The United States supreme court has limited the federal government's ability to curb greenhouse gases. Environmental agency can't issue limits on plants. Meanwhile, UN has criticised this decision of SC.

WION Climate Tracker: US supreme court vs Greener planet: Can America fulfill its climate duties?

The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden’s climate agenda.

US Supreme court curbs EPA's powers to regulate greenhouse gases

Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in Thursday as the newest U.S. Supreme Court justice, becoming the first Black woman ever to serve on the high court.

In Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. top court gets first black woman justice

The Indian Supreme Court blasted former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma for stoking tensions with her “disturbing” remarks against Prophet Muhammad, saying that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”.

"The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country," said the judges.

The SC bench made these observations when Nupur Sharma filed a transfer application in the top court.

In her application, Sharma had urged to transfer all the cases against her in different states to Delhi as her "life is in danger due to constant threats". Nupur Sharma said that she is constantly receiving threats to kill her from different states.

The court found that the remark was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities, and said she should have apologised to the whole country.

Sharma's remark against the Prophet, made during the course of a TV debate, triggered protests across the country and invited sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party.

While refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala allowed her to withdraw the plea.

Referring to her apology and withdrawal of comments on Prophet, the Supreme Court bench said it was too late in the day to withdraw.

“These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country...These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or for political agenda or some other nefarious activities?” the bench said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-appreciates-bjps-decision-to-condemn-nupur-sharmas-controversial-remarks-about-prophet-muhammad-489000">US appreciates BJP's decision to condemn Nupur Sharma's controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammad</a>

The top court said she has a “loose tongue" and has made all kinds of "irresponsible statements" and claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing. "She should have apologised for her comments to the whole country.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-ruling-bharatiya-janata-party-suspends-spokeswoman-nupur-sharma-over-comments-on-prophet-mohammed-485418">India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party suspends spokeswoman Nupur Sharma over comments on Prophet Mohammed</a>

Justice Kant said she has remedy before the high court and can very well approach it, if there is a second FIR.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian Supreme Court blasted former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma for stoking tensions with her “disturbing” remarks against Prophet Muhammad, saying that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”.

The Indian Supreme Court blasted former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma for stoking tensions with her “disturbing” remarks against Prophet Muhammad, saying that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”. "The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country," said the judges. The SC bench made these observations when Nupur Sharma filed a transfer application in the top court. In her application, Sharma had urged to transfer all the cases against her in different states to Delhi as her "life is in danger due to constant threats". Nupur Sharma said that she is constantly receiving threats to kill her from different states. The court found that the remark was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities, and said she should have apologised to the whole country. Sharma's remark against the Prophet, made during the course of a TV debate, triggered protests across the country and invited sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party. While refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala allowed her to withdraw the plea. Referring to her apology and withdrawal of comments on Prophet, the Supreme Court bench said it was too late in the day to withdraw. “These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country...These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or for political agenda or some other nefarious activities?” the bench said. Also read | US appreciates BJP's decision to condemn Nupur Sharma's controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammad The top court said she has a “loose tongue" and has made all kinds of "irresponsible statements" and claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing. "She should have apologised for her comments to the whole country.” Also read | India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party suspends spokeswoman Nupur Sharma over comments on Prophet Mohammed Justice Kant said she has remedy before the high court and can very well approach it, if there is a second FIR. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

BJP's Nupur Sharma ‘single-handedly’ responsible for unfortunate incidents: Indian SC on Prophet row

Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman in the history of the United States to become a Supreme Court justice as the 51-year-old was sworn in on Thursday. Jackson joins the Supreme Court at the time when it is dominating headlines both overturning Roe vs Wade and ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot issue wide limitations on greenhouse gases. She will join the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court which currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. Jackson became the latest addition to the Supreme Court after liberal Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/scotus-strikes-again-limits-us-government-powers-to-curb-greenhouse-emissions-493343" hreflang="en">SCOTUS strikes again, limits US government powers to curb greenhouse emissions</a>

"With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favour," Jackson said in a statement.

Jackson was chosen by President Joe Biden after a year at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before that, she was a federal district judge for almost eight years. &nbsp;The Senate finally confirmed her appointment on April 7 this year after a 53-47 vote in her favour.

Justice Breyer expressed his happiness after Jackson became the 116th Supreme Court justice.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-should-sell-f-16-fighter-planes-to-turkey-congress-can-approve-says-biden-493313">US should sell F-16 fighters to Turkey, Congress can approve: Biden</a>

"I am glad for America," Breyer said in a statement according to Reuters. "Ketanji will interpret the law wisely and fairly, helping that law to work better for the American people, whom it serves."

Jackson will join the Supreme Court with immediate effect, but her first argument will come in the next term in October. The next term will include a major case concerning affirmative action used by colleges and universities in provide admissions to minority students.

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>.

Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman in the history of the United States to become a Supreme Court justice as the 51-year-old was sworn in on Thursday.

Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman in the history of the United States to become a Supreme Court justice as the 51-year-old was sworn in on Thursday. Jackson joins the Supreme Court at the time when it is dominating headlines both overturning Roe vs Wade and ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot issue wide limitations on greenhouse gases. She will join the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court which currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. Jackson became the latest addition to the Supreme Court after liberal Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement. Also read | SCOTUS strikes again, limits US government powers to curb greenhouse emissions "With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favour," Jackson said in a statement. Jackson was chosen by President Joe Biden after a year at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before that, she was a federal district judge for almost eight years. The Senate finally confirmed her appointment on April 7 this year after a 53-47 vote in her favour. Justice Breyer expressed his happiness after Jackson became the 116th Supreme Court justice. Also read | US should sell F-16 fighters to Turkey, Congress can approve: Biden "I am glad for America," Breyer said in a statement according to Reuters. "Ketanji will interpret the law wisely and fairly, helping that law to work better for the American people, whom it serves." Jackson will join the Supreme Court with immediate effect, but her first argument will come in the next term in October. The next term will include a major case concerning affirmative action used by colleges and universities in provide admissions to minority students. 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.

Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes first Black woman on US Supreme Court

After the repeal of pro-abortion laws, several women in the US are looking to go for a 'sex strike'. On Twitter, “abstinence” has also been trending. The decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling has not gone down well with many people in the country. The idea of a sex strike has come up in wake of the ruling to get back the right of abortion.

Men, who will not get a vasectomy and weren’t in the streets to fight for this cause did “not deserve to have sex with [her]”, Brianna Campbell, who works as an Emergency Medical Technician, told The New York Post. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-surge-in-demand-cvs-and-walmart-are-rationing-plan-b-emergency-contraceptive-pills-492487" hreflang="en">US abortion ban: CVS, Walmart ration Plan B contraceptive pills as demand surges</a>

“Why shouldn’t we withhold it if we’re always worried that they’re not going put a condom on, that they’re going take one off after we ask them to. If we can’t safely go out and have sex and know that we will have a choice after that, then why should we be expected to?” event coordinator Caroline Healey said, while participating in an abortion protest in Manhattan’s Union Square. &nbsp;&nbsp;

“If this world thinks that they can oppress women forever, then we close our legs,” Maya Demri, a rape survivor, told the outlet. &nbsp; &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
my legs are CLOSED! 🚫 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SexStrike?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SexStrike</a> <a href="https://t.co/B2ILNb83TG">pic.twitter.com/B2ILNb83TG</a>
— marilynn 💕 #FreeWendy (@dumbledore) <a href="https://twitter.com/dumbledore/status/1541094124987863040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“I want to find people who are coordinating a mass sex strike. That is our power. Women have the power here. No more sex until abortion rights are federal law,” a woman on Twitter said. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling has been criticised by a number of world leaders in the last couple of days too.&nbsp;

Watch WION's live TV 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>

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

After the repeal of pro-abortion laws, several women in the US are looking to go for a 'sex strike'. On Twitter, “abstinence” has also been trending. The decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v.

After the repeal of pro-abortion laws, several women in the US are looking to go for a 'sex strike'. On Twitter, “abstinence” has also been trending. The decision of the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling has not gone down well with many people in the country. The idea of a sex strike has come up in wake of the ruling to get back the right of abortion. Men, who will not get a vasectomy and weren’t in the streets to fight for this cause did “not deserve to have sex with [her]”, Brianna Campbell, who works as an Emergency Medical Technician, told The New York Post. Also Read | US abortion ban: CVS, Walmart ration Plan B contraceptive pills as demand surges “Why shouldn’t we withhold it if we’re always worried that they’re not going put a condom on, that they’re going take one off after we ask them to. If we can’t safely go out and have sex and know that we will have a choice after that, then why should we be expected to?” event coordinator Caroline Healey said, while participating in an abortion protest in Manhattan’s Union Square. “If this world thinks that they can oppress women forever, then we close our legs,” Maya Demri, a rape survivor, told the outlet. my legs are CLOSED! 🚫 #SexStrike pic.twitter.com/B2ILNb83TG — marilynn 💕 #FreeWendy (@dumbledore) June 26, 2022 × “I want to find people who are coordinating a mass sex strike. That is our power. Women have the power here. No more sex until abortion rights are federal law,” a woman on Twitter said. The decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling has been criticised by a number of world leaders in the last couple of days too. Watch WION's live TV here: (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. ×

It ain't over yet: Women look to go for 'sex strike' to get abortion rights back in US

The reversal of Roe v Wade by the United States Supreme Court has created a lot of mixed feelings in the United States. The decision was welcomed by the conservatives and Republicans while the removal of abortion rights resulted to a number of protests around the country. The ruling by justice Clarence Thomas also allowed a sneak peek into the topics that can be up for debate in the aftermath of this ruling. According to the ruling, he suggested that in the future, the Supreme Court can be looking into issues like contraception access, marriage equality and even LGBTQ rights.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-military-plane-endangered-peace-and-stability-after-flying-through-taiwan-strait-says-china-491610" hreflang="en">US plane's Taiwan Strait flyover ‘endangered peace and stability’: China</a>

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion.

In Lawrence v Texas in 2003, the states could not criminalise sodomy while in Griswold v Connecticut in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that a married couple can exercise their right to use contraception without any government interference. In 2005, Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry. These are mainly the cases mentioned by Justice Thomas in his notes.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-vs-wade-overturned-vatican-us-bishops-praise-supreme-court-decision-491574">Roe vs Wade overturned: Vatican, US Bishops praise Supreme Court decision</a>

While Justice Samuel Alito said that the decision to reverse Roe v Wade will not have any impact on other major precent cases, it was dismissed by the three liberal judges in the court.

“Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy or additional constitutional rights are under threat,” the liberal justices wrote according to The Guardian. “It is one or the other.”

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>.

The reversal of Roe v Wade by the United States Supreme Court has created a lot of mixed feelings in the United States. The decision was welcomed by the conservatives and Republicans while the removal of abortion rights resulted to a number of protests around the country.

The reversal of Roe v Wade by the United States Supreme Court has created a lot of mixed feelings in the United States. The decision was welcomed by the conservatives and Republicans while the removal of abortion rights resulted to a number of protests around the country. The ruling by justice Clarence Thomas also allowed a sneak peek into the topics that can be up for debate in the aftermath of this ruling. According to the ruling, he suggested that in the future, the Supreme Court can be looking into issues like contraception access, marriage equality and even LGBTQ rights. Also read | US plane's Taiwan Strait flyover ‘endangered peace and stability’: China “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. In Lawrence v Texas in 2003, the states could not criminalise sodomy while in Griswold v Connecticut in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that a married couple can exercise their right to use contraception without any government interference. In 2005, Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry. These are mainly the cases mentioned by Justice Thomas in his notes. Also read | Roe vs Wade overturned: Vatican, US Bishops praise Supreme Court decision While Justice Samuel Alito said that the decision to reverse Roe v Wade will not have any impact on other major precent cases, it was dismissed by the three liberal judges in the court. “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy or additional constitutional rights are under threat,” the liberal justices wrote according to The Guardian. “It is one or the other.” 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.

Contraception, LGBTQ rights: US Supreme Court hints at next possible targets

The Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. For more on this, we're joined by WION's correspondent Susan Tehrani and VOA's correspondent Jessica Stone.

US supreme court overturns Roe vs Wade

Now Americans can legally carry loaded handguns in public places. The Supreme Court has opened the doors for almost all law abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. The court has opened gates to allow more guns on streets.

Scotus throws out New York gun laws

The supreme court of Sri Lanka has given its determination on the 21st amendment bill noting the inconsistencies. In the bill, the top says that some clauses require a public referendum and the support of a two-thirds majority to be passed.

No clean chit for 21st amendment bill from Sri Lankan Supreme Court

A fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in India's Supreme Court contesting the 'Agneepath' defence force recruitment system, claiming it is "illegal and unconstitutional." Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma filed the petition to have the Centre's notification for the Agneepath initiative quashed.

"In the interest of justice, quash the notification/press note dated June 14, 2022, issued by the Defense Ministry as illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab-initio and ultra vires to the Indian constitution," the PIL stated.

Several states have seen protests opposing the plan. In 2022, the government raised the upper age limit for enlistment to 23 years.

It said that on June 14, 2022, the Centre tinkered with the century-old Army selection process and imposed the scheme for recruitment in all three Armed Forces divisions, in violation of constitutional norms, without parliamentary approval and without any gazette notification. The petition also mentioned the nationwide protests against the proposal. 
 
Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/agnipath-heres-why-students-are-protesting-against-indias-controversial-military-recruitment-scheme-489089">Agnipath row: Why are youngsters protesting against India's controversial military recruitment scheme?</a>

On Saturday, a lawyer filed a petition asking the court to order the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violent protests against the Agneepath programme and the damage to public property, including railways.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: Indian youth protest Agnipath recruitment scheme

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indian-youth-protest-agnipath-recruitment-scheme-488921/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The petition also requested that an expert committee be established under the head of a former Supreme Court judge to investigate the Agneepath initiative and its impact on national security and the nation's Army.&nbsp;

The plea, filed by counsel Vishal Tiwari, sought to draw the Court's notice to the country's dire situation as a result of the Centre's Agneepath scheme, which was established through the Ministry of Defence.

(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>.

A fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in India's Supreme Court contesting the 'Agneepath' defence force recruitment system, claiming it is "illegal and unconstitutional.

A fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in India's Supreme Court contesting the 'Agneepath' defence force recruitment system, claiming it is "illegal and unconstitutional." Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma filed the petition to have the Centre's notification for the Agneepath initiative quashed. "In the interest of justice, quash the notification/press note dated June 14, 2022, issued by the Defense Ministry as illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab-initio and ultra vires to the Indian constitution," the PIL stated. Several states have seen protests opposing the plan. In 2022, the government raised the upper age limit for enlistment to 23 years. It said that on June 14, 2022, the Centre tinkered with the century-old Army selection process and imposed the scheme for recruitment in all three Armed Forces divisions, in violation of constitutional norms, without parliamentary approval and without any gazette notification. The petition also mentioned the nationwide protests against the proposal. Also read | Agnipath row: Why are youngsters protesting against India's controversial military recruitment scheme? On Saturday, a lawyer filed a petition asking the court to order the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violent protests against the Agneepath programme and the damage to public property, including railways. Watch | Gravitas: Indian youth protest Agnipath recruitment scheme The petition also requested that an expert committee be established under the head of a former Supreme Court judge to investigate the Agneepath initiative and its impact on national security and the nation's Army. The plea, filed by counsel Vishal Tiwari, sought to draw the Court's notice to the country's dire situation as a result of the Centre's Agneepath scheme, which was established through the Ministry of Defence. (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.

Agneepath: Plea in Supreme Court against India's military hiring scheme terms it 'illegal'

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession. Upon questioning, the man admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh and according to Reuters, the authorities have confirmed that he is not from Maryland. According to the report, the man arrived near Kavanaugh’s house in a taxi but he was detained by the police outside the residence.

&nbsp;“At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District,” the Supreme Court said in its official statement.

The houses of all the Supreme Court justices have been provided extra security since the protests surrounding the Roe v Wade judgement. With a leaked draft hinting that the rule on abortion rights can change in the United States, a lot of protests have taken place outside the judges’ residences.

The Department of Justice made it clear that the Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all Supreme Court justices.&nbsp; A spokesman for the Marshal Service confirmed told CNBC that directives have not changed and the houses are under their protection.

According to the Washington Post, initial evidence suggests that the man was angry due to the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and also the recent mass shootings in the United States.

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession.

A man in his 20s was arrested outside the home of United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland on Wednesday after the police found a handgun, knife and pepper spray in his possession. Upon questioning, the man admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh and according to Reuters, the authorities have confirmed that he is not from Maryland. According to the report, the man arrived near Kavanaugh’s house in a taxi but he was detained by the police outside the residence. “At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District,” the Supreme Court said in its official statement. The houses of all the Supreme Court justices have been provided extra security since the protests surrounding the Roe v Wade judgement. With a leaked draft hinting that the rule on abortion rights can change in the United States, a lot of protests have taken place outside the judges’ residences. The Department of Justice made it clear that the Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all Supreme Court justices. A spokesman for the Marshal Service confirmed told CNBC that directives have not changed and the houses are under their protection. According to the Washington Post, initial evidence suggests that the man was angry due to the possible overturning of Roe v Wade and also the recent mass shootings in the United States.

Armed man arrested near US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh's residence

The Pakistan's Supreme Court sought reports of PTI leaders in instigating party workers to reach Islamabad's D-Chowk in violation of SC's May 25 order.

Pakistan's Supreme court seeks a report on violence at Freedom March

A panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.

"Whenever there is a raid on any brothel since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised," the pandel said in one of its guidelines.

"Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children," it added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sex-workers-fighting-for-human-rights-are-worlds-most-at-risk-activists-405755">Also read |&nbsp;Sex workers fighting for human rights are world’s most ‘at risk activists’</a>

"It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this the country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

However, the Central government has expressed reservations about the recommendation ''that voluntary sex work is not illegal and that only running a brothel is prohibited, with no action taken against sex workers,'' according to Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud.

Some of the recommendations, made by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna, have been accepted by the Government of India and the Apex Court has now ordered states to implement them.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-firm-handling-immigration-for-govt-accused-of-paying-for-sex-while-deporting-migrants-470621">Also read |&nbsp;UK firm handling immigration for govt accused of paying for sex while deporting migrants</a>

“Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action," the Supreme Court said.

It has given six weeks to the Central government to react and implement the recommendations and file its response by July 27, 2022.

The court also directed that Aadhar Cards shall be issued to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certificate.&nbsp;

It is issued by UIDAI (Unique Identity - Aadhaar to all Residents of India) and submitted by the Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society, along with the Aadhar enrolment form/application.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV 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 panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.

A panel of the Supreme Court of India has recommended that voluntary sex work is not illegal and therefore, sex workers should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised. "Whenever there is a raid on any brothel since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised," the pandel said in one of its guidelines. "Needless to say, this basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children, who, bearing the brunt of social stigma attached to their work, are removed to the fringes of the society, deprived of their right to live with dignity and opportunities to provide the same to their children," it added. Also read | Sex workers fighting for human rights are world’s most ‘at risk activists’ "It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this the country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." However, the Central government has expressed reservations about the recommendation ''that voluntary sex work is not illegal and that only running a brothel is prohibited, with no action taken against sex workers,'' according to Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud. Some of the recommendations, made by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna, have been accepted by the Government of India and the Apex Court has now ordered states to implement them. Also read | UK firm handling immigration for govt accused of paying for sex while deporting migrants “Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action," the Supreme Court said. It has given six weeks to the Central government to react and implement the recommendations and file its response by July 27, 2022. The court also directed that Aadhar Cards shall be issued to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certificate. It is issued by UIDAI (Unique Identity - Aadhaar to all Residents of India) and submitted by the Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society, along with the Aadhar enrolment form/application. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here:

India's Supreme Court panel recommends that voluntary sex work is not illegal

On Thursday, the Oklahoma House enacted a bill prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at fertilisation.

The plan builds on a statute enacted earlier this month in Oklahoma that forbids abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy, mirroring a Texas law.

"One of the most extreme abortion bans in the country," said Vice President Kamala Harris.

The bill is part of a nationwide effort by Republican-controlled states to curtail abortion rights. It comes after a leaked draught ruling from the United States Supreme Court suggested that justices are considering weakening or overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalised abortion over 50 years ago.

"Is our goal to defend the right to life or isn't it?" Stearman asked her colleagues before the bill passed on a 73-16 vote mostly along party lines.

According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in March 2022, 61 percent of Americans believe abortion should be allowed in all or most cases, however support for the procedure beyond the first trimester of pregnancy drops dramatically.

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>.

On Thursday, the Oklahoma House enacted a bill prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at fertilisation. The plan builds on a statute enacted earlier this month in Oklahoma that forbids abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy, mirroring a Texas law.

On Thursday, the Oklahoma House enacted a bill prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at fertilisation. The plan builds on a statute enacted earlier this month in Oklahoma that forbids abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy, mirroring a Texas law. "One of the most extreme abortion bans in the country," said Vice President Kamala Harris. The bill is part of a nationwide effort by Republican-controlled states to curtail abortion rights. It comes after a leaked draught ruling from the United States Supreme Court suggested that justices are considering weakening or overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalised abortion over 50 years ago. "Is our goal to defend the right to life or isn't it?" Stearman asked her colleagues before the bill passed on a 73-16 vote mostly along party lines. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in March 2022, 61 percent of Americans believe abortion should be allowed in all or most cases, however support for the procedure beyond the first trimester of pregnancy drops dramatically. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US: Oklahoma's legislature passes a bill banning nearly all abortions

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) took suo motu notice of "perceived interference" by "persons in authority" in investigation and prosecution of criminal matters against government officials.

Pakistan SC takes suo motu notice of interference in prosecution of cases against govt officials

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the civil court in Varanasi to not proceed with hearing the Gyanvapi case till it takes up the matter on Friday.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narashima was informed by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain that lead counsel Hari Shankar Jain for the Hindu devotees in the civil suit in the case is indisposed.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain urged the court to take up the matter for hearing on Friday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/explainer-gyanvapi-mosque-survey-supreme-court-to-hear-mosques-appeal-on-may-17-479626">Gyanvapi: Supreme Court to hear appeal against videography survey on May 17</a>

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, said several applications have been filed across the country to "seal" various mosques and in the Gyanvapi case in Varanasi the hearing is going on and an application has been filed to "demolish" a wall around the 'wazukhana' (ablution room).

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: India to re-think sedition law

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-india-to-re-think-sedition-law-477721/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lord-shiva-idol-found-in-gyanvapi-mosque-well-hindu-lawyer-claims-479423">Lord Shiva idol found in a well located in Gyanvapi mosque complex, lawyer claims</a>

Ahmadi said he cannot oppose adjournment on the grounds of health of a counsel but an undertaking should be given that Hindu devotees will not proceed with the civil court proceedings.

Advocate Vishnu said they are assuring the bench that the Hindu parties would not proceed with the hearing before the civil court at Varanasi. The bench recorded the submission and passed the order asking the civil court to not proceed with the hearing in the case till Friday, when it will hear the matter.

On May 17, the top court had directed the district magistrate of Varanasi to ensure protection of an area inside the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex where a 'Shivling' is said to have been found during a survey and allowed Muslims to offer 'namaz' and perform 'religious observances.'

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>.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the civil court in Varanasi to not proceed with hearing the Gyanvapi case till it takes up the matter on Friday. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narashima was informed by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain that lead counsel Hari Shankar Jain for the Hindu devotees in the civil suit in the case is indisposed.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the civil court in Varanasi to not proceed with hearing the Gyanvapi case till it takes up the matter on Friday. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narashima was informed by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain that lead counsel Hari Shankar Jain for the Hindu devotees in the civil suit in the case is indisposed. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain urged the court to take up the matter for hearing on Friday. Also read | Gyanvapi: Supreme Court to hear appeal against videography survey on May 17 Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, said several applications have been filed across the country to "seal" various mosques and in the Gyanvapi case in Varanasi the hearing is going on and an application has been filed to "demolish" a wall around the 'wazukhana' (ablution room). Watch | Gravitas: India to re-think sedition law Also read | Lord Shiva idol found in a well located in Gyanvapi mosque complex, lawyer claims Ahmadi said he cannot oppose adjournment on the grounds of health of a counsel but an undertaking should be given that Hindu devotees will not proceed with the civil court proceedings. Advocate Vishnu said they are assuring the bench that the Hindu parties would not proceed with the hearing before the civil court at Varanasi. The bench recorded the submission and passed the order asking the civil court to not proceed with the hearing in the case till Friday, when it will hear the matter. On May 17, the top court had directed the district magistrate of Varanasi to ensure protection of an area inside the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex where a 'Shivling' is said to have been found during a survey and allowed Muslims to offer 'namaz' and perform 'religious observances.' WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

SC to hear challenge to Gyanvapi mosque survey on Friday, asks Varanasi court to desist from hearing today

Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Indian Supreme Court Wednesday ordered the release of A G Perarivalan, who has served over 30 years in jail in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao said the Tamil Nadu state cabinet's advice recommending the premature release of all seven convicts in the case was binding on the governor.

The apex court also discarded the Centre's argument that the president exclusively has the power to grant pardon in a case under section 302 the Indian Penal Code, saying this would render article 161 (power of governor to grant pardon) functionless.

The bench, also comprising Justice B R Gavai, held that states have the power to advise and aid the governor in case of pleas of pardon under article 161 made by convicts in murder cases.

Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the Supreme Court's power to exercise its jurisdiction and pass order for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The article was also used in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

The Centre had earlier defended the Tamil Nadu governor's decision to send the mercy plea of Perarivalan to the president.

Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj had said that only the president can decide the plea regarding remission, commutation and mercy plea of an individual convicted under the central law.

On March 9, the top court had granted bail to Perarivalan while taking note of his long incarceration and no history of complaints when out on parole.

The top court has been hearing pleas including the one in which Perarivalan sought suspension of his life sentence in the case till the Multi Disciplanary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) probe is completed.

The CBI, in its affidavit of November 20, 2020, had told the apex court that the Tamil Nadu governor has to take a call on grant of remission to Perarivalan.

Later, the governor referred the mercy plea to the President of India saying he does not have the power to decide it.

The mercy plea has been pending since then and the apex court said till the time the legal issue over the power to grant remission is decided, it would grant the bail to the convict.

The CBI had said Perarivalan was not the subject matter of further investigation carried out by the CBI-led MDMA which is conducting a probe on the aspect of larger conspiracy as per the mandate of the Jain Commission report.

The Jain commission of inquiry in the assassination of the former prime minister has recommended a probe into the larger conspiracy by MDMA, and it required monitoring /tracking of absconding suspects and the role of Sri Lankan and Indian nationals in the case.

The state government had earlier told the top court that the Cabinet had already passed a resolution, on September 9, 2018, recommending to the governor to prematurely release all seven convicts in the case.

The MDMA was set up in 1998 on the recommendations of the Justice M C Jain Commission of Inquiry which had probed the conspiracy aspect of Gandhi's assassination. 
Gandhi was assassinated on the night of May 21, 1991, at a poll rally in Tamil Nadu's Sriperumbudur by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu. Fourteen others, including Dhanu herself, were also killed.

Gandhi's assassination was probably the first case in the country of suicide bombing which had claimed the life of a high-profile leader.

In its May 1999 order, the top court had upheld the death sentence of four convicts -- Perarivalan, Murugan, Santham and Nalini.

In April 2000, the Tamil Nadu governor had commuted the death sentence of Nalini on the basis of the state government's recommendation and an appeal by former Congress president and Rajiv Gandhi's widow Sonia Gandhi.

On February 18, 2014, the top court had commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment, along with that of two other prisoners -- Santhan and Murugan -- on the grounds of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy pleas by the Centre.

Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Indian Supreme Court Wednesday ordered the release of A G Perarivalan, who has served over 30 years in jail in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Indian Supreme Court Wednesday ordered the release of A G Perarivalan, who has served over 30 years in jail in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao said the Tamil Nadu state cabinet's advice recommending the premature release of all seven convicts in the case was binding on the governor. The apex court also discarded the Centre's argument that the president exclusively has the power to grant pardon in a case under section 302 the Indian Penal Code, saying this would render article 161 (power of governor to grant pardon) functionless. The bench, also comprising Justice B R Gavai, held that states have the power to advise and aid the governor in case of pleas of pardon under article 161 made by convicts in murder cases. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the Supreme Court's power to exercise its jurisdiction and pass order for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The article was also used in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The Centre had earlier defended the Tamil Nadu governor's decision to send the mercy plea of Perarivalan to the president. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj had said that only the president can decide the plea regarding remission, commutation and mercy plea of an individual convicted under the central law. On March 9, the top court had granted bail to Perarivalan while taking note of his long incarceration and no history of complaints when out on parole. The top court has been hearing pleas including the one in which Perarivalan sought suspension of his life sentence in the case till the Multi Disciplanary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) probe is completed. The CBI, in its affidavit of November 20, 2020, had told the apex court that the Tamil Nadu governor has to take a call on grant of remission to Perarivalan. Later, the governor referred the mercy plea to the President of India saying he does not have the power to decide it. The mercy plea has been pending since then and the apex court said till the time the legal issue over the power to grant remission is decided, it would grant the bail to the convict. The CBI had said Perarivalan was not the subject matter of further investigation carried out by the CBI-led MDMA which is conducting a probe on the aspect of larger conspiracy as per the mandate of the Jain Commission report. The Jain commission of inquiry in the assassination of the former prime minister has recommended a probe into the larger conspiracy by MDMA, and it required monitoring /tracking of absconding suspects and the role of Sri Lankan and Indian nationals in the case. The state government had earlier told the top court that the Cabinet had already passed a resolution, on September 9, 2018, recommending to the governor to prematurely release all seven convicts in the case. The MDMA was set up in 1998 on the recommendations of the Justice M C Jain Commission of Inquiry which had probed the conspiracy aspect of Gandhi's assassination. Gandhi was assassinated on the night of May 21, 1991, at a poll rally in Tamil Nadu's Sriperumbudur by a woman suicide bomber, identified as Dhanu. Fourteen others, including Dhanu herself, were also killed. Gandhi's assassination was probably the first case in the country of suicide bombing which had claimed the life of a high-profile leader. In its May 1999 order, the top court had upheld the death sentence of four convicts -- Perarivalan, Murugan, Santham and Nalini. In April 2000, the Tamil Nadu governor had commuted the death sentence of Nalini on the basis of the state government's recommendation and an appeal by former Congress president and Rajiv Gandhi's widow Sonia Gandhi. On February 18, 2014, the top court had commuted the death sentence of Perarivalan to life imprisonment, along with that of two other prisoners -- Santhan and Murugan -- on the grounds of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy pleas by the Centre.

Indian Supreme Court orders release of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A G Perarivalan

The US Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Republican Ted Cruz in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations.

US Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz in campaign finance case

Gyanvapi: Supreme Court to hear appeal against videography survey on May 17

Abortion has polarized the United States for decades. It's a topic that starts from drawing room discussions but ends up in every campaign trail. Now Supreme court's latest draft leak is dividing Americans further and the repercussions can be felt on the streets.

Abortion divides United States: Will SC overturn the landmark ruling?

British medical journal The Lancet warned Friday that US Supreme Court justices would have "women's blood on their hands" if they strike down the nationwide right to abortion.

In a hard-hitting editorial, the renowned scientific publication condemned a leaked draft decision to override the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that enshrined the right to abortion in the United States.

"The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die," the publication said.&nbsp;

"The justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion."&nbsp;

"Alito and his supporters will have women's blood on their hands," it concluded, referring to justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft majority opinion of the court that was leaked last week.

The Lancet said black women would suffer disproportionately from the decision because they have higher unwanted pregnancy rates than their white counterparts, and have maternal mortality rates that are three times higher.

"These sharp racial and class disparities need urgent solutions, not more legal barriers," the editorial said.

Spontaneous protests erupted around the United States last week after the draft decision was leaked to the Politico news website, and multiple US organisations have called for nationwide demonstrations this weekend.&nbsp;

"If the court denies women the right to safe abortion, it will be a judicial endorsement of state control over women -- a breathtaking setback for the health and rights of women, one that will have global reverberations," The Lancet said.

An estimated 33 million women undergo unsafe abortions worldwide every year, the editorial said.

The conservative-dominated Supreme Court, which was remodelled by former Republican president Donald Trump, has confirmed the leaked opinion as genuine, but has said that it does not necessarily represent the court's final decision.

If confirmed, it would enable states to set their own abortion laws, with as many as 26 states "certain or likely" to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which backs abortion rights.

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" 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;

 
&nbsp;

British medical journal The Lancet warned Friday that US Supreme Court justices would have "women's blood on their hands" if they strike down the nationwide right to abortion.

British medical journal The Lancet warned Friday that US Supreme Court justices would have "women's blood on their hands" if they strike down the nationwide right to abortion. In a hard-hitting editorial, the renowned scientific publication condemned a leaked draft decision to override the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that enshrined the right to abortion in the United States. "The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die," the publication said. "The justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion." "Alito and his supporters will have women's blood on their hands," it concluded, referring to justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft majority opinion of the court that was leaked last week. The Lancet said black women would suffer disproportionately from the decision because they have higher unwanted pregnancy rates than their white counterparts, and have maternal mortality rates that are three times higher. "These sharp racial and class disparities need urgent solutions, not more legal barriers," the editorial said. Spontaneous protests erupted around the United States last week after the draft decision was leaked to the Politico news website, and multiple US organisations have called for nationwide demonstrations this weekend. "If the court denies women the right to safe abortion, it will be a judicial endorsement of state control over women -- a breathtaking setback for the health and rights of women, one that will have global reverberations," The Lancet said. An estimated 33 million women undergo unsafe abortions worldwide every year, the editorial said. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court, which was remodelled by former Republican president Donald Trump, has confirmed the leaked opinion as genuine, but has said that it does not necessarily represent the court's final decision. If confirmed, it would enable states to set their own abortion laws, with as many as 26 states "certain or likely" to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which backs abortion rights. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

The Lancet warns US Supreme Court over abortion

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

In its significant order on the law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and interests of citizens with that of the state.

Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the "rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu"&nbsp;and permitted reconsideration of the provision.

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohil, directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking sedition charges until the sedition law is "under reconsideration".

The court listed the matter in the third week of July and said its directions shall continue till further orders.

Any affected party is at liberty to approach concerned courts that are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into the consideration the present order, the apex court said.

"We hope and expect that the states and the Centre will restrain (themselves) from registering any FIR, continue any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking section 124A of the IPC till the aforesaid provision of law is under re-consideration,"&nbsp;ordered the bench.

"The attorney general, on previous date of hearing, had given some glaring examples of misuse of the sedition law like in a case of recital of&nbsp;Hanuman Chalisa'...Therefore, we expect that till the re-examination of the law is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue with the usage of the aforesaid provision of the law by the governments,"&nbsp;the chief justice of India said in the order.

The bench did not agree to the Centre's suggestion that a superintendent of police ranked officer be made responsible for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition.

The Centre had also said the registration of FIRs on the matter cannot be prevented as the provision dealt with a cognisable offence and was upheld by a Constitution bench in 1962.

The bench, which rose for a few minutes to discuss the orders after taking note of the Centre's response, came back to pronounce the directions and said it has considered the issues elaborately.

Referring to the Central government's view, it said the Union of India also agreed with its prima facie views on the penal provision which can be reviewed by the competent forum.

It extended interim orders granting relief to those accused of sedition.

All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect the provision of sedition would be kept at abeyance and the adjudication of other offences, if any, could proceed, the order said.

In addition, it permitted the Centre to issue directives to the states to prevent misuse of the provision.

Earlier, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, apprised the bench of the views of the Centre and opposed the plea to stay the operation of the law.

With regard to pending sedition cases, the Centre suggested that hearing on bail pleas in such matters may be expedited as the government did not know the gravity of the offence in all the cases and they may have terror or money laundering angles.

"Ultimately, pending cases are before judicial forum and we need to trust courts," the law officer told the bench.

On Tuesday, the bench had asked the Centre make clear within 24 hours its stand on keeping pending sedition cases in abeyance to protect the interests of citizens already booked and not registering fresh cases till the government's re-examination of the colonial-era penal law is over.

Asking the Centre to take a clear stand after it had posed the two specific queries, the top court had agreed that a re-look of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be left to the government.

Between 2015 and 2020, 356 cases of sedition -- as defined under Section 124A of the IPC--were registered and 548 persons arrested, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period.

The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse.

The bench has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition, an issue of intense debate for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments.

"Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,? reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.&nbsp;

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

Putting on hold the sedition law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law. In its significant order on the law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and interests of citizens with that of the state. Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the "rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu" and permitted reconsideration of the provision. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohil, directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking sedition charges until the sedition law is "under reconsideration". The court listed the matter in the third week of July and said its directions shall continue till further orders. Any affected party is at liberty to approach concerned courts that are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into the consideration the present order, the apex court said. "We hope and expect that the states and the Centre will restrain (themselves) from registering any FIR, continue any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking section 124A of the IPC till the aforesaid provision of law is under re-consideration," ordered the bench. "The attorney general, on previous date of hearing, had given some glaring examples of misuse of the sedition law like in a case of recital of Hanuman Chalisa'...Therefore, we expect that till the re-examination of the law is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue with the usage of the aforesaid provision of the law by the governments," the chief justice of India said in the order. The bench did not agree to the Centre's suggestion that a superintendent of police ranked officer be made responsible for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition. The Centre had also said the registration of FIRs on the matter cannot be prevented as the provision dealt with a cognisable offence and was upheld by a Constitution bench in 1962. The bench, which rose for a few minutes to discuss the orders after taking note of the Centre's response, came back to pronounce the directions and said it has considered the issues elaborately. Referring to the Central government's view, it said the Union of India also agreed with its prima facie views on the penal provision which can be reviewed by the competent forum. It extended interim orders granting relief to those accused of sedition. All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect the provision of sedition would be kept at abeyance and the adjudication of other offences, if any, could proceed, the order said. In addition, it permitted the Centre to issue directives to the states to prevent misuse of the provision. Earlier, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, apprised the bench of the views of the Centre and opposed the plea to stay the operation of the law. With regard to pending sedition cases, the Centre suggested that hearing on bail pleas in such matters may be expedited as the government did not know the gravity of the offence in all the cases and they may have terror or money laundering angles. "Ultimately, pending cases are before judicial forum and we need to trust courts," the law officer told the bench. On Tuesday, the bench had asked the Centre make clear within 24 hours its stand on keeping pending sedition cases in abeyance to protect the interests of citizens already booked and not registering fresh cases till the government's re-examination of the colonial-era penal law is over. Asking the Centre to take a clear stand after it had posed the two specific queries, the top court had agreed that a re-look of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be left to the government. Between 2015 and 2020, 356 cases of sedition -- as defined under Section 124A of the IPC--were registered and 548 persons arrested, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period. The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse. The bench has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition, an issue of intense debate for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments. "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,? reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.

Indian Supreme Court pauses colonial-era sedition law temporarily

The US Vice President Kamala Harris blasted the leaked Supreme Court draft decision on abortion rights and lashed out at Republicans for "weaponizing" the issue.

US Vice President Kamala Harris on Supreme Court draft decision on Abortion rights: How dare they!

The Roe vs Wade judgment in 1973 was a watershed moment in abortion rights in US. It declared that state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. Jane Roe was the plaintiff in the case. But that was a pseudonym. Who was the real Jane Roe? Watch this report.

Who was the real Jane Roe in Roe vs Wade case, which changed US abortion law?

The hearing on Pakistan's top court on objection of the no-confidence motion by the national assembly deputy speaker and the dissolution of the assembly has been adjourned. The hearing by the five-judge bench will resume today.

Pakistan SC to resume hearing on no-confidence motion against Imran Khan

Pakistan's Supreme Court is hearing the crucial case on objection of the no-confidence motion by the national assembly deputy speaker and the dissolution of the assembly. The top court's decision could resolve the ongoing constitutional crisis.

Pakistan SC resumes hearing on no-trust vote case against Imran Khan government

April 3rd is when Pakistan's national assembly was supposed to vote on a no-confidence motion against Imran khan while the day may have passed in a flash with back-to-back political developments its aftershocks will remain in Pakistan's politics.

Pakistan's political crisis: Supreme court likely to issue an order today

Pakistan has gone from witnessing a deepening political crisis to now finding itself in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Minutes after dissolution of its assemblies by Pakistan president on the advice of the Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan, the top court took suo moto cognizance of the matter. For more on this, we are joined by Abdul Basit, former Pak high commissioner to India.

'Don't take advantage of situation,' Assembly dissolved, Pakistan Supreme court takes notice

After a gap of two years, India’s Supreme Court began full-fledged physical hearing on Monday, after it had to switch to virtual hearing due to mounting Covid cases in the country.

On March 30, Chief Justice NV Ramana had said that the court will resume the physical hearings from April 4 onwards. “Monday onwards, we are opening fully, physically,” he said.

The Chief Justice added that they would still conduct virtual hearings on Monday and Friday provided the advocates ask for it.

Earlier, the top court used to hear matters physically on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and conducted hearings through video conference on Monday and Friday.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic hindered its functioning at the beginning, the Supreme Court’s openness to adopting technology without any prior experience made sure that the gates of justice remain open to the people even in the most distraught times.

During the 100 days of lockdown between March and August 2020, 1,022 benches were set up. More than 15,000 cases were taken up, of which 4,300 were resolved, reported Hindustan Times newspaper.

During that time, around 51,000 lawyers argued their cases through videoconferencing till August 2020.

At present, more than 150 cases are heard every day by the SC through virtual hearings, the newspaper noted.

During its virtual functioning, the top court delivered some of the most important judgments and settled several prominent questions of law.

Internet part of the fundamental right

In the first month of 2020, a three-judge bench ruled against the internet gag in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, which had granted special powers to the erstwhile state.

The judgment did not order for restoration of the services in the backdrop of the security concerns, but laid down an important principle that right to access internet is a fundamental right by extension. And hence, it can be demanded as such before a constitutional court.

The court further said that every gag order must give reasons and has to be reviewed regularly by the authorities concerned.

&nbsp;Political parties to publish criminal history of their candidates

In a major fillip for electoral reforms, the Supreme Court had directed political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates contesting for state and national elections. It also asked the parties to detail the reasons that prompted them to field suspected criminals.

The court held that the information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as on the parties’ social media handles. It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier, the court said.

&nbsp;On cryptocurrency

The Supreme Court set aside the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular issued in 2018 that put a complete ban on banking services for the virtual currency.

The court found the 2018 circular to be unreasonable and disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by RBI, paving the way for a regulatory regime of cryptocurrency in India instead of a complete ban.

The 2018 circular stated that the entities regulated by RBI are prohibited from providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those related to the transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies.

(With inputs from agencies)

After a gap of two years, India’s Supreme Court began full-fledged physical hearing on Monday, after it had to switch to virtual hearing due to mounting Covid cases in the country.

After a gap of two years, India’s Supreme Court began full-fledged physical hearing on Monday, after it had to switch to virtual hearing due to mounting Covid cases in the country. On March 30, Chief Justice NV Ramana had said that the court will resume the physical hearings from April 4 onwards. “Monday onwards, we are opening fully, physically,” he said. The Chief Justice added that they would still conduct virtual hearings on Monday and Friday provided the advocates ask for it. Earlier, the top court used to hear matters physically on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and conducted hearings through video conference on Monday and Friday. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic hindered its functioning at the beginning, the Supreme Court’s openness to adopting technology without any prior experience made sure that the gates of justice remain open to the people even in the most distraught times. During the 100 days of lockdown between March and August 2020, 1,022 benches were set up. More than 15,000 cases were taken up, of which 4,300 were resolved, reported Hindustan Times newspaper. During that time, around 51,000 lawyers argued their cases through videoconferencing till August 2020. At present, more than 150 cases are heard every day by the SC through virtual hearings, the newspaper noted. During its virtual functioning, the top court delivered some of the most important judgments and settled several prominent questions of law. Internet part of the fundamental right In the first month of 2020, a three-judge bench ruled against the internet gag in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, which had granted special powers to the erstwhile state. The judgment did not order for restoration of the services in the backdrop of the security concerns, but laid down an important principle that right to access internet is a fundamental right by extension. And hence, it can be demanded as such before a constitutional court. The court further said that every gag order must give reasons and has to be reviewed regularly by the authorities concerned. Political parties to publish criminal history of their candidates In a major fillip for electoral reforms, the Supreme Court had directed political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates contesting for state and national elections. It also asked the parties to detail the reasons that prompted them to field suspected criminals. The court held that the information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as on the parties’ social media handles. It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier, the court said. On cryptocurrency The Supreme Court set aside the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular issued in 2018 that put a complete ban on banking services for the virtual currency. The court found the 2018 circular to be unreasonable and disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by RBI, paving the way for a regulatory regime of cryptocurrency in India instead of a complete ban. The 2018 circular stated that the entities regulated by RBI are prohibited from providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those related to the transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies. (With inputs from agencies)

As India’s SC resumes physical hearing after 2 years, let’s look at key rulings that marked lockdown

Suo Moto proceedings begin in the Supreme Court. The Court has issued notice to Attorney General to explain the constitutional position for invoking Article 5.

Pakistan Political Crisis: Suo Moto proceedings begin in the Supreme Court

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