Pakistan's Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Tuesday tabled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 aimed to limit the discretionary powers to take suo motu notice by the chief justice of Pakistan, Geo News reported.

The house has sent the proposed bill to the National Assembly (NA) Standing Committee on Law and Justice for further approval which will meet on Wednesday morning under the chair of Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk.

The committee will send it back to the lower house. After the NA passes the bill, it will be sent to the Senate for approval.

The decision of Pakistan's government comes a day after two Supreme Court judges -- Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail raised questions over the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The two judges said the apex court "cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice."

The court must be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution," Justice Shah and Justice Mandokhail wrote in a 27-page dissenting note for the apex court's March 1 verdict in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suo motu.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-taliban-launch-assault-on-police-station-kill-four-policemen-in-bomb-attack-577248">Pakistan Taliban launch assault on police station, kill four policemen in bomb attack</a>

In his speech on the floor of the house during the National Assembly session, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif sought parliamentary action in this regard. He termed the dissenting note "a ray of hope," as per the Geo News report.

Shehbaz Sharif said, "The voices for change stemming from the judiciary itself is certainly a ray of hope for the country." Sharif's party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has accused the judiciary of "bench-fixing," as per the news report.

While speaking on the floor of the house, Pakistan's Law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said that the Supreme Court's reputation was damaged due to the actions taken in the name of suo moto notices.

"We have even seen that era when suo motu notices were taken on trivial matters [...] also, in the past, several review cases were delayed and not fixed for hearing," Azam Nazeer Tarar said.

Tarar said that the dissenting note of the two judges has led to further concern. He stated that the decisions taken under suo motu notices could not be appealed earlier. He further said, "It is important to give the chance to appeal an order and the parliament has always demanded that the right to appeal should be given."

The bill includes shifting the powers of taking suo motu notice from the chief justice to a three-member committee comprising three senior judges.

Furthermore, the bill includes a clause regarding the right of challenging the decision which could be filed within 30 days and will be fixed for a hearing in two weeks' time.

According to the bill, every clause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench formed by the committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior judges. The bill also stated that the decision of the committee shall be made as per the majority.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-governments-twitter-account-withheld-in-india-yet-again-577164">Pakistan government's Twitter account withheld in India yet again</a>

In a 27-page note for the apex court's March 1 verdict in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suo motu, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail called it important "to revisit the power of 'one-man show' enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan [Umar Ata Bandial]."

Expressing their views against running a "one-man show", Justice Shah and Justice Mandokhail stressed that it results in a concentration of power in the hands of one individual, making the system more susceptible to the abuse of power, as per the Geo News report.

The judges said that a collegial system with checks and balances helps "prevent the abuse and mistakes in the exercise of power and promote transparency and accountability." They stressed that collegial system ensures good governance as it rests on collaboration, shared decision-making and balance of power.

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>

Pakistan's Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Tuesday tabled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 aimed to limit the discretionary powers to take suo motu notice by the chief justice of Pakistan, Geo News reported.

Pakistan's Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Tuesday tabled the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023 aimed to limit the discretionary powers to take suo motu notice by the chief justice of Pakistan, Geo News reported. The house has sent the proposed bill to the National Assembly (NA) Standing Committee on Law and Justice for further approval which will meet on Wednesday morning under the chair of Chaudhry Mahmood Bashir Virk. The committee will send it back to the lower house. After the NA passes the bill, it will be sent to the Senate for approval. The decision of Pakistan's government comes a day after two Supreme Court judges -- Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail raised questions over the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The two judges said the apex court "cannot be dependent on the solitary decision of one man, the Chief Justice." The court must be regulated through a rule-based system approved by all judges of the court under Article 191 of the Constitution," Justice Shah and Justice Mandokhail wrote in a 27-page dissenting note for the apex court's March 1 verdict in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suo motu. ALSO READ | Pakistan Taliban launch assault on police station, kill four policemen in bomb attack In his speech on the floor of the house during the National Assembly session, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif sought parliamentary action in this regard. He termed the dissenting note "a ray of hope," as per the Geo News report. Shehbaz Sharif said, "The voices for change stemming from the judiciary itself is certainly a ray of hope for the country." Sharif's party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has accused the judiciary of "bench-fixing," as per the news report. While speaking on the floor of the house, Pakistan's Law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said that the Supreme Court's reputation was damaged due to the actions taken in the name of suo moto notices. "We have even seen that era when suo motu notices were taken on trivial matters [...] also, in the past, several review cases were delayed and not fixed for hearing," Azam Nazeer Tarar said. Tarar said that the dissenting note of the two judges has led to further concern. He stated that the decisions taken under suo motu notices could not be appealed earlier. He further said, "It is important to give the chance to appeal an order and the parliament has always demanded that the right to appeal should be given." The bill includes shifting the powers of taking suo motu notice from the chief justice to a three-member committee comprising three senior judges. Furthermore, the bill includes a clause regarding the right of challenging the decision which could be filed within 30 days and will be fixed for a hearing in two weeks' time. According to the bill, every clause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court shall be heard and disposed of by a bench formed by the committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and two senior judges. The bill also stated that the decision of the committee shall be made as per the majority. ALSO READ | Pakistan government's Twitter account withheld in India yet again In a 27-page note for the apex court's March 1 verdict in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suo motu, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail called it important "to revisit the power of 'one-man show' enjoyed by the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan [Umar Ata Bandial]." Expressing their views against running a "one-man show", Justice Shah and Justice Mandokhail stressed that it results in a concentration of power in the hands of one individual, making the system more susceptible to the abuse of power, as per the Geo News report. The judges said that a collegial system with checks and balances helps "prevent the abuse and mistakes in the exercise of power and promote transparency and accountability." They stressed that collegial system ensures good governance as it rests on collaboration, shared decision-making and balance of power. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Pakistan government tables bill in parliament to limit chief justice's powers

Indian Supreme Court will hear all the&nbsp;petitions related&nbsp;to the constitutionality of the 'marital rape exemption' on 9 May, 2023. The apex court has also sought a response from Indian government regarding its position on the matter and whether or not non-consensual sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife should come under the ambit of punishable offence.&nbsp;

The topic of marital rape continues to spark debates in the Indian society. However, it is not a crime in India yet. While many may argue to criminalise marital rape, the other strand of the debate is about the rights of men, which many activists say must not be overlooked. As per them, criminalising&nbsp;marital rape may be used by some&nbsp;women to deliberately file false complaints against their husbands.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-who-is-audrey-hale-the-shooter-who-killed-six-at-nashville-school-576561">Who is Audrey Hale, the shooter who killed six at Nashville school</a>

What is marital rape?

In broad terms, marital rape or spousal rape is the term used for non-consensual&nbsp;sexual intercourse&nbsp;by&nbsp;a man on his&nbsp;wife. It may also involve&nbsp;physical or&nbsp;verbal threats.&nbsp;According to exception 2 of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, sexual intercourse between a&nbsp;man and his own wife,&nbsp;who&nbsp;is not under the age of 15,&nbsp;is not considered rape.&nbsp;

Delhi Hight Court split verdict

The new hearing is taking place a year after the Delhi High Court gave&nbsp;a split&nbsp;verdict&nbsp;in a case involving the criminalisation of marital rape. Justice C Hari Shankar, who was part of the high court’s division bench, had said that exception under the rape law is not unconstitutional.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-lawmakers-to-go-ahead-with-the-proposal-banning-tiktok-use-nationwide-576555">US lawmakers to go ahead with the proposal banning TikTok use nationwide</a>

On the other hand, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who headed the division bench of the high court, had favoured striking down the marital rape exception and said it would be tragic if a married woman’s call for justice is not heard even after 162 years since the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to Justice&nbsp;C. Hari Shankar, the marital rape exemption is not unconstitutional.&nbsp;

Nevertheless, Judge Rajiv Shakdher had argued in favour of removing marital rape exemption. He said it would be unfortunate if a married woman's plea for justice went unanswered.&nbsp;

Yet,&nbsp;because the case had&nbsp;"substantial questions&nbsp;of law," the judges granted the certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Karnataka High Court verdict

A key decision in a case of marital rape was also&nbsp;made by the Karnataka High Court in December of last year. The&nbsp;court rejected&nbsp;the husband's plea&nbsp;to have the pending rape charges&nbsp;against him dismissed. A charge against him was made by his wife under Section 376 of the Indian Penal&nbsp;Code.

Karnataka High Court reportedly said, "The institution of marriage does not confer, cannot confer and in my considered view, should not be construed to confer, any special male privilege or a licence for unleashing of a brutal beast. If it is punishable to a man, it should be punishable to a man albeit, the man being a husband."

Watch | Silicon Valley Bank collapse: Textbook case of mismanagement

<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/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-textbook-case-of-mismanagement-576569/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Which countries criminalise marital rape?

According to a UN report, just 42% of countries have laws specifically criminalising marital rape as of 2018,&nbsp;while 3 billion women and girls continued to live in nations where such laws did not exist.

In 1932, Poland became the first nation to explicitly crimilanise&nbsp;marital rape. Explicit criminalisation of rape means the law makes no distinction between rape and martial rape.&nbsp;

There are about 36&nbsp;nations&nbsp;that have not made marital rape a crime. yet.&nbsp;India is one among them. Others include&nbsp;&nbsp;Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Algeria, and Botswana.&nbsp;

Australia's marital rape&nbsp;criminalisation&nbsp;started in the state of New South Wales in 1981 and spread to all other states between 1985 and 1992.&nbsp;

Since 1993, all 50 states in the US have made marital rape a crime. It was made illegal in Nebraska in 1975. Amoung the last states to do so were Oklahoma and North Carolina, which made marital rape illegal in 1993. The Court of Appeals of New York struck down the marital exemption from their codes in 1984.&nbsp;

In 2002, Nepal also got rid of the marital rape excemption after its Supreme Court held that it went against the constitutional right of equal protection and the right to privacy.&nbsp;

Marital rape is illegal in the United Kingdom&nbsp;since 1992 and is seen as a kind of domestic abuse.&nbsp;

Since the 1980s, many countries have abolished the marital rape immunity through legislations. These include South Africa, Ireland and Canada.

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>.

Indian Supreme Court will hear all the petitions related to the constitutionality of the 'marital rape exemption' on 9 May, 2023. The apex court has also sought a response from Indian government regarding its position on the matter and whether or not non-consensual sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife should come under the ambit of punishable offence.

Indian Supreme Court will hear all the petitions related to the constitutionality of the 'marital rape exemption' on 9 May, 2023. The apex court has also sought a response from Indian government regarding its position on the matter and whether or not non-consensual sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife should come under the ambit of punishable offence. The topic of marital rape continues to spark debates in the Indian society. However, it is not a crime in India yet. While many may argue to criminalise marital rape, the other strand of the debate is about the rights of men, which many activists say must not be overlooked. As per them, criminalising marital rape may be used by some women to deliberately file false complaints against their husbands. Also Read | Who is Audrey Hale, the shooter who killed six at Nashville school What is marital rape? In broad terms, marital rape or spousal rape is the term used for non-consensual sexual intercourse by a man on his wife. It may also involve physical or verbal threats. According to exception 2 of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, sexual intercourse between a man and his own wife, who is not under the age of 15, is not considered rape. Delhi Hight Court split verdict The new hearing is taking place a year after the Delhi High Court gave a split verdict in a case involving the criminalisation of marital rape. Justice C Hari Shankar, who was part of the high court’s division bench, had said that exception under the rape law is not unconstitutional. Also Read | US lawmakers to go ahead with the proposal banning TikTok use nationwide On the other hand, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, who headed the division bench of the high court, had favoured striking down the marital rape exception and said it would be tragic if a married woman’s call for justice is not heard even after 162 years since the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to Justice C. Hari Shankar, the marital rape exemption is not unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Judge Rajiv Shakdher had argued in favour of removing marital rape exemption. He said it would be unfortunate if a married woman's plea for justice went unanswered. Yet, because the case had "substantial questions of law," the judges granted the certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Karnataka High Court verdict A key decision in a case of marital rape was also made by the Karnataka High Court in December of last year. The court rejected the husband's plea to have the pending rape charges against him dismissed. A charge against him was made by his wife under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Karnataka High Court reportedly said, "The institution of marriage does not confer, cannot confer and in my considered view, should not be construed to confer, any special male privilege or a licence for unleashing of a brutal beast. If it is punishable to a man, it should be punishable to a man albeit, the man being a husband." Watch | Silicon Valley Bank collapse: Textbook case of mismanagement × Which countries criminalise marital rape? According to a UN report, just 42% of countries have laws specifically criminalising marital rape as of 2018, while 3 billion women and girls continued to live in nations where such laws did not exist. In 1932, Poland became the first nation to explicitly crimilanise marital rape. Explicit criminalisation of rape means the law makes no distinction between rape and martial rape. There are about 36 nations that have not made marital rape a crime. yet. India is one among them. Others include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Algeria, and Botswana. Australia's marital rape criminalisation started in the state of New South Wales in 1981 and spread to all other states between 1985 and 1992. Since 1993, all 50 states in the US have made marital rape a crime. It was made illegal in Nebraska in 1975. Amoung the last states to do so were Oklahoma and North Carolina, which made marital rape illegal in 1993. The Court of Appeals of New York struck down the marital exemption from their codes in 1984. In 2002, Nepal also got rid of the marital rape excemption after its Supreme Court held that it went against the constitutional right of equal protection and the right to privacy. Marital rape is illegal in the United Kingdom since 1992 and is seen as a kind of domestic abuse. Since the 1980s, many countries have abolished the marital rape immunity through legislations. These include South Africa, Ireland and Canada. 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.

Marriage a license to rape? India's top court to hear pleas on marital rape; these countries criminalise it

The US Supreme Court is set to witness a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy which is set to be shaped like the whiskey bottle of Jack Daniel's. The case will redefine how constitutional free speech rights are applied by the judiciary to trademark law. &nbsp;

The case will be argued on Wednesday. The nine justices are likely to clarify the line between a parody, which is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and a trademark-infringing ripoff in this legal dogfight. The court is likely to give a ruling by June end.&nbsp;

Jack Daniel's Properties Inc is appealing against the decision of a lower court that the VIP Products LLC's "Bad Spaniels" chew toy is an "expressive work" which has received protection by the Constitution's First Amendment.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-to-hear-crucial-case-on-law-linked-to-future-of-internet-564345">US Supreme Court wary of removing legal immunity for the tech companies</a>

Concern has been expressed by some companies that the court's ruling against Jack Daniel's claim would badly affect their control over their reputations and brands. Meanwhile, others believe that if the court delivers a ruling in favour of the whiskey maker, it would stifle free-speech rights.

"This is an interesting case because it's a court that does care about the First Amendment but also cares about business. And this is a case where those interests intersect in a way that's kind of hard to sort out," stated Elizabeth Brannen, who works as a partner at the law firm Stris &amp; Maher and has appeared in intellectual property cases before the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

The toy looks like Lynchburg, the famous whiskey bottles of Tennessee-based Jack Daniel with humorous dog-themed alterations and has just changed "Old No. 7" with "the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet" and altered the alcohol descriptions with "43 per cent Poo By Vol." and "100 per cent Smelly".&nbsp;

"Jack Daniel's loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel's likes its customers even more, and doesn't want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop," the company stated to the justices in a brief.&nbsp;

VIP Products stated that if the ruling is delivered in favour of Jack Daniel, it would make it easier to stifle free speech for trademark owners.

WATCH | US Top Court rules to keep Title 42 in place; White House urges 'comprehensive' immigration reforms

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-top-court-rules-to-keep-title-42-in-place-white-house-urges-comprehensive-immigration-reforms-547232/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Every First Amendment case has a spillover effect into other areas," said VIP's attorney Ben Cooper of the firm Dickinson Wright. "So this can't be seen as being compartmentalised into the world of trademarks," he added.

"Whenever one person's speech is limited, it gets everyone else nervous," Cooper stated.&nbsp;

VIP said that its toy comments on "iconic alcohol brands' self-serious bombardment of consumers with advertising and dog owners' joyful humanisation of their pets".&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>

The US Supreme Court is set to witness a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy which is set to be shaped like the whiskey bottle of Jack Daniel's. The case will redefine how constitutional free speech rights are applied by the judiciary to trademark law.

The US Supreme Court is set to witness a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy which is set to be shaped like the whiskey bottle of Jack Daniel's. The case will redefine how constitutional free speech rights are applied by the judiciary to trademark law. The case will be argued on Wednesday. The nine justices are likely to clarify the line between a parody, which is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and a trademark-infringing ripoff in this legal dogfight. The court is likely to give a ruling by June end. Jack Daniel's Properties Inc is appealing against the decision of a lower court that the VIP Products LLC's "Bad Spaniels" chew toy is an "expressive work" which has received protection by the Constitution's First Amendment. ALSO READ | US Supreme Court wary of removing legal immunity for the tech companies Concern has been expressed by some companies that the court's ruling against Jack Daniel's claim would badly affect their control over their reputations and brands. Meanwhile, others believe that if the court delivers a ruling in favour of the whiskey maker, it would stifle free-speech rights. "This is an interesting case because it's a court that does care about the First Amendment but also cares about business. And this is a case where those interests intersect in a way that's kind of hard to sort out," stated Elizabeth Brannen, who works as a partner at the law firm Stris & Maher and has appeared in intellectual property cases before the Supreme Court. The toy looks like Lynchburg, the famous whiskey bottles of Tennessee-based Jack Daniel with humorous dog-themed alterations and has just changed "Old No. 7" with "the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet" and altered the alcohol descriptions with "43 per cent Poo By Vol." and "100 per cent Smelly". "Jack Daniel's loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel's likes its customers even more, and doesn't want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop," the company stated to the justices in a brief. VIP Products stated that if the ruling is delivered in favour of Jack Daniel, it would make it easier to stifle free speech for trademark owners. WATCH | US Top Court rules to keep Title 42 in place; White House urges 'comprehensive' immigration reforms "Every First Amendment case has a spillover effect into other areas," said VIP's attorney Ben Cooper of the firm Dickinson Wright. "So this can't be seen as being compartmentalised into the world of trademarks," he added. "Whenever one person's speech is limited, it gets everyone else nervous," Cooper stated. VIP said that its toy comments on "iconic alcohol brands' self-serious bombardment of consumers with advertising and dog owners' joyful humanisation of their pets". (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US Supreme Court to hear free speech case over poop-themed dog toy in Jack Daniel's case

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Saturday (March 18) that there was absolutely no pressure from the Indian government on how to decide cases. He was speaking at India Today Conclave 2023.

“In my 23 years as a judge of high court, as a CJI of high court, and judge of the Supreme Court, no one has told me to decide a case in a particular way. We are so clear in the principles we follow. I would not even speak to a colleague presiding over a case and ask them what is going on in that particular case. There are some lines we draw for ourselves,” he said, as quoted by India Today.

“There is absolutely no pressure from the Executive,” he said.

CJI Chandrachud spoke on several issues during the event. One of them was the Collegium system that appoints the judges.

Justice Chandrachud put up a stout defence of the Collegium system of judges appointing judges to higher courts, just hours after Law Minister Kiren Rijiju at the same forum again criticised the selection process, asserting that as per Constitution, the appointment of judges is the duty of the government. Rijiju also said the appointment of judges was not a judicial work but "purely administrative in nature".

Justice Chandrachud's predecessor Justice UU Lalit also supported the Collegium process, saying it was the "ideal system" while another former CJI S A Bobde favoured primacy of judiciary but was of the view that the government's opinion was vital. The two former CJIs were also speaking at the same event.

"As the Chief Justice, I have to take the system as it is given to us... I am not saying every system is perfect but this is the best system we have developed. The object of this system was to maintain independence which is a cardinal value.We have to insulate the judiciary from outside influences if the judiciary has to be independent. That is the underlying feature of Collegium," Justice Chandrachud said.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <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;

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Saturday (March 18) that there was absolutely no pressure from the Indian government on how to decide cases. He was speaking at India Today Conclave 2023.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Saturday (March 18) that there was absolutely no pressure from the Indian government on how to decide cases. He was speaking at India Today Conclave 2023. “In my 23 years as a judge of high court, as a CJI of high court, and judge of the Supreme Court, no one has told me to decide a case in a particular way. We are so clear in the principles we follow. I would not even speak to a colleague presiding over a case and ask them what is going on in that particular case. There are some lines we draw for ourselves,” he said, as quoted by India Today. “There is absolutely no pressure from the Executive,” he said. CJI Chandrachud spoke on several issues during the event. One of them was the Collegium system that appoints the judges. Justice Chandrachud put up a stout defence of the Collegium system of judges appointing judges to higher courts, just hours after Law Minister Kiren Rijiju at the same forum again criticised the selection process, asserting that as per Constitution, the appointment of judges is the duty of the government. Rijiju also said the appointment of judges was not a judicial work but "purely administrative in nature". Justice Chandrachud's predecessor Justice UU Lalit also supported the Collegium process, saying it was the "ideal system" while another former CJI S A Bobde favoured primacy of judiciary but was of the view that the government's opinion was vital. The two former CJIs were also speaking at the same event. "As the Chief Justice, I have to take the system as it is given to us... I am not saying every system is perfect but this is the best system we have developed. The object of this system was to maintain independence which is a cardinal value.We have to insulate the judiciary from outside influences if the judiciary has to be independent. That is the underlying feature of Collegium," Justice Chandrachud said. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

No pressure from government while deciding cases: CJI Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms. Justice Chandrachud was speaking at a belated celebration of International Women's Day organised by Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee, said media reports.

He said that the glossary was a mission he undertook a few years ago and was nearing its completion. Justice Chandrachud drew attention at the use of words in court matters which denigrate women

"One project I had started a few years ago is a legal glossary of inappropriate terms in the discourse on gender. For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship. Women have been called 'keeps' in judgements where there were applications for quashing of FIRs under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is important for us to bring focus on these terms not to be little a judge but to understand why use of these terms belies our openness to gender sensitisation." he said as quoted by Bar and Bench dot com.

India's top judge added that the purpose of the list was not to belittle judges but to make everyone understand “our problems within the mind.” These, he said, were preconceived notions, biases and more

“Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” said Justice Chadrachud.

He revealed that the glossary was prepared by a committee chaired by Moushumi Bhattacharya, Calcutta High Court Judge. Other people who were involved in making of the glossary were Delhi High Court Judge Justice Prathiba M. Singh, former judges Prabha Sridevan and Gita Mittal, and Jhuma Sen, Advocate, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court, also an adjunct faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata.

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;

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed on Wednesday (March 15) that the Supreme Court of India would soon release a legal glossary of inappropriate gendered terms. Justice Chandrachud was speaking at a belated celebration of International Women's Day organised by Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee, said media reports. He said that the glossary was a mission he undertook a few years ago and was nearing its completion. Justice Chandrachud drew attention at the use of words in court matters which denigrate women "One project I had started a few years ago is a legal glossary of inappropriate terms in the discourse on gender. For instance, I have come across judgments which have referred to a woman as a ‘concubine’ when she is in a relationship. Women have been called 'keeps' in judgements where there were applications for quashing of FIRs under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is important for us to bring focus on these terms not to be little a judge but to understand why use of these terms belies our openness to gender sensitisation." he said as quoted by Bar and Bench dot com. India's top judge added that the purpose of the list was not to belittle judges but to make everyone understand “our problems within the mind.” These, he said, were preconceived notions, biases and more “Unless we are open about these facets, it will be difficult for us to evolve as a society,” said Justice Chadrachud. He revealed that the glossary was prepared by a committee chaired by Moushumi Bhattacharya, Calcutta High Court Judge. Other people who were involved in making of the glossary were Delhi High Court Judge Justice Prathiba M. Singh, former judges Prabha Sridevan and Gita Mittal, and Jhuma Sen, Advocate, Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court, also an adjunct faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata. 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 India to release glossary of inappropriate gendered terms

Israeli protesters spray red paint on the roads leading up to Supreme Court, hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a compromise deal for his government’s planned judicial overhaul.

Israeli protesters paint the capital's roads red after Netanyahu spurns compromise

Here, we bring you the news that is trending across WION's social media platforms - India's Supreme Court has dismissed Centre's curative plea seeking additional funds from Union Carbide Corporation's (UCC) successor firms as increased compensation for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.

Trending on WION: India's SC rejects plea for increased compensation to Bhopal Gas tragedy victims

The Supreme Court of India&nbsp;on Tuesday (March 14) rejected a curative&nbsp;petition filed in 2010 by the Union government led by former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh&nbsp;demanding increased compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, referring to a nearly four decades old industrial disaster in central India that claimed at least 4,000 lives and resulted in non-fatal injuries to over half a million.&nbsp;

"We are unsatisfied with the Union of India for not furnishing any rationale for raking up this issue after two decades," a five-judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.&nbsp;

"Settlement can be set aside only on the ground of fraud. No ground of fraud has been pleaded by the Union of India," the judgment reasoned.&nbsp;

The industrial disaster took place in&nbsp;a plant operated by the US-based Union Carbide Corporation, now owned by Dow Chemicals.&nbsp;

After hearing detailed arguments, a five-judge bench headed by Supreme Court's Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on January 12, had reserved its verdict.&nbsp;

<h2>Bhopal gas tragedy: How much compensation was sought?</h2>

The Union government of India&nbsp;had sought an additional compensation to the tune of nearly one billion dollars (or ₹7,844 crore).&nbsp;

<h2>Bhopal gas tragedy: Why was increased compensation sought?</h2>

The Indian government had&nbsp;said that given the sheer scale of the tragedy, the compensation of ₹715 crore ($470 million) in 1989 was "inadequate".

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-tainted-company-continued-to-sell-products-discreetly-in-india-says-report-539883">Bhopal gas tragedy: Tainted company continued to sell products discreetly in India, says report</a>

The depreciation of the Indian rupee since 1989 has also been asserted as a ground to seek a top-up of compensation for the industrial gas leak's victims.

<h2>Bhopal gas tragedy: Supreme Court on ‘welfare state’ principle</h2>

Earlier, India's Supreme Court grilled the government while pointing out that it was not prohibited from granting relief to the Bhopal gas tragedy victims, and that it cannot free itself from the responsibility of governing by saying, "I will take it from them (successor firms of Union Carbide Corporation), as and when taken from them, I will pay."

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Victims, their kin seek adequate compensation from government

<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/bhopal-gas-tragedy-victims-their-kin-seek-adequate-compensation-from-government-540014/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Considered a "chemical accident" and the "world's worst industrial disaster", the Bhopal gas tragedy occurred on the night of 2-3 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, about 850 km south of New Delhi. The official number of immediate deaths was 2,259. Later revisions to the toll suggested that about 8,000 people died within two weeks of the leak, while another 8,000 died from gas-related diseases in the immediate years after 1984.&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=&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 of India on Tuesday (March 14) rejected a curative petition filed in 2010 by the Union government led by former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh demanding increased compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, referring to a nearly four decades old industrial disaster in central India that claimed at least 4,000 lives and resulted in non-fatal injuries to over half a million.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (March 14) rejected a curative petition filed in 2010 by the Union government led by former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh demanding increased compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, referring to a nearly four decades old industrial disaster in central India that claimed at least 4,000 lives and resulted in non-fatal injuries to over half a million. "We are unsatisfied with the Union of India for not furnishing any rationale for raking up this issue after two decades," a five-judge bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said. "Settlement can be set aside only on the ground of fraud. No ground of fraud has been pleaded by the Union of India," the judgment reasoned. The industrial disaster took place in a plant operated by the US-based Union Carbide Corporation, now owned by Dow Chemicals. After hearing detailed arguments, a five-judge bench headed by Supreme Court's Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on January 12, had reserved its verdict. Bhopal gas tragedy: How much compensation was sought? The Union government of India had sought an additional compensation to the tune of nearly one billion dollars (or ₹7,844 crore). Bhopal gas tragedy: Why was increased compensation sought? The Indian government had said that given the sheer scale of the tragedy, the compensation of ₹715 crore ($470 million) in 1989 was "inadequate". ALSO READ | Bhopal gas tragedy: Tainted company continued to sell products discreetly in India, says report The depreciation of the Indian rupee since 1989 has also been asserted as a ground to seek a top-up of compensation for the industrial gas leak's victims. Bhopal gas tragedy: Supreme Court on ‘welfare state’ principle Earlier, India's Supreme Court grilled the government while pointing out that it was not prohibited from granting relief to the Bhopal gas tragedy victims, and that it cannot free itself from the responsibility of governing by saying, "I will take it from them (successor firms of Union Carbide Corporation), as and when taken from them, I will pay." ALSO WATCH | Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Victims, their kin seek adequate compensation from government × Considered a "chemical accident" and the "world's worst industrial disaster", the Bhopal gas tragedy occurred on the night of 2-3 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, about 850 km south of New Delhi. The official number of immediate deaths was 2,259. Later revisions to the toll suggested that about 8,000 people died within two weeks of the leak, while another 8,000 died from gas-related diseases in the immediate years after 1984. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India’s Supreme Court rejects plea for increased compensation to 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges&nbsp;constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages.&nbsp;

All the petitions, which are strongly contended by the Centre, are now listed for hearing on 18 April 2023, as per Live Law portal.&nbsp;

Appearing for the petitioners, Dr AM Singhvi said, "Right to love makes us human". It should be extended in equal terms. You can extend it only on equal terms only if your lordships reads down the Special Marriage Act and other acts. It has to be read in such a way that terms such as man, woman are done away with."

Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan said, "Transgender Protection Act exists even if the Centre says that we don't recognise such a union."&nbsp;

"This case is not about a transgender statute or the Hindu Marriage Act. What it is about is Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). The right of choosing a partner is the right of expression, right of dignity. It's only a natural right, an assertion of a right. It has implications," he added.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud said, "We are not on arguments today but this will help everyone understand."

The apex court made the remarks to list all the pleas to a constitutional bench while hearing the clubbed petitions seeking the legal recogisition of same sex marriage in world's largest democracy.&nbsp;

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,&nbsp;appearing for Centre, said in the apex court, “that the right to love, express and freedom of choice is already upheld, and no one is interfering with that right, but that does not mean conferring the right of marriage.”

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-opposes-same-sex-marriages-says-only-those-between-a-man-and-a-woman-the-norm-throughout-history-571127">Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history'</a>

SG Mehta said that the "moment marriage as a recognized institution comes between same sex, question will come on adoption and therefore Parliament will have to see the issue of psychology of child, which has to be examined whether it can be raised in such a way."

Supreme Court remarked that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be gay or a lesbian. Centre has already voiced its strong opposition towards the petitions filed before the court where it said that the matter for legalization should not be dealt with the judiciary but the Indian Parliament.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/strangers-in-the-eyes-of-law-wion-speaks-with-hyderabad-gay-couple-569191">'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage</a> 
 
The Centre in its affidavit, which came in response to the pleas, said that “recognised deviation…can occur only before the competent legislature”.&nbsp;

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/argentina-roasts-in-record-heat-wave-571506">Argentina roasts in record heat wave</a>

“Despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country,” the centre added.

If same-sex marriage is legalised in India, the country will become the second Asian nation to have done so. Taiwan was the first Asian nation to have legalised the same-sex marriage on 24 May in 2019.&nbsp;Indian SC in the year 2014 recognised transgender people as a "third gender."

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>.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages. All the petitions, which are strongly contended by the Centre, are now listed for hearing on 18 April 2023, as per Live Law portal. Appearing for the petitioners, Dr AM Singhvi said, "Right to love makes us human". It should be extended in equal terms. You can extend it only on equal terms only if your lordships reads down the Special Marriage Act and other acts. It has to be read in such a way that terms such as man, woman are done away with." Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan said, "Transgender Protection Act exists even if the Centre says that we don't recognise such a union." "This case is not about a transgender statute or the Hindu Marriage Act. What it is about is Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). The right of choosing a partner is the right of expression, right of dignity. It's only a natural right, an assertion of a right. It has implications," he added. Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud said, "We are not on arguments today but this will help everyone understand." The apex court made the remarks to list all the pleas to a constitutional bench while hearing the clubbed petitions seeking the legal recogisition of same sex marriage in world's largest democracy. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, said in the apex court, “that the right to love, express and freedom of choice is already upheld, and no one is interfering with that right, but that does not mean conferring the right of marriage.” Also Read | Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history' SG Mehta said that the "moment marriage as a recognized institution comes between same sex, question will come on adoption and therefore Parliament will have to see the issue of psychology of child, which has to be examined whether it can be raised in such a way." Supreme Court remarked that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be gay or a lesbian. Centre has already voiced its strong opposition towards the petitions filed before the court where it said that the matter for legalization should not be dealt with the judiciary but the Indian Parliament. Also Read | 'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage The Centre in its affidavit, which came in response to the pleas, said that “recognised deviation…can occur only before the competent legislature”. Watch | Argentina roasts in record heat wave “Despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country,” the centre added. If same-sex marriage is legalised in India, the country will become the second Asian nation to have done so. Taiwan was the first Asian nation to have legalised the same-sex marriage on 24 May in 2019. Indian SC in the year 2014 recognised transgender people as a "third gender." 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 directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench

National President of Samajwadi Party Akhilesh Yadav has got a big relief from the Supreme Court. In the disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court said that the CBI had closed the case. Now there is no basis for hearing on this.

Akhilesh Yadav got big relief from Supreme Court

The COVID-19 pandemic was a real game-changer. Many people lost their loved ones and had to go through a lot of pain and suffering.&nbsp;

For others, it was a long battle with loneliness and for still others, it was a surreal realisation that life is short.&nbsp;

For the couple, Supriyo, 32 and his partner Abhay, 35, COVID made them realise that life is very fragile.&nbsp;

It was also exactly the time when they had a realisation that they wanted to get married, despite the fact that India does not recognise registered marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indigo-in-talks-with-boeing-for-largest-jet-purchase-airbus-to-get-a-tough-fight-569124">Indian airline Indigo in talks with Boeing for largest-ever jet order, Airbus to get a tough fight</a>

In the middle of 2021, there was a huge shortage of critical medical supplies due to a large number of reported COVID-19 cases in India. Subriyo too contracted the virus.&nbsp;

Abhay in a conversation with WION said, "Supriyo fell very sick and had to be taken to the emergency room via ambulance. Unfortunately, there was a severe shortage of ambulances, oxygen and hospital beds during that time. Further, we were regularly hearing stories of people passing away due to illness, unable to get hospital beds or oxygen."

<img alt="Hyderabad couple " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d36f683d-62e0-4ee1-8146-8963fcde10a1" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202023-03-06T172957.296.png" />

He said, the duo "had always intended to get married, but realizing that life is so unpredictable, made us accelerate our plans."

Supriyo is the founder and owner of Gulnar Events, an event management company, whereas Abhay is a senior software development manager at a major MNC.

The couple dated for about eight years and finally got married at a grand wedding function on 18 December 2021. Friends and family members attended the ceremony as Supriyo and Abhay exchanged their wedding vows.

Even as Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in 2018, the couple is still struggling to register their marriage and get legal status.&nbsp;

Though together for about 10 years now, Supriyo says, "in the eyes of the law, we are strangers."&nbsp;

"Marriage brings with it a basket of rights, such as the right to take healthcare decisions for your spouse, right to inheritance, etc. We want access to those rights, and hence it is very important to get legal recognition for our marriage."&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/worlds-first-openly-transgender-mp-georgina-beyer-dies-in-new-zealand-at-65-569186">World’s first openly transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, dies in New Zealand at 65</a>

Supriyo and Abhay entered into wedlock in the Indian state of Telangana in a very lavish ceremony. They come from different cultures.&nbsp;

<img alt="Hyderabad couple same sex marriage " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="1ffa747c-ee56-4417-8677-b6f462d0f81d" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202023-03-06T172912.224.png" />

The mesmerizing Bengali-Punjab wedding was preceded by a beautiful Mehendi, haldi and sangeet function.&nbsp;

"Fire on Fire" by Sam Smith, a song the couple chose for their wedding video is still Supriyo's caller tune. As dreamy as their love story is, the couple continues to fight many internal battles.&nbsp;

"Today, when we talk about each other to our friends and colleagues, we use the word partner instead of the word spouse or husband. The term partner does not do justice to our relationship."&nbsp;

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/elite-israeli-defence-pilots-protest-judicial-reforms-by-boycott-reserve-duty-training-569103">Elite Israeli defence pilots protest judicial reforms by boycotting reserve duty, training</a>

"In our eyes, we are just like any other married couple, and hence we want the law to recognize the true nature of our relationship."&nbsp;

Abhay shared with WION the everyday practical challenges couple front due to lack of legal status.&nbsp;

"It was very difficult for Supriyo to get address proof for our shared household as the house is in Abhay’s name."&nbsp;

In contrast, opposite-sex couples do not have to face any such issue.&nbsp;

"We had to purchase two separate health insurance policies instead of single health insurance. Further, we can’t take healthcare decisions for one another and had to mention our parents’ names as nominees for our respective health insurance policies."

A total of 14 petitions have been clubbed to make the case for legalising same-sex marital unions in India.

In about 30 countries globally, same-sex marital unions have legal status. Supreme Court starting on 13 March 2023, will hear arguments and rule&nbsp;if the world's largest democracy will become the 31st in this fleeting list of democracies or not.&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 COVID-19 pandemic was a real game-changer. Many people lost their loved ones and had to go through a lot of pain and suffering. For others, it was a long battle with loneliness and for still others, it was a surreal realisation that life is short.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a real game-changer. Many people lost their loved ones and had to go through a lot of pain and suffering. For others, it was a long battle with loneliness and for still others, it was a surreal realisation that life is short. For the couple, Supriyo, 32 and his partner Abhay, 35, COVID made them realise that life is very fragile. It was also exactly the time when they had a realisation that they wanted to get married, despite the fact that India does not recognise registered marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. Also Read | Indian airline Indigo in talks with Boeing for largest-ever jet order, Airbus to get a tough fight In the middle of 2021, there was a huge shortage of critical medical supplies due to a large number of reported COVID-19 cases in India. Subriyo too contracted the virus. Abhay in a conversation with WION said, "Supriyo fell very sick and had to be taken to the emergency room via ambulance. Unfortunately, there was a severe shortage of ambulances, oxygen and hospital beds during that time. Further, we were regularly hearing stories of people passing away due to illness, unable to get hospital beds or oxygen." He said, the duo "had always intended to get married, but realizing that life is so unpredictable, made us accelerate our plans." Supriyo is the founder and owner of Gulnar Events, an event management company, whereas Abhay is a senior software development manager at a major MNC. The couple dated for about eight years and finally got married at a grand wedding function on 18 December 2021. Friends and family members attended the ceremony as Supriyo and Abhay exchanged their wedding vows. Even as Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in 2018, the couple is still struggling to register their marriage and get legal status. Though together for about 10 years now, Supriyo says, "in the eyes of the law, we are strangers." "Marriage brings with it a basket of rights, such as the right to take healthcare decisions for your spouse, right to inheritance, etc. We want access to those rights, and hence it is very important to get legal recognition for our marriage." Also Read | World’s first openly transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, dies in New Zealand at 65 Supriyo and Abhay entered into wedlock in the Indian state of Telangana in a very lavish ceremony. They come from different cultures. The mesmerizing Bengali-Punjab wedding was preceded by a beautiful Mehendi, haldi and sangeet function. "Fire on Fire" by Sam Smith, a song the couple chose for their wedding video is still Supriyo's caller tune. As dreamy as their love story is, the couple continues to fight many internal battles. "Today, when we talk about each other to our friends and colleagues, we use the word partner instead of the word spouse or husband. The term partner does not do justice to our relationship." Watch | Elite Israeli defence pilots protest judicial reforms by boycotting reserve duty, training "In our eyes, we are just like any other married couple, and hence we want the law to recognize the true nature of our relationship." Abhay shared with WION the everyday practical challenges couple front due to lack of legal status. "It was very difficult for Supriyo to get address proof for our shared household as the house is in Abhay’s name." In contrast, opposite-sex couples do not have to face any such issue. "We had to purchase two separate health insurance policies instead of single health insurance. Further, we can’t take healthcare decisions for one another and had to mention our parents’ names as nominees for our respective health insurance policies." A total of 14 petitions have been clubbed to make the case for legalising same-sex marital unions in India. In about 30 countries globally, same-sex marital unions have legal status. Supreme Court starting on 13 March 2023, will hear arguments and rule if the world's largest democracy will become the 31st in this fleeting list of democracies or not. 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.

'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ruled that a high-power committee will be formed constituting the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Election Commissioners (ECs).

Indian Supreme Court's 'Historic' ruling

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday constituted an expert-level committee headed by&nbsp;Justice AM Sapre, a retired judge of the apex court to look into&nbsp;the allegations made in the Hindenburg report&nbsp;against the Adani group. The court also directed market regulator&nbsp;Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conclude the investigation in two months and submit a status report.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala made the decision. It directed SEBI to investigate whether the Adani group failed to disclose transactions with related parties to the regulator and if the conglomerate manipulated its stock prices.&nbsp;

"The above directions shall not be construed to limit the contours of the ongoing investigation. SEBI shall expeditiously conclude its investigation within two months and file a status report," the court told SEBI.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the expert committee comprises the likes of OP Bhat (former Chairman of SBI), retired Justice JP Devdat, KV Kamath, Nandan Nilakeni and Mr Somasekharan Sundaresan.&nbsp;

After the court's order, Gautam Adani released a statement saying his company respected the decision.&nbsp;

"The Adani Group welcomes the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will bring finality in a time bound manner. Truth will prevail," he tweeted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Adani Group welcomes the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will bring finality in a time bound manner. Truth will prevail.
— Gautam Adani (@gautam_adani) <a href="https://twitter.com/gautam_adani/status/1631173663444832256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 2, 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>

It was last month that the SC took a grim view of the rout in shares of the Adani group. It stated investors had suffered losses running into several billion dollars and suggested that a mechanism was needed to protect the investors and put forth the idea of an expert committee.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-adani-firms-losses-swell-to-120-billion-560759" target="_blank">WATCH | Gravitas: Adani firms' losses swell to $120 billion</a>

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-adani-firms-losses-swell-to-120-billion-560759/embed" width="560"></iframe>

After a brief consultation, the government accepted SC's suggestion but not before adding the caveat that it would like to have a say in the composition of the panel.&nbsp;

"We will suggest names of the experts to be included in the committee in a sealed cover. Some names may appeal to the Supreme Court, and some may not. But these names should not be discussed and opposed by the petitioners. The SC can choose from the list," said&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at the previous hearing.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/adani-hindenburg-indian-government-says-yes-to-supreme-court-panel-to-protect-investors-561694">Read more:&nbsp;Adani-Hindenburg: To protect investors, Indian govt. says yes to Supreme Court panel probe</a>

After the Hindenburg report came out, Adani and its affiliate companies have lost more than $120 billion in market value so far.

The Hindenburg report accused the Adani group of stock manipulation using tax havens whilst having unsustainable debt.&nbsp;

Since then, Gautam Adani's conglomerate has tapered its revenue growth to 15 per cent to 20 per cent for the next financial year, down from the previous target of 40 per cent.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<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>

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday constituted an expert-level committee headed by Justice AM Sapre, a retired judge of the apex court to look into the allegations made in the Hindenburg report against the Adani group.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday constituted an expert-level committee headed by Justice AM Sapre, a retired judge of the apex court to look into the allegations made in the Hindenburg report against the Adani group. The court also directed market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conclude the investigation in two months and submit a status report. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala made the decision. It directed SEBI to investigate whether the Adani group failed to disclose transactions with related parties to the regulator and if the conglomerate manipulated its stock prices. "The above directions shall not be construed to limit the contours of the ongoing investigation. SEBI shall expeditiously conclude its investigation within two months and file a status report," the court told SEBI. Meanwhile, the expert committee comprises the likes of OP Bhat (former Chairman of SBI), retired Justice JP Devdat, KV Kamath, Nandan Nilakeni and Mr Somasekharan Sundaresan. After the court's order, Gautam Adani released a statement saying his company respected the decision. "The Adani Group welcomes the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will bring finality in a time bound manner. Truth will prevail," he tweeted. The Adani Group welcomes the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will bring finality in a time bound manner. Truth will prevail. — Gautam Adani (@gautam_adani) March 2, 2023 × It was last month that the SC took a grim view of the rout in shares of the Adani group. It stated investors had suffered losses running into several billion dollars and suggested that a mechanism was needed to protect the investors and put forth the idea of an expert committee. WATCH | Gravitas: Adani firms' losses swell to $120 billion After a brief consultation, the government accepted SC's suggestion but not before adding the caveat that it would like to have a say in the composition of the panel. "We will suggest names of the experts to be included in the committee in a sealed cover. Some names may appeal to the Supreme Court, and some may not. But these names should not be discussed and opposed by the petitioners. The SC can choose from the list," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at the previous hearing. Read more: Adani-Hindenburg: To protect investors, Indian govt. says yes to Supreme Court panel probe After the Hindenburg report came out, Adani and its affiliate companies have lost more than $120 billion in market value so far. The Hindenburg report accused the Adani group of stock manipulation using tax havens whilst having unsustainable debt. Since then, Gautam Adani's conglomerate has tapered its revenue growth to 15 per cent to 20 per cent for the next financial year, down from the previous target of 40 per cent. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Adani-Hindenburg: Supreme Court constitutes expert panel, issues two-month deadline to SEBI

Supreme Court of India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Lok Sabha is the lower house of Parliament of India and its members are elected directly by the people.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, in a unanimous verdict, held that this norm will continue to hold good till a law on the issue is made by Parliament.

The apex court said if the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha is not there, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be in the committee to decide names of the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners for appointment.

The bench delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, stressed on purity in the election process and said democracy is intrinsically linked to the will of the people.

Justice Rastogi, who concurred with the lead judgement authored by Justice Joseph, delivered a separate verdict with his reasoning.

The apex court said that election in a democracy should undoubtedly be fair and the buck stops with the Election Commission to ensure that its purity is maintained.

It said, in a democracy, the purity of election must be maintained or else it would lead to disastrous consequences.

The Supreme Court bench said that Election Commission must act within constitutional framework and within the law.&nbsp;

An Election Commission, which does not ensure free and fair role in the process, guarantees breakdown of rule of law, which is the bedrock of the democracy, it added.

The bench said that democracy is fragile and would collapse if "lip service" is paid to rule of law.

(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 India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court of India on Thursday (March 2) said that appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will now be done by President of India on the advise of a committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Lok Sabha is the lower house of Parliament of India and its members are elected directly by the people. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, in a unanimous verdict, held that this norm will continue to hold good till a law on the issue is made by Parliament. The apex court said if the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha is not there, then leader of the single largest opposition party will be in the committee to decide names of the Chief Election Commissioner and elections commissioners for appointment. The bench delivered its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, stressed on purity in the election process and said democracy is intrinsically linked to the will of the people. Justice Rastogi, who concurred with the lead judgement authored by Justice Joseph, delivered a separate verdict with his reasoning. The apex court said that election in a democracy should undoubtedly be fair and the buck stops with the Election Commission to ensure that its purity is maintained. It said, in a democracy, the purity of election must be maintained or else it would lead to disastrous consequences. The Supreme Court bench said that Election Commission must act within constitutional framework and within the law. An Election Commission, which does not ensure free and fair role in the process, guarantees breakdown of rule of law, which is the bedrock of the democracy, it added. The bench said that democracy is fragile and would collapse if "lip service" is paid to rule of law. (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 ×

Indian Supreme Court delivers major verdict related to Election Commission

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court. The issue falls under the policy domain of the government, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench said during the hearing, news agency PTI reported. Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, he suggested that the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development can be urged to consider the matter. Filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the plea was mentioned for an urgent listing last week. The Chief Justice then informed that it will be listed for February 24.

'Period pain as painful as heart attack'

India's southern state of Kerala recently announced the decision to grant menstrual leaves to women. In his petition, the advocate mentioned the Section 14 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, stressing that all states should follow such policies. "It is accordingly a violation of Article 14 in as much as this Act differentiates women in the name of federalism and state policies. Despite that women suffer from similar physiological and health issues during their menstrual cycles, they are being treated differently in different states of India," the petition read. It also referred to a study by the University of London that highlighted that "period pain could be as painful as a heart attack".

Also watch| Spain: First European country to offer paid menstrual leave

<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/spain-first-european-country-to-offer-menstrual-paid-leave-479989/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Menstrual leave issue gaining wide attention

Last week, Spain drew praise worldwide as it became the first country in Europe to offer paid menstrual leave for three-five days. Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Zambia are among the few countries that offer paid menstrual leaves.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-indias-southern-kerala-state-many-universities-grant-menstrual-leave-to-students-553623">In India’s southern Kerala state, many universities grant menstrual leave to students</a>

The corporate sector is also increasingly acknowledging the issue. In India, Swiggy, Zomato, Byju's among other firms have accommodated such leaves officially for their female staff.

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>.

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court.

A petition seeking direction to all Indian states to frame rules for menstrual paid leaves for female students and working women at their respective workplaces was on Friday (February 24) dismissed by the Supreme Court. The issue falls under the policy domain of the government, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench said during the hearing, news agency PTI reported. Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, he suggested that the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development can be urged to consider the matter. Filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the plea was mentioned for an urgent listing last week. The Chief Justice then informed that it will be listed for February 24. 'Period pain as painful as heart attack' India's southern state of Kerala recently announced the decision to grant menstrual leaves to women. In his petition, the advocate mentioned the Section 14 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, stressing that all states should follow such policies. "It is accordingly a violation of Article 14 in as much as this Act differentiates women in the name of federalism and state policies. Despite that women suffer from similar physiological and health issues during their menstrual cycles, they are being treated differently in different states of India," the petition read. It also referred to a study by the University of London that highlighted that "period pain could be as painful as a heart attack". Also watch| Spain: First European country to offer paid menstrual leave × Menstrual leave issue gaining wide attention Last week, Spain drew praise worldwide as it became the first country in Europe to offer paid menstrual leave for three-five days. Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Zambia are among the few countries that offer paid menstrual leaves. Also read: In India’s southern Kerala state, many universities grant menstrual leave to students The corporate sector is also increasingly acknowledging the issue. In India, Swiggy, Zomato, Byju's among other firms have accommodated such leaves officially for their female staff. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India's Supreme Court dismisses plea on menstrual leave with a caveat

A senior leader of India's opposition Congress Party, Pawan Khera, was released on bail hours after he was arrested at the Delhi airport on Thursday for allegedly making disgraceful remarks for country's prime minister Narendra Modi.

India's largest opposition party has been calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the Adani-Hindenburg row. At a press conference earlier, Khera flubbed Modi's name when he said, "If Narasimha Rao could form a JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee), if Atal Bihari Vajpayee could form a JPC, then what problem does Narendra Gautam Das...sorry Damodardas...Modi have?"

The arrest came as the Congress spokesperson Khera was headed to the capital of Indian state of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to attend the All India Congress Committee (AICC) plenary session which is scheduled to begin on Friday.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-time-in-52-years-worlds-longest-skating-rink-to-close-due-to-global-warming-565094">First time in 52 years! World’s longest skating rink to close due to global warming</a>

A police team from Indian state of Assam came to arrest the leader with an FIR and accused him of remarks "made intentionally" and "causing breach of public peace, with intent to incite violence and disturb peace and tranquility in the society." After the arrest, the party approached Supreme Court and argued that the statement was a "slip of tongue" and clarified that Khera had also apologised.

Later, India's apex court directed a Delhi court to grant interim bail to the senior Congress leader. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, "There has to be some level of discourse, we are protecting you." Moreover, the court also clubbed cases registered against Khera in Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, a request the party had been making.&nbsp;

In its defence, the country's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said that it was a deliberate attempt by Khera.&nbsp;

"Today the situation in the country is worse than the Emergency. There is an emergency-like situation in the country without declaring it. His arrest has defamed our country all over the world. Nothing can be more unfortunate than this, that is why we say democracy is in danger and the Constitution is being torn to shreds. The public will destroy their pride," said Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-three-news-outlets-fined-for-their-earthquake-coverage-565075">Turkey: Three news outlets fined for critical coverage of govt’s earthquake response</a>

Assam's Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma tweeted, "Make no mistake- pathetic remarks by courtier Pawan Khera on PM’s father have blessings of the top levels of Congress, which is full of entitlement and disdain against a person of humble origins being PM. India will not forget or forgive these horrible remarks of Congressmen."

The attacks and counterattacks continued throughout the day. One of the other prominent Congress leader and Chief Minister of Indian state of Rajasthan said, "Today the situation in the country is worse than the Emergency. There is an emergency-like situation in the country without declaring it. His arrest has defamed our country all over the world. Nothing can be more unfortunate than this, that is why we say democracy is in danger and the Constitution is being torn to shreds. The public will destroy their pride," said Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot."

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-talks-of-boosting-nuclear-forces-565118">Russia Ukraine War: Vladimir Putin talks of boosting nuclear forces</a>

Congress accused the ruling party of attemping to obstruct the plenary session and added that it is scared after&nbsp;"successful Bharat Jodo Yatra."&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>.

A senior leader of India's opposition Congress Party, Pawan Khera, was released on bail hours after he was arrested at the Delhi airport on Thursday for allegedly making disgraceful remarks for country's prime minister Narendra Modi.

A senior leader of India's opposition Congress Party, Pawan Khera, was released on bail hours after he was arrested at the Delhi airport on Thursday for allegedly making disgraceful remarks for country's prime minister Narendra Modi. India's largest opposition party has been calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the Adani-Hindenburg row. At a press conference earlier, Khera flubbed Modi's name when he said, "If Narasimha Rao could form a JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee), if Atal Bihari Vajpayee could form a JPC, then what problem does Narendra Gautam Das...sorry Damodardas...Modi have?" The arrest came as the Congress spokesperson Khera was headed to the capital of Indian state of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to attend the All India Congress Committee (AICC) plenary session which is scheduled to begin on Friday. Also Read | First time in 52 years! World’s longest skating rink to close due to global warming A police team from Indian state of Assam came to arrest the leader with an FIR and accused him of remarks "made intentionally" and "causing breach of public peace, with intent to incite violence and disturb peace and tranquility in the society." After the arrest, the party approached Supreme Court and argued that the statement was a "slip of tongue" and clarified that Khera had also apologised. Later, India's apex court directed a Delhi court to grant interim bail to the senior Congress leader. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, "There has to be some level of discourse, we are protecting you." Moreover, the court also clubbed cases registered against Khera in Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, a request the party had been making. In its defence, the country's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said that it was a deliberate attempt by Khera. "Today the situation in the country is worse than the Emergency. There is an emergency-like situation in the country without declaring it. His arrest has defamed our country all over the world. Nothing can be more unfortunate than this, that is why we say democracy is in danger and the Constitution is being torn to shreds. The public will destroy their pride," said Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot. Also Read | Turkey: Three news outlets fined for critical coverage of govt’s earthquake response Assam's Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma tweeted, "Make no mistake- pathetic remarks by courtier Pawan Khera on PM’s father have blessings of the top levels of Congress, which is full of entitlement and disdain against a person of humble origins being PM. India will not forget or forgive these horrible remarks of Congressmen." The attacks and counterattacks continued throughout the day. One of the other prominent Congress leader and Chief Minister of Indian state of Rajasthan said, "Today the situation in the country is worse than the Emergency. There is an emergency-like situation in the country without declaring it. His arrest has defamed our country all over the world. Nothing can be more unfortunate than this, that is why we say democracy is in danger and the Constitution is being torn to shreds. The public will destroy their pride," said Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot." Watch | Russia Ukraine War: Vladimir Putin talks of boosting nuclear forces Congress accused the ruling party of attemping to obstruct the plenary session and added that it is scared after "successful Bharat Jodo Yatra." 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 grants interim bail for arrested senior Congress leader Pawan Khera

In what comes as a major technological advancement, the Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday started using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to transcribe its proceedings in real time.

In what comes as a major technological advancement, the Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday started using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to transcribe its proceedings in real time. The court is using Teres, a natural language processing platform, often used for transcribing judicial proceedings. The platform is operated by Nomology Technology Private Limited, a Bengaluru-based company. The technology debuted during an ongoing trial concerning the political crisis in the western Indian state of Maharashtra. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud presided over the Constitution bench hearing the case and took an encouraging view of the technology. “We’ll see how it works, especially in the Constitution Bench matters, because then we’ll have a permanent record of arguments," observed the CJI. "Of course, it helps judges and the lawyers, but it will also help our law colleges. They can analyse how matters are argued…It is a huge resource." Read more: Google Bard vs ChatGPT: Which is better AI tool? Know how to access Google chatbot, all you need to know The transcribed text by the AI, after clearing out the errors is expected to be published every evening on the SC's website. The decision to transcribe the courtroom exchanges using AI shows that the apex court is firmly behind using technology to make the judicial process more transparent. Last year, the SC has decided to live stream its proceedings conducted before a Constitution bench. WATCH | Race for powerful AI tools heats up In late 2018, the SC in a judgement declared that live telecast of court proceedings was part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Notably, senior advocate Indira Jaising, who filed the plea seeking a live telecast of court proceedings had also suggested transcribing the hearings. The defendants, prosecutors as well as the public will have more power in the arbitration process after this move. Litigants in the US also have access to transcripts whereas those in the UK can get them for a little fee if the hearing is recorded. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

INNOVATIVE! Indian Supreme Court uses AI for the first time to transcribe proceedings

The Supreme Court has adjourned the suit filed by some state governments to challenge the 10 February deadline set by the Central Bank of Nigeria to end the use of old naira notes. A seven-member panel of the court led by John Okoro adjourned the case until 22 February.

Nigeria's Supreme Court adjourns currency case

India's Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition from the opposition leader asking for an investigation into Hindenburg's allegations of financial fraud by the Adani group.

The petition is now listed for hearing on February 17 by the top court.

That comes on the heels of the Indian government and the market regulator, the SEBI, agreeing to the top court's suggestion for a committee led by a retired judge to look into the market rout in the Adani group and suggest improvements to the current regulations.

However, the SEBI has informed the supreme court that it is already investigating the Adani group over Hindenburg's allegations.

Watch |&nbsp;Indian Government accepts committee on Adani

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-government-accepts-committee-on-adani-562034/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">&nbsp;</div>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo">
Can the Adani Group refinance without any trouble?

In a credit report aimed at countering Hindenburg's critical allegations and calming investors, the Adani group said it has enough cash reserves and is fine with refinancing its debt or raising new capital.

In the credit report, the group said the gross debt of Billionaire Gautam Adani-led firms stood at $27.3 billion at the end of September and expected it to remain around that amount by the end of March.

Since the US research firm's probe became public, Adani group stocks have lost more than $120 billion.

Given that the borrowing costs have risen for the Indian empire following that scathing Hindenburg report, scrutiny of the cash condition of group firms has increased.

Picture this, the cost of borrowing for one of the Gautam Adani-led firms jumped as high as 36 per cent&nbsp;and settled around 25 per cent.

That clearly shows how expensive it is for Adani group companies to finance their debt.

Before the Adani group's credit report on Tuesday aimed at reassuring investors, rating agency Moody's Investors Service had expressed doubts regarding Adani's capacity to raise money or refinance its outstanding debt coming due in the years to come.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/adani-hindenburg-indian-government-says-yes-to-supreme-court-panel-to-protect-investors-561694">Also read |&nbsp;Adani-Hindenburg: To protect investors, Indian govt. says yes to Supreme Court panel probe</a>

Adani Group repays its debt to soothe investors' nerves

The Adani group, for its part, has repaid some debt to boost investor confidence.

The founders of Adani and their companies have paid off debts totaling $1.11 billion to free pledged shares and committed to reducing leverage in the upcoming months.

The business empire also intends to prepay a $500 million bridge loan due next month, and the ports unit has revealed intentions to pay back some debt in April.

Indeed, a Reuters report showed India's troubled Adani Group is in talks with lenders to repay a $500 million bridge loan facility it had acquired to purchase a controlling stake from Holcim in cement businesses ACC Ltd and Ambuja Cements Ltd last year.
</div>

(with inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

&nbsp;

<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>

India's Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition from the opposition leader asking for an investigation into Hindenburg's allegations of financial fraud by the Adani group.

India's Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition from the opposition leader asking for an investigation into Hindenburg's allegations of financial fraud by the Adani group. The petition is now listed for hearing on February 17 by the top court. That comes on the heels of the Indian government and the market regulator, the SEBI, agreeing to the top court's suggestion for a committee led by a retired judge to look into the market rout in the Adani group and suggest improvements to the current regulations. However, the SEBI has informed the supreme court that it is already investigating the Adani group over Hindenburg's allegations. Watch | Indian Government accepts committee on Adani Can the Adani Group refinance without any trouble? In a credit report aimed at countering Hindenburg's critical allegations and calming investors, the Adani group said it has enough cash reserves and is fine with refinancing its debt or raising new capital. In the credit report, the group said the gross debt of Billionaire Gautam Adani-led firms stood at $27.3 billion at the end of September and expected it to remain around that amount by the end of March. Since the US research firm's probe became public, Adani group stocks have lost more than $120 billion. Given that the borrowing costs have risen for the Indian empire following that scathing Hindenburg report, scrutiny of the cash condition of group firms has increased. Picture this, the cost of borrowing for one of the Gautam Adani-led firms jumped as high as 36 per cent and settled around 25 per cent. That clearly shows how expensive it is for Adani group companies to finance their debt. Before the Adani group's credit report on Tuesday aimed at reassuring investors, rating agency Moody's Investors Service had expressed doubts regarding Adani's capacity to raise money or refinance its outstanding debt coming due in the years to come. Also read | Adani-Hindenburg: To protect investors, Indian govt. says yes to Supreme Court panel probe Adani Group repays its debt to soothe investors' nerves The Adani group, for its part, has repaid some debt to boost investor confidence. The founders of Adani and their companies have paid off debts totaling $1.11 billion to free pledged shares and committed to reducing leverage in the upcoming months. The business empire also intends to prepay a $500 million bridge loan due next month, and the ports unit has revealed intentions to pay back some debt in April. Indeed, a Reuters report showed India's troubled Adani Group is in talks with lenders to repay a $500 million bridge loan facility it had acquired to purchase a controlling stake from Holcim in cement businesses ACC Ltd and Ambuja Cements Ltd last year. (with inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India's top court to hear opposition lawmaker's petition against Adani

In an attempt to save Indian investors, the Supreme Court in India on Friday sought the existing regulatory framework in place from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and also the government.&nbsp;The Adani Group shares are in a complete meltdown after the US-based short-seller firm Hindenburg Research published a report.&nbsp;

The shares are mostly owned by the middle class, who are reported to have lost several lakhs of crores in the past two weeks.&nbsp;

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said: "Now the stock market is not a place where only high-value investors invest. It is also a place where ... investment is made by a wide spectrum of the middle class."&nbsp;

Chandrachud further said that the "point of concern here is how (to) ... protect the interest of investors".&nbsp;

After the Hindenburg Research was released last month, several petitions were filed in the Indian court. The report had accused the Adani group of improper use of offshore tax havens and stock manipulation.&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/gravitas-adani-firms-losses-swell-to-120-billion-560759/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, SBICAP Trustee Co said that three Adani group companies have pledged shares for lenders to the Indian conglomerate's flagship Adani Enterprises.&nbsp;

Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone, Adani Transmission Ltd and Adani Green Energy Ltd pledged shares to the trustee firm, filings to the Bombay Stock Exchange revealed.&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>.

In an attempt to save Indian investors, the Supreme Court in India on Friday sought the existing regulatory framework in place from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and also the government.

In an attempt to save Indian investors, the Supreme Court in India on Friday sought the existing regulatory framework in place from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and also the government. The Adani Group shares are in a complete meltdown after the US-based short-seller firm Hindenburg Research published a report. The shares are mostly owned by the middle class, who are reported to have lost several lakhs of crores in the past two weeks. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said: "Now the stock market is not a place where only high-value investors invest. It is also a place where ... investment is made by a wide spectrum of the middle class." Chandrachud further said that the "point of concern here is how (to) ... protect the interest of investors". After the Hindenburg Research was released last month, several petitions were filed in the Indian court. The report had accused the Adani group of improper use of offshore tax havens and stock manipulation. × Meanwhile, SBICAP Trustee Co said that three Adani group companies have pledged shares for lenders to the Indian conglomerate's flagship Adani Enterprises. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone, Adani Transmission Ltd and Adani Green Energy Ltd pledged shares to the trustee firm, filings to the Bombay Stock Exchange revealed. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India: Supreme Court says investor interests must be protected after Adani report

Thousands of Israelis are up in arms against the government's plans to give lawmakers more control of the judicial system. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies say the reforms are crucial for the country.

Israel Government: Parliament be allowed to overrule Supreme Court decisions

Madras High Court recently appointed Lawyer Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as an additional judge. But, Judge Victoria Gowri's appointment sparked controversy. Lawyers claimed the newly appointed additional judge of Madras High Court has given hate speeches against religious minorities in the past. However, the Supreme Court of India rejected their plea to withdraw Victoria Gowri's appointment. Advocate Lekshmana Gowri is a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Tamil Nadu. Her unverified Twitter account says she is the leader of the BJP Mahila Morcha. The 49-year-old Victoria Gowri is amongst the 17 lawyers listed by the three-judge collegium headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Advocate L.Victoria Gowri has&nbsp;over 21 years of experience. She is also the first Woman Lawyer to establish an independent office in Kanyakumari District. Victoria Gowri&nbsp;is married and has two daughters.

<h3>Let's take a deeper look into the controversy around Victoria Gowri's appointment as the Madras High Court Judge.&nbsp;</h3>

<h2>What's the controversy?</h2>

The Supreme Court denied entertaining a plea to restrain Victoria Gowri from taking the oath. "We are not entertaining the writ petition. Reasons will follow," a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023, Victoria Gowri took oath as the additional judge of the Madras High Court. Earlier, the oath-taking was on February 10, but the top court preponed it.&nbsp;

In their petition, lawyers Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam and D Nagasaila mentioned the hate speech made by Judge Victoria Gowri against Muslims and Christians. The lawyers referred to Gowri's appointment as a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary.&nbsp;

On the other hand, Victoria Gowri has pledged to work towards the liberation of marginalised communities. She has also sworn to promote unity in India. Gowri thanked her husband, two daughters, and her spiritual leader. Furthermore, she sought the blessings of the senior judges and lawyers.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-origin-natasha-perianayagam-named-worlds-brightest-student-by-johns-hopkins-for-2nd-time-in-a-row-559554">Indian-origin Natasha Perianayagam named ‘world’s brightest’ student by Johns Hopkins for 2nd time in a row</a>

Madras High Court recently appointed Lawyer Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as an additional judge. But, Judge Victoria Gowri's appointment sparked controversy.

Madras High Court recently appointed Lawyer Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as an additional judge. But, Judge Victoria Gowri's appointment sparked controversy. Lawyers claimed the newly appointed additional judge of Madras High Court has given hate speeches against religious minorities in the past. However, the Supreme Court of India rejected their plea to withdraw Victoria Gowri's appointment. Advocate Lekshmana Gowri is a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Tamil Nadu. Her unverified Twitter account says she is the leader of the BJP Mahila Morcha. The 49-year-old Victoria Gowri is amongst the 17 lawyers listed by the three-judge collegium headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Advocate L.Victoria Gowri has over 21 years of experience. She is also the first Woman Lawyer to establish an independent office in Kanyakumari District. Victoria Gowri is married and has two daughters. Let's take a deeper look into the controversy around Victoria Gowri's appointment as the Madras High Court Judge. What's the controversy? The Supreme Court denied entertaining a plea to restrain Victoria Gowri from taking the oath. "We are not entertaining the writ petition. Reasons will follow," a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said. On Tuesday, February 7, 2023, Victoria Gowri took oath as the additional judge of the Madras High Court. Earlier, the oath-taking was on February 10, but the top court preponed it. In their petition, lawyers Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam and D Nagasaila mentioned the hate speech made by Judge Victoria Gowri against Muslims and Christians. The lawyers referred to Gowri's appointment as a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, Victoria Gowri has pledged to work towards the liberation of marginalised communities. She has also sworn to promote unity in India. Gowri thanked her husband, two daughters, and her spiritual leader. Furthermore, she sought the blessings of the senior judges and lawyers. ALSO READ | Indian-origin Natasha Perianayagam named ‘world’s brightest’ student by Johns Hopkins for 2nd time in a row

Who is Victoria Gowri? What's the controversy around the newly appointed Madras High Court Judge?

Indian courts in 2022 awarded a record 165 death sentences, the highest in over two decades, according to the Annual Death Penalty Report published by Project 39A, an advocacy group with the National Law University, New Delhi.

Indian courts in 2022 awarded a record 165 death sentences, the highest in over two decades, according to the Annual Death Penalty Report published by Project 39A, an advocacy group with the National Law University, New Delhi. In total, 539 prisoners were on death row at the end of the year which was the largest population for the same since 2004. The northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh accounted for the highest death row inmate population (100), followed by Gujarat (61) and Jharkhand (46). “With 165 death sentences at the end of 2022, this is the highest number of death sentences imposed in a year in over two decades (since 2000)," read the report. The report attributed the increase in the death row inmate population to the 'extraordinary sentencing' of 38 persons to death in connection to the 2008 Ahmedabad bomb blast case where 56 innocents were killed while 243 suffered injuries. In nearly a third of the death row cases, the inmate was a sexual offence criminal. The trial courts handing capital punishment to such criminals saw a 33.56 per cent rise from 2016 to 2022. Read more: Death penalties around the world Notably, the record death row sentencing comes in the backdrop of India's Supreme Court acknowledging that it needs to come with up better guidelines on how capital punishment cases are handled due to the lack of an institutional framework. In September last year, Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit formed a constitutional bench to generate clarity on the matter. “This court is of the opinion that it is necessary to have clarity in the matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence,” the CJI observed. WATCH | The West Asia Post: Saudi professor faces death penalty for using social media × The apex court has emphasised 'reform' as a core tenet in its death sentencing framework. However, the apathy of the system means that the numbers continue to hit record highs. The report notes that trial courts across India continue to hand out more death sentences (165) while higher courts are unable to hear the appeals filed before them “In the year 2022, High Courts across India decided 68 matters, while the Supreme Court decided 11 matters." Currently, 113 countries across the world have abolished death penalty which includes the likes of Papua New Guinea and Central African Republic amongst others. 125 countries voted in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 December 2022, with India voting against the same. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Indian courts gave record 165 death sentences in 2022: Report

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court&nbsp;of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.&nbsp;The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling&nbsp;in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google.&nbsp;Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store.&nbsp;

After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users.&nbsp;

The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform.&nbsp;

CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers.&nbsp;

Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like&nbsp;mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive.&nbsp;

Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform.&nbsp;

A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward."&nbsp;

"We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added.&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>.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market.

Google said on Friday (January 20) that it will cooperate with India's competition authority after Supreme Court of the country in its ruling upheld the stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform in a key growth market. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had in its ruling in October said that Google exploited its dominant position and told it to remove restrictions on Android device makers, including those related to pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. It also imposed a fine of $161 million on Google. Fine was also imposed on the company for abusing its power through Play Store. After the order, Google warned that Android phones will become more expensive in India because of the CCI ruling and also pose security threats to users. The issue reached the Supreme Court of India which upheld stringent antitrust directives forcing the US firm to change how it markets its popular Android platform. CCI had asked the tech giant to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps as the tech company licences its Android system to smartphone makers. Experts argued that Google's imposition of restrictions like mandatory pre-installation of its apps is anti-competitive. Google lost a challenge in the court on Thursday to block the CCI directives, getting seven days to comply. The move will force the company to make changes to how it strikes agreements with device makers who use its free, open-source Android platform. A Google spokesperson said in a statement to the news agency Reuters: "We remain committed to our users and partners and will cooperate with the CCI on the way forward." "We are reviewing the details of yesterday's decision which is limited to interim relief and did not decide the merits of our appeal," it added. (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.

Google to cooperate with India antitrust watchdog after Android ruling

Meta, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech firms have backed Google in the internet giant's defence in a key Supreme Court case. These big tech companies have filed a series of briefs on how a broad ruling could harm their business and offerings.

Big tech firms back Google in a key Supreme Court case

The US Supreme Court has failed to identify who leaked a draft of its landmark ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe V Wade decision after an eight-month investigation. Watch this report to know more.

US Supreme Court probe fails to find Roe V Wade draft leak culprit

Meta, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech firms have backed Google in the internet giant's defence in a key Supreme Court case.&nbsp;These big tech companies have filed a series of briefs on how a broad ruling could harm their business and offerings.

In the Gonzalez versus Google case, the question is, should tech firms face lawsuits for content from their users?&nbsp;The key lawsuit also questions whether businesses should be held accountable for the content they suggest to consumers.&nbsp;Large IT firms have urged the apex court to consider the case carefully.

Under a 1996 statute known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, companies are protected against user content, including comments, reviews and advertisements.

The Supreme Court is considering whether it is time to narrow down the law, framed when the internet was not a central part of daily life as it is today.

On February 21, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case.

The petitioners are a family of an American woman who died in an ISIS attack in 2015. They allege that Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, is to blame for the algorithm suggesting videos, including those encouraging radicalisation.

<h2>Major setback for Google in India as top court rejects Google's challenge</h2>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/major-setback-for-google-in-india-as-top-court-rejects-googles-challenge-554357/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Advocates for children's online safety, such as Fairplay and Common Sense Media, supported the Gonzalez family in their lawsuit against the internet giant.&nbsp;They said the tech industry should be held accountable for how their products might endanger kids.

Gonzalez was also partially supported by the US government, which argued that, in some cases, social media platforms should be held accountable for encouraging hate speech.

Meta predicts the lawsuit would compel businesses to remove more content, including topics of public importance, to avoid any unnecessary legal trouble.

A sweeping decision, according to Microsoft, could have "devastating and disruptive ramifications".

Twitter said algorithms help the organisation of content by making the web user-friendly.

Separately, the court will decide on Friday whether to take up two more section 230-related cases.

In Texas and Florida, new laws that penalise digital companies for removing political speech on their platforms are being challenged by the cases.

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>

Meta, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech firms have backed Google in the internet giant's defence in a key Supreme Court case. These big tech companies have filed a series of briefs on how a broad ruling could harm their business and offerings. In the Gonzalez versus Google case, the question is, should tech firms face lawsuits for content from their users? The key lawsuit also questions whether businesses should be held accountable for the content they suggest to consumers. Large IT firms have urged the apex court to consider the case carefully. Under a 1996 statute known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, companies are protected against user content, including comments, reviews and advertisements. The Supreme Court is considering whether it is time to narrow down the law, framed when the internet was not a central part of daily life as it is today. On February 21, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case. The petitioners are a family of an American woman who died in an ISIS attack in 2015. They allege that Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, is to blame for the algorithm suggesting videos, including those encouraging radicalisation. Major setback for Google in India as top court rejects Google's challenge Advocates for children's online safety, such as Fairplay and Common Sense Media, supported the Gonzalez family in their lawsuit against the internet giant. They said the tech industry should be held accountable for how their products might endanger kids. Gonzalez was also partially supported by the US government, which argued that, in some cases, social media platforms should be held accountable for encouraging hate speech. Meta predicts the lawsuit would compel businesses to remove more content, including topics of public importance, to avoid any unnecessary legal trouble. A sweeping decision, according to Microsoft, could have "devastating and disruptive ramifications". Twitter said algorithms help the organisation of content by making the web user-friendly. Separately, the court will decide on Friday whether to take up two more section 230-related cases. In Texas and Florida, new laws that penalise digital companies for removing political speech on their platforms are being challenged by the cases. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Is more trouble brewing? Big tech firms back Google in a key lawsuit

The Supreme Court asked Google India, if it will follow the same regime in India as it does in Europe with regard to pre-installed apps in Android-based mobile smartphones.

Supreme Court asks Google, will you follow European regime in India

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the central government to respond by February 15 to a batch of petitions seeking to criminalise marital rape, which is not recognised under the existing law.&nbsp;

The pleas filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seek to challenge the IPC provision and the constitutional validity of marital rape under section 375 IPC (rape) on the grounds that it discriminates against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.&nbsp;

Under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 375, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not considered rape.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the government in the court, told the bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that the issue has legal as well as "social implications" and the government would like to file its response to the petitions.&nbsp;

"The Union of India shall file a counter affidavit by February 15, 2023. The batch of petitions will be heard on March 21," ordered the bench.&nbsp;

A couple of Indian high courts recently gave out a verdict regarding the issue. While the Delhi High Court on May 11, 2022 delivered a split verdict, Karnataka High Court on March 23 gave its approval for the prosecution of the man for allegedly raping his wife.&nbsp;

The solicitor general suggested that the cases against the spilt verdict of the Delhi High Court can be allowed to be heard by a third judge of the high court and then the Supreme court can have a "final view".&nbsp;

"Second option is that the Supreme Court hears the cases. With the first option, this court will have the benefit of the view of Delhi High Court," the law officer said. The bench did not seem to concur, reports PTI news agency.&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>

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the central government to respond by February 15 to a batch of petitions seeking to criminalise marital rape, which is not recognised under the existing law.

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the central government to respond by February 15 to a batch of petitions seeking to criminalise marital rape, which is not recognised under the existing law. The pleas filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seek to challenge the IPC provision and the constitutional validity of marital rape under section 375 IPC (rape) on the grounds that it discriminates against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands. Under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 375, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not considered rape. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the government in the court, told the bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that the issue has legal as well as "social implications" and the government would like to file its response to the petitions. "The Union of India shall file a counter affidavit by February 15, 2023. The batch of petitions will be heard on March 21," ordered the bench. A couple of Indian high courts recently gave out a verdict regarding the issue. While the Delhi High Court on May 11, 2022 delivered a split verdict, Karnataka High Court on March 23 gave its approval for the prosecution of the man for allegedly raping his wife. The solicitor general suggested that the cases against the spilt verdict of the Delhi High Court can be allowed to be heard by a third judge of the high court and then the Supreme court can have a "final view". "Second option is that the Supreme Court hears the cases. With the first option, this court will have the benefit of the view of Delhi High Court," the law officer said. The bench did not seem to concur, reports PTI news agency. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India’s Supreme Court seeks Centre’s view on criminalising marital rape  

The Brazilian Supreme Court on Friday permitted the authorities to include former prime minister Jair Bolsonaro in its investigation of the&nbsp;January 8 riots.&nbsp;

Justice Alexandre de Moraes accepted the request from the&nbsp;Attorney General's Office to include Bolsonaro who has been strongly linked to orchestrating the events in the capital city of Brasilia last Sunday.&nbsp;

The prosecutor's office presented a video posted by Bolsonaro on Facebook, two days after the riot where it was claimed that&nbsp;Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wasn't voted to power, albeit he was chosen by the Supreme Court and Brazil's top electoral body.&nbsp;

After analysing the video, Judge de Moraes directed Meta, the parent company of Facebook to preserve the video, and its metadata to better access the authorship.

The court also directed that the&nbsp;information about the video's reach (number of views, number of shares and number of comments) should be shared before being deleted.

The apex court added that&nbsp;since Bolsonaro was not in Brazilian territory, the request to interrogate the far-right leader will be considered later.&nbsp;

“Faced with the news that the former president is not in Brazilian territory, the request for the interrogation of the person represented, Jair Bolsonaro, will be considered later, in due time."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-president-lula-hints-at-inside-job-in-the-brasilia-riots-552098">Read more:&nbsp;Brazil President Lula hints at inside job in the Brasilia riots</a>

Notably, Bolsonaro has taken shelter in Florida, USA since last month. He was earlier admitted to&nbsp;AdventHealth Celebration acute care hospital outside Orlando&nbsp;due to abdominal pain.

The development comes a day after President&nbsp;Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva&nbsp;hinted that the storming of the capital Brasilia by former president Jair Bolsonaro supporters could not have been possible without 'inside help'.&nbsp;

"I am convinced that the door of the Planalto (presidential) palace was opened for people to enter because there are no broken doors. This means that someone facilitated their entry,

Last weekend, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stumbled into the capital city of Brasilia and attempted a coup to overturn the October election results.&nbsp;

The rioters, also referred to as "bolsonaristas" looted offices, destroyed public property, desecrated precious words of art and left ugly graffiti messages calling for a military coup to overthrow the Lula administration.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supporters-of-brazils-bolsonaro-storm-presidential-palace-550588" target="_blank">WATCH | Supporters of Brazil's Bolsonaro storm Presidential palace</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supporters-of-brazils-bolsonaro-storm-presidential-palace-550588/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Bolsonaro's unruly far-right supporters are following the line taken by their leader who believes that the presidential election was rigged against him as Lula won by a razor-thin margin.&nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<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>

The Brazilian Supreme Court on Friday permitted the authorities to include former prime minister Jair Bolsonaro in its investigation of the January 8 riots. Justice Alexandre de Moraes accepted the request from the Attorney General's Office to include Bolsonaro who has been strongly linked to orchestrating the events in the capital city of Brasilia last Sunday.

The Brazilian Supreme Court on Friday permitted the authorities to include former prime minister Jair Bolsonaro in its investigation of the January 8 riots. Justice Alexandre de Moraes accepted the request from the Attorney General's Office to include Bolsonaro who has been strongly linked to orchestrating the events in the capital city of Brasilia last Sunday. The prosecutor's office presented a video posted by Bolsonaro on Facebook, two days after the riot where it was claimed that Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wasn't voted to power, albeit he was chosen by the Supreme Court and Brazil's top electoral body. After analysing the video, Judge de Moraes directed Meta, the parent company of Facebook to preserve the video, and its metadata to better access the authorship. The court also directed that the information about the video's reach (number of views, number of shares and number of comments) should be shared before being deleted. The apex court added that since Bolsonaro was not in Brazilian territory, the request to interrogate the far-right leader will be considered later. “Faced with the news that the former president is not in Brazilian territory, the request for the interrogation of the person represented, Jair Bolsonaro, will be considered later, in due time." Read more: Brazil President Lula hints at inside job in the Brasilia riots Notably, Bolsonaro has taken shelter in Florida, USA since last month. He was earlier admitted to AdventHealth Celebration acute care hospital outside Orlando due to abdominal pain. The development comes a day after President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hinted that the storming of the capital Brasilia by former president Jair Bolsonaro supporters could not have been possible without 'inside help'. "I am convinced that the door of the Planalto (presidential) palace was opened for people to enter because there are no broken doors. This means that someone facilitated their entry, Last weekend, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stumbled into the capital city of Brasilia and attempted a coup to overturn the October election results. The rioters, also referred to as "bolsonaristas" looted offices, destroyed public property, desecrated precious words of art and left ugly graffiti messages calling for a military coup to overthrow the Lula administration. WATCH | Supporters of Brazil's Bolsonaro storm Presidential palace × Bolsonaro's unruly far-right supporters are following the line taken by their leader who believes that the presidential election was rigged against him as Lula won by a razor-thin margin. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Brazil Supreme Court allows authorities to include Jair Bolsonaro in January 8 riots probe

Bolsonaro supporters stormed government buildings in the country's capital. The attack took place almost exactly two years after the U.S. Capitol riot. Neha khanna brings you the details.

WION Fineprint | Bolsonaro supporters riot in the capital

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