India's supreme court delivered a historic judgment, guaranteeing the right to abortion for unmarried women. The court also clarified that the rights extend to pregnancies resulting from marital rape. Priyanka Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: India's supreme court reaffirms abortion rights

India’s Supreme court on Thursday upheld the right of a woman to an abortion up to 24 weeks into pregnancy regardless of marital status. The top court also added that forceful pregnancy of a married woman can be treated as marital rape for the purposes of abortion.

WION Dispatch: India's Supreme court legalises abortion regardless of marital status

All women, married or unmarried, will have the right to safe and legal abortion - A historic ruling by the Supreme Court of India. Provisions of India’s abortion law now includes the word "partner" instead of "husband".

India's Apex Court: All women, married or unmarried, will have the right to safe and legal abortion

India's Apex Court: All women, married or unmarried, will have the right to safe and legal

India's Supreme Court has begun live-streaming the proceedings of its constitutional bench. While this is a historic first for India, there are a few countries where the top court's proceedings are routinely streamed live. Molly Gambhir brings you a report.

Gravitas: India's Supreme Court starts live-streaming hearings

In a historic move, India's top court live streamed its actual proceedings for the public. One of the first proceedings live streamed by the Apex Court was a plea heard by a five-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, challenging reservation for economically weaker sections.

WION Dispatch: Historic move by India's top court, makes proceedings public

India: Supreme Court livestreams proceedings heard by five-judge bench

Marking a historic shift towards increased transparency, all constitutional bench hearings before India's Supreme Court will be live-streamed starting today.

The final decision was taken after a full-court meeting called by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit last week. At the meeting, the judges came to a unanimous decision of live-streaming the constitutional bench cases.

Three constitutional bench hearings are concurrently underway and can be <a href="https://webcast.gov.in/scindia/">watched </a>on webcast.gov.in, run by&nbsp;National Informatics Centre (NIC) using YouTube as a streaming platform.&nbsp;

In one of the cases being live-streamed, the court is discussing the&nbsp;constitutional validity of the 10 per cent&nbsp;reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Other cases include the&nbsp;Maharashtra political crisis and the ongoing tussle for jurisdiction between the Central and Delhi governments.&nbsp;

Other important cases to be live-streamed in the coming days include:&nbsp;adequacy of Bhopal Gas Tragedy compensation, the Bohra community's right to excommunicate and&nbsp;retrospective application of immunity against arrest amongst others.&nbsp;

The CJI, however, said that the court will soon have its own platform so that it will not have to rely on YouTube to live-stream the proceedings.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The decision comes four years after the apex court accepted the idea in principle during the 'Swapnil Tripathi' case.&nbsp;

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/grant-bail-to-convicts-who-have-completed-10-years-in-jail-appeal-not-heard-indian-supreme-court-516546">Grant bail to life convicts who have spent 10 years in jail: Indian Supreme Court</a>

In late 2018, the Supreme Court in a judgement declared that live telecast of court proceedings was part of the right to access justice&nbsp;under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty of individuals by stating, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

The first instance of the country's highest court live-streaming its proceedings came in the last week of August when a ceremonial bench bid adieu to outgoing CJI NV Ramana.&nbsp;

While the SC is adopting the live-streaming of court cases now, the High Courts of Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Patna and Madhya Pradesh have been holding live-streaming of the proceedings through their own YouTube channels, from as early as 2020.&nbsp;

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-unmarried-partnerships-or-queer-relationships-are-also-familial-relationships-sc-511154">Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family</a>

India joins the list of countries such as the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Germany, and China where live-streaming of court cases is permitted.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

&nbsp;

Marking a historic shift towards increased transparency, all constitutional bench hearings before India's Supreme Court will be live-streamed starting today. The final decision was taken after a full-court meeting called by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit last week.

Marking a historic shift towards increased transparency, all constitutional bench hearings before India's Supreme Court will be live-streamed starting today. The final decision was taken after a full-court meeting called by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit last week. At the meeting, the judges came to a unanimous decision of live-streaming the constitutional bench cases. Three constitutional bench hearings are concurrently underway and can be watched on webcast.gov.in, run by National Informatics Centre (NIC) using YouTube as a streaming platform. In one of the cases being live-streamed, the court is discussing the constitutional validity of the 10 per cent reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Other cases include the Maharashtra political crisis and the ongoing tussle for jurisdiction between the Central and Delhi governments. Other important cases to be live-streamed in the coming days include: adequacy of Bhopal Gas Tragedy compensation, the Bohra community's right to excommunicate and retrospective application of immunity against arrest amongst others. The CJI, however, said that the court will soon have its own platform so that it will not have to rely on YouTube to live-stream the proceedings. The decision comes four years after the apex court accepted the idea in principle during the 'Swapnil Tripathi' case. Read more: Grant bail to life convicts who have spent 10 years in jail: Indian Supreme Court In late 2018, the Supreme Court in a judgement declared that live telecast of court proceedings was part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty of individuals by stating, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The first instance of the country's highest court live-streaming its proceedings came in the last week of August when a ceremonial bench bid adieu to outgoing CJI NV Ramana. While the SC is adopting the live-streaming of court cases now, the High Courts of Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Patna and Madhya Pradesh have been holding live-streaming of the proceedings through their own YouTube channels, from as early as 2020. Read more: Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family India joins the list of countries such as the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Germany, and China where live-streaming of court cases is permitted. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

India's Supreme Court starts live-streaming cases, in historic first

As it proceeded to hear arguments in the Karnataka hijab ban cases on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that allowing girl students to wear hijabs to educational institutions may also be viewed as an opportunity for them to learn about India's diversity at a young age.

Amid protest against hijab in Iran, India’s apex court says 'Hijab may promote diversity among kids'

On Wednesday, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Supreme Court that there was no criminality found following the investigation into intercepted conversations between the former lobbyist Niira Radia with several politicians, lawmakers, and industrialists. The probe was ordered back in 2013, by the country’s apex court as they believed that these conversations were indicative of “deep-rooted malice”.&nbsp;

The CBI was then asked to file a status report by the three-judge SC bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud and set the date for the next hearing on October 12. The CBI report was also submitted in response to a writ petition filed by industrialist Ratan Tata filed in 2011 who demanded a probe into how the conversations involving Radia got leaked and protested on the grounds of his privacy being violated which was threatened after the tapes leaked.&nbsp;

The Income Tax Department of India between 2008 to 2009 recorded thousands of conversations between Radia and politicians, lawyers, journalists and industrialists. Meanwhile the media reports at the time alleged that she was influencing the government and lawmakers’ portfolios during the United Progressive Alliance government, a grouping of centre-left political parties in India.&nbsp;

During today’s hearing, solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBI said, “CBI was directed by your lordship to investigate all these conversations. 14 preliminary inquiries were registered and the report was placed before your lordships in a sealed cover.” She added, “No criminality was found in those. Also, now there are phone-tapping guidelines in place.” Bhati also went on inform the court that the report was submitted by the agency in 2015 but the matter was taken up by the court all these years.&nbsp;

On the other hand, the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) pressed for a probe into the tapes and said they should be made public. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the CPIL before the bench that also included Justices Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha said that Radia was a corporate lobbyist for two of the most important companies and attempted to influence lawmakers and other influential people, he said basing his argument on public interest.&nbsp;

In October 2013, the supreme court ordered the CBI to launch an investigation and examine 14 issues that were identified by the agency at the time. Reportedly, the agency investigated over 5,800 taped conversations between Radia and others as a part of an investigation into tax evasion. The government tapped Radia’s phone following a complaint to the alleged that within nine years she had managed to build a Rs. 300 crore business empire.&nbsp;

At the time while ordering a probe the apex court told the CBI, “The conversations are indicative of the deep-rooted malice by private enterprises in connivance with government officials and others for extraneous purposes.” The court reportedly also said that the people involved have gained from government officers and others, which suggests corruption between the government and private entities.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

On Wednesday, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Supreme Court that there was no criminality found following the investigation into intercepted conversations between the former lobbyist Niira Radia with several politicians, lawmakers, and industrialists.

On Wednesday, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Supreme Court that there was no criminality found following the investigation into intercepted conversations between the former lobbyist Niira Radia with several politicians, lawmakers, and industrialists. The probe was ordered back in 2013, by the country’s apex court as they believed that these conversations were indicative of “deep-rooted malice”. The CBI was then asked to file a status report by the three-judge SC bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud and set the date for the next hearing on October 12. The CBI report was also submitted in response to a writ petition filed by industrialist Ratan Tata filed in 2011 who demanded a probe into how the conversations involving Radia got leaked and protested on the grounds of his privacy being violated which was threatened after the tapes leaked. The Income Tax Department of India between 2008 to 2009 recorded thousands of conversations between Radia and politicians, lawyers, journalists and industrialists. Meanwhile the media reports at the time alleged that she was influencing the government and lawmakers’ portfolios during the United Progressive Alliance government, a grouping of centre-left political parties in India. During today’s hearing, solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBI said, “CBI was directed by your lordship to investigate all these conversations. 14 preliminary inquiries were registered and the report was placed before your lordships in a sealed cover.” She added, “No criminality was found in those. Also, now there are phone-tapping guidelines in place.” Bhati also went on inform the court that the report was submitted by the agency in 2015 but the matter was taken up by the court all these years. On the other hand, the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) pressed for a probe into the tapes and said they should be made public. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the CPIL before the bench that also included Justices Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha said that Radia was a corporate lobbyist for two of the most important companies and attempted to influence lawmakers and other influential people, he said basing his argument on public interest. In October 2013, the supreme court ordered the CBI to launch an investigation and examine 14 issues that were identified by the agency at the time. Reportedly, the agency investigated over 5,800 taped conversations between Radia and others as a part of an investigation into tax evasion. The government tapped Radia’s phone following a complaint to the alleged that within nine years she had managed to build a Rs. 300 crore business empire. At the time while ordering a probe the apex court told the CBI, “The conversations are indicative of the deep-rooted malice by private enterprises in connivance with government officials and others for extraneous purposes.” The court reportedly also said that the people involved have gained from government officers and others, which suggests corruption between the government and private entities. (With inputs from agencies)

‘No criminality found’ in Niira Radia tapes, CBI tells Supreme Court

As the hearing on the controversial issue of the hijab ban in India's southern state of Karnataka reached its eighth day on Tuesday, a division bench of the Supreme Court was told that the hijab may be mentioned in the Islamic holy scripture, Quran, as ideal, but it was not essential, or else "Muslim women in countries like Iran would not be fighting against it".

During the hearing on a batch of petitions seeking the right to wear hijabs, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it has to refer to the one verse of the Quran which makes it a "farz" (duty or something mandatory) to wear a hijab.

In response to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the state, cited the ongoing tensions in Iran and said that if it was so compelling in the Quran, why would women in Iran fight against it?

"Ok, Quran mentions it. Is it so compelling? In Islamic countries, women are fighting against Hijab," Mehta said.

When Justice Dhulia asked which country is that, Mehta replied, "Iran," adding that a mere mention in Quran means it's permissible or ideal but not essential.

Mehta asserted that the court must avoid analysing any religious scripture.

"But for me, this is not about religion. That's how a secular country works. You can express your views on&nbsp;crossroads, not by tying something...." he told the court.

Hijab is the practice or dress code in Islam in which women cover their heads using a cloth.

Petitioners in favour of the practice asserted that "hijab is a symbol of dignity just like a Hindu woman covers her head with her saree".

The apex court has been hearing a batch of 23 petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions in Karnataka.

Some of them are writ petitions filed directly before the Supreme Court seeking the right to wear hijab for Muslim girl students while some others are special leave petitions challenging the March 15 verdict of the Karnataka High Court which upheld the hijab ban.

In its order, the Karnataka HC had also upheld a state order issued on February 5 which suggested that wearing hijabs can be restricted in government colleges where uniforms are prescribed and ruled that such curbs under norms for college uniforms are “constitutionally permissible”.

Mehta argued that till 2021, no girl student was wearing a hijab nor the question arose.

"The new notification (Karnataka government order) does not prohibit only hijab but saffron shawls as well," Mehta told the court.

The SG also argued that it was necessary to bring uniforms in colleges to avoid disparity in what students wear. He said that the issue of wearing hijab arose only after a movement was started on social media by the Popular Front of India in 2022 with its "start wearing hijab" campaign.

"This was a larger conspiracy and children acted as advised," Mehta argued.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioners seeking lifting of the ban, said that hijab cannot be prohibited and it should be respected just the way a Hindu woman covering her head with a saree is.

"Just like Hindu woman covering her head in saree is considered a symbol of dignity, so should be hijab. Everyone has the right to enjoy religious freedom in the most personalized way," said Dave, while citing examples of kanwariyas (devotees of Lord Shiva), who practice their culture with loud music, and worshippers of Lord Ayappa dressed in black in India's southern state of Kerala.

Countering this, Mehta said, "Tomorrow, I can say that in a particular religion, drinking in public is essential. Maybe if I drink alone in public. If I am from a religion which requires me to stand under the sun and drink in the morning, someone will have to decide this."

To this, Justice Dhulia said that such a case will be hit directly by Articles 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

"What you are saying will be hit by public order, morality and health," the judge said.

When Mehta gave an example of "dancing nude in public" in the name of religion, the other judge, Justice Gupta, said it was an "extreme example" which was not appropriate.

"I am sorry for my inability to communicate. My submission is at some point, the court will have to decide whether it is an essential religious practice," Mehta told the bench.

He added that anything done can be included in faith but then there won't be any system in society.

"It is a matter of statutory implementation of a uniform," he said.

The Supreme Court of India will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.

As the hearing on the controversial issue of the hijab ban in India's southern state of Karnataka reached its eighth day on Tuesday, a division bench of the Supreme Court was told that the hijab may be mentioned in the Islamic holy scripture, Quran, as ideal, but it was not essential, or else "Muslim women in countries like Iran would not be fighting against it".

As the hearing on the controversial issue of the hijab ban in India's southern state of Karnataka reached its eighth day on Tuesday, a division bench of the Supreme Court was told that the hijab may be mentioned in the Islamic holy scripture, Quran, as ideal, but it was not essential, or else "Muslim women in countries like Iran would not be fighting against it". During the hearing on a batch of petitions seeking the right to wear hijabs, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it has to refer to the one verse of the Quran which makes it a "farz" (duty or something mandatory) to wear a hijab. In response to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the state, cited the ongoing tensions in Iran and said that if it was so compelling in the Quran, why would women in Iran fight against it? "Ok, Quran mentions it. Is it so compelling? In Islamic countries, women are fighting against Hijab," Mehta said. When Justice Dhulia asked which country is that, Mehta replied, "Iran," adding that a mere mention in Quran means it's permissible or ideal but not essential. Mehta asserted that the court must avoid analysing any religious scripture. "But for me, this is not about religion. That's how a secular country works. You can express your views on crossroads, not by tying something...." he told the court. Hijab is the practice or dress code in Islam in which women cover their heads using a cloth. Petitioners in favour of the practice asserted that "hijab is a symbol of dignity just like a Hindu woman covers her head with her saree". The apex court has been hearing a batch of 23 petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions in Karnataka. Some of them are writ petitions filed directly before the Supreme Court seeking the right to wear hijab for Muslim girl students while some others are special leave petitions challenging the March 15 verdict of the Karnataka High Court which upheld the hijab ban. In its order, the Karnataka HC had also upheld a state order issued on February 5 which suggested that wearing hijabs can be restricted in government colleges where uniforms are prescribed and ruled that such curbs under norms for college uniforms are “constitutionally permissible”. Mehta argued that till 2021, no girl student was wearing a hijab nor the question arose. "The new notification (Karnataka government order) does not prohibit only hijab but saffron shawls as well," Mehta told the court. The SG also argued that it was necessary to bring uniforms in colleges to avoid disparity in what students wear. He said that the issue of wearing hijab arose only after a movement was started on social media by the Popular Front of India in 2022 with its "start wearing hijab" campaign. "This was a larger conspiracy and children acted as advised," Mehta argued. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioners seeking lifting of the ban, said that hijab cannot be prohibited and it should be respected just the way a Hindu woman covering her head with a saree is. "Just like Hindu woman covering her head in saree is considered a symbol of dignity, so should be hijab. Everyone has the right to enjoy religious freedom in the most personalized way," said Dave, while citing examples of kanwariyas (devotees of Lord Shiva), who practice their culture with loud music, and worshippers of Lord Ayappa dressed in black in India's southern state of Kerala. Countering this, Mehta said, "Tomorrow, I can say that in a particular religion, drinking in public is essential. Maybe if I drink alone in public. If I am from a religion which requires me to stand under the sun and drink in the morning, someone will have to decide this." To this, Justice Dhulia said that such a case will be hit directly by Articles 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. "What you are saying will be hit by public order, morality and health," the judge said. When Mehta gave an example of "dancing nude in public" in the name of religion, the other judge, Justice Gupta, said it was an "extreme example" which was not appropriate. "I am sorry for my inability to communicate. My submission is at some point, the court will have to decide whether it is an essential religious practice," Mehta told the bench. He added that anything done can be included in faith but then there won't be any system in society. "It is a matter of statutory implementation of a uniform," he said. The Supreme Court of India will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.

Quran says hijab ideal, ‘not essential’: Karnataka govt to Supreme Court over ban order

In a setback for the thousands of Indian undergraduate medical students who were studying in Ukraine but were forced to return due to the conflict with Russia, the Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that there are no legal provisions in place to allow them to be accommodated in local medical colleges.&nbsp;

The National Medical Commission (NMC) has not yet approved the transfer or housing of any foreign medical students at any Indian medical institutes or universities, the Center claimed in an affidavit.

In a group of petitions submitted by undergraduate medical students in their first through fourth years at various overseas medical colleges and institutions, who are principally seeking transfer to medical colleges in India in their respective semesters, the government filed its response.&nbsp;

"It is humbly submitted that in so far as such students are concerned, there are no such provisions either under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 as well as the Regulations to accommodate or transfer medical students from any foreign medical institutes/colleges to Indian medical colleges", the government said.

However, it stated that in order to help and support these returning students who were unable to complete their MBBS programmes in Ukraine, NMC in consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has issued a Public Notice dated September 6, 2022, indicating that NMC would accept completion of their remaining programmes abroad (with the approval of parent university/Institution in Ukraine).&nbsp;

The government stated that the parent institutions in Ukraine are expected to award the certificate, completion, or degree after they have finished their remaining courses.

According to the students' claims, it is unclear whether Indian universities fall under the category of "universities in different countries globally" even though the public notice from September 6 states that there is no opposition to the academic mobility programme, which involves temporarily relocating the affected foreign students in different foreign countries around the world.&nbsp;

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-dreadful-state-of-flood-victims-in-pakistan-thousands-sleep-in-open-516807">&nbsp;In pics: Dreadful state of flood victims in Pakistan, thousands sleep in open</a>

According to the government, these students have alleged that their respective Ukrainian Medical Universities turned them down when they applied under the academic mobility programme for academic mobility in the first semester of the academic year 2022–2023.

"It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid affidavit (of the student) is completely frivolous and misleading. It is submitted that in so far as the aforesaid academic mobility program is concerned, the same was introduced only for those students, who were not able to continue their education due to war like situation in Ukraine", the Centre said.

It further stated that the word "global mobility" in the public notice dated September 6 should not be taken to suggest housing these students in Indian colleges or universities because current Indian policies do not authorise student immigration from foreign universities to India.

(with inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

In a setback for the thousands of Indian undergraduate medical students who were studying in Ukraine but were forced to return due to the conflict with Russia, the Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that there are no legal provisions in place to allow them to be accommodated in local medical colleges.

In a setback for the thousands of Indian undergraduate medical students who were studying in Ukraine but were forced to return due to the conflict with Russia, the Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that there are no legal provisions in place to allow them to be accommodated in local medical colleges. The National Medical Commission (NMC) has not yet approved the transfer or housing of any foreign medical students at any Indian medical institutes or universities, the Center claimed in an affidavit. In a group of petitions submitted by undergraduate medical students in their first through fourth years at various overseas medical colleges and institutions, who are principally seeking transfer to medical colleges in India in their respective semesters, the government filed its response. "It is humbly submitted that in so far as such students are concerned, there are no such provisions either under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 as well as the Regulations to accommodate or transfer medical students from any foreign medical institutes/colleges to Indian medical colleges", the government said. However, it stated that in order to help and support these returning students who were unable to complete their MBBS programmes in Ukraine, NMC in consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has issued a Public Notice dated September 6, 2022, indicating that NMC would accept completion of their remaining programmes abroad (with the approval of parent university/Institution in Ukraine). The government stated that the parent institutions in Ukraine are expected to award the certificate, completion, or degree after they have finished their remaining courses. According to the students' claims, it is unclear whether Indian universities fall under the category of "universities in different countries globally" even though the public notice from September 6 states that there is no opposition to the academic mobility programme, which involves temporarily relocating the affected foreign students in different foreign countries around the world. Also Read: In pics: Dreadful state of flood victims in Pakistan, thousands sleep in open According to the government, these students have alleged that their respective Ukrainian Medical Universities turned them down when they applied under the academic mobility programme for academic mobility in the first semester of the academic year 2022–2023. "It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid affidavit (of the student) is completely frivolous and misleading. It is submitted that in so far as the aforesaid academic mobility program is concerned, the same was introduced only for those students, who were not able to continue their education due to war like situation in Ukraine", the Centre said. It further stated that the word "global mobility" in the public notice dated September 6 should not be taken to suggest housing these students in Indian colleges or universities because current Indian policies do not authorise student immigration from foreign universities to India. (with inputs from agencies)

Ukraine returnee medical students will not be admitted to Indian colleges

Life convicts who has already served 10 years of their sentence and whose appeal has not been heard by the court should be granted bail, the Supreme Court of India said on Thursday. However, the bench of Justices also added that there can be circumstances where the bail will be denied.&nbsp;

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and&nbsp;Abhay Sreenivas&nbsp;Oka were hearing several pleas concerning convicts whose appeals were pending in various high courts. Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae, told the apex court that 5,740 such appeals were currently pending in the courts.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shanghai-cooperation-organisation-sco-summit-live-updates-515964" hreflang="en">SCO Summit LIVE | Putin thanks China's Xi, Modi lands in Samarkand</a>

When it comes to the people who have already served 14 years in prison, the apex court said that the cases should be referred to the respective governments for consideration of premature release.

While the decision will lie with the governments, India's top&nbsp;court suggested that the process should be completed within a fixed time period in order to decrease the number of backlogs.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/six-countries-not-invited-for-queen-elizabeth-iis-funeral-see-complete-list-516447" hreflang="en">Six countries not invited for Queen Elizabeth II's funeral - See complete list</a>

The data presented by Agarwal revealed that Bihar had the highest number of cases which were eligible for premature release – 268. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court had the highest number of appeals filed by people who have already served 14 years or more in prison – 385.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India&nbsp;said that the high courts need to schedule the appeals of all the eligible convicts by January 2023 and use the next four months to identify all cases that will fall under the purview of this observation. &nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Life convicts who has already served 10 years of their sentence and whose appeal has not been heard by the court should be granted bail, the Supreme Court of India said on Thursday.

Life convicts who has already served 10 years of their sentence and whose appeal has not been heard by the court should be granted bail, the Supreme Court of India said on Thursday. However, the bench of Justices also added that there can be circumstances where the bail will be denied. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Sreenivas Oka were hearing several pleas concerning convicts whose appeals were pending in various high courts. Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae, told the apex court that 5,740 such appeals were currently pending in the courts. Also read | SCO Summit LIVE | Putin thanks China's Xi, Modi lands in Samarkand When it comes to the people who have already served 14 years in prison, the apex court said that the cases should be referred to the respective governments for consideration of premature release. While the decision will lie with the governments, India's top court suggested that the process should be completed within a fixed time period in order to decrease the number of backlogs. Also read | Six countries not invited for Queen Elizabeth II's funeral - See complete list The data presented by Agarwal revealed that Bihar had the highest number of cases which were eligible for premature release – 268. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court had the highest number of appeals filed by people who have already served 14 years or more in prison – 385. The Supreme Court of India said that the high courts need to schedule the appeals of all the eligible convicts by January 2023 and use the next four months to identify all cases that will fall under the purview of this observation.

Grant bail to life convicts who have spent 10 years in jail: Indian Supreme Court

A woman from Louisiana, US, who was carrying a skull-less foetus had to travel about 1,400 miles (2,253 kilometres) to New York City to get an abortion after her local hospital refused to terminate her pregnancy—a fallout of the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Speaking to Guardian, Nancy Davis, 36, said that she had her pregnancy terminated on September 1.

Davis had been struggling to get an abortion ever since doctors said that her foetus won’t survive after birth.

Her home state Louisiana had made it illegal to get an abortion, with a few exceptions, after the Supreme Court restricted access to the medical procedure.

It was in July, that Davis found that she was about 10 weeks pregnant and that the foetus was missing the top of its skull, a rare fatal condition called acrania, which kills babies shortly after birth.

The local hospital where Davis was getting treated refused to terminate her pregnancy as acrania was not listed on Louisiana’s list of ailments requiring an exception for abortion.

They feared that they could be exposed to prison time, fines and forfeiture of their licenses to practice if they performed the procedure.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/im-carrying-it-to-bury-it-louisiana-woman-to-make-tough-decision-over-her-skull-less-foetus-abortion-508818">‘I’m carrying it to bury it': Louisiana woman to make tough decision over her skull-less foetus abortion</a>

“Basically … I [would have] to carry my baby to bury my baby,” Davis had said last month.

Following this, Davis opened up about her ordeal in the media and more than a thousand people donated nearly $40,000 to an online GoFundMe campaign for her to travel to a pro-abortion state.

According to Guardian, she initially planned to go to North Carolina, but ended up going to a Planned Parenthood facility in Manhattan.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

A woman from Louisiana, US, who was carrying a skull-less foetus had to travel about 1,400 miles (2,253 kilometres) to New York City to get an abortion after her local hospital refused to terminate her pregnancy—a fallout of the overturn of Roe v.

A woman from Louisiana, US, who was carrying a skull-less foetus had to travel about 1,400 miles (2,253 kilometres) to New York City to get an abortion after her local hospital refused to terminate her pregnancy—a fallout of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Speaking to Guardian, Nancy Davis, 36, said that she had her pregnancy terminated on September 1. Davis had been struggling to get an abortion ever since doctors said that her foetus won’t survive after birth. Her home state Louisiana had made it illegal to get an abortion, with a few exceptions, after the Supreme Court restricted access to the medical procedure. It was in July, that Davis found that she was about 10 weeks pregnant and that the foetus was missing the top of its skull, a rare fatal condition called acrania, which kills babies shortly after birth. The local hospital where Davis was getting treated refused to terminate her pregnancy as acrania was not listed on Louisiana’s list of ailments requiring an exception for abortion. They feared that they could be exposed to prison time, fines and forfeiture of their licenses to practice if they performed the procedure. Also read | ‘I’m carrying it to bury it': Louisiana woman to make tough decision over her skull-less foetus abortion “Basically … I [would have] to carry my baby to bury my baby,” Davis had said last month. Following this, Davis opened up about her ordeal in the media and more than a thousand people donated nearly $40,000 to an online GoFundMe campaign for her to travel to a pro-abortion state. According to Guardian, she initially planned to go to North Carolina, but ended up going to a Planned Parenthood facility in Manhattan. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Louisiana woman carrying skull-less foetus travels over 2,000 km to New York for abortion

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday paved the way for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah to continue in their respective top posts. The court accepted the Indian cricket board's proposal to amend its constitution and relax the mandatory cooling-off period for&nbsp;an office bearer.

Agreeing to scrap off the three-year cooling period, a bench led by Justice D&nbsp;Y&nbsp;Chandrachud orally agreed that office bearers in the BCCI should be allowed to have a longer tenure. The court ruled that the cooling-off period should come into play only after an office bearer has completed two consecutive terms in either the board or a state association.

The office bearers can now hold a position in a state association and the BCCI for at least 12 years straight. They can complete two consecutive three-year terms at a state association followed by two three-year terms at the BCCI. The cooling-off period will be applicable post that.

The BCCI had sought the amendment of clause six&nbsp;in the board's constitution, which states that an official who has completed a term of three years each at a state cricket association and the BCCI will have to undergo a mandatory three-year cooling-off period before regaining a position in the board.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-went-wrong-for-rohit-sharma-led-india-in-asia-cup-2022-514965">What went wrong for Rohit Sharma-led India in Asia Cup 2022?</a>

The amendment was sought in regards to the current tenure of BCCIs' office bearers, including president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah, who would have completed their respective first three-year terms at the BCCI in October this year.

Both Ganguly and Shah were serving in a state cricket association before taking over as BCCI's president and secretary in October 2019 and have completed six years. But they will now be able to continue in their respective roles and have a second term at the BCCI after the Supreme Court's order.

"We are of the considered view that the amendment would not dilute the original objective. We accept the proposed amendment," said the bench led by Justice&nbsp;DY&nbsp;Chandrachud.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/virat-kohli-jumps-14-places-in-latest-icc-t20i-rankings-after-asia-cup-heroics-md-rizwan-remains-on-top-516119">Virat Kohli jumps 14 places in latest ICC T20I rankings after Asia Cup heroics, Md. Rizwan remains on top</a>

The 'cooling-off period' was one of the recommendations made by the Lodha Committee in 2018 for the better functioning of cricket's administrative body in India. However,&nbsp;Justice&nbsp;DY&nbsp;Chandrachud-led bench agreed that a cooling-off period after just one term in office will be 'too stringent'.

“A cooling-off period of three years after just one term of three years in office is really too stringent. People should be allowed to get acquainted… You will have networks, deal with international counterparts,” said Justice&nbsp;Chandrachud while examining BCCI's proposed changes in the constitution.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday paved the way for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah to continue in their respective top posts.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday paved the way for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah to continue in their respective top posts. The court accepted the Indian cricket board's proposal to amend its constitution and relax the mandatory cooling-off period for an office bearer. Agreeing to scrap off the three-year cooling period, a bench led by Justice D Y Chandrachud orally agreed that office bearers in the BCCI should be allowed to have a longer tenure. The court ruled that the cooling-off period should come into play only after an office bearer has completed two consecutive terms in either the board or a state association. The office bearers can now hold a position in a state association and the BCCI for at least 12 years straight. They can complete two consecutive three-year terms at a state association followed by two three-year terms at the BCCI. The cooling-off period will be applicable post that. The BCCI had sought the amendment of clause six in the board's constitution, which states that an official who has completed a term of three years each at a state cricket association and the BCCI will have to undergo a mandatory three-year cooling-off period before regaining a position in the board. Also Read: What went wrong for Rohit Sharma-led India in Asia Cup 2022? The amendment was sought in regards to the current tenure of BCCIs' office bearers, including president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah, who would have completed their respective first three-year terms at the BCCI in October this year. Both Ganguly and Shah were serving in a state cricket association before taking over as BCCI's president and secretary in October 2019 and have completed six years. But they will now be able to continue in their respective roles and have a second term at the BCCI after the Supreme Court's order. "We are of the considered view that the amendment would not dilute the original objective. We accept the proposed amendment," said the bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud. Also Read: Virat Kohli jumps 14 places in latest ICC T20I rankings after Asia Cup heroics, Md. Rizwan remains on top The 'cooling-off period' was one of the recommendations made by the Lodha Committee in 2018 for the better functioning of cricket's administrative body in India. However, Justice DY Chandrachud-led bench agreed that a cooling-off period after just one term in office will be 'too stringent'. “A cooling-off period of three years after just one term of three years in office is really too stringent. People should be allowed to get acquainted… You will have networks, deal with international counterparts,” said Justice Chandrachud while examining BCCI's proposed changes in the constitution.

Sourav Ganguly, Jay Shah to continue on BCCI top posts as SC amends cooling-off provision

An Orthodox Jewish university in New York was given temporary permission by the US Supreme Court to deny official recognition to an LGBTQ student group on Friday (September 9).

This permission comes after the university appealed to the court for an expedited ruling after a New York judge ordered the university to permit the Pride Alliance to form a student group, allowing them access to all services and facilities in the institute.

The university, in a statement, said, "As a deeply religious Jewish university, Yeshiva cannot comply with that order because doing so would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values," AFP reported.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-failed-to-curb-monkeypox-hate-speech-aimed-at-lgbtq-community-says-study-510379">Also read |&nbsp;Twitter failed to curb monkeypox hate speech aimed at LGBTQ community, says study</a>

In response to this statement, the Pride Group argued that the university also teaches various subjects other than religion and also has non-Jewish students. The group&nbsp;further added, "It may not deny certain students access to the non-religious resources it offers the entire student community on the basis of sexual orientation," AFP reported.

The group was formed in 2018 to hold meetings, organise lectures and participate in activities, and applied for its official recognition as a student group.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-marriage-to-the-death-penalty-lgbtq-rights-across-the-globe-509186">Also read |&nbsp;From marriage to death penalty: LGBTQIA rights across the globe</a>

The university, which was founded more than 100 years ago to promote Judaism, also offers varying degrees in fields that are not related to religion, like biology and accounting.

The Supreme Court suspended the judge's ruling with a 6-3 consecutive majority after the university's request. The court did not specify any reasoning or votes cast, as the decision was declared in emergency cases.

The US Supreme Court has made some favourable decisions for the LGBTQ&nbsp;community in recent months.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

&nbsp;

An Orthodox Jewish university in New York was given temporary permission by the US Supreme Court to deny official recognition to an LGBTQ student group on Friday (September 9).

An Orthodox Jewish university in New York was given temporary permission by the US Supreme Court to deny official recognition to an LGBTQ student group on Friday (September 9). This permission comes after the university appealed to the court for an expedited ruling after a New York judge ordered the university to permit the Pride Alliance to form a student group, allowing them access to all services and facilities in the institute. The university, in a statement, said, "As a deeply religious Jewish university, Yeshiva cannot comply with that order because doing so would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values," AFP reported. Also read | Twitter failed to curb monkeypox hate speech aimed at LGBTQ community, says study In response to this statement, the Pride Group argued that the university also teaches various subjects other than religion and also has non-Jewish students. The group further added, "It may not deny certain students access to the non-religious resources it offers the entire student community on the basis of sexual orientation," AFP reported. The group was formed in 2018 to hold meetings, organise lectures and participate in activities, and applied for its official recognition as a student group. Also read | From marriage to death penalty: LGBTQIA rights across the globe The university, which was founded more than 100 years ago to promote Judaism, also offers varying degrees in fields that are not related to religion, like biology and accounting. The Supreme Court suspended the judge's ruling with a 6-3 consecutive majority after the university's request. The court did not specify any reasoning or votes cast, as the decision was declared in emergency cases. The US Supreme Court has made some favourable decisions for the LGBTQ community in recent months. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US Supreme Court permits Jewish university to temporarily deny recognition to LGBTQ students

India's top court has observed that unmarried partnerships and queer relationships too constitute a family. The Supreme Court has said that atypical families are as real as their traditional counterpart. Does this pave the way for legalising same-sex marriages in India? Palki Sharma brings you a report

Gravitas | India's top court: Queer relationships too constitute a family

Keeping up with the changing times and batting for inclusivity, the Supreme Court of India on Monday made significant observations that expands the definition of traditional family units to include queer and unmarried relationships.

Keeping up with the changing times and batting for inclusivity, the Supreme Court of India on Monday made significant observations that expands the definition of traditional family units to include queer and unmarried relationships. "Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships," said the court. In most societies, the concept of 'family' is usually narrowed down to a structure where a mother, father and their children are present. The court took on this pre-conceived notion and added: "This assumption ignores both, the many circumstances which may lead to a change in one's familial structure, and the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation, to begin with." 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." Read more: India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married & unmarried women "These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation." Stating that the black letter of the law must not be followed which puts the non-conventional family structures at a disadvantage, the court observed: "The black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from traditional ones. The same undoubtedly holds true for women who take on the role of motherhood in ways that may not find a place in the popular imagination." Read more: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit sworn in as 49th Chief Justice of India The apex court was hearing a case titled 'Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal' where it made the aforementioned observations. Reportedly, the complainant was denied maternity leave by her employee for her biological child stating she had already availed one for taking care of her spouse's child from an earlier marriage. “The fact that the appellant’s spouse had two biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child,” said the bench in its judgement. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Indian SC says unmarried partnerships, queer relationships can also be considered as family

When Justice N V Ramana assumed office as the 48th Chief Justice of India on April 24, 2021, he gave rise to great expectations. On his retirement today, 16 months later, there is more than a sense of disappointment. There is, perhaps, even a loss of hope.

If his retirement date, August 26, would be remembered, it is because on this day, for the first time in its history, there was live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings. The apex court calling for an expert committee and an all-party meeting to discuss the issue of freebies was the first order to be live streamed.

Those keeping track of pending cases in the Supreme Court point out that during CJI Ramana’s tenure, “there was no movement on six cases of national importance and 53 cases that required a wider review by a Constitution bench”.&nbsp;

All these were kept pending as they had been during the tenure of his predecessors. Six cases of national importance pending for periods varying from five months to more than three years and that readily come to mind are:&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Challenge to electoral bonds as a source of opaque and dubious political funding.</li>
	<li>Challenge to the repressive Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967.Challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which has communalised neighbourhood diplomacy by offering citizenship to only non-Muslims Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh</li>
	<li>a Union Government’s reservation policy based solely on economic criteria and not caste.</li>
	<li>Karnataka ban on the hijab for Muslim students in government educational institutions.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>

The public perceptions of these pending cases may well have spurred the outgoing CJI to hasten the pace of justice on the penultimate day. Benches led by CJI N V Ramana took up on August 25 a clutch of important cases. These include a review of the PMLA judgment, the public interest litigation in the Bilkis Bano case, the Prime Minister’s security breach in Punjab and the matter of Pegasus snooping.

How these cases progress under CJI-designate Justice U U Lalit would be watched with more than average interest and not only by the political, legal and affected communities.

The author is an Editorial Consultant, WION TV.&nbsp;

(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.)

When Justice N V Ramana assumed office as the 48th Chief Justice of India on April 24, 2021, he gave rise to great expectations. On his retirement today, 16 months later, there is more than a sense of disappointment.

When Justice N V Ramana assumed office as the 48th Chief Justice of India on April 24, 2021, he gave rise to great expectations. On his retirement today, 16 months later, there is more than a sense of disappointment. There is, perhaps, even a loss of hope. If his retirement date, August 26, would be remembered, it is because on this day, for the first time in its history, there was live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings. The apex court calling for an expert committee and an all-party meeting to discuss the issue of freebies was the first order to be live streamed. Those keeping track of pending cases in the Supreme Court point out that during CJI Ramana’s tenure, “there was no movement on six cases of national importance and 53 cases that required a wider review by a Constitution bench”. All these were kept pending as they had been during the tenure of his predecessors. Six cases of national importance pending for periods varying from five months to more than three years and that readily come to mind are: Abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. Challenge to electoral bonds as a source of opaque and dubious political funding. Challenge to the repressive Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967.Challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which has communalised neighbourhood diplomacy by offering citizenship to only non-Muslims Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh a Union Government’s reservation policy based solely on economic criteria and not caste. Karnataka ban on the hijab for Muslim students in government educational institutions. The public perceptions of these pending cases may well have spurred the outgoing CJI to hasten the pace of justice on the penultimate day. Benches led by CJI N V Ramana took up on August 25 a clutch of important cases. These include a review of the PMLA judgment, the public interest litigation in the Bilkis Bano case, the Prime Minister’s security breach in Punjab and the matter of Pegasus snooping. How these cases progress under CJI-designate Justice U U Lalit would be watched with more than average interest and not only by the political, legal and affected communities. The author is an Editorial Consultant, WION TV. (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.)

Dealing with the wheels of justice

The Supreme Court of India said on Thursday that a top court committee that looked into a security lapse after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's convoy became stuck on a flyover in Punjab on January 5 blamed a senior state police officer for failing to carry out his duty to uphold law and order despite the presence of sufficient personnel.

"The Ferozepur SSP failed to discharge his duty to maintain law and order. He failed to do this even though sufficient force was available and even though he was informed two hours before that PM will enter that route," the bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said while reading from the committee's report.

"It has suggested several measures like the constitution of an oversight committee should be constituted, training of police officers as per Blue Book and security planning for VVIP visits..." the Bench noted.&nbsp;

After protesters in Ferozepur blocked the Prime Minister's motorcade at a flyover, he returned from Punjab without going to any events, including rallies.

The court announced that it would forward the report to the centre for further consideration.

According to the Bench, the committee has also recommended a few corrective actions and security precautions needed for the Prime Minister's protection.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India said on Thursday that a top court committee that looked into a security lapse after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's convoy became stuck on a flyover in Punjab on January 5 blamed a senior state police officer for failing to carry out his duty to uphold law and order despite the presence of sufficient personnel.

The Supreme Court of India said on Thursday that a top court committee that looked into a security lapse after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's convoy became stuck on a flyover in Punjab on January 5 blamed a senior state police officer for failing to carry out his duty to uphold law and order despite the presence of sufficient personnel. "The Ferozepur SSP failed to discharge his duty to maintain law and order. He failed to do this even though sufficient force was available and even though he was informed two hours before that PM will enter that route," the bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said while reading from the committee's report. "It has suggested several measures like the constitution of an oversight committee should be constituted, training of police officers as per Blue Book and security planning for VVIP visits..." the Bench noted. After protesters in Ferozepur blocked the Prime Minister's motorcade at a flyover, he returned from Punjab without going to any events, including rallies. The court announced that it would forward the report to the centre for further consideration. According to the Bench, the committee has also recommended a few corrective actions and security precautions needed for the Prime Minister's protection. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian PM’s security breach: Supreme Court panel blames Ferozepur SSP

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.”

Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.”

From providing headings to a table of contents for long judgements, the format laid down by the top court is called the “Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion” (IRAC) structure.

While rules connote the lawyers’ submissions on the pertinent problems,&nbsp;issues refer to the question of law that the court is deciding.

According to the bench, ''The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language.''

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-supreme-court-bats-for-same-abortion-limits-for-married-unmarried-women-509696" hreflang="en">India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married &amp; unmarried women</a>

''The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact, which arise for decision...While a judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse,'' it added.

“If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded... Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” &nbsp;said Justice Chandrachud.

“Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a judgment addresses stakeholders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in society who are impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and to the future.”

“Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation. How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured,” it said.

“Equally significant is the fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law,” added the bench. 
&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.” Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.

India's apex court has ruled that judgements should not confuse readers by using complex language because it “speaks to the present and to the future.” Emphasing that each judgment is a brick in the consolidation of the fundamental precepts on which a legal order is based, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said they are instrumental “in fostering the rule of law and in curbing rule by the law.” From providing headings to a table of contents for long judgements, the format laid down by the top court is called the “Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion” (IRAC) structure. While rules connote the lawyers’ submissions on the pertinent problems, issues refer to the question of law that the court is deciding. According to the bench, ''The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language.'' Also read | India: Supreme Court bats for same abortion limits for married & unmarried women ''The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact, which arise for decision...While a judgment is read by those as well who have training in the law, they do not represent the entire universe of discourse,'' it added. “If the meaning of the written word is lost in language, the ability of the adjudicator to retain the trust of the reader is severely eroded... Whether or not the writer of a judgment envisions it, the written product remains for the future, representing another incremental step in societal dialogue,” said Justice Chandrachud. “Judgment writing is a layered exercise. In one layer, a judgment addresses the concerns and arguments of parties to a forensic contest. In another layer, a judgment addresses stakeholders beyond the conflict. It speaks to those in society who are impacted by the discourse. In the layered formulation of analysis, a judgment speaks to the present and to the future.” “Courts are as much engaged in the slow yet not so silent process of bringing about a social transformation. How good or deficient they are in that quest is tested by the quality of the reasons as much as by the manner in which the judicial process is structured,” it said. “Equally significant is the fact that a judgment speaks to the present and to the future. Judicial outcomes taken singularly or in combination have an impact upon human lives. Hence, a judgment is amenable to wider critique and scrutiny, going beyond the immediate contest in a courtroom. Citizens, researchers and journalists continuously evaluate the work of courts as public institutions committed to governance under law,” added the bench. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here: ×

Don't confuse readers: Supreme Court of India issues judgement on writing judgements

Argentina's public prosecutor has sought a 12-year prison term for Vice President Cristina Kirchner, and a lifetime ban on her from public offices in response to allegations of corruption during her two terms as president of the country.

The vice president has been charged with fraudulently granting public works contracts during her presidential term, but wouldn’t be imprisoned as she has her parliamentary immunity as an elected senator. But a final decision on this is expected to be announced by the end of the year. She might lose her parliamentary benefits in two instances: either by losing her Senate seat in the upcoming elections, or if the Supreme Court ratifies a guilty verdict.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india/in-india-argentina-fm-santiago-raises-falkland-issues-lauds-ties-with-delhi-473537">In India, Argentina FM Santiago raises Falkland issue, lauds ties with Delhi</a>

President Alberto Fernandez’s office released a public statement after the prosecutor’s plea was made public, denouncing the judicial and media persecution of the vice president.

The statement said, "None of the actions attributed to the ex-president have been proved and the whole accusation is based purely on the function she exercised at that time, which sadly degrades the most basic principles of modern criminal law."

The probe includes Kirchner’s eight years in government, from 2007 to 2015, as well as four years before that, when her husband passed away, who also served as the president of the country in 2010.

Kirchner has long maintained her innocence and accused the prosecutor’s office of political persecution and lawfare. She has recently been under several charges of bribery, money laundering, and speculative damage to the state.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/argentina-parliament-approves-imf-deal-for-45-billion-debt-463369">Argentina parliament approves IMF deal to restructure $45 billion debt</a>

The vice president on Monday tweeted that some of the charges against her had not before been raised and that the prosecution was ‘openly violating’ the principle of defence in court.

Kirchner also stated that she would broadcast her defence on social media on Tuesday, denouncing the process as unfair.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Argentina's public prosecutor has sought a 12-year prison term for Vice President Cristina Kirchner, and a lifetime ban on her from public offices in response to allegations of corruption during her two terms as president of the country.

Argentina's public prosecutor has sought a 12-year prison term for Vice President Cristina Kirchner, and a lifetime ban on her from public offices in response to allegations of corruption during her two terms as president of the country. The vice president has been charged with fraudulently granting public works contracts during her presidential term, but wouldn’t be imprisoned as she has her parliamentary immunity as an elected senator. But a final decision on this is expected to be announced by the end of the year. She might lose her parliamentary benefits in two instances: either by losing her Senate seat in the upcoming elections, or if the Supreme Court ratifies a guilty verdict. Also read | In India, Argentina FM Santiago raises Falkland issue, lauds ties with Delhi President Alberto Fernandez’s office released a public statement after the prosecutor’s plea was made public, denouncing the judicial and media persecution of the vice president. The statement said, "None of the actions attributed to the ex-president have been proved and the whole accusation is based purely on the function she exercised at that time, which sadly degrades the most basic principles of modern criminal law." The probe includes Kirchner’s eight years in government, from 2007 to 2015, as well as four years before that, when her husband passed away, who also served as the president of the country in 2010. Kirchner has long maintained her innocence and accused the prosecutor’s office of political persecution and lawfare. She has recently been under several charges of bribery, money laundering, and speculative damage to the state. Also read | Argentina parliament approves IMF deal to restructure $45 billion debt The vice president on Monday tweeted that some of the charges against her had not before been raised and that the prosecution was ‘openly violating’ the principle of defence in court. Kirchner also stated that she would broadcast her defence on social media on Tuesday, denouncing the process as unfair. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Argentine public prosecutor demands 12-year prison term for VP Cristina Kirchner for corruption

The Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Association of India claimed before the Supreme Court that the Central Board for Direct Taxes has accused makers of Dolo-650 tablet of distributing freebies worth Rs 1,000 crore to doctors as consideration for prescribing the tablet.

Maker of Dolo-650 drug said to have spent over $12.5 million on freebies

The Centre on Tuesday sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court on the All India Football Federation matter in the wake of FIFA suspending India for "undue influence from third parties" and stripping the country of the right to host the Under-17 Women's World Cup.

The country is scheduled to host the FIFA tournament from October 11-30. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that "important development"&nbsp;has taken place and FIFA has sent a letter suspending India which is in public domain and needs to be brought on record.

The bench told Mehta that the matter is listed for Wednesday and it would try to take it up as a first matter. 
Mehta said FIFA was in Geneva and it has taken certain decisions which are important developments for the country and need to be brought before the court.

"I request that the AIFF matter pending before the court be urgently heard", he said.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/harsh-decision-former-indian-football-team-captain-bhaichung-bhutia-reacts-after-fifas-ban-on-aiff-507403">'Harsh decision': Former Indian football team captain Bhaichung Bhutia reacts to FIFA's ban on AIFF</a>

India was on Tuesday suspended by world governing body FIFA for "undue influence from third parties" and stripped the country of the right to host the Under-17 Women's World Cup, scheduled for October.

This is the first time that the All India Football Federation (AIFF) has been banned by FIFA in its 85-year-old history. 
A ban on India was on the cards after the Supreme Court removed Praful Patel as AIFF president on May 18 for not holding elections due in December 2020.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/fifa-suspends-aiff-with-immediate-effect-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ban-and-how-it-can-be-lifted-507318">FIFA suspends AIFF with immediate effect: All you need to know about the ban and how it can be lifted</a>

The court had appointed a three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA), headed by former apex court judge AR Dave, to manage the affairs of the national federation.

&nbsp;The CoA, which has former Chief Commissioner of India SY Quraishi and ex-India captain Bhaskar Ganguly as other members, also had to frame its constitution in line with the National Sports Code and model guidelines.

The Centre on Tuesday sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court on the All India Football Federation matter in the wake of FIFA suspending India for "undue influence from third parties" and stripping the country of the right to host the Under-17 Women's World Cup.

The Centre on Tuesday sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court on the All India Football Federation matter in the wake of FIFA suspending India for "undue influence from third parties" and stripping the country of the right to host the Under-17 Women's World Cup. The country is scheduled to host the FIFA tournament from October 11-30. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that "important development" has taken place and FIFA has sent a letter suspending India which is in public domain and needs to be brought on record. The bench told Mehta that the matter is listed for Wednesday and it would try to take it up as a first matter. Mehta said FIFA was in Geneva and it has taken certain decisions which are important developments for the country and need to be brought before the court. "I request that the AIFF matter pending before the court be urgently heard", he said. Also Read: 'Harsh decision': Former Indian football team captain Bhaichung Bhutia reacts to FIFA's ban on AIFF India was on Tuesday suspended by world governing body FIFA for "undue influence from third parties" and stripped the country of the right to host the Under-17 Women's World Cup, scheduled for October. This is the first time that the All India Football Federation (AIFF) has been banned by FIFA in its 85-year-old history. A ban on India was on the cards after the Supreme Court removed Praful Patel as AIFF president on May 18 for not holding elections due in December 2020. Also Read: FIFA suspends AIFF with immediate effect: All you need to know about the ban and how it can be lifted The court had appointed a three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA), headed by former apex court judge AR Dave, to manage the affairs of the national federation. The CoA, which has former Chief Commissioner of India SY Quraishi and ex-India captain Bhaskar Ganguly as other members, also had to frame its constitution in line with the National Sports Code and model guidelines.

Centre seeks urgent hearing of AIFF case after FIFA suspends India, Supreme Court to hear on Aug 17

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed an unmarried woman whose relationship status changed during the pregnancy to abort her 24-week baby, highlighting the fact that a legal disparity between a married and an unmarried woman should have no influence on the ability to carry out the procedure.

&nbsp;The bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and A S Bopanna said, “We are of the view that allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will go against the parliamentary intent and the benefits under the Act cannot be denied to her only on the basis of her being unmarried. The distinction between a married and an unmarried woman has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Parliament.”

“Petitioner should not be denied the benefit merely on the ground that she is an unmarried woman,” the bench added. It stated that the order would depend on the final determination of a medical board established by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, that the woman's life would not be in danger if the foetus was aborted.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sri-lankan-crisis-economy-lessons-india-can-learn-498205">Sri Lankan crisis: Economy lessons India can learn</a>

The 25-year-old woman, a Manipur permanent resident who stays in Delhi right now, filed a petition with the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court last week rejected her request. It would "amount to killing the child," according to a two-judge Delhi High Court panel that included Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

The HC court stated that it cannot permit what the law forbids - access to pregnancy termination for an unmarried woman between 20 and 24 weeks on the grounds that her relationship status changed. The woman testified before the court that she and her partner had a consensual relationship that led to the pregnancy. She said she wanted to end the pregnancy since her partner wouldn't marry her. She also admitted to the court that she worried about being stigmatised for being a single, unmarried lady.

(with inputs from agencies)

<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>

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed an unmarried woman whose relationship status changed during the pregnancy to abort her 24-week baby, highlighting the fact that a legal disparity between a married and an unmarried woman should have no influence on the ability to carry out the procedure.

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed an unmarried woman whose relationship status changed during the pregnancy to abort her 24-week baby, highlighting the fact that a legal disparity between a married and an unmarried woman should have no influence on the ability to carry out the procedure. The bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and A S Bopanna said, “We are of the view that allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will go against the parliamentary intent and the benefits under the Act cannot be denied to her only on the basis of her being unmarried. The distinction between a married and an unmarried woman has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Parliament.” “Petitioner should not be denied the benefit merely on the ground that she is an unmarried woman,” the bench added. It stated that the order would depend on the final determination of a medical board established by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, that the woman's life would not be in danger if the foetus was aborted. Also Read: Sri Lankan crisis: Economy lessons India can learn The 25-year-old woman, a Manipur permanent resident who stays in Delhi right now, filed a petition with the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court last week rejected her request. It would "amount to killing the child," according to a two-judge Delhi High Court panel that included Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad. The HC court stated that it cannot permit what the law forbids - access to pregnancy termination for an unmarried woman between 20 and 24 weeks on the grounds that her relationship status changed. The woman testified before the court that she and her partner had a consensual relationship that led to the pregnancy. She said she wanted to end the pregnancy since her partner wouldn't marry her. She also admitted to the court that she worried about being stigmatised for being a single, unmarried lady. (with inputs from agencies)

India SC permits abortion at 24 weeks, says can't bar unmarried woman from having one

The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed senior advocate Maninder Singh as an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter related to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and fixed the hearing on the plea of the cricket body for amending its constitution concerning tenure of office bearers on July 28.

A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli took note of the fact that an earlier amicus curiae has now been elevated as a judge of the apex court. "We will appoint senior advocate Maninder Singh as an amicus in place of P S Narasimha (now Justice P S Narasimha)," said the bench and fixed the plea of BCCI for hearing on July 28.

The plea of the cricket body seeks to amend its constitution concerning the tenure of its office bearers including its President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah by doing away with the mandatory cooling-off period between tenures of office bearers across state cricket associations and the BCCI. Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha-led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI which have been accepted by the top court.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/bcci-churns-out-a-whopping-sum-for-shikhar-dhawan-led-indias-flight-to-west-indies-report-499454">BCCI churns out a whopping sum for Shikhar Dhawan-led India's flight to West Indies: Report</a>

According to the recommendations, there should be a three-year cooling-off period for the office bearers of the BCCI after a tenure of six years once a post comes to an end at the state cricket association or the BCCI level.

The BCCI, in its proposed amendment, has sought the abolition of a cooling-off period for its office bearers which would enable Ganguly and Shah to continue in office despite them having completed six years at respective state cricket associations.

The constitution of BCCI, which has been approved by the top court stipulates a mandatory three-year cooling-off period for anyone who had served two consecutive terms of three years each in the state cricket association or BCCI. While Ganguly was an office bearer in the Cricket Association of Bengal, Shah had served in the Gujarat Cricket Association.

The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed senior advocate Maninder Singh as an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter related to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and fixed the hearing on the plea of the cricket body for amending its constitution concerning tenure of office bearers on July 28.

The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed senior advocate Maninder Singh as an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter related to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and fixed the hearing on the plea of the cricket body for amending its constitution concerning tenure of office bearers on July 28. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli took note of the fact that an earlier amicus curiae has now been elevated as a judge of the apex court. "We will appoint senior advocate Maninder Singh as an amicus in place of P S Narasimha (now Justice P S Narasimha)," said the bench and fixed the plea of BCCI for hearing on July 28. The plea of the cricket body seeks to amend its constitution concerning the tenure of its office bearers including its President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah by doing away with the mandatory cooling-off period between tenures of office bearers across state cricket associations and the BCCI. Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha-led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI which have been accepted by the top court. ALSO READ | BCCI churns out a whopping sum for Shikhar Dhawan-led India's flight to West Indies: Report According to the recommendations, there should be a three-year cooling-off period for the office bearers of the BCCI after a tenure of six years once a post comes to an end at the state cricket association or the BCCI level. The BCCI, in its proposed amendment, has sought the abolition of a cooling-off period for its office bearers which would enable Ganguly and Shah to continue in office despite them having completed six years at respective state cricket associations. The constitution of BCCI, which has been approved by the top court stipulates a mandatory three-year cooling-off period for anyone who had served two consecutive terms of three years each in the state cricket association or BCCI. While Ganguly was an office bearer in the Cricket Association of Bengal, Shah had served in the Gujarat Cricket Association.

SC appoints senior advocate Maninder Singh as amicus curiae in BCCI matter, hearing on July 28

Journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair has been granted interim bail by Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (July 20). The bail has been granted in all FIRs in Uttar Pradesh against him. The FIRs were filed for his alleged derogatory tweets. The court said that it found no reason or justification for deprivation of his liberty. The top Indian court said that "the existence of the power of arrest must be distinguished from the exercise of arrest and the exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly."

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna said that fairness to Zubair would require that the entirety of the investigation into all the FIRs be clubbed together. The court said it should be one and the same investigating authority that would handle all these cases.

It said "the overlap between the allegations in the FIRs, emanating as they do, from the tweets of the petitioner (Zubair) would only go to emphasise the need for a consolidated as opposed to a piecemeal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies."

"Having found from the record that the petitioner has been subjected to a fairly sustained investigation by the Delhi police, we find no reason or justification for the deprivation of the liberty of the petitioner to persist any further. Consequently, we are of the view that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail in each of the FIRs which form the subject matter of these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution", it said.

The court said that Zubair was to released from the jail 'no later than 6 pm' on Wednesday after presentation of the bail bonds.

The bench directed that the SIT which has been constituted by the UP police shall be rendered "redundant and shall be disbanded".

The detailed order was not immediately uploaded on the Supreme Court website but the operative part was.

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair has been granted interim bail by Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (July 20). The bail has been granted in all FIRs in Uttar Pradesh against him.

Journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair has been granted interim bail by Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (July 20). The bail has been granted in all FIRs in Uttar Pradesh against him. The FIRs were filed for his alleged derogatory tweets. The court said that it found no reason or justification for deprivation of his liberty. The top Indian court said that "the existence of the power of arrest must be distinguished from the exercise of arrest and the exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly." A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna said that fairness to Zubair would require that the entirety of the investigation into all the FIRs be clubbed together. The court said it should be one and the same investigating authority that would handle all these cases. It said "the overlap between the allegations in the FIRs, emanating as they do, from the tweets of the petitioner (Zubair) would only go to emphasise the need for a consolidated as opposed to a piecemeal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies." "Having found from the record that the petitioner has been subjected to a fairly sustained investigation by the Delhi police, we find no reason or justification for the deprivation of the liberty of the petitioner to persist any further. Consequently, we are of the view that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail in each of the FIRs which form the subject matter of these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution", it said. The court said that Zubair was to released from the jail 'no later than 6 pm' on Wednesday after presentation of the bail bonds. The bench directed that the SIT which has been constituted by the UP police shall be rendered "redundant and shall be disbanded". The detailed order was not immediately uploaded on the Supreme Court website but the operative part was. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Journalist Mohammed Zubair granted interim bail by Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear next week the plea of the Board of Control for Cricket in India seeking to amend its constitution with regard to the tenure of its office bearers including President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah.

A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Krishna Murari was told by senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the BCCI, that their application was filed two years ago and direction was given by the court to list the matter after two weeks. "But then Covid happened and matter could not be listed. Please list this matter for urgent hearing because amendments to the constitution are in pipeline for two years now", he said.

Patwalia said the earlier order of the court says that amendment to the constitution can only be done with prior permission of the court. The bench said it will see that the matter is listed for next week. Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI which have been accepted by the top court.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/he-has-got-to-find-his-way-and-bcci-chief-sourav-ganguly-reacts-to-virat-kohlis-poor-form-497616">'He has got to find his way and....' - BCCI chief Sourav Ganguly reacts to Virat Kohli's poor form</a>

According to the recommendations, there should be a three-year cooling off period for the office bearers of the BCCI after a tenure of six years once a post comes to an end at the state cricket association or at the BCCI level.

The BCCI, in its proposed amendment, has sought abolition of cooling off period for its office bearers which would enable BCCI president Ganguly and secretary Shah to continue in office despite them having completed six years at respective state cricket associations.

The constitution of BCCI, which has been approved by the top court stipulates, a mandatory three-year cooling off period for anyone who had served two consecutive terms of three years each in state cricket association or in BCCI.

While Ganguly was an office bearer in the Cricket Association of Bengal, Shah had served in the Gujarat Cricket Association.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear next week the plea of the Board of Control for Cricket in India seeking to amend its constitution with regard to the tenure of its office bearers including President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear next week the plea of the Board of Control for Cricket in India seeking to amend its constitution with regard to the tenure of its office bearers including President Sourav Ganguly and Secretary Jay Shah. A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Krishna Murari was told by senior advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the BCCI, that their application was filed two years ago and direction was given by the court to list the matter after two weeks. "But then Covid happened and matter could not be listed. Please list this matter for urgent hearing because amendments to the constitution are in pipeline for two years now", he said. Patwalia said the earlier order of the court says that amendment to the constitution can only be done with prior permission of the court. The bench said it will see that the matter is listed for next week. Earlier, the Justice RM Lodha led committee had recommended reforms in the BCCI which have been accepted by the top court. ALSO READ | 'He has got to find his way and....' - BCCI chief Sourav Ganguly reacts to Virat Kohli's poor form According to the recommendations, there should be a three-year cooling off period for the office bearers of the BCCI after a tenure of six years once a post comes to an end at the state cricket association or at the BCCI level. The BCCI, in its proposed amendment, has sought abolition of cooling off period for its office bearers which would enable BCCI president Ganguly and secretary Shah to continue in office despite them having completed six years at respective state cricket associations. The constitution of BCCI, which has been approved by the top court stipulates, a mandatory three-year cooling off period for anyone who had served two consecutive terms of three years each in state cricket association or in BCCI. While Ganguly was an office bearer in the Cricket Association of Bengal, Shah had served in the Gujarat Cricket Association.

Supreme Court set to hear BCCI plea seeking to amend its constitution next week

A group of former Indian judges and bureaucrats wrote an open letter to India's chief justice, criticising the top court's observations against Nupur Sharma. The retired officials claim the comments were unrelated to the issue at hand. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Supreme court faces backlash over Nupur Sharma's plea

A 10-year-old rape victim in the US's Ohio was forced to go to Indiana for an abortion after the state banned the procedure following the Supreme Court ruling on June 24.

10-year-old rape survivor forced to leave Ohio for abortion

The Joe Biden administration wants to lead the world in climate action, but can't even bring systemic changes at home. The US Supreme Court has curbed federal power to fight climate change. EPA can no longer regulate carbon emissions. Palki Sharma reports.

Gravitas: US Supreme Court restricts federal power to fight climate change

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