India's Supreme Court resumed hearing pleas related to the ongoing ethnic clashes in Manipur earlier this afternoon. In its efforts to restore a sense of confidence in the rule of law in the state, the Chief Justice-headed bench has decided to constitute a three-committee bench of three High Court judges.

Manipur Violence: Three-member judges' committee to look after relief and remedy measures

Manipur violence: India top court sets up 3-member committee, SC hears violence pleas

<p>The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) team will continue its scientific survey work for a fourth consecutive day at the Gyanvyapi mosque, in Varanasi, situated in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The survey is expected to start around 10:30 am local time but could be delayed as it is the fifth Monday of the holy month of Sawan, considered auspicious among the Hindu devotees, who might be arriving in numbers at the adjoining Kashi Vishwanath temple.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Survey work is under progress. Anjuman Intezamia Committee is also cooperating with the survey. There can be a little delay to start the survey as today is the fifth Monday of 'Sawan' month," said Sudhir Tripathi, an advocate representing the Hindu side.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Notably, during Sunday's (August 6) survey, the ASI team was joined by&nbsp;the Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, despite threats by the mosque panel that it would boycott the entire exercise if the rumours regarding the findings continue to do the rounds of media.</p>

<p>Notably,&nbsp;Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, the organisation which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, alleged that a section of the media spread rumours that idols, <em>Trishul </em>(trident) and <em>Kalash </em>(pitcher) were found during the survey in the basement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Despite the hullabaloo, the survey team, in its collaborative effort, managed to conduct scientific tests under all three domes of the mosque. The Hindu side informed that photography, mapping and measurement of the area were done, while the basements were cleaned which will be accessed during Monday's survey.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Gyanvapi survey to continue, rules court</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" data-gtm-yt-inspected-20="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-25="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-30="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gyanvapi-survey-to-continue-rules-court-needed-in-interest-of-justice-621994/embed" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-the-gyanvapi-case-history-and-battle-over-places-of-worship-act-622020#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></p>

<h2><strong>Why conduct the survey?</strong></h2>

<p>The survey is being conducted to determine if the 17th-century mosque was indeed built over an ancient Hindu temple.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It was last week that the scientific survey of the entire complex,&nbsp;excluding Wuzu Khana began, following Allahabad high court's order, which allowed the ASI to conduct the exercise. The Muslim side did not participate in the survey on Friday (August 4).</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-the-gyanvapi-case-history-and-battle-over-places-of-worship-act-622020"><strong>Explained | The Gyanvapi case, history and battle over Places of Worship Act</strong></a></p>

<p>The case stems from an August 2021 petition filed by four Hindu devotees that sought rights to pray daily before Hindu idols on the outer walls of Gyanvapi mosque.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The matter has since moved from a local court to a district court, to the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, only to be transferred back to the district court and the Allahabad High Court.</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 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) team will continue its scientific survey work for a fourth consecutive day at the Gyanvyapi mosque, in Varanasi, situated in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) team will continue its scientific survey work for a fourth consecutive day at the Gyanvyapi mosque, in Varanasi, situated in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The survey is expected to start around 10:30 am local time but could be delayed as it is the fifth Monday of the holy month of Sawan, considered auspicious among the Hindu devotees, who might be arriving in numbers at the adjoining Kashi Vishwanath temple. "Survey work is under progress. Anjuman Intezamia Committee is also cooperating with the survey. There can be a little delay to start the survey as today is the fifth Monday of 'Sawan' month," said Sudhir Tripathi, an advocate representing the Hindu side. Notably, during Sunday's (August 6) survey, the ASI team was joined by the Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, despite threats by the mosque panel that it would boycott the entire exercise if the rumours regarding the findings continue to do the rounds of media. Notably, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, the organisation which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, alleged that a section of the media spread rumours that idols, Trishul (trident) and Kalash (pitcher) were found during the survey in the basement. Despite the hullabaloo, the survey team, in its collaborative effort, managed to conduct scientific tests under all three domes of the mosque. The Hindu side informed that photography, mapping and measurement of the area were done, while the basements were cleaned which will be accessed during Monday's survey. Watch: Gyanvapi survey to continue, rules court × Why conduct the survey? The survey is being conducted to determine if the 17th-century mosque was indeed built over an ancient Hindu temple. It was last week that the scientific survey of the entire complex, excluding Wuzu Khana began, following Allahabad high court's order, which allowed the ASI to conduct the exercise. The Muslim side did not participate in the survey on Friday (August 4). Explained | The Gyanvapi case, history and battle over Places of Worship Act The case stems from an August 2021 petition filed by four Hindu devotees that sought rights to pray daily before Hindu idols on the outer walls of Gyanvapi mosque. The matter has since moved from a local court to a district court, to the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, only to be transferred back to the district court and the Allahabad High Court. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Gyanvapi case: Survey to continue on Monday but could be delayed. Know why

Supreme Court orders now paved the way for the Congress Party Supremo to return to Parliament after officially restoring his status as an MP. Moreover, Gandhi will also be able to contest national elections which are due next year shortly after the court's decision the leader issued a statement at a press conference.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi can officially be in Parliament member again

Here, we bring you the news that is trending across WION's social media platforms- In a big relief for congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the supreme court of India has suspended the conviction orders against him, in the Modi-surname defamation case, paving the wave of Rahul Gandhi's return parliament.

Indian Supreme Court stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in Modi surname remark case

Supreme Court grants relief to Rahul Gandhi

<p class="MsoNormal">India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4).<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">In its verdict, the apex court said, “There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.” The court accepted his affidavit in the contempt petition and observed that Gandhi ought to have been more careful.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Supreme Court said that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Granting relief to the Congress leader, Supreme Court said that the ramifications of the order given by the trial court are wide. “Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a> Supreme Court stays Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark.<br />
<br />
The conviction in the case had led to his disqualification as MP. <a href="https://t.co/JCmbPdyVHX">pic.twitter.com/JCmbPdyVHX</a></p>
— INC TV (@INC_Television) <a href="https://twitter.com/INC_Television/status/1687375243265056768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 4, 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>

<p>Gandhi’s conviction in the 'Modi surname' remark case led to his disqualification as MP. The court was hearing a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi which challenged the verdict delivered by Gujarat HC that had declined to put on hold his conviction.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><strong>ALSO READ |</strong>&nbsp;</o:p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/call-us-what-you-want-congress-leader-rahul-gandhi-hits-back-at-pm-modi-after-india-row-619295">Congress leader Rahul Gandhi pushes back against PM Modi over INDIA remarks</a></p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal"><strong>Heated arguments</strong><o:p></o:p></h2>

<p class="MsoNormal">Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Rahul Gandhi in the court, said that the comments of the former Congress president on the “Modi surname” were not an offence against society, reported news agency ANI.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">“First of all, Purnesh Modi’s (complainant) original surname is not Modi…He changed his surname… Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech have sued. Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very ‘small’ community in 13 crores, only people suing are BJP office-holders,” said senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, as quoted by legal website Live Law.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">“The judge treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude. This is a non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence. The offence was not against society, not kidnapping, rape, or murder. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi quizzed.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Modi surname case I Rahul won’t apologise: ‘Gross abuse of judicial process’</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/modi-surname-case-i-rahul-wont-apologise-gross-abuse-of-judicial-process-621984/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p class="MsoNormal">“In the democracy, we have dissent, in democracy we have disagreement. What we call ‘shaleen bhasha’. Gandhi is not a hardened criminal. There are many cases filed by BJP workers, but there was never any conviction. Gandhi has already missed two sessions of the Parliament,” he added.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Replying to the arguments of Singhvi, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for complainant Purnesh Modi, stated that the entire speech was more than 50 minutes long and they have a plethora of clippings of the speech and evidence attached in the Election Commission of India’s record.<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">The Supreme Court stated that it wanted to know why Gandhi was given the maximum sentence. “Had the judge given a sentence of 1 year and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) would not have been disqualified,” the Supreme Court stated.</p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal"><strong>Gandhi back in Parliament,&nbsp;Priyanka&nbsp;Gandhi says 'Satyameva Jayate'</strong></h2>

<p class="MsoNormal">After the court's order,&nbsp;Gandhi became eligible to return to Parliament as a member as early as Monday, said two officials on Friday, adding that the verdict has paved the way for the revival of his membership of the House.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the decision of Supreme Court, cited&nbsp;Gautam Buddha's quote&nbsp;which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”.</p>

<p>“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” ~Gautama Buddha," wrote Priyanka Gandhi on X (formerly Twitter). Gandhi further thanked the&nbsp;court for the “fair” decision&nbsp;and said “Satyameva Jayate”.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></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>.</strong><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<main>
<section>
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-17="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-23="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-32="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</section>
</main>


India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4).

India’s Supreme Court, in its interim order, placed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on hold in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark on Friday (August 4). In its verdict, the apex court said, “There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.” The court accepted his affidavit in the contempt petition and observed that Gandhi ought to have been more careful. Supreme Court said that the trial court judge did not give any reason for imposing the maximum sentence on Gandhi and added that the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication. Granting relief to the Congress leader, Supreme Court said that the ramifications of the order given by the trial court are wide. “Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him,” said the court. #BREAKING Supreme Court stays Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case over the 'Modi surname' remark. The conviction in the case had led to his disqualification as MP. pic.twitter.com/JCmbPdyVHX — INC TV (@INC_Television) August 4, 2023 × Gandhi’s conviction in the 'Modi surname' remark case led to his disqualification as MP. The court was hearing a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi which challenged the verdict delivered by Gujarat HC that had declined to put on hold his conviction. ALSO READ | Congress leader Rahul Gandhi pushes back against PM Modi over INDIA remarks Heated arguments Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Rahul Gandhi in the court, said that the comments of the former Congress president on the “Modi surname” were not an offence against society, reported news agency ANI. “First of all, Purnesh Modi’s (complainant) original surname is not Modi…He changed his surname… Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech have sued. Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very ‘small’ community in 13 crores, only people suing are BJP office-holders,” said senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, as quoted by legal website Live Law. “The judge treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude. This is a non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence. The offence was not against society, not kidnapping, rape, or murder. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi quizzed. WATCH | Modi surname case I Rahul won’t apologise: ‘Gross abuse of judicial process’ “In the democracy, we have dissent, in democracy we have disagreement. What we call ‘shaleen bhasha’. Gandhi is not a hardened criminal. There are many cases filed by BJP workers, but there was never any conviction. Gandhi has already missed two sessions of the Parliament,” he added. Replying to the arguments of Singhvi, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for complainant Purnesh Modi, stated that the entire speech was more than 50 minutes long and they have a plethora of clippings of the speech and evidence attached in the Election Commission of India’s record. The Supreme Court stated that it wanted to know why Gandhi was given the maximum sentence. “Had the judge given a sentence of 1 year and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) would not have been disqualified,” the Supreme Court stated. Gandhi back in Parliament, Priyanka Gandhi says 'Satyameva Jayate' After the court's order, Gandhi became eligible to return to Parliament as a member as early as Monday, said two officials on Friday, adding that the verdict has paved the way for the revival of his membership of the House. Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, hailing the decision of Supreme Court, cited Gautam Buddha's quote which said “Truth cannot be long hidden”. “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” ~Gautama Buddha," wrote Priyanka Gandhi on X (formerly Twitter). Gandhi further thanked the court for the “fair” decision and said “Satyameva Jayate”. 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

India’s Supreme Court stays conviction of Rahul Gandhi in 'Modi surname' criminal defamation case

The Archaeological Survey of India has resumed its survey of the Gyanvapi mosque in the city of Varanasi. The survey aims to determine whether the 17th-century Mosque was constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple the Mosque Committee has challenged the survey and the petition is in India's Supreme Court.

India: Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque resumes

India's national capital has ties and security and deployed drones to monitor incoming traffic after Monday's clashes in the neighbouring state of Haryana where the situation has been tense. After two days of clashes after a religious procession in the region, the Supreme Court has now issued a slew of directives to de-escalate the unrest.

Haryana violence: Supreme Court issues disciplinary directives

<p>Against the backdrop of the violence in Manipur, Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, leading a Supreme Court bench, expressed strong disapproval of the heinous acts perpetrated against women during the communal and sectarian violence in the northeastern state. He said&nbsp;that such actions could not be justified by comparing them to crimes happening elsewhere in the country.</p>

<p>“We are dealing with something on the unprecedented magnitude of violence against women in communal and sectarian violence. But this cannot be gainsaid that crimes are happening against women and in Bengal also but here the case is different. Tell me what is the suggestion from you in the Manipur case? We cannot justify what happened in Manipur by saying that this happened elsewhere,” the Chief Justice reportedly said.</p>

<h2><strong>Supreme Court demands answers&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, referred to a distressing video showing the naked parading and sexual assault of two tribal women by a mob.</p>

<p>The court questioned the delay in registering a First Information Report (FIR), which took 14 days after the incident came to light on May 4.</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bhutans-roaring-success-in-tiger-conservation-grows-spotlight-with-latest-numbers-620999">Bhutan's roaring success in Tiger conservation grows spotlight with latest numbers</a></p>

<p>The apex court demanded the government to provide information on arrests made so far and the rehabilitation and aid packages for those affected by the violence since early May.</p>

<h2><strong>Possible formation of special committee&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The Supreme Court raised the possibility of forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or committee comprising former judges to oversee the situation. However, the court clarified that it would first hear the responses of the law officers representing the Central government and Manipur on this matter during the next session on Tuesday.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Police handling of case comes under scrutiny</strong></h2>

<p>The bench expressed dismay over the police's handling of the case and questioned why the FIR in the video case was transferred to a magisterial court on June 24, over a month after the incident. Many have lost loved ones and homes due to the violence, making the situation critical and demanding prompt action.</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/song-about-going-to-prison-plays-as-trump-takes-to-stage-in-rally-620990">Song about 'going to prison' plays as Trump takes to stage in rally</a></p>

<p>The apex court called for a comprehensive mechanism to address violence against women in Manipur and inquired about the number of FIRs registered in such incidents since May.</p>

<h2><strong>Centre's response&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the Manipur government, informed the court that the Union of India had no objection if the Supreme Court decided to monitor the investigation into the violence cases.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | UK: Health agency report shows slight increase in hospital admission</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/uk-health-agency-report-shows-slight-increase-in-hospital-admission-621004/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>On July 27, the Centre informed the court that the case involving the two women in the video had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The government asserted its "zero tolerance" towards crimes against women.</p>

<h2><strong>Request to transfer trial outside Manipur</strong></h2>

<p>The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), through its Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, urged the Supreme Court to transfer the trial of the case outside Manipur for a time-bound conclusion. Seven individuals have been arrested in connection with the case so far.</p>

<p>The state of Manipur has been experiencing ethnic violence since May 3, triggered by a 'Tribal Solidarity March' in the hill districts to protest against the demand for Scheduled Tribe status by the majority Meitei community. The violence has resulted in numerous casualties and injuries, causing widespread unrest and concern.</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>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


Against the backdrop of the violence in Manipur, Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, leading a Supreme Court bench, expressed strong disapproval of the heinous acts perpetrated against women during the communal and sectarian violence in the northeastern state.

Against the backdrop of the violence in Manipur, Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, leading a Supreme Court bench, expressed strong disapproval of the heinous acts perpetrated against women during the communal and sectarian violence in the northeastern state. He said that such actions could not be justified by comparing them to crimes happening elsewhere in the country. “We are dealing with something on the unprecedented magnitude of violence against women in communal and sectarian violence. But this cannot be gainsaid that crimes are happening against women and in Bengal also but here the case is different. Tell me what is the suggestion from you in the Manipur case? We cannot justify what happened in Manipur by saying that this happened elsewhere,” the Chief Justice reportedly said. Supreme Court demands answers The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, referred to a distressing video showing the naked parading and sexual assault of two tribal women by a mob. The court questioned the delay in registering a First Information Report (FIR), which took 14 days after the incident came to light on May 4. Also Read | Bhutan's roaring success in Tiger conservation grows spotlight with latest numbers The apex court demanded the government to provide information on arrests made so far and the rehabilitation and aid packages for those affected by the violence since early May. Possible formation of special committee The Supreme Court raised the possibility of forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or committee comprising former judges to oversee the situation. However, the court clarified that it would first hear the responses of the law officers representing the Central government and Manipur on this matter during the next session on Tuesday. Police handling of case comes under scrutiny The bench expressed dismay over the police's handling of the case and questioned why the FIR in the video case was transferred to a magisterial court on June 24, over a month after the incident. Many have lost loved ones and homes due to the violence, making the situation critical and demanding prompt action. Also Read | Song about 'going to prison' plays as Trump takes to stage in rally The apex court called for a comprehensive mechanism to address violence against women in Manipur and inquired about the number of FIRs registered in such incidents since May. Centre's response Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the Manipur government, informed the court that the Union of India had no objection if the Supreme Court decided to monitor the investigation into the violence cases. Watch | UK: Health agency report shows slight increase in hospital admission × On July 27, the Centre informed the court that the case involving the two women in the video had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The government asserted its "zero tolerance" towards crimes against women. Request to transfer trial outside Manipur The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), through its Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla, urged the Supreme Court to transfer the trial of the case outside Manipur for a time-bound conclusion. Seven individuals have been arrested in connection with the case so far. The state of Manipur has been experiencing ethnic violence since May 3, triggered by a 'Tribal Solidarity March' in the hill districts to protest against the demand for Scheduled Tribe status by the majority Meitei community. The violence has resulted in numerous casualties and injuries, causing widespread unrest and concern. 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 demands answers over delayed FIR in shocking Manipur viral video case

<p>Israel's Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will not block the controversial judicial law passed by the country's Parliament by issuing an injunction, media reports said.&nbsp;This comes a day after the Israeli parliament passed the controversial judicial law which has cut down the powers of the apex court to block the government decisions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court said that it would take up the debate over the controversial legislation in September.&nbsp;Currently, several petitions are in the Supreme Court which seeks to gid rid of the law. One of the groups that have filed the petition includes the Israeli Bar Association.</p>

<h2><strong>Controversial bill passed in Knesset</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

<p>With a vote of 64-0, the bill was passed in the Israeli Parliament or Knesset. All the members of the governing coalition voted in favour of the bill. Meanwhile, all opposition lawmakers staged a chamber walkout when the voting was underway.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Israel has been witnessing huge protests over the judicial overhaul with opposition calling it a coup. In view of massive protests, Israeli PM Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier delayed the judicial overhaul. “When there’s an opportunity to avoid civil war through dialogue, I, as prime minister, am taking a time out for dialogue,” Netanyahu had said while postponing the vote in parliament over the bill in March.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/imf-urges-india-to-remove-restrictions-on-rice-exports-over-global-inflation-concerns-619573">IMF urges India to remove restrictions on rice exports over global inflation concerns</a></p>

<p>Netanyahu has been calling for the steps taken as part of the reform to rebalance powers between the courts, lawmakers, and the Israeli government.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bill also comes at a time when the Israeli PM is facing a corruption trial. Many who do not support the law claim that Netanyahu wants to go ahead with the overhaul to safeguard himself from the trial.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/smartphones-should-be-banned-from-classrooms-says-un-619541">Smartphones should be banned from classrooms, says UN report</a></p>

<p>The massive protests started in January and have been continuing since then. The protestors are persistent. As the law was passed in Knesset, the demonstrators who criticise the bill chanted, “We will not give up. We will not give up until it’s better here.”</p>

<p><strong>Watch | Doksuri super typhoon to hit Chinese mainland this week | WION Climate Tracker</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/doksuri-super-typhoon-to-hit-chinese-mainland-this-week-wion-climate-tracker-619587/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Israel Medical Association stated that the legislation “will have serious consequences for the health system, patients and doctors."&nbsp; Even if the law is passed in the Israeli Parliament, it still needs to be rubber-stamped by President Isaac Herzog, as part of the procedure under the nation's political system.</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>


Israel's Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will not block the controversial judicial law passed by the country's Parliament by issuing an injunction, media reports said.

Israel's Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will not block the controversial judicial law passed by the country's Parliament by issuing an injunction, media reports said. This comes a day after the Israeli parliament passed the controversial judicial law which has cut down the powers of the apex court to block the government decisions. The court said that it would take up the debate over the controversial legislation in September. Currently, several petitions are in the Supreme Court which seeks to gid rid of the law. One of the groups that have filed the petition includes the Israeli Bar Association. Controversial bill passed in Knesset With a vote of 64-0, the bill was passed in the Israeli Parliament or Knesset. All the members of the governing coalition voted in favour of the bill. Meanwhile, all opposition lawmakers staged a chamber walkout when the voting was underway. Israel has been witnessing huge protests over the judicial overhaul with opposition calling it a coup. In view of massive protests, Israeli PM Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier delayed the judicial overhaul. “When there’s an opportunity to avoid civil war through dialogue, I, as prime minister, am taking a time out for dialogue,” Netanyahu had said while postponing the vote in parliament over the bill in March. Also Read | IMF urges India to remove restrictions on rice exports over global inflation concerns Netanyahu has been calling for the steps taken as part of the reform to rebalance powers between the courts, lawmakers, and the Israeli government. The bill also comes at a time when the Israeli PM is facing a corruption trial. Many who do not support the law claim that Netanyahu wants to go ahead with the overhaul to safeguard himself from the trial. Also Read | Smartphones should be banned from classrooms, says UN report The massive protests started in January and have been continuing since then. The protestors are persistent. As the law was passed in Knesset, the demonstrators who criticise the bill chanted, “We will not give up. We will not give up until it’s better here.” Watch | Doksuri super typhoon to hit Chinese mainland this week | WION Climate Tracker × Israel Medical Association stated that the legislation “will have serious consequences for the health system, patients and doctors." Even if the law is passed in the Israeli Parliament, it still needs to be rubber-stamped by President Isaac Herzog, as part of the procedure under the nation's political system. 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. ×

Israel's SC says will not block controversial judicial law passed by Knesset

<p>Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 26) rejected former prime minister Imran Khan's plea seeking a stay on trial court proceedings in the Toshakhana case. Khan, the chairperson of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, had approached the Supreme Court after being denied relief from the Islamabad High Court. According to a report by Geo News, during Wednesday's hearing,&nbsp;Justice Yahya Afridi of the two-member SC bench said that the apex court will not interfere in the trial court's matters in the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Khan's lawyer&nbsp;Khawaja Haris told the SC that there were multiple petitions related to the&nbsp;jurisdiction of the trial court and the transfer of the case pending in the high court. To this, Justice Afridi directed the Islamabad High Court&nbsp;to hear Khan's pending petitions together. He pointed out that it was not the apex court's jurisdiction to hear the petition when there are related petitions sub-judice in the high court.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The case and Khan's plea</strong></h2>

<p>In October last year, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified Khan in&nbsp;the Toshakhana reference under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution for making false statements and incorrect declarations.</p>

<p>In May this year,&nbsp;Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Hamayun Dilawar rejected the former prime minister's&nbsp;challenge to the maintainability of the Toshakhana reference and indicted him in the case. The trial court's decision was challenged in the Islamabad High Court.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On July 4, the high court remanded the case back to the trial court to&nbsp;re-examine the matter in seven days. Subsequently, Khan moved the Supreme Court and urged it to set aside the High Court's directive. The former PM sought&nbsp;a stay on the proceedings before ADSJ Dilawar until his appeal was decided.</p>

<p>There are currently four petitions pending in the high court. The first is related to the latest order. In two pleas, Khan has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear the case. In the fourth petition, he sought a transfer of the case.&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>


Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 26) rejected former prime minister Imran Khan's plea seeking a stay on trial court proceedings in the Toshakhana case.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 26) rejected former prime minister Imran Khan's plea seeking a stay on trial court proceedings in the Toshakhana case. Khan, the chairperson of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, had approached the Supreme Court after being denied relief from the Islamabad High Court. According to a report by Geo News, during Wednesday's hearing, Justice Yahya Afridi of the two-member SC bench said that the apex court will not interfere in the trial court's matters in the case. Khan's lawyer Khawaja Haris told the SC that there were multiple petitions related to the jurisdiction of the trial court and the transfer of the case pending in the high court. To this, Justice Afridi directed the Islamabad High Court to hear Khan's pending petitions together. He pointed out that it was not the apex court's jurisdiction to hear the petition when there are related petitions sub-judice in the high court. The case and Khan's plea In October last year, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified Khan in the Toshakhana reference under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution for making false statements and incorrect declarations. In May this year, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Hamayun Dilawar rejected the former prime minister's challenge to the maintainability of the Toshakhana reference and indicted him in the case. The trial court's decision was challenged in the Islamabad High Court. On July 4, the high court remanded the case back to the trial court to re-examine the matter in seven days. Subsequently, Khan moved the Supreme Court and urged it to set aside the High Court's directive. The former PM sought a stay on the proceedings before ADSJ Dilawar until his appeal was decided. There are currently four petitions pending in the high court. The first is related to the latest order. In two pleas, Khan has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear the case. In the fourth petition, he sought a transfer of the case. 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.

Toshakhana case: Pak SC rejects Imran Khan's plea seeking stay on trial court proceedings

<p>India's Supreme Court on Monday (July 24) put on hold for two days a scientific survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Gyanvapi mosque in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.</p>

<p>The top court's ruling that stayed a Varanasi district court order for the survey came on the plea submitted by the Gyanvapi Masjid Committee.</p>

<p>The court granted the Gyanvapi mosque management committee time till July 26 to approach the Allahabad High Court against the lower court's order and said that till that time, the status quo be maintained at the site.</p>

<p>At the heart of the case is the contention by a group of Hindu petitioners that there is a shivling, a holy structure for the religion, in the mosque complex which they want to worship. The Muslim representatives argue that it is a fountain.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-asi-reaches-gyanvapi-mosque-to-conduct-scientific-survey-of-complex-618754">India: ASI reaches Gyanvapi mosque to conduct scientific survey of complex</a></p>

<p>The management committee of the mosque had expressed its apprehensions that the survey may involve excavation at the complex which is located next to the iconic Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi.</p>

<p>SC recorded the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and stated that no excavations are being carried out by the ASI as per the district court's order and no excavation has been planned for a week.</p>

<h2><strong>'Not a brick removed'</strong></h2>

<p>Informing the court about the current developments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "Not a brick has been removed nor is it planned to be removed. Right now what is going on is measurement, photography, and radar, which will not affect the structure."&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Supreme Court told advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, that no excavation will be carried out for two weeks and that the ASI is not touching the structure currently and just carrying out the measurement and photography, which will not hamper the place of worship.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"It appears that ASI is not contemplating carrying out any excavation in pursuance of the order. We record the statement to the extent that no excavation at the site is contemplated at this stage for a period of one week until next week Monday," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, taking the submissions of the centre on record.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;'PM Modi envisions a semiconductor ecosystem in India' says Rajeev Chandrasekhar</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-envisions-a-semiconductor-ecosystem-in-india-says-rajeev-chandrasekhar-618616/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>Speaking about Supreme Court's order, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain who was representing the Hindu side in the Gyanvapi mosque case, said, "Supreme Court has put a stay on the order of the District Court on survey of the Mosque complex and has asked the Allahabad Court to decide matter afresh. We will keep our argument in at Allahabad HC. The Muslim side, Anjuman Intezamia misled the SC and said that digging has started there, which is not true."</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Varanasi district magistrate said it will abide by the top court order.</p>

<h2><strong>ASI team reaches the mosque</strong></h2>

<p>Earlier in the day, the team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)&nbsp; reached the Gyanvapi mosque complex to carry out the scientific survey.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The team of ASI had reached Varanasi on Sunday (July 23) along with all the required equipment. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee had said it will not participate in the survey.&nbsp;</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>

<main>
<section>
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-19="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-24="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-31="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</section>
</main>


India's Supreme Court on Monday (July 24) put on hold for two days a scientific survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Gyanvapi mosque in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (July 24) put on hold for two days a scientific survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Gyanvapi mosque in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. The top court's ruling that stayed a Varanasi district court order for the survey came on the plea submitted by the Gyanvapi Masjid Committee. The court granted the Gyanvapi mosque management committee time till July 26 to approach the Allahabad High Court against the lower court's order and said that till that time, the status quo be maintained at the site. At the heart of the case is the contention by a group of Hindu petitioners that there is a shivling, a holy structure for the religion, in the mosque complex which they want to worship. The Muslim representatives argue that it is a fountain. ALSO READ | India: ASI reaches Gyanvapi mosque to conduct scientific survey of complex The management committee of the mosque had expressed its apprehensions that the survey may involve excavation at the complex which is located next to the iconic Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi. SC recorded the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and stated that no excavations are being carried out by the ASI as per the district court's order and no excavation has been planned for a week. 'Not a brick removed' Informing the court about the current developments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "Not a brick has been removed nor is it planned to be removed. Right now what is going on is measurement, photography, and radar, which will not affect the structure." The Supreme Court told advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, that no excavation will be carried out for two weeks and that the ASI is not touching the structure currently and just carrying out the measurement and photography, which will not hamper the place of worship. "It appears that ASI is not contemplating carrying out any excavation in pursuance of the order. We record the statement to the extent that no excavation at the site is contemplated at this stage for a period of one week until next week Monday," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, taking the submissions of the centre on record. WATCH | 'PM Modi envisions a semiconductor ecosystem in India' says Rajeev Chandrasekhar Speaking about Supreme Court's order, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain who was representing the Hindu side in the Gyanvapi mosque case, said, "Supreme Court has put a stay on the order of the District Court on survey of the Mosque complex and has asked the Allahabad Court to decide matter afresh. We will keep our argument in at Allahabad HC. The Muslim side, Anjuman Intezamia misled the SC and said that digging has started there, which is not true." Meanwhile, Varanasi district magistrate said it will abide by the top court order. ASI team reaches the mosque Earlier in the day, the team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reached the Gyanvapi mosque complex to carry out the scientific survey. The team of ASI had reached Varanasi on Sunday (July 23) along with all the required equipment. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee had said it will not participate in the survey. 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

India: Supreme Court stays Varanasi court order on Gyanvapi Mosque survey

The raging Gyanvapi Mosque has witnessed yet another twist India's Supreme Court. It has said Varanasi District Court's scientific survey to remain till 5 PM on July 26th.

Supreme court to Gyanvapi Mosque Management Committee's plea

The video of 2 women being paraded naked in Manipur has shaken India's collective conscience. How did people sink into such insanity? Who will answer for Manipur's grief? Here's what Priyanka Sharma has to say.

Gravitas: Manipur Horror: Shocking video sparks outrage | Two women paraded naked

48 hours after the Manipur video emerged, demonstrations have erupted across India. Women are fighting back, they've taken the centrestage at protests. Priyanka Sharma brings you a report.

Gravitas: Manipur Horror: Women take centrestage at protests

<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 19) granted regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad who was asked to "surrender immediately" earlier this month by Gujarat High Court in a case linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots.</p>

<p>Teesta Setalvad is accused of forgery, fabrication of evidence, making false charges of offences with intent to injure, conspiracy in connection with the 2002 riots cases.</p>

<p>A three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta quashed the Gujarat High Court’s July 1 order that denied Setalvad regular bail.</p>

<p>The top court opined that the lower court’s observations were “perverse” and “contradictory”.</p>

<h2><strong>Apex court finds</strong>&nbsp;faults in high court’s verdict</h2>

<p>“The Gujarat High Court’s order is quashed and set aside… Protection granted to her by this court shall be extended. Passport will remain in custody. Petitioner shall not attempt to influence witnesses,” the bench said in its order, according to LiveLaw outlet.</p>

<p>The apex court also found faults in the high court’s verdict, saying, “If the observation of the learned judge is to be accepted, no application for bail can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings… To say the least, the findings are totally perverse. On the other hand, the learned judge goes on to discuss the statements of some witnesses and finds that prima facie case is made out. The findings are totally contradictory, to say the least.”</p>

<p>The court noted that chargesheet had been filed against Setalvad, and that evidence was already with the proving agency,</p>

<p>“There is hardly any reason for fear that they would be tampered with.”</p>

<p>As a result, the bench said that there was no need for Setalvad to be kept in custody anymore.</p>

<h2><strong>Bench questions timing of Setalvad's arrest</strong></h2>

<p>“The passport of the appellant already surrendered will be in custody of session court. The appellant shall not make any attempt to influence witnesses and shall stay away from them,” the bench said.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-india-the-new-opposition-alliance-will-it-topple-modi-juggernaut-617495">Explained: INDIA, the new opposition alliance. Will it topple Modi juggernaut?</a></p>

<p>The Supreme Court granted liberty to the Gujarat Police to move the top court if an attempt is made to influence witnesses in the case.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |</strong>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indian-equity-indices-end-at-record-highs-sensex-closes-at-lifetime-high-of-67097-617448">Indian equity indices end at record highs, Sensex closes at lifetime high of 67,097</a></p>

<p>During the hearing, Justice BR Gavai questioned the motives and timing of Setalvad's arrest.</p>

<p>&nbsp;"What were you doing till 2022? What investigation have you done from June 24 and June 25 that you decided she has done something so heinous as to warrant her arrest?"</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" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 19) granted regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad who was asked to "surrender immediately" earlier this month by Gujarat High Court in a case linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 19) granted regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad who was asked to "surrender immediately" earlier this month by Gujarat High Court in a case linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots. Teesta Setalvad is accused of forgery, fabrication of evidence, making false charges of offences with intent to injure, conspiracy in connection with the 2002 riots cases. A three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta quashed the Gujarat High Court’s July 1 order that denied Setalvad regular bail. The top court opined that the lower court’s observations were “perverse” and “contradictory”. Apex court finds faults in high court’s verdict “The Gujarat High Court’s order is quashed and set aside… Protection granted to her by this court shall be extended. Passport will remain in custody. Petitioner shall not attempt to influence witnesses,” the bench said in its order, according to LiveLaw outlet. The apex court also found faults in the high court’s verdict, saying, “If the observation of the learned judge is to be accepted, no application for bail can be accepted unless the accused files an application for quashing the proceedings… To say the least, the findings are totally perverse. On the other hand, the learned judge goes on to discuss the statements of some witnesses and finds that prima facie case is made out. The findings are totally contradictory, to say the least.” The court noted that chargesheet had been filed against Setalvad, and that evidence was already with the proving agency, “There is hardly any reason for fear that they would be tampered with.” As a result, the bench said that there was no need for Setalvad to be kept in custody anymore. Bench questions timing of Setalvad's arrest “The passport of the appellant already surrendered will be in custody of session court. The appellant shall not make any attempt to influence witnesses and shall stay away from them,” the bench said. Also read | Explained: INDIA, the new opposition alliance. Will it topple Modi juggernaut? The Supreme Court granted liberty to the Gujarat Police to move the top court if an attempt is made to influence witnesses in the case. Also read | Indian equity indices end at record highs, Sensex closes at lifetime high of 67,097 During the hearing, Justice BR Gavai questioned the motives and timing of Setalvad's arrest. "What were you doing till 2022? What investigation have you done from June 24 and June 25 that you decided she has done something so heinous as to warrant her arrest?" (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India: Supreme Court grants bail to Teesta Setalvad in Gujarat riots case, sets aside HC order

<p>The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to sit together, discuss and come to a conclusion unanimously on the next Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) chief, saying that the two constitutional functionaries should rise above ''political bickering''.</p>

<p>A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said that they will take up the issue and weigh on it again on Thursday. The bench further asked the counsel for the city government and the LG to notify Kejriwal and Saxena of today's development in the court.</p>

<p>“Does everything run through modalities of the Supreme Court? They both are constitutional functionaries. Can’t the LG and Chief Minister sit and come up with a name on which both agree,” the bench asked.</p>

<p>“So much of the work of government happens away from the public eye. We are not so much concerned about DERC Chairperson appointment which will be done. We are on the larger issue. You both can sit together and sort out some issues,” it said, while posting the matter of the DERC Chairperson's appointment for the hearing on Thursday.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/here-to-save-democracy-opposition-parties-convene-in-bengaluru-for-mega-meeting-616402">&nbsp;'Here to save democracy...': Indian opposition parties convene in Bengaluru for mega meeting</a></p>

<p>CJI, during the hearing, while describing ways to come to a unanimous decision, said that one way was if one functionary gives a list of three names and the other functionary accepts one name. “We don't want to step into this. We want you both to sit down and do this,” the bench added.</p>

<p>“The two constitutional functionaries have to rise above political bickering and they should give a name for the DERC chairperson,” the bench said.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court was hearing a petition that was filed by the Delhi government relating to the appointment of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) Chairperson.</p>

<p>The top court had said on July 4 that it will inspect the constitutional facts of a provision of the Centre's recent rule overseeing appointments, such as that of the DERC chairperson. The Delhi government recently informed the court that the oath-taking of Justice (retd) Umesh Kumar as chief of the national capital's electricity regulatory authority stands shelved.</p>

<p>The bench had remarked that the petition presents a point of law about the validity of Section 45D of the GNCTD Act, as amended by the latest Ordinance issued by the Centre, which gives overriding powers to the Lieutenant Governor over the elected government in the matter of appointments.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>&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>


The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to sit together, discuss and come to a conclusion unanimously on the next Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) chief, saying that the two constitutional functionaries should rise above ''political bickering''.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to sit together, discuss and come to a conclusion unanimously on the next Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) chief, saying that the two constitutional functionaries should rise above ''political bickering''. A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said that they will take up the issue and weigh on it again on Thursday. The bench further asked the counsel for the city government and the LG to notify Kejriwal and Saxena of today's development in the court. “Does everything run through modalities of the Supreme Court? They both are constitutional functionaries. Can’t the LG and Chief Minister sit and come up with a name on which both agree,” the bench asked. “So much of the work of government happens away from the public eye. We are not so much concerned about DERC Chairperson appointment which will be done. We are on the larger issue. You both can sit together and sort out some issues,” it said, while posting the matter of the DERC Chairperson's appointment for the hearing on Thursday. Also read: 'Here to save democracy...': Indian opposition parties convene in Bengaluru for mega meeting CJI, during the hearing, while describing ways to come to a unanimous decision, said that one way was if one functionary gives a list of three names and the other functionary accepts one name. “We don't want to step into this. We want you both to sit down and do this,” the bench added. “The two constitutional functionaries have to rise above political bickering and they should give a name for the DERC chairperson,” the bench said. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition that was filed by the Delhi government relating to the appointment of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) Chairperson. The top court had said on July 4 that it will inspect the constitutional facts of a provision of the Centre's recent rule overseeing appointments, such as that of the DERC chairperson. The Delhi government recently informed the court that the oath-taking of Justice (retd) Umesh Kumar as chief of the national capital's electricity regulatory authority stands shelved. The bench had remarked that the petition presents a point of law about the validity of Section 45D of the GNCTD Act, as amended by the latest Ordinance issued by the Centre, which gives overriding powers to the Lieutenant Governor over the elected government in the matter of appointments. (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.

Supreme Court asks Delhi CM Kejriwal and L-G Saxena to 'rise above political bickering and govern'

<p>The water level of the Yamuna River slowly receded after reaching an all-time high even as various areas in capital New Delhi remain flooded, as river water reached India's Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
Schools, colleges, crematoriums as well as water treatment plants were shut down by the Delhi government. The water level in River Yamuna was recorded at 208.46 metres at 6 am on Friday (July 14), slightly lower than 208.66, which was recorded on Thursday.</p>

<p>The flood water of Yamuna reached near the Supreme Court on Thursday because of suspected backflow of water from drains.<br />
<br />
Some parts of Bhagwan Das Road and Mathura Road near the Supreme Court remain flooded.</p>

<p>Authorities banned the entry of heavy goods vehicles engaged in non-essential services.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Yamuna?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Yamuna</a> flood water reaches close to the Supreme Court due to possible backflow of water from drain.<br />
<br />
Some portions of Mathura Road and Bhagwan Das road near Supreme Court flooded<a href="https://twitter.com/htTweets?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@htTweets</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/delhiflood?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#delhiflood</a> <a href="https://t.co/tHtlkX61Dy">pic.twitter.com/tHtlkX61Dy</a></p>
— Alok K N Mishra HT (@AlokKNMishra) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlokKNMishra/status/1679533975973564417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 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>

<p>According to the Central Water Commission, the water levels are likely to recede on Friday and can reach 208.30 metres by 1 pm.</p>

<p>As per an official statement, around 23,692 people were evacuated from the nearby areas of the Yamuna River in Delhi on Thursday.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/extreme-flood-alert-in-indian-capital-as-river-yamuna-breaches-critical-20846-million-mark-614927">Water level stable in Delhi's Yamuna river for past 3 hours after constant rise; schools, colleges shut</a></p>

<p>Several roads of the national capital remain flooded as water gushed into medical facilities, crematoriums, houses and shelter homes in Delhi.</p>

<p>Many important areas including the secretariat housing the offices of the chief minister and his cabinet colleagues were flooded on Thursday as rescue and relief efforts continued.<br />
<br />
People faced waterlogging on Friday morning at various places including Rajghat and ITO road after heavy rain.</p>

<p><br />
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is on a two-day visit to France, called on Union Home Minister Amit Shah and enquired about the flood-like situation in the capital city, as per reports. Shah, during the telephone conversation, informed the prime minister that the water level is likely to recede in the next 24 hours in River Yamuna.</p>

<h2><strong>Roads, highways damaged after floods in northern India</strong></h2>

<p>Indian states of Punjab and Haryana were also hit by the rains and relief work is being conducted at a brisk pace.</p>

<p>According to the figures released by the Haryana government, the death toll in rain-related incidents reached 16.</p>

<p>Earlier, the officials had reported 10 deaths in the state and 11 from neighbouring Punjab.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Flood Threat: Delhi has recorded 112% above-average rainfall this year</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/flood-threat-delhi-has-recorded-112-above-average-rainfall-this-year-615344/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>Relief operations have been stepped up by the government authorities in the two states as the weather continues to improve in the last three days. The monsoon rains have affected overall 14 districts in Punjab and seven in Haryana.<br />
<br />
The roads and highways in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh have suffered huge damage because of flooding and landslides. A month's rainfall was received by many districts in a single day over the weekend. Tourists were stranded in the town of Manali along with their vehicles after the floods washed away the roads.</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>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" data-gtm-yt-inspected-17="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-23="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-33="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The water level of the Yamuna River slowly receded after reaching an all-time high even as various areas in capital New Delhi remain flooded, as river water reached India's Supreme Court.

The water level of the Yamuna River slowly receded after reaching an all-time high even as various areas in capital New Delhi remain flooded, as river water reached India's Supreme Court. Schools, colleges, crematoriums as well as water treatment plants were shut down by the Delhi government. The water level in River Yamuna was recorded at 208.46 metres at 6 am on Friday (July 14), slightly lower than 208.66, which was recorded on Thursday. The flood water of Yamuna reached near the Supreme Court on Thursday because of suspected backflow of water from drains. Some parts of Bhagwan Das Road and Mathura Road near the Supreme Court remain flooded. Authorities banned the entry of heavy goods vehicles engaged in non-essential services. #Yamuna flood water reaches close to the Supreme Court due to possible backflow of water from drain. Some portions of Mathura Road and Bhagwan Das road near Supreme Court flooded@htTweets #delhiflood pic.twitter.com/tHtlkX61Dy — Alok K N Mishra HT (@AlokKNMishra) July 13, 2023 × According to the Central Water Commission, the water levels are likely to recede on Friday and can reach 208.30 metres by 1 pm. As per an official statement, around 23,692 people were evacuated from the nearby areas of the Yamuna River in Delhi on Thursday. ALSO READ | Water level stable in Delhi's Yamuna river for past 3 hours after constant rise; schools, colleges shut Several roads of the national capital remain flooded as water gushed into medical facilities, crematoriums, houses and shelter homes in Delhi. Many important areas including the secretariat housing the offices of the chief minister and his cabinet colleagues were flooded on Thursday as rescue and relief efforts continued. People faced waterlogging on Friday morning at various places including Rajghat and ITO road after heavy rain. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is on a two-day visit to France, called on Union Home Minister Amit Shah and enquired about the flood-like situation in the capital city, as per reports. Shah, during the telephone conversation, informed the prime minister that the water level is likely to recede in the next 24 hours in River Yamuna. Roads, highways damaged after floods in northern India Indian states of Punjab and Haryana were also hit by the rains and relief work is being conducted at a brisk pace. According to the figures released by the Haryana government, the death toll in rain-related incidents reached 16. Earlier, the officials had reported 10 deaths in the state and 11 from neighbouring Punjab. WATCH | Flood Threat: Delhi has recorded 112% above-average rainfall this year Relief operations have been stepped up by the government authorities in the two states as the weather continues to improve in the last three days. The monsoon rains have affected overall 14 districts in Punjab and seven in Haryana. The roads and highways in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh have suffered huge damage because of flooding and landslides. A month's rainfall was received by many districts in a single day over the weekend. Tourists were stranded in the town of Manali along with their vehicles after the floods washed away the roads. 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

Yamuna flood water reaches India's Supreme Court; water receding slowly

<p>Protests erupted in Israel on Tuesday (July 11) after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-right coalition pushed ahead a controversial bill that seeks to curb the authority of the country's Supreme Court. Protesters blocked major highways and faced off with police. Crowds were seen waving Israeli flag and stopping traffic at major intersections along with highways across the country. Some of them even threw flares.</p>

<p>Police on horseback were deployed in Israel's business hub Tel Aviv. Officers used water canons&nbsp;to disperse protesters at the entrance to Jerusalem and dragged others away by force.</p>

<p>The police said that at least 42 people were arrested. The protests were planned at the main Ben Gurion airport as well.</p>

<p>Netanyahu's push to change the justice system has stoked unprecedented protests in Israel. The ruling coalition's attempts have even raised concerns for Israel's democratic health among its Western allies.</p>

<p>The Israeli parliament has given the initial nod to the bill. It has won a first of the three required votes to be written into the law late on Monday. The bill got the nod amid cries of 'for shame' by leaders in the opposition.</p>

<p>If the bill is passed in its current form, Israeli Supreme Court's power to quash government decisions would be curbed.</p>

<p>Opponents of the bill are arguing that the judicial oversight helps prevent corruption and abuse of power by the government. Supporters of the bill say that passage of the bill will facilitate effective governance as it will curb unnecessary court intervention. They say that judges have other legal means to exercise oversight.</p>

<h2><strong>Bill to be watered down?</strong></h2>

<p>According to Reuters, some members of Netanyahu's Likud Party have indicated that the bill will be watered down before the final vote which they plan to carry out before the Knesset breaks for summer on July 30.</p>

<p>Netanyahu himself is on trial on graft charges. He has denied the charges.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israels-parliament-adopts-key-clause-of-controversial-judicial-bill-614123">Israel's parliament adopts key clause of controversial judicial bill</a></strong></p>

<p>The legislation was paused by Netanyahu once. There are no indications so far that he would pause it again to seek political agreement. Netanyahu has played down economic fallout from the campaign. The investors are nonetheless worried and the shekel has lost almost 8 per cent of its value since January.</p>

<p>The head of Israel's largest labour union urged Netanyahu not to allow what he described as extremism. "Where are you taking the state of Israel? What legacy will you leave behind? End this crazy chaos," Histadrut chair Arnon Bar-David said.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><em>You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form"><strong>here</strong></a>.</em></p>

<p><strong><em>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</em></strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><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></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Protests erupted in Israel on Tuesday (July 11) after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-right coalition pushed ahead a controversial bill that seeks to curb the authority of the country's Supreme Court.

Protests erupted in Israel on Tuesday (July 11) after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-right coalition pushed ahead a controversial bill that seeks to curb the authority of the country's Supreme Court. Protesters blocked major highways and faced off with police. Crowds were seen waving Israeli flag and stopping traffic at major intersections along with highways across the country. Some of them even threw flares. Police on horseback were deployed in Israel's business hub Tel Aviv. Officers used water canons to disperse protesters at the entrance to Jerusalem and dragged others away by force. The police said that at least 42 people were arrested. The protests were planned at the main Ben Gurion airport as well. Netanyahu's push to change the justice system has stoked unprecedented protests in Israel. The ruling coalition's attempts have even raised concerns for Israel's democratic health among its Western allies. The Israeli parliament has given the initial nod to the bill. It has won a first of the three required votes to be written into the law late on Monday. The bill got the nod amid cries of 'for shame' by leaders in the opposition. If the bill is passed in its current form, Israeli Supreme Court's power to quash government decisions would be curbed. Opponents of the bill are arguing that the judicial oversight helps prevent corruption and abuse of power by the government. Supporters of the bill say that passage of the bill will facilitate effective governance as it will curb unnecessary court intervention. They say that judges have other legal means to exercise oversight. Bill to be watered down? According to Reuters, some members of Netanyahu's Likud Party have indicated that the bill will be watered down before the final vote which they plan to carry out before the Knesset breaks for summer on July 30. Netanyahu himself is on trial on graft charges. He has denied the charges. Also Read | Israel's parliament adopts key clause of controversial judicial bill The legislation was paused by Netanyahu once. There are no indications so far that he would pause it again to seek political agreement. Netanyahu has played down economic fallout from the campaign. The investors are nonetheless worried and the shekel has lost almost 8 per cent of its value since January. The head of Israel's largest labour union urged Netanyahu not to allow what he described as extremism. "Where are you taking the state of Israel? What legacy will you leave behind? End this crazy chaos," Histadrut chair Arnon Bar-David said. (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 ×

Israelis protest across country as Netanyahu’s bill to curb SC powers gets Knesset’s initial nod

<p>Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast.</p>

<p>The top court, which dwelt in detail on the severity of the offence, however, did not agree with the vehement plea of the prosecution that the convicts be awarded the death penalty for snuffing out innocent lives in the blast on May 21, 1996.</p>

<p>The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, in its 190-page judgment, spared the four convicts -- Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza, Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey and Javed Ahmed Khan -- the gallows on the ground of delay.</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-man-found-guilty-of-raping-impregnating-9-year-old-girl-gets-life-sentence-612846">US: Man found guilty of raping, impregnating 9-year-old girl gets life sentence</a></p>

<p>It said though the offence "falls within the category of rarest of rare cases", the delay of 27 years in all and 14 years in the trial court in deciding the case are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts.</p>

<p>“The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the present accused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases.”</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-police-arrest-four-men-for-allegedly-aiding-overseas-activists-612850">Hong Kong police arrest four men for allegedly aiding overseas activists</a></p>

<p>"In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned and their bail bonds stand cancelled," it said, ordering convicts Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza and Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey, who were earlier acquitted by the Delhi High Court, to surrender to jail forthwith to serve the life term.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | Russian expert claims the US is working on weaponising asteroids against their enemies</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/russian-expert-claims-the-us-is-working-on-weaponising-asteroids-against-their-enemies-612836/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The top court was very critical of the delay in trial against the convicts and said it compromised the "national interest".</p>

<p>"The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge in charge, or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest," it said.</p>

<p>It said an expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man.</p>

<p>"Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention," it said.</p>

<p>Expressing dismay, the bench said it was forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of "influential persons" which was evident from the fact that out of several accused only a few were put to trial.</p>

<p>"In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels," it said.</p>

<p>The verdict dealt with the circumstantial evidence and the facts relating to the recovery and arrests of the convicts in minute detail.</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>


Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast.

Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 others injured in a bomb blast at the bustling Lajpat Nagar market in Delhi, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday handed life sentences to the four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an "international conspiracy" to "destabilise" India by carrying out the blast. The top court, which dwelt in detail on the severity of the offence, however, did not agree with the vehement plea of the prosecution that the convicts be awarded the death penalty for snuffing out innocent lives in the blast on May 21, 1996. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, in its 190-page judgment, spared the four convicts -- Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza, Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey and Javed Ahmed Khan -- the gallows on the ground of delay. Also Read | US: Man found guilty of raping, impregnating 9-year-old girl gets life sentence It said though the offence "falls within the category of rarest of rare cases", the delay of 27 years in all and 14 years in the trial court in deciding the case are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts. “The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the present accused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases.” Also Read | Hong Kong police arrest four men for allegedly aiding overseas activists "In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned and their bail bonds stand cancelled," it said, ordering convicts Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza and Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey, who were earlier acquitted by the Delhi High Court, to surrender to jail forthwith to serve the life term. Watch | Russian expert claims the US is working on weaponising asteroids against their enemies × The top court was very critical of the delay in trial against the convicts and said it compromised the "national interest". "The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge in charge, or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest," it said. It said an expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. "Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention," it said. Expressing dismay, the bench said it was forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of "influential persons" which was evident from the fact that out of several accused only a few were put to trial. "In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels," it said. The verdict dealt with the circumstantial evidence and the facts relating to the recovery and arrests of the convicts in minute detail. 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. ×

1996 Delhi blasts case: India’s Supreme Court gives life term without remission to four convicts

<p>The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others. The “series of futuristic upgrades” were implemented under the vision of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, said the apex court.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What were the changes made?</strong></h2>

<p>The Indian top court reopened on Monday after the six-week summer vacation, during which it received a technological upgrade. This comes as a part of the new “e-initiatives” in the SC under which the “facility of free Wi-Fi is made available for advocates, litigants, media persons and other stakeholders visiting the Supreme Court of India,” said a statement by the court.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
It also indicated that as of now, this facility is available in CJI’s court, court numbers two to five, corridor and Plaza in front as well as both waiting areas in front of the plaza, canteen and Press Lounge –I and II which were to take effect starting July 3. It will be extended to all courtrooms, Bar Library–I and II, Ladies Bar Room, and Bar Lounge in a “phased manner”.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“We have made courts 1 to 5 WiFi-enabled. The bar rooms are Wi-Fi-enabled as well. All courtrooms will now be like that – no books and papers – which is not to say that we will not rely on books and papers at all,” said the CJI, at the beginning of the day’s proceedings on Monday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>He added, “Please give me feedback on whether everything is working well”. The steps were taken as part of the e-initiatives by the Indian SC, said an apex court official, as per the PTI news agency.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Other ‘futuristic upgrades’ to SC courtrooms</strong></h2>

<p>In a subsequent statement, the top court also said, “A series of futuristic upgrades have been implemented in Court No. 1 to 3 at the Supreme Court of India under the dynamic vision of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to enhance the use of technology in Judicial Systems.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>The top court has also reportedly sought to go green by making optimal use of technology in justice delivery systems. The courtrooms will now have “a state-of-the-art Digital Video Conferencing (VC) system” for better and more efficient communication and collaboration.</p>

<p>It will also enable remote participation and virtual meetings in courtrooms making them more accessible. “Cable cubbies have been integrated into these courtrooms…(the cubbies) are equipped with LAN connections, HDMI outputs, USB C&amp;A ports along with power sockets,” said the apex court.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It added, “The use of these (cubbies) would help in the integrated use of Multimedia devices while ensuring a clutter-free environment.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Additionally, the courtrooms have been equipped with a “futuristic LED video wall” for a high-resolution display of camera feeds and also enhances the visual impact of presentations, evidence, and video recordings, creating an immersive and engaging experience, reported PTI.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Addressing the audio-related changes to the courtrooms of the top court, they have been equipped with Front of House (FOH) speakers which have been placed with under-table&nbsp;speakers along with suitable amplifiers to ensure “that every voice and audio source is heard with exceptional clarity.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>This is in addition to new software developed by the Indian Supreme Court which will allow advocates to upload reference material and citations relating to their case. The apex court is also working on software to provide an e-pass facility to the advocates and litigants to access courtrooms, said the SC&nbsp;in a statement.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em><br />
<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p>&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>


The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Monday (July 3) reopened with a “series of futuristic upgrades”, including paperless and technology-enabled set-up in courtrooms and free wifi for advocates, litigants, media persons and others. The “series of futuristic upgrades” were implemented under the vision of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, said the apex court. What were the changes made? The Indian top court reopened on Monday after the six-week summer vacation, during which it received a technological upgrade. This comes as a part of the new “e-initiatives” in the SC under which the “facility of free Wi-Fi is made available for advocates, litigants, media persons and other stakeholders visiting the Supreme Court of India,” said a statement by the court. It also indicated that as of now, this facility is available in CJI’s court, court numbers two to five, corridor and Plaza in front as well as both waiting areas in front of the plaza, canteen and Press Lounge –I and II which were to take effect starting July 3. It will be extended to all courtrooms, Bar Library–I and II, Ladies Bar Room, and Bar Lounge in a “phased manner”. “We have made courts 1 to 5 WiFi-enabled. The bar rooms are Wi-Fi-enabled as well. All courtrooms will now be like that – no books and papers – which is not to say that we will not rely on books and papers at all,” said the CJI, at the beginning of the day’s proceedings on Monday. He added, “Please give me feedback on whether everything is working well”. The steps were taken as part of the e-initiatives by the Indian SC, said an apex court official, as per the PTI news agency. Other ‘futuristic upgrades’ to SC courtrooms In a subsequent statement, the top court also said, “A series of futuristic upgrades have been implemented in Court No. 1 to 3 at the Supreme Court of India under the dynamic vision of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to enhance the use of technology in Judicial Systems.” The top court has also reportedly sought to go green by making optimal use of technology in justice delivery systems. The courtrooms will now have “a state-of-the-art Digital Video Conferencing (VC) system” for better and more efficient communication and collaboration. It will also enable remote participation and virtual meetings in courtrooms making them more accessible. “Cable cubbies have been integrated into these courtrooms…(the cubbies) are equipped with LAN connections, HDMI outputs, USB C&A ports along with power sockets,” said the apex court. It added, “The use of these (cubbies) would help in the integrated use of Multimedia devices while ensuring a clutter-free environment.” Additionally, the courtrooms have been equipped with a “futuristic LED video wall” for a high-resolution display of camera feeds and also enhances the visual impact of presentations, evidence, and video recordings, creating an immersive and engaging experience, reported PTI. Addressing the audio-related changes to the courtrooms of the top court, they have been equipped with Front of House (FOH) speakers which have been placed with under-table speakers along with suitable amplifiers to ensure “that every voice and audio source is heard with exceptional clarity.” This is in addition to new software developed by the Indian Supreme Court which will allow advocates to upload reference material and citations relating to their case. The apex court is also working on software to provide an e-pass facility to the advocates and litigants to access courtrooms, said the SC in a statement. (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.

Indian Supreme Court receives ‘series of futuristic upgrades’ with paperless courtrooms, free WiFi

<p>Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday said that the conservative Supreme Court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, as she again raised the scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions.<br />
<br />
The congresswoman's comments came just days after the highest court of the country gave some incendiary and far-reaching rulings which struck down affirmative action in Joe Biden’s student loan relief programme, LBGTQ+ rights and college admissions.<br />
<br />
“These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralisation of power in the court,” she said while speaking at CNN’s State of the Union. “In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with Justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature right now,” the congresswoman added.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |</strong>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-treasury-secretary-to-visit-china-to-responsibly-manage-ties-expand-communications-611167">US treasury secretary to visit China to 'responsibly' manage ties, expand communications</a></p>

<p>“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power,” Ocasio-Cortez stated.</p>

<h2><strong>Ethics scandals and need to expand court</strong></h2>

<p>Talking about the ethics scandals which involved two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez reiterated her calls for Congress to take steps for removing them, a proposal which is likely to be dead when it reaches the Republican-controlled House.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, independents and Senate Democrats, who caucus with them, hold only a slim majority. Alito has been facing accusations of receiving gifts from a right-wing billionaire and not disclosing them. As per reports, the billionaire had lobbied for the court to end the loan relief programme of Biden. Thomas has been alleged to have taken undeclared gifts and getting involved in other alleged transgressions, which prompted an ethics watchdog to appeal to him to resign.<br />
<br />
“We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines, where we see members of the supreme court potentially breaking the law,” AOC stated.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Pakistan-origin lawmaker attacked outside a mosque in the United States after Eid prayers</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-origin-lawmaker-attacked-outside-a-mosque-in-the-united-states-after-eid-prayers-611182/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>“There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court (that) has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy. And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy,” said Ocasio-Cortez.<br />
<br />
The congresswoman also appealed to US President Joe Biden to have 13 justices in the court, something that the president has stated he is unwilling to attempt.&nbsp;</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>.</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>


Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday said that the conservative Supreme Court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, as she again raised the scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions.

Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday said that the conservative Supreme Court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, as she again raised the scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions. The congresswoman's comments came just days after the highest court of the country gave some incendiary and far-reaching rulings which struck down affirmative action in Joe Biden’s student loan relief programme, LBGTQ+ rights and college admissions. “These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralisation of power in the court,” she said while speaking at CNN’s State of the Union. “In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with Justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature right now,” the congresswoman added. ALSO READ | US treasury secretary to visit China to 'responsibly' manage ties, expand communications “They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power,” Ocasio-Cortez stated. Ethics scandals and need to expand court Talking about the ethics scandals which involved two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez reiterated her calls for Congress to take steps for removing them, a proposal which is likely to be dead when it reaches the Republican-controlled House. Meanwhile, independents and Senate Democrats, who caucus with them, hold only a slim majority. Alito has been facing accusations of receiving gifts from a right-wing billionaire and not disclosing them. As per reports, the billionaire had lobbied for the court to end the loan relief programme of Biden. Thomas has been alleged to have taken undeclared gifts and getting involved in other alleged transgressions, which prompted an ethics watchdog to appeal to him to resign. “We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines, where we see members of the supreme court potentially breaking the law,” AOC stated. WATCH | Pakistan-origin lawmaker attacked outside a mosque in the United States after Eid prayers “There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court (that) has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy. And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy,” said Ocasio-Cortez. The congresswoman also appealed to US President Joe Biden to have 13 justices in the court, something that the president has stated he is unwilling to attempt. 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

US: AOC slams Supreme Court, says it is ‘creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism’

A fresh set of initiatives to help millions of students financially are announced by US President Joe Biden. The news was made shortly after the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness programme was completely repealed by the Supreme Court. The programme that was overturned waived off 430 billion dollars in student loan debt. In addition to criticising what he called Republican hypocrisy, Biden stated that millions of American schoolchildren are outraged by the court's decision.

US President Joe Biden announces new measures to support borrowers

<p>After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden.</p>

<p>"I know there are millions of Americans in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry," Biden said. "I must admit I do too."</p>

<p>He announced measures to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible."</p>

<p>One of the measures is a 12-month pause on penalties for missing debt repayments on federal loans used by many students to finance their time in the expensive US higher education system.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This will "protect the most vulnerable borrowers," the White House said.</p>

<p>Another measure announced is a change to the repayment plans by the Department of Education, with a cut in the percentage of borrower's available income that must be paid each month toward loans from 10 to five per cent.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-junks-bidens-student-debt-cancellation-plan-610639">US Supreme Court junks Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan</a></p>

<p>In addition, the borrowers would now see more of their income safeguarded from having to be made available for repayments.</p>

<h2><strong>Supreme court rejects Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan</strong></h2>

<p>US President Joe Biden on Friday suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans.</p>

<p>The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies.</p>

<p>The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan.</p>

<p>Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 Act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation.</p>

<p>"We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.</p>

<p>"The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said.</p>

<p>Biden said his administration would pursue a different way to achieve his goal.</p>

<p>"Today’s decision has closed one path. Now we’re going to start another," Biden told reporters. "I believe the court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong. I'm not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale."</p>

<p>Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups.</p>

<p>The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>&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>


After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden.

After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden. "I know there are millions of Americans in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry," Biden said. "I must admit I do too." He announced measures to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible." One of the measures is a 12-month pause on penalties for missing debt repayments on federal loans used by many students to finance their time in the expensive US higher education system. This will "protect the most vulnerable borrowers," the White House said. Another measure announced is a change to the repayment plans by the Department of Education, with a cut in the percentage of borrower's available income that must be paid each month toward loans from 10 to five per cent. Also read: US Supreme Court junks Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan In addition, the borrowers would now see more of their income safeguarded from having to be made available for repayments. Supreme court rejects Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan US President Joe Biden on Friday suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans. The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies. The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan. Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 Act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation. "We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said. Biden said his administration would pursue a different way to achieve his goal. "Today’s decision has closed one path. Now we’re going to start another," Biden told reporters. "I believe the court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong. I'm not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale." Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups. The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US President Joe Biden announces new measures for student loan relief after Supreme Court setback

The US Supreme Court has effectively struck down reservations on the basis of race in university admissions in a ruling announced yesterday. This upends decades-old U.S. Policies on affirmative action or positive discrimination to help blacks and other minorities obtain higher education. Molly Gambhir tells you more.

Gravitas: US Top court bans admissions based on Race

<p>US President Joe Biden on Friday (June 30) suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans.</p>

<p>The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies.</p>

<p>The conservative-dominated Supreme Court voted six to three in the ruling. The court said that the president should have obtained specific authorisation from US Congress to launch such a programme.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-riots-600-people-arrested-200-cops-left-injured-as-violence-continues-on-third-night-610544">France riots: 600 people arrested, 200 cops left injured as violence continues on third night</a></p>

<p>The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan.</p>

<p>Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation.</p>

<p>"We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/europe/uk-environment-minister-zac-goldsmith-resigns-accuses-rishi-sunak-of-neglecting-climate-change-610540">UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigns, accuses Rishi Sunak of neglecting Climate Change</a></p>

<p>"The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said.</p>

<p>Nearly 43 million Americans have USD 1.6 trillion in federal student loans. Some of them would end up repaying them over decades as they do their jobs and raise families.</p>

<p>Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups.</p>

<p>The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>

<p>Watch | French President spotted at singer Elton John's concert amid riots</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/french-president-spotted-at-singer-elton-johns-concert-amid-riots-610551/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>But US Supreme Court has said that Biden didn't have the power to unilaterally waive so much debt. The court said that this power is held by the US Congress, which is in charge of US finances.</p>

<p>"Among Congress's most important authorities is its control of the purse," wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch.</p>

<p>Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court itself was overstepping its powers in the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p>She argued that none of the states who sued to challenge Biden's policy had standing to do so -- they neither had a personal stake nor incurred an injury by the policy.</p>

<p>"We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy," she said.</p>

<h2><strong>Biden not happy</strong></h2>

<p>Biden made his displeasure clear after the Supreme Court verdict. He said that he "strongly" disagrees with the decision that ended his plan to forgive billions in federal student loans, reported AFP citing a White House source.</p>

<p>Biden will later "make clear he's not done fighting yet," said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.</p>

<p>While&nbsp;condemning the ruling he said in a statement,&nbsp;"I'm deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans. More broadly, today's decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination."&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>You can now write for wionews.com 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>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><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></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


US President Joe Biden on Friday (June 30) suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans.

US President Joe Biden on Friday (June 30) suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans. The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court voted six to three in the ruling. The court said that the president should have obtained specific authorisation from US Congress to launch such a programme. Also Read | France riots: 600 people arrested, 200 cops left injured as violence continues on third night The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan. Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation. "We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. Also Read | UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigns, accuses Rishi Sunak of neglecting Climate Change "The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said. Nearly 43 million Americans have USD 1.6 trillion in federal student loans. Some of them would end up repaying them over decades as they do their jobs and raise families. Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups. The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch | French President spotted at singer Elton John's concert amid riots × But US Supreme Court has said that Biden didn't have the power to unilaterally waive so much debt. The court said that this power is held by the US Congress, which is in charge of US finances. "Among Congress's most important authorities is its control of the purse," wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court itself was overstepping its powers in the case. She argued that none of the states who sued to challenge Biden's policy had standing to do so -- they neither had a personal stake nor incurred an injury by the policy. "We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy," she said. Biden not happy Biden made his displeasure clear after the Supreme Court verdict. He said that he "strongly" disagrees with the decision that ended his plan to forgive billions in federal student loans, reported AFP citing a White House source. Biden will later "make clear he's not done fighting yet," said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. While condemning the ruling he said in a statement, "I'm deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans. More broadly, today's decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination." (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 ×

US Supreme Court junks Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan

<p>US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refused to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings citing religious objections, media reports said.&nbsp;It was a 6-3 decision. Critics who fear a potential reversal of the 2015 ruling legalising same-sex marriage nationwide may find cause for concern in this latest victory for religious conservatives in the high court. Justice Neil Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Protecting free speech</strong></h2>

<p>The ruling has significant implications for state public accommodation laws pertaining to businesses that offer "expressive" goods. Justice Gorsuch emphasised that the decision was grounded in the principles of free speech. He argued that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution envisions a diverse and free society where individuals can think and express themselves without government demands. Gorsuch further stated that Colorado&nbsp;attempted to "deny that promise," reported CNN.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-riots-600-people-arrested-200-cops-left-injured-as-violence-continues-on-third-night-610544">France riots: 600 people arrested, 200 cops left injured as violence continues on third night</a></p>

<p>Gorsuch's opinion asserted that various forms of expression, including visual art and verbal communication, are protected under the First Amendment. He argued that the same protections should extend to speech conveyed over the internet, such as the web designer's refusal to create same-sex wedding websites.</p>

<p>"All manner of speech – from 'pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,' to 'oral utterance and the printed word' – qualify for the First Amendment's protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith's conveyed over the Internet," Gorsuch said.</p>

<h2><strong>Dissent over equal access</strong></h2>

<p>Justice Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Sotomayor contended that the court's decision undermines the government's responsibility to ensure equal access to the public marketplace for all Americans. According to her dissent, granting a business the constitutional right to refuse service to a protected class marks an unprecedented departure from the court's history.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/europe/uk-environment-minister-zac-goldsmith-resigns-accuses-rishi-sunak-of-neglecting-climate-change-610540">UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigns, accuses Rishi Sunak of neglecting Climate Change</a></p>

<p>"Specifically, the court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public," she wrote in dissent.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Implications and ongoing debate</strong></h2>

<p>This Supreme Court decision not only supports the Christian web designer's right to refuse certain services based on religious beliefs but also raises concerns about the potential erosion of anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch | French President spotted at singer Elton John's concert amid riots</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/french-president-spotted-at-singer-elton-johns-concert-amid-riots-610551/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>As the court leans more conservative, discussions about the boundaries of free speech and the balance between religious freedom and equal access to goods and services are likely to continue in legal and societal spheres.</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=&quot;100%&quot;"></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>


US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refused to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings citing religious objections, media reports said.

US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refused to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings citing religious objections, media reports said. It was a 6-3 decision. Critics who fear a potential reversal of the 2015 ruling legalising same-sex marriage nationwide may find cause for concern in this latest victory for religious conservatives in the high court. Justice Neil Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas. Protecting free speech The ruling has significant implications for state public accommodation laws pertaining to businesses that offer "expressive" goods. Justice Gorsuch emphasised that the decision was grounded in the principles of free speech. He argued that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution envisions a diverse and free society where individuals can think and express themselves without government demands. Gorsuch further stated that Colorado attempted to "deny that promise," reported CNN. Also Read | France riots: 600 people arrested, 200 cops left injured as violence continues on third night Gorsuch's opinion asserted that various forms of expression, including visual art and verbal communication, are protected under the First Amendment. He argued that the same protections should extend to speech conveyed over the internet, such as the web designer's refusal to create same-sex wedding websites. "All manner of speech – from 'pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,' to 'oral utterance and the printed word' – qualify for the First Amendment's protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith's conveyed over the Internet," Gorsuch said. Dissent over equal access Justice Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor contended that the court's decision undermines the government's responsibility to ensure equal access to the public marketplace for all Americans. According to her dissent, granting a business the constitutional right to refuse service to a protected class marks an unprecedented departure from the court's history. Also Read | UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigns, accuses Rishi Sunak of neglecting Climate Change "Specifically, the court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public," she wrote in dissent. Implications and ongoing debate This Supreme Court decision not only supports the Christian web designer's right to refuse certain services based on religious beliefs but also raises concerns about the potential erosion of anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. Watch | French President spotted at singer Elton John's concert amid riots × As the court leans more conservative, discussions about the boundaries of free speech and the balance between religious freedom and equal access to goods and services are likely to continue in legal and societal spheres. 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 backs Christian web designer's refusal to make same-sex wedding websites

<p>Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery. Segregation was a common thing even in 20th century. The issue of racism and identity has surfaced once more over US Supreme striking down affirmative action policies for college admissions. The decision has ended decades of a precedent that allowed schools across the country to take steps to increase diversity among students they admit for educational courses</p>

<h2><strong>What is affirmative action?</strong></h2>

<p>Affirmative action, in the context of higher education, refers to policies designed to increasing the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students in order for the cohort to be inclusive.</p>

<p>This does not mean that colleges and universities award admissions based on race but in their holistic assessment of an application, they consider race in addition to grades, extra-curricular activities and test scores.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action</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/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Aim of such race conscious admission process is to increase diversity among students who are granted admission. Colleges and universities do not usually disclose their admission process but race-conscious admission process is reportedly common among institutions that are more selective in their intake of students.</p>

<p>Reuters reported that a 2019 survey by National Association for College Admission Counseling revealed that quarter of respondent schools said that race had "considerable" or "moderate" influence on admissions. More than half reported that race did not play any role whatsoever.</p>

<p>Even before the Supreme Court ruling, nine states in the US has banned consideration of race in public colleges and universities. These states are Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.</p>

<h2><strong>What is the current litigation in Supreme Court about?</strong></h2>

<p>The US Supreme Court was considering two cases when it delivered its verdict on affirmative action. One of the cases was brought by Students for Fair Admissions. This group is headed by Edward Blum who is a conservative legal strategist. He has spent years fighting affirmative action.</p>

<p>One case alleged that Harvard University's admission policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants. While the other asserted that University of North Carolina unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants.</p>

<p>Both of the universities have rejected these claims. The universities said that race is determinative in only a small number of cases. The universities also said that barring the practice would result in significant drop in number of minority students on campus.</p>

<h2><strong>How has US Supreme Court ruled in the past?</strong></h2>

<p>In past, the US Supreme Court, in its ruling across decades, has upheld race-conscious admissions, though not without limits.</p>

<p>In landmark 1978 case, a divided Supreme Court considered the issue. The case was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case was before the Supreme Court in an era when schools had begun taking affirmative action as a result of civil rights movement.</p>

<p>The swing vote, Justice Lewis Powell, ruled that schools could not use affirmative action to rectify past racial discrimination and struck down the university's practice of setting aside a certain number of spots for minorities.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-verdict-on-race-quotas-in-education-raises-serious-questions-on-affirmative-action-610444">US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action</a></strong></p>

<p>Nevertheless, Powell found that increasing campus diversity was a "compelling interest" because students of all races - not just minorities - would receive a better education if exposed to different viewpoints. Powell ruled that schools could weigh race in admissions as long as it remained only one factor among many.</p>

<p>In the year 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a system in University of Michigan that awarded points to minority applicants. The court held that the system was going too far.</p>

<p>However, the Supreme Court upheld Bakke's central finding that schools could use race as one of several admission factors.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court again upheld &nbsp;race-conscious admissions in a challenge backed by Blum to University of Texas policies.</p>

<p>But the court has moved sharply to the right since then, with six conservative justices now and only three liberals.</p>

<h2><strong>What will the universities do now?</strong></h2>

<p>Colleges and universities may now have to find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations. They may have to revamp their policies.</p>

<p>However, other measures may not be so effective.</p>

<p>University of California and University of Michigan have reportedly filed briefs with the US Supreme Court and said that they have outlawed race-conscious admissions. The universities have said that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternative programs but these measures have fallen short of goals.</p>

<h2><strong>The reaction on verdict</strong></h2>

<p>US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. &nbsp;He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms.</p>

<p>"The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live.</p>

<p>Biden said that the ruling "walked away from decades of precedent", adding that universities "should not abandon their commitment" to maintain diversity among their students.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><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></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery.

Race is a topic of heated debate in the Unites States. The nation which was witness to slavery during colonial times and later has even seen a civil war on the issue of slavery. Segregation was a common thing even in 20th century. The issue of racism and identity has surfaced once more over US Supreme striking down affirmative action policies for college admissions. The decision has ended decades of a precedent that allowed schools across the country to take steps to increase diversity among students they admit for educational courses What is affirmative action? Affirmative action, in the context of higher education, refers to policies designed to increasing the number of Black, Hispanic and other minority students in order for the cohort to be inclusive. This does not mean that colleges and universities award admissions based on race but in their holistic assessment of an application, they consider race in addition to grades, extra-curricular activities and test scores. Watch | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action × Aim of such race conscious admission process is to increase diversity among students who are granted admission. Colleges and universities do not usually disclose their admission process but race-conscious admission process is reportedly common among institutions that are more selective in their intake of students. Reuters reported that a 2019 survey by National Association for College Admission Counseling revealed that quarter of respondent schools said that race had "considerable" or "moderate" influence on admissions. More than half reported that race did not play any role whatsoever. Even before the Supreme Court ruling, nine states in the US has banned consideration of race in public colleges and universities. These states are Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. What is the current litigation in Supreme Court about? The US Supreme Court was considering two cases when it delivered its verdict on affirmative action. One of the cases was brought by Students for Fair Admissions. This group is headed by Edward Blum who is a conservative legal strategist. He has spent years fighting affirmative action. One case alleged that Harvard University's admission policy unlawfully discriminates against Asian American applicants. While the other asserted that University of North Carolina unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. Both of the universities have rejected these claims. The universities said that race is determinative in only a small number of cases. The universities also said that barring the practice would result in significant drop in number of minority students on campus. How has US Supreme Court ruled in the past? In past, the US Supreme Court, in its ruling across decades, has upheld race-conscious admissions, though not without limits. In landmark 1978 case, a divided Supreme Court considered the issue. The case was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case was before the Supreme Court in an era when schools had begun taking affirmative action as a result of civil rights movement. The swing vote, Justice Lewis Powell, ruled that schools could not use affirmative action to rectify past racial discrimination and struck down the university's practice of setting aside a certain number of spots for minorities. Also Read | US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action Nevertheless, Powell found that increasing campus diversity was a "compelling interest" because students of all races - not just minorities - would receive a better education if exposed to different viewpoints. Powell ruled that schools could weigh race in admissions as long as it remained only one factor among many. In the year 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a system in University of Michigan that awarded points to minority applicants. The court held that the system was going too far. However, the Supreme Court upheld Bakke's central finding that schools could use race as one of several admission factors. The Supreme Court again upheld race-conscious admissions in a challenge backed by Blum to University of Texas policies. But the court has moved sharply to the right since then, with six conservative justices now and only three liberals. What will the universities do now? Colleges and universities may now have to find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations. They may have to revamp their policies. However, other measures may not be so effective. University of California and University of Michigan have reportedly filed briefs with the US Supreme Court and said that they have outlawed race-conscious admissions. The universities have said that they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternative programs but these measures have fallen short of goals. The reaction on verdict US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms. "The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live. Biden said that the ruling "walked away from decades of precedent", adding that universities "should not abandon their commitment" to maintain diversity among their students. (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 ×

Explained | US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action: What this means for college admissions

<p>US President Joe Biden on Thursday rebuked the country's Supreme Court for striking down&nbsp;race-conscious student admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), media reports said.</p>

<p>Biden in a tweet said that he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling. "For decades, the Supreme Court recognised a college’s freedom to decide how to build a diverse student body and provide opportunity. Today, the Court walked away from precedent, effectively ending affirmative action in higher education. I strongly disagree with this decision," the tweet read.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. And America is stronger because we are tapping into our full range of talent. Today's Supreme Court decision is not the last word," it added.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This comes after the decision by the apex court dealt a significant blow to affirmative action policies which aimed at increasing diversity on college campuses.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court's conservative justices, with dissenting opinions from the liberal justices, voted in favour of Students for Fair Admissions, an organisation led by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum. The organisation had challenged the admissions policies of these prestigious institutions.</p>

<h2><strong>US Supreme Court decision</strong></h2>

<p>The court's decision was a 6-3 vote against UNC and a 6-2 vote against Harvard.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-court-declares-govts-plan-to-send-migrants-to-rwanda-unlawful-610088">British court declares govt’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda unlawful</a></p>

<p>Chief Justice John Roberts, for the majority, stated that the admissions programs at both universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US &nbsp;Constitution, emphasising that students should be evaluated as individuals rather than based on their race.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Roberts clarified that this ruling does not prohibit universities from discussing an applicant's personal experiences with race biases.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Roberts said that students "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the colour of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."</p>

<p>Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-origin-man-jailed-for-smuggling-800-people-into-us-using-uber-610082">Indian-Origin man jailed for smuggling over 800 Indians into US using Uber</a></p>

<p>"At the same time," Roberts said, "as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise."</p>

<h2><strong>Support towards affirmative action</strong></h2>

<p>Affirmative action has been supported by numerous educational institutions, corporations, and military leaders as a means to address racial inequities and foster diverse perspectives in workplaces and the armed forces.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Dissenting opinions</strong></h2>

<p>However, the court's decision is seen as a setback to these efforts.</p>

<p>Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her dissent. She argued that the ruling undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and perpetuates racial inequality in education.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch | Tarang shakti, India's largest multilateral air exercise to be held this year</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/tarang-shakti-indias-largest-multilateral-air-exercise-to-be-held-this-year-610084/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress," she wrote in a dissent. She was joined by Jackson and Liberal Justice Elena Kagan.</p>

<h2><strong>Legal challenges and background</strong></h2>

<p>Blum's organisation filed lawsuits in 2014, alleging that UNC and Harvard discriminated against white, Asian American, and other non-underrepresented minority applicants.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The lawsuits argued that UNC's admissions policy violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, while Harvard's policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court's conservative shift since 2016, along with the appointment of three justices by former President Donald Trump, provided an opportunity to reconsider previous rulings on race-conscious admissions policies.</p>

<h2><strong>World leaders react over&nbsp;court's decision&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Former US President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama have also reacted over this key ruling by US Supreme Court. They joined the list of several other top Democrats who were quick to respond to the now-struck-down policy&nbsp;of the universities.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The Obamas</strong></h2>

<p>Michelle Obama, the former first lady, shared her personal experience of being one of the few Black students on her college campus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In a statement shared on her Twitter account, she expressed her sadness for young individuals who may be uncertain about their future after the apex court's ruling. "Today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who's wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them."</p>

<p>"Today is a reminder that we've got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighbourhood," she said in the statement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In a tweet, Barack Obama responded,&nbsp;"Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions—it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts."&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Trump calls ruling 'a great day for America'</strong></h2>

<p>In a clear show of support for the Supreme Court's ruling, former US President Donald Trump called the decision by the apex court "a great day for America."</p>

<p>"This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for and the result was amazing. It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!" he told a media outlet.</p>

<h2><strong>Republicans&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tweeted the Supreme Court has correctly upheld the constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities. "College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity," he wrote in a tweet.&nbsp;</p>

<p>South Carolina Senator Tim Scott also backed the ruling and told Fox News, "This is a good day for America. Honestly, this is the day where we understand that being judged by the content of our character, not the colour of our skin is what our constitution wants. We are continuing to work on forming this more perfect union. Today is better than yesterday, this year better than last year, this decade better than last decade. The progress that we're seeing in this nation is palpable."&nbsp;</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=&quot;100%&quot;"></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>


US President Joe Biden on Thursday rebuked the country's Supreme Court for striking down race-conscious student admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), media reports said.

US President Joe Biden on Thursday rebuked the country's Supreme Court for striking down race-conscious student admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), media reports said. Biden in a tweet said that he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling. "For decades, the Supreme Court recognised a college’s freedom to decide how to build a diverse student body and provide opportunity. Today, the Court walked away from precedent, effectively ending affirmative action in higher education. I strongly disagree with this decision," the tweet read. "Our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. And America is stronger because we are tapping into our full range of talent. Today's Supreme Court decision is not the last word," it added. This comes after the decision by the apex court dealt a significant blow to affirmative action policies which aimed at increasing diversity on college campuses. The court's conservative justices, with dissenting opinions from the liberal justices, voted in favour of Students for Fair Admissions, an organisation led by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum. The organisation had challenged the admissions policies of these prestigious institutions. US Supreme Court decision The court's decision was a 6-3 vote against UNC and a 6-2 vote against Harvard. Also Read | British court declares govt’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda unlawful Chief Justice John Roberts, for the majority, stated that the admissions programs at both universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, emphasising that students should be evaluated as individuals rather than based on their race. Roberts clarified that this ruling does not prohibit universities from discussing an applicant's personal experiences with race biases. Roberts said that students "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual, not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the colour of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice." Also Read | Indian-Origin man jailed for smuggling over 800 Indians into US using Uber "At the same time," Roberts said, "as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise." Support towards affirmative action Affirmative action has been supported by numerous educational institutions, corporations, and military leaders as a means to address racial inequities and foster diverse perspectives in workplaces and the armed forces. Dissenting opinions However, the court's decision is seen as a setback to these efforts. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her dissent. She argued that the ruling undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and perpetuates racial inequality in education. Watch | Tarang shakti, India's largest multilateral air exercise to be held this year × "Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress," she wrote in a dissent. She was joined by Jackson and Liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Legal challenges and background Blum's organisation filed lawsuits in 2014, alleging that UNC and Harvard discriminated against white, Asian American, and other non-underrepresented minority applicants. The lawsuits argued that UNC's admissions policy violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, while Harvard's policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court's conservative shift since 2016, along with the appointment of three justices by former President Donald Trump, provided an opportunity to reconsider previous rulings on race-conscious admissions policies. World leaders react over court's decision Former US President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama have also reacted over this key ruling by US Supreme Court. They joined the list of several other top Democrats who were quick to respond to the now-struck-down policy of the universities. The Obamas Michelle Obama, the former first lady, shared her personal experience of being one of the few Black students on her college campus. In a statement shared on her Twitter account, she expressed her sadness for young individuals who may be uncertain about their future after the apex court's ruling. "Today, my heart breaks for any young person out there who's wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them." "Today is a reminder that we've got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighbourhood," she said in the statement. In a tweet, Barack Obama responded, "Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions—it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts." Trump calls ruling 'a great day for America' In a clear show of support for the Supreme Court's ruling, former US President Donald Trump called the decision by the apex court "a great day for America." "This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for and the result was amazing. It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!" he told a media outlet. Republicans Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tweeted the Supreme Court has correctly upheld the constitution and ended discrimination by colleges and universities. "College admissions should be based on merit and applicants should not be judged on their race or ethnicity," he wrote in a tweet. South Carolina Senator Tim Scott also backed the ruling and told Fox News, "This is a good day for America. Honestly, this is the day where we understand that being judged by the content of our character, not the colour of our skin is what our constitution wants. We are continuing to work on forming this more perfect union. Today is better than yesterday, this year better than last year, this decade better than last decade. The progress that we're seeing in this nation is palpable." 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. ×

'I strongly disagree', says Biden after US Supreme Court strikes down race-based admissions programmes

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidbZ0zBjFoVMPf" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control.</p>

<p>According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices ruled against Republican state legislators in a case arising from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina's 14 US House of Representative districts. Last year, North Carolina's top court had blocked the map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On Tuesday, the Republican legislators asked the Supreme Court justices to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The doctrine</strong></h2>

<p>The independent state legislature doctrine is based in part on the US Constitution's statement that the time, place and manner of federal elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," US Chief Justice Roberts wrote of that constitutional provision. Reuters reported.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The criticism of doctrine&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Critics of the independent state legislature doctrine, including legal scholars and democrats, called it a threat to American democratic norms. The critics have said that the doctrine's application would let legislatures easily pass further voting restrictions or pursue extreme partisan gerrymandering- which is a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to marginalize certain voters and increase the influence of others.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>White House welcomes Supreme Court ruling</strong></h2>

<p>The White House on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by saying the bid would have let politicians undermine the will of the people.</p>

<p>"As you know, this has been an enormous priority for the president and the vice president since the day that they entered office, to strengthen and shore up voting rights in this country. And so we're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people, and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton said.&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 United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control. According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices ruled against Republican state legislators in a case arising from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina's 14 US House of Representative districts. Last year, North Carolina's top court had blocked the map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. On Tuesday, the Republican legislators asked the Supreme Court justices to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The doctrine The independent state legislature doctrine is based in part on the US Constitution's statement that the time, place and manner of federal elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," US Chief Justice Roberts wrote of that constitutional provision. Reuters reported. The criticism of doctrine Critics of the independent state legislature doctrine, including legal scholars and democrats, called it a threat to American democratic norms. The critics have said that the doctrine's application would let legislatures easily pass further voting restrictions or pursue extreme partisan gerrymandering- which is a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to marginalize certain voters and increase the influence of others. White House welcomes Supreme Court ruling The White House on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by saying the bid would have let politicians undermine the will of the people. "As you know, this has been an enormous priority for the president and the vice president since the day that they entered office, to strengthen and shore up voting rights in this country. And so we're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people, and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton 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.

US SC rejects bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over polls; White House praises ruling

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