June 24, 2023, marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. As a result, 25 million women now live in states where it is more difficult to terminate a pregnancy.

One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned

While LGBTQ petitioners in their pleas in the Supreme Court are demanding equal rights and a life with dignity with the partner of their choice, what same-sex marriage would mean for India’s deeply religious and conservative society? Vikram Chandra finds out from Mario Da Pehna one of the petitioners in the case and BJP leader and Rajya Sabha MP, Swapan Dasgupta.

Is India ready for same-sex marriage?

What do LGBTQ+ petitioners expect?

US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.&nbsp;The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not&nbsp;unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. &nbsp;

ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation.

The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections.

<h2>Why was the Act challenged?&nbsp;</h2>

The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates.&nbsp;

However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy.

In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes.

The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ex-harvard-medical-school-morgue-manager-indicted-for-stealing-selling-human-remains-604855">Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains</a>

In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealands-biggest-meth-bust-with-drug-hidden-in-maple-syrup-bottles-six-arrested-604782">New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested</a>

<h2>Native Americans — political not racial group</h2>

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities.

<h2>ICWA background&nbsp;</h2>

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families.

These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA.

Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-mps-publish-partygate-report-english-latest-news-604768/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family.

<h2>Biden administration's take&nbsp;</h2>

The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.

US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families. The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation. The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections. Why was the Act challenged? The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates. However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy. In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes. The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal. Also Read | Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority. Also Read | New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested Native Americans — political not racial group The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities. ICWA background The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families. These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA. Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report × The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family. Biden administration's take The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact. 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 upholds law ensuring protections to Native American children in adoption

In the recent Egyptian discoveries, there have been two tombs, two of the largest human and animal mummification workshops, and The two massive mummification workshops were discovered in the ancient Sakara burial ground, according to the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, and date to the 30th Dynasty.

Two mummification workshops unearthed in Egypt

India's Supreme Court on Friday quashed a plea that sought directions from the top court that the inauguration of the new Indian Parliament building should be done by the President of India Draupadi Murmu instead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The bench consisting of Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation which was filed by petitioner Advocate CR Jaya Sukin.&nbsp;

"What is your interest?", the bench questioned. "The head of the executive is the President... President is my president", the petitioner said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/11-year-old-black-boy-shot-in-chest-by-mississippi-police-he-called-for-help-596673">11-year-old black boy shot in chest by Mississippi police he called for help</a>

Giving argument to the petitioner, Justice Narasimha said "We don't understand why you come with such petitions...we're not interested in entertaining it under Article 32".

The petitioner referred to Article 79 of the Indian Constitution, according to which, the Parliament of India comprises President and the two houses, Lok Sabha (lower house) and Rajya Sabha (upper house).

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-his-loyalists-orchestrated-may-9-violence-intel-report-596659">Imran, his loyalists orchestrated May 9 violence: Intel report</a>

"How is Article 79 related to the inauguration?", Justice Maheshwari raised question. "President is the head of the parliament, he should open the building. Executive head is the only head who should open....", the petitioner submitted.&nbsp;

The bench was not convinced by the arguments put forth by the petitioner and just as it was about to decline the pleas, the petitioner requested permission to withdraw it.

However, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the pleas must not be allowed to withdraw as doing that will lead to the petitioner filing the same petition in the High Court.

Watch | Battleground Bakhmut: Russia vs Ukraine | WION Wideangle

<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/battleground-bakhmut-russia-vs-ukraine-wion-wideangle-596550/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Mehta insisted that the apex court should conclusively declare that the matter is not justiciable, reported Live Law.

Upon this, the petitioner said that he has no plans to go to the High Court. Giving reasoning for the same, he said he was withdrawing the plea so that the dismissal will not become a "certificate to the executive." The plea was later withdrawn upon the court's disinterest to entertain the matter.&nbsp;

"President of India Smt. Droupadi Murmu is not being invited to the inauguration of the new Parliament Building. Indian President enjoys certain powers and performs a variety of ceremonial functions. The powers of the President include Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, emergency, and military powers...", the petition said.

<h2>19 opposition parties boycott new Parliament building inauguration</h2>

As many as 19 opposition political parties have decided to boycott the&nbsp;inauguration ceremony of the new Parliament building.&nbsp;“In short, the Parliament cannot function without the President. Yet, the Prime Minister has decided to inaugurate the new Parliament building without her. This undignified act insults the high office of the President, and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first woman adivasi President,” a joint statement by the parties said. 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

India's Supreme Court on Friday quashed a plea that sought directions from the top court that the inauguration of the new Indian Parliament building should be done by the President of India Draupadi Murmu instead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India's Supreme Court on Friday quashed a plea that sought directions from the top court that the inauguration of the new Indian Parliament building should be done by the President of India Draupadi Murmu instead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The bench consisting of Justices JK Maheshwari and PS Narasimha declined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation which was filed by petitioner Advocate CR Jaya Sukin. "What is your interest?", the bench questioned. "The head of the executive is the President... President is my president", the petitioner said. Also Read | 11-year-old black boy shot in chest by Mississippi police he called for help Giving argument to the petitioner, Justice Narasimha said "We don't understand why you come with such petitions...we're not interested in entertaining it under Article 32". The petitioner referred to Article 79 of the Indian Constitution, according to which, the Parliament of India comprises President and the two houses, Lok Sabha (lower house) and Rajya Sabha (upper house). Also Read | Imran, his loyalists orchestrated May 9 violence: Intel report "How is Article 79 related to the inauguration?", Justice Maheshwari raised question. "President is the head of the parliament, he should open the building. Executive head is the only head who should open....", the petitioner submitted. The bench was not convinced by the arguments put forth by the petitioner and just as it was about to decline the pleas, the petitioner requested permission to withdraw it. However, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the pleas must not be allowed to withdraw as doing that will lead to the petitioner filing the same petition in the High Court. Watch | Battleground Bakhmut: Russia vs Ukraine | WION Wideangle × Mehta insisted that the apex court should conclusively declare that the matter is not justiciable, reported Live Law. Upon this, the petitioner said that he has no plans to go to the High Court. Giving reasoning for the same, he said he was withdrawing the plea so that the dismissal will not become a "certificate to the executive." The plea was later withdrawn upon the court's disinterest to entertain the matter. "President of India Smt. Droupadi Murmu is not being invited to the inauguration of the new Parliament Building. Indian President enjoys certain powers and performs a variety of ceremonial functions. The powers of the President include Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, emergency, and military powers...", the petition said. 19 opposition parties boycott new Parliament building inauguration As many as 19 opposition political parties have decided to boycott the inauguration ceremony of the new Parliament building. “In short, the Parliament cannot function without the President. Yet, the Prime Minister has decided to inaugurate the new Parliament building without her. This undignified act insults the high office of the President, and violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It undermines the spirit of inclusion which saw the nation celebrate its first woman adivasi President,” a joint statement by the parties said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

Indian SC quashes plea seeking inauguration of new Parliament building by President instead of PM

The Supreme Court of India has observed that most divorces are arising from love marriages. What led to this remark? What are the implications? Molly Gambhir tells you.

Gravitas: Debate over top court's remark

The Indian Supreme Court (SC) on Friday stayed the order of Allahabad High Court asking the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct “scientific survey”, including carbon dating, to determine the age of a ‘Shivling’ (idol of God Shiva), which the Hindu plaintiffs claim is inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi.

“Since the implications of the impugned order merit closer scrutiny, the implementation of the directions concerned in the order shall stand deferred till the next date", said the order passed by a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala.

The judges said that the implications of the lower court’s order warrant a closer scrutiny and added that all stakeholders "must tread carefully".

The top court’s ruling came in response to a special leave petition filed by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee, which manages Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, against the high court's order allowing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carbon-date the 'shivling'.

The apex court has sought responses from the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments over the plea filed by the Muslim side against the HC’s order.

<h2>Allahabad HC's order on May 12</h2>

On May 12, the high court gave a go-ahead to the scientific survey to ascertain the age of the structure.

The court observed that a scientific investigation of the object can be done without causing any harm to it. The lower court had made the decision based on a report by the Archaeological Survey, Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I said in his judgement.

It said that the process undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) needs to be carried out under the supervision of Varanasi District judge.

A petition seeking a scientific probe was earlier made before the Varanasi court in September 2022. But it was rejected because the top court had passed an order in May last year to protect the spot where the disputed structure was found.

The case pertains to a petition filed by five Hindu women seeking permission for the worship of Hindu deities whose idols were allegedly found to be located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque.

The claim was disputed by the Muslim side who said that the mosque is a Waqf property.

In May last year, an oval-shaped object was discovered during a survey of the mosque premises ordered by a Varanasi civil court. The caretaker committee of the mosque claimed that the object was a defunct fountainhead in the ablution tank.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian Supreme Court (SC) on Friday stayed the order of Allahabad High Court asking the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct “scientific survey”, including carbon dating, to determine the age of a ‘Shivling’ (idol of God Shiva), which the Hindu plaintiffs claim is inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi.

The Indian Supreme Court (SC) on Friday stayed the order of Allahabad High Court asking the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct “scientific survey”, including carbon dating, to determine the age of a ‘Shivling’ (idol of God Shiva), which the Hindu plaintiffs claim is inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi. “Since the implications of the impugned order merit closer scrutiny, the implementation of the directions concerned in the order shall stand deferred till the next date", said the order passed by a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala. The judges said that the implications of the lower court’s order warrant a closer scrutiny and added that all stakeholders "must tread carefully". The top court’s ruling came in response to a special leave petition filed by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee, which manages Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, against the high court's order allowing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carbon-date the 'shivling'. The apex court has sought responses from the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments over the plea filed by the Muslim side against the HC’s order. Allahabad HC's order on May 12 On May 12, the high court gave a go-ahead to the scientific survey to ascertain the age of the structure. The court observed that a scientific investigation of the object can be done without causing any harm to it. The lower court had made the decision based on a report by the Archaeological Survey, Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I said in his judgement. It said that the process undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) needs to be carried out under the supervision of Varanasi District judge. A petition seeking a scientific probe was earlier made before the Varanasi court in September 2022. But it was rejected because the top court had passed an order in May last year to protect the spot where the disputed structure was found. The case pertains to a petition filed by five Hindu women seeking permission for the worship of Hindu deities whose idols were allegedly found to be located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque. The claim was disputed by the Muslim side who said that the mosque is a Waqf property. In May last year, an oval-shaped object was discovered during a survey of the mosque premises ordered by a Varanasi civil court. The caretaker committee of the mosque claimed that the object was a defunct fountainhead in the ablution tank. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Gyanvapi mosque: India’s apex court stays scientific probe, carbon dating of ‘shivling’

The Supreme Court on Thursday lifted the ban on The Kerala Story in West Bengal, a state in eastern India. The film, which got a commercial release on May 5, had been banned by the Bengal government in order to maintain peace within the state.&nbsp;

“The state of WB has issued under Section 6(1) r/w proviso West Bengal Cinema Regulation Act 1954 prohibited the exhibition of the film in the state of WB,” the bench said.

“Prohibition by West Bengal is not tenable. The order of the additional secretary of WB shall remain stayed,” it said. 
 
The West Bengal government had told the SC, that&nbsp;The Kerala Story was banned in the state because it contains “hate speech” and “manipulated facts” which can hurt communal harmony and disturb the law and order situation.

The state’s affidavit, filed through advocate Astha Sharma, said the movie was “based on manipulated facts and contains hate speeches” and there were multiple scenes that have the potential to “hurt communal sentiments” and cause “disharmony among communities." 
 
The apex court bench said that it is the duty of the state government to maintain law and order as the film has been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

“Bad films bomb at the box office,” the bench said, adding, “The legal provision cannot be used to put a premium on public intolerance. Otherwise, all films will find themselves in this spot,” the bench&nbsp;headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, said during the hearing.

The West Bengal government had filed an affidavit in response to a petition by the film’s producers, M/s Sunshine Pictures Private Limited and Vipul Amrutlal Shah, who challenged West Bengal’s ban on screening the film in the state.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Supreme Court on Thursday lifted the ban on The Kerala Story in West Bengal, a state in eastern India. The film, which got a commercial release on May 5, had been banned by the Bengal government in order to maintain peace within the state.

The Supreme Court on Thursday lifted the ban on The Kerala Story in West Bengal, a state in eastern India. The film, which got a commercial release on May 5, had been banned by the Bengal government in order to maintain peace within the state. “The state of WB has issued under Section 6(1) r/w proviso West Bengal Cinema Regulation Act 1954 prohibited the exhibition of the film in the state of WB,” the bench said. “Prohibition by West Bengal is not tenable. The order of the additional secretary of WB shall remain stayed,” it said. The West Bengal government had told the SC, that The Kerala Story was banned in the state because it contains “hate speech” and “manipulated facts” which can hurt communal harmony and disturb the law and order situation. The state’s affidavit, filed through advocate Astha Sharma, said the movie was “based on manipulated facts and contains hate speeches” and there were multiple scenes that have the potential to “hurt communal sentiments” and cause “disharmony among communities." The apex court bench said that it is the duty of the state government to maintain law and order as the film has been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). “Bad films bomb at the box office,” the bench said, adding, “The legal provision cannot be used to put a premium on public intolerance. Otherwise, all films will find themselves in this spot,” the bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, said during the hearing. The West Bengal government had filed an affidavit in response to a petition by the film’s producers, M/s Sunshine Pictures Private Limited and Vipul Amrutlal Shah, who challenged West Bengal’s ban on screening the film in the state. 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 lifts ban on film The Kerala Story in West Bengal

Officials in Ukraine said on Tuesday (May 16) that they have detained the head of the country’s Supreme Court in a $2.7 million bribery inquiry. This comes as the war-torn country is pursuing anti-graft measures which are vital to meet the conditions for joining the European Union.&nbsp;

“The head of the Supreme Court has been detained,” said Oleksandr Omelchenko, a prosecutor who is a part of Kyiv’s Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). He also said that the detention was over a suspected bribery scheme which is awaiting a formal “notice of suspicion”.&nbsp;

However, the prosecutor named one of the two judges, Ukraine’s President of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Kniaziev while the other individual remains unknown. The head of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), Semen Kryvonos, called this the “biggest-ever case” which could implicate the country’s judiciary.&nbsp;

In a joint press conference with NABU, Omelchenko also said, “At this time, the head of the Supreme Court has been detained and measures are being taken to check other individuals for involvement in criminal activity”.&nbsp;

The anti-corruption officials have alleged that Ukrainian billionaire Kostiantyn Zhevago, owner of Finance and Credit financial group, offered a bribe to court officials while a law firm acted as an intermediary. However, Zhevago has denied wrongdoing. The officials have also said that the Ukrainian billionaire had transferred $2.7 million to the lawyers, out of which $1.8 million was to be paid to Supreme Court justices, reported AFP. &nbsp;

Additionally, some $900,000 was given to lawyers for their “services as intermediaries”. Zhevago, who was also a member of the Ukrainian parliament, is currently detained in France on suspicion of money laundering and embezzling funds in Kyiv. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Supreme Court conducted an emergency session where it condemned the corruption and said it would fully cooperate with the investigation.&nbsp;

Additionally, the court has also initiated a process for expressing no confidence in Kniaziev. According to the officials in Kyiv, Zhevago had hoped to bribe the court which could allow him to keep control of his shares which were in the centre of a dispute with former shareholders.&nbsp;

Notably, while Ukraine is in the midst of a conflict with Russia, it has ramped up its efforts to battle against corruption in a bid to join the EU. Earlier this year, multiple officials in Kyiv were dismissed or resigned following accusations of corruption.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Officials in Ukraine said on Tuesday (May 16) that they have detained the head of the country’s Supreme Court in a $2.7 million bribery inquiry. This comes as the war-torn country is pursuing anti-graft measures which are vital to meet the conditions for joining the European Union.

Officials in Ukraine said on Tuesday (May 16) that they have detained the head of the country’s Supreme Court in a $2.7 million bribery inquiry. This comes as the war-torn country is pursuing anti-graft measures which are vital to meet the conditions for joining the European Union. “The head of the Supreme Court has been detained,” said Oleksandr Omelchenko, a prosecutor who is a part of Kyiv’s Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). He also said that the detention was over a suspected bribery scheme which is awaiting a formal “notice of suspicion”. However, the prosecutor named one of the two judges, Ukraine’s President of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Kniaziev while the other individual remains unknown. The head of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), Semen Kryvonos, called this the “biggest-ever case” which could implicate the country’s judiciary. In a joint press conference with NABU, Omelchenko also said, “At this time, the head of the Supreme Court has been detained and measures are being taken to check other individuals for involvement in criminal activity”. The anti-corruption officials have alleged that Ukrainian billionaire Kostiantyn Zhevago, owner of Finance and Credit financial group, offered a bribe to court officials while a law firm acted as an intermediary. However, Zhevago has denied wrongdoing. The officials have also said that the Ukrainian billionaire had transferred $2.7 million to the lawyers, out of which $1.8 million was to be paid to Supreme Court justices, reported AFP. Additionally, some $900,000 was given to lawyers for their “services as intermediaries”. Zhevago, who was also a member of the Ukrainian parliament, is currently detained in France on suspicion of money laundering and embezzling funds in Kyiv. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Supreme Court conducted an emergency session where it condemned the corruption and said it would fully cooperate with the investigation. Additionally, the court has also initiated a process for expressing no confidence in Kniaziev. According to the officials in Kyiv, Zhevago had hoped to bribe the court which could allow him to keep control of his shares which were in the centre of a dispute with former shareholders. Notably, while Ukraine is in the midst of a conflict with Russia, it has ramped up its efforts to battle against corruption in a bid to join the EU. Earlier this year, multiple officials in Kyiv were dismissed or resigned following accusations of corruption. (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.

Ukraine detains Supreme Court chief in $2.7 million corruption case

In Pakistan, the top court declared Imran Khan's arrest as illegal. In India, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the elected government of Delhi. With their respective ruling, have the top courts once again proved that they are free and fearless?

Gravitas: Imran Khan & Delhi ruling: Top courts in India and Pakistan underline checks and balances

In yet another arrest of Pakistan's PTI opposition leader, former human rights minister Shireen Mazari was detained by the Islamabad Police in the early hours of Friday.&nbsp;

Mazari's daughter and lawyer Imaan Hazir-Mazari posted a video on Twitter where armed men can be seen forcibly breaking into her home to take the former minister into custody.

The video was apparently of a CCTV footage that showed gunmen wearing plain clothes jumping the door to arrest the female politician.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/adani-enterprises-to-consider-fundraising-after-scrapped-fpo-591483">Adani Enterprises to consider fundraising after scrapped FPO</a>

In another video that surfaced on Twitter, Islamabad police can be seen removing the minister from her home.&nbsp;Mazari was present at the time of the raid alongside with her daughter.&nbsp;

However, Mazari put up a defiant face at the time of her arrest. At the time of her arrest when she was led to a police car, Mazari held up a victory sign and shouted "victory for democracy."&nbsp;

She also denounced "state terrorism" as unacceptable.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Taking away an ex human rights minister in an inhumane way to oppress her political views is shameful. As a victim of such atrocities we condemn these late night raids to intimidate political workers. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImranKhan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImranKhan</a> 
 
Stay strong <a href="https://twitter.com/ImaanZHazir?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ImaanZHazir</a> &amp; family. <a href="https://t.co/DLI9JYzV9e">pic.twitter.com/DLI9JYzV9e</a>
— Hassan Butt (@IHassanButt) <a href="https://twitter.com/IHassanButt/status/1656812084058021893?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 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>

Mazari's daughter before posting the video tweeted that over 50 police officers with guns entered her home. “Our SVP Dr Shireen Mazari is being abducted at this precise moment. Police have also entered with guns her home, reaching a new low. Extremely shameful!” the party tweeted.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/e-jean-carroll-might-sue-trump-over-cnn-town-hall-remarks-591474">E. Jean Carroll might sue Trump over CNN town hall remarks</a>&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EXCLUSIVE?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EXCLUSIVE</a>: CCTV video of former federal human rights minister and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PTI?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PTI</a> leader <a href="https://twitter.com/ShireenMazari1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShireenMazari1</a> house, plain clothes gunman can be seen jumping the door to arrest a female politician. <a href="https://t.co/C6sVHHTPTD">pic.twitter.com/C6sVHHTPTD</a>
— Asad Ali Toor (@AsadAToor) <a href="https://twitter.com/AsadAToor/status/1656822549853126657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 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>

Many PTI leaders have been arrested so far. It included Imran Khan, Ali Mohammad Khan, Senator Ejaz Chaudhry, Asad Umar, Fawad Chaudhry, Shah Mehmood Qureshi&nbsp;and Asad Umar.

Pakistan's Defence Minister Khwaja Asif has said that if the situation prolongs there is a possibility of an emergency being declared in the country.&nbsp;

However, Marriyum Aurangzeb, the information minister, dismissed the possibility of a national emergency. She asserted that it is "business as usual."

Watch | Gravitas: Israeli attacks kill 4 Islamic jihad members in the Gaza strip

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-israeli-attacks-kill-4-islamic-jihad-members-in-the-gaza-strip-591464/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Aurangzeb also said that the administration was not “hungry for power." She maintained that elections will be conducted when the federal coalition completed its legal mandate.

Imran Khan's arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case was declared illegal by country's Supreme Court on May 11. The court also instructed the authorities to release him immediately.&nbsp;

The PTI leader was allowed to spend the night with his family at the Police Lines Guest House. Supreme Court also ordered the former PM to appear before Islamabad High Court (IHC), which earlier ruled that Imran Khan's arrest lawful.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In yet another arrest of Pakistan's PTI opposition leader, former human rights minister Shireen Mazari was detained by the Islamabad Police in the early hours of Friday.

In yet another arrest of Pakistan's PTI opposition leader, former human rights minister Shireen Mazari was detained by the Islamabad Police in the early hours of Friday. Mazari's daughter and lawyer Imaan Hazir-Mazari posted a video on Twitter where armed men can be seen forcibly breaking into her home to take the former minister into custody. The video was apparently of a CCTV footage that showed gunmen wearing plain clothes jumping the door to arrest the female politician. Also Read | Adani Enterprises to consider fundraising after scrapped FPO In another video that surfaced on Twitter, Islamabad police can be seen removing the minister from her home. Mazari was present at the time of the raid alongside with her daughter. However, Mazari put up a defiant face at the time of her arrest. At the time of her arrest when she was led to a police car, Mazari held up a victory sign and shouted "victory for democracy." She also denounced "state terrorism" as unacceptable. Taking away an ex human rights minister in an inhumane way to oppress her political views is shameful. As a victim of such atrocities we condemn these late night raids to intimidate political workers. #ImranKhan Stay strong @ImaanZHazir & family. pic.twitter.com/DLI9JYzV9e — Hassan Butt (@IHassanButt) May 12, 2023 × Mazari's daughter before posting the video tweeted that over 50 police officers with guns entered her home. “Our SVP Dr Shireen Mazari is being abducted at this precise moment. Police have also entered with guns her home, reaching a new low. Extremely shameful!” the party tweeted. Also Read | E. Jean Carroll might sue Trump over CNN town hall remarks #EXCLUSIVE: CCTV video of former federal human rights minister and #PTI leader @ShireenMazari1 house, plain clothes gunman can be seen jumping the door to arrest a female politician. pic.twitter.com/C6sVHHTPTD — Asad Ali Toor (@AsadAToor) May 12, 2023 × Many PTI leaders have been arrested so far. It included Imran Khan, Ali Mohammad Khan, Senator Ejaz Chaudhry, Asad Umar, Fawad Chaudhry, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Asad Umar. Pakistan's Defence Minister Khwaja Asif has said that if the situation prolongs there is a possibility of an emergency being declared in the country. However, Marriyum Aurangzeb, the information minister, dismissed the possibility of a national emergency. She asserted that it is "business as usual." Watch | Gravitas: Israeli attacks kill 4 Islamic jihad members in the Gaza strip × Aurangzeb also said that the administration was not “hungry for power." She maintained that elections will be conducted when the federal coalition completed its legal mandate. Imran Khan's arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case was declared illegal by country's Supreme Court on May 11. The court also instructed the authorities to release him immediately. The PTI leader was allowed to spend the night with his family at the Police Lines Guest House. Supreme Court also ordered the former PM to appear before Islamabad High Court (IHC), which earlier ruled that Imran Khan's arrest lawful. 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.

WATCH | PTI leader Shireen Mazari arrested, CCTV footage shows armed cops entering her Islamabad house

Tensions remain high in the nuclear-armed nation, Pakistan. Imran Khan supporters have stormed Army buildings. They have ransacked the residence of a top army general in Lahore. But the Pak Army has dragged India into the whole mess. Watch this video for all details.

Why is Pakistan Army indirectly blaming India for the Imran Khan arrest fiasco?

Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday (May 11) declared&nbsp;the arrest of former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan was unlawful. Khan arrived in the court today after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial ordered that the former premier be brought to court 'within an hour'. Imran Khan was arrested on May 9, following which massive protests erupted in Pakistan and even abroad. Khan's lawyers had challenged the legality of his arrest. After declaring his arrest unlawful, the top court ordered Imran Khan's immediate release. The court directed Imran Khan to approach Islamabad High Court.

After CJP's summons earlier, Imran Khan arrived at&nbsp;the supreme court in a convoy of cars. He himself was travelling in a bullet-proof Mercedes.

Imran Khan's&nbsp;arrest had&nbsp;enraged supporters of his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. For two days, thousands of people had&nbsp;taken to the streets in protest around Pakistan, and violent clashes with security forces&nbsp;erupted.

According to police and hospitals, at least nine people have died in protest-related incidents.

Hundreds of police officers have been injured and more than 2,000 people arrested across the country, mostly in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, police added.

At least seven officials from PTI's central leadership accused of orchestrating the riots were also detained.

On Thursday, police with batons and riot shields were deployed to quell any further unrest.

Imran Khan's arrest was made in connection with Al Qadir Trust case.

The issue is linked with Al-Qadir University. The trust was formed to back the university. Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi along with other PTI leaders have been accused of wrongdoing with respect to the trust. The issue is about an alleged agreement between Imran Khan government &nbsp;and a real estate magnate that allegedly cost Pakistan's struggling economy USD 50 billion.

The issue came to light when Pakistani media said that the trust got 180 million Pakistani rupees but documents showed expenses of just 8.52 million Pakistani rupees.&nbsp;

(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 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<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>

&nbsp;

Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday (May 11) declared the arrest of former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan was unlawful. Khan arrived in the court today after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial ordered that the former premier be brought to court 'within an hour'.

Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday (May 11) declared the arrest of former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan was unlawful. Khan arrived in the court today after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial ordered that the former premier be brought to court 'within an hour'. Imran Khan was arrested on May 9, following which massive protests erupted in Pakistan and even abroad. Khan's lawyers had challenged the legality of his arrest. After declaring his arrest unlawful, the top court ordered Imran Khan's immediate release. The court directed Imran Khan to approach Islamabad High Court. After CJP's summons earlier, Imran Khan arrived at the supreme court in a convoy of cars. He himself was travelling in a bullet-proof Mercedes. Imran Khan's arrest had enraged supporters of his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. For two days, thousands of people had taken to the streets in protest around Pakistan, and violent clashes with security forces erupted. According to police and hospitals, at least nine people have died in protest-related incidents. Hundreds of police officers have been injured and more than 2,000 people arrested across the country, mostly in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, police added. At least seven officials from PTI's central leadership accused of orchestrating the riots were also detained. On Thursday, police with batons and riot shields were deployed to quell any further unrest. Imran Khan's arrest was made in connection with Al Qadir Trust case. The issue is linked with Al-Qadir University. The trust was formed to back the university. Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi along with other PTI leaders have been accused of wrongdoing with respect to the trust. The issue is about an alleged agreement between Imran Khan government and a real estate magnate that allegedly cost Pakistan's struggling economy USD 50 billion. The issue came to light when Pakistani media said that the trust got 180 million Pakistani rupees but documents showed expenses of just 8.52 million Pakistani rupees. (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 ×

Supreme Court of Pakistan declares ex-prime minister Imran Khan's arrest unlawful

After a rare intervention by the US Supreme Court, a convicted man from Oklahoma was spared a fourth execution attempt. After the state's top lawman claimed Richard Glossip did not receive a fair trial, the court postponed his execution till 18 May.

A hotel owner in Oklahoma City and the employer of Glossip, Barry Van Treese, was beaten to death with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed in 1997. Justin Sneed, also a coworker of Glossip who was found guilty of the crime, said that Glossip had hired him to kill Treese.

Glossip was about to be put to death in 2015 when the execution was postponed so that security personnel could inspect the lethal injection chemicals. The order temporarily suspends the punishment while the court deliberates the case.

WATCH | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-dramatic-visuals-as-truck-driver-rescued-in-kenya-after-sudden-floods-589502">Dramatic visuals as truck driver rescued in Kenya after sudden floods</a>

Gentner Drummond, the attorney general of Oklahoma, has reexamined the case and requested a new trial on the basis that the prosecution withheld facts concerning his accuser that would have strengthened his defence.

Throughout his 26 years in prison, Glossip, 60, and his family have maintained his innocence by asserting that Sneed acted alone. After his initial conviction in 1998 was overturned in 2001, Glossip was found guilty once more three years later.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/onus-on-india-to-restart-peace-talks-pak-fm-bilawal-bhutto-589483">Onus on India to restart peace talks: Pak FM Bilawal Bhutto Zardari</a>

He has had three final dinners while inside, and nine separate execution dates have been set. Republican attorney general Drummond discovered in a study made public last year that Glossip's accuser had been treated for a significant mental illness at the time of his 2004 retrial.

"Absent this court's intervention, an execution will move forward under circumstances where the Attorney General has already confessed error — a result that would be unthinkable," Mr Drummond wrote in his request to the court.

Until the court determines whether to mandate a new trial and perhaps overturn his conviction, the stay will be in effect. Pope Francis, Kim Kardashian, and Richard Branson have all shown their support for Glossip in the case, which has garnered attention on a global scale.

Watch | Srinagar gears up to host g20 summit | Inside South Asia: part 2

<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/srinagar-gears-up-to-host-g20-summit-inside-south-asia-part-2-589431/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"There's so many exonerations in this country - so many people were railroaded, so many people's lives were taken from them," Glossip purportedly said Thursday. "Why is it so hard for people to think that somebody's actually innocent?"

Glossip, who is married to a campaigner against the death penalty claims he has kept his attention on the things he wants to accomplish once he is released from jail.

Glossip&nbsp;attorney&nbsp;Don Knight, said,&nbsp;"We are very grateful to the U.S. Supreme Court for doing the right thing in stopping Richard Glossip's unlawful execution," Knight said.

"There is nothing more harrowing than the thought of executing a man who the state now admits has never received a fair trial. Thankfully, for the time being, Mr. Glossip is out of peril."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

After a rare intervention by the US Supreme Court, a convicted man from Oklahoma was spared a fourth execution attempt. After the state's top lawman claimed Richard Glossip did not receive a fair trial, the court postponed his execution till 18 May.

After a rare intervention by the US Supreme Court, a convicted man from Oklahoma was spared a fourth execution attempt. After the state's top lawman claimed Richard Glossip did not receive a fair trial, the court postponed his execution till 18 May. A hotel owner in Oklahoma City and the employer of Glossip, Barry Van Treese, was beaten to death with a baseball bat by maintenance worker Justin Sneed in 1997. Justin Sneed, also a coworker of Glossip who was found guilty of the crime, said that Glossip had hired him to kill Treese. Glossip was about to be put to death in 2015 when the execution was postponed so that security personnel could inspect the lethal injection chemicals. The order temporarily suspends the punishment while the court deliberates the case. WATCH | Dramatic visuals as truck driver rescued in Kenya after sudden floods Gentner Drummond, the attorney general of Oklahoma, has reexamined the case and requested a new trial on the basis that the prosecution withheld facts concerning his accuser that would have strengthened his defence. Throughout his 26 years in prison, Glossip, 60, and his family have maintained his innocence by asserting that Sneed acted alone. After his initial conviction in 1998 was overturned in 2001, Glossip was found guilty once more three years later. Also Read | Onus on India to restart peace talks: Pak FM Bilawal Bhutto Zardari He has had three final dinners while inside, and nine separate execution dates have been set. Republican attorney general Drummond discovered in a study made public last year that Glossip's accuser had been treated for a significant mental illness at the time of his 2004 retrial. "Absent this court's intervention, an execution will move forward under circumstances where the Attorney General has already confessed error — a result that would be unthinkable," Mr Drummond wrote in his request to the court. Until the court determines whether to mandate a new trial and perhaps overturn his conviction, the stay will be in effect. Pope Francis, Kim Kardashian, and Richard Branson have all shown their support for Glossip in the case, which has garnered attention on a global scale. Watch | Srinagar gears up to host g20 summit | Inside South Asia: part 2 × "There's so many exonerations in this country - so many people were railroaded, so many people's lives were taken from them," Glossip purportedly said Thursday. "Why is it so hard for people to think that somebody's actually innocent?" Glossip, who is married to a campaigner against the death penalty claims he has kept his attention on the things he wants to accomplish once he is released from jail. Glossip attorney Don Knight, said, "We are very grateful to the U.S. Supreme Court for doing the right thing in stopping Richard Glossip's unlawful execution," Knight said. "There is nothing more harrowing than the thought of executing a man who the state now admits has never received a fair trial. Thankfully, for the time being, Mr. Glossip is out of peril." 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.

Lucky again: US Supreme Court halts Oklahoma man Richard Glossip's fourth execution attempt

Tussle is being continued between the government and its top court over clipping of powers of the Chief Justice. Now, eight-member bench is hearing the matter, the law takes away of the Chief Justice powers to take so more to cognizance in any individual capacity.

Pakistan Govt and Supreme Court in tiff over Chief Justice's powers | World News | WION

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed the proceedings on a petition filed by the protesting wrestlers, on whose complaint FIRs have been registered against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The apex court noted that security has been provided to the wrestlers and also turned down a plea by their counsel for monitoring of the investigation by a former judge.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that "having due regard to the ambit of the petition and registration of FIRs, we close the proceedings at this stage. The petitioner can move the jurisdictional magistrate or the high court concerned for suitable reliefs."

The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, noted that the purpose of the petition before this court was registration of the FIR and also the police have indicated that proper security has been provided to the complainants.

During the hearing, senior advocate Narender Hooda, representing the wrestlers, pointed at news reports claiming a policeman, who was allegedly drunk, misbehaved with the grapplers on Wednesday night at the protest site.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, said two political leaders from two parties went with folding beds in a truck and the police tried to stop it and a scuffle took place.

Mehta said they alleged that cops were drunk but everyone was medically tested and nobody was found drunk.

Hooda said Singh was openly taking the wrestlers names and he has become a TV star, giving interviews and alleging some businessman is behind all this and questioned about about concealing their identity.

Mehta said complainants are also giving interviews, taking all names. Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Singh, objected to Hooda`s submissions.

He further informed the court that a senior lady IPS officer is investigating the matter and statements of complainants have already been recorded and some more statements will be recorded in a day or two.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/ashes-unsurprised-by-the-approach-but-we-arent-tempted-alex-carey-plays-down-matching-engs-bazball-style-588795">Ashes: Unsurprised by the approach but we aren't tempted - Alex Carey plays down matching ENG's Bazball style</a>

At the end of the hearing, Hooda said: "I am sure as soon as the case is over Delhi Police will drag its feet. This should be monitored by a former judge."

The bench said: "We have confined ourselves to the prayer and that is served and if you are aggrieved by the magistrate court order you can approach Delhi High Court."

The plea filed by wrestlers said they attempted several times to convince Delhi Police to register an FIR, but they failed.

It said women athletes who make the nation proud are facing sexual harassment, and instead of getting the support they deserve, they are being forced to run from pillar to post to get justice.

The plea added said the accused person in this case is an influential person and is misusing the process of law to evade justice and further manipulating the legal system and obstructing justice.

"It is crucial that the police take all complaints of sexual harassment seriously and register FIRs promptly and not create yet another obstacle by delaying the registration of FIR."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

&nbsp;

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed the proceedings on a petition filed by the protesting wrestlers, on whose complaint FIRs have been registered against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed the proceedings on a petition filed by the protesting wrestlers, on whose complaint FIRs have been registered against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The apex court noted that security has been provided to the wrestlers and also turned down a plea by their counsel for monitoring of the investigation by a former judge. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that "having due regard to the ambit of the petition and registration of FIRs, we close the proceedings at this stage. The petitioner can move the jurisdictional magistrate or the high court concerned for suitable reliefs." The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, noted that the purpose of the petition before this court was registration of the FIR and also the police have indicated that proper security has been provided to the complainants. During the hearing, senior advocate Narender Hooda, representing the wrestlers, pointed at news reports claiming a policeman, who was allegedly drunk, misbehaved with the grapplers on Wednesday night at the protest site. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, said two political leaders from two parties went with folding beds in a truck and the police tried to stop it and a scuffle took place. Mehta said they alleged that cops were drunk but everyone was medically tested and nobody was found drunk. Hooda said Singh was openly taking the wrestlers names and he has become a TV star, giving interviews and alleging some businessman is behind all this and questioned about about concealing their identity. Mehta said complainants are also giving interviews, taking all names. Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Singh, objected to Hooda`s submissions. He further informed the court that a senior lady IPS officer is investigating the matter and statements of complainants have already been recorded and some more statements will be recorded in a day or two. ALSO READ | Ashes: Unsurprised by the approach but we aren't tempted - Alex Carey plays down matching ENG's Bazball style At the end of the hearing, Hooda said: "I am sure as soon as the case is over Delhi Police will drag its feet. This should be monitored by a former judge." The bench said: "We have confined ourselves to the prayer and that is served and if you are aggrieved by the magistrate court order you can approach Delhi High Court." The plea filed by wrestlers said they attempted several times to convince Delhi Police to register an FIR, but they failed. It said women athletes who make the nation proud are facing sexual harassment, and instead of getting the support they deserve, they are being forced to run from pillar to post to get justice. The plea added said the accused person in this case is an influential person and is misusing the process of law to evade justice and further manipulating the legal system and obstructing justice. "It is crucial that the police take all complaints of sexual harassment seriously and register FIRs promptly and not create yet another obstacle by delaying the registration of FIR." 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.

SC closes proceedings on wrestlers plea after registration of FIRs

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told&nbsp;the court that the government remains positive about the idea of adopting administrative steps in this regard.&nbsp;

"The issue has some genuine human concerns and there were discussions on whether something can be done administratively. The government is positive. This would need coordination by different ministries. A committee headed by a cabinet secretary will be formed and suggestions given by the petitioners will be addressed," Mehta said.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259"> ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

Speaking to the bench, Mehta said that this would require coordination between various ministries and may need some time. He stated that the petitioners can provide their suggestions on what administrative steps can be adopted in this regard.

Replying to this, CJI Chandrachud said, "The petitioners can submit suggestions between today and the next hearing so that they can apply their minds as well to it."

However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench that the matter is very complicated and it needs interpretation of the law. Justice Ravindra Bhat stated, "Sometimes beginnings are small".&nbsp;

Justice SK Kaul further added, "This is without prejudice to everyone's rights, even if marriage rights are granted, there will be many changes required in the legislative and administrative domain. The government is not reluctant to solve the problems arising from gay companionship, just not the label of marriage."

Meanwhile, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is appearing for the petitioners, said, "I speak here mostly for young people in the small towns who want to be married. Please do not leave them."

WATCH | Gravitas: Indian Government opposes same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indian-government-opposes-same-sex-marriage-583469/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

After listening to the arguments, the CJI said that the Supreme Court, as a constitutional court, has an issue "if we go by what young people feel".&nbsp;

"If we entertain this argument, then the other side will throw at us what the country wants and we cannot go into that. This is a social institution which is evolving and the court, as a facilitator, can ensure that there is some development. If we don't recognize same-sex marriage, we do not want you to be with nothing in your hand," he added.&nbsp;

The court hearing continued on Wednesday for the seventh day. A batch of petitions is being heard that seek legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India.

<main>
<section>
You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>
</section>
</main>

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community.

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government remains positive about the idea of adopting administrative steps in this regard. "The issue has some genuine human concerns and there were discussions on whether something can be done administratively. The government is positive. This would need coordination by different ministries. A committee headed by a cabinet secretary will be formed and suggestions given by the petitioners will be addressed," Mehta said. ALSO READ | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing Speaking to the bench, Mehta said that this would require coordination between various ministries and may need some time. He stated that the petitioners can provide their suggestions on what administrative steps can be adopted in this regard. Replying to this, CJI Chandrachud said, "The petitioners can submit suggestions between today and the next hearing so that they can apply their minds as well to it." However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench that the matter is very complicated and it needs interpretation of the law. Justice Ravindra Bhat stated, "Sometimes beginnings are small". Justice SK Kaul further added, "This is without prejudice to everyone's rights, even if marriage rights are granted, there will be many changes required in the legislative and administrative domain. The government is not reluctant to solve the problems arising from gay companionship, just not the label of marriage." Meanwhile, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is appearing for the petitioners, said, "I speak here mostly for young people in the small towns who want to be married. Please do not leave them." WATCH | Gravitas: Indian Government opposes same-sex marriage After listening to the arguments, the CJI said that the Supreme Court, as a constitutional court, has an issue "if we go by what young people feel". "If we entertain this argument, then the other side will throw at us what the country wants and we cannot go into that. This is a social institution which is evolving and the court, as a facilitator, can ensure that there is some development. If we don't recognize same-sex marriage, we do not want you to be with nothing in your hand," he added. The court hearing continued on Wednesday for the seventh day. A batch of petitions is being heard that seek legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India. 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: Will form committee to address issues being faced by same-sex couples, govt tells SC

The Supreme Court of India has passed a landmark verdict for couples seeking mutual divorce. It can now invoke special powers under article 142 of the constitution of India, to waive off the compulsory waiting period of 6 to 8 months in case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, for individuals seeking divorce through mutual consent.

India: Article 142 to waive off divorce waiting period

The Centre on Monday told India's Supreme Court that it was in the advanced stages of consultation with regard to reexamining the colonial-era sedition law. Upon this, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala postponed the hearing of please against the law till the second week of August.&nbsp;

This comes as Supreme Court was all set to hear a number of pleas contesting the constitutionality of the&nbsp;sedition law under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

In recent years, the use of the sedition law in India has become a subject of controversy, with some critics arguing that it is being misused to stifle free speech and dissent. There have been a number of high-profile cases in which individuals, including journalists, activists, and students, have been charged with sedition.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-18-dead-dozens-injured-as-tourist-bus-in-mexico-plunges-in-ravine-587657">At least 18 dead, dozens injured as tourist bus in Mexico plunges into ravine</a>

The consultation process, according to Attorney General R. Venkataramani, is at an advanced level, and he will be seen it before it is presented to Parliament.

He pleaded with the bench, "Kindly post the matter for further hearing after the Monsoon session of Parliament." Gopal Sankaranarayanan, a senior advocate, had requested the bench to form a bench of seven judges to decide the concerns. The bench ruled that even if the case had to be heard by seven judges, a five-judge bench would have to hear it first.

The colonial-era legal code against sedition was placed on pause by the supreme court on 11 May, 2022, pending a "proper" government forum's review of it.

The court also instructed the federal government and the states not to file any new FIRs citing the crime. The top court had decided that in addition to the filing of FIRs, all investigations, trials, and other actions related to the sedition statute across the nation would be put on hold.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/suspected-isis-chief-killed-in-syria-says-turkey-president-587671">Suspected ISIS chief, codename Abu Hussein al-Qurashi, killed in Syria: Turkey president</a>

The bench talked of the necessity to strike a balance between the interests of civil rights and individuals with those of the State, noting that the legislation has come under heavy public criticism for its alleged use as a tool to stifle dissent, notably on social media.

Sedition was added to the penal code in 1890, about 30 years after the IPC was created and 57 years before Independence, and carries a maximum prison sentence of life under Section 124A of the IPC for "creating disaffection towards the government."

Critics of the sedition law argue that it is a colonial-era law that is outdated and incompatible with democratic principles, and that it is being used to suppress dissent and criticism of the government.

Supporters of the law argue that it is necessary to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the country, and that it is an important tool in combating various forms of extremism.

A growing number of people have been accused of sedition, including the Maharashtra political couple Navneet and Ravi Rana, novelist Arundhati Roy, student activist Umar Khalid, and journalist Siddique Kappan.

Watch | Experts predict AI to be the forefront of 2024 US election campaign

<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/experts-predict-ai-to-be-the-forefront-of-2024-us-election-campaign-587648/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Overall, the use of the sedition law in India remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about its relevance and appropriateness in a democratic society that values freedom of speech and expression.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Centre on Monday told India's Supreme Court that it was in the advanced stages of consultation with regard to reexamining the colonial-era sedition law. Upon this, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala postponed the hearing of please against the law till the second week of August.

The Centre on Monday told India's Supreme Court that it was in the advanced stages of consultation with regard to reexamining the colonial-era sedition law. Upon this, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala postponed the hearing of please against the law till the second week of August. This comes as Supreme Court was all set to hear a number of pleas contesting the constitutionality of the sedition law under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. In recent years, the use of the sedition law in India has become a subject of controversy, with some critics arguing that it is being misused to stifle free speech and dissent. There have been a number of high-profile cases in which individuals, including journalists, activists, and students, have been charged with sedition. Also Read | At least 18 dead, dozens injured as tourist bus in Mexico plunges into ravine The consultation process, according to Attorney General R. Venkataramani, is at an advanced level, and he will be seen it before it is presented to Parliament. He pleaded with the bench, "Kindly post the matter for further hearing after the Monsoon session of Parliament." Gopal Sankaranarayanan, a senior advocate, had requested the bench to form a bench of seven judges to decide the concerns. The bench ruled that even if the case had to be heard by seven judges, a five-judge bench would have to hear it first. The colonial-era legal code against sedition was placed on pause by the supreme court on 11 May, 2022, pending a "proper" government forum's review of it. The court also instructed the federal government and the states not to file any new FIRs citing the crime. The top court had decided that in addition to the filing of FIRs, all investigations, trials, and other actions related to the sedition statute across the nation would be put on hold. Also Read | Suspected ISIS chief, codename Abu Hussein al-Qurashi, killed in Syria: Turkey president The bench talked of the necessity to strike a balance between the interests of civil rights and individuals with those of the State, noting that the legislation has come under heavy public criticism for its alleged use as a tool to stifle dissent, notably on social media. Sedition was added to the penal code in 1890, about 30 years after the IPC was created and 57 years before Independence, and carries a maximum prison sentence of life under Section 124A of the IPC for "creating disaffection towards the government." Critics of the sedition law argue that it is a colonial-era law that is outdated and incompatible with democratic principles, and that it is being used to suppress dissent and criticism of the government. Supporters of the law argue that it is necessary to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the country, and that it is an important tool in combating various forms of extremism. A growing number of people have been accused of sedition, including the Maharashtra political couple Navneet and Ravi Rana, novelist Arundhati Roy, student activist Umar Khalid, and journalist Siddique Kappan. Watch | Experts predict AI to be the forefront of 2024 US election campaign × Overall, the use of the sedition law in India remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about its relevance and appropriateness in a democratic society that values freedom of speech and expression. 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 SC defers hearing on pleas against sedition law, govt says re-examining at advanced consultation stage

A Supreme Court three-judge special bench resumes hearing into plea seeking simultaneous elections across Pakistan today (27 April) amid growing political tension between the country’s judiciary and parliament.

Pakistan: Three-judge special bench resumes hearing election delay case

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that the Supreme Court (SC) committed "contempt of Parliament" by "undermining the decisions of the House", local media reported.&nbsp;

Bhutto, who is Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Chairman, said that funds for holding elections in Punjab could not be released to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) without the Parliament's permission.&nbsp;

While speaking on the National Assembly (NA) floor, the foreign minister said that the decisions of the Parliament could not be ignored and said that "if the Parliament allows releasing of funds, we have no objection".&nbsp;

During his address, he also said that Supreme Court "wants to impose a minority decision by turning it into a majority one. We will not accept it under any circumstances".&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/white-house-responds-to-pakistan-purchasing-discounted-russian-oil-586565">White House responds to Pakistan purchasing discounted Russian oil</a>&nbsp;

He further noted that the executive was supposed to follow the decisions of the Parliament. He said, "It is against the basic principle of democracy and the Constitution. The Parliament has the authority to decide how public money can be spent and where it is spent."&nbsp;

Bhutto also referred to a letter, which was written by the Speaker of the National Assembly Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and addressed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial.&nbsp;

Bhutto said that the letter is not enough as the Parliament was insulted and its privileges were violated.&nbsp;

In the letter, the speaker noted that the country's top court must "avoid getting involved in political thicket", as far as possible. The foreign minister suggested that the matter be taken up by the privilege committee.&nbsp;

WATCH |&nbsp;Rajnath Singh set for bilateral meet with Chinese defence minister ahead of SCO meet&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rajnath-singh-set-for-bilateral-meet-with-chinese-defence-minister-ahead-of-sco-meet-586541/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Speaker's letter to Pakistan's top judge&nbsp;</h2>

In the letter to the country's top judge, the Speaker addressed the ongoing issue of the court's encroachment upon the National Assembly's power to approve expenditures from the Federal Consolidated Fund, local media reported.&nbsp;

The letter is in the current issue between the government and the Supreme Court as they remain at loggerheads over the elections to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assemblies.&nbsp;

The speaker of the lower house wrote: "It is best to leave resolution of political matters by parliament and the political parties." &nbsp;

"We must work together to uphold the Constitution, protect the democratic values and work within our respective constitutional domains to ensure that confrontation between the organs of the state is avoided and the constitutional order is maintained," he stated.&nbsp;

Ashraf also mentioned the "profound concern and unease of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan regarding some recent decisions of the Supreme Court and comments made by some Judges, as reported in media".&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that the Supreme Court (SC) committed "contempt of Parliament" by "undermining the decisions of the House", local media reported.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that the Supreme Court (SC) committed "contempt of Parliament" by "undermining the decisions of the House", local media reported. Bhutto, who is Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Chairman, said that funds for holding elections in Punjab could not be released to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) without the Parliament's permission. While speaking on the National Assembly (NA) floor, the foreign minister said that the decisions of the Parliament could not be ignored and said that "if the Parliament allows releasing of funds, we have no objection". During his address, he also said that Supreme Court "wants to impose a minority decision by turning it into a majority one. We will not accept it under any circumstances". ALSO READ | White House responds to Pakistan purchasing discounted Russian oil He further noted that the executive was supposed to follow the decisions of the Parliament. He said, "It is against the basic principle of democracy and the Constitution. The Parliament has the authority to decide how public money can be spent and where it is spent." Bhutto also referred to a letter, which was written by the Speaker of the National Assembly Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and addressed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial. Bhutto said that the letter is not enough as the Parliament was insulted and its privileges were violated. In the letter, the speaker noted that the country's top court must "avoid getting involved in political thicket", as far as possible. The foreign minister suggested that the matter be taken up by the privilege committee. WATCH | Rajnath Singh set for bilateral meet with Chinese defence minister ahead of SCO meet × Speaker's letter to Pakistan's top judge In the letter to the country's top judge, the Speaker addressed the ongoing issue of the court's encroachment upon the National Assembly's power to approve expenditures from the Federal Consolidated Fund, local media reported. The letter is in the current issue between the government and the Supreme Court as they remain at loggerheads over the elections to the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assemblies. The speaker of the lower house wrote: "It is best to leave resolution of political matters by parliament and the political parties." "We must work together to uphold the Constitution, protect the democratic values and work within our respective constitutional domains to ensure that confrontation between the organs of the state is avoided and the constitutional order is maintained," he stated. Ashraf also mentioned the "profound concern and unease of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan regarding some recent decisions of the Supreme Court and comments made by some Judges, as reported in media". (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.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto claims SC committed 'contempt of Parliament'

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Day 5 of several petitions on Wednesday that called for marriage equality, or the right of non-heterosexual couples to be married while enjoying the same rights as heterosexual unions. The petitioners have so far presented evidence to the court in support of marriage equality, arguing for the right to equality as well as a number of other problems, such as the importance of family.&nbsp;

This afternoon, the court started hearing the government's arguments. Last week, the government attempted to dismiss the petitioners' demands as a "urban, elitist" notion.&nbsp;

Here is a round-up of all the arguments from today:

1. 'Right to marry can't mean compelling the State to create a new definition of marriage. Parliament can do but it's not an absolute right. My appeal is to rather than taking this any further, this is a subject that should be left to the choice of parliament' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre.

2.&nbsp;'Elite argument can be set aside. Matter of prejudice. Does not determine how we rule on a constitutional issue' - Chief Justice DY Chandrachud

3. 'LGBTQ couples will come to courts with claims, as these issues (pension, other benefits and obligations that flow from marriage) arise, just as heterosexual couples have, from the time codification of matrimonial laws began. We are no different, and we ask for the right to not be different' - Advocate Arundhati Katju for petitioners.

4. 'Your Lordships should not presume any difficulty which arises for LGBTQ couples. Union says such couples would play havoc with personal laws. But we are part of our community and our society' - Advocate Nundy for petitioners.&nbsp;

5. 'Let us be blessed just as heterosexual couples are...Not elite at all. So many people have called me...from Hissar, Chhattisgarh, Surat...Let the union bless us just as they do any other couple' - Advocate Nundy for petitioners.

6.&nbsp;'There is no absolute right to marry. Law prescribes when to marry by prescribing age. Law prescribes who not to marry, how to separate is also legislatively regulated' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre.

7.&nbsp;'Children, orphans... have right to have a family. Exclusion of same gender couples and transgender persons defeats very purpose of adoption, which is to provide a stable, loving family. Is it in the best interest of the child to not have a relationship with their second parent? Petitioners are part of historically oppressed minority... deserve as much dignity &amp; protection as opposite sex couple' - Advocate Amritananda Chakravorty for petitioners.

8.&nbsp;'Even the prayers of the petitioners are extremely vague. Societal acceptance is needed for recognition of a union and this has to be through the parliament. and if it is done by the court then it is detrimental to the LGBTQI since you are forcing something against the will of the people. We cannot forget the historical background which led to the institution of marriage' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre.

9.&nbsp;'Parliament was aware of lesbian and gay people [while constituting Special Marriage Act]. Select committee in fact used the word parties instead of 'man' &amp; 'woman'. After heated debate, amendment was brought to introduce different ages for men &amp; women' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre.

10. 'Special Marriage Act was intended to be religion-neutral, idea was to create a forum for people to marry outside their faith' - CJI DY Chandrachud.

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Day 5 of several petitions on Wednesday that called for marriage equality, or the right of non-heterosexual couples to be married while enjoying the same rights as heterosexual unions.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Day 5 of several petitions on Wednesday that called for marriage equality, or the right of non-heterosexual couples to be married while enjoying the same rights as heterosexual unions. The petitioners have so far presented evidence to the court in support of marriage equality, arguing for the right to equality as well as a number of other problems, such as the importance of family. This afternoon, the court started hearing the government's arguments. Last week, the government attempted to dismiss the petitioners' demands as a "urban, elitist" notion. Here is a round-up of all the arguments from today: 1. 'Right to marry can't mean compelling the State to create a new definition of marriage. Parliament can do but it's not an absolute right. My appeal is to rather than taking this any further, this is a subject that should be left to the choice of parliament' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre. 2. 'Elite argument can be set aside. Matter of prejudice. Does not determine how we rule on a constitutional issue' - Chief Justice DY Chandrachud 3. 'LGBTQ couples will come to courts with claims, as these issues (pension, other benefits and obligations that flow from marriage) arise, just as heterosexual couples have, from the time codification of matrimonial laws began. We are no different, and we ask for the right to not be different' - Advocate Arundhati Katju for petitioners. 4. 'Your Lordships should not presume any difficulty which arises for LGBTQ couples. Union says such couples would play havoc with personal laws. But we are part of our community and our society' - Advocate Nundy for petitioners. 5. 'Let us be blessed just as heterosexual couples are...Not elite at all. So many people have called me...from Hissar, Chhattisgarh, Surat...Let the union bless us just as they do any other couple' - Advocate Nundy for petitioners. 6. 'There is no absolute right to marry. Law prescribes when to marry by prescribing age. Law prescribes who not to marry, how to separate is also legislatively regulated' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre. 7. 'Children, orphans... have right to have a family. Exclusion of same gender couples and transgender persons defeats very purpose of adoption, which is to provide a stable, loving family. Is it in the best interest of the child to not have a relationship with their second parent? Petitioners are part of historically oppressed minority... deserve as much dignity & protection as opposite sex couple' - Advocate Amritananda Chakravorty for petitioners. 8. 'Even the prayers of the petitioners are extremely vague. Societal acceptance is needed for recognition of a union and this has to be through the parliament. and if it is done by the court then it is detrimental to the LGBTQI since you are forcing something against the will of the people. We cannot forget the historical background which led to the institution of marriage' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre. 9. 'Parliament was aware of lesbian and gay people [while constituting Special Marriage Act]. Select committee in fact used the word parties instead of 'man' & 'woman'. After heated debate, amendment was brought to introduce different ages for men & women' - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre. 10. 'Special Marriage Act was intended to be religion-neutral, idea was to create a forum for people to marry outside their faith' - CJI DY Chandrachud. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Same-sex marriage hearing in Supreme Court​​​​​​ round-up | Top 10 things said in court on day 5

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a plea by the country`s seven top wrestlers seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. 
 
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, said: "There are serious allegation in plea on behest of international wrestlers with regards to sexual harassment meted out to them. Issue notice returnable on Friday. Liberty to serve standing counsel NCT Delhi. The complaints which form an attachment in sealed cover and shall be again resealeda.". 
 
The plea was mentioned before the bench by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Narendra Hooda, representing the wrestlers. 
 
Sibal submitted that this is the wrestlers` matter and they are sitting in dharna, and seven women have complained and one is a minor. He stressed that an FIR has not been registered and added that the plea seeks one against Singh over alleged sexual harassment by women wrestlers.

During the hearing, Sibal argued that there is a committee report which has not been made public. The Chief Justice asked Sibal to show the case papers. Sibal said please see the complaint by the minor, the young girl had won a gold medal and added even the police personnel can be prosecuted for not registering an FIR. 
 
He emphasized that the court should look at the allegations and the police are not acting. After hearing submissions, the top court sought response from the Delhi Police. 
 
According to the plea, the wrestlers have cited an inordinate delay in registration of FIR by the Delhi Police against the WFI Presdent and urged the apex court to issue a direction to police to lodge a case.&nbsp;The top court agreed with the petitioners to suppress their identity mentioned in the petition.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a plea by the country`s seven top wrestlers seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice on a plea by the country`s seven top wrestlers seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, said: "There are serious allegation in plea on behest of international wrestlers with regards to sexual harassment meted out to them. Issue notice returnable on Friday. Liberty to serve standing counsel NCT Delhi. The complaints which form an attachment in sealed cover and shall be again resealeda.". The plea was mentioned before the bench by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Narendra Hooda, representing the wrestlers. Sibal submitted that this is the wrestlers` matter and they are sitting in dharna, and seven women have complained and one is a minor. He stressed that an FIR has not been registered and added that the plea seeks one against Singh over alleged sexual harassment by women wrestlers. During the hearing, Sibal argued that there is a committee report which has not been made public. The Chief Justice asked Sibal to show the case papers. Sibal said please see the complaint by the minor, the young girl had won a gold medal and added even the police personnel can be prosecuted for not registering an FIR. He emphasized that the court should look at the allegations and the police are not acting. After hearing submissions, the top court sought response from the Delhi Police. According to the plea, the wrestlers have cited an inordinate delay in registration of FIR by the Delhi Police against the WFI Presdent and urged the apex court to issue a direction to police to lodge a case. The top court agreed with the petitioners to suppress their identity mentioned in the petition.

Supreme Court issues notice on wrestlers' plea seeking FIR vs WFI chief

Indian Supreme Court is hearing final arguments this week in a historic group of petitions to legalize same-sex marriage. The hearings are being livestreamed online in what the court calls the public interest.

Indian Supreme Court hears final arguments on same-sex union this week

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding.

“A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,&nbsp;who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue.

"Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said.

The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.

The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue.

The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent.

The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary. Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding. “A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue. "Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said. The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values. The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue. The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing

In spite of the controversy surrounding abortion regulations in the United States of America, the Supreme Court has, for the time being, ensured that all women in the nation have access to abortion pills in all circumstances.

Abortion rights supporters protest in two US states

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily protected the availability of the common abortion drug Mifepristone. In order to give judges more time to evaluate whether lower court orders barring approval of the medicine should be permitted to take effect, the course has issued an administrative stay that will keep the lower coach limits in place for five days until Wednesday.

US Supreme Court temporarily pauses abortion pill restrictions

Pakistan's Supreme Court has ordered top officials to appear before it on April 14 with relevant records to show why funds were not released for holding snap elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa despite clear instructions.

Pakistan Supreme Court urges government to release election funds

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has lost public support as per a poll which showed that the party is likely to lose more than a third of its seats if it goes into an election currently and won't be able to get a majority along with his hard-right coalition partners.

As the country continues to flare up over the government's controversial plan to tighten control over the Supreme Court which has been paused amid the escalating tension with the Palestinians, the poll carried out by Channel 13 News showed that more than two-thirds of the country's voters were unhappy with Netanyahu’s performance in office.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/middle-east/israel-hits-southern-syria-after-six-rockets-launched-at-golan-heights-explosions-heard-near-damascus-580568">Israeli fighter jets hit military compound in Syria in response to rocket strikes</a>

The poll indicated that Netanyahu’s Likud party would be able to clinch victory over 20 seats in the 120-member parliament of the country, which is a fall from the 32 seats he won last November.

The poll also stated that his religious-nationalist coalition would not be able to get a majority with 46 seats, which is a fall from 64.

If the elections are held in the current scenario, Benny Gantz's Blue and White party would emerge victorious with 29 seats, followed by Yair Lapid’s centrist party which would clinch victory over 21 seats, as per the survey conducted by Camil Fuchs.

When the people were asked about the performance of Netanyahu as prime minister, 71 per cent of the 699 respondents called it “not good” and 20 per cent agreed that it was “good”, reported Channel 13 News.

The survey was dismissed by the Likud party’s Boaz Bismuth.

“There was an amazing and very, very reliable poll on November 1, I still rely on it,” he said while speaking to Army Radio on Monday, as he referred to the last national election held which ended the political deadlock which was seen five elections in less than four years.

The government led by Netanyahu had pledged to overhaul the judicial system, however, the legislation was paused to allow for compromise discussions with the opposition political parties after weeks of nationwide protests.

WATCH | Israel: Funeral held at Kfar Etzion for 2 sisters killed in shootout in West Bank

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-funeral-held-at-kfar-etzion-for-2-sisters-killed-in-shootout-in-west-bank-580958/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The supporters of the government's plan stated that the change will help restore the balance between the different branches of the government. However, the critics stated that the plan will only weaken the courts and unbridled power will be handed to the government.

The protests have been taking place amid escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians in which more than 250 Palestinians and around 42 Israelis and foreigners have lost their lives.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has lost public support as per a poll which showed that the party is likely to lose more than a third of its seats if it goes into an election currently and won't be able to get a majority along with his hard-right coalition partners.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has lost public support as per a poll which showed that the party is likely to lose more than a third of its seats if it goes into an election currently and won't be able to get a majority along with his hard-right coalition partners. As the country continues to flare up over the government's controversial plan to tighten control over the Supreme Court which has been paused amid the escalating tension with the Palestinians, the poll carried out by Channel 13 News showed that more than two-thirds of the country's voters were unhappy with Netanyahu’s performance in office. ALSO READ | Israeli fighter jets hit military compound in Syria in response to rocket strikes The poll indicated that Netanyahu’s Likud party would be able to clinch victory over 20 seats in the 120-member parliament of the country, which is a fall from the 32 seats he won last November. The poll also stated that his religious-nationalist coalition would not be able to get a majority with 46 seats, which is a fall from 64. If the elections are held in the current scenario, Benny Gantz's Blue and White party would emerge victorious with 29 seats, followed by Yair Lapid’s centrist party which would clinch victory over 21 seats, as per the survey conducted by Camil Fuchs. When the people were asked about the performance of Netanyahu as prime minister, 71 per cent of the 699 respondents called it “not good” and 20 per cent agreed that it was “good”, reported Channel 13 News. The survey was dismissed by the Likud party’s Boaz Bismuth. “There was an amazing and very, very reliable poll on November 1, I still rely on it,” he said while speaking to Army Radio on Monday, as he referred to the last national election held which ended the political deadlock which was seen five elections in less than four years. The government led by Netanyahu had pledged to overhaul the judicial system, however, the legislation was paused to allow for compromise discussions with the opposition political parties after weeks of nationwide protests. WATCH | Israel: Funeral held at Kfar Etzion for 2 sisters killed in shootout in West Bank The supporters of the government's plan stated that the change will help restore the balance between the different branches of the government. However, the critics stated that the plan will only weaken the courts and unbridled power will be handed to the government. The protests have been taking place amid escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians in which more than 250 Palestinians and around 42 Israelis and foreigners have lost their lives. (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

Netanyahu’s Likud party likely to lose more than a third of its seats, predicts poll

It seems like Pakistan is not just divided along political lines but the divisions are way more entrenched in the entire governance apparatus. In the latest, the divisions have plagued Pakistan's apex court. Watch the video to know more.

Turmoil in Pakistan judiciary: Supreme Court dissolves four-judge bench | World News | WION

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

supreme court