Supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro who refuse to accept his election defeat stormed Congress, the Supreme Court and presidential palace.

Bolsonaro supporters storm Brazil's top government offices

<p>Indian Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Uttarakhand High Court order for the removal of encroachments from 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani, a popular city in the Indian state of Uttarakhand.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Supreme Court termed it a "human issue" and said that 50,000 people cannot be uprooted overnight. The top court also asked the railways to find a practical solution to the issue.&nbsp;</p>

<p>During the hearing, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said: "There is a human angle to it". The bench further added that there cannot be uprooting of several thousand people in seven days.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench said that those people must be living there for many decades and it may not be correct to say that paramilitary forces have to be deployed to remove people.&nbsp;</p>

<p>India's top court also stayed the high court's direction for the eviction of families within a week. The high court's order had also mentioned that their houses be demolished.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The petitioners had claimed that they are poor. They had also argued that they have been lawful residents of Mohalla Nai Basti and Line No 17 &amp; 18, Banbhulpura (Azad Nagar), Haldwani for more than 70 years.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench said: "There are two aspects of the issue. One, they claim leases. Two, they say people migrated after 1947, and the lands were auctioned."&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


Indian Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Uttarakhand High Court order for the removal of encroachments from 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani, a popular city in the Indian state of Uttarakhand.

Indian Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Uttarakhand High Court order for the removal of encroachments from 29 acres of land claimed by the railways in Haldwani, a popular city in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court termed it a "human issue" and said that 50,000 people cannot be uprooted overnight. The top court also asked the railways to find a practical solution to the issue. During the hearing, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said: "There is a human angle to it". The bench further added that there cannot be uprooting of several thousand people in seven days. The bench said that those people must be living there for many decades and it may not be correct to say that paramilitary forces have to be deployed to remove people. India's top court also stayed the high court's direction for the eviction of families within a week. The high court's order had also mentioned that their houses be demolished. The petitioners had claimed that they are poor. They had also argued that they have been lawful residents of Mohalla Nai Basti and Line No 17 & 18, Banbhulpura (Azad Nagar), Haldwani for more than 70 years. The bench said: "There are two aspects of the issue. One, they claim leases. Two, they say people migrated after 1947, and the lands were auctioned." 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.

Haldwani: SC stays Uttarakhand HC order for removal of encroachments from Railway land

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leading the country's most right-wing government ever, pledged to press ahead with policies that have irked critics back at home and also abroad - one such policy is the overhaul of the country's judicial system which can potentially weaken the Supreme Court.

Israel govt's controversial court reforms; minister unveils plan that may weaken top court

<p>The Iranian supreme court upheld two death sentences for the killing of a paramilitary during the protests following the death of Mahsa Amini. The court also ordered retrials for three other convicts who were given death sentences for similar offences. Meanwhile, a lower court in Iran sentenced an 18-year-old to death in a similar case related to the protests which took place all around the country.</p>

<p>In the statement, Supreme Court said that the appeals filed by Mohammad Mahdi Karami and Seyed Mohammad Hosseini "were not found to be valid, so their sentences were upheld and approved".</p>

<p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-warns-of-countermeasures-over-countries-seeking-negative-covid-test-from-flyers-549091">China warns of 'countermeasures' against countries imposing travel curbs&nbsp;</a></p>

<p>The capital punishment against Hamid Ghare-Hasanlou, Hossein Mohammadi and Reza Aria in the same case was overturned "due to the existence of defects in the proceedings". However, the court made it clear that the cases will be retried in wake of fresh witness testimony and evidence.</p>

<p>The court ruling stated that Ghare-Hasanlou, his wife and a doctor were "caught up in the chaos" and at present, no one of them could be directly implicated in the death of the paramilitary.</p>

<p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ben-gvir-visits-al-aqsa-mosque-in-jerusalem-enraging-palestinians-jordan-condemns-move-548979">Ben-Gvir visits Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, enraging Palestinians</a></p>

<p>During the protests following the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, a member of the Basij paramilitary force called Ruhollah Ajamian was killed in Karaj. 11 people were charged with involvement in the incident and the majority of them were handed long prison sentences.</p>

<p>Amini was detained by the morality police in Iran for flouting the hijab law and she ended up losing her life with the post-mortem showing trauma signs to both her head and her body.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The Iranian supreme court upheld two death sentences for the killing of a paramilitary during the protests following the death of Mahsa Amini. The court also ordered retrials for three other convicts who were given death sentences for similar offences.

The Iranian supreme court upheld two death sentences for the killing of a paramilitary during the protests following the death of Mahsa Amini. The court also ordered retrials for three other convicts who were given death sentences for similar offences. Meanwhile, a lower court in Iran sentenced an 18-year-old to death in a similar case related to the protests which took place all around the country. In the statement, Supreme Court said that the appeals filed by Mohammad Mahdi Karami and Seyed Mohammad Hosseini "were not found to be valid, so their sentences were upheld and approved". Also read | China warns of 'countermeasures' against countries imposing travel curbs The capital punishment against Hamid Ghare-Hasanlou, Hossein Mohammadi and Reza Aria in the same case was overturned "due to the existence of defects in the proceedings". However, the court made it clear that the cases will be retried in wake of fresh witness testimony and evidence. The court ruling stated that Ghare-Hasanlou, his wife and a doctor were "caught up in the chaos" and at present, no one of them could be directly implicated in the death of the paramilitary. Also read | Ben-Gvir visits Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, enraging Palestinians During the protests following the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, a member of the Basij paramilitary force called Ruhollah Ajamian was killed in Karaj. 11 people were charged with involvement in the incident and the majority of them were handed long prison sentences. Amini was detained by the morality police in Iran for flouting the hijab law and she ended up losing her life with the post-mortem showing trauma signs to both her head and her body.

Iran's Supreme Court upholds two death sentences, issues another over protests

Supreme Court of India has ruled that no more restrictions other than those which are permissible under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution can be imposed on the free speech of the public functionaries. Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution authorises the government to impose by law resonable impositions on freedom of speech and expression.

India's top court on free speech of MPs, MLAs, says 'no more restrictions on free speech'

India's top court today backed Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 2016 notes ban in a majority judgment, upholding the legality of the 2016 decision to outlaw about 86 percent of the country's cash in circulation. The Supreme Court said that demonetization decision could not be faulted just because the center initiated it.

India's Supreme Court: 2016 demonetisation valid, 58 petitions challenged decisison

<p>The Supreme Court in Iran accepted the appeal of a protester against his death sentence after he was held guilty for allegedly destroying public property during anti-government protests, sending his case for another review, said the judiciary on Saturday.&nbsp;The police had arrested Noor Mohammadzadeh, aged 25, on October 4 and two months later, he was sentenced to death after being charged with “waging war against God”. He had allegedly set a garbage bin on fire and attempted to break a highway guardrail in Tehran.</p>

<p>The accusations were rejected by him, as he claimed that the authorities had forced him to confess to the&nbsp;crime. Protesting against his trial, he sat on a hunger strike two weeks ago.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ|</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/as-irans-anti-hijab-protests-cross-the-100-days-mark-lets-take-a-look-at-some-of-the-key-moments-546653">As Iran's anti-hijab protests cross the 100 days mark, let's take a look at some of the key moments</a></p>

<p>Two protesters have been already executed by Iran after they were held for demonstrations that swept the nation against the death of Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini in police custody in September after she was detained by the morality police for failing to follow the Islamic dress code for women.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Amnesty International has stated that the authorities in Iran have announced the death penalty for at least 26 other protesters.</p>

<p>“The Supreme Court has accepted the appeal of Sahand Noor Mohammadzadeh, one of the accused in the recent riots. His case has been sent to the same branch of the Revolutionary Court for review,” announced the judiciary’s Mizan news agency on Twitter.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH| Iran: Mahsa Amini protests rage on, government cornered in range of issues</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-mahsa-amini-protests-rage-on-government-cornered-in-range-of-issues-546737/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>Last week, rapper Saman Seydi Yasin's death sentence appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court, however, the same sentence was confirmed for another protester Mohammad Qobadloo.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The Supreme Court in Iran accepted the appeal of a protester against his death sentence after he was held guilty for allegedly destroying public property during anti-government protests, sending his case for another review, said the judiciary on Saturday.

The Supreme Court in Iran accepted the appeal of a protester against his death sentence after he was held guilty for allegedly destroying public property during anti-government protests, sending his case for another review, said the judiciary on Saturday. The police had arrested Noor Mohammadzadeh, aged 25, on October 4 and two months later, he was sentenced to death after being charged with “waging war against God”. He had allegedly set a garbage bin on fire and attempted to break a highway guardrail in Tehran. The accusations were rejected by him, as he claimed that the authorities had forced him to confess to the crime. Protesting against his trial, he sat on a hunger strike two weeks ago. ALSO READ| As Iran's anti-hijab protests cross the 100 days mark, let's take a look at some of the key moments Two protesters have been already executed by Iran after they were held for demonstrations that swept the nation against the death of Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini in police custody in September after she was detained by the morality police for failing to follow the Islamic dress code for women. Amnesty International has stated that the authorities in Iran have announced the death penalty for at least 26 other protesters. “The Supreme Court has accepted the appeal of Sahand Noor Mohammadzadeh, one of the accused in the recent riots. His case has been sent to the same branch of the Revolutionary Court for review,” announced the judiciary’s Mizan news agency on Twitter. WATCH| Iran: Mahsa Amini protests rage on, government cornered in range of issues Last week, rapper Saman Seydi Yasin's death sentence appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court, however, the same sentence was confirmed for another protester Mohammad Qobadloo. (With inputs from agencies)

Iran court takes a u-turn after protester goes on hunger strike against death sentence

<p>Brazil’s Supreme Court has temporarily banned carrying guns in the capital Brasilia ahead of the swearing-in of Brazilian President-elect&nbsp;Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva&nbsp;on January 1.</p>

<p>Justice Alexandre de Moraes said the ban order will take effect on Wednesday, and it will remain till January 2, the day after Lula’s inauguration, reports Reuters news agency.</p>

<p>In his ruling, Moraes wrote that “terrorist groups financed by shameless magnates” have been committing crimes against the rule of law in recent weeks, which is why public safety had to be made secure via a temporary firearms ban.</p>

<p>According to the court’s order, if anyone was found carrying arms in Brasilia in violation of the decree, they would be prosecuted for illegally carrying a weapon.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court made the ruling at the request of da Silva’s team days after police arrested a man on suspicion of planting and possessing explosive devices at Brasilia International Airport.</p>

<h2><strong>Brazil: Bolsonaro breaks post-election silence, calls for 'military coup'</strong></h2>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brazil-bolsonaro-breaks-post-election-silence-calls-for-military-coup-541813/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>According to reports, the 54-year-old man, who worked at a gas station, had ties with pro-Bolsonaro militia supporters camped outside the army headquarters.</p>

<p>Upcoming Justice Minister Flavio Dino hailed the court’s ruling, saying that it would bolster security during the swearing-in ceremony.</p>

<p>The latest measure is being taken to thwart any unforeseen circumstances during the ceremony as incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro has been casting doubts on the country’s electoral result after his defeat to Lula on October 30.</p>

<p>Thousands of protesters have been camping at military barracks across the country, asking the army to step in as they falsely claim that the election was stolen.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE: </strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Brazil’s Supreme Court has temporarily banned carrying guns in the capital Brasilia ahead of the swearing-in of Brazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on January 1.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has temporarily banned carrying guns in the capital Brasilia ahead of the swearing-in of Brazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on January 1. Justice Alexandre de Moraes said the ban order will take effect on Wednesday, and it will remain till January 2, the day after Lula’s inauguration, reports Reuters news agency. In his ruling, Moraes wrote that “terrorist groups financed by shameless magnates” have been committing crimes against the rule of law in recent weeks, which is why public safety had to be made secure via a temporary firearms ban. According to the court’s order, if anyone was found carrying arms in Brasilia in violation of the decree, they would be prosecuted for illegally carrying a weapon. The Supreme Court made the ruling at the request of da Silva’s team days after police arrested a man on suspicion of planting and possessing explosive devices at Brasilia International Airport. Brazil: Bolsonaro breaks post-election silence, calls for 'military coup' According to reports, the 54-year-old man, who worked at a gas station, had ties with pro-Bolsonaro militia supporters camped outside the army headquarters. Upcoming Justice Minister Flavio Dino hailed the court’s ruling, saying that it would bolster security during the swearing-in ceremony. The latest measure is being taken to thwart any unforeseen circumstances during the ceremony as incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro has been casting doubts on the country’s electoral result after his defeat to Lula on October 30. Thousands of protesters have been camping at military barracks across the country, asking the army to step in as they falsely claim that the election was stolen. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Brazil temporarily bans guns in capital ahead of President-elect Lula’s swearing-in ceremony

<p>The death sentence appeal of one protester&nbsp;was accepted by the Iran's Supreme Court while&nbsp;it declined&nbsp;the appeal of another, the judiciary stated on Saturday.&nbsp;Initially, the court had stated that appeals by both the protesters have been accepted, however, later the judiciary's Mizan news agency, in a statement, said, "The public relations of the Supreme Court of Iran has corrected its news: 'The appeal of Mohammad Qabadloo has not been accepted/the ruling has been confirmed. Saman Seydi's appeal has been accepted by the Supreme Court."</p>

<p>Saman Seydi Yasin who raps about inequality, oppression and unemployment, had been accused of attempting to kill security forces, setting a rubbish bin on fire and shooting into the air thrice during anti-government protests.</p>

<p>Iran witnessed nationwide protests from mid-September after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in police custody after the morality police arrested her for failing to follow the mandatory dress code laws of the Islamic Republic.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iranians-fearful-executions-will-increase-as-west-remains-preoccupied-with-the-holiday-season-546253">Iranians fearful executions will increase as West remains preoccupied with the holiday season</a></p>

<p>Earlier this month, two protesters were hanged by Iran. One of them, 23-year-old Mohsen Shekari was held guilty of obstructing the main road in September and hurting the paramilitary Basij force member with a knife.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Meanwhile, 23-year-old Majid Reza Rahnavard, who was held guilty of killing two Basij members, was hanged publicly from a construction crane.</p>

<p>According to Amnesty International, the death penalty is being sought for around 26 people by the Iranian authorities in what it said were "sham trials designed to intimidate those participating in the popular uprising that has rocked Iran".<br />
<br />
<strong>WATCH| WION Fineprint | Iran to execute footballer</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-fineprint-iran-to-execute-footballer-543076/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>Qobadloo is facing charges of killing police personnel and hurting five others in the protests. Meanwhile, Yasin, a rapper who raps about unemployment, inequality and oppression, is charged with singing revolutionary songs and attempting to kill security forces and will now be retried.</p>

<p>Speaking about the situation in Iran, the rights group HRANA stated that the authorities have killed 506 protesters till Friday, which includes 69 minors.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The death sentence appeal of one protester was accepted by the Iran's Supreme Court while it declined the appeal of another, the judiciary stated on Saturday. Initially, the court had stated that appeals by both the protesters have been accepted, however, later the judiciary's Mizan news agency, in a statement, said, "The public relations of the Supreme Court of Iran has corrected its news: 'The appeal of Mohammad Qabadloo has not been accepted/the ruling has been confirmed.

The death sentence appeal of one protester was accepted by the Iran's Supreme Court while it declined the appeal of another, the judiciary stated on Saturday. Initially, the court had stated that appeals by both the protesters have been accepted, however, later the judiciary's Mizan news agency, in a statement, said, "The public relations of the Supreme Court of Iran has corrected its news: 'The appeal of Mohammad Qabadloo has not been accepted/the ruling has been confirmed. Saman Seydi's appeal has been accepted by the Supreme Court." Saman Seydi Yasin who raps about inequality, oppression and unemployment, had been accused of attempting to kill security forces, setting a rubbish bin on fire and shooting into the air thrice during anti-government protests. Iran witnessed nationwide protests from mid-September after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in police custody after the morality police arrested her for failing to follow the mandatory dress code laws of the Islamic Republic. ALSO READ | Iranians fearful executions will increase as West remains preoccupied with the holiday season Earlier this month, two protesters were hanged by Iran. One of them, 23-year-old Mohsen Shekari was held guilty of obstructing the main road in September and hurting the paramilitary Basij force member with a knife. Meanwhile, 23-year-old Majid Reza Rahnavard, who was held guilty of killing two Basij members, was hanged publicly from a construction crane. According to Amnesty International, the death penalty is being sought for around 26 people by the Iranian authorities in what it said were "sham trials designed to intimidate those participating in the popular uprising that has rocked Iran". WATCH| WION Fineprint | Iran to execute footballer Qobadloo is facing charges of killing police personnel and hurting five others in the protests. Meanwhile, Yasin, a rapper who raps about unemployment, inequality and oppression, is charged with singing revolutionary songs and attempting to kill security forces and will now be retried. Speaking about the situation in Iran, the rights group HRANA stated that the authorities have killed 506 protesters till Friday, which includes 69 minors. (With inputs from agencies)

Iran's Supreme Court upholds death sentence of one protester, accepts rapper Yasin’s appeal

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{35e0c8bd-f35e-48c3-b63d-cdf3c119887c}{160}" paraid="305868377" >The Supreme Court in Iran ordered a retrial of&nbsp;an individual who was previously sentenced to death for his involvement in the protests in the wake of the death of Mahsa Amini. The Iranian judiciary announced on Wednesday that Mahan Sadrat was among the dozens of protesters who were sentenced to death by the court but a retrial will be launched in order to examine further evidence.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{cecf3d84-d4c8-4293-955b-2ac468dd9dcc}{198}" paraid="1774590905" >"The accused's request for a retrial was found to be in accordance with the law... and so the case was referred to the court for retrial," the judiciary's Mizan Online news website reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{cecf3d84-d4c8-4293-955b-2ac468dd9dcc}{198}" paraid="1774590905" >Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-confirms-zelensky-visit-will-meet-biden-at-white-house-address-congress-545008">Zelensky leaves for US, will meet Biden at White House, address Congress</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{cecf3d84-d4c8-4293-955b-2ac468dd9dcc}{192}" paraid="591687008" >The 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was detained by Iran’s morality police for flouting the country’s hijab law and later in the day, she was found dead with the post-mortem report showing trauma to both her body and head. The death resulted in massive protests all around the country with women taking to the streets with placards against the regime and even burning their hijabs as a show of protest.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{e5da2c2a-b653-4cd3-8c45-1fc157fa964f}{206}" paraid="1894531083" >Sadrat was charged with "moharebeh" -- or "enmity against God – by the Iranian court and under sharia law, he was sentenced to death. Earlier, news agency IRNA reported that security forces detained him after he allegedly drew a knife in public and caused panic in the public by attempting to attack.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{e5da2c2a-b653-4cd3-8c45-1fc157fa964f}{206}" paraid="1894531083" >Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/armed-guards-stop-women-from-entering-universities-following-taliban-ban-on-higher-education-for-females-545067">Armed guards stop women from entering universities following Taliban ban</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{91aea58f-639a-4c31-a81f-69c1408cd4b2}{206}" paraid="1445844454" >Till now, 11 people have been sentenced to death in connection to the protests with two executions - Majidreza Rahnavard and Mohsen Shekari – already taking place in the past few weeks.&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The Supreme Court in Iran ordered a retrial of an individual who was previously sentenced to death for his involvement in the protests in the wake of the death of Mahsa Amini.

The Supreme Court in Iran ordered a retrial of an individual who was previously sentenced to death for his involvement in the protests in the wake of the death of Mahsa Amini. The Iranian judiciary announced on Wednesday that Mahan Sadrat was among the dozens of protesters who were sentenced to death by the court but a retrial will be launched in order to examine further evidence. "The accused's request for a retrial was found to be in accordance with the law... and so the case was referred to the court for retrial," the judiciary's Mizan Online news website reported. Also read | Zelensky leaves for US, will meet Biden at White House, address Congress The 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was detained by Iran’s morality police for flouting the country’s hijab law and later in the day, she was found dead with the post-mortem report showing trauma to both her body and head. The death resulted in massive protests all around the country with women taking to the streets with placards against the regime and even burning their hijabs as a show of protest. Sadrat was charged with "moharebeh" -- or "enmity against God – by the Iranian court and under sharia law, he was sentenced to death. Earlier, news agency IRNA reported that security forces detained him after he allegedly drew a knife in public and caused panic in the public by attempting to attack. Also read | Armed guards stop women from entering universities following Taliban ban Till now, 11 people have been sentenced to death in connection to the protests with two executions - Majidreza Rahnavard and Mohsen Shekari – already taking place in the past few weeks.

Iran's Supreme Court orders retrial of protester on death row for agitation

<p>President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa sought the Constitutional Court to review and overrule a report by an advisory body that said he may be subject to impeachment for how he handled the theft of at least $580,000 from his game farm.</p>

<p>According to a review application sent by the president on Monday, Ramaphosa said the panel went beyond its authority and mission and misinterpreted the data it was provided. A day prior to the parliament's scheduled discussion of the panel's report and decision to begin impeachment proceedings against the president, the application was submitted. It wasn't immediately obvious whether that sitting would still take place.</p>

<p>“The court has allocated a case number and we are awaiting a directive from the court about a date for a hearing,” Peter Harris, a partner at law firm Harris Nupen Molebatsi Attorneys, which is acting for Ramaphosa told Bloomberg.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Ramaphosa contemplated resigning last week when the panel's harsh conclusions were made public. That choice was eliminated over the weekend when Ramaphosa's spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, announced that he would file a lawsuit to contest the "clearly flawed" findings and that he would run for re-election as president of the ruling African National Congress at the organization's five-yearly elective conference the following week.</p>

<p>Ramaphosa contemplated resigning last week when the panel's harsh conclusions were made public. That choice was eliminated over the weekend when Ramaphosa's spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, announced that he would file a lawsuit to contest the "clearly flawed" findings and that he would run for re-election as president of the ruling African National Congress at the organization's five-yearly elective conference the following week.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa sought the Constitutional Court to review and overrule a report by an advisory body that said he may be subject to impeachment for how he handled the theft of at least $580,000 from his game farm.

President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa sought the Constitutional Court to review and overrule a report by an advisory body that said he may be subject to impeachment for how he handled the theft of at least $580,000 from his game farm. According to a review application sent by the president on Monday, Ramaphosa said the panel went beyond its authority and mission and misinterpreted the data it was provided. A day prior to the parliament's scheduled discussion of the panel's report and decision to begin impeachment proceedings against the president, the application was submitted. It wasn't immediately obvious whether that sitting would still take place. “The court has allocated a case number and we are awaiting a directive from the court about a date for a hearing,” Peter Harris, a partner at law firm Harris Nupen Molebatsi Attorneys, which is acting for Ramaphosa told Bloomberg. Ramaphosa contemplated resigning last week when the panel's harsh conclusions were made public. That choice was eliminated over the weekend when Ramaphosa's spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, announced that he would file a lawsuit to contest the "clearly flawed" findings and that he would run for re-election as president of the ruling African National Congress at the organization's five-yearly elective conference the following week. Ramaphosa contemplated resigning last week when the panel's harsh conclusions were made public. That choice was eliminated over the weekend when Ramaphosa's spokesman, Vincent Magwenya, announced that he would file a lawsuit to contest the "clearly flawed" findings and that he would run for re-election as president of the ruling African National Congress at the organization's five-yearly elective conference the following week. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

S. Africa: Ramaphosa urges supreme court to put impeachment report on hold

<p>As hundreds of people on TikTok and Twitter urge to #cancelBalenciaga, the high-end fashion house&nbsp;has issued an apology for its contentious holiday ad campaign that featured kids carrying fetish-adorned purses and teddy bears.&nbsp;A comment about the giving and receiving of gifts was the goal of the Gift Shop campaign, which was shot by famous photographer Gabriele Galimberti and was motivated by Galimberti's own "toy tale" photographic series. However, the portrayal of young children holding bears while wearing bondage-style clothing, such as fishnets, cuffs, and harnesses, infuriated online users. <strong>We explain the case in-depth.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<h2><strong>Balenciaga's apology</strong></h2>

<p>"We sincerely apologise for any offence our Holiday campaign may have caused," Balenciaga said in a statement.</p>

<p>"Our plush bear bags should not have been featured with children in this campaign. We have immediately removed the campaign from all platforms."</p>

<p>Kim Kardashian, one of Balenciaga's most outspoken supporters, has also expressed her disapproval of the company, saying she was "shocked and outraged."</p>

<p>"I have been quiet for the past few days, not because I haven't been shocked and outraged by the recent Balenciaga campaigns, but because I wanted an opportunity to speak to their team to understand for myself how this could have happened," she wrote in an Instagram story.</p>

<p>"As a mother of four, I have been shaken by those disturbing images. The safety of children must be held with the highest regard and anything against it should have no place in our society - period," she added.</p>

<p>"I appreciate Balenciaga's removal of the campaigns and apology. In speaking with them, I believe they understand the seriousness of the issue and will take the necessary measures for this to never happen again."</p>

<h2><strong>Backstory</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

<p>The hashtag #cancelbalenciaga has received over 105k views on TikTok alone, with the majority of them being credited to video producers who explained why the holiday promotion is so abhorrent.</p>

<p>Balenciaga has recently gained a reputation for its unconventional fashion campaigns, whether it was due to the editorial-style advertisement's location or the brand's imaginative casting. This strategy, which they have used successfully thus far, is reflected in their store designs, runway presentations, and even the product line they offer. According to fashion aggregator and trend forecaster Lyst, Balenciaga has been one of the top 5 hottest fashion brands in the world for four years running. Their innovative approach to fashion has elevated the brand to a sought-after position never before achieved.</p>

<p>But this Gift Shop campaign was always going to stir up the wrong kind of outrage; anything that even remotely suggests sexualizing minors.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Ahead of the Christmas season, a new collection of giftable items, including Champagne glasses, pet bowls with jewels, and teddy bears, was introduced, and to support it, a campaign was started earlier this month. In order to "iterate on the artist's series 'Toy Stories,' an investigation of what individuals acquire and receive as gifts," Balenciaga hired photojournalist Gabriel Galimberti to photograph the campaign.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">the brand "Balenciaga" just did a uh..... interesting... photoshoot for their new products recently which included a very purposely poorly hidden court document about 'virtual child porn'<br />
<br />
normal stuff <a href="https://t.co/zjMN5WhZ0s">pic.twitter.com/zjMN5WhZ0s</a></p>
— shoe (@shoe0nhead) <a href="https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1594532715126202368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">This is absolutely disgusting. Balenciaga features toddlers in ads, holding teddy bears in bondage outfits and with a court document about “child porn” partially hidden in the image.<br />
<br />
This is criminal &amp; sick. Sexualizing children must be a redline. <a href="https://twitter.com/KimKardashian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KimKardashian</a> - speak out now. <a href="https://t.co/lNIdywunlY">pic.twitter.com/lNIdywunlY</a></p>
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilaGraceRose/status/1594852654785536000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 22, 2022</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>

<h2><strong>A supreme court document about child porn in balenciaga's campaign?</strong></h2>

<p>Not really. First off, the disputed document isn't even mentioned in the campaign. Actually, it's from a previous Balenciaga campaign from the company's partnership with Adidas.</p>

<p>However, a report on child pornography was included in the Adidas advertisement.</p>

<p>It's specifically from a Supreme Court decision from 2008 that upheld fines for child abuse and other types of sexual exploitation - not exactly the slam dunk TikTok and Twitter users are saying it is, but odd none the less.</p>

<p>In a statement, Balenciaga said they had not approved the paper and were taking legal action as a result.</p>

<p>"We apologise for displaying unsettling documents in our campaign," the brand said in a separate Instagram story.</p>

<p>"We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 2023 campaign photoshoot. We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children safety and well-being."</p>

<h2><strong>Did balenciaga actually remove their social media as a result of the controversy?</strong></h2>

<p>Balenciaga has allegedly been "cancelled" as a result of allegations that the company erased its social media account in response to criticism.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">interesting timing <a href="https://t.co/sST1MkKAPd">pic.twitter.com/sST1MkKAPd</a></p>
— shoe (@shoe0nhead) <a href="https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1594537713268662273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">THEY DELETED ALL OF THEIR INSTAGRAM POSTS LMAO <a href="https://t.co/ZWfgROhngr">pic.twitter.com/ZWfgROhngr</a></p>
— shoe (@shoe0nhead) <a href="https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1594545373044932608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2022</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>

<h2><strong>Kim Kardashian releases a statement citing how "disgusted and outraged" she was at Balenciaga</strong></h2>

<p>Kim Kardashian, as previously reported, has spoken on the matter, expressing her disgust and fury while also announcing that Balenciaga is taking action to make sure that this problem won't occur again.</p>

<p>"I appreciate Balenciaga's removal of the campaigns and apology. In speaking with them, I believe they understand the seriousness of the issue and will take the necessary measures for this to never happen again," she wrote.</p>

<p><img alt="picture" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0c1f9885-1965-4984-8b55-a2d17ff49ac8" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/1669595559619_Capture.jpeg" /></p>

<p>However, many people felt that Kim's reaction was unsatisfactory. Instead, they demanded that she cut all ties to the brand and condemn it. Kim thankfully made a followup statement that addressed the issue for people who were worried.</p>

<p>"As for my future with Balenciaga, I am currently re-evaluating my relationship with the brand, basing it off their willingness to accept accountability for something that should have never happened to being with - and the actions I am expecting to see them take to protect children," she said.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


As hundreds of people on TikTok and Twitter urge to #cancelBalenciaga, the high-end fashion house has issued an apology for its contentious holiday ad campaign that featured kids carrying fetish-adorned purses and teddy bears.

As hundreds of people on TikTok and Twitter urge to #cancelBalenciaga, the high-end fashion house has issued an apology for its contentious holiday ad campaign that featured kids carrying fetish-adorned purses and teddy bears. A comment about the giving and receiving of gifts was the goal of the Gift Shop campaign, which was shot by famous photographer Gabriele Galimberti and was motivated by Galimberti's own "toy tale" photographic series. However, the portrayal of young children holding bears while wearing bondage-style clothing, such as fishnets, cuffs, and harnesses, infuriated online users. We explain the case in-depth. Balenciaga's apology "We sincerely apologise for any offence our Holiday campaign may have caused," Balenciaga said in a statement. "Our plush bear bags should not have been featured with children in this campaign. We have immediately removed the campaign from all platforms." Kim Kardashian, one of Balenciaga's most outspoken supporters, has also expressed her disapproval of the company, saying she was "shocked and outraged." "I have been quiet for the past few days, not because I haven't been shocked and outraged by the recent Balenciaga campaigns, but because I wanted an opportunity to speak to their team to understand for myself how this could have happened," she wrote in an Instagram story. "As a mother of four, I have been shaken by those disturbing images. The safety of children must be held with the highest regard and anything against it should have no place in our society - period," she added. "I appreciate Balenciaga's removal of the campaigns and apology. In speaking with them, I believe they understand the seriousness of the issue and will take the necessary measures for this to never happen again." Backstory The hashtag #cancelbalenciaga has received over 105k views on TikTok alone, with the majority of them being credited to video producers who explained why the holiday promotion is so abhorrent. Balenciaga has recently gained a reputation for its unconventional fashion campaigns, whether it was due to the editorial-style advertisement's location or the brand's imaginative casting. This strategy, which they have used successfully thus far, is reflected in their store designs, runway presentations, and even the product line they offer. According to fashion aggregator and trend forecaster Lyst, Balenciaga has been one of the top 5 hottest fashion brands in the world for four years running. Their innovative approach to fashion has elevated the brand to a sought-after position never before achieved. But this Gift Shop campaign was always going to stir up the wrong kind of outrage; anything that even remotely suggests sexualizing minors. Ahead of the Christmas season, a new collection of giftable items, including Champagne glasses, pet bowls with jewels, and teddy bears, was introduced, and to support it, a campaign was started earlier this month. In order to "iterate on the artist's series 'Toy Stories,' an investigation of what individuals acquire and receive as gifts," Balenciaga hired photojournalist Gabriel Galimberti to photograph the campaign. the brand "Balenciaga" just did a uh..... interesting... photoshoot for their new products recently which included a very purposely poorly hidden court document about 'virtual child porn' normal stuff pic.twitter.com/zjMN5WhZ0s — shoe (@shoe0nhead) November 21, 2022 × This is absolutely disgusting. Balenciaga features toddlers in ads, holding teddy bears in bondage outfits and with a court document about “child porn” partially hidden in the image. This is criminal & sick. Sexualizing children must be a redline. @KimKardashian - speak out now. pic.twitter.com/lNIdywunlY — Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) November 22, 2022 × A supreme court document about child porn in balenciaga's campaign? Not really. First off, the disputed document isn't even mentioned in the campaign. Actually, it's from a previous Balenciaga campaign from the company's partnership with Adidas. However, a report on child pornography was included in the Adidas advertisement. It's specifically from a Supreme Court decision from 2008 that upheld fines for child abuse and other types of sexual exploitation - not exactly the slam dunk TikTok and Twitter users are saying it is, but odd none the less. In a statement, Balenciaga said they had not approved the paper and were taking legal action as a result. "We apologise for displaying unsettling documents in our campaign," the brand said in a separate Instagram story. "We take this matter very seriously and are taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 2023 campaign photoshoot. We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children safety and well-being." Did balenciaga actually remove their social media as a result of the controversy? Balenciaga has allegedly been "cancelled" as a result of allegations that the company erased its social media account in response to criticism. interesting timing pic.twitter.com/sST1MkKAPd — shoe (@shoe0nhead) November 21, 2022 × THEY DELETED ALL OF THEIR INSTAGRAM POSTS LMAO pic.twitter.com/ZWfgROhngr — shoe (@shoe0nhead) November 21, 2022 × Kim Kardashian releases a statement citing how "disgusted and outraged" she was at Balenciaga Kim Kardashian, as previously reported, has spoken on the matter, expressing her disgust and fury while also announcing that Balenciaga is taking action to make sure that this problem won't occur again. "I appreciate Balenciaga's removal of the campaigns and apology. In speaking with them, I believe they understand the seriousness of the issue and will take the necessary measures for this to never happen again," she wrote. However, many people felt that Kim's reaction was unsatisfactory. Instead, they demanded that she cut all ties to the brand and condemn it. Kim thankfully made a followup statement that addressed the issue for people who were worried. "As for my future with Balenciaga, I am currently re-evaluating my relationship with the brand, basing it off their willingness to accept accountability for something that should have never happened to being with - and the actions I am expecting to see them take to protect children," she said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Balenciaga controversial campaign: Why is the luxury brand causing such a stir?

<p>The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament. The ruling from the top judges in the UK said that the Scottish parliament does not have the power to organise the referendum independently.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The power to call a referendum was "reserved" to the UK parliament, and therefore "the Scottish parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence", Supreme Court president Robert Reed said while delivering the unanimous ruling, reported Sky News.</p>

<p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/multiple-explosions-rock-jerusalem-at-least-13-injured-casualties-feared-536659">One killed, 22 injured after multiple explosions near bus stops in Jerusalem</a></p>

<p>Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had earlier proposed a second referendum - known as IndyRef2 - for next October and that was supported by the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP). She also said that the next general election can also serve as an indication of what the country feels about the referendum.</p>

<p>"A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without (UK parliament) consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership," the Scottish National Party leader tweeted after the judgement.</p>

<p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/virginia-multiple-fatalities-reported-after-mass-shooting-at-chesapeake-walmart-536650">Virginia: Seven killed in mass shooting at Chesapeake Walmart, shooter among dead, say cops</a></p>

<p>Sturgeon had earlier requested a special order under Section 30 of the 1998 Scottish Act to hold the referendum, but it was rejected by four prime ministers.</p>

<p>As a result, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the effects of legislation “are not restricted to legal consequences but can include its practical consequences” and as a result, the special exemption cannot be granted under these circumstances.</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament. The ruling from the top judges in the UK said that the Scottish parliament does not have the power to organise the referendum independently. The power to call a referendum was "reserved" to the UK parliament, and therefore "the Scottish parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence", Supreme Court president Robert Reed said while delivering the unanimous ruling, reported Sky News. Also read | One killed, 22 injured after multiple explosions near bus stops in Jerusalem Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had earlier proposed a second referendum - known as IndyRef2 - for next October and that was supported by the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP). She also said that the next general election can also serve as an indication of what the country feels about the referendum. "A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without (UK parliament) consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership," the Scottish National Party leader tweeted after the judgement. Also read | Virginia: Seven killed in mass shooting at Chesapeake Walmart, shooter among dead, say cops Sturgeon had earlier requested a special order under Section 30 of the 1998 Scottish Act to hold the referendum, but it was rejected by four prime ministers. As a result, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the effects of legislation “are not restricted to legal consequences but can include its practical consequences” and as a result, the special exemption cannot be granted under these circumstances.

UK Supreme Court blocks Scotland from holding second independence referendum

<p>Need a strong Chief Election Commissioner “with a character” who “doesn’t allow himself to be bulldozed”, remarked the Supreme Court of India&nbsp;while hearing petitions seeking reforms of the country’s poll body.&nbsp;India’s Election Commission consists of a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners.</p>

<p>The appointment of the election commissioners is followed as per the procedure established by the Indian Constitution.</p>

<p>According to Article 324(2) of the Constitution, the president appoints CEC and ECs after receiving advice from the Council of Ministers, which also includes the prime minister.</p>

<p>The article states that CEC and ECs would be appointed as per the said procedure until the parliament enacts a law fixing the criteria for selection, conditions of service and tenure. However, no such law has been enacted for the purpose.</p>

<p>The petition seeks a fair and transparent procedure for the appointment of CEC and ECs.</p>

<p>Reacting to the plea, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K M Joseph on Tuesday said that there needs to be a system in place so that the "best man" is selected as the CEC, and added that the government pays only "lip service" to the independence of Election Commissioners.</p>

<p>Justice K M Joseph criticised the Union government over the short tenure of CECs, saying, "Their (CECs) tenure is highly truncated and known from the very beginning… In this way, this so-called independence that you pay lip-service to, I am sorry to say, is completely destroyed by getting this kind of a term.”&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="Australian parliament ratifies free trade agreement with India">Australian parliament ratifies free trade agreement with India</a></p>

<p>Justice Joseph said it has been 72 years since the Constitution was adopted but still there is no law on the appointment of election commissioners, despite being envisaged in the Constitution.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-couple-pen-heartfelt-note-to-army-in-wedding-invite-heres-how-army-responded-536529">&nbsp;India: Couple pen heartfelt note to Army in wedding invite; here's how Army responded</a></p>

<p>The court pointed out that the "situation on the ground is alarming" and that it wants a CEC like late T N Seshan, who is known for bringing key electoral reforms as the poll panel chief from 1990 to 1996.</p>

<p>“There have been numerous CECs and T N Seshan happens once in a while. We do not want anyone to bulldoze him. Enormous power has been vested on the fragile shoulder of three men (CEC and two election commissioners). We have to find the best man for the post of CEC," the court said.</p>

<p>The government's counsel, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, argued that the Centre was in favour of appointing the “best man”, but raised doubts on how it can be done.</p>

<p>"There is no vacuum in the Constitution. Election commissioners are presently appointed by the president on the aid and advice of the council of ministers," he said.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE: </strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Need a strong Chief Election Commissioner “with a character” who “doesn’t allow himself to be bulldozed”, remarked the Supreme Court of India while hearing petitions seeking reforms of the country’s poll body.

Need a strong Chief Election Commissioner “with a character” who “doesn’t allow himself to be bulldozed”, remarked the Supreme Court of India while hearing petitions seeking reforms of the country’s poll body. India’s Election Commission consists of a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners. The appointment of the election commissioners is followed as per the procedure established by the Indian Constitution. According to Article 324(2) of the Constitution, the president appoints CEC and ECs after receiving advice from the Council of Ministers, which also includes the prime minister. The article states that CEC and ECs would be appointed as per the said procedure until the parliament enacts a law fixing the criteria for selection, conditions of service and tenure. However, no such law has been enacted for the purpose. The petition seeks a fair and transparent procedure for the appointment of CEC and ECs. Reacting to the plea, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K M Joseph on Tuesday said that there needs to be a system in place so that the "best man" is selected as the CEC, and added that the government pays only "lip service" to the independence of Election Commissioners. Justice K M Joseph criticised the Union government over the short tenure of CECs, saying, "Their (CECs) tenure is highly truncated and known from the very beginning… In this way, this so-called independence that you pay lip-service to, I am sorry to say, is completely destroyed by getting this kind of a term.” Also read | Australian parliament ratifies free trade agreement with India Justice Joseph said it has been 72 years since the Constitution was adopted but still there is no law on the appointment of election commissioners, despite being envisaged in the Constitution. Also read | India: Couple pen heartfelt note to Army in wedding invite; here's how Army responded The court pointed out that the "situation on the ground is alarming" and that it wants a CEC like late T N Seshan, who is known for bringing key electoral reforms as the poll panel chief from 1990 to 1996. “There have been numerous CECs and T N Seshan happens once in a while. We do not want anyone to bulldoze him. Enormous power has been vested on the fragile shoulder of three men (CEC and two election commissioners). We have to find the best man for the post of CEC," the court said. The government's counsel, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, argued that the Centre was in favour of appointing the “best man”, but raised doubts on how it can be done. "There is no vacuum in the Constitution. Election commissioners are presently appointed by the president on the aid and advice of the council of ministers," he said. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

‘Need people like TN Seshan’: Indian apex court bats for strong election commission

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidR2lbtIqkxPUS" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>In a landmark ruling, a New Zealand court has ruled that not allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to cast their vote amounted to age discrimination.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court observed that protection against age discrimination in New Zealand begins at 16 and thus choosing 18 as the voting age showed discrimination.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Hours after the ruling, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the Kiwi lawmakers will have to take a vote to decide whether the voting age should be lowered or not.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“It is our view that this is an issue best placed to parliament for everyone to have their say,” said Ardern.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If New Zealand does manage to lower the voting age, it would join the likes of Austria, Malta, Brazil, Cuba and Ecuador where suffrage is granted to those 16 and above.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-new-zealand-to-tax-farmers-for-burpy-cattle-486724"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Gravitas: New Zealand to tax farmers for burpy cattle</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-new-zealand-to-tax-farmers-for-burpy-cattle-486724/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>However, to make it happen, Ardern and her government will have to gain a supermajority in the parliament.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“I personally support a decrease in the voting age but it is not a matter simply for me or even the government,” Ardern said, before adding, “Any change in electoral law of this nature requires 75 per cent of parliamentarians’ support.”</p>

<p>According to reports, the ruling administration is expected to table the proposal in the parliament in the coming months. However, any change made regarding the rules will not be applicable until after next year's general election.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-cattle-fart-tax-nz-authorities-suggest-lollipop-tax-on-halloween-face-instant-backlash-530091"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;After 'cattle fart' tax, NZ authorities suggest Halloween 'lollipop tax'. Face instant backlash</strong></a></p>

<p>The court was hearing a petition filed by a group called 'Make It 16 campaign'. According to the campaigners, Monday's decision was the culmination of a two-year case that the group fought - demanding that young voters be given the power to decide their future by voting on issues such as climate change, pandemic recovery decisions and more.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“This is history. The government and parliament cannot ignore such a clear legal and moral message. They must let us vote," said Caeden Tipler, co-director of the Make It 16 campaign.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In a landmark ruling, a New Zealand court has ruled that not allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to cast their vote amounted to age discrimination. The court observed that protection against age discrimination in New Zealand begins at 16 and thus choosing 18 as the voting age showed discrimination.

In a landmark ruling, a New Zealand court has ruled that not allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to cast their vote amounted to age discrimination. The court observed that protection against age discrimination in New Zealand begins at 16 and thus choosing 18 as the voting age showed discrimination. Hours after the ruling, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the Kiwi lawmakers will have to take a vote to decide whether the voting age should be lowered or not. “It is our view that this is an issue best placed to parliament for everyone to have their say,” said Ardern. If New Zealand does manage to lower the voting age, it would join the likes of Austria, Malta, Brazil, Cuba and Ecuador where suffrage is granted to those 16 and above. WATCH | Gravitas: New Zealand to tax farmers for burpy cattle × However, to make it happen, Ardern and her government will have to gain a supermajority in the parliament. “I personally support a decrease in the voting age but it is not a matter simply for me or even the government,” Ardern said, before adding, “Any change in electoral law of this nature requires 75 per cent of parliamentarians’ support.” According to reports, the ruling administration is expected to table the proposal in the parliament in the coming months. However, any change made regarding the rules will not be applicable until after next year's general election. Read more: After 'cattle fart' tax, NZ authorities suggest Halloween 'lollipop tax'. Face instant backlash The court was hearing a petition filed by a group called 'Make It 16 campaign'. According to the campaigners, Monday's decision was the culmination of a two-year case that the group fought - demanding that young voters be given the power to decide their future by voting on issues such as climate change, pandemic recovery decisions and more. “This is history. The government and parliament cannot ignore such a clear legal and moral message. They must let us vote," said Caeden Tipler, co-director of the Make It 16 campaign. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

New Zealand court rules in favour of lowering voting age from 18 to 16

New Zealand's supreme court has ruled that not allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote amounts to age discrimination. Will the national voting age be lowered from 18 to 16?

WION Fineprint: How young is too young to vote?

The New Zealand Supreme Court has ruled that the country's current voting age of 18 is discriminatory and breaches the right of young people. The decision now has prompted the government to launch plans to bring down the voting aids to 16.

New Zealand: Court to decide on voting age, rules current voting breaches rights of the young

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{a794f639-fce5-46ea-8148-e5d8001bed16}{227}" paraid="365554638" >The six convicts serving life sentences for the assassination of India’s former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi were set free by the country’s Supreme Court on Friday.&nbsp;The apex court used one of its earlier judgment&nbsp;of releasing&nbsp;AG Perarivalan, one of the co-convicts,&nbsp;to release the remaining prisoners. &nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{7610b7b6-b894-4d5f-aa1a-6b3c6cbfac12}{189}" paraid="1513554049" >On May 18, the court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the release of Perarivalan, who had served over 30 years in jail.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{9565a71f-2eab-4023-9b64-78f027469b22}{105}" paraid="854626204" >A bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna said the judgment of Perarivalan is equally applicable in their matter.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{9565a71f-2eab-4023-9b64-78f027469b22}{105}" paraid="854626204" >"In so far as the applicants before us are concerned, their death sentences were commuted to life on account of delay...We direct that all the appellants are deemed to have served their sentence...The applicants are thus directed to be released unless required in any other case," the bench said.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{9565a71f-2eab-4023-9b64-78f027469b22}{105}" paraid="854626204" >Two of the convicts—Nalini and Ravichandran—had approached the Supreme Court seeking premature release, citing the&nbsp;Perarivalan judgment.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{21f4c76c-884d-49bb-b102-082dae54cc77}{133}" paraid="2073344477" >Both had challenged a June 17 order of the Madras High Court, which rejected their pleas for early release.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{21f4c76c-884d-49bb-b102-082dae54cc77}{133}" paraid="2073344477" >Nalini, Ravichandran, Santhan, Murugan, Perarivalan, Robert Payas and Jayakumar were sentenced to life terms in the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{21f4c76c-884d-49bb-b102-082dae54cc77}{133}" paraid="2073344477" ><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/g20-summit-pm-modi-to-hold-bilateral-with-french-prez-uk-pm-533198" hreflang="en">G20 Summit: PM Modi to hold bilateral with French prez, UK PM</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1192c97b-227b-4bf6-ae9a-10e07488728e}{141}" paraid="122725596" >On May 21, 1991, the former prime minister was assassinated at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, during an election rally.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1192c97b-227b-4bf6-ae9a-10e07488728e}{141}" paraid="122725596" >In May 1999, the SC had upheld death sentences to four convicts Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan and Sriharan.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1192c97b-227b-4bf6-ae9a-10e07488728e}{141}" paraid="122725596" ><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-to-use-first-green-bonds-to-finance-climate-projects-532662" hreflang="en">India to use first green bonds to finance climate projects: Finance minister</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1192c97b-227b-4bf6-ae9a-10e07488728e}{141}" paraid="122725596" >But in 2014, the apex court commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment along with those of Santhan and Murugan on grounds of delay in deciding their mercy petitions. &nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{d6a1f38c-ab13-47ac-8a7c-77af0f7a6d7e}{210}" paraid="462288957" >Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2001 on the consideration that she has a daughter.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{d6a1f38c-ab13-47ac-8a7c-77af0f7a6d7e}{224}" paraid="516221579" >The Tamil Nadu government has repeatedly supported the early release of convicts and on occasion persuaded the central government to heed their request.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE: </strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The six convicts serving life sentences for the assassination of India’s former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi were set free by the country’s Supreme Court on Friday.

The six convicts serving life sentences for the assassination of India’s former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi were set free by the country’s Supreme Court on Friday. The apex court used one of its earlier judgment of releasing AG Perarivalan, one of the co-convicts, to release the remaining prisoners. On May 18, the court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the release of Perarivalan, who had served over 30 years in jail. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna said the judgment of Perarivalan is equally applicable in their matter. "In so far as the applicants before us are concerned, their death sentences were commuted to life on account of delay...We direct that all the appellants are deemed to have served their sentence...The applicants are thus directed to be released unless required in any other case," the bench said. Two of the convicts—Nalini and Ravichandran—had approached the Supreme Court seeking premature release, citing the Perarivalan judgment. Both had challenged a June 17 order of the Madras High Court, which rejected their pleas for early release. Nalini, Ravichandran, Santhan, Murugan, Perarivalan, Robert Payas and Jayakumar were sentenced to life terms in the case. Also read | G20 Summit: PM Modi to hold bilateral with French prez, UK PM On May 21, 1991, the former prime minister was assassinated at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu, during an election rally. In May 1999, the SC had upheld death sentences to four convicts Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan and Sriharan. Also read | India to use first green bonds to finance climate projects: Finance minister But in 2014, the apex court commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment along with those of Santhan and Murugan on grounds of delay in deciding their mercy petitions. Nalini's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2001 on the consideration that she has a daughter. The Tamil Nadu government has repeatedly supported the early release of convicts and on occasion persuaded the central government to heed their request. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Supreme Court frees six killers of India's former prime minister

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Monday ordered to register a case on the assassination bid on PTI supremo Imran Khan within 24 hours.

Pakistan SC directs police to register FIR of attack on PTI chief Imran Khan within 24 hours

<p>The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 1) temporarily blocked the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee from accessing former President Donald Trump’s tax records.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative order to note that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is stayed.</p>

<p>The order also suggested that the Supreme Court won't act on Trump's plea to shield his finances from congressional investigators until after next week's midterm elections. A response to the application can be filed on or before Thursday (November 10), it further said.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ&nbsp;| <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-reaches-out-to-supreme-court-to-block-lawmakers-from-obtaining-tax-returns-530144">Trump reaches out to Supreme Court to block lawmakers from accessing his tax returns</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>In the order, the Supreme Court wrote: "UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 21-5289, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court."&nbsp;</p>

<p>"It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, November 10, 2022, by noon (EST)," it added.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In her opening statement in the Trump Organization's criminal tax fraud trial, a prosecutor said on Monday (October 31) that Trump's real estate company cheated tax authorities for 15 years.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-not-in-favour-of-race-based-admissions-in-top-universities-530138">US Supreme Court not in favour of race-based admissions in top universities</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;United States | FBI: Attacker wanted to kidnap Nancy Pelosi&nbsp;</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/united-states-fbi-attacker-wanted-to-kidnap-nancy-pelosi-530095/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Meanwhile, the defence lawyers said the company's longtime chief financial officer was only acting on his own behalf.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Some executives, including CFO Allen Weisselberg, were paid by the company in perks such as rent and car leases without reporting those benefits to tax authorities.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney's office argued that they falsely reported bonuses as non-employee compensation.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 1) temporarily blocked the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee from accessing former President Donald Trump’s tax records.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 1) temporarily blocked the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee from accessing former President Donald Trump’s tax records. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative order to note that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is stayed. The order also suggested that the Supreme Court won't act on Trump's plea to shield his finances from congressional investigators until after next week's midterm elections. A response to the application can be filed on or before Thursday (November 10), it further said. ALSO READ | Trump reaches out to Supreme Court to block lawmakers from accessing his tax returns In the order, the Supreme Court wrote: "UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 21-5289, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." "It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, November 10, 2022, by noon (EST)," it added. In her opening statement in the Trump Organization's criminal tax fraud trial, a prosecutor said on Monday (October 31) that Trump's real estate company cheated tax authorities for 15 years. ALSO READ | US Supreme Court not in favour of race-based admissions in top universities WATCH | United States | FBI: Attacker wanted to kidnap Nancy Pelosi × Meanwhile, the defence lawyers said the company's longtime chief financial officer was only acting on his own behalf. Some executives, including CFO Allen Weisselberg, were paid by the company in perks such as rent and car leases without reporting those benefits to tax authorities. Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney's office argued that they falsely reported bonuses as non-employee compensation. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court temporarily blocks House committee from getting Trump tax records

<p>The US Supreme Court and its Conversative heavy bench of judges on Monday signalled that it may not be in favour of universities enrolling students based on their skin colour.</p>

<p>Reportedly, the 6-3 conservative majority court was hearing a case filed by activist Edward Blum challenging the lower court ruling of upholding race-conscious admission policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Justice Samuel Alito, during the five-hour hearing, said giving an advantage to a student based on race put the other student at disadvantage.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"So what is your response to the simple argument that college admissions are a zero-sum game?&nbsp;And if you give a 'plus' to a person who falls within the category of under-represented minority, but not to somebody else, you're disadvantaging the latter student?"</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-has-us-failed-to-fight-racism-374371"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Gravitas: Why has US failed to fight racism?</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-has-us-failed-to-fight-racism-374371/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Meanwhile,&nbsp;Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two Black justices said she didn't even understand the word diversity.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">"I've heard the word 'diversity' quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means. I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too," said&nbsp;Thomas.</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5"><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-to-decide-on-race-based-admissions-in-top-universities-529720"><strong>Read more: US Supreme Court to decide on race-based admissions in top universities</strong></a></p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was added to the bench during Trump's rule said&nbsp;"these racial classifications are potentially dangerous and must have a logical end point."</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">Notably,&nbsp;Harvard and UNC, USA's&nbsp;oldest private and public universities, respectively employ race as a criterion to try to ensure that minorities, particularly African Americans, are represented in the student body.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">However, during the hearing, the two universities argued that race was only one criterion amongst other parameters such as&nbsp;academic merit, athletics and extracurricular.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">Given the statement by the judges, it looks highly probable that the SC may strike down affirmative action. After&nbsp;invalidating the famous "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that protected a woman's right to an abortion, this ruling could potentially generate a similar discourse.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5">Affirmative action is prohibited at public institutions in nine states, including California, where voters rejected a 2020 attempt to reinstate the practice after doing so in a ballot measure in 1996.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5"><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p data-testid="paragraph-5"><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The US Supreme Court and its Conversative heavy bench of judges on Monday signalled that it may not be in favour of universities enrolling students based on their skin colour.

The US Supreme Court and its Conversative heavy bench of judges on Monday signalled that it may not be in favour of universities enrolling students based on their skin colour. Reportedly, the 6-3 conservative majority court was hearing a case filed by activist Edward Blum challenging the lower court ruling of upholding race-conscious admission policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Justice Samuel Alito, during the five-hour hearing, said giving an advantage to a student based on race put the other student at disadvantage. "So what is your response to the simple argument that college admissions are a zero-sum game? And if you give a 'plus' to a person who falls within the category of under-represented minority, but not to somebody else, you're disadvantaging the latter student?" WATCH | Gravitas: Why has US failed to fight racism? × Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two Black justices said she didn't even understand the word diversity. "I've heard the word 'diversity' quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means. I don't put much stock in that because I've heard similar arguments in favor of segregation, too," said Thomas. Read more: US Supreme Court to decide on race-based admissions in top universities Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was added to the bench during Trump's rule said "these racial classifications are potentially dangerous and must have a logical end point." Notably, Harvard and UNC, USA's oldest private and public universities, respectively employ race as a criterion to try to ensure that minorities, particularly African Americans, are represented in the student body. However, during the hearing, the two universities argued that race was only one criterion amongst other parameters such as academic merit, athletics and extracurricular. Given the statement by the judges, it looks highly probable that the SC may strike down affirmative action. After invalidating the famous "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that protected a woman's right to an abortion, this ruling could potentially generate a similar discourse. Affirmative action is prohibited at public institutions in nine states, including California, where voters rejected a 2020 attempt to reinstate the practice after doing so in a ballot measure in 1996. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US Supreme Court not in favour of race-based admissions in top universities

<p>Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Monday in a court reply said he was unaware of&nbsp;any undertaking submitted by his party on his behalf which stated that the&nbsp;May 25 'Azadi March' will not proceed to D-chowk.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In a written response to the top court, Imran said, "he was not aware of any statement or undertaking made before the court on behalf of him or the senior leadership of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI)."</p>

<p>Khan added he was unaware of details regarding&nbsp;the D-Chowk area issued by the SC.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The PTI chief's response was in&nbsp;connection to a contempt petition filed against him by the government. The interior ministry filed the petition two weeks back and argued that Imran and his party flouted the apex court's ruling regarding the May 25 order.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pak-ex-pm-imran-khan-not-barred-from-contesting-elections-says-high-court-528054"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;Pak ex-PM Imran Khan not barred from contesting elections, says high court</strong></a></p>

<p>Apart from the reply, Khan also sought an extension from the court until November 3 to&nbsp;“truthfully reconstruct the events” of the march on the capital city of Islamabad.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Khan&nbsp;had reportedly called off the protest near 9th avenue in Islamabad, prior to reaching D-Chowk.&nbsp;However, before his decision could be communicated, the protestors had already reached the place</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/day-2-around-10000-people-gather-for-imran-khans-azadi-march-529353"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Day 2: Around 10,000 people gather for Imran Khan's 'Azadi March'</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/day-2-around-10000-people-gather-for-imran-khans-azadi-march-529353/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Notably, Khan started yet another march on the capital last week. This time it has been named 'Haqeeqi Azadi March' which started from the eastern city of Lahore.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, it has quickly run into controversy after a female journalist covering his event died after being crushed under his container.</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/islamabad-court-drops-terrorism-charges-against-ex-pm-imran-khan-517695">Read more:&nbsp;Islamabad court drops terrorism charges against ex-PM Imran Khan</a></strong></p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Monday in a court reply said he was unaware of any undertaking submitted by his party on his behalf which stated that the May 25 'Azadi March' will not proceed to D-chowk.

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Monday in a court reply said he was unaware of any undertaking submitted by his party on his behalf which stated that the May 25 'Azadi March' will not proceed to D-chowk. In a written response to the top court, Imran said, "he was not aware of any statement or undertaking made before the court on behalf of him or the senior leadership of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI)." Khan added he was unaware of details regarding the D-Chowk area issued by the SC. The PTI chief's response was in connection to a contempt petition filed against him by the government. The interior ministry filed the petition two weeks back and argued that Imran and his party flouted the apex court's ruling regarding the May 25 order. Read more: Pak ex-PM Imran Khan not barred from contesting elections, says high court Apart from the reply, Khan also sought an extension from the court until November 3 to “truthfully reconstruct the events” of the march on the capital city of Islamabad. Khan had reportedly called off the protest near 9th avenue in Islamabad, prior to reaching D-Chowk. However, before his decision could be communicated, the protestors had already reached the place WATCH | Day 2: Around 10,000 people gather for Imran Khan's 'Azadi March' × Notably, Khan started yet another march on the capital last week. This time it has been named 'Haqeeqi Azadi March' which started from the eastern city of Lahore. However, it has quickly run into controversy after a female journalist covering his event died after being crushed under his container. Read more: Islamabad court drops terrorism charges against ex-PM Imran Khan (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

'Was unaware of any undertaking', replies Imran Khan in a SC contempt case

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidge3SH93IEcEb" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>Taking another progressive step, the Supreme Court of India on Monday prohibited the use of rather inhumane 'two-finger test' in cases of rape and sexual assaults.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Stating it was 'regrettable' that such practice continued, the Supreme Court bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made the observations.</p>

<p>"This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases alleging rape and sexual assault. The so called test has no scientific basis."</p>

<p>Stating the test&nbsp;re-victimises and re-traumatises the women, the court warned that, "the two finger test must not be conducted."</p>

<p>"The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the truth."</p>

<p>Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-supreme-court-livestreams-proceedings-heard-by-five-judge-bench-520162">India: Supreme Court livestreams proceedings heard by five-judge bench</a></p>

<p>The bench made the observations while restoring conviction in a rape case and called the practice 'patriarchal' and 'sexist'.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"The probative value of a woman's testimony does not depend on her sexual history. It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped merely because she is sexually active."</p>

<p>In the concluding statements, the bench ordered the union government and state governments to ensure that guidelines laid down by the Department of Health and Family Welfare are implemented in government and private hospitals.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-supreme-court-starts-live-streaming-cases-in-historic-first-520067" target="_blank"><strong>Read more: India's Supreme Court starts live-streaming cases, in historic first</strong></a></p>

<p>The Indian Supreme Court lately has been taking a modern and progressive stance in dismantling the archaic ideas about the customs in society.</p>

<p>As reported by WION, the SC in August said that unmarried partnerships and queer relationships can also be considered family.</p>

<p>"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships," said the court.</p>

<p><strong>Read more:&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-unmarried-partnerships-or-queer-relationships-are-also-familial-relationships-sc-511154" target="_blank"><strong>Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family</strong></a></p>

<p>Further building upon its statement, the bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna asserted that atypical family units are also entitled to equal protection of the law.</p>

<p>"A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering.<strong>"</strong></p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Taking another progressive step, the Supreme Court of India on Monday prohibited the use of rather inhumane 'two-finger test' in cases of rape and sexual assaults.

Taking another progressive step, the Supreme Court of India on Monday prohibited the use of rather inhumane 'two-finger test' in cases of rape and sexual assaults. Stating it was 'regrettable' that such practice continued, the Supreme Court bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made the observations. "This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases alleging rape and sexual assault. The so called test has no scientific basis." Stating the test re-victimises and re-traumatises the women, the court warned that, "the two finger test must not be conducted." "The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the truth." Also watch: India: Supreme Court livestreams proceedings heard by five-judge bench The bench made the observations while restoring conviction in a rape case and called the practice 'patriarchal' and 'sexist'. "The probative value of a woman's testimony does not depend on her sexual history. It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped merely because she is sexually active." In the concluding statements, the bench ordered the union government and state governments to ensure that guidelines laid down by the Department of Health and Family Welfare are implemented in government and private hospitals. Read more: India's Supreme Court starts live-streaming cases, in historic first The Indian Supreme Court lately has been taking a modern and progressive stance in dismantling the archaic ideas about the customs in society. As reported by WION, the SC in August said that unmarried partnerships and queer relationships can also be considered family. "Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships," said the court. Read more: Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family Further building upon its statement, the bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna asserted that atypical family units are also entitled to equal protection of the law. "A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. Similarly, the guardians and caretakers (who traditionally occupy the roles of the "mother" and the "father") of children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India: Supreme Court bans 'two-finger' test for rape & sexual assault; calls it patriarchal & sexist

<p>Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court. Other countries have term limits – 10 or 15 years – or compulsory retirement ages.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the United States, when a vacancy comes up through death or retirement, the president nominates a successor whose confirmation depends on a Senate hearing where nominees are quizzed on their judicial philosophies and world views. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Then, nine non-elected judges have immense power to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, as they did this year when they overruled a constitutional right to abortion granted by a Supreme Court decision dating back almost half a century.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Public confidence in the court plunged to its lowest level ever. Only 25 per cent of adults, according to a Gallup poll, said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court. A sizeable majority of Americans (61 per cent) disagreed with the decision. Does it matter?&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ruling of the court, six of whose judges are conservative, three liberal, triggered demonstrations for and against abortion across the country and features prominently in the heated campaign for next month’s elections which will decide the balance of power in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats hold majorities in both.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Critics of the court saw the decision as more evidence that the United States is deep into an era of distrust and volatility in the legal system of at a time it needs stability in its institutions rather than more venom and tumult.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But Chief Justice John Roberts has shrugged off public anger and diminishing confidence in what was once dubbed the “crown jewel” of America’s justice system. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticising the legitimacy of the court,” he told a judicial conference last month.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A few months earlier, when it became clear that the six Republican-appointed judges on the court were leaning towards abolishing the right to abortion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, one of the three liberals, wondered aloud, “will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its readings are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>Those who share such doubts include the Editorial Board of the New York Times which noted that “over the past several years, the court has been transformed into a judicial arm of the Republican Party.” While the court’s rulings had remained largely in line with the views of the average voter for decades, the editorial said, they were now in line with the views of the average Republican voter.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This is far from the role the court is supposed to play – neutral final arbiter of political disagreements. Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts eloquently put it in his 2005 confirmation hearing, the role of "an umpire calling balls and strikes and ensuring a fair playing field for all."&nbsp;</p>

<p>At the time, the balance of judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents was 5-4 and Roberts acted as a moderate swing voter on controversial decisions. The balance now is 6-3 which basically means he lost control of the court.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The “chief” in his title means little apart from a slightly higher salary. His is $280,500; his colleagues' $268,300.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The nine black-robed judges of the court are aware of the public’s diminishing trust in their neutrality, so much so that its newest addition, Amy Coney Barrett, felt compelled to reassure an academic audience that “this court is not comprised of partisan hacks.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>The venue and occasion of her speech inspired doubts about her distance from partisan politics. She appeared at the University of Louisville at an event honouring the US Senate’s Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who played a leading role in her ascent to the court in the final stretch of the presidency of Donald Trump.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Then leader of the Republican Senate majority, McConnell had blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland in 2016, arguing that no Supreme Court judge should be appointed in an election year. There was no precedent for such action and four years later, also an election year, McConnell helped rush the appointment of Coney Barrett.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Garland, now Attorney General, was widely considered moderate and apolitical; Coney Barrett has been an ardent opponent of abortion, her judicial philosophies deeply influenced by her religious beliefs.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Americans uncomfortable with the present structure of their highest court recently found another reason to doubt the theory that members of the institution are above politics: family relationships.&nbsp;</p>

<p>That aspect became an issue of public discussion when the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump began looking into the activities of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas who is the court’s longest-serving member.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Throughout US history, the spouses of sitting Supreme Court judges have kept low profiles to avoid suggestions of conflicts of interest and political entanglements. Ms Thomas, in contrast, has been a long-time vocal activist for right-wing causes. In a closed-door hearing of the January 6 committee, she repeated her belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump in a Democratic conspiracy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>According to emails published by watchdog groups, she asked legislators in Wisconsin and Arizona to take measures to reverse the election results. But, she told the January 6 committee, she never discussed her activities to overturn the elections with her husband.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Their pro-Trump leanings, it appears, just coincided without communication. As it turned out, Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favour of a Trump request to block the release of presidential records demanded by the committee.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em><strong>(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;</strong></em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy. There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court.

Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy. There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court. Other countries have term limits – 10 or 15 years – or compulsory retirement ages. In the United States, when a vacancy comes up through death or retirement, the president nominates a successor whose confirmation depends on a Senate hearing where nominees are quizzed on their judicial philosophies and world views. Then, nine non-elected judges have immense power to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, as they did this year when they overruled a constitutional right to abortion granted by a Supreme Court decision dating back almost half a century. Public confidence in the court plunged to its lowest level ever. Only 25 per cent of adults, according to a Gallup poll, said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court. A sizeable majority of Americans (61 per cent) disagreed with the decision. Does it matter? The ruling of the court, six of whose judges are conservative, three liberal, triggered demonstrations for and against abortion across the country and features prominently in the heated campaign for next month’s elections which will decide the balance of power in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats hold majorities in both. Critics of the court saw the decision as more evidence that the United States is deep into an era of distrust and volatility in the legal system of at a time it needs stability in its institutions rather than more venom and tumult. But Chief Justice John Roberts has shrugged off public anger and diminishing confidence in what was once dubbed the “crown jewel” of America’s justice system. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticising the legitimacy of the court,” he told a judicial conference last month. A few months earlier, when it became clear that the six Republican-appointed judges on the court were leaning towards abolishing the right to abortion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, one of the three liberals, wondered aloud, “will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its readings are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.” Those who share such doubts include the Editorial Board of the New York Times which noted that “over the past several years, the court has been transformed into a judicial arm of the Republican Party.” While the court’s rulings had remained largely in line with the views of the average voter for decades, the editorial said, they were now in line with the views of the average Republican voter. This is far from the role the court is supposed to play – neutral final arbiter of political disagreements. Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts eloquently put it in his 2005 confirmation hearing, the role of "an umpire calling balls and strikes and ensuring a fair playing field for all." At the time, the balance of judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents was 5-4 and Roberts acted as a moderate swing voter on controversial decisions. The balance now is 6-3 which basically means he lost control of the court. The “chief” in his title means little apart from a slightly higher salary. His is $280,500; his colleagues' $268,300. The nine black-robed judges of the court are aware of the public’s diminishing trust in their neutrality, so much so that its newest addition, Amy Coney Barrett, felt compelled to reassure an academic audience that “this court is not comprised of partisan hacks.” The venue and occasion of her speech inspired doubts about her distance from partisan politics. She appeared at the University of Louisville at an event honouring the US Senate’s Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who played a leading role in her ascent to the court in the final stretch of the presidency of Donald Trump. Then leader of the Republican Senate majority, McConnell had blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland in 2016, arguing that no Supreme Court judge should be appointed in an election year. There was no precedent for such action and four years later, also an election year, McConnell helped rush the appointment of Coney Barrett. Garland, now Attorney General, was widely considered moderate and apolitical; Coney Barrett has been an ardent opponent of abortion, her judicial philosophies deeply influenced by her religious beliefs. Americans uncomfortable with the present structure of their highest court recently found another reason to doubt the theory that members of the institution are above politics: family relationships. That aspect became an issue of public discussion when the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump began looking into the activities of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas who is the court’s longest-serving member. Throughout US history, the spouses of sitting Supreme Court judges have kept low profiles to avoid suggestions of conflicts of interest and political entanglements. Ms Thomas, in contrast, has been a long-time vocal activist for right-wing causes. In a closed-door hearing of the January 6 committee, she repeated her belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump in a Democratic conspiracy. According to emails published by watchdog groups, she asked legislators in Wisconsin and Arizona to take measures to reverse the election results. But, she told the January 6 committee, she never discussed her activities to overturn the elections with her husband. Their pro-Trump leanings, it appears, just coincided without communication. As it turned out, Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favour of a Trump request to block the release of presidential records demanded by the committee. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) 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.

America's Supreme Court – neutral arbiters or political hacks?

<p>The use of race in admissions decisions to some of America's finest universities is another&nbsp;contentious and sensitive issue the US Supreme Court will address on Monday, following verdicts on abortion and guns in the recent past.</p>

<p>And the conservative-dominated court might be prepared to reverse course once more, just as it did in June when it invalidated the famous "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that protected a woman's right to an abortion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The use of race in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), the nation's oldest private and public universities, respectively, will be the subject of two hours of oral arguments before the court.</p>

<p>Like many other selective universities, Harvard and UNC employ race as a criterion to try to ensure that minorities, particularly African Americans, are represented in the student body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>According to Yasmin Cader, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, the "affirmative action" policy was born out of the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s to "help address our country's long history of discrimination and systemic inequality in higher education" (ACLU).&nbsp;</p>

<p>Right-wing critics have attacked it since the beginning, and several white students have filed lawsuits over the years, alleging "reverse discrimination."</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-fm-needles-biden-by-bringing-up-cuban-missile-crisis-529718">Russian FM needles Biden by bringing up Cuban Missile Crisis</a></p>

<p>Affirmative action is prohibited at public institutions in nine states, including California, where voters rejected a 2020 attempt to reinstate the practice after doing so in a ballot measure in 1996.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Affirmative action has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court, most recently in 2016 by a single vote, but its opponents think the current right-leaning panel will give their arguments more consideration.</p>

<p><em>(with inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>


The use of race in admissions decisions to some of America's finest universities is another contentious and sensitive issue the US Supreme Court will address on Monday, following verdicts on abortion and guns in the recent past.

The use of race in admissions decisions to some of America's finest universities is another contentious and sensitive issue the US Supreme Court will address on Monday, following verdicts on abortion and guns in the recent past. And the conservative-dominated court might be prepared to reverse course once more, just as it did in June when it invalidated the famous "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that protected a woman's right to an abortion. The use of race in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC), the nation's oldest private and public universities, respectively, will be the subject of two hours of oral arguments before the court. Like many other selective universities, Harvard and UNC employ race as a criterion to try to ensure that minorities, particularly African Americans, are represented in the student body. According to Yasmin Cader, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, the "affirmative action" policy was born out of the Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s to "help address our country's long history of discrimination and systemic inequality in higher education" (ACLU). Right-wing critics have attacked it since the beginning, and several white students have filed lawsuits over the years, alleging "reverse discrimination." Also Read: Russian FM needles Biden by bringing up Cuban Missile Crisis Affirmative action is prohibited at public institutions in nine states, including California, where voters rejected a 2020 attempt to reinstate the practice after doing so in a ballot measure in 1996. Affirmative action has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court, most recently in 2016 by a single vote, but its opponents think the current right-leaning panel will give their arguments more consideration. (with inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court to decide on race-based admissions in top universities

The US Supreme Court on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump’s plea to intervene in his legal battle and allow the special master to review the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago.

US Supreme Court rejects Trump's plea to step into Mar-a-Lago case

The Indian Supreme Court today passed a split verdict on the motivated Karnataka hijab row. The split judgment was delivered while the court was hearing petitions challenging the Karnataka high court order which refused to overturn the ban on hijabs in educational institutions.

India: Karnataka hijab case to now go to a larger bench, SC delivers split verdict

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4163f328-0714-4ffa-a877-b8a74057108b}{36}" paraid="1943953362" >India's&nbsp;Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it&nbsp;will be examining the demonetisation decision taken by the Union government back in 2016. The five-judge bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer will be looking into the process followed by the government and will&nbsp;also decide if it was just an "academic" exercise.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{0057574b-7091-4ede-bf25-f571424a88b6}{18}" paraid="1070629023" >In 2016, the Narendra Modi-led government decided to strip the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes of their status as legal tenders. The move was aimed at resisting the flow of black money in&nbsp;the economy.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court asked the Centre and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to file affidavits on the demonetisation&nbsp;decision, saying it would look into whether the government had the authority to do so under Section 26 of the RBI Act.</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{0057574b-7091-4ede-bf25-f571424a88b6}{18}" paraid="1070629023" >Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-updates-live-russian-strike-kills-seven-at-market-in-east-ukraine-governor-524760" hreflang="en">Russia-Ukraine war LIVE | Moscow ready to restart gas deliveries to EU: Putin</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{fedf3c56-2784-49a5-b1c5-da7fe6ad784a}{24}" paraid="1316158687" >At present, India follows the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act passed in 1978 which allows the government to order “demonetisation of certain high denomination bank notes in order to check the illicit transfer of money harmful to the economy which such currency notes facilitate”.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{f8e5105b-048b-4e6e-9807-a65714bdac0f}{92}" paraid="251878302" >During the discussion, Attorney General R Venkataramani said that the act needs to be discussed once again by the bench or else it will remain purely ‘academic’. The four other justices on the bench besides Justice Nazeer are - B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna.&nbsp;</p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{f8e5105b-048b-4e6e-9807-a65714bdac0f}{92}" paraid="251878302" >Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukrainians-among-eight-suspects-detained-by-russia-over-crimea-bridge-blast-524714">Ukrainians among eight suspects detained by Russia over Crimea bridge blast</a></p>

<p lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4ee22c44-c306-481c-85cf-14d27b801dab}{202}" paraid="1298194402" >"In order to answer that issue, we will have to hear and give an answer whether it's academic, not academic, or beyond the scope of judicial review. The point in the case is the government policy and its wisdom which is one aspect of the matter. We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel decide that."&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


India's Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will be examining the demonetisation decision taken by the Union government back in 2016. The five-judge bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer will be looking into the process followed by the government and will also decide if it was just an "academic" exercise.

India's Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will be examining the demonetisation decision taken by the Union government back in 2016. The five-judge bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer will be looking into the process followed by the government and will also decide if it was just an "academic" exercise. In 2016, the Narendra Modi-led government decided to strip the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes of their status as legal tenders. The move was aimed at resisting the flow of black money in the economy. The Supreme Court asked the Centre and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to file affidavits on the demonetisation decision, saying it would look into whether the government had the authority to do so under Section 26 of the RBI Act. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war LIVE | Moscow ready to restart gas deliveries to EU: Putin At present, India follows the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act passed in 1978 which allows the government to order “demonetisation of certain high denomination bank notes in order to check the illicit transfer of money harmful to the economy which such currency notes facilitate”. During the discussion, Attorney General R Venkataramani said that the act needs to be discussed once again by the bench or else it will remain purely ‘academic’. The four other justices on the bench besides Justice Nazeer are - B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna. Also read | Ukrainians among eight suspects detained by Russia over Crimea bridge blast "In order to answer that issue, we will have to hear and give an answer whether it's academic, not academic, or beyond the scope of judicial review. The point in the case is the government policy and its wisdom which is one aspect of the matter. We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel decide that."

India's Supreme Court to examine 2016 demonetisation decision, asks govt, RBI to file affidavits

In the UK, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a Scottish Independence Referendum. It's likely to be weeks if not months before a judgment is delivered.

UK: Court hears case for Scottish referendum, SC urged to authorise

<p>The Onion, a satirical journal, has requested that the US Supreme Court take up a matter involving the freedom to parody in a very serious legal filing. And the filing does what the Onion does best, serving up a heaping helping of complete nonsense, in order to make a serious legal point.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The document refers to The Onion as "the single most powerful and influential organization in human history," with a claimed global viewership of 4.3 trillion. It provides 350,000 jobs at its offices and "manual labour camps," "owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily”.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Why does the Onion feel the need to comment on a routine court matter when it has such influence? The lawsuit states that it is being made "to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality." The writers of The Onion are likewise motivated by self-interest to stop political authorities from jailing humorists. In an effort to at least lessen their potential penalty in the future, this brief is presented.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Its headline, "Ohio Police Officers Arrest, Prosecute Man Who Made Fun of Them on Facebook," expresses anxiety about the result of the case. The filing notes that although it seems like a headline from The Onion, it is not.</p>

<p>Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/8th-covid-wave-gaining-intensity-in-france-new-cases-highest-since-august-522440">8th Covid wave gaining intensity in France, new cases highest since August</a><br />
&nbsp;<br />
According to the filing, parody has a rich history and serves a societal purpose when it "adopts a particular form in order to critique it from within." The Onion uses one of its most famous headlines,&nbsp;“Supreme court rules supreme court rules,” as an example.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The paper offers a unique look beyond the comedy veil by explaining how jokes function while also acting more like a conventional legal document by citing pertinent court judgments and using phrases like "dispositive."<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<em>(with inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>


The Onion, a satirical journal, has requested that the US Supreme Court take up a matter involving the freedom to parody in a very serious legal filing. And the filing does what the Onion does best, serving up a heaping helping of complete nonsense, in order to make a serious legal point.

The Onion, a satirical journal, has requested that the US Supreme Court take up a matter involving the freedom to parody in a very serious legal filing. And the filing does what the Onion does best, serving up a heaping helping of complete nonsense, in order to make a serious legal point. The document refers to The Onion as "the single most powerful and influential organization in human history," with a claimed global viewership of 4.3 trillion. It provides 350,000 jobs at its offices and "manual labour camps," "owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily”. Why does the Onion feel the need to comment on a routine court matter when it has such influence? The lawsuit states that it is being made "to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality." The writers of The Onion are likewise motivated by self-interest to stop political authorities from jailing humorists. In an effort to at least lessen their potential penalty in the future, this brief is presented. Its headline, "Ohio Police Officers Arrest, Prosecute Man Who Made Fun of Them on Facebook," expresses anxiety about the result of the case. The filing notes that although it seems like a headline from The Onion, it is not. Also Read: 8th Covid wave gaining intensity in France, new cases highest since August According to the filing, parody has a rich history and serves a societal purpose when it "adopts a particular form in order to critique it from within." The Onion uses one of its most famous headlines, “Supreme court rules supreme court rules,” as an example. The paper offers a unique look beyond the comedy veil by explaining how jokes function while also acting more like a conventional legal document by citing pertinent court judgments and using phrases like "dispositive." (with inputs from agencies)

Satirical publication 'The Onion' defends right to parody in US Supreme Court

<p>Only a few weeks after the United States Supreme Court issued a contentious ruling allowing individual states to outright ban or severely restrict the ability of pregnant women to seek abortions, news of a similar case made headlines in India.</p>

<p>The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in the US, which was seen as "a massive step back for women's rights," while Thursday's verdict by the Indian Supreme Court is being welcomed as "historic" and "a big stride ahead" for women's rights.</p>

<p>The Indian apex court&nbsp;said that all women, even those who are not married and those who are not cisgender women, have equal rights to abortion, which is undoubtedly progressive in a nation where 73 million unmarried women reside.</p>

<p><strong>Abortion statistics in India</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="flourish-embed flourish-hierarchy" data-src="visualisation/11332842"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/11332866"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="flourish-embed flourish-scatter" data-src="visualisation/11332985"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="flourish-embed flourish-chart" data-src="visualisation/11333034"><script src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js"></script></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The decision was made in response to a petition filed&nbsp;in July by a 25-year-old single woman who had been in a consenting relationship and was 22 weeks pregnant.</p>

<p>The woman claimed that carrying an unborn child would expose her to "social stigma and persecution" as&nbsp;her partner had abruptly declined to marry her.</p>

<p>She also claimed that because she didn't have a career and didn't come from a wealthy household, she couldn't afford to raise a child and that she wasn't psychologically ready to do so. After the Delhi High Court denied her request for an abortion, the woman went to the top court.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The regulations were so strict that even survivors of rape, including minors who were unaware of their pregnancy, had to go to court to request authorisation to end a pregnancy if it was found after 20 weeks.</p>

<p><strong>The case of ‘bodily autonomy’</strong></p>

<p>The Indian court said that a woman's right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to determine the course of her own life lay "firmly rooted" in the decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or end it. It said that an unintended pregnancy could negatively impact a woman's entire life "by interrupting her education, her career, or affecting her mental well-being."</p>

<p>The court further stated that single women's exclusion would encourage them to seek unsafe abortions, which kill a startling number of women in India. The UN Population Fund estimates that every day in the nation, some eight women pass away due to complications from unsafe abortions.</p>

<p><strong>Single women have sex too. Period.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Women's rights advocates from all over India have applauded the decision, and a reading of the verdict demonstrates why it is crucial on a number of levels.</p>

<p>In addition to granting all women the same rights and freedoms, the court also recognised that single women can have relationships that involve sex. This is a fairly novel idea in a country with a strongly patriarchal culture where women have little sexual autonomy, premarital sex is frowned upon, and some communities even require brides to take a humiliating "virginity test" to prove that they are "virgin" on their wedding night.</p>

<p>The judges emphasised that because Indian society and the family have changed significantly over time, laws cannot be interpreted based on "narrow patriarchal principles" about what is considered "permissible sex." Additionally, live-in relationships, premarital sex, and gay sex cannot be "seen through the lens of criminality."</p>

<p><strong>Addressing marital rape</strong></p>

<p>The judgment's statements regarding marital rape are another significant factor that has contributed to its media attention in India.</p>

<p>A petition to make rape within marriage a crime is currently being heard by the Supreme Court. According to an outdated colonial-era rule that still exists in India, sex "by a man with his wife" that is not a juvenile is not considered to be rape.</p>

<p>The judges made it very clear that if a woman became pregnant "due to a husband's act of sexual assault or rape, she should not be compelled to give birth to and raise a child with."</p>

<p>But as that issue was being heard by another bench," they did not intend their order to address the legality of marital rape.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>


Only a few weeks after the United States Supreme Court issued a contentious ruling allowing individual states to outright ban or severely restrict the ability of pregnant women to seek abortions, news of a similar case made headlines in India.

Only a few weeks after the United States Supreme Court issued a contentious ruling allowing individual states to outright ban or severely restrict the ability of pregnant women to seek abortions, news of a similar case made headlines in India. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in the US, which was seen as "a massive step back for women's rights," while Thursday's verdict by the Indian Supreme Court is being welcomed as "historic" and "a big stride ahead" for women's rights. The Indian apex court said that all women, even those who are not married and those who are not cisgender women, have equal rights to abortion, which is undoubtedly progressive in a nation where 73 million unmarried women reside. Abortion statistics in India × × × × The decision was made in response to a petition filed in July by a 25-year-old single woman who had been in a consenting relationship and was 22 weeks pregnant. The woman claimed that carrying an unborn child would expose her to "social stigma and persecution" as her partner had abruptly declined to marry her. She also claimed that because she didn't have a career and didn't come from a wealthy household, she couldn't afford to raise a child and that she wasn't psychologically ready to do so. After the Delhi High Court denied her request for an abortion, the woman went to the top court. The regulations were so strict that even survivors of rape, including minors who were unaware of their pregnancy, had to go to court to request authorisation to end a pregnancy if it was found after 20 weeks. The case of ‘bodily autonomy’ The Indian court said that a woman's right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to determine the course of her own life lay "firmly rooted" in the decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or end it. It said that an unintended pregnancy could negatively impact a woman's entire life "by interrupting her education, her career, or affecting her mental well-being." The court further stated that single women's exclusion would encourage them to seek unsafe abortions, which kill a startling number of women in India. The UN Population Fund estimates that every day in the nation, some eight women pass away due to complications from unsafe abortions. Single women have sex too. Period. Women's rights advocates from all over India have applauded the decision, and a reading of the verdict demonstrates why it is crucial on a number of levels. In addition to granting all women the same rights and freedoms, the court also recognised that single women can have relationships that involve sex. This is a fairly novel idea in a country with a strongly patriarchal culture where women have little sexual autonomy, premarital sex is frowned upon, and some communities even require brides to take a humiliating "virginity test" to prove that they are "virgin" on their wedding night. The judges emphasised that because Indian society and the family have changed significantly over time, laws cannot be interpreted based on "narrow patriarchal principles" about what is considered "permissible sex." Additionally, live-in relationships, premarital sex, and gay sex cannot be "seen through the lens of criminality." Addressing marital rape The judgment's statements regarding marital rape are another significant factor that has contributed to its media attention in India. A petition to make rape within marriage a crime is currently being heard by the Supreme Court. According to an outdated colonial-era rule that still exists in India, sex "by a man with his wife" that is not a juvenile is not considered to be rape. The judges made it very clear that if a woman became pregnant "due to a husband's act of sexual assault or rape, she should not be compelled to give birth to and raise a child with." But as that issue was being heard by another bench," they did not intend their order to address the legality of marital rape.

Data Lab | India’s Supreme Court gives nod to abortion, regardless of marital status

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