility to establish laws pertaining to marriage lies with the Indian parliament.</p>

<h2><strong>‘Queerness is not urban or elite’: CJI Chandrachud</strong></h2>

<p>Chandrachud stated, “The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Chandrachud maintained that the state should provide legal protections to same-sex couples, asserting that the denial of "benefits and services" granted to heterosexual couples infringes upon the fundamental rights of LGBTQ individuals.</p>

<p>He highlighted the significance of choosing a life partner as an integral facet of personal decision-making, emphasising that this choice relates to the fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article 21 of India's constitution.</p>

<p>Chandrachud further recommended that the government take measures to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals. These steps include&nbsp;the establishment of helplines and safe houses for those vulnerable to discrimination, along with discontinuing medical procedures aimed at altering gender identity or sexual orientation.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/same-sex-marriage-verdict-a-look-at-the-history-and-timeline-of-the-case-647760">Also read |&nbsp;Same-sex marriage verdict: A look at the history and timeline of the case</a></p>

<p>However, the other three judges on the bench did not agree with this directive.</p>

<p>The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha. A total of four judgements were delivered, with “a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement,” the CJI said.</p>

<p><strong>Also watch |&nbsp;Japan: Landmark judgement favours LGBTQ community</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/japan-landmark-judgement-favours-lgbtq-community-371129/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>The court's decision was prompted by a petition arguing that the non-recognition of same-sex unions constituted a violation of the constitutional rights of LGBTQ individuals. The Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposed the petition, contending that the matter should be left to parliament and asserting that the appeal represented a viewpoint primarily of urban and elite sectors of society.</p>

<p>(With inputs from agencies)</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


A five-judge bench rendered a verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17) that did not give any legal recognition to same-sex marriage in India. After considering arguments between April and May in the significant case, Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud declared that the court was not the appropriate body to make determinations in this matter, saying that the responsibility to establish laws pertaining to marriage lies with the Indian parliament.

A five-judge bench rendered a verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17) that did not give any legal recognition to same-sex marriage in India. After considering arguments between April and May in the significant case, Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud declared that the court was not the appropriate body to make determinations in this matter, saying that the responsibility to establish laws pertaining to marriage lies with the Indian parliament. ‘Queerness is not urban or elite’: CJI Chandrachud Chandrachud stated, “The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain.” Chandrachud maintained that the state should provide legal protections to same-sex couples, asserting that the denial of "benefits and services" granted to heterosexual couples infringes upon the fundamental rights of LGBTQ individuals. He highlighted the significance of choosing a life partner as an integral facet of personal decision-making, emphasising that this choice relates to the fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article 21 of India's constitution. Chandrachud further recommended that the government take measures to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals. These steps include the establishment of helplines and safe houses for those vulnerable to discrimination, along with discontinuing medical procedures aimed at altering gender identity or sexual orientation. Also read | Same-sex marriage verdict: A look at the history and timeline of the case However, the other three judges on the bench did not agree with this directive. The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha. A total of four judgements were delivered, with “a degree of agreement and a degree of disagreement,” the CJI said. Also watch | Japan: Landmark judgement favours LGBTQ community The court's decision was prompted by a petition arguing that the non-recognition of same-sex unions constituted a violation of the constitutional rights of LGBTQ individuals. The Bharatiya Janata Party government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, opposed the petition, contending that the matter should be left to parliament and asserting that the appeal represented a viewpoint primarily of urban and elite sectors of society. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India's Supreme Court refuses to legalise same-sex marriage in 3:2 judgement

<p>Supriyo Chakraborty, one of the petitioners who had been fighting for the recognition of his same-sex marriage with partner Abhay Dange, is disappointed after the Indian Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17).</p>

<p>The apex court refused to pass a ruling recognising same-sex marriages, saying it is the role of the legislature to do so, even as it endorsed several issues close to the hearts of the LGBTQ community.</p>

<p>Chakraborty told WION, "We are deeply disappointed by the judgment today. Though the court has reiterated that queer people have the right to form relationships, they stopped well short of legal recognition."</p>

<p>Despite the landmark decision to decriminalise homosexuality in 2018, the couple, Chakraborty and Dange, were still facing difficulties in registering their marriage and obtaining legal status.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-indian-sc-verdict-on-same-sex-marriage-queer-community-is-hopeful-maybe-not-today-but-yes-one-day-648015">After Indian SC verdict on same-sex marriage, queer community is hopeful: 'Maybe not today, but yes, one day'</a></p>

<p>They had been together for over a decade and had celebrated their marriage in a grand ceremony on December 18, 2021, surrounded by friends and family.</p>

<p>Chakraborty said, "On a personal level, we feel proud that we fought this battle."&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Though we lost, lots of dinner table conversations were initiated because of this case. We remain hopeful that one day we will have full marriage equality."</p>

<p>But in the eyes of the law, their union remains unrecognised.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In an earlier conversation with WION, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/strangers-in-the-eyes-of-law-wion-speaks-with-hyderabad-gay-couple-569191">Supriyo </a>had said, "Marriage brings with it a basket of rights, such as the right to take healthcare decisions for your spouse, right to inheritance, etc. We want access to those rights, and hence it is very important to get legal recognition for our marriage."&nbsp;</p>

<p>Their marriage, blending two different cultural backgrounds in a mesmerising Bengali-Punjabi fusion, showed their love for each other.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The wedding festivities included a beautiful Mehendi, haldi, and sangeet function, celebrating their union with the same joy and fervor as any other couple.</p>

<p>Dange, Chakraborty's partner, revealed some of the practical challenges they faced due to the lack of legal status.&nbsp;</p>

<p>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></p>

<p>He shared, "It was very difficult for Supriyo to get address proof for our shared household as the house is in Abhay's name."&nbsp;</p>

<p>Unlike opposite-sex couples, who face no such hurdles, they had to navigate a complex web of legal complications.</p>

<section>
<p><strong>Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/same-sex-marriage-verdict-up-to-parliament-to-make-a-law-says-supreme-court-648028">Same-sex marriage verdict: Up to Parliament to make a law, says Supreme Court</a></strong></p>

<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-up-to-parliament-to-make-a-law-says-supreme-court-648028/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Dange had told WION, "We had to purchase two separate health insurance policies instead of single health insurance. Further, we can’t take healthcare decisions for one another and had to mention our parents’ names as nominees for our respective health insurance policies."</p>
</section>

<p>They now hope that their love would be fully recognised and protected by the law.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Supriyo Chakraborty, one of the petitioners who had been fighting for the recognition of his same-sex marriage with partner Abhay Dange, is disappointed after the Indian Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17).

Supriyo Chakraborty, one of the petitioners who had been fighting for the recognition of his same-sex marriage with partner Abhay Dange, is disappointed after the Indian Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday (Oct 17). The apex court refused to pass a ruling recognising same-sex marriages, saying it is the role of the legislature to do so, even as it endorsed several issues close to the hearts of the LGBTQ community. Chakraborty told WION, "We are deeply disappointed by the judgment today. Though the court has reiterated that queer people have the right to form relationships, they stopped well short of legal recognition." Despite the landmark decision to decriminalise homosexuality in 2018, the couple, Chakraborty and Dange, were still facing difficulties in registering their marriage and obtaining legal status. Also Read | After Indian SC verdict on same-sex marriage, queer community is hopeful: 'Maybe not today, but yes, one day' They had been together for over a decade and had celebrated their marriage in a grand ceremony on December 18, 2021, surrounded by friends and family. Chakraborty said, "On a personal level, we feel proud that we fought this battle." "Though we lost, lots of dinner table conversations were initiated because of this case. We remain hopeful that one day we will have full marriage equality." But in the eyes of the law, their union remains unrecognised. In an earlier conversation with WION, Supriyo had said, "Marriage brings with it a basket of rights, such as the right to take healthcare decisions for your spouse, right to inheritance, etc. We want access to those rights, and hence it is very important to get legal recognition for our marriage." Their marriage, blending two different cultural backgrounds in a mesmerising Bengali-Punjabi fusion, showed their love for each other. The wedding festivities included a beautiful Mehendi, haldi, and sangeet function, celebrating their union with the same joy and fervor as any other couple. Dange, Chakraborty's partner, revealed some of the practical challenges they faced due to the lack of legal status. Also Read | Same-sex marriage: India's top court refuses to legalise marriage equality He shared, "It was very difficult for Supriyo to get address proof for our shared household as the house is in Abhay's name." Unlike opposite-sex couples, who face no such hurdles, they had to navigate a complex web of legal complications. Watch | Same-sex marriage verdict: Up to Parliament to make a law, says Supreme Court × Dange had told WION, "We had to purchase two separate health insurance policies instead of single health insurance. Further, we can’t take healthcare decisions for one another and had to mention our parents’ names as nominees for our respective health insurance policies." They now hope that their love would be fully recognised and protected by the law. 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. ×

'Deeply disappointed': Same-sex marriage petitioner speaks to WION after Indian Supreme Court verdict

Same-sex marriage verdict: Up to Parliament to make a law, says Supreme Court

<p>A five-judge bench of India's Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a verdict against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country while stating that legal status to the civil union of LGBTQIA+ couples can be conferred through enacted law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench which comprised of CJI Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, gave the verdict which was reserved on May 11.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>A summary of Supreme Court's nearly two-hour long verdict&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<h3><strong>On queerness not being 'an urban concept'</strong></h3>

<p>"This court cannot make law, it can only interpret it. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept or restricted to the upper classes of society," said CJI Chandrachud.</p>

<h3><strong>On the Supreme Court enforcing laws and not making them&nbsp;</strong></h3>

<p>"Supreme Court can't make but can enforce laws. Rights in the constitution would be a dead letter if the positive obligations are not enforced on the state. In the case of personal relationships characterized by in equality the more powerful person gains primacy," CJI DY Chandrachud said.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"The doctrine of separation of powers means that each of the three organs of the State perform distinct functions. No branch can function any others' function. The Union of India suggested that this court would violate the doctrine of separation of powers if it determines the list. However, the doctrine of separation of powers does not bar the power of judicial review. The Constitution demands that this court protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The doctrine of separation of powers does not come in the way of this court issuing directions for the protection of fundamental rights," he added.&nbsp;</p>

<h3><strong>On Special Marriage&nbsp;Act&nbsp;</strong></h3>

<p>"If the Special Marriage Act is struck down, it will take the country to the pre-Indpendence era. If the Court takes the second approach and reads words into the SMA, it will be taking up the role of legislature. It is for the Parliament to decide whether a change in the regime of the Special Marriage Act is needed. This Court must be careful to not enter into legislative domain," the CJI said.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><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 verdict: In 3:2 judgement, India's top court refuses to legalise marriage equality</a></p>

<h3><strong>On discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation</strong></h3>

<p>"This Court has recognised that queer persons are not discriminated against and their union cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. All persons, including queer persons, have the right to judge the moral quality of their lives. The gender of a person is not the same as their sexuality," CJI Chandrachud stated.</p>

<h3><strong>On queer couples having similar rights as heterosexual couples&nbsp;</strong></h3>

<p>"Queer couples must also have access to certain rights and benefits like heterosexual couples. The state can indirectly infringe upon freedom if it does not recognise the same. There may be reasonable restrictions on the right. However, the right to intimate association needs to be unrestricted. Tangible benefits of marriage are traceable to contents of the law," the CJI said.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"This court has recognised that queer persons cannot be discriminated upon. Material benefits and services flowing to heterosexual couples and denied to queer couples will be a violation of their fundamental right," he added.</p>

<h3><strong>On the constitution of a committee</strong></h3>

<p>"Union Government will constitute a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. This Committee to consider to include queer couples as 'family' in ration cards, enabling queer couples to nominate for joint bank accounts, rights flowing from pension, gratuity, etc. The Committee report to be looked at Union Government level," said CJI Chandrachud.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;India: Verdict to be out on same-sex marriage as the top court is set to rule on it today</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-verdict-to-be-out-on-same-sex-marriage-as-the-top-court-is-set-to-rule-on-it-today-647859/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<h3><strong>On child adoption</strong></h3>

<p>"The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) Regulations permit persons to adopt individually and not as a couple. It does not exclude unmarried persons from adopting. The condition is that the couple must be in a stable relationship for two years," the CJI stated, adding that it is "wrong to assume that only heterosexual couples will be good parents."</p>

<p>"A queer person can adopt only in an individual capacity. This has the effect of reinforcing the discrimination against queer community," he further said. However, Justice Bhat expressed his disagreement with CJI on this.</p>

<h3><strong>On government protecting the queer community&nbsp;</strong></h3>

<p>The Supreme Court directed the Centre to:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Ensure no discrimination against the queer community.</li>
	<li>Ensure no discrimination in access to goods and services.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Establish a hotline for the queer community.</li>
	<li>Sensitise people regarding rights of the queer people.</li>
	<li>Establish safe houses for queer people.</li>
	<li>Ensure no inter-sex children are forced to undergo operations.</li>
</ul>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>You can&nbsp;<strong>now write for wionews.com</strong>&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


A five-judge bench of India's Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a verdict against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country while stating that legal status to the civil union of LGBTQIA+ couples can be conferred through enacted law.

A five-judge bench of India's Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a verdict against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country while stating that legal status to the civil union of LGBTQIA+ couples can be conferred through enacted law. The bench which comprised of CJI Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, gave the verdict which was reserved on May 11. A summary of Supreme Court's nearly two-hour long verdict On queerness not being 'an urban concept' "This court cannot make law, it can only interpret it. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept. Homosexuality or queerness is not an urban concept or restricted to the upper classes of society," said CJI Chandrachud. On the Supreme Court enforcing laws and not making them "Supreme Court can't make but can enforce laws. Rights in the constitution would be a dead letter if the positive obligations are not enforced on the state. In the case of personal relationships characterized by in equality the more powerful person gains primacy," CJI DY Chandrachud said. "The doctrine of separation of powers means that each of the three organs of the State perform distinct functions. No branch can function any others' function. The Union of India suggested that this court would violate the doctrine of separation of powers if it determines the list. However, the doctrine of separation of powers does not bar the power of judicial review. The Constitution demands that this court protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The doctrine of separation of powers does not come in the way of this court issuing directions for the protection of fundamental rights," he added. On Special Marriage Act "If the Special Marriage Act is struck down, it will take the country to the pre-Indpendence era. If the Court takes the second approach and reads words into the SMA, it will be taking up the role of legislature. It is for the Parliament to decide whether a change in the regime of the Special Marriage Act is needed. This Court must be careful to not enter into legislative domain," the CJI said. ALSO READ | Same-sex marriage verdict: In 3:2 judgement, India's top court refuses to legalise marriage equality On discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation "This Court has recognised that queer persons are not discriminated against and their union cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. All persons, including queer persons, have the right to judge the moral quality of their lives. The gender of a person is not the same as their sexuality," CJI Chandrachud stated. On queer couples having similar rights as heterosexual couples "Queer couples must also have access to certain rights and benefits like heterosexual couples. The state can indirectly infringe upon freedom if it does not recognise the same. There may be reasonable restrictions on the right. However, the right to intimate association needs to be unrestricted. Tangible benefits of marriage are traceable to contents of the law," the CJI said. "This court has recognised that queer persons cannot be discriminated upon. Material benefits and services flowing to heterosexual couples and denied to queer couples will be a violation of their fundamental right," he added. On the constitution of a committee "Union Government will constitute a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. This Committee to consider to include queer couples as 'family' in ration cards, enabling queer couples to nominate for joint bank accounts, rights flowing from pension, gratuity, etc. The Committee report to be looked at Union Government level," said CJI Chandrachud. WATCH | India: Verdict to be out on same-sex marriage as the top court is set to rule on it today On child adoption "The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) Regulations permit persons to adopt individually and not as a couple. It does not exclude unmarried persons from adopting. The condition is that the couple must be in a stable relationship for two years," the CJI stated, adding that it is "wrong to assume that only heterosexual couples will be good parents." "A queer person can adopt only in an individual capacity. This has the effect of reinforcing the discrimination against queer community," he further said. However, Justice Bhat expressed his disagreement with CJI on this. On government protecting the queer community The Supreme Court directed the Centre to: Ensure no discrimination against the queer community. Ensure no discrimination in access to goods and services. Establish a hotline for the queer community. Sensitise people regarding rights of the queer people. Establish safe houses for queer people. Ensure no inter-sex children are forced to undergo operations. (With inputs from agencies) 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 verdict: Here's everything the Supreme Court said in its historic judgement

The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Though the court refused to legalise same-sex marriage but granted equal rights to LGBTQ Community.

Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: India's Supreme Court issues historic verdict

<p>The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision on a series of petitions advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages on Tuesday (Oct 17). A panel of five judges from the highest court had reserved its judgement on this matter after extensive hearings in May of the same year.</p>

<p>This case reached the Supreme Court's doorstep last year, with 18 same-sex couples filing petitions seeking the acknowledgement of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, the Foreign Marriage Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act.</p>

<h2><strong>Key dates&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>On <strong>November 25, 2022</strong>, two same-sex couples approached the Supreme Court, urging the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act. They argued for the Act to be made gender-neutral, and the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and the Attorney General of India in response.</p>

<p>On <strong>December 14, 2022</strong>, the Supreme Court also issued notices for another plea filed by a same-sex couple. This married couple, composed of an Indian and a US citizen, sought legal recognition of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court consolidated all related cases from different high courts and set a hearing date for <strong>March 13, 2023</strong>, instructing the government to respond by February 15. Furthermore, the court appointed a nodal counsel to assist both sides in the legal process.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rights-groups-cheer-as-mauritius-top-court-decriminalises-same-sex-relations-643073">Also read |&nbsp;Rights groups cheer as Mauritius top court decriminalises same-sex relations</a></p>

<p>In March 2023, the Centre filed an affidavit opposing same-sex marriage, arguing that the traditional concept of an Indian family involves a union between a biological man and woman, deeply rooted in religious and societal norms.</p>

<p><strong>On March 13, 2023, </strong>the Supreme Court referred the case to a constitutional bench, emphasising the relationship between statutory regulations and constitutional rights. The petitioners asserted broader constitutional entitlements based on the right to life, personal liberty, and dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21, reported ANI.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>In April 2023</strong>, religious and child rights bodies presented their perspectives. The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind opposed the recognition of same-sex marriages, citing Islam's prohibition of homosexuality, while the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights supported same-sex marriages and the right of same-sex couples to adoption.</p>

<p>A five-judge Constitution bench began hearing the batch of pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India in April 2023. The Supreme Court subsequently requested the Centre to provide a response regarding social benefits for same-sex couples, even without legal recognition of their marital status.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pope-francis-backtracks-says-catholic-church-can-bless-same-sex-unions-on-case-by-case-basis-641955">Also read |&nbsp;Pope Francis says Catholic Church can bless same-sex unions on 'case-by-case basis', amid tussle</a></p>

<p>The hearings resumed on <strong>May 9</strong>, with Rajasthan opposing same-sex marriage, and six states requested more time to examine the matter. <strong>On May 11</strong>, the Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reserved its verdict.</p>

<p>As of <strong>October 17</strong>, the verdict is still pending. The key issues before the court included the definition of marriage and the debate over including same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioners argued that the Act already provided a route for recognising marriages outside personal law definitions, but the government and the court noted that the Act also incorporated elements from various religious personal laws.</p>

<p>Additionally, the court explored how recognising same-sex marriages in India would affect various laws and provisions, such as the minimum marriage age, succession, guardianship, and adoption. The Centre highlighted that more than 160 provisions across different legislations would need to be modified to accommodate the recognition of same-sex marriages.</p>

<p>(With inputs from agencies)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision on a series of petitions advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages on Tuesday (Oct 17). A panel of five judges from the highest court had reserved its judgement on this matter after extensive hearings in May of the same year.

The Supreme Court is set to announce its decision on a series of petitions advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages on Tuesday (Oct 17). A panel of five judges from the highest court had reserved its judgement on this matter after extensive hearings in May of the same year. This case reached the Supreme Court's doorstep last year, with 18 same-sex couples filing petitions seeking the acknowledgement of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, the Foreign Marriage Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act. Key dates On November 25, 2022, two same-sex couples approached the Supreme Court, urging the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act. They argued for the Act to be made gender-neutral, and the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and the Attorney General of India in response. On December 14, 2022, the Supreme Court also issued notices for another plea filed by a same-sex couple. This married couple, composed of an Indian and a US citizen, sought legal recognition of their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act. The Supreme Court consolidated all related cases from different high courts and set a hearing date for March 13, 2023, instructing the government to respond by February 15. Furthermore, the court appointed a nodal counsel to assist both sides in the legal process. Also read | Rights groups cheer as Mauritius top court decriminalises same-sex relations In March 2023, the Centre filed an affidavit opposing same-sex marriage, arguing that the traditional concept of an Indian family involves a union between a biological man and woman, deeply rooted in religious and societal norms. On March 13, 2023, the Supreme Court referred the case to a constitutional bench, emphasising the relationship between statutory regulations and constitutional rights. The petitioners asserted broader constitutional entitlements based on the right to life, personal liberty, and dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21, reported ANI. In April 2023, religious and child rights bodies presented their perspectives. The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind opposed the recognition of same-sex marriages, citing Islam's prohibition of homosexuality, while the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights supported same-sex marriages and the right of same-sex couples to adoption. A five-judge Constitution bench began hearing the batch of pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India in April 2023. The Supreme Court subsequently requested the Centre to provide a response regarding social benefits for same-sex couples, even without legal recognition of their marital status. Also read | Pope Francis says Catholic Church can bless same-sex unions on 'case-by-case basis', amid tussle The hearings resumed on May 9, with Rajasthan opposing same-sex marriage, and six states requested more time to examine the matter. On May 11, the Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reserved its verdict. As of October 17, the verdict is still pending. The key issues before the court included the definition of marriage and the debate over including same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioners argued that the Act already provided a route for recognising marriages outside personal law definitions, but the government and the court noted that the Act also incorporated elements from various religious personal laws. Additionally, the court explored how recognising same-sex marriages in India would affect various laws and provisions, such as the minimum marriage age, succession, guardianship, and adoption. The Centre highlighted that more than 160 provisions across different legislations would need to be modified to accommodate the recognition of same-sex marriages. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India same-sex marriage verdict: A look at the history and timeline of the case

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidDullPrYApUW9" /><meta charset="utf-8" />India's Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 16) referred the petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme to a Constitution Bench of five judges. According to a report by Live Law, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said, "In view of the importance of the issue raised, and with regard to Article 145 (4) of the Constitution of India, the matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges."</p>

<p>CJI Chandrachud said that the matter would be retained on the board on October 30.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What is the case about?</strong></h2>

<p>The case involves a batch of petitions which challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017 paving the way for the anonymous electoral bonds scheme. These petitions were filed in 2017.</p>

<p>Live Law reported that last week, a three-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud agreed to hear the petitions after the petitioners urged that the matter be heard before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.</p>

<p>The Finance Act introduced amendments to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, Companies Act, Income Tax Act, Representation of Peoples Act and Foreign Contributions Regulations Act to make way for the electoral bonds.</p>

<h2><strong>Who filed the petitions?</strong></h2>

<p>The petitions were filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Common Cause and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The petitioners challenged the scheme as an obscure funding system which is unchecked by any authority.</p>

<p>They voiced apprehensions that the amendments to the Companies Act 2013 would lead to "private corporate interests taking precedence over the needs and rights of the people of the State in policy considerations."</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


India's Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 16) referred the petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme to a Constitution Bench of five judges. According to a report by Live Law, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said, "In view of the importance of the issue raised, and with regard to Article 145 (4) of the Constitution of India, the matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (Oct 16) referred the petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme to a Constitution Bench of five judges. According to a report by Live Law, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said, "In view of the importance of the issue raised, and with regard to Article 145 (4) of the Constitution of India, the matter be placed before a bench of at least five judges." CJI Chandrachud said that the matter would be retained on the board on October 30. What is the case about? The case involves a batch of petitions which challenged the amendments introduced by the Finance Act 2017 paving the way for the anonymous electoral bonds scheme. These petitions were filed in 2017. Live Law reported that last week, a three-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud agreed to hear the petitions after the petitioners urged that the matter be heard before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. The Finance Act introduced amendments to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, Companies Act, Income Tax Act, Representation of Peoples Act and Foreign Contributions Regulations Act to make way for the electoral bonds. Who filed the petitions? The petitions were filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Common Cause and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The petitioners challenged the scheme as an obscure funding system which is unchecked by any authority. They voiced apprehensions that the amendments to the Companies Act 2013 would lead to "private corporate interests taking precedence over the needs and rights of the people of the State in policy considerations." 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.

Indian Supreme Court refers electoral bonds case to five-judge Constitution Bench

<p>The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis.</p>

<p>The apex court also admitted the central government’s submission that it is willing to undertake the expenses of delivery and if parents desire, facilitate the child's adoption.</p>

<p>In the petition, the woman, who already has two children, said that she was suffering from post-partum psychosis and was not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally, financially, and physically.</p>

<p>The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reached the decision based on a report by the AIIMS medical board that the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and that the foetus is healthy.</p>

<h2><strong>Violates law&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The court denied permission to terminate the pregnancy since its duration had crossed the 24-week mark and added that letting the married woman to continue with her decision would violate Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.</p>

<p>Abortion is allowed under the MTP Act if the pregnancy doesn’t cross 24 weeks mark for married women, for special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women, such as the differently-abled and minors.</p>

<p>"This court is averse to passing such a direction. The petitioner also doesn't wish to do the same," the court said, reported LiveLaw outlet.</p>

<p>The top court also brushed aside an intervention during the proceeding that sought to challenge the upper limit for medical termination.</p>

<p>The court stated that the challenge to the existing law would be addressed through separate proceedings, while the ongoing petition shall remain a matter exclusively between the petitioner and the state.</p>

<h2><strong>‘24-week guideline obsolete’</strong></h2>

<p>Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was arguing on behalf of the petitioner, cited a report of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had already termed the 24-week guideline ‘obsolete’.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |</strong>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/higher-reaches-in-kashmir-and-ladakh-receive-fresh-snowfall-valley-witnesses-drop-in-temperature-647395">Higher reaches of Kashmir and Ladakh receive fresh snowfall; valley witnesses drop in temperature</a></p>

<p>Justice Chandrachud-led bench took up the matter after a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna earlier gave a split verdict.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-wanted-india-to-share-space-technology-seeing-chandrayaan-3s-success-isro-647462">Impressed by Chandrayaan-3, American space experts wanted India to sell its tech to US: ISRO chief</a></p>

<p>It had questioned why the woman did not seek permission for abortion earlier.</p>

<p>"What was she doing for 26 weeks? She already has two children? Why come now? Do we issue an order for the child's death through a judicial ruling?," Chief Justice Chandrachud had said.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis.

The Indian Supreme Court has turned down the plea of a 26-week pregnant woman for abortion on the grounds that she is suffering from a mental condition called post-partum psychosis. The apex court also admitted the central government’s submission that it is willing to undertake the expenses of delivery and if parents desire, facilitate the child's adoption. In the petition, the woman, who already has two children, said that she was suffering from post-partum psychosis and was not in a position to raise a third child, emotionally, financially, and physically. The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reached the decision based on a report by the AIIMS medical board that the pregnancy is not an immediate danger to the life of the woman and that the foetus is healthy. Violates law The court denied permission to terminate the pregnancy since its duration had crossed the 24-week mark and added that letting the married woman to continue with her decision would violate Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. Abortion is allowed under the MTP Act if the pregnancy doesn’t cross 24 weeks mark for married women, for special categories including survivors of rape, and other vulnerable women, such as the differently-abled and minors. "This court is averse to passing such a direction. The petitioner also doesn't wish to do the same," the court said, reported LiveLaw outlet. The top court also brushed aside an intervention during the proceeding that sought to challenge the upper limit for medical termination. The court stated that the challenge to the existing law would be addressed through separate proceedings, while the ongoing petition shall remain a matter exclusively between the petitioner and the state. ‘24-week guideline obsolete’ Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was arguing on behalf of the petitioner, cited a report of the World Health Organisation (WHO) which had already termed the 24-week guideline ‘obsolete’. Also read | Higher reaches of Kashmir and Ladakh receive fresh snowfall; valley witnesses drop in temperature Justice Chandrachud-led bench took up the matter after a two-judge bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna earlier gave a split verdict. Also read | Impressed by Chandrayaan-3, American space experts wanted India to sell its tech to US: ISRO chief It had questioned why the woman did not seek permission for abortion earlier. "What was she doing for 26 weeks? She already has two children? Why come now? Do we issue an order for the child's death through a judicial ruling?," Chief Justice Chandrachud had said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India: Supreme Court turns down woman’s plea to terminate 26-week pregnancy

<p>The Supreme Court in India on Tuesday (Oct 10) rejected a plea by an 89-year-old man, who wanted to divorce his 82-year-old wife.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Paramjit Kaun Panesar case, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, emphasised the importance of the institution of marriage in India, despite the rise in divorce cases.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench said that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays a key role in society.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-accuses-vivo-of-visa-violations-and-money-laundering-totalling-13-billion-646194">Indian probe agency accuses Vivo of visa violations, laundering $13 billion</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>It said, "In our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society... It is governed not only by the letters of law but by social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in society."&nbsp;</p>

<p>Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India," the bench added.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"The respondent (wife) is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a 'divorcee' woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent's own sentiment," the bench said in its order.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rbi-slaps-paytm-payments-bank-with-a-massive-penalty-heres-why-646206">RBI slaps Paytm Payments Bank with a massive penalty. Here's why</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>The bench further added that "under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant (husband) under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing "complete justice" to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent" and "we are not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage".&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The Supreme Court in India on Tuesday (Oct 10) rejected a plea by an 89-year-old man, who wanted to divorce his 82-year-old wife. In the Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Paramjit Kaun Panesar case, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, emphasised the importance of the institution of marriage in India, despite the rise in divorce cases.

The Supreme Court in India on Tuesday (Oct 10) rejected a plea by an 89-year-old man, who wanted to divorce his 82-year-old wife. In the Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Paramjit Kaun Panesar case, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, emphasised the importance of the institution of marriage in India, despite the rise in divorce cases. The bench said that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays a key role in society. Also read: Indian probe agency accuses Vivo of visa violations, laundering $13 billion It said, "In our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society... It is governed not only by the letters of law but by social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in society." Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India," the bench added. "The respondent (wife) is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a 'divorcee' woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent's own sentiment," the bench said in its order. Also read: RBI slaps Paytm Payments Bank with a massive penalty. Here's why The bench further added that "under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant (husband) under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing "complete justice" to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent" and "we are not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage". (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.

India's top court rejects plea of 89-year-old seeking to divorce his 82-year-old wife

<p>The United States Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 29) agreed to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X, and other social media networks violate the Constitution. According to a report by the news agency Associated Press, the justices would review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas.</p>

<p>Both laws aim to prevent social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints. The justices already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-US president Donald Trump.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court's announcement comes as justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The report said that separately, the high court could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.</p>

<p>The new case follows conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida’s statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues, the report added.</p>

<p>Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Proponents of the laws sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint. The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The United States Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 29) agreed to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X, and other social media networks violate the Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (Sep 29) agreed to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X, and other social media networks violate the Constitution. According to a report by the news agency Associated Press, the justices would review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. Both laws aim to prevent social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints. The justices already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-US president Donald Trump. The Supreme Court's announcement comes as justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world. The report said that separately, the high court could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts. The new case follows conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida’s statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues, the report added. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court. On the other hand, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect. Proponents of the laws sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint. The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech. 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.

US Supreme Court to decide if state laws regulating social media networks violate Constitution

<p>India’s apex court chastised the government of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh&nbsp;on Monday (September 25) a month after disturbing video from the city of Muzaffarnagar went viral where a primary school teacher can be seen telling students to slap a classmate of the Muslim faith.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What happened?</strong></h2>

<p>The purported video of the incident showed students lining up to slap their Muslim classmate for not learning the multiplication tables as the teacher – identified as Tripta Tyagi – instigates them. Tyagi, who is also the owner of Neha Public School, can also be heard making some problematic, communal comments.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/disturbing-video-emerges-indian-teacher-instigates-students-to-slap-muslim-classmate-watch-629332">Disturbing video emerges: Teacher in India prods students to slap Muslim classmate. Watch</a></strong></p>

<p>The video sparked outrage on the internet as well as from various quarters, including political parties and child rights organisations and the teacher had been booked under IPC sections 323 and 504 based on a complaint from the boy’s family.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>‘Very serious issue’</strong></h2>

<p>The Supreme Court deemed the incident a “prima facie failure” to comply with the Right To Education (RTE) Act.</p>

<p>It slammed the Uttar Pradesh&nbsp;government, saying that if the allegations are true, it must “shock the conscience of the state government.”</p>

<p>The court also raised questions about the delay in the registration of the FIR and the omission of allegations made by the victim’s father, which included communal targeting.</p>

<p>The SC bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal raised a “serious objection” to the manner in which the FIR was registered.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The FIR was filed on September 6, nearly two weeks after the incident and did not include the alleged “objectionable comments against a particular religion” that the teacher made, as per the boy’s father. The judge also questioned the absence of the transcript of the video in the FIR.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-teacher-booked-for-alleged-communal-remarks-inciting-students-to-slap-muslim-classmate-629535">India: Teacher booked for alleged communal remarks, inciting students to slap muslim classmate</a></strong></p>

<p>The justices said there was a “direct violation” of the child’s fundamental right to get compulsory and quality education under the RTE Act which also prohibits physical and mental harassment of students and discrimination on the basis of religion and caste.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“This is a very serious issue. Teacher telling Teacher telling students to hit a classmate because they belong to a particular community! Is this quality education? State must take responsibility of the education of the child. If the allegations are true, this should shock the conscience of the state,” Justice Oka told Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the UP government.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“There cannot be quality education if a student is penalised only on the grounds of his or her religion. Thus, there is a prima facie failure by the state government to comply with the mandates of the RTE Act and the rules framed thereunder,” the court added.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/co-ower-of-fact-checking-website-booked-for-disclosing-identity-of-muslim-boy-slapped-by-classmates-629953">Co-owner of fact-checking website booked for disclosing identity of Muslim boy slapped by classmates&nbsp;</a></strong></p>

<p>The SC has directed the state government to immediately appoint a senior IPS to monitor the investigation of the case and sought a report from the UP government on the implementation of the RTE Act in relation to the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p>They have also directed counselling for the victim child as well as for the children who were allegedly asked to assault their classmate by the teacher.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


India’s apex court chastised the government of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh on Monday (September 25) a month after disturbing video from the city of Muzaffarnagar went viral where a primary school teacher can be seen telling students to slap a classmate of the Muslim faith.

India’s apex court chastised the government of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh on Monday (September 25) a month after disturbing video from the city of Muzaffarnagar went viral where a primary school teacher can be seen telling students to slap a classmate of the Muslim faith. What happened? The purported video of the incident showed students lining up to slap their Muslim classmate for not learning the multiplication tables as the teacher – identified as Tripta Tyagi – instigates them. Tyagi, who is also the owner of Neha Public School, can also be heard making some problematic, communal comments. ALSO READ | Disturbing video emerges: Teacher in India prods students to slap Muslim classmate. Watch The video sparked outrage on the internet as well as from various quarters, including political parties and child rights organisations and the teacher had been booked under IPC sections 323 and 504 based on a complaint from the boy’s family. ‘Very serious issue’ The Supreme Court deemed the incident a “prima facie failure” to comply with the Right To Education (RTE) Act. It slammed the Uttar Pradesh government, saying that if the allegations are true, it must “shock the conscience of the state government.” The court also raised questions about the delay in the registration of the FIR and the omission of allegations made by the victim’s father, which included communal targeting. The SC bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal raised a “serious objection” to the manner in which the FIR was registered. The FIR was filed on September 6, nearly two weeks after the incident and did not include the alleged “objectionable comments against a particular religion” that the teacher made, as per the boy’s father. The judge also questioned the absence of the transcript of the video in the FIR. ALSO READ | India: Teacher booked for alleged communal remarks, inciting students to slap muslim classmate The justices said there was a “direct violation” of the child’s fundamental right to get compulsory and quality education under the RTE Act which also prohibits physical and mental harassment of students and discrimination on the basis of religion and caste. “This is a very serious issue. Teacher telling Teacher telling students to hit a classmate because they belong to a particular community! Is this quality education? State must take responsibility of the education of the child. If the allegations are true, this should shock the conscience of the state,” Justice Oka told Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the UP government. “There cannot be quality education if a student is penalised only on the grounds of his or her religion. Thus, there is a prima facie failure by the state government to comply with the mandates of the RTE Act and the rules framed thereunder,” the court added. ALSO READ | Co-owner of fact-checking website booked for disclosing identity of Muslim boy slapped by classmates The SC has directed the state government to immediately appoint a senior IPS to monitor the investigation of the case and sought a report from the UP government on the implementation of the RTE Act in relation to the case. They have also directed counselling for the victim child as well as for the children who were allegedly asked to assault their classmate by the teacher. (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.

India: Supreme Court slams UP govt, police over slapping of Muslim boy by classmates

<p>India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes.</p>

<p>The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) in its September 12 order, which was upheld by CWMA, directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water every day for the next 15 days to Tamil Nadu.</p>

<p>A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while declining to meddle, said that both CWMA and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) are conducting meetings regularly and also observing the water requirements every 15 days.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench further highlighted that both CWMA and CWRC, have experts from the India Meteorological Department (IMD), who have weighed in on all the pertinent aspects like drought, deficit rainfall, and water level in the river and only then passed the order.</p>

<p>"We are therefore of the considered view that the factors which have been taken into consideration by both the authorities cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. In that view, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders," the bench said.</p>

<p>Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, submitted that both the authorities despite having acknowledged there was scanty rainfall since August and the state was eligible for 7,200 cusecs of water, reduced the volume to 5,000 cusecs a day.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-trails-behind-even-bangladesh-pakistan-have-more-women-in-lower-house-of-parliament-638316">India trails behind: Even Bangladesh, Pakistan have more women in Lower House of Parliament</a></p>

<p>"I am a low riparian state...water flows from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu from where it goes to Puducherry. There is a shortfall of rainfall which has been taken into consideration by the authorities. In a regular year, I would have been eligible for three times more but I am not seeking that. I am seeking what is rightfully mine," Rohatgi said. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p>He then added that Tamil Nadu has over five lakh acres of standing crop and on top of it is facing a drinking water issue for which more water is required in the Indian state.</p>

<p>"If the drought-like condition was taken into account and the authority calculated it to be 7,200 cusecs per day, then there was no occasion to further bring it down to 5,000 cusecs per day," he submitted.</p>

<p>On the other hand, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said that the state was also facing drought-like conditions, and the release of 5,000 cusecs of water ordered by the authorities is against the "interest".&nbsp;</p>

<p>"We are facing a drinking water crisis, especially in urban areas including in Bengaluru," he said.</p>

<p>"They have taken into account IMD data, rainfall, water level in reservoirs and other relevant data after which they have arrived at the figure of 5,000 cusecs," Bhati said.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes.

India's Supreme Court (SC), on Thursday (September 21), refused to intervene in the dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery River water for irrigation purposes. The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) in its September 12 order, which was upheld by CWMA, directed Karnataka to release 5,000 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water every day for the next 15 days to Tamil Nadu. A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while declining to meddle, said that both CWMA and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) are conducting meetings regularly and also observing the water requirements every 15 days. The bench further highlighted that both CWMA and CWRC, have experts from the India Meteorological Department (IMD), who have weighed in on all the pertinent aspects like drought, deficit rainfall, and water level in the river and only then passed the order. "We are therefore of the considered view that the factors which have been taken into consideration by both the authorities cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. In that view, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders," the bench said. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, submitted that both the authorities despite having acknowledged there was scanty rainfall since August and the state was eligible for 7,200 cusecs of water, reduced the volume to 5,000 cusecs a day. Also read: India trails behind: Even Bangladesh, Pakistan have more women in Lower House of Parliament "I am a low riparian state...water flows from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu from where it goes to Puducherry. There is a shortfall of rainfall which has been taken into consideration by the authorities. In a regular year, I would have been eligible for three times more but I am not seeking that. I am seeking what is rightfully mine," Rohatgi said. He then added that Tamil Nadu has over five lakh acres of standing crop and on top of it is facing a drinking water issue for which more water is required in the Indian state. "If the drought-like condition was taken into account and the authority calculated it to be 7,200 cusecs per day, then there was no occasion to further bring it down to 5,000 cusecs per day," he submitted. On the other hand, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Karnataka, said that the state was also facing drought-like conditions, and the release of 5,000 cusecs of water ordered by the authorities is against the "interest". "We are facing a drinking water crisis, especially in urban areas including in Bengaluru," he said. "They have taken into account IMD data, rainfall, water level in reservoirs and other relevant data after which they have arrived at the figure of 5,000 cusecs," Bhati said. (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.

Cauvery row: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with order directing Karnataka to release water for Tamil Nadu

Brazilian Apex Court has now sentenced three defendants to heavy jail terms on charges including an attempted coup. This comes a day after the trial began against Pro-Bolsonaro rioters who stormed the Supreme Court of Brazil, the National Congress of Brazil and the Presidential Palace on the 8th of January this year.

Brazil court sentences three in pro-Bolsonaro riots

<p>Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (September 14) declared that it will be linked to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a vast databank showing pending cases in courts and also the disposal rate of cases at all levels of the judiciary.</p>

<p>Till now, courts only up to the high court level were linked to the NJDG portal. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said the move will ensure transparency and accountability in the proceedings of the apex court. He also said that real-time data of the cases will be updated on the portal regularly.</p>

<h2><strong>CJI’s statement</strong></h2>

<p>The Chief Justice said what is being done for the lower courts should also be implemented at the Supreme Court level.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Elaborating on the initiative, the CJI said, "It is a unique platform, which is developed by the NIC and the in-house team of the Supreme Court. Now, at the click of a button, you can see real-time info on pendency of cases, year wise, total pendency of registered and unregistered cases, number of cases decided coram-wise.”&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/spicejet-credit-suisse-case-indias-supreme-court-presents-ajay-singh-final-chance-to-repay-loans-635086"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;SpiceJet-Credit Suisse case: India’s Supreme Court presents Ajay Singh final chance to repay loans</strong></a></p>

<p>“This is to bring in transparency and accountability. 80,000 cases are pending, 15,000 are not registered yet, so they are not pending yet. We have graphs now, and see, the disposal in July was 5,000-plus cases. Also, we have a distribution as per case type and pendency. Like 583 cases pending before 3-judge benches, and I will soon set up those benches," he added.</p>

<h2><strong>What is NJDG portal?&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The NJDG, an online platform within the eCourts Project, serves as a comprehensive repository for orders, judgments, and case information from 18,735 district and subordinate courts as well as high courts.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India</strong></p>

<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/supreme-court-financial-penalties-must-be-proportionate-to-profits-india-625434/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>This database is continuously updated in near real-time by the affiliated district and taluka courts. By offering information on judicial proceedings and outcomes across the computerised district and subordinate courts nationwide, the NJDG has facilitated easy access for the general public, with all high courts participating in this initiative via web services.</p>

<h2><strong>Indian PM Modi lauds the initiative</strong></h2>

<p>Taking to X, formerly Twitter, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lauded the top court, hailing the initiative as a move to further transparency in the judiciary.</p>

<p>"Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country," the PM posted on X.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country. <a href="https://t.co/oAGZ03eOHY">https://t.co/oAGZ03eOHY</a></p>
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1702240847562154300?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (September 14) declared that it will be linked to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a vast databank showing pending cases in courts and also the disposal rate of cases at all levels of the judiciary.

Indian Supreme Court on Thursday (September 14) declared that it will be linked to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a vast databank showing pending cases in courts and also the disposal rate of cases at all levels of the judiciary. Till now, courts only up to the high court level were linked to the NJDG portal. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said the move will ensure transparency and accountability in the proceedings of the apex court. He also said that real-time data of the cases will be updated on the portal regularly. CJI’s statement The Chief Justice said what is being done for the lower courts should also be implemented at the Supreme Court level. Elaborating on the initiative, the CJI said, "It is a unique platform, which is developed by the NIC and the in-house team of the Supreme Court. Now, at the click of a button, you can see real-time info on pendency of cases, year wise, total pendency of registered and unregistered cases, number of cases decided coram-wise.” Also read: SpiceJet-Credit Suisse case: India’s Supreme Court presents Ajay Singh final chance to repay loans “This is to bring in transparency and accountability. 80,000 cases are pending, 15,000 are not registered yet, so they are not pending yet. We have graphs now, and see, the disposal in July was 5,000-plus cases. Also, we have a distribution as per case type and pendency. Like 583 cases pending before 3-judge benches, and I will soon set up those benches," he added. What is NJDG portal? The NJDG, an online platform within the eCourts Project, serves as a comprehensive repository for orders, judgments, and case information from 18,735 district and subordinate courts as well as high courts. Watch: Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India × This database is continuously updated in near real-time by the affiliated district and taluka courts. By offering information on judicial proceedings and outcomes across the computerised district and subordinate courts nationwide, the NJDG has facilitated easy access for the general public, with all high courts participating in this initiative via web services. Indian PM Modi lauds the initiative Taking to X, formerly Twitter, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lauded the top court, hailing the initiative as a move to further transparency in the judiciary. "Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country," the PM posted on X. Laudatory step by the Supreme Court and CJI DY Chandrachud Ji. Such harnessing of technology will further transparency and enhance the justice delivery system in our country. https://t.co/oAGZ03eOHY — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) September 14, 2023 × WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

India: Now access realtime case data of Supreme Court through web portal, PM Modi praises initiative

<p>Ajay Singh, the chairman of SpiceJet, was strongly reprimanded by India’s Supreme Court on Monday, ordering him to pay $5,000,000 and $1,000,000 to Credit Suisse in addition to an installment due on September 22, The Economic Times reported.</p>

<p>The court also warned&nbsp;to send Singh to Tihar jail&nbsp;if the amount&nbsp;wasn’t paid.</p>

<p>“We have to move to the next drastic step. We are not worried if you shut down. Enough of this dilly-dally business… you will have to abide by the consent terms. We are not bothered even if you die. It is too much,” The Economic Times quoted the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah as saying during the hearing.</p>

<p>The court also made it mandatory for Singh to attend the court on every hearing.</p>

<p>Court records indicated that Credit Suisse had&nbsp;requested India’s highest court in March to begin contempt proceedings against Singh and SpiceJet for “a willful and intentional disobedience” of court orders and refusal to pay dues totaling several million dollars as per a settlement between the two parties.</p>

<p>Due to a legal battle between Credit Suisse and SpiceJet over Credit Suisse’s supposed $24 million in unpaid debts, the Madras High Court ordered that the airline be shut down in 2021. Following an appeal against the high court’s decision, the top court decided to halt the winding-up process so that both sides may negotiate a settlement.</p>

<p>Both parties notified the Supreme Court that a settlement had been reached in August 2022.</p>

<p>However, Credit Suisse then launched a contempt lawsuit against managing director Ajay Singh in March, claiming that the airline and company secretary had failed to make payments as required by the conditions of the settlement.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


Ajay Singh, the chairman of SpiceJet, was strongly reprimanded by India’s Supreme Court on Monday, ordering him to pay $5,000,000 and $1,000,000 to Credit Suisse in addition to an installment due on September 22, The Economic Times reported.

Ajay Singh, the chairman of SpiceJet, was strongly reprimanded by India’s Supreme Court on Monday, ordering him to pay $5,000,000 and $1,000,000 to Credit Suisse in addition to an installment due on September 22, The Economic Times reported. The court also warned to send Singh to Tihar jail if the amount wasn’t paid. “We have to move to the next drastic step. We are not worried if you shut down. Enough of this dilly-dally business… you will have to abide by the consent terms. We are not bothered even if you die. It is too much,” The Economic Times quoted the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah as saying during the hearing. The court also made it mandatory for Singh to attend the court on every hearing. Court records indicated that Credit Suisse had requested India’s highest court in March to begin contempt proceedings against Singh and SpiceJet for “a willful and intentional disobedience” of court orders and refusal to pay dues totaling several million dollars as per a settlement between the two parties. Due to a legal battle between Credit Suisse and SpiceJet over Credit Suisse’s supposed $24 million in unpaid debts, the Madras High Court ordered that the airline be shut down in 2021. Following an appeal against the high court’s decision, the top court decided to halt the winding-up process so that both sides may negotiate a settlement. Both parties notified the Supreme Court that a settlement had been reached in August 2022. However, Credit Suisse then launched a contempt lawsuit against managing director Ajay Singh in March, claiming that the airline and company secretary had failed to make payments as required by the conditions of the settlement. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

SpiceJet-Credit Suisse case: India’s Supreme Court presents Ajay Singh final chance to repay loans

<p>In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of Mexico decriminalised abortion on Thursday (September 7) across the country.<br />
<br />
“The First Chamber of the Court ruled that the legal system that penalises abortion in the Federal Criminal Code is unconstitutional since it violates the human rights of women and people with the capacity to gestate,” said the Supreme Court on social media.<br />
<br />
The judgement follows a similar ruling two years ago that stated abortion is not a crime. That declaration came after a constitutional challenge to the northern state of Coahuila's penal code, which gave women access to abortion without fear of prosecution in the country.<br />
<br />
The Information Group on Reproductive Choice (GIRE), which has been carrying out campaigns for abortion rights, welcomed the step of decriminalising abortion at the national level.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/gender-reveal-party-turns-tragic-a-pilot-dies-during-plane-crash-632150">Mexico: Gender reveal party turns tragic as pilot dies in plane crash</a></p>

<p>It said that the court concluded that the federal penal code's portion which criminalises abortion is no longer effective. “No woman or pregnant person, nor any health worker will be able to be punished for abortion,” said the group, in a statement.<br />
<br />
"Federal health institutions throughout the country will have to provide abortion services to women and people with the capacity to gestate who request it," said the group, on social media.</p>

<h2><strong>Decriminalisation of abortion in Mexican states</strong></h2>

<p>Previously, abortion was decriminalised in a dozen Mexico states, with the capital Mexico City becoming the first to do so in 2007.<br />
<br />
But, along with the lack of facilities for carrying out the procedure, "many women don't know that they have this right because local governments have not carried out publicity campaigns about it," said women's rights activist Sara Lovera.<br />
<br />
"That's why today's decision of the Supreme Court is important," Lovera said while speaking to AFP.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;US-Mexico border: Migrants risk death crossing treacherous Rio Grande River | World News | WION</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-mexico-border-migrants-risk-death-crossing-treacherous-rio-grande-river-world-news-wion-620967/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p><br />
The central state of Aguascalientes last week became the 12th state to decriminalise the procedure. Judges in states&nbsp;where abortion has been criminalised, will have to consider the ruling of the top court.<br />
<br />
The court gave the decision amid a trend of decreasing restrictions on abortion in the country, even though the procedure's access remains limited in parts of the United States. Some American women have already been taking help from Mexican abortion activists to get the pills used for ending their pregnancies.<br />
<br />
Throughout Latin America, countries have taken steps to lift abortion restrictions in the last few years, which has been called a “green wave”.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>You can&nbsp;<strong>now write for&nbsp;wionews.com</strong>&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-20="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-25="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-32="true" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="lazy" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=0" title="live tv" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of Mexico decriminalised abortion on Thursday (September 7) across the country. “The First Chamber of the Court ruled that the legal system that penalises abortion in the Federal Criminal Code is unconstitutional since it violates the human rights of women and people with the capacity to gestate,” said the Supreme Court on social media.

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of Mexico decriminalised abortion on Thursday (September 7) across the country. “The First Chamber of the Court ruled that the legal system that penalises abortion in the Federal Criminal Code is unconstitutional since it violates the human rights of women and people with the capacity to gestate,” said the Supreme Court on social media. The judgement follows a similar ruling two years ago that stated abortion is not a crime. That declaration came after a constitutional challenge to the northern state of Coahuila's penal code, which gave women access to abortion without fear of prosecution in the country. The Information Group on Reproductive Choice (GIRE), which has been carrying out campaigns for abortion rights, welcomed the step of decriminalising abortion at the national level. ALSO READ | Mexico: Gender reveal party turns tragic as pilot dies in plane crash It said that the court concluded that the federal penal code's portion which criminalises abortion is no longer effective. “No woman or pregnant person, nor any health worker will be able to be punished for abortion,” said the group, in a statement. "Federal health institutions throughout the country will have to provide abortion services to women and people with the capacity to gestate who request it," said the group, on social media. Decriminalisation of abortion in Mexican states Previously, abortion was decriminalised in a dozen Mexico states, with the capital Mexico City becoming the first to do so in 2007. But, along with the lack of facilities for carrying out the procedure, "many women don't know that they have this right because local governments have not carried out publicity campaigns about it," said women's rights activist Sara Lovera. "That's why today's decision of the Supreme Court is important," Lovera said while speaking to AFP. WATCH | US-Mexico border: Migrants risk death crossing treacherous Rio Grande River | World News | WION The central state of Aguascalientes last week became the 12th state to decriminalise the procedure. Judges in states where abortion has been criminalised, will have to consider the ruling of the top court. The court gave the decision amid a trend of decreasing restrictions on abortion in the country, even though the procedure's access remains limited in parts of the United States. Some American women have already been taking help from Mexican abortion activists to get the pills used for ending their pregnancies. Throughout Latin America, countries have taken steps to lift abortion restrictions in the last few years, which has been called a “green wave”. (With inputs from agencies) 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

Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalises abortion across country

Mexico's Supreme Court has once again taken a bold step towards securing abortion rights for women. Nationwide it has struck down a federal law criminalizing abortion. This reaffirms the 2021 ruling that the criminal penalty for abortion is unconstitutional.

Mexican Supreme Court strikes down federal law criminalising abortion

<p>The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups.</p>

<p>A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday (Sept 6) scheduled the matter for hearing on September 11 (Monday).</p>

<p>“Issue notice…. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the FIRs registered,” ordered the judges.</p>

<p>The judges were informed that at least two FIRs were registered against them after their fact-finding report was released on September 2.</p>

<h2><strong>Two FIRs registered&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The complaints registered against them accused EGI president Seema Mustafa, Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha and Bharat Bhushan of offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including promoting enmity between different groups.</p>

<p>The complaints, based on which the FIRs were registered, accused the EGI report of “incorrect and false statements”.</p>

<p>Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the members of the fact-finding committee formed by EGI, said that the Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had himself announced during a press conference that the state police has filed complaints, alleging their report to be “incorrect”.</p>

<p>"The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur," Singh said at the time.</p>

<p>"...I also give a warning to the members of the Editors Guild, if you want to do something, then do visit the spot, see the ground reality, meet the representatives of all communities and then publish what you found. Otherwise, meeting some sections only and coming to a conclusion is highly condemnable. The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur...," he added.</p>

<h2><strong>SC seeks status report from Manipur govt</strong></h2>

<p>Meanwhile, the apex sought a categorical status report from the Manipur government on the recovery of arms and ammunition stolen from the police and state armoury during the ethnic clashes between the Meiti and Kuki communities since early May.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republic-of-bharat-chorus-grows-for-india-to-be-renamed-as-bharat-632507">'Republic of Bharat': Chorus grows to rename India as it was known in ancient times</a></p>

<p>It observed that the issue was “sensitive” and said it must be looked into seriously irrespective of which side is involved.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jaishankar-stresses-g20-summit-to-be-defined-by-positions-taken-not-leaders-attendance-632671">Jaishankar says G20 Summit to be defined by positions taken, not leaders' attendance</a></p>

<p>“You can submit a report to us, we can examine. I don’t believe in court seeing something others don’t know, it’s not my philosophy but if you feel like this is a matter about recovery of arms and court should be apprised, at least tell us what steps have been taken. We are dealing with it objectively. State has to take actions about illegal arms irrespective of which side has done it,” the CJI told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Manipur government and the Centre in the clutch of petitions relating to the violence in the northeastern state.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups.

The Indian Supreme Court provided temporary relief to the president of the Editors Guild of India and three journalists from the impending arrest by the Manipur Police in connection with a case filed against them that claimed “bias” on their part in reporting the ethnic clashes, and thereby promoting enmity between different groups. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday (Sept 6) scheduled the matter for hearing on September 11 (Monday). “Issue notice…. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the FIRs registered,” ordered the judges. The judges were informed that at least two FIRs were registered against them after their fact-finding report was released on September 2. Two FIRs registered The complaints registered against them accused EGI president Seema Mustafa, Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha and Bharat Bhushan of offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including promoting enmity between different groups. The complaints, based on which the FIRs were registered, accused the EGI report of “incorrect and false statements”. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the members of the fact-finding committee formed by EGI, said that the Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had himself announced during a press conference that the state police has filed complaints, alleging their report to be “incorrect”. "The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur," Singh said at the time. "...I also give a warning to the members of the Editors Guild, if you want to do something, then do visit the spot, see the ground reality, meet the representatives of all communities and then publish what you found. Otherwise, meeting some sections only and coming to a conclusion is highly condemnable. The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur...," he added. SC seeks status report from Manipur govt Meanwhile, the apex sought a categorical status report from the Manipur government on the recovery of arms and ammunition stolen from the police and state armoury during the ethnic clashes between the Meiti and Kuki communities since early May. Also read | 'Republic of Bharat': Chorus grows to rename India as it was known in ancient times It observed that the issue was “sensitive” and said it must be looked into seriously irrespective of which side is involved. Also read | Jaishankar says G20 Summit to be defined by positions taken, not leaders' attendance “You can submit a report to us, we can examine. I don’t believe in court seeing something others don’t know, it’s not my philosophy but if you feel like this is a matter about recovery of arms and court should be apprised, at least tell us what steps have been taken. We are dealing with it objectively. State has to take actions about illegal arms irrespective of which side has done it,” the CJI told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Manipur government and the Centre in the clutch of petitions relating to the violence in the northeastern state. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Indian Supreme Court temporarily stays arrest of senior journalists over Manipur clashes reporting

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidN2k41srkATqF" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>Scammers are using the name of the Supreme Court to steal personal and confidential information. The registry of the Supreme Court has warned people about the scam in the recently issued advisory.</p>

<p>A fake website has been impersonating the official Supreme Court of India website, hosted on the URLs http://cbins/scigv.com and https://cbins.scigv.com/offence. Scamsters use the latter to steal people's personal details, Internet banking and credit and debit card information. The registry stated that they were made aware of the phishing attack.</p>

<p>The fake website looks official and describes the offence of money laundering. It has various boxes asking the user to fill in confidential information, including bank name, phone number, permanent account number (PAN), banking user, log-in password and card password.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britains-queen-camilla-unveils-portrait-of-british-indian-spy-noor-inayat-khan-in-london-630888" target="_blank">Britain's Queen Camilla unveils portrait of British-Indian spy Noor Inayat Khan in London</a></p>

<p>According to the registry, the Supreme Court of India has informed about the phishing attack to law enforcement agencies who will further investigate the matter and "bring the perpetrators to justice."</p>

<p>"Any visitor on the above URLs is strongly advised not to share and divulge any personal and confidential information, as the same shall enable the perpetrators to steal the information.&nbsp; Please note that the Registry, Supreme Court of India, will never ask for personal information, financial details or other confidential information," the advisory states.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Furthermore, the advisory issued by the Supreme Court's registry highlights that the Supreme Court of India's official domain is www.sci.gov.in. It has also urged people to verify URLs before clicking on them or filling in sensitive details.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indias-economy-is-expected-to-expand-at-its-fastest-rate-in-a-year-estimates-630744" target="_blank">India's economy is expected to expand at its fastest rate in a year: Estimates</a></p>

<p>The advisory highlighted that the Supreme Court of India's official domain is www.sci.gov.in and asked people to verify URLs before clicking on them.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"In case you have been a victim of the above phishing attack, please change your passwords for all your online accounts and also contact your bank and credit card company to report such unauthorised access," it states.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Distinguishing a fake page from a real one can be challenging. One has to be careful while giving information on any website. Usually, fake websites have manipulated URLs, favicon, security certificates and content.<br />
<br />
Always check the source, domain name, URL, SSL/TSL certificate, domain age, content, and reviews before giving out important details. You can also use a website checker.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


Scammers are using the name of the Supreme Court to steal personal and confidential information. The registry of the Supreme Court has warned people about the scam in the recently issued advisory.

Scammers are using the name of the Supreme Court to steal personal and confidential information. The registry of the Supreme Court has warned people about the scam in the recently issued advisory. A fake website has been impersonating the official Supreme Court of India website, hosted on the URLs http://cbins/scigv.com and https://cbins.scigv.com/offence. Scamsters use the latter to steal people's personal details, Internet banking and credit and debit card information. The registry stated that they were made aware of the phishing attack. The fake website looks official and describes the offence of money laundering. It has various boxes asking the user to fill in confidential information, including bank name, phone number, permanent account number (PAN), banking user, log-in password and card password. ALSO READ | Britain's Queen Camilla unveils portrait of British-Indian spy Noor Inayat Khan in London According to the registry, the Supreme Court of India has informed about the phishing attack to law enforcement agencies who will further investigate the matter and "bring the perpetrators to justice." "Any visitor on the above URLs is strongly advised not to share and divulge any personal and confidential information, as the same shall enable the perpetrators to steal the information. Please note that the Registry, Supreme Court of India, will never ask for personal information, financial details or other confidential information," the advisory states. Furthermore, the advisory issued by the Supreme Court's registry highlights that the Supreme Court of India's official domain is www.sci.gov.in. It has also urged people to verify URLs before clicking on them or filling in sensitive details. ALSO READ | India's economy is expected to expand at its fastest rate in a year: Estimates The advisory highlighted that the Supreme Court of India's official domain is www.sci.gov.in and asked people to verify URLs before clicking on them. "In case you have been a victim of the above phishing attack, please change your passwords for all your online accounts and also contact your bank and credit card company to report such unauthorised access," it states. Distinguishing a fake page from a real one can be challenging. One has to be careful while giving information on any website. Usually, fake websites have manipulated URLs, favicon, security certificates and content. Always check the source, domain name, URL, SSL/TSL certificate, domain age, content, and reviews before giving out important details. You can also use a website checker. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Supreme Court warns citizens of fake website stealing confidential information; How to stay safe

<p>India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling.</p>

<p>"What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The strong remarks came in a case related to a rape victim who was seeking to terminate her pregnancy. As reported by NDTV, the Gujarat High Court passed an order in the case even as it was listed for hearing in the apex court on August 21.</p>

<p>Earlier, the high court had ruled against the victim and denied her relief but Supreme Court in Monday’s judgment granted her approval for terminating her pregnancy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy," the SC bench noted.</p>

<h2><strong>Gujarat government issues clarification</strong></h2>

<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented Gujarat government in the Supreme Court, defended the court’s move by claiming that the Saturday order was passed just to fix a “clerical error.”</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Supreme Court of India issues handbook to remove gender stereotypes from law</strong></p>

<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/supreme-court-of-india-issues-handbook-to-remove-gender-stereotypes-from-law-626498/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding," Mehta said while assuring the top court that the state government shall request the high court to recall the order.</p>

<h2><strong>Supreme Court vs High Court</strong></h2>

<p>Earlier on Saturday, the Supreme Court chided the lower court for its "lackadaisical attitude" in the sensitive case, saying “valuable time" has been lost.</p>

<p>The 25-year-old victim had initially approached the high court on August 7, following which the court directed the formation of&nbsp; a medical board to look into the status of her pregnancy.</p>

<p>The report prepared by the board, which ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated, was taken up by the high court on August 11.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-supreme-court-identifies-words-promoting-stereotypes-against-women-suggests-alternate-phrases-626073"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;`Housewife, ladylike`: India Supreme Court gives alternatives to words that stereotype women</strong></a></p>

<p>However, as per the Supreme Court, the lower court “strangely” listed the matter for 12 days later, "losing sight of the fact that every day's delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case".</p>

<h2><strong>Latest judgment by Supreme Court</strong></h2>

<p>India’s apex court on Monday issued a fresh judgment in the case taking into consideration the latest status report.</p>

<p>“Subsequent to the medical procedure to be carried out, in the event the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital is to give all facilities including incubation to ensure the foetus survives. The State shall then take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with law," the Supreme Court said.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling. "What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court.

India’s Supreme Court on Monday (August 21) rebuked a lower court for passing an order against the top court’s ruling. "What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” said the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court. The strong remarks came in a case related to a rape victim who was seeking to terminate her pregnancy. As reported by NDTV, the Gujarat High Court passed an order in the case even as it was listed for hearing in the apex court on August 21. Earlier, the high court had ruled against the victim and denied her relief but Supreme Court in Monday’s judgment granted her approval for terminating her pregnancy. “No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy," the SC bench noted. Gujarat government issues clarification Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented Gujarat government in the Supreme Court, defended the court’s move by claiming that the Saturday order was passed just to fix a “clerical error.” Watch: Supreme Court of India issues handbook to remove gender stereotypes from law × "There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding," Mehta said while assuring the top court that the state government shall request the high court to recall the order. Supreme Court vs High Court Earlier on Saturday, the Supreme Court chided the lower court for its "lackadaisical attitude" in the sensitive case, saying “valuable time" has been lost. The 25-year-old victim had initially approached the high court on August 7, following which the court directed the formation of a medical board to look into the status of her pregnancy. The report prepared by the board, which ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated, was taken up by the high court on August 11. Also read: `Housewife, ladylike`: India Supreme Court gives alternatives to words that stereotype women However, as per the Supreme Court, the lower court “strangely” listed the matter for 12 days later, "losing sight of the fact that every day's delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case". Latest judgment by Supreme Court India’s apex court on Monday issued a fresh judgment in the case taking into consideration the latest status report. “Subsequent to the medical procedure to be carried out, in the event the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital is to give all facilities including incubation to ensure the foetus survives. The State shall then take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with law," the Supreme Court said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Court vs court in India: Gujarat High Court passes order against Supreme Court ruling

The supreme court of India has prepared a handbook on combating gender stereotypes. It contains a glossary of gender unjust terms and suggests alternative words and phrases. As soon as a 5-judge bench assembled to hear the pleas challenging the abrogation of article 370 of the constitution, the chief justice of India announced unveiling of the handbook. Words like eve-teasing, prostitute, and housewife may soon be out of the legal lexicon; and will be replaced by terms like street sexual harassment, sex worker and homemaker.

Sex worker in place of prostitute; Words like housewife may soon be out of Indian legal lexicon

India's Supreme Court has released a new handbook for all judges. This is meant for the judges the list contains 40 words that have been red-flagged. The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that these words actually further gender biases and stereotypes so let's take you through some of these words and expressions.

Supreme Court of India issues handbook to remove gender stereotypes from law

India's Supreme Court has released a new handbook for all judges. This is meant for the judges the list contains 40 words that have been red-flagged. The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that these words actually further gender biases and stereotypes so let's take you through some of these words and expressions. To know more watch this interview with an advocate from the Mumbai High Court, Mrunalini Deshmukh.

Supreme Court Handbook: Women have historically faced prejudices & stereotypes

<p>A photo of Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud has been going viral in a manner that the Supreme Court said was "ill-intended". The top court has also reported the post to the police.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What is the "ill-intended" post about?</strong></h2>

<p>The social media post, seen by WION, urged the public to protest against the authorities.</p>

<p>But the Supreme Court said in a press statement that no such post had been put up by the Chief Justice, nor had he authorised any such post.</p>

<h2><strong>What did the Supreme Court say?</strong></h2>

<p>A complaint was filed with the Delhi Police Cyber Cell, according to Secretary-General of the Supreme Court, Atul Kuharkaker.</p>

<p>"It has come to the notice of the Supreme Court of India that a social media post (urging the public to protest against authorities) using a file photograph and falsely quoting the Chief Justice of India is being circulated," Supreme Court said in its statement.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-pressure-from-government-while-deciding-cases-cji-chandrachud-573442">No pressure from government while deciding cases: CJI Chandrachud</a></strong></p>

<p>"The post is fake, ill-intended and mischievous," it said, adding that action was being taken in consultation with law enforcement authorities.</p>

<p>The top court said it had called for stringent legal action against those responsible for the fake post.</p>

<p>The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also denounced the post in what he described as "fraudulent and misleading" WhatsApp forward messages in the name of the Chief Justice of India.</p>

<p><strong>Also watch |&nbsp;Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India</strong></p>

<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/supreme-court-financial-penalties-must-be-proportionate-to-profits-india-625434/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Mehta added that no chief justice could be involved in such posts.</p>

<p>The name of the Chief Justice of India being used for such serious mischief should be punished and will be punished, Mehta asserted.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><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></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


A photo of Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud has been going viral in a manner that the Supreme Court said was "ill-intended". The top court has also reported the post to the police.

A photo of Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud has been going viral in a manner that the Supreme Court said was "ill-intended". The top court has also reported the post to the police. What is the "ill-intended" post about? The social media post, seen by WION, urged the public to protest against the authorities. But the Supreme Court said in a press statement that no such post had been put up by the Chief Justice, nor had he authorised any such post. What did the Supreme Court say? A complaint was filed with the Delhi Police Cyber Cell, according to Secretary-General of the Supreme Court, Atul Kuharkaker. "It has come to the notice of the Supreme Court of India that a social media post (urging the public to protest against authorities) using a file photograph and falsely quoting the Chief Justice of India is being circulated," Supreme Court said in its statement. Also read | No pressure from government while deciding cases: CJI Chandrachud "The post is fake, ill-intended and mischievous," it said, adding that action was being taken in consultation with law enforcement authorities. The top court said it had called for stringent legal action against those responsible for the fake post. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also denounced the post in what he described as "fraudulent and misleading" WhatsApp forward messages in the name of the Chief Justice of India. Also watch | Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India × Mehta added that no chief justice could be involved in such posts. The name of the Chief Justice of India being used for such serious mischief should be punished and will be punished, Mehta asserted. 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.

India's Supreme Court files complaint against fake WhatsApp forwards under CJI's name

<p>India's Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) denied bail to three convicts in the Godhra train burning and violence case of 2002. A bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and&nbsp;Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, said it could not grant bail as all three convicts had active roles in the incident.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Convicts, Saukat Yusuf Ismail, Bilal Abdullah Ismail and Siddikare, are currently serving life terms in the case.</p>

<p>"Having regard to the specific role of the appellants, we are not inclined to enlarge them on bail. Needless to say, it will not impact the merits of the appeal," the court said in its order, according to Bar and Bench.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Notably, Bilal was found guilty of instigating the mob and using deadly weapons. Siddik was convicted for egging the mob as well and using deadly weapons while&nbsp;Saukat is serving jail for pelting stones, causing damage to the railway coaches and looting the ornaments of passengers.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-dispatch-indian-mea-denounces-bbc-documentary-on-prime-minister-narendra-modi-554203"><strong>Watch |&nbsp;WION Dispatch: Indian MEA denounces BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-dispatch-indian-mea-denounces-bbc-documentary-on-prime-minister-narendra-modi-554203/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the defendants said there was no recovery of gold ornaments from the accused as alleged. He added that the three have been languishing in prison for 20 years.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Meanwhile, CJI Chandrachud, commenting on the case said,&nbsp;"The incident is also a very serious incident. It is not a question of an isolated person being murdered."</p>

<h2><strong>What happened in 2002?</strong></h2>

<p>Notably, the burning of the Sabarmati Express train on 27&nbsp;February 2002&nbsp;kickstarted the Gujarat riots. The train was carrying 59 passengers, mostly 'karsevaks' (Hindu religious volunteers), who were returning from the holy city of Ayodhya. According to reports, a mob of 2,000 set four coaches of the train on fire.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-special-court-acquits-69-accused-in-naroda-gam-riots-including-former-bjp-mla-584491"><strong>Also read | India: Special court acquits 69 accused in Naroda Gam riots including former BJP MLA</strong></a></p>

<p>A day later,&nbsp;protests started against the burning of the train and 11 Muslims were burnt to death after a frenzied mob set their houses on fire in a locality known as Muslim Mahollam Kumbhar Vas in the Naroda Gam area of Ahmedabad.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Earlier this year, a special court in Ahmedabad&nbsp;acquitted the 69 accused in the 2002 Naroda Gam riots case.&nbsp;Special judge Shubhada Baxi pronounced the result, with former BJP MLA Maya Kodani, ex-Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and&nbsp;Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Jaydeep Patel among those freed.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><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></p>


India's Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) denied bail to three convicts in the Godhra train burning and violence case of 2002. A bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, said it could not grant bail as all three convicts had active roles in the incident.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) denied bail to three convicts in the Godhra train burning and violence case of 2002. A bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, said it could not grant bail as all three convicts had active roles in the incident. Convicts, Saukat Yusuf Ismail, Bilal Abdullah Ismail and Siddikare, are currently serving life terms in the case. "Having regard to the specific role of the appellants, we are not inclined to enlarge them on bail. Needless to say, it will not impact the merits of the appeal," the court said in its order, according to Bar and Bench. Notably, Bilal was found guilty of instigating the mob and using deadly weapons. Siddik was convicted for egging the mob as well and using deadly weapons while Saukat is serving jail for pelting stones, causing damage to the railway coaches and looting the ornaments of passengers. Watch | WION Dispatch: Indian MEA denounces BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi × Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the defendants said there was no recovery of gold ornaments from the accused as alleged. He added that the three have been languishing in prison for 20 years. Meanwhile, CJI Chandrachud, commenting on the case said, "The incident is also a very serious incident. It is not a question of an isolated person being murdered." What happened in 2002? Notably, the burning of the Sabarmati Express train on 27 February 2002 kickstarted the Gujarat riots. The train was carrying 59 passengers, mostly 'karsevaks' (Hindu religious volunteers), who were returning from the holy city of Ayodhya. According to reports, a mob of 2,000 set four coaches of the train on fire. Also read | India: Special court acquits 69 accused in Naroda Gam riots including former BJP MLA A day later, protests started against the burning of the train and 11 Muslims were burnt to death after a frenzied mob set their houses on fire in a locality known as Muslim Mahollam Kumbhar Vas in the Naroda Gam area of Ahmedabad. Earlier this year, a special court in Ahmedabad acquitted the 69 accused in the 2002 Naroda Gam riots case. Special judge Shubhada Baxi pronounced the result, with former BJP MLA Maya Kodani, ex-Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Jaydeep Patel among those freed. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Supreme Court denies bail to three convicts in 2002 Godhra train burning case

The government in India's Northeastern state of Manipur has ordered officials to quit formal and informal groups on social media platforms. According to the reports, all government departments have been asked to submit a compliance report regarding the Manipur matter.

Manipur violence: Officials asked not to be part of groups promoting Secretarian agenda | WION

The Supreme Court of India has expressed concerns over the self-regulation mechanism of television channels. Pointing out that the current framework has proven 'ineffective', the top court said it would issue guidelines to help strengthen such regulation. It suggested that penalties imposed by the NBDA upon TV channels must be proportionate to profits. Mohammed Saleh tells you more.

Gravitas: Supreme Court Seeks Stricter TV Rules; 'Rs 1 Lakh Fine Ineffective

The top court of India demanded that the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), the regulatory watchdog established by TV news broadcasters, strengthen the current structure after questioning the effectiveness of the self-regulatory measures implemented by TV news stations. The existing self-regulation procedure used by news stations was deemed "ineffective" by a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, who also questioned if the current monetary fine levied by the regulating body is sufficient.

Supreme Court: Financial penalties must be proportionate to profits | India

Pakistan's Supreme Court has rejected the review of judgements law. The law could have helped Nawaz Sharif return to Pakistan & run for office. Molly Gambhir tells you how the move has put his future in peril.

Gravitas: Pak SC rejects review of judgements law | Big setback for Nawaz Sharif

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