India: A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJ), SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said that while the tech giant may be a company with deep coffers but people value their privacy more than money.

'You may be a trillion dollar company but...': Supreme Court of India to WhatsApp

The Apex court of Pakistan has ordered the government to immediately construct the vandalised Hindu temple. The court also ordered the provincial authorities to propose a timeline for the completion.

Pakistan Supreme Court orders immediate rebuilding of vandalised Hindu temple

A splintered Supreme Court late Friday partly lifted restrictions on religious services in California that had been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.

The court ruled in cases brought by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena. The churches said restrictions imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, violated the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

The restrictions set varying limits on attendance at religious services by county, depending on infection rates. With the pandemic raging, in-person worship services were entirely barred in Tier 1, which covers almost all of the state.

In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court blocked that total ban but left in place a 25% capacity restriction and a prohibition on singing and chanting. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left all of the restrictions in place.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, explained why a middle ground was appropriate. He said that the court should generally defer to public health experts but that there were limits to that deference.

“The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19,” he wrote. “I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework.”

“At the same time,” the chief justice continued, “the state’s present determination — that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero — appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her first opinion, wrote that she would not have blocked the restrictions on singing and chanting based on the available evidence. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined her opinion.

Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, said the state had favored its entertainment industry over worship services.

“If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues and mosques,” Gorsuch wrote, “something has gone seriously awry.”

In dissent, Kagan, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, said the majority had intruded into matters best left to public health officials.

“Justices of this court are not scientists,” Kagan wrote. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.”

“The state is desperately trying to slow the spread of a deadly disease,” she wrote. “It has concluded, based on essentially undisputed epidemiological findings, that congregating together indoors poses a special threat of contagion. So it has devised regulations to curb attendance at those assemblies and — in the worst times — to force them outdoors.”

“In the worst public health crisis in a century,” Kagan wrote, “this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”

The ruling followed a similar one in November in a case from New York, and it cemented the court’s change of direction on the issue after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose vacancy was filled by Barrett.

In the latest case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, refused to block the most severe restrictions in the case concerning the church in Chula Vista.

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, writing for the panel, said the church had not met its burden for obtaining an injunction.

“Notably, in response to the state’s mountain of scientific evidence, South Bay has not pointed to anything in the record to support the notion that the lesser restriction that it seeks — 100% occupancy with a reliance solely on mask-wearing, social distancing, and sanitation measures — would be effective to meet California’s compelling interest in controlling community spread,” Wardlaw wrote. “South Bay’s self-serving assertion that it has experienced no incidence of the virus among its worshippers is entirely anecdotal and undermined by evidence of outbreaks in similarly situated places of worship.”

Relying on that ruling, a different three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit followed suit in the case concerning Harvest Rock Church. In a reluctant concurring opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain urged the Supreme Court to intervene.

“California’s uniquely severe restrictions against religious worship services — including its total ban against indoor worship in nearly the entire state — are patently unconstitutional and should be enjoined,” he wrote. “The court’s refusal to do so in South Bay cries out for correction.”

“In exactly the same locales where indoor worship is prohibited,” O’Scannlain wrote, “California still allows a vast array of secular facilities to open indoors, including (to name only a few): retail stores, shopping malls, factories, food-processing plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, child care centers, colleges, libraries, professional sports facilities and movie studios.”

Last year, before the death of Ginsburg, the Supreme Court allowed the governors of California and Nevada to restrict attendance at religious services. In a pair of 5-4 orders, Roberts joined what was then the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.

The court changed course in November after the arrival of Barrett, in a case from New York. Disavowing the chief justice’s approach, the majority barred restrictions on religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

A splintered Supreme Court late Friday partly lifted restrictions on religious services in California that had been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic. The court ruled in cases brought by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena.

A splintered Supreme Court late Friday partly lifted restrictions on religious services in California that had been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic. The court ruled in cases brought by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista and Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena. The churches said restrictions imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, violated the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion. The restrictions set varying limits on attendance at religious services by county, depending on infection rates. With the pandemic raging, in-person worship services were entirely barred in Tier 1, which covers almost all of the state. In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court blocked that total ban but left in place a 25% capacity restriction and a prohibition on singing and chanting. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left all of the restrictions in place. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, explained why a middle ground was appropriate. He said that the court should generally defer to public health experts but that there were limits to that deference. “The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19,” he wrote. “I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework.” “At the same time,” the chief justice continued, “the state’s present determination — that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero — appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her first opinion, wrote that she would not have blocked the restrictions on singing and chanting based on the available evidence. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined her opinion. Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, said the state had favored its entertainment industry over worship services. “If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues and mosques,” Gorsuch wrote, “something has gone seriously awry.” In dissent, Kagan, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, said the majority had intruded into matters best left to public health officials. “Justices of this court are not scientists,” Kagan wrote. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.” “The state is desperately trying to slow the spread of a deadly disease,” she wrote. “It has concluded, based on essentially undisputed epidemiological findings, that congregating together indoors poses a special threat of contagion. So it has devised regulations to curb attendance at those assemblies and — in the worst times — to force them outdoors.” “In the worst public health crisis in a century,” Kagan wrote, “this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.” The ruling followed a similar one in November in a case from New York, and it cemented the court’s change of direction on the issue after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose vacancy was filled by Barrett. In the latest case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, refused to block the most severe restrictions in the case concerning the church in Chula Vista. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, writing for the panel, said the church had not met its burden for obtaining an injunction. “Notably, in response to the state’s mountain of scientific evidence, South Bay has not pointed to anything in the record to support the notion that the lesser restriction that it seeks — 100% occupancy with a reliance solely on mask-wearing, social distancing, and sanitation measures — would be effective to meet California’s compelling interest in controlling community spread,” Wardlaw wrote. “South Bay’s self-serving assertion that it has experienced no incidence of the virus among its worshippers is entirely anecdotal and undermined by evidence of outbreaks in similarly situated places of worship.” Relying on that ruling, a different three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit followed suit in the case concerning Harvest Rock Church. In a reluctant concurring opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain urged the Supreme Court to intervene. “California’s uniquely severe restrictions against religious worship services — including its total ban against indoor worship in nearly the entire state — are patently unconstitutional and should be enjoined,” he wrote. “The court’s refusal to do so in South Bay cries out for correction.” “In exactly the same locales where indoor worship is prohibited,” O’Scannlain wrote, “California still allows a vast array of secular facilities to open indoors, including (to name only a few): retail stores, shopping malls, factories, food-processing plants, warehouses, transportation facilities, child care centers, colleges, libraries, professional sports facilities and movie studios.” Last year, before the death of Ginsburg, the Supreme Court allowed the governors of California and Nevada to restrict attendance at religious services. In a pair of 5-4 orders, Roberts joined what was then the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority. The court changed course in November after the arrival of Barrett, in a case from New York. Disavowing the chief justice’s approach, the majority barred restrictions on religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus. In an unsigned opinion, the majority said Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

Supreme Court partly backs religious challenge to California virus restrictions

A top official of the administration of the Union Territory on Friday tweeted that 4G mobile internet is being restored in Jammu and Kashmir.

"4G mobile internet services being restored in entire J&amp;K," said Rohit Kansal, J&amp;K Principal Secretary (Power &amp; Information).

In a previous order, the Jammu and Kashmir administration had extended the ban on high-speed mobile data services across the Union Territory, except Ganderbal and Udhampur, till February 6.

Mobile internet services had been suspended in Jammu and Kashmir since August 5, 2019, due to security reasons when the central government had abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A and J&amp;K transitioned from a state into a UT on October 31, 2019.

(With inputs from agencies)

A top official of the administration of the Union Territory on Friday tweeted that 4G mobile internet is being restored in Jammu and Kashmir. "4G mobile internet services being restored in entire J&K," said Rohit Kansal, J&K Principal Secretary (Power & Information).

A top official of the administration of the Union Territory on Friday tweeted that 4G mobile internet is being restored in Jammu and Kashmir. "4G mobile internet services being restored in entire J&K," said Rohit Kansal, J&K Principal Secretary (Power & Information). In a previous order, the Jammu and Kashmir administration had extended the ban on high-speed mobile data services across the Union Territory, except Ganderbal and Udhampur, till February 6. Mobile internet services had been suspended in Jammu and Kashmir since August 5, 2019, due to security reasons when the central government had abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A and J&K transitioned from a state into a UT on October 31, 2019. (With inputs from agencies)

4G mobile internet services being restored in entire J&K

In a striking revelation, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice Qazi Feez Isa has claimed the country is being destroyed in a systematic manner. The judge has lashed out at the government over the state of democracy, media freedom and governance while hearing on a matter related to local government election in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Isa said Punjab province's government had 'killed' democracy by dissolving the local government before the expiry of its term, Geo News reported.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/twitterati-in-pakistan-slam-poet-iqbals-statue-in-lahore-park-361218" hreflang="en">Twitterati in Pakistan slam poet Iqbal's statue in Lahore park</a>

In 2019, the Punjab province government dissolved the local bodies system. While inquiring about the reason for the move, Isa said, "Local governments were dissolved in the martial law era, but it is unheard of in a democracy." &nbsp;

Justice asked if Punjab was in the mood to abolish the system of local governments altogether. To this, the Punjab additional advocate-general said a new law had been made for local governments in the province.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/after-receiving-chinese-vaccine-as-gift-pakistan-says-drug-not-effective-for-elderly-361536" hreflang="en">After receiving Chinese vaccine as gift, Pakistan says drug not effective for elderly</a>

Confirming the clear violation of the Constitution in the dissolution of the local government by the Punjab province government, Justice Isa added, like this, Punjab can continue dissolving local governments till a government of its choice comes along. If the democracy is lost, half the country will be gone, he warned. &nbsp;

"Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) says there will be huge cost of Rs 18 billion on local bodies elections," Justice Isa remarked. "Yet huge development funds are being released for politicians." The senior judge also made strong statements over the state of media freedom in Pakistan.&nbsp;

He said he won't shy away from saying the media is not free and it is being controlled, with real journalists being thrown out of the country. Pakistan, he said, is being destroyed in a systematic manner. He said when media is destroyed, a country is destroyed. "Tell me. Is media free in Pakistan?", Justice Isa asked attorney-general Khalid Javed Khan.&nbsp;

In a striking revelation, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice Qazi Feez Isa has claimed the country is being destroyed in a systematic manner. The judge has lashed out at the government over the state of democracy, media freedom and governance while hearing on a matter related to local government election in the Supreme Court.

In a striking revelation, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice Qazi Feez Isa has claimed the country is being destroyed in a systematic manner. The judge has lashed out at the government over the state of democracy, media freedom and governance while hearing on a matter related to local government election in the Supreme Court. Isa said Punjab province's government had 'killed' democracy by dissolving the local government before the expiry of its term, Geo News reported. Also read | Twitterati in Pakistan slam poet Iqbal's statue in Lahore park In 2019, the Punjab province government dissolved the local bodies system. While inquiring about the reason for the move, Isa said, "Local governments were dissolved in the martial law era, but it is unheard of in a democracy." Justice asked if Punjab was in the mood to abolish the system of local governments altogether. To this, the Punjab additional advocate-general said a new law had been made for local governments in the province. Also read | After receiving Chinese vaccine as gift, Pakistan says drug not effective for elderly Confirming the clear violation of the Constitution in the dissolution of the local government by the Punjab province government, Justice Isa added, like this, Punjab can continue dissolving local governments till a government of its choice comes along. If the democracy is lost, half the country will be gone, he warned. "Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) says there will be huge cost of Rs 18 billion on local bodies elections," Justice Isa remarked. "Yet huge development funds are being released for politicians." The senior judge also made strong statements over the state of media freedom in Pakistan. He said he won't shy away from saying the media is not free and it is being controlled, with real journalists being thrown out of the country. Pakistan, he said, is being destroyed in a systematic manner. He said when media is destroyed, a country is destroyed. "Tell me. Is media free in Pakistan?", Justice Isa asked attorney-general Khalid Javed Khan.

'Pakistan being destroyed': Supreme Court Justice rues over sorry state of democracy

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea which had sought a direction to instant messaging platform WhatsApp to roll back its new privacy policy on grounds that it is allegedly violative of laws and can impact the country's security.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde observed that this issue is already being heard by the Delhi High Court and the petitioner can choose the suitable remedy.

The bench, also comprising justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was hearing a plea filed by the Confederation of All India Traders which had sought a direction to the Centre to intervene in the matter and frame guidelines to govern large technology-based companies such as WhatsApp Inc., Facebook Inc. and Facebook India Online Services Private Limited.

The plea, filed through advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma, had said that the public interest litigation (PIL) was necessitated due to the alleged failure of the Centre in carrying out its constitutional duty and responsibility to protect the rights to privacy and freedom of speech and expression of the citizens of India.

"The respondent no.1 -- Union of India -- has granted permission to respondent nos 2 to 4 to run the WhatsApp application in India, but has failed to play the role of a guardian to protect the fundamental rights of citizens in as much as WhatsApp, which is rendering essential public services by enabling citizens to communicate, has recently imposed unconstitutional privacy conditions which are not only violative of the law but can impact the national security of the country," it had claimed.

"...on January 4, 2021, WhatsApp introduced its new privacy policy through which it scrapped its 'opt-out policy' and from now on, users will have to compulsorily consent to share their data with Facebook and its group companies for using the platform.

The new policy will come into effect from February 8, 2021," the plea had said.

The petitioner had alleged that the updated privacy policy of WhatsApp would adversely impact the citizens' fundamental right to privacy and is also fundamentally opposed to their representation.

The plea said that users share confidential information on the platform on the assurance that their private and personal conversations, along with their confidential data and information, will neither be accessed by any other person (including the service provider itself) nor would such data or information be shared or exploited or utilised by anyone in any manner whatsoever.

"Thus, the technology giants who deal with such data must have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the information they so possess and collect from citizens and businesses must be safe and not used for their commercial gains without the consent of the users.

It is also the responsibility of the State to guarantee and ensure the protection of the personal and private data and information of the citizens," the plea had said.

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre to prohibit WhatsApp, Facebook and Facebook India from sharing the details and data of subscribers and users.

It had also sought a direction to the Centre to regulate the functioning of WhatsApp, Facebook and other internet-based messaging services.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea which had sought a direction to instant messaging platform WhatsApp to roll back its new privacy policy on grounds that it is allegedly violative of laws and can impact the country's security.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea which had sought a direction to instant messaging platform WhatsApp to roll back its new privacy policy on grounds that it is allegedly violative of laws and can impact the country's security. A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde observed that this issue is already being heard by the Delhi High Court and the petitioner can choose the suitable remedy. The bench, also comprising justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was hearing a plea filed by the Confederation of All India Traders which had sought a direction to the Centre to intervene in the matter and frame guidelines to govern large technology-based companies such as WhatsApp Inc., Facebook Inc. and Facebook India Online Services Private Limited. The plea, filed through advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma, had said that the public interest litigation (PIL) was necessitated due to the alleged failure of the Centre in carrying out its constitutional duty and responsibility to protect the rights to privacy and freedom of speech and expression of the citizens of India. "The respondent no.1 -- Union of India -- has granted permission to respondent nos 2 to 4 to run the WhatsApp application in India, but has failed to play the role of a guardian to protect the fundamental rights of citizens in as much as WhatsApp, which is rendering essential public services by enabling citizens to communicate, has recently imposed unconstitutional privacy conditions which are not only violative of the law but can impact the national security of the country," it had claimed. "...on January 4, 2021, WhatsApp introduced its new privacy policy through which it scrapped its 'opt-out policy' and from now on, users will have to compulsorily consent to share their data with Facebook and its group companies for using the platform. The new policy will come into effect from February 8, 2021," the plea had said. The petitioner had alleged that the updated privacy policy of WhatsApp would adversely impact the citizens' fundamental right to privacy and is also fundamentally opposed to their representation. The plea said that users share confidential information on the platform on the assurance that their private and personal conversations, along with their confidential data and information, will neither be accessed by any other person (including the service provider itself) nor would such data or information be shared or exploited or utilised by anyone in any manner whatsoever. "Thus, the technology giants who deal with such data must have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the information they so possess and collect from citizens and businesses must be safe and not used for their commercial gains without the consent of the users. It is also the responsibility of the State to guarantee and ensure the protection of the personal and private data and information of the citizens," the plea had said. The plea had sought a direction to the Centre to prohibit WhatsApp, Facebook and Facebook India from sharing the details and data of subscribers and users. It had also sought a direction to the Centre to regulate the functioning of WhatsApp, Facebook and other internet-based messaging services.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea against new WhatsApp privacy policy

The Sindh government on Friday filed a review petition before Pakistan Supreme Court after it granted a release order for Omar Saeed Sheikh, the prime suspect in Daniel Pearl killing.

Pakistan files review petition in Supreme Court in Daniel Pearl case

Facebook on Thursday said it is asking its independent experts to rule on whether former president <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump's </a>suspension for "fomenting insurrection" should stand.

Facebook and Instagram suspended Trump after his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, an attack on the seat of democracy that led to Trump's second impeachment.

The leading social network is referring the decision to its independent oversight board — known informally as the Facebook "supreme court" — with the authority to make binding rulings even chief executive Mark Zuckerberg must abide by.

"We believe our decision was necessary and right," Facebook vice president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a blog post.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/now-biden-removes-trumps-diet-coke-button-from-oval-desk-358513" hreflang="en">Now, Biden removes Trump's Diet Coke button from Oval desk</a>

"Our decision to suspend then-president Trump's access was taken in extraordinary circumstances: a US president actively fomenting a violent insurrection designed to thwart the peaceful transition of power; five people killed; legislators fleeing the seat of democracy."

Unprecedented circumstances called for unprecedented action against Trump, reasoned Clegg, a former deputy British prime minister.

Facebook's oversight board is tasked with making final decisions on appeals regarding what is removed or allowed to remain on the world's biggest social network.

Launch of the panel came late last year amid rising concerns about misinformation and manipulation around the US election.

Trump's access to Facebook will remain suspended while it awaits an oversight board decision, according to Clegg.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-melania-trump-refuses-to-pose-with-donald-trump-after-he-leaves-white-house-twitter-laughs-358514" hreflang="en">Watch: Melania Trump refuses to pose with Donald Trump after he leaves White House; Twitter laughs</a>

"We hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made," Clegg said.

Along with the ruling, Facebook will welcome "recommendations from the board around suspensions when the user is a political leader," he added.

Reaction to the Trump ban has ranged from criticism that Facebook should have booted him long ago to outrage over his online voice being muted.

"We have taken the view that in open democracies people have a right to hear what their politicians are saying - the good, the bad and the ugly - so that they can be held to account," Clegg said.

"But it has never meant that politicians can say whatever they like."

Members of the oversight board come from various countries and include jurists, human rights activists, journalists, a Nobel peace laureate and a former Danish prime minister.

Facebook on Thursday said it is asking its independent experts to rule on whether former president Donald Trump's suspension for "fomenting insurrection" should stand.

Facebook on Thursday said it is asking its independent experts to rule on whether former president Donald Trump's suspension for "fomenting insurrection" should stand. Facebook and Instagram suspended Trump after his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, an attack on the seat of democracy that led to Trump's second impeachment. The leading social network is referring the decision to its independent oversight board — known informally as the Facebook "supreme court" — with the authority to make binding rulings even chief executive Mark Zuckerberg must abide by. "We believe our decision was necessary and right," Facebook vice president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a blog post. Also read| Now, Biden removes Trump's Diet Coke button from Oval desk "Our decision to suspend then-president Trump's access was taken in extraordinary circumstances: a US president actively fomenting a violent insurrection designed to thwart the peaceful transition of power; five people killed; legislators fleeing the seat of democracy." Unprecedented circumstances called for unprecedented action against Trump, reasoned Clegg, a former deputy British prime minister. Facebook's oversight board is tasked with making final decisions on appeals regarding what is removed or allowed to remain on the world's biggest social network. Launch of the panel came late last year amid rising concerns about misinformation and manipulation around the US election. Trump's access to Facebook will remain suspended while it awaits an oversight board decision, according to Clegg. Also read| Watch: Melania Trump refuses to pose with Donald Trump after he leaves White House; Twitter laughs "We hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made," Clegg said. Along with the ruling, Facebook will welcome "recommendations from the board around suspensions when the user is a political leader," he added. Reaction to the Trump ban has ranged from criticism that Facebook should have booted him long ago to outrage over his online voice being muted. "We have taken the view that in open democracies people have a right to hear what their politicians are saying - the good, the bad and the ugly - so that they can be held to account," Clegg said. "But it has never meant that politicians can say whatever they like." Members of the oversight board come from various countries and include jurists, human rights activists, journalists, a Nobel peace laureate and a former Danish prime minister.

Facebook's 'supreme court' to decide on Trump's suspension

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/school-established-for-slum-children-at-indian-farmers-protest-site-355436/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The top court also considered staying the implementation of the three laws and refused to give the government extra time for finding a solution.&nbsp;

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/im-a-farmers-son-know-more-about-agriculture-than-rahul-gandhi-rajnath-singh-353287">I’m a farmer’s son, know more about agriculture than Rahul Gandhi: Rajnath Singh</a>

"We have given you long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the bench has made "harsh" observations on the government's handling of the crisis to which the top court replied, "that was the most the innocuous factual thing for us to say".&nbsp;

The SC said that it was "extremely disappointed" with the negotiation process and told the Centre that state government are "rebelling" against the laws.&nbsp;

"We don't want to make any stray observations on your negotiations but we are extremely disappointed with the process," the top court said.&nbsp;

The SC also asked the parties to suggest names of former chief justices that can head the panel

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Central government for its handling of the farmers' protest against the recently-approved farm, saying it is "extremely disappointed" and an expert committee will be constituted to resolve the deadlock. Watch | The top court also considered staying the implementation of the three laws and refused to give the government extra time for finding a solution. Also read | I’m a farmer’s son, know more about agriculture than Rahul Gandhi: Rajnath Singh "We have given you long rope, Mr Attorney General, please don't lecture us on patience," a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the bench has made "harsh" observations on the government's handling of the crisis to which the top court replied, "that was the most the innocuous factual thing for us to say". The SC said that it was "extremely disappointed" with the negotiation process and told the Centre that state government are "rebelling" against the laws. "We don't want to make any stray observations on your negotiations but we are extremely disappointed with the process," the top court said. The SC also asked the parties to suggest names of former chief justices that can head the panel

'Extremely disappointed': SC pulls up Centre for handling farmers' protest

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking regulation of Twitter and other social media platforms through guidelines making them culpable under criminal and civil laws until a specific law is passed by Parliament.

The petition, likely to come up for hearing in the coming days, claimed that due to the lack of government control and intervention Twitter acts as it deems fit.

Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, who filed the plea in personal capacity, has sought a direction to the Centre to formulate a framework or guidelines to appeal against any kind of grievances against Twitter and all such social media platforms within designated time frame till a proper law comes into force.

The plea has also sought directions to frame guidelines to entrust responsibility on the officers of ministries of electronics and IT and Information &amp; Broadcasting to deal with grievance/complaint against social media platforms.

"Due to lack of the government control and intervention on the social media platform Twitter, act the way they fit their way, ideology and desires."

"Twitter is not having government control so it freely act unethically and shadow ban many accounts which does not suit its ideological inclination," the petition said.

He added that "there should be no parallel ecosystem act to undermine the highest judiciary of the nation and creation of unrest, dissatisfaction among the masses."

The petition alleged that Twitter crossed all limits of lawlessness when it "supported the mocking of the highest judiciary of nation that is also institutionally of Supreme Court of Nation and individually of the judges as well".&nbsp;

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking regulation of Twitter and other social media platforms through guidelines making them culpable under criminal and civil laws until a specific law is passed by Parliament.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking regulation of Twitter and other social media platforms through guidelines making them culpable under criminal and civil laws until a specific law is passed by Parliament. The petition, likely to come up for hearing in the coming days, claimed that due to the lack of government control and intervention Twitter acts as it deems fit. Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, who filed the plea in personal capacity, has sought a direction to the Centre to formulate a framework or guidelines to appeal against any kind of grievances against Twitter and all such social media platforms within designated time frame till a proper law comes into force. The plea has also sought directions to frame guidelines to entrust responsibility on the officers of ministries of electronics and IT and Information & Broadcasting to deal with grievance/complaint against social media platforms. "Due to lack of the government control and intervention on the social media platform Twitter, act the way they fit their way, ideology and desires." "Twitter is not having government control so it freely act unethically and shadow ban many accounts which does not suit its ideological inclination," the petition said. He added that "there should be no parallel ecosystem act to undermine the highest judiciary of the nation and creation of unrest, dissatisfaction among the masses." The petition alleged that Twitter crossed all limits of lawlessness when it "supported the mocking of the highest judiciary of nation that is also institutionally of Supreme Court of Nation and individually of the judges as well".

Plea in SC seeks to regulate social media platforms

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that the notional income of homemakers must be calculated on the basis of the ‘work, labour and sacrifices’ that they put in.

A three-judge bench of Justices N V Ramana, Abdul Nazeer, and Surya Kant said this while delivering its judgement in a case involving an insurance compensation. The case was in relation to the death of a couple - the husband, a teacher, and his wife,a homemaker who looked after their two children - in an accident in 2014.

A tribunal had ordered an insurance company to pay Rs 40.71 lakh as compensation to the family but the Delhi High Court, after hearing an appeal, reduced the amount to Rs 22 lakh.

"The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a housemaker undertakes," the report quoted Justice Ramana stating in his judgement spotlighting the gender inequality.

"A housemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more," wrote Justice Ramana.

Justice NV Ramana also said that "The conception that housemakers do not 'work' or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome."

Allowing the appeal filed by claimants, the bench enhanced the total motor accident compensation of Rs 22 lakhs awarded by the High Court to the claimants by Rs 11.20 lakhs to reach a new total of Rs 33.20 lakhs with 9% annual interest from May 2014.

(With input from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that the notional income of homemakers must be calculated on the basis of the ‘work, labour and sacrifices’ that they put in.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that the notional income of homemakers must be calculated on the basis of the ‘work, labour and sacrifices’ that they put in. A three-judge bench of Justices N V Ramana, Abdul Nazeer, and Surya Kant said this while delivering its judgement in a case involving an insurance compensation. The case was in relation to the death of a couple - the husband, a teacher, and his wife,a homemaker who looked after their two children - in an accident in 2014. A tribunal had ordered an insurance company to pay Rs 40.71 lakh as compensation to the family but the Delhi High Court, after hearing an appeal, reduced the amount to Rs 22 lakh. "The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a housemaker undertakes," the report quoted Justice Ramana stating in his judgement spotlighting the gender inequality. "A housemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more," wrote Justice Ramana. Justice NV Ramana also said that "The conception that housemakers do not 'work' or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome." Allowing the appeal filed by claimants, the bench enhanced the total motor accident compensation of Rs 22 lakhs awarded by the High Court to the claimants by Rs 11.20 lakhs to reach a new total of Rs 33.20 lakhs with 9% annual interest from May 2014. (With input from agencies)

Idea that ‘homemakers don’t work’ is problematic: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Central Government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi.&nbsp;

"We hold that there are no infirmities in clearances given, change in land use," a three-judge bench of the court said in a majority verdict.

SC directed project proponent of Central Vista project to install smog tower and use anti-smog guns at all construction sites.

Earlier on December 10, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the new Parliament building under the Central Vista project, which is expected to be completed by 2022. 
 
The Central Vista revamp, announced in September, 2019 envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, which is to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day.

The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project against which various pleas have been filed.

The apex court had earlier said that any change at the ground level made by authorities for the Central Vista project will be "at their own risk".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Central Government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Central Government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. "We hold that there are no infirmities in clearances given, change in land use," a three-judge bench of the court said in a majority verdict. SC directed project proponent of Central Vista project to install smog tower and use anti-smog guns at all construction sites. Earlier on December 10, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the new Parliament building under the Central Vista project, which is expected to be completed by 2022. The Central Vista revamp, announced in September, 2019 envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, which is to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day. The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project against which various pleas have been filed. The apex court had earlier said that any change at the ground level made by authorities for the Central Vista project will be "at their own risk". (With inputs from agencies)

Central vista project: Supreme Court gives go-ahead to redevelopment plan

Right of being represented through a lawyer is part of due process clause, the Supreme Court has said while setting aside the Allahabad High Court order which had dismissed an appeal filed by a man in a 1987 murder case noting that his counsel had not appeared during the hearing.

The apex court, which restored the appeal and asked the high court to consider taking it for hearing at an early date, said it was open for the high court to appoint an amicus curiae to assist it when the petitioner was not represented before it through lawyer in the matter.

It is well accepted that right of being represented through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,&nbsp;a bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said.

In case the advocate representing the cause of the accused, for one reason or the other was not available, it was open to the court to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court but the cause in any case ought not to be allowed to go unrepresented,&nbsp;the bench, also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat, said in its December 18 order.

The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the convict against the April 2017 verdict of high court which had dismissed his appeal challenging the trial court judgement awarding him life term in a murder case.

It noted the submission of petitioner's lawyer that the appeal was disposed of by the high court in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant.

The bench said the high court, while noting that the man was not represented through lawyer during the hearing, went into the matter and affirmed the view taken by the trial court. 
In the circumstances, we have no other alternative but to set-aside the judgment passed by the high court and to restore criminal appeal to the file of the high court to be disposed of afresh, the apex court said.

It noted that the man, who was on bail while his appeal was pending in the high court, has since been taken in custody. 
In the circumstances, we request the high court to consider taking up criminal appeal.

For hearing at an early date and in order to facilitate the exercise, we direct the registry of the high court to list the appeal before the appropriate court on January 11, 2021 for directions, the bench said.

It said the convict shall appear before the high court through advocate on January 11 and in case of any default, the high court may consider appointing an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter.

During the pendency of the matter before the high court, the appellant shall continue to remain in custody, the bench said while disposing of the plea.

The man, along with another accused, were convicted by a trial court in the murder case and they were sentenced to life term.

One of the convicts had died during pendency of his appeal before the high court and proceedings related to him were abated.

Right of being represented through a lawyer is part of due process clause, the Supreme Court has said while setting aside the Allahabad High Court order which had dismissed an appeal filed by a man in a 1987 murder case noting that his counsel had not appeared during the hearing.

Right of being represented through a lawyer is part of due process clause, the Supreme Court has said while setting aside the Allahabad High Court order which had dismissed an appeal filed by a man in a 1987 murder case noting that his counsel had not appeared during the hearing. The apex court, which restored the appeal and asked the high court to consider taking it for hearing at an early date, said it was open for the high court to appoint an amicus curiae to assist it when the petitioner was not represented before it through lawyer in the matter. It is well accepted that right of being represented through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said. In case the advocate representing the cause of the accused, for one reason or the other was not available, it was open to the court to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court but the cause in any case ought not to be allowed to go unrepresented, the bench, also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat, said in its December 18 order. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the convict against the April 2017 verdict of high court which had dismissed his appeal challenging the trial court judgement awarding him life term in a murder case. It noted the submission of petitioner's lawyer that the appeal was disposed of by the high court in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant. The bench said the high court, while noting that the man was not represented through lawyer during the hearing, went into the matter and affirmed the view taken by the trial court. In the circumstances, we have no other alternative but to set-aside the judgment passed by the high court and to restore criminal appeal to the file of the high court to be disposed of afresh, the apex court said. It noted that the man, who was on bail while his appeal was pending in the high court, has since been taken in custody. In the circumstances, we request the high court to consider taking up criminal appeal. For hearing at an early date and in order to facilitate the exercise, we direct the registry of the high court to list the appeal before the appropriate court on January 11, 2021 for directions, the bench said. It said the convict shall appear before the high court through advocate on January 11 and in case of any default, the high court may consider appointing an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter. During the pendency of the matter before the high court, the appellant shall continue to remain in custody, the bench said while disposing of the plea. The man, along with another accused, were convicted by a trial court in the murder case and they were sentenced to life term. One of the convicts had died during pendency of his appeal before the high court and proceedings related to him were abated.

Right of being represented through lawyer is part of due process clause, says SC

U.S supreme court has dismissed a long-shot bid by President Donald Trump and the state of taxes to overturn the election results in 4 states that were won by Joe Biden. Supreme court Blocks Donald Trump's legal path to reverse the loss.

U.S. supreme court rejects Texas lawsuit

The US Supreme Court denied a last-minute attempt by President Donald Trump’s allies to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania, a blow to the president’s continuing efforts to reverse his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Scotus denies Trump allies' attempt to overturn results

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state.

In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/strong-support-from-president-trump-saudi-arabia-says-final-agreement-with-qatar-within-reach-347759">'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach'</a>

Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes.

Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him.

The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-us-senate-majority-in-the-pot-parties-bring-out-big-guns-for-georgia-elections-347720">With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections</a>

On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win.

Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory.

In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency.

This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was.

The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden. The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state. In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point. Also read| 'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach' Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives. The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes. Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him. The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits. Also read| With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win. Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory. In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency. This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was. The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Donald Trump allies take Pennsylvania vote complaint to US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest.

A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman said that states and Union Territories (UTs) should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each and every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception as also areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part is left uncovered.

The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to check human rights abuses.

It said further that the CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage and it shall be mandatory for the Centre, states and UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for the maximum period possible, at least one year.

''In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of: Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest,''&nbsp;said the bench, also comprising Justices K M Joseph and Aniruddha Bose.

''As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station,''&nbsp;the bench said in its order.

The top court said that in September this year, it had impleaded all the states and UTs in the matter to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the April 3, 2018 order.

The apex court, while dealing with a matter related to custodial torture, had in July this year taken note of a 2017 case in which it had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all the police stations to check human rights abuses, videography of crime scene and setting up of a Central Oversight Committee and such a panel in every state and Union Territory.

In its 12-page order, the bench noted that till November 24, compliance affidavits and action is taken reports were filed by 14 states and the majority of them have failed to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station and other details.

It said that state-level oversight committee (SLOC) must consist of secretary or additional secretary of the home department, secretary or additional secretary of the finance department; director-general or inspector general of police and chairperson or member of the state women's commission.

It said district level oversight committee (DLOC) should comprise of -- divisional commissioner or regional commissioner or revenue commissioner division of district, district magistrate and superintendent of police and mayor of a municipality within the district or head of 'zilla panchayat' in rural areas. It also specified the duties of SLOC which included purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and equipment, obtain budgetary allocation for the same.

It said DLOC shall have the obligations including interact with station house officer (SHO) about its functioning and to review footage stored from CCTVs in various police stations to ''check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported''. 
It said adequate funds be allocated for this by the states and UTs at the earliest.

It said duty and responsibility for working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be of the SHO of police station concerned.

It said in areas where there is either no electricity or internet, it shall be the duty of states and UTs to provide the same expeditiously using any mode of providing power, including solar or wind.

''Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same,''&nbsp;it said.

It said SLOC and central oversight body shall give directions to all police stations and agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside police stations, offices of investigative agencies about the coverage of concerned premises by CCTV and this shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language.

''It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights,''&nbsp;it said.

It said authorities would implement its order ''both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.''

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest.

The Supreme Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the CBI, the ED and National Investigation Agency (NIA), which conduct interrogations and have the power of arrest. A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman said that states and Union Territories (UTs) should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at each and every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception as also areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part is left uncovered. The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to check human rights abuses. It said further that the CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage and it shall be mandatory for the Centre, states and UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for the maximum period possible, at least one year. ''In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of: Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest,'' said the bench, also comprising Justices K M Joseph and Aniruddha Bose. ''As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station,'' the bench said in its order. The top court said that in September this year, it had impleaded all the states and UTs in the matter to find out the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station as well as the constitution of Oversight Committees in accordance with the April 3, 2018 order. The apex court, while dealing with a matter related to custodial torture, had in July this year taken note of a 2017 case in which it had ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all the police stations to check human rights abuses, videography of crime scene and setting up of a Central Oversight Committee and such a panel in every state and Union Territory. In its 12-page order, the bench noted that till November 24, compliance affidavits and action is taken reports were filed by 14 states and the majority of them have failed to disclose the exact position of CCTV cameras in each police station and other details. It said that state-level oversight committee (SLOC) must consist of secretary or additional secretary of the home department, secretary or additional secretary of the finance department; director-general or inspector general of police and chairperson or member of the state women's commission. It said district level oversight committee (DLOC) should comprise of -- divisional commissioner or regional commissioner or revenue commissioner division of district, district magistrate and superintendent of police and mayor of a municipality within the district or head of 'zilla panchayat' in rural areas. It also specified the duties of SLOC which included purchase, distribution and installation of CCTVs and equipment, obtain budgetary allocation for the same. It said DLOC shall have the obligations including interact with station house officer (SHO) about its functioning and to review footage stored from CCTVs in various police stations to ''check for any human rights violation that may have occurred but are not reported''. It said adequate funds be allocated for this by the states and UTs at the earliest. It said duty and responsibility for working, maintenance and recording of CCTVs shall be of the SHO of police station concerned. It said in areas where there is either no electricity or internet, it shall be the duty of states and UTs to provide the same expeditiously using any mode of providing power, including solar or wind. ''Whenever there is information of force being used at police stations resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths, it is necessary that persons be free to complain for a redressal of the same,'' it said. It said SLOC and central oversight body shall give directions to all police stations and agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside police stations, offices of investigative agencies about the coverage of concerned premises by CCTV and this shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. ''It shall further mention that CCTV footage is preserved for a certain minimum time period, which shall not be less than six months, and the victim has a right to have the same secured in the event of violation of his human rights,'' it said. It said authorities would implement its order ''both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible.''

SC directs Centre to install CCTV cameras in all interrogation offices, lock-ups

Supreme Court is set to decide on Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah's tenure.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/eighth-covid-19-case-hits-pakistan-cricket-team-squad-not-allowed-to-train-346977" hreflang="en">Eighth COVID-19 case hits Pakistan cricket team; squad not allowed to train</a>

An order passed by a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao on Tuesday said that final hearing on the BCCI matter will be held on December 9.

Both, Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah have been in office despite completing their respective tenures in July and May this year.&nbsp;

According to new BCCI constitution that was approved by a three-judge bench headed by former CJI Dipak Misra in August 2018, Sourav Ganguly, Jay Shah and joint-secretary Jayesh George should have been 'cooling off' now after serving six years continuously in a state association or the cricket board.

BCCI treasurer Arun Singh Dhumal filed a petition in April in complete defiance of the new constitution. The petition urges six changes in the new constitution which includes a three-year cooling-off period on the office bearers to be abolished.

The case was last came up in July but was put away amid pandemic as it was considered to be a low-priority matter. However, a new three-judge bench comprising Justices Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi wanted to hear the case on December 1 along with other cricket cases.&nbsp;

Justice Patnaik, who had removed N. Srinivasan from being BCCI president for his proximity to Chennai Super Kings, had told Outlook that "Ganguly was not indispensable," and cricket should be "free from the clutches of politicians."

According to the retired judge, BCCI officials were flouting the rule book.&nbsp;

"It was fate accompli once the constitution was approved in 2018. Several CJIs have heard this case and if the BCCI has its way, then it will be death of the Lodha reforms," he said, adding that BCCI was only prolonging a result that was decided long ago.

Supreme Court is set to decide on Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah's tenure. Also read: Eighth COVID-19 case hits Pakistan cricket team; squad not allowed to train An order passed by a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao on Tuesday said that final hearing on the BCCI matter will be held on December 9.

Supreme Court is set to decide on Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah's tenure. Also read: Eighth COVID-19 case hits Pakistan cricket team; squad not allowed to train An order passed by a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao on Tuesday said that final hearing on the BCCI matter will be held on December 9. Both, Sourav Ganguly and Jay Shah have been in office despite completing their respective tenures in July and May this year. According to new BCCI constitution that was approved by a three-judge bench headed by former CJI Dipak Misra in August 2018, Sourav Ganguly, Jay Shah and joint-secretary Jayesh George should have been 'cooling off' now after serving six years continuously in a state association or the cricket board. BCCI treasurer Arun Singh Dhumal filed a petition in April in complete defiance of the new constitution. The petition urges six changes in the new constitution which includes a three-year cooling-off period on the office bearers to be abolished. The case was last came up in July but was put away amid pandemic as it was considered to be a low-priority matter. However, a new three-judge bench comprising Justices Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi wanted to hear the case on December 1 along with other cricket cases. Justice Patnaik, who had removed N. Srinivasan from being BCCI president for his proximity to Chennai Super Kings, had told Outlook that "Ganguly was not indispensable," and cricket should be "free from the clutches of politicians." According to the retired judge, BCCI officials were flouting the rule book. "It was fate accompli once the constitution was approved in 2018. Several CJIs have heard this case and if the BCCI has its way, then it will be death of the Lodha reforms," he said, adding that BCCI was only prolonging a result that was decided long ago.

Supreme Court to hear BCCI matter on December 9; decision on Sourav Ganguly, Jay Shah's tenure likely

The Supreme Court of India refused to lift a stay on the release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer, 'Jhundh'. On Wednesday, by dismissing the appeal of the movie producer Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Limited (Known as T-Series) against the Court's of Telangana on the release of the movie and over copyright infringement. 
 
During the hearing, the apex court observed that it is an interesting case and it would direct that the trial will be completed within six months. However, the counsel for the filmmaker stated that the movie will lose its value in six months. 
 
''A settlement agreement for Rs 1.3 crore was signed between the parties. Now they are not adhering to it. Please consider on merits." they said.&nbsp; 
 
Earlier this month, Hyderabad- based filmmaker Nandi Chinni Kumar has <a href="http://13.235.153.162/entertainment/hyderabad-filmmaker-files-contempt-petition-case-against-makers-of-amitabh-bachchan-starrer-jhund-341816">filed a contempt</a> of court against Amazon prime and makers of the film 'Jhund' alleging copyright infringement.&nbsp;

Kumar had told agencies that Paul had also signed a No Objection Certificate, declaring that the director had been given exclusive rights to make the biopic in any language and it had not been given to anyone else. “But he (Paul) went back on the promise and entered into another agreement with Jhund producers,” he alleged. 
 
The film, based on the life of Vijay Barse, the founder of NGO Slum Soccer, was scheduled to be released this month on OTT platform Amazon Prime. The film was earlier scheduled to be released in May but due to the pandemic, the movie was moved ahead.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India refused to lift a stay on the release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer, 'Jhundh'. On Wednesday, by dismissing the appeal of the movie producer Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Limited (Known as T-Series) against the Court's of Telangana on the release of the movie and over copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court of India refused to lift a stay on the release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer, 'Jhundh'. On Wednesday, by dismissing the appeal of the movie producer Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Limited (Known as T-Series) against the Court's of Telangana on the release of the movie and over copyright infringement. During the hearing, the apex court observed that it is an interesting case and it would direct that the trial will be completed within six months. However, the counsel for the filmmaker stated that the movie will lose its value in six months. ''A settlement agreement for Rs 1.3 crore was signed between the parties. Now they are not adhering to it. Please consider on merits." they said. Earlier this month, Hyderabad- based filmmaker Nandi Chinni Kumar has filed a contempt of court against Amazon prime and makers of the film 'Jhund' alleging copyright infringement. Kumar had told agencies that Paul had also signed a No Objection Certificate, declaring that the director had been given exclusive rights to make the biopic in any language and it had not been given to anyone else. “But he (Paul) went back on the promise and entered into another agreement with Jhund producers,” he alleged. The film, based on the life of Vijay Barse, the founder of NGO Slum Soccer, was scheduled to be released this month on OTT platform Amazon Prime. The film was earlier scheduled to be released in May but due to the pandemic, the movie was moved ahead.

Supreme Court refuses to remove stay on release of Amitabh Bachchan’s 'Jhund' in copyright case

US Supreme court judged have signaled that they are unlikely to strike down the Affordable care act or the Obamacare.

US Supreme court unlikely to strike down Obamacare

The Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to interfere with the Calcutta High Court order banning the sale and use of firecrackers in West Bengal during Kali Puja, saying preservation of life was more important amid the coronavirus pandemic.

A vacation bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee said though festivals were important, but "life itself has been imperilled now" amid the pandemic.

It said the high court knew the local condition better and it should be allowed to do the needful.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by one Gautam Roy and the Burrabazaar Fireworks Dealers Association, challenging the high court order last week banning the use and sale of firecrackers during upcoming festivals, including Kali Puja and Chhath Puja, to curb pollution.

Kali Puja will be celebrated on Saturday.

"We are all battling for life in this situation and all of us have elderly people in our home," it observed.

"We are in a situation where, at this time, preservation of life is more important and the high court knows what is required at the ground level."

It added that the high court had taken care of the interest of citizens, especially senior citizens who may have comorbidities.

The high court had directed that the ban would also be in force during the Jagaddhatri Puja, Chhath and Kartik Puja, adding that the guidelines -- which were in place during Durga Puja, such as no entry to pandals -- would also be in effect.

It had lauded the state government for effectively implementing the court-directed guidelines during the Durga Puja and asked the police to ensure that the norms are strictly enforced on the other festivals as well.

Fifteen people will be allowed in the Kali Puja pandals having an area up to 300 sq metres, and 45 in the bigger ones, the court had said, while disallowing procession during immersion.

The Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to interfere with the Calcutta High Court order banning the sale and use of firecrackers in West Bengal during Kali Puja, saying preservation of life was more important amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to interfere with the Calcutta High Court order banning the sale and use of firecrackers in West Bengal during Kali Puja, saying preservation of life was more important amid the coronavirus pandemic. A vacation bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee said though festivals were important, but "life itself has been imperilled now" amid the pandemic. It said the high court knew the local condition better and it should be allowed to do the needful. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by one Gautam Roy and the Burrabazaar Fireworks Dealers Association, challenging the high court order last week banning the use and sale of firecrackers during upcoming festivals, including Kali Puja and Chhath Puja, to curb pollution. Kali Puja will be celebrated on Saturday. "We are all battling for life in this situation and all of us have elderly people in our home," it observed. "We are in a situation where, at this time, preservation of life is more important and the high court knows what is required at the ground level." It added that the high court had taken care of the interest of citizens, especially senior citizens who may have comorbidities. The high court had directed that the ban would also be in force during the Jagaddhatri Puja, Chhath and Kartik Puja, adding that the guidelines -- which were in place during Durga Puja, such as no entry to pandals -- would also be in effect. It had lauded the state government for effectively implementing the court-directed guidelines during the Durga Puja and asked the police to ensure that the norms are strictly enforced on the other festivals as well. Fifteen people will be allowed in the Kali Puja pandals having an area up to 300 sq metres, and 45 in the bigger ones, the court had said, while disallowing procession during immersion.

Preserving life more important: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with HC cracker ban

The Supreme Court Thursday extended till December 31 the deadline for implementation of its judgement on the grant of permanent commission to women SSC officers in Indian Navy.

The top court had on March 17, maintaining that women and men officers should be treated equally; cleared permanent commission for women in the Navy and asked the Centre to complete the modalities within three months.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said that it is extending time till December 31 for grant of permanent commission to Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers in Indian Navy.

The Centre moved the application in June for extending the deadline by six months citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The top court, which took up the application on Wednesday said that it will extend the time till December 31.

The bench also asked the Centre to provide Rs 25 lakh compensation each in four weeks to five Naval women officers, who were not considered for the permanent commission besides the pensionary benefits, which had already been given to them.

Pursuant to the top court's verdict in February, Centre has already started the process for granting permanent commission to all women SSC officers in Indian Army.

On March 17, in a major verdict, the top court had paved the way for granting permanent commission to women officers in Indian Navy, saying a level playing field ensures that women have the opportunity to overcome "histories of discrimination".

The Supreme Court Thursday extended till December 31 the deadline for implementation of its judgement on the grant of permanent commission to women SSC officers in Indian Navy.

The Supreme Court Thursday extended till December 31 the deadline for implementation of its judgement on the grant of permanent commission to women SSC officers in Indian Navy. The top court had on March 17, maintaining that women and men officers should be treated equally; cleared permanent commission for women in the Navy and asked the Centre to complete the modalities within three months. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said that it is extending time till December 31 for grant of permanent commission to Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers in Indian Navy. The Centre moved the application in June for extending the deadline by six months citing the COVID-19 pandemic. The top court, which took up the application on Wednesday said that it will extend the time till December 31. The bench also asked the Centre to provide Rs 25 lakh compensation each in four weeks to five Naval women officers, who were not considered for the permanent commission besides the pensionary benefits, which had already been given to them. Pursuant to the top court's verdict in February, Centre has already started the process for granting permanent commission to all women SSC officers in Indian Army. On March 17, in a major verdict, the top court had paved the way for granting permanent commission to women officers in Indian Navy, saying a level playing field ensures that women have the opportunity to overcome "histories of discrimination".

Supreme Court gives time till December 31 to Centre for granting permanent commission to women officers in Navy

Thousands of women took to the streets of Washington DC & across the United States on Saturday as part of the women march against President Donald Trump's recent nominee to the Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett.

US: Protest erupt against Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur, a former judge of the top court, to act as the one-man monitoring committee to prevent stubble burning in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, while hearing a plea highlighting the issue of stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, said that the court is only concerned that the citizens of Delhi-NCR get to breathe clean and fresh air.

The bench said that the new committee, which will monitor the stubble burning and take preventive steps, will get assistance from chief secretaries of all states.

"We have been made aware of steps by Punjab and Haryana for stopping stubble burning including the development of an app which can help in identification and notification of a particular field in which someone has burnt stubble... In spite of measures, reported an increase in stubble burning which will pollute the atmosphere of Delhi-NCR inevitably. We are not inclined to make an assessment of which measure has been effective or not," the bench said.

The bench also asked the heads of National Cadet Corps, National Service Scheme, and Bharat Scouts and Guides to put the young force at Justice Lokur`s disposal to help locate stubble burning in the three states and bring it to the notice of authorities to prevent the same.

"There needs to be some monitoring of stubble burning before it assumes unhealthy proportions. Accordingly, we find that the suggestion of a former Judge of this court is appointed to monitor the situation in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh," the bench said.

"We accordingly accept the suggestion and appoint Justice Madan B Lokur, former Supreme Court Judge to act as the one-man monitoring Committee to prevent stubble burning in the State," it added.

The bench, in its order, said that it considers it appropriate for the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to enable Justice Lokur in order to devise additional means and methods for preventing burning or stubble.

It further said that the states shall provide adequate facilities to the committee for carrying out its job including secretarial assistance and transportation if necessary and added that the Committee will submit a report fortnightly or as and when required.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for the petitioner, a class 12 student Aditya Dubey, said the prayer in the plea is that a one-man commission of Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur can be appointed because he has dealt with many environmental issues.

The state agencies and Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority are not empowered and don`t have any teeth to take action, he said.

Singh further contended that let a one-man commission of Justice Madan B Lokur be appointed and let him formulate teams to tackle this for continuous monitoring and he can take assistance from NGOs or NCC for the creation of mobile teams that can monitor and identify instances of stubble burning.

The plea, which referred to a Harvard University study that air pollution may now be an important factor that aggravates a mild COVID-19 infection into an acute one, had contended that stubble burning contributes almost 40 per cent of air pollution in Delhi.

It had sought directions to ban stubble burning in the states neighbouring the national capital as it cases massive air pollution in the winters. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur, a former judge of the top court, to act as the one-man monitoring committee to prevent stubble burning in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur, a former judge of the top court, to act as the one-man monitoring committee to prevent stubble burning in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde, while hearing a plea highlighting the issue of stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, said that the court is only concerned that the citizens of Delhi-NCR get to breathe clean and fresh air. The bench said that the new committee, which will monitor the stubble burning and take preventive steps, will get assistance from chief secretaries of all states. "We have been made aware of steps by Punjab and Haryana for stopping stubble burning including the development of an app which can help in identification and notification of a particular field in which someone has burnt stubble... In spite of measures, reported an increase in stubble burning which will pollute the atmosphere of Delhi-NCR inevitably. We are not inclined to make an assessment of which measure has been effective or not," the bench said. The bench also asked the heads of National Cadet Corps, National Service Scheme, and Bharat Scouts and Guides to put the young force at Justice Lokur`s disposal to help locate stubble burning in the three states and bring it to the notice of authorities to prevent the same. "There needs to be some monitoring of stubble burning before it assumes unhealthy proportions. Accordingly, we find that the suggestion of a former Judge of this court is appointed to monitor the situation in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh," the bench said. "We accordingly accept the suggestion and appoint Justice Madan B Lokur, former Supreme Court Judge to act as the one-man monitoring Committee to prevent stubble burning in the State," it added. The bench, in its order, said that it considers it appropriate for the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to enable Justice Lokur in order to devise additional means and methods for preventing burning or stubble. It further said that the states shall provide adequate facilities to the committee for carrying out its job including secretarial assistance and transportation if necessary and added that the Committee will submit a report fortnightly or as and when required. During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for the petitioner, a class 12 student Aditya Dubey, said the prayer in the plea is that a one-man commission of Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur can be appointed because he has dealt with many environmental issues. The state agencies and Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority are not empowered and don`t have any teeth to take action, he said. Singh further contended that let a one-man commission of Justice Madan B Lokur be appointed and let him formulate teams to tackle this for continuous monitoring and he can take assistance from NGOs or NCC for the creation of mobile teams that can monitor and identify instances of stubble burning. The plea, which referred to a Harvard University study that air pollution may now be an important factor that aggravates a mild COVID-19 infection into an acute one, had contended that stubble burning contributes almost 40 per cent of air pollution in Delhi. It had sought directions to ban stubble burning in the states neighbouring the national capital as it cases massive air pollution in the winters.

Supreme Court appoints retired SC judge to monitor stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana and UP

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to give the Centre a month’s time to implement the interest waiver decision on loans of up to Rs 2 crore.&nbsp;

The government had argued that it needed the time for this process, but the Apex court set a fresh deadline of November 2.

“We will expect the implementation of government's decision on interest waiver by then. We will review the implementation of the waiver," the court said adjourning the case.

The Centre in its affidavit, dated 2 October, had submitted its decision to bear the cost of the ‘interest on interest’ for MSME loans and personal loans up to Rs 2 crores.

"Have you (Centre) done anything? Not fair on the Centre's part to take a month to implement the decision," the bench said, to which Mehta responded by saying that it will take some time to implement the decision and sought one month's time for the same.

"Please, see the plight of common people, when you have already decided to help. Diwali is now in your hands. Common man's Diwali is in government's hand," the bench observed while denying the request and asked the Centre to bring something concrete.

The matter was slated to come up for further hearing before the bench on November 2.

One of the petitioners in the case, lawyer Vishal Tiwari submitted before the apex court that the banks are acting on their own discretion and added that they do not care for any orders or instructions and that there should be some interim orders.

Tiwari said he has filed written submissions in the matter and said the court should consider that, along with the consolidated affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India on October 9.

The RBI had submitted that extending the loan moratorium, which was announced to cope with the economic fallout of COVID-19, by another six months can impact the credit behaviour of borrowers and increase the risks of delinquencies post resumption of scheduled payments.

The top court was hearing two petitions -- Gajender Sharma and Vishal Tiwari -- seeking an extension of the moratorium period on repayment of loans and to waive off the interest on the repayment of the loan amount keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to give the Centre a month’s time to implement the interest waiver decision on loans of up to Rs 2 crore. The government had argued that it needed the time for this process, but the Apex court set a fresh deadline of November 2.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to give the Centre a month’s time to implement the interest waiver decision on loans of up to Rs 2 crore. The government had argued that it needed the time for this process, but the Apex court set a fresh deadline of November 2. “We will expect the implementation of government's decision on interest waiver by then. We will review the implementation of the waiver," the court said adjourning the case. The Centre in its affidavit, dated 2 October, had submitted its decision to bear the cost of the ‘interest on interest’ for MSME loans and personal loans up to Rs 2 crores. "Have you (Centre) done anything? Not fair on the Centre's part to take a month to implement the decision," the bench said, to which Mehta responded by saying that it will take some time to implement the decision and sought one month's time for the same. "Please, see the plight of common people, when you have already decided to help. Diwali is now in your hands. Common man's Diwali is in government's hand," the bench observed while denying the request and asked the Centre to bring something concrete. The matter was slated to come up for further hearing before the bench on November 2. One of the petitioners in the case, lawyer Vishal Tiwari submitted before the apex court that the banks are acting on their own discretion and added that they do not care for any orders or instructions and that there should be some interim orders. Tiwari said he has filed written submissions in the matter and said the court should consider that, along with the consolidated affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India on October 9. The RBI had submitted that extending the loan moratorium, which was announced to cope with the economic fallout of COVID-19, by another six months can impact the credit behaviour of borrowers and increase the risks of delinquencies post resumption of scheduled payments. The top court was hearing two petitions -- Gajender Sharma and Vishal Tiwari -- seeking an extension of the moratorium period on repayment of loans and to waive off the interest on the repayment of the loan amount keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic. (With inputs from agencies)

Diwali for common man in hands of govt this year: Supreme Court on loan relief

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.”

“The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct.

Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/honour-justice-ginsburgs-dying-wish-hillary-opposes-barretts-appointment-before-us-elections-335117">Also read|&nbsp;Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections</a>

She would not say how she would rule in potential cases on abortion, the election and same-sex marriage — or a pending one on the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett’s stance was in line with the approach of nominees since Judge Robert H. Bork’s answers at his 1987 confirmation hearings helped doom his nomination.

Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, Bork gave extended answers to the senators’ questions, in tones that struck some as candid and thoughtful and others as prickly and arrogant. Democrats said his legal views, particularly his skepticism about the constitutional right to privacy, were extreme and signaled hostility to abortion rights.

The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, defeated the nomination by a 58-42 vote. That was the largest margin by which it had ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination, and it was the last time the Senate has voted down a nominee for the court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kamala-harris-grills-barrett-on-obamacare-she-sidesteps-question-335107">Also read|&nbsp;Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question</a>

But Kagan, in her 1995 article, said the hearings were a high-water mark.

“The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the court and the views of the nominee,” she wrote. “Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints, and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”

Barrett seemed to have studied recent hearings carefully, absorbing their lessons. They were presciently summarized in a 1981 memorandum written by a young White House lawyer named John Roberts, who helped prepare Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another Reagan nominee, for her confirmation hearings.

“The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court,” the memo said, “but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-supreme-court-pick-says-she-is-not-hostile-to-obamacare-dodges-on-abortion-335070">Also read|&nbsp;Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion</a>

Roberts took his own advice at his confirmation hearings in 2005. Some said he retired the trophy. Barrett held her own, too.

“I do want to be forthright and answer every question,” she said when asked about whether two key abortion precedents had been correctly decided. But she said she could not describe her views.

“It would be wrong of me to do that as a sitting judge,” she said. “Whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”

Nor would she say if the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage might be overturned, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito seemed to urge this month.

Barrett acknowledged that she had written and spoken critically of the reasoning in the controlling opinions in two Supreme Court decisions upholding major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But she said the key issue in the latest challenge, to be argued next month, presented a different issue.

That is correct: The central question now is whether the entire law must fall because Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. Barrett said she had expressed no view on that issue.

“I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA,” she said.

And she invoked Kagan, whose views had evolved by the time she appeared before the committee in 2010 for her own confirmation hearings, having been nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down,” Barrett said, paraphrasing Kagan.

Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Barrett hopes to assume. Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said.

As it happened, though, Ginsburg was quite forthcoming during her hearing about her views on abortion. The main exception to the Ginsburg rule, at least where abortion was concerned, was Ginsburg.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity,” Ginsburg said of abortion at her hearings. “It’s a decision that she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human, responsible for her own choices.”

In general, though, Ginsburg had taught a master class in avoiding direct responses to senators’ questions, Kagan wrote in her 1995 article.

“Justice Ginsburg’s favored technique took the form of a pincer movement,” Kagan wrote. If a question was too specific, she would decline to answer on the ground that she did not want to forecast a vote. If it was too general, she would say a judge should not deal in abstractions or hypothetical questions.

Kagan explained what was considered too specific: “Roughly, anything that might have some bearing on a case that might someday come before the court.” She also described what had been too general: “Roughly, anything else worthy of mention.”

Barrett recited the usual factors for considering whether a precedent should be overruled: whether people had come to rely on it in ordering their affairs, whether it was workable in practice and whether it has been undermined by later decisions or factual developments. She would consider those factors, she said, for “abortion or anything else.”

She made an exception for Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation case. That was a “super-precedent,” she said, “one that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.”

Barrett refused to say whether she would recuse herself from the case on the health care law or potential ones arising from the election next month. She would, she said, consider judicial ethics rules and consult with her colleagues.

“I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said.

She was adamant that she had made no promises about how she would rule: “I have made no commitment to anyone, not in the Senate, not over at the White House, on how I would decide any case.”

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.” “The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.

In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade.” “The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.” Judge Amy Coney Barrett expertly followed that playbook at her confirmation hearings Tuesday, in her first day of answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Speaking without notes, she gave sure-footed accounts of Supreme Court precedents and then, almost without exception, declined to say whether the decisions were correct. Barrett was patient, calm, a little stern and sometimes surprisingly terse when she spoke about the law, easily parrying most questions from the Democratic senators who tried to put her on the spot. Also read| Honour Justice Ginsburg's 'dying wish': Hillary opposes Barrett's appointment before US elections She would not say how she would rule in potential cases on abortion, the election and same-sex marriage — or a pending one on the Affordable Care Act. Barrett’s stance was in line with the approach of nominees since Judge Robert H. Bork’s answers at his 1987 confirmation hearings helped doom his nomination. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, Bork gave extended answers to the senators’ questions, in tones that struck some as candid and thoughtful and others as prickly and arrogant. Democrats said his legal views, particularly his skepticism about the constitutional right to privacy, were extreme and signaled hostility to abortion rights. The Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, defeated the nomination by a 58-42 vote. That was the largest margin by which it had ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination, and it was the last time the Senate has voted down a nominee for the court. Also read| Kamala Harris grills Barrett on Obamacare, she sidesteps question But Kagan, in her 1995 article, said the hearings were a high-water mark. “The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the court and the views of the nominee,” she wrote. “Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints, and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.” Barrett seemed to have studied recent hearings carefully, absorbing their lessons. They were presciently summarized in a 1981 memorandum written by a young White House lawyer named John Roberts, who helped prepare Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another Reagan nominee, for her confirmation hearings. “The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court,” the memo said, “but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments.” Also read| Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion Roberts took his own advice at his confirmation hearings in 2005. Some said he retired the trophy. Barrett held her own, too. “I do want to be forthright and answer every question,” she said when asked about whether two key abortion precedents had been correctly decided. But she said she could not describe her views. “It would be wrong of me to do that as a sitting judge,” she said. “Whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.” Nor would she say if the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage might be overturned, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito seemed to urge this month. Barrett acknowledged that she had written and spoken critically of the reasoning in the controlling opinions in two Supreme Court decisions upholding major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But she said the key issue in the latest challenge, to be argued next month, presented a different issue. That is correct: The central question now is whether the entire law must fall because Congress in 2017 zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. Barrett said she had expressed no view on that issue. “I assure you I am not hostile to the ACA,” she said. And she invoked Kagan, whose views had evolved by the time she appeared before the committee in 2010 for her own confirmation hearings, having been nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down,” Barrett said, paraphrasing Kagan. Barrett also cited the so-called Ginsburg rule, named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month and whose seat Barrett hopes to assume. Ginsburg was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. At her confirmation hearing in 1993, Ginsburg distilled the responsibilities of nominees into a pithy phrase: “no hints, no forecasts, no previews.” Barrett said she would adopt the same stance. “That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely, and it has been the practice of every nominee since,” she said. As it happened, though, Ginsburg was quite forthcoming during her hearing about her views on abortion. The main exception to the Ginsburg rule, at least where abortion was concerned, was Ginsburg. “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity,” Ginsburg said of abortion at her hearings. “It’s a decision that she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human, responsible for her own choices.” In general, though, Ginsburg had taught a master class in avoiding direct responses to senators’ questions, Kagan wrote in her 1995 article. “Justice Ginsburg’s favored technique took the form of a pincer movement,” Kagan wrote. If a question was too specific, she would decline to answer on the ground that she did not want to forecast a vote. If it was too general, she would say a judge should not deal in abstractions or hypothetical questions. Kagan explained what was considered too specific: “Roughly, anything that might have some bearing on a case that might someday come before the court.” She also described what had been too general: “Roughly, anything else worthy of mention.” Barrett recited the usual factors for considering whether a precedent should be overruled: whether people had come to rely on it in ordering their affairs, whether it was workable in practice and whether it has been undermined by later decisions or factual developments. She would consider those factors, she said, for “abortion or anything else.” She made an exception for Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation case. That was a “super-precedent,” she said, “one that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” Barrett refused to say whether she would recuse herself from the case on the health care law or potential ones arising from the election next month. She would, she said, consider judicial ethics rules and consult with her colleagues. “I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said. She was adamant that she had made no promises about how she would rule: “I have made no commitment to anyone, not in the Senate, not over at the White House, on how I would decide any case.”

Barrett’s testimony is a deft mix of expertise and evasion

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US&nbsp;Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.

Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, answered questions from senators for the first time on the second day of her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. It gave Barrett a chance to respond to Democrats who have opposed her because of her potential as a justice to undermine the 2010 healthcare law and its protection for patients with pre-existing conditions.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-election-2020-trump-defends-supreme-court-pick-barrett-331308" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett</a>

Trump has asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 election in which he is seeking a second term in office.

Barrett declined to say if she would step aside from any election-related cases that reach the court. The Republican president has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election's outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue.

"It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case," Barrett told the committee of possible election cases.

Barrett declined to say whether she would consider stepping aside, as Democrats have requested, from an Obamacare case due to be argued at the court a week after Election Day in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Barrett noted that the new case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare, which she had criticized. Barrett declined to say how she would approach the new case, but said, "I am not hostile to the ACA."

Barrett also said the White House did not seek her assurance that she would vote to strike down the law.

"Absolutely not. I was never asked - and if I had, that would have been a short conversation," Barrett said.

The Affordable Care Act is Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic.

Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump's third Supreme Court appointment.

ABORTION RULING

Like other Supreme Court nominees before her, Barrett opted to sidestep some questions on some matters that could come before the court.

Abortion rights advocates have expressed concern that Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 ruling called Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about that ruling, Barrett said she would consider the various factors usually applied when justices weigh whether to overturn a precedent. 
 
Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/white-house-ceremony-for-amy-coney-barrett-was-a-superspreader-event-dr-fauci-334172" hreflang="en">White House ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett was a 'superspreader' event: Dr Fauci</a>

"I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law," Barrett said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade can was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

After Barrett declined to answer, Feinstein told her, "So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country - who are women, after all - it's distressing not to get a straight answer."

Religious conservatives are hoping the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Republican committee chairman Lindsey Graham, asked Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, whether she could set aside her religious beliefs in making decisions as a justice.

"I can," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured."

During her 2017 confirmation hearing after Trump nominated her to her current post on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein told Barrett that "the dogma lives loudly in you" - a comment that some Republicans said represented anti-religious bigotry.

Questioned by Feinstein, Barrett declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided.

"I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said.

Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett said the issue was "very, very personal for my family" because of her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video.

"It's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country," Barrett said.

Barrett said "racism persists" in the United States but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed.

Barrett was nominated to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 by Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote by the end of October on Barrett's confirmation.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday at her US Senate confirmation hearing she is not hostile to the Obamacare law, as Democrats have suggested, and declined to specify whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided. Barrett, a conservative federal appellate judge, answered questions from senators for the first time on the second day of her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. It gave Barrett a chance to respond to Democrats who have opposed her because of her potential as a justice to undermine the 2010 healthcare law and its protection for patients with pre-existing conditions. Also read: US election 2020: Trump defends Supreme Court pick Barrett Trump has asked the Senate to confirm Barrett before the Nov. 3 election in which he is seeking a second term in office. Barrett declined to say if she would step aside from any election-related cases that reach the court. The Republican president has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election's outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue. "It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case," Barrett told the committee of possible election cases. Barrett declined to say whether she would consider stepping aside, as Democrats have requested, from an Obamacare case due to be argued at the court a week after Election Day in which Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Barrett noted that the new case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare, which she had criticized. Barrett declined to say how she would approach the new case, but said, "I am not hostile to the ACA." Barrett also said the White House did not seek her assurance that she would vote to strike down the law. "Absolutely not. I was never asked - and if I had, that would have been a short conversation," Barrett said. The Affordable Care Act is Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett's confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump's third Supreme Court appointment. ABORTION RULING Like other Supreme Court nominees before her, Barrett opted to sidestep some questions on some matters that could come before the court. Abortion rights advocates have expressed concern that Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 ruling called Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about that ruling, Barrett said she would consider the various factors usually applied when justices weigh whether to overturn a precedent. Also read: White House ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett was a 'superspreader' event: Dr Fauci "I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law," Barrett said. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade can was wrongly decided and should be overturned. After Barrett declined to answer, Feinstein told her, "So on something that is really a major cause with major effects on over half of the population of this country - who are women, after all - it's distressing not to get a straight answer." Religious conservatives are hoping the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. Republican committee chairman Lindsey Graham, asked Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, whether she could set aside her religious beliefs in making decisions as a justice. "I can," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured." During her 2017 confirmation hearing after Trump nominated her to her current post on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein told Barrett that "the dogma lives loudly in you" - a comment that some Republicans said represented anti-religious bigotry. Questioned by Feinstein, Barrett declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided. "I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said. Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett said the issue was "very, very personal for my family" because of her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video. "It's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country," Barrett said. Barrett said "racism persists" in the United States but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed. Barrett was nominated to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 by Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote by the end of October on Barrett's confirmation.

Trump's Supreme Court pick says she is not 'hostile' to Obamacare, dodges on abortion

Highlighting the abuse of freedom of speech in India, The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Centre for filing an affidavit short on details in a plea seeking strong action against media houses for demonizing the Muslim community in connection with the Tablighi Jamaat event.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which was hearing pleas of Jamiat Ulama I Hind and others alleging that a section of media was spreading communal hatred over Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, pulled up the Centre for its "evasive" and "brazen" affidavit on the issue.

Freedom of speech and expression is the most abused right in recent times, the apex court said.

A bench told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: "You cannot treat the court the way you are treating it in this case."&nbsp;

The bench observed this when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Jamaat, said the Centre in its affidavit has stated that petitioners are trying to muzzle freedom of speech and expression.&nbsp;

The apex court sought an affidavit from the I&amp;B secretary with details of steps taken in the past to stop motivated media reporting in such cases.

The bench said it wants to know, does the government have any powers to ban or question the TV broadcast and insisted the Centre should file an affidavit detailing steps it had taken to stop broadcasts in TV channels which targeted a single community.

The observations from the top court came during the hearing of a plea led Jamait Ulama-i-Hind seeking action against media reports indulging in communalizing the Tablighi Jamaat meeting held in Delhi in March.

The pleas have been filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool and Adeel Ahmed.

(With inputs from agencies)

Highlighting the abuse of freedom of speech in India, The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Centre for filing an affidavit short on details in a plea seeking strong action against media houses for demonizing the Muslim community in connection with the Tablighi Jamaat event.

Highlighting the abuse of freedom of speech in India, The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Centre for filing an affidavit short on details in a plea seeking strong action against media houses for demonizing the Muslim community in connection with the Tablighi Jamaat event. A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which was hearing pleas of Jamiat Ulama I Hind and others alleging that a section of media was spreading communal hatred over Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, pulled up the Centre for its "evasive" and "brazen" affidavit on the issue. Freedom of speech and expression is the most abused right in recent times, the apex court said. A bench told the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: "You cannot treat the court the way you are treating it in this case." The bench observed this when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Jamaat, said the Centre in its affidavit has stated that petitioners are trying to muzzle freedom of speech and expression. The apex court sought an affidavit from the I&B secretary with details of steps taken in the past to stop motivated media reporting in such cases. The bench said it wants to know, does the government have any powers to ban or question the TV broadcast and insisted the Centre should file an affidavit detailing steps it had taken to stop broadcasts in TV channels which targeted a single community. The observations from the top court came during the hearing of a plea led Jamait Ulama-i-Hind seeking action against media reports indulging in communalizing the Tablighi Jamaat meeting held in Delhi in March. The pleas have been filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool and Adeel Ahmed. (With inputs from agencies)

Freedom of speech most abused right in recent times: Supreme Court on Tablighi case

SC ruled that expression & dissent should take place in designated areas and public can not be inconvenienced. Ii also said " In democracy the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional but must be maintained because it indispensable"

Protests in designated areas only but opposition also indispensable | Opinion | WION

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against the legality of the Shaheen Bagh protest, saying public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters.

Shaheen Bagh Case: Public Places, Roads Can't be Occupied Indefinitely, Says Supreme Court

Has Indian judiciary failed our daughters? Why do Indian daughters continue to face violence despite the government framing tough anti-rape legislation? The laws do not seem to have any deterrence for the rapists as the numbers suggest. A woman is raped every 16 minutes in India.&nbsp;

According to the National Crime Records Bureau's (NCRB) 'Crime in India 2019' report, the country had recorded 88 rape cases every day and 32,033 in the year. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh top the shame list with 6,000 and 3,065 rape cases last year respectively.

But the situation is far more horrible as the figures are gross underestimates. These are just the cases that have been reported. Majority of the crimes against women are committed by people known to the victims such as close family members, neighbours, employers and friends.

And in many cases, the victims either remain reluctant to report crimes or they are coerced by their families to keep mum due to stigma attached with it. India’s deep-seated patriarchy is largely to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs.

The government was forced to pass a tough anti-rape law in April 2013 following a massive outcry over the brutal rape of Nirbhaya, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student on a moving bus in New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012. The law made stalking a crime and introduced death sentence for convicted rapists.&nbsp;

But has it brought about any positive change in the society? Young girls and women continue to fall prey to the rapists. In several cases, the accused get away with minor punishments due to lack of evidence and they are also protected by police and politicians. The misuse of police in destroying evidence is not a hidden secret.

Shoddy police work

The shoddy police investigation in the latest Hathras rape case also raises several questions. &nbsp;

Why were samples of the 19-year-old Dalit girl taken on September 22 when she was admitted to the hospital on September 14?

Why did it take three days to send the samples to a lab in Agra? The lab received the samples on September 25.

The vaginal swabs in rape cases should be taken within 72 hours. In fact, according to the guidelines &amp; protocols for medico-legal care for survivors/victims of sexual violence by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, “the likelihood of finding evidence after 72 hours (3 days) is greatly reduced; however it is better to collect evidence up to 96 hours in case the survivor may be unsure of the number of hours elapsed since the assault.”&nbsp;

Why did the hospital authorities delay in taking samples? &nbsp;

Was it an act of gross negligence or it was purportedly delayed?

Now the UP police is claiming that the victim was not raped as the forensic report, which was received by the Agra lab 11 days after the crime, has found no evidence of rape.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/justiceforssr-to-justiceforkangana-the-art-of-riding-coattails-hashtags-to-hashtags-330778">#JusticeForSSR to #JusticeForKangana: The art of riding coattails – hashtags to hashtags</a>

It is also banking on the post-mortem report issued by Safdarjung Hospital which does not mention rape. The post-mortem report says there were “multiple old healed tears” in the private parts of the deceased. Certainly, there will be very little chances of finding any evidence if the samples are collected beyond permissible time limit.

Questionable actions of&nbsp;authorities

The decision of the local authorities to cremate the victim in the dead of the night and that too in the absence of her family members also raises several doubts. Why was the family denied a last look at the body? Why did the district officials not permit the body to be taken home for last rites? What was the urgency? The UP police and the local administration need to answer these questions.

Accused arrested, but will there be justice in time?

Now that all the four accused have been arrested, the case will be heard by the Fast Track Court (FTC) after the police file the charge sheet. The problem is that most of these FTCs in several states have the same drawbacks as the district courts. Improper infrastructure, inadequate staff, frequent adjournments continue to dog these FTCs. As of 2019, there were more than 1.66 lakh pending cases of crime against women and children in the FTCs across the country.

Even if the FTC completes all the legal formalities and passes its judgment, it will not be a final closure of the case. The accused have every right to challenge the FTC decision to higher courts and finally the Supreme Court. &nbsp;

Delays in case closures

The case in point is the Delhi medical student rape case, when a fast-track court was set up on January 17, 2013 a month after the crime. &nbsp;

The court wrapped up the proceedings within eight months and sentenced the four surviving convicts to death in the case. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty on May 5, 2017, but the convicts were hanged on March 20 this year after they took time exhausting all their legal remedies.&nbsp;

It took more than seven years before the convicts could be sent to the gallows despite having been sentenced to death in a fast-track.

The unusual delay in closure is also traumatic for the rape survivor as she is haunted by the flashbacks, nightmares and upsetting memories.&nbsp;

Moreover, as the case drags from one court to another, she is subjected to the same rigmarole of answering uncomfortable questions which may prove to be very disturbing for her. In some cases, it is observed that the survivors end their lives due to the stigma attached with the incident of rape.

There is an urgent need to fast track justice also. If &nbsp;justice is prompt, it will certainly act as a deterrent and instill fear among the people who entertain any such wicked thoughts. The criminal justice system should be such that it is not seen as failing to deliver justice after rape. For, justice delayed is justice denied.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Has Indian judiciary failed our daughters? Why do Indian daughters continue to face violence despite the government framing tough anti-rape legislation? The laws do not seem to have any deterrence for the rapists as the numbers suggest.

Has Indian judiciary failed our daughters? Why do Indian daughters continue to face violence despite the government framing tough anti-rape legislation? The laws do not seem to have any deterrence for the rapists as the numbers suggest. A woman is raped every 16 minutes in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau's (NCRB) 'Crime in India 2019' report, the country had recorded 88 rape cases every day and 32,033 in the year. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh top the shame list with 6,000 and 3,065 rape cases last year respectively. But the situation is far more horrible as the figures are gross underestimates. These are just the cases that have been reported. Majority of the crimes against women are committed by people known to the victims such as close family members, neighbours, employers and friends. And in many cases, the victims either remain reluctant to report crimes or they are coerced by their families to keep mum due to stigma attached with it. India’s deep-seated patriarchy is largely to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs. The government was forced to pass a tough anti-rape law in April 2013 following a massive outcry over the brutal rape of Nirbhaya, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student on a moving bus in New Delhi on the night of December 16, 2012. The law made stalking a crime and introduced death sentence for convicted rapists. But has it brought about any positive change in the society? Young girls and women continue to fall prey to the rapists. In several cases, the accused get away with minor punishments due to lack of evidence and they are also protected by police and politicians. The misuse of police in destroying evidence is not a hidden secret. Shoddy police work The shoddy police investigation in the latest Hathras rape case also raises several questions. Why were samples of the 19-year-old Dalit girl taken on September 22 when she was admitted to the hospital on September 14? Why did it take three days to send the samples to a lab in Agra? The lab received the samples on September 25. The vaginal swabs in rape cases should be taken within 72 hours. In fact, according to the guidelines & protocols for medico-legal care for survivors/victims of sexual violence by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, “the likelihood of finding evidence after 72 hours (3 days) is greatly reduced; however it is better to collect evidence up to 96 hours in case the survivor may be unsure of the number of hours elapsed since the assault.” Why did the hospital authorities delay in taking samples? Was it an act of gross negligence or it was purportedly delayed? Now the UP police is claiming that the victim was not raped as the forensic report, which was received by the Agra lab 11 days after the crime, has found no evidence of rape. Also Read | #JusticeForSSR to #JusticeForKangana: The art of riding coattails – hashtags to hashtags It is also banking on the post-mortem report issued by Safdarjung Hospital which does not mention rape. The post-mortem report says there were “multiple old healed tears” in the private parts of the deceased. Certainly, there will be very little chances of finding any evidence if the samples are collected beyond permissible time limit. Questionable actions of authorities The decision of the local authorities to cremate the victim in the dead of the night and that too in the absence of her family members also raises several doubts. Why was the family denied a last look at the body? Why did the district officials not permit the body to be taken home for last rites? What was the urgency? The UP police and the local administration need to answer these questions. Accused arrested, but will there be justice in time? Now that all the four accused have been arrested, the case will be heard by the Fast Track Court (FTC) after the police file the charge sheet. The problem is that most of these FTCs in several states have the same drawbacks as the district courts. Improper infrastructure, inadequate staff, frequent adjournments continue to dog these FTCs. As of 2019, there were more than 1.66 lakh pending cases of crime against women and children in the FTCs across the country. Even if the FTC completes all the legal formalities and passes its judgment, it will not be a final closure of the case. The accused have every right to challenge the FTC decision to higher courts and finally the Supreme Court. Delays in case closures The case in point is the Delhi medical student rape case, when a fast-track court was set up on January 17, 2013 a month after the crime. The court wrapped up the proceedings within eight months and sentenced the four surviving convicts to death in the case. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty on May 5, 2017, but the convicts were hanged on March 20 this year after they took time exhausting all their legal remedies. It took more than seven years before the convicts could be sent to the gallows despite having been sentenced to death in a fast-track. The unusual delay in closure is also traumatic for the rape survivor as she is haunted by the flashbacks, nightmares and upsetting memories. Moreover, as the case drags from one court to another, she is subjected to the same rigmarole of answering uncomfortable questions which may prove to be very disturbing for her. In some cases, it is observed that the survivors end their lives due to the stigma attached with the incident of rape. There is an urgent need to fast track justice also. If justice is prompt, it will certainly act as a deterrent and instill fear among the people who entertain any such wicked thoughts. The criminal justice system should be such that it is not seen as failing to deliver justice after rape. For, justice delayed is justice denied. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Why have stringent laws failed to instill fear in rapists

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