A coronavirus outbreak that infected President Donald Trump and spread to the Senate threw a fresh element of uncertainty Friday into the politically fraught fight over installing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court before Election Day, as Republicans vowed to press ahead and Democrats insisted on a pause.

Pulling off a complex confirmation that touches all three branches of government in the four weeks remaining before the election always promised to be a daunting task for Republicans in the middle of a pandemic. But by Friday evening, with the White House and Congress in turmoil and two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, among those announcing they had tested positive for the virus, it was clear that the challenge had grown steeper.

Top Republicans insisted they would move ahead at an uncommonly swift pace to hold hearings on Barrett’s nomination by Oct. 12, send her nomination to the full Senate by Oct. 22 and confirm her as soon as Oct. 26, eight days before Election Day — even if it meant breaking Senate norms and considering a lifetime judicial nomination by videoconference.

But the latest outbreak raised the possibility that Republicans could lose their slim majority in the Judiciary Committee or on the Senate floor.

It gave Democrats, who were already objecting to Trump’s push to install a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election, a new reason to call for a delay. Seeing a potential opening, top Democrats called for the Senate to pause and assess the scope of the outbreak.

They declared that a fully virtual hearing for a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court would be unacceptable.

“It’s critical that Chairman Graham put the health of senators, the nominee and staff first — and ensure a full and fair hearing that is not rushed, not truncated and not virtual,” Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a joint statement. “Otherwise, this already illegitimate process will become a dangerous one.”

On Friday evening, after Tillis announced his positive test result, Schumer renewed his call for delay, writing on Twitter that going forward with hearings would be “irresponsible and dangerous.”

“There is absolutely no good reason to do so,” he said.

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chair of the panel, vowed he would stick to his schedule, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said he intended to move the nomination as soon as the committee approved it.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/physicians-decided-to-start-remdesivir-therapy-for-trump-332270/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“Just finished a great phone call with @POTUS,” McConnell wrote on Twitter on Friday. “He’s in good spirits and we talked business — especially how impressed Senators are with the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Full steam ahead with the fair, thorough, timely process that the nominee, the Court, &amp;amp; the country deserve.”

Republican officials said they had no doubt that senators would find a way to muscle through the nomination over Democrats’ protests.

But Republicans cannot afford to have many members sidelined by illness, which could provide Democrats an opportunity to stall the proceedings. Two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have already raised objections to moving ahead before the election, reducing the wiggle room in the 53-47 Republican majority.

McConnell has insisted throughout the pandemic that the Senate continue to meet in person, but he conceded Friday that keeping Republican senators healthy was crucial to the fate of the nomination.

“I think every precaution needs to be taken because we don’t anticipate any Democratic support at all, either in committee or the full Senate, and therefore everybody needs to be in an all-hands-on-deck mindset,” he said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

The posturing around the court fight played out as government officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill spent Friday racing to trace those who had come in contact with known carriers of the virus to determine how far it had spread.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-having-trouble-breathing-at-hospital-report-332269">Trump having 'trouble breathing' at hospital: Report</a>

Trump was in proximity to Barrett when he announced her nomination in the Rose Garden a week ago at a well-attended celebration where few masks or other precautions were evident.

At least two other high-profile attendees, the Rev. John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, and Kellyanne Conway, a former White House counselor, said Friday that they had also tested positive.

Lee and Tillis were among at least eight Republican senators present at the White House event, where some guests also gathered indoors and where video captured Lee hugging other attendees without a mask. Tillis wore a mask.

Both men are on the Judiciary Committee and met with Barrett on Capitol Hill this week indoors, without masks, as did more than a dozen others. Tillis’ office released a photograph of the senator and the nominee bumping elbows.

Both senators said they felt fine but would isolate for 10 days, placing them on track to reemerge on the day Graham intends to begin Barrett’s hearing.

Other lawmakers who had been in proximity to Trump or his aides said they were getting tested. Among them were Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.; and Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who all announced they had tested negative.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/even-the-white-houses-testing-regime-couldnt-stop-coronavirus-332226">Even the White House’s testing regime couldn’t stop coronavirus</a>

Republican members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation, who flew with the president on Air Force One from Washington to a campaign rally in Duluth, also said they were being tested.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, flew to the presidential debate in Cleveland on Tuesday on Air Force One with the president and Hope Hicks, a close aide to Trump who tested positive Thursday. Jordan announced Friday that he had tested negative.

Concerns about the outbreak appeared to lead to a change in Congress’s much-maligned approach to testing the thousands of people who stream in and out of the Capitol complex each week, many of them flying in from around the country.

The Office of the Attending Physician informed lawmakers Friday that same-day testing would now be offered in the Capitol to lawmakers who showed possible coronavirus symptoms or had been exposed to someone who had tested positive. Staff members who came into contact with someone who tested positive could also get tests, the office said.

The announcement came after Schumer had expressed deepened anxiety about the health outlook in the Capitol after Trump’s positive test.

“This episode demonstrates that the Senate needs a testing and contact-tracing program for senators, staff and all who work in the Capitol complex,” Schumer said. “We simply cannot allow the administration’s cavalier attitude to adversely affect this branch of government.

It is imperative that all results be made public in order to contain a possible outbreak and so we can determine the need for senators and staff to quarantine or self-isolate.”

Fresh fears about the spread of the virus only stiffened resistance to Barrett’s nomination among Democrats, who were already outraged that Republicans were racing to confirm a Supreme Court justice so close to the election after having blocked President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy nine months before Election Day in 2016.

But with Trump’s reelection in doubt and their party in danger of losing its Senate majority, Republicans are even more eager to confirm the nominee quickly.

They have insisted they are justified in moving ahead with the nomination because Trump was elected in 2016 and Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2018, an argument that would be undercut by losses in November.

Some Republican advisers were pushing to scrap plans to keep the Senate in session next week, hoping to reduce the risk of more Republican senators becoming infected.

But adjourning may not be in McConnell’s control. He had been in favor of allowing senators to go home, but Democrats trying to inflict pain on Republicans for their rush to fill the Supreme Court seat refused to go along, using parliamentary tactics to prevent it.

As for Barrett, two officials with knowledge of her medical history said that she had already had the coronavirus and recovered this year, potentially providing some immunity for her. But it was not yet clear whether she would continue her courtesy meetings with senators in person next week.

She tested negative for the virus Friday, officials said.

A coronavirus outbreak that infected President Donald Trump and spread to the Senate threw a fresh element of uncertainty Friday into the politically fraught fight over installing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court before Election Day, as Republicans vowed to press ahead and Democrats insisted on a pause.

A coronavirus outbreak that infected President Donald Trump and spread to the Senate threw a fresh element of uncertainty Friday into the politically fraught fight over installing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court before Election Day, as Republicans vowed to press ahead and Democrats insisted on a pause. Pulling off a complex confirmation that touches all three branches of government in the four weeks remaining before the election always promised to be a daunting task for Republicans in the middle of a pandemic. But by Friday evening, with the White House and Congress in turmoil and two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, among those announcing they had tested positive for the virus, it was clear that the challenge had grown steeper. Top Republicans insisted they would move ahead at an uncommonly swift pace to hold hearings on Barrett’s nomination by Oct. 12, send her nomination to the full Senate by Oct. 22 and confirm her as soon as Oct. 26, eight days before Election Day — even if it meant breaking Senate norms and considering a lifetime judicial nomination by videoconference. But the latest outbreak raised the possibility that Republicans could lose their slim majority in the Judiciary Committee or on the Senate floor. It gave Democrats, who were already objecting to Trump’s push to install a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election, a new reason to call for a delay. Seeing a potential opening, top Democrats called for the Senate to pause and assess the scope of the outbreak. They declared that a fully virtual hearing for a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court would be unacceptable. “It’s critical that Chairman Graham put the health of senators, the nominee and staff first — and ensure a full and fair hearing that is not rushed, not truncated and not virtual,” Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in a joint statement. “Otherwise, this already illegitimate process will become a dangerous one.” On Friday evening, after Tillis announced his positive test result, Schumer renewed his call for delay, writing on Twitter that going forward with hearings would be “irresponsible and dangerous.” “There is absolutely no good reason to do so,” he said. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chair of the panel, vowed he would stick to his schedule, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said he intended to move the nomination as soon as the committee approved it. × “Just finished a great phone call with @POTUS,” McConnell wrote on Twitter on Friday. “He’s in good spirits and we talked business — especially how impressed Senators are with the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Full steam ahead with the fair, thorough, timely process that the nominee, the Court, &amp; the country deserve.” Republican officials said they had no doubt that senators would find a way to muscle through the nomination over Democrats’ protests. But Republicans cannot afford to have many members sidelined by illness, which could provide Democrats an opportunity to stall the proceedings. Two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have already raised objections to moving ahead before the election, reducing the wiggle room in the 53-47 Republican majority. McConnell has insisted throughout the pandemic that the Senate continue to meet in person, but he conceded Friday that keeping Republican senators healthy was crucial to the fate of the nomination. “I think every precaution needs to be taken because we don’t anticipate any Democratic support at all, either in committee or the full Senate, and therefore everybody needs to be in an all-hands-on-deck mindset,” he said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. The posturing around the court fight played out as government officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill spent Friday racing to trace those who had come in contact with known carriers of the virus to determine how far it had spread. Also Read | Trump having 'trouble breathing' at hospital: Report Trump was in proximity to Barrett when he announced her nomination in the Rose Garden a week ago at a well-attended celebration where few masks or other precautions were evident. At least two other high-profile attendees, the Rev. John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, and Kellyanne Conway, a former White House counselor, said Friday that they had also tested positive. Lee and Tillis were among at least eight Republican senators present at the White House event, where some guests also gathered indoors and where video captured Lee hugging other attendees without a mask. Tillis wore a mask. Both men are on the Judiciary Committee and met with Barrett on Capitol Hill this week indoors, without masks, as did more than a dozen others. Tillis’ office released a photograph of the senator and the nominee bumping elbows. Both senators said they felt fine but would isolate for 10 days, placing them on track to reemerge on the day Graham intends to begin Barrett’s hearing. Other lawmakers who had been in proximity to Trump or his aides said they were getting tested. Among them were Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.; and Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who all announced they had tested negative. Also Read | Even the White House’s testing regime couldn’t stop coronavirus Republican members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation, who flew with the president on Air Force One from Washington to a campaign rally in Duluth, also said they were being tested. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, flew to the presidential debate in Cleveland on Tuesday on Air Force One with the president and Hope Hicks, a close aide to Trump who tested positive Thursday. Jordan announced Friday that he had tested negative. Concerns about the outbreak appeared to lead to a change in Congress’s much-maligned approach to testing the thousands of people who stream in and out of the Capitol complex each week, many of them flying in from around the country. The Office of the Attending Physician informed lawmakers Friday that same-day testing would now be offered in the Capitol to lawmakers who showed possible coronavirus symptoms or had been exposed to someone who had tested positive. Staff members who came into contact with someone who tested positive could also get tests, the office said. The announcement came after Schumer had expressed deepened anxiety about the health outlook in the Capitol after Trump’s positive test. “This episode demonstrates that the Senate needs a testing and contact-tracing program for senators, staff and all who work in the Capitol complex,” Schumer said. “We simply cannot allow the administration’s cavalier attitude to adversely affect this branch of government. It is imperative that all results be made public in order to contain a possible outbreak and so we can determine the need for senators and staff to quarantine or self-isolate.” Fresh fears about the spread of the virus only stiffened resistance to Barrett’s nomination among Democrats, who were already outraged that Republicans were racing to confirm a Supreme Court justice so close to the election after having blocked President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy nine months before Election Day in 2016. But with Trump’s reelection in doubt and their party in danger of losing its Senate majority, Republicans are even more eager to confirm the nominee quickly. They have insisted they are justified in moving ahead with the nomination because Trump was elected in 2016 and Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2018, an argument that would be undercut by losses in November. Some Republican advisers were pushing to scrap plans to keep the Senate in session next week, hoping to reduce the risk of more Republican senators becoming infected. But adjourning may not be in McConnell’s control. He had been in favor of allowing senators to go home, but Democrats trying to inflict pain on Republicans for their rush to fill the Supreme Court seat refused to go along, using parliamentary tactics to prevent it. As for Barrett, two officials with knowledge of her medical history said that she had already had the coronavirus and recovered this year, potentially providing some immunity for her. But it was not yet clear whether she would continue her courtesy meetings with senators in person next week. She tested negative for the virus Friday, officials said.

Trump’s diagnosis imperils quick Supreme Court confirmation timeline

Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed airlines to either provide refund of tickets purchased by travellers for flights cancelled during coronavirus lockdown or provide a credit shell. The decision is applicable to domestic as well as international flight.

Supreme Court accepted the Centre's proposal. The court said that if the tickets were booked through an agent for travel during the lockdown period, a full refund will be given to the agent and he will pass on the amount to the passengers.

Supreme Court also said that if the airlines were not able to make a refund due to financial distress, they can provide a credit shell to the passenger that can be utilised upto March 31, 2021.&nbsp;

It is open to passengers either to utilise such credit shell up to March 31, 2021 on any route of choice or transfer the credit shell to any person including the travel agent concerned, and the airlines shall honour such a transfer, the top court said.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah said the suggestions and formulations arrived at the meeting held by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA), Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which are acceptable to the majority of stakeholders have to be implemented in letter and spirit.

"We also feel that such formulations are workable solutions in these peculiar circumstances which are prevailing in the country," the bench said, while passing a slew of directions for refund of air tickets to the hassled passengers, whose flights were cancelled due to the pandemic induced lockdown.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of petitions, including by NGOs and passengers associations, seeking complete refund of ticket fare for the flights cancelled.

It said that the court cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe with regard to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and any strict enforcement action of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) (aviation norms) against the airlines would further restrict their operations.

"It cannot be disputed that the civil aviation sector, which is one of the important sectors, is seriously affected in view of the ban imposed for operating flights. Added to the same, air passenger traffic has come down heavily and which is gradually being restored," the top court said.

It added that any such enforcement action may further jeopardise the possibilities of generation of cash by airlines which can further adversely affect/delay the refund cycle.

"Strict enforcement of Civil Aviation Requirements at this moment may not yield any meaningful result for any stakeholder," the bench said.

It said that the passengers who booked tickets at any period of time but for travel after May 24, then the refund of fares to the passengers covered under this category shall be governed by the provisions of CAR.

"Even for international travel, when the tickets have been booked on an Indian carrier and the booking is ex-India (flights originating from India), if the tickets have been booked during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, immediate refund shall be made," the bench said in its order.

If the tickets are booked for international travel on a foreign carrier and the booking is ex-India during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, full refund shall be given by the airlines and said amount shall be passed on immediately by the agent to the passengers, wherever such tickets are booked through agents, it added.

"In all other cases airline shall refund the collected amount to the passenger within a period of three weeks," the bench emphasised and added that the credit shell issued in the name of the passenger shall be transferable which can be utilized up to March 31, 2021 and the concerned airline shall honour such a transfer by devising a mechanism to facilitate such a transfer.

"It is also made clear that such a credit shell can be utilized by the concerned agent through whom the ticket is booked, for third party use. It is also made clear that even in cases where the credit shell is transferred to a third party; same is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket at the first instance," it directed.

Justice Reddy, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that in cases where passengers have purchased the ticket through an agent, and credit shell is issued in the name of passenger, such credit shell is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket.

It said that in cases where tickets are booked through agent and credit shell is issued in the name of the passenger remains unutilized till March 31, 2021, then the "refund of the fare collected shall be made to the same account from which account amount was received by the airline".

The bench said that in all cases where credit shell is issued there shall be an incentive to compensate the passenger from the date of cancellation up to June 30, 2020 in which event the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.5 per cent of the face value (the amount of fare collected) for every month or part thereof between the date of cancellation and June 30, 2020.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed airlines to either provide refund of tickets purchased by travellers for flights cancelled during coronavirus lockdown or provide a credit shell.

Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed airlines to either provide refund of tickets purchased by travellers for flights cancelled during coronavirus lockdown or provide a credit shell. The decision is applicable to domestic as well as international flight. Supreme Court accepted the Centre's proposal. The court said that if the tickets were booked through an agent for travel during the lockdown period, a full refund will be given to the agent and he will pass on the amount to the passengers. Supreme Court also said that if the airlines were not able to make a refund due to financial distress, they can provide a credit shell to the passenger that can be utilised upto March 31, 2021. It is open to passengers either to utilise such credit shell up to March 31, 2021 on any route of choice or transfer the credit shell to any person including the travel agent concerned, and the airlines shall honour such a transfer, the top court said. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah said the suggestions and formulations arrived at the meeting held by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA), Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which are acceptable to the majority of stakeholders have to be implemented in letter and spirit. "We also feel that such formulations are workable solutions in these peculiar circumstances which are prevailing in the country," the bench said, while passing a slew of directions for refund of air tickets to the hassled passengers, whose flights were cancelled due to the pandemic induced lockdown. The top court's verdict came on a batch of petitions, including by NGOs and passengers associations, seeking complete refund of ticket fare for the flights cancelled. It said that the court cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe with regard to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and any strict enforcement action of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) (aviation norms) against the airlines would further restrict their operations. "It cannot be disputed that the civil aviation sector, which is one of the important sectors, is seriously affected in view of the ban imposed for operating flights. Added to the same, air passenger traffic has come down heavily and which is gradually being restored," the top court said. It added that any such enforcement action may further jeopardise the possibilities of generation of cash by airlines which can further adversely affect/delay the refund cycle. "Strict enforcement of Civil Aviation Requirements at this moment may not yield any meaningful result for any stakeholder," the bench said. It said that the passengers who booked tickets at any period of time but for travel after May 24, then the refund of fares to the passengers covered under this category shall be governed by the provisions of CAR. "Even for international travel, when the tickets have been booked on an Indian carrier and the booking is ex-India (flights originating from India), if the tickets have been booked during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, immediate refund shall be made," the bench said in its order. If the tickets are booked for international travel on a foreign carrier and the booking is ex-India during the lockdown period for travel within the lockdown period, full refund shall be given by the airlines and said amount shall be passed on immediately by the agent to the passengers, wherever such tickets are booked through agents, it added. "In all other cases airline shall refund the collected amount to the passenger within a period of three weeks," the bench emphasised and added that the credit shell issued in the name of the passenger shall be transferable which can be utilized up to March 31, 2021 and the concerned airline shall honour such a transfer by devising a mechanism to facilitate such a transfer. "It is also made clear that such a credit shell can be utilized by the concerned agent through whom the ticket is booked, for third party use. It is also made clear that even in cases where the credit shell is transferred to a third party; same is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket at the first instance," it directed. Justice Reddy, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that in cases where passengers have purchased the ticket through an agent, and credit shell is issued in the name of passenger, such credit shell is to be utilized only through the agent who has booked the ticket. It said that in cases where tickets are booked through agent and credit shell is issued in the name of the passenger remains unutilized till March 31, 2021, then the "refund of the fare collected shall be made to the same account from which account amount was received by the airline". The bench said that in all cases where credit shell is issued there shall be an incentive to compensate the passenger from the date of cancellation up to June 30, 2020 in which event the credit shell shall be enhanced by 0.5 per cent of the face value (the amount of fare collected) for every month or part thereof between the date of cancellation and June 30, 2020.

Supreme Court orders refund of tickets of flights cancelled due to lockdown

The Apex Court on Thursday asked the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association seeking interest-free loans for lawyers to file an affidavit detailing their credentials and other details.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde asked if it`s a registered association.

The association has filed a plea seeking direction to the Centre to form a scheme to disburse interest-free loans up to Rs 20 lakh to lawyers.

"We want to know about the Association, is it a registered Association, is it a one-man show, who is running it. We have to know all this because it is an Article 32 petition," the bench said.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner said that all members in the Association are from the Bar.

"Petitioner`s members are the regular practitioner of the Supreme Court having more than 10 years experience. The member of this association is the real face of this institution, who argues before this Court. They are coming from across the country and started practice, after purchasing their offices and houses. They have taken loan for offices and houses," the plea stated.

"In the present pandemic situation normal work of the courts is suspended from the last 6 months and further there are no chances to start the work smoothly, consequently, petitioners are unable to pay the monthly installment of the loan amount of their offices and housing loan, therefore, petitioner seeks indulgence of this court for direction to give relaxation in payment of monthly installment as well as for the direction to the respondent (Centre, RBI, and UCO Bank) to give interest-free loans up to Rs 20 Lakhs," it added.

To this, the CJI said "We are glad you are doing good work but we want to know about the Association."

The Apex Court on Thursday asked the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association seeking interest-free loans for lawyers to file an affidavit detailing their credentials and other details.

The Apex Court on Thursday asked the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association seeking interest-free loans for lawyers to file an affidavit detailing their credentials and other details. A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde asked if it`s a registered association. The association has filed a plea seeking direction to the Centre to form a scheme to disburse interest-free loans up to Rs 20 lakh to lawyers. "We want to know about the Association, is it a registered Association, is it a one-man show, who is running it. We have to know all this because it is an Article 32 petition," the bench said. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner said that all members in the Association are from the Bar. "Petitioner`s members are the regular practitioner of the Supreme Court having more than 10 years experience. The member of this association is the real face of this institution, who argues before this Court. They are coming from across the country and started practice, after purchasing their offices and houses. They have taken loan for offices and houses," the plea stated. "In the present pandemic situation normal work of the courts is suspended from the last 6 months and further there are no chances to start the work smoothly, consequently, petitioners are unable to pay the monthly installment of the loan amount of their offices and housing loan, therefore, petitioner seeks indulgence of this court for direction to give relaxation in payment of monthly installment as well as for the direction to the respondent (Centre, RBI, and UCO Bank) to give interest-free loans up to Rs 20 Lakhs," it added. To this, the CJI said "We are glad you are doing good work but we want to know about the Association."

SC asks lawyers' association seeking interest free loans to file affidavit proving credentials

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon.

Hundreds of people lined up outside the court for a chance to pay their respects to the pioneering women's rights advocate, who died on Friday at age 87. Inside the court, Ginsburg's fellow justices celebrated her life in a private ceremony.

"Her voice in court and in our conference room was soft. But when she spoke, people listened," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/trump-to-nominate-a-woman-to-replace-ginsburg-stating-he-likes-women-more-328748" hreflang="en">Trump to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg stating he likes 'women more'</a>

Ginsburg's casket was then moved under the neoclassical court building's massive Corinthian columns for a public viewing due to last two days.

"It's almost like I felt the hand of God on my shoulder saying you have got to come and pay your respects to this person who was a fierce champion of women's voices and women's rights," said Cecelia Ryan, 64, who drove 12 hours from suburban Chicago.

President Donald Trump is moving quickly to nominate Ginsburg's replacement, and his fellow Republicans in the Senate say they could hold a vote before the Nov. 3 election. That would seal a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.

"I'm gay and I feel she has done more for equal rights than anyone else," said Christopher Balma, 47, who waited in line to file past the casket, which was surrounded by flowers.

"I'm terrified" now that Ginsburg is no longer on the court, Balma said.

Ginsburg ruled in favor of LGBT rights in several important cases including the landmark 2015 decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/supreme-court-judge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-wanted-to-see-trump-lose-in-us-elections-328526" hreflang="en">Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections</a>

Her popularity prompted officials to set aside two days for public viewing, rather than the one day allowed for other justices, said Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.

"She became a pop icon in the last decade," Perry said.

Ginsburg will on Friday become the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol when her casket is placed in National Statuary Hall.

The Capitol held a similar ceremony for civil-rights pioneer Rosa Parks in 2005, but she lay "in honor" as she did not hold government or military office.

Both historic events for Ginsburg, however, come with modifications due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Capitol ceremony will be limited to invited guests only, and at the courthouse social distancing and face coverings will be required.

Flowers and other offerings are forbidden on the court's plaza or its great flight of steps.

With the courthouse closed to the public, the justices are due to hear oral arguments by teleconference next month. Ginsburg's courtroom chair and the bench in front of it were draped with black wool crepe to mark the occasion, a tradition that dates back at least to 1873. A black drape also hung over the courtroom doors.

Dozens of her former clerks stood at attention when the coffin arrived at the courthouse.

"On a personal level, she was such an amazing person. She had a mind like a steel trap," said Jill Alexander, 59, whose husband served as a clerk for Ginsburg when she was an appeals-court judge.

Ginsburg's coffin rested on the Lincoln catafalque, a pine board platform draped in black cloth that was used to support President Abraham Lincoln's coffin when he lay in state in the Capitol's Rotunda after his assassination in 1865.

Public viewing runs until 10 p.m. on Wednesday and between 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Thursday. A private interment service is planned for next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Ginsburg's husband, Martin Ginsburg, was buried there in 2010.

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon.

Mourners quietly filed past the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's flag-draped coffin outside the white marble court building on Wednesday as the United States began three days of tributes to the liberal icon. Hundreds of people lined up outside the court for a chance to pay their respects to the pioneering women's rights advocate, who died on Friday at age 87. Inside the court, Ginsburg's fellow justices celebrated her life in a private ceremony. "Her voice in court and in our conference room was soft. But when she spoke, people listened," Chief Justice John Roberts said. Also read: Trump to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg stating he likes 'women more' Ginsburg's casket was then moved under the neoclassical court building's massive Corinthian columns for a public viewing due to last two days. "It's almost like I felt the hand of God on my shoulder saying you have got to come and pay your respects to this person who was a fierce champion of women's voices and women's rights," said Cecelia Ryan, 64, who drove 12 hours from suburban Chicago. President Donald Trump is moving quickly to nominate Ginsburg's replacement, and his fellow Republicans in the Senate say they could hold a vote before the Nov. 3 election. That would seal a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. "I'm gay and I feel she has done more for equal rights than anyone else," said Christopher Balma, 47, who waited in line to file past the casket, which was surrounded by flowers. "I'm terrified" now that Ginsburg is no longer on the court, Balma said. Ginsburg ruled in favor of LGBT rights in several important cases including the landmark 2015 decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide. Also read: Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections Her popularity prompted officials to set aside two days for public viewing, rather than the one day allowed for other justices, said Barbara Perry, the director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "She became a pop icon in the last decade," Perry said. Ginsburg will on Friday become the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol when her casket is placed in National Statuary Hall. The Capitol held a similar ceremony for civil-rights pioneer Rosa Parks in 2005, but she lay "in honor" as she did not hold government or military office. Both historic events for Ginsburg, however, come with modifications due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Capitol ceremony will be limited to invited guests only, and at the courthouse social distancing and face coverings will be required. Flowers and other offerings are forbidden on the court's plaza or its great flight of steps. With the courthouse closed to the public, the justices are due to hear oral arguments by teleconference next month. Ginsburg's courtroom chair and the bench in front of it were draped with black wool crepe to mark the occasion, a tradition that dates back at least to 1873. A black drape also hung over the courtroom doors. Dozens of her former clerks stood at attention when the coffin arrived at the courthouse. "On a personal level, she was such an amazing person. She had a mind like a steel trap," said Jill Alexander, 59, whose husband served as a clerk for Ginsburg when she was an appeals-court judge. Ginsburg's coffin rested on the Lincoln catafalque, a pine board platform draped in black cloth that was used to support President Abraham Lincoln's coffin when he lay in state in the Capitol's Rotunda after his assassination in 1865. Public viewing runs until 10 p.m. on Wednesday and between 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Thursday. A private interment service is planned for next week at Arlington National Cemetery. Ginsburg's husband, Martin Ginsburg, was buried there in 2010.

Mourners pay respects to Ginsburg at US Supreme Court

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights.

The ultimate objective for U.S. conservative activists for decades has been to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But short of that, there are other options the court has in curtailing abortion rights.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/in-major-ruling-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-strict-louisiana-abortion-law-309474" hreflang="en">In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law</a>

Republican-led states including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama have passed a variety of abortion restrictions in recent years. Some that seek to ban abortion at an early stage of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts and could reach the justices relatively soon.

Abortion is one the most divisive issues in the United States. Conservative opposition to it has been a driving force behind Republicans, including Trump, making a high priority of judicial appointments in recent years.

"Roe v. Wade is on the line in a way it never has been before," said Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which regularly challenges abortion restrictions.

Even if Roe is not overturned, "we could be in a situation where the court is upholding even more restrictions on abortion," Rikelman added.

Trump has said he intends to announce his nomination on Saturday, with conservative appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa considered the frontrunners to be named to succeed Ginsburg, who was a strong defender of abortion rights. Ginsburg died on Friday at age 87.

The leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate is poised to move forward with the nomination even as Trump seeks re-election on Nov. 3.

Even though the court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg's death, some activists on the right were concerned about Chief Justice John Robert's incremental approach. Roberts angered conservatives by siding with the court's liberals in June when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana abortion restriction involving a requirement imposed on doctors who perform the procedure.

Roberts, who wrote a separate opinion explaining his views, signaled he may back other abortion restrictions in future cases but said he felt compelled to strike down Louisiana's law because the justices just four years earlier had invalidated a similar law in Texas.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-election-2020-trump-and-biden-battle-for-an-advantage-in-brewing-fight-329526" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump and Biden battle for an advantage in brewing fight</a>

Trump vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He already has appointed conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. Both voted to uphold the Louisiana law.

Anti-abortion groups are pushing for Trump to pick Barrett, a conservative Roman Catholic who he appointed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett has twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions.

Abortion rights activists have voiced concern that Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

STATE-BY-STATE EFFORTS

Broadly speaking, Republican-controlled states have enacted two types of abortion laws: measures that would impose burdensome regulations on abortion providers and those that would ban abortions during the early stages of pregnancy.

The latter laws in particular directly challenge Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 1992 ruling that upheld it. Those two rulings made clear that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion at least up until the point when the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks or soon after.

Legal challenges to laws recently enacted in conservative states that directly challenge the Roe precedent by banning abortion outright or in early stages of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts.

One appeal pending at the Supreme Court that the justices will discuss whether to hear in the coming months is Mississippi's bid to revive a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In a separate case the court could act upon at any time, the Trump administration has asked the justices to put on hold a federal judge's decision to block during the coronavirus pandemic a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule requiring women to visit a hospital or clinic to obtain a drug used for medication-induced abortions.

Clarke Forsythe, a lawyer with the Americans United for Life anti-abortion group that has urged Barrett's appointment, said he expects the Supreme Court to "continue with an incremental approach" even if Trump's nominee is confirmed, in part because of Roberts' opinion in the Louisiana case.

But Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, said that with only four votes among the justices needed to take up a case, a newly emboldened conservative wing could force Roberts' hand and take up a more direct challenge to Roe.

"Now," Dalven said, "Chief Justice Roberts and his concern for the integrity for the court and his potential for being an incrementalist is not enough."

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights.

With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a new 6-3 conservative majority could be emboldened to roll back abortion rights. The ultimate objective for U.S. conservative activists for decades has been to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But short of that, there are other options the court has in curtailing abortion rights. Also read: In major ruling, US Supreme Court strikes down strict Louisiana abortion law Republican-led states including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama have passed a variety of abortion restrictions in recent years. Some that seek to ban abortion at an early stage of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts and could reach the justices relatively soon. Abortion is one the most divisive issues in the United States. Conservative opposition to it has been a driving force behind Republicans, including Trump, making a high priority of judicial appointments in recent years. "Roe v. Wade is on the line in a way it never has been before," said Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which regularly challenges abortion restrictions. Even if Roe is not overturned, "we could be in a situation where the court is upholding even more restrictions on abortion," Rikelman added. Trump has said he intends to announce his nomination on Saturday, with conservative appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa considered the frontrunners to be named to succeed Ginsburg, who was a strong defender of abortion rights. Ginsburg died on Friday at age 87. The leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate is poised to move forward with the nomination even as Trump seeks re-election on Nov. 3. Even though the court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg's death, some activists on the right were concerned about Chief Justice John Robert's incremental approach. Roberts angered conservatives by siding with the court's liberals in June when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down a Louisiana abortion restriction involving a requirement imposed on doctors who perform the procedure. Roberts, who wrote a separate opinion explaining his views, signaled he may back other abortion restrictions in future cases but said he felt compelled to strike down Louisiana's law because the justices just four years earlier had invalidated a similar law in Texas. Also read: US election 2020: Trump and Biden battle for an advantage in brewing fight Trump vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He already has appointed conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. Both voted to uphold the Louisiana law. Anti-abortion groups are pushing for Trump to pick Barrett, a conservative Roman Catholic who he appointed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett has twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions. Abortion rights activists have voiced concern that Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. STATE-BY-STATE EFFORTS Broadly speaking, Republican-controlled states have enacted two types of abortion laws: measures that would impose burdensome regulations on abortion providers and those that would ban abortions during the early stages of pregnancy. The latter laws in particular directly challenge Roe v. Wade and a subsequent 1992 ruling that upheld it. Those two rulings made clear that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion at least up until the point when the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks or soon after. Legal challenges to laws recently enacted in conservative states that directly challenge the Roe precedent by banning abortion outright or in early stages of pregnancy are still being litigated in lower courts. One appeal pending at the Supreme Court that the justices will discuss whether to hear in the coming months is Mississippi's bid to revive a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In a separate case the court could act upon at any time, the Trump administration has asked the justices to put on hold a federal judge's decision to block during the coronavirus pandemic a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule requiring women to visit a hospital or clinic to obtain a drug used for medication-induced abortions. Clarke Forsythe, a lawyer with the Americans United for Life anti-abortion group that has urged Barrett's appointment, said he expects the Supreme Court to "continue with an incremental approach" even if Trump's nominee is confirmed, in part because of Roberts' opinion in the Louisiana case. But Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, said that with only four votes among the justices needed to take up a case, a newly emboldened conservative wing could force Roberts' hand and take up a more direct challenge to Roe. "Now," Dalven said, "Chief Justice Roberts and his concern for the integrity for the court and his potential for being an incrementalist is not enough."

Trump-appointed justice could signal major Supreme Court shift on abortion

'Rest in power': Americans mourn the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has suggested to the Supreme Court that its "code of ethics" should be made part of statutory rules on cable TV by the central government to ensure it becomes binding on member and non-member news channels alike.

Taking note of the NBA's alleged inadequacy in regulating "hurtful" and "communal" contents in television programmes of news channels, the top court on September 18 had sought suggestions from it and the Centre to strengthen the association's self-regulatory powers.

A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud has been hearing a case of a lawyer seeking granting of pre-telecast ban on a programme called 'UPSC Jehad' of Sudarshan TV and it will hear the case on Monday again.

At present, the court has stayed the telecast of episodes which deal with alleged infiltration of Muslims in bureaucracy.

Annie Joseph, secretary general of the NBA, has filed the affidavit in pursuance of the court's direction asking it to give suggestions as to how the self-regulatory mechanism of the NBA could be strengthened and made more effective in regard to the electronic media.

The NBA said its code of ethics should be given a statutory recognition by making it a part of the Programme Code under the Cable TV Rules so that these codes become binding on all news channels.

The move will give official recognition and power to the regulatory body.

"This court may grant recognition to NBSA (News Broadcasting Standard Association) the 'independent self-regulatory mechanism' so that complaints against all news broadcasters, whether members of NBA or not, may be entertained by the NBSA and the orders passed by the NBSA would be binding and enforceable on all news broadcasters," Joseph said in her affidavit.

"Recognition to the NBSA would also strengthen the News Broadcasting Standard Regulation and the penalties mentioned therein could be made more stringent," the affidavit stated.

The self-regulatory body said that amenability to the NBSA mechanism should be made a term of the "uplinking/downlinking permission for news channels, and the orders made, if any, against any news broadcaster may be considered by the (information and broadcasting) ministry at the time of grant and renewal of such permissions".

The NBSA is currently headed by retired Supreme Court judge A K Sikri.

Earlier, the bench had said it was against the practice of courts granting pre-telecast injunctions on shows and that such orders are a "nuclear missile" and hence, the self-regulatory mechanism needed to be strengthened.

It had also questioned Sudarshan TV over its 'Bindas Bol' programme, the promo of which had claimed that the channel would show the "big expose on conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims in government service".

The bench had asked whether media can be allowed to target whole set of communities.

Simultaneously, it had taken note of alleged inadequacy of self-regulatory mechanism of the NBA and had observed: "The NBA says that Sudarshan TV is not its member so it cannot do anything."

NBA says they have a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. They can impose a maximum fine of Rs one lakh and this shows how toothless they are. But, the NBA is only for members, so Sudarshan News not being a member is not governed by the NBA," the bench had observed.

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has suggested to the Supreme Court that its "code of ethics" should be made part of statutory rules on cable TV by the central government to ensure it becomes binding on member and non-member news channels alike.

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has suggested to the Supreme Court that its "code of ethics" should be made part of statutory rules on cable TV by the central government to ensure it becomes binding on member and non-member news channels alike. Taking note of the NBA's alleged inadequacy in regulating "hurtful" and "communal" contents in television programmes of news channels, the top court on September 18 had sought suggestions from it and the Centre to strengthen the association's self-regulatory powers. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud has been hearing a case of a lawyer seeking granting of pre-telecast ban on a programme called 'UPSC Jehad' of Sudarshan TV and it will hear the case on Monday again. At present, the court has stayed the telecast of episodes which deal with alleged infiltration of Muslims in bureaucracy. Annie Joseph, secretary general of the NBA, has filed the affidavit in pursuance of the court's direction asking it to give suggestions as to how the self-regulatory mechanism of the NBA could be strengthened and made more effective in regard to the electronic media. The NBA said its code of ethics should be given a statutory recognition by making it a part of the Programme Code under the Cable TV Rules so that these codes become binding on all news channels. The move will give official recognition and power to the regulatory body. "This court may grant recognition to NBSA (News Broadcasting Standard Association) the 'independent self-regulatory mechanism' so that complaints against all news broadcasters, whether members of NBA or not, may be entertained by the NBSA and the orders passed by the NBSA would be binding and enforceable on all news broadcasters," Joseph said in her affidavit. "Recognition to the NBSA would also strengthen the News Broadcasting Standard Regulation and the penalties mentioned therein could be made more stringent," the affidavit stated. The self-regulatory body said that amenability to the NBSA mechanism should be made a term of the "uplinking/downlinking permission for news channels, and the orders made, if any, against any news broadcaster may be considered by the (information and broadcasting) ministry at the time of grant and renewal of such permissions". The NBSA is currently headed by retired Supreme Court judge A K Sikri. Earlier, the bench had said it was against the practice of courts granting pre-telecast injunctions on shows and that such orders are a "nuclear missile" and hence, the self-regulatory mechanism needed to be strengthened. It had also questioned Sudarshan TV over its 'Bindas Bol' programme, the promo of which had claimed that the channel would show the "big expose on conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims in government service". The bench had asked whether media can be allowed to target whole set of communities. Simultaneously, it had taken note of alleged inadequacy of self-regulatory mechanism of the NBA and had observed: "The NBA says that Sudarshan TV is not its member so it cannot do anything." NBA says they have a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. They can impose a maximum fine of Rs one lakh and this shows how toothless they are. But, the NBA is only for members, so Sudarshan News not being a member is not governed by the NBA," the bench had observed.

Our 'code of ethics' should be made part of rules, binding on all news channels: NBA suggests SC

US Supreme Court Justice&nbsp;Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Fiday after living after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.&nbsp;

Ginsburg was 87 years old and hailed from Brooklyn. Known for speaking her mind, she was&nbsp;the second woman to serve as a justice on America's highest court.&nbsp;

Often called as "Notorious RBG", was known for fighting against gender discrimination, and served the court for 27 long years. "Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts was quoted as saying in the court statement.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trump-issues-list-of-potential-supreme-court-judges-to-woo-voters-326513">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: Trump issues list of potential Supreme Court judges to woo voters</a>

"We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice."&nbsp;

A local report has stated that the famous judge, a few days ago, told her&nbsp;granddaughter Clara Spera about wanting to live to see her beloved country be ruled by anyone other than <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> — a man she disliked due to his ego. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she told her granddaughter.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-dislikes-fbi-chiefs-statements-on-russias-involvement-in-us-elections-328523">Also read:Trump dislikes FBI Chief's statements on Russia's involvement in US elections</a>

After the death of the Justice,&nbsp;US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has announced that the chamber would vote for a nominee that Trump would name.&nbsp;"President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said.

However, this decision will be a direct disregard for&nbsp;Ginsburg's last wish, who did not want to be replaced&nbsp;"until a new president is installed".

Trump, while campaigning in Minnesota against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a> for the upcoming <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US elections</a>, was unaware about her death till the reporters told him. "She just died?&nbsp;I didn't know that. She led an amazing life, what else can you say?," he told the reporters.

Biden, however, wants to honour Ginsburg's last wish. When he learned about her death, Biden said,&nbsp;"There is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."

Applauding her work, he added,&nbsp;"Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us. She has been absolutely consistent and reliable and a voice for freedom and opportunity for everyone."

The&nbsp;White House flag will be&nbsp;at half-staff in her honor, Whote House spokeswoman reported.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Fiday after living after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg was 87 years old and hailed from Brooklyn.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Fiday after living after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg was 87 years old and hailed from Brooklyn. Known for speaking her mind, she was the second woman to serve as a justice on America's highest court. Often called as "Notorious RBG", was known for fighting against gender discrimination, and served the court for 27 long years. "Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts was quoted as saying in the court statement. Also read| US election 2020: Trump issues list of potential Supreme Court judges to woo voters "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice." A local report has stated that the famous judge, a few days ago, told her granddaughter Clara Spera about wanting to live to see her beloved country be ruled by anyone other than Donald Trump — a man she disliked due to his ego. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she told her granddaughter. Also read:Trump dislikes FBI Chief's statements on Russia's involvement in US elections After the death of the Justice, US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has announced that the chamber would vote for a nominee that Trump would name. "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said. However, this decision will be a direct disregard for Ginsburg's last wish, who did not want to be replaced "until a new president is installed". Trump, while campaigning in Minnesota against Joe Biden for the upcoming US elections, was unaware about her death till the reporters told him. "She just died? I didn't know that. She led an amazing life, what else can you say?," he told the reporters. Biden, however, wants to honour Ginsburg's last wish. When he learned about her death, Biden said, "There is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider." Applauding her work, he added, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us. She has been absolutely consistent and reliable and a voice for freedom and opportunity for everyone." The White House flag will be at half-staff in her honor, Whote House spokeswoman reported.

Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts.

"Similar opinions were made in many occasions before as demonstrated by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. In the present controversy, similar comments are also made by Justices (all retired now) Madan Bhimrao Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, and veteran journalist, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV," Bhushan said in his review petition.

Bhushan, in his review petition, also sought an open court hearing and stated that the suo motu contempt plea should not have been heard by Justice (now retired) Arun Mishra. "We need to ask whether they are also to be held guilty of contempt as also others in the press because repeating or supporting a statement is also a publication. Justice Lodha has also criticised the Court`s order, Bhushan asked and raised this question in his review petition."It would follow that they were all in contempt. There should not be any attempt to coerce the contemnor into making an apology on the basis that nothing else would be acceptable," Bhushan said in his review petition.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/india-news/prashant-bhushan-found-guilty-of-contempt-fined-one-rupee-324237" hreflang="en">Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee</a>

He submitted that the judgment, which convicted him of contempt, should be recalled suo motu and added that in any event, no sentence should be imposed."There can be little doubt that the opinions made by me were bonafide and devoid of malice. Thus a case is made out for recalling the conviction order and not inflicting or awarding punishment," the review plea said.

"Many comments have been made in the past about corruption in the Supreme Court and that things do not augur well for the Court. These include ex-Chief Justice Bharucha," it added. Earlier, Bhushan said that he will submit the fine in the registry today but had added that it doesn`t mean he accepts the Supreme Court`s judgement.

Bhushan was convicted and a fine of Re 1 was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in connection with a suo motu criminal contempt of court case over two of his tweets.

One of the tweets, posted on June 29, was related to his post on a picture of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde on a high-end bike. In his second tweet, Bhushan had expressed his opinion on the role of the last four CJIs amid the state of affairs in the country.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing another contempt of court case against Bhushan for his interview to a magazine in 2009 in which he was quoted as saying that half of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts.

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in his review petition filed in the Supreme Court against his conviction and fine in a suo motu contempt of court case, said that his comments and opinion were made in good faith and founded on facts. "Similar opinions were made in many occasions before as demonstrated by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. In the present controversy, similar comments are also made by Justices (all retired now) Madan Bhimrao Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, and veteran journalist, Arun Shourie and others in the public domain and reported by newspapers and TV," Bhushan said in his review petition. Bhushan, in his review petition, also sought an open court hearing and stated that the suo motu contempt plea should not have been heard by Justice (now retired) Arun Mishra. "We need to ask whether they are also to be held guilty of contempt as also others in the press because repeating or supporting a statement is also a publication. Justice Lodha has also criticised the Court`s order, Bhushan asked and raised this question in his review petition."It would follow that they were all in contempt. There should not be any attempt to coerce the contemnor into making an apology on the basis that nothing else would be acceptable," Bhushan said in his review petition. Also read: Prashant Bhushan found guilty of contempt, fined one Rupee He submitted that the judgment, which convicted him of contempt, should be recalled suo motu and added that in any event, no sentence should be imposed."There can be little doubt that the opinions made by me were bonafide and devoid of malice. Thus a case is made out for recalling the conviction order and not inflicting or awarding punishment," the review plea said. "Many comments have been made in the past about corruption in the Supreme Court and that things do not augur well for the Court. These include ex-Chief Justice Bharucha," it added. Earlier, Bhushan said that he will submit the fine in the registry today but had added that it doesn`t mean he accepts the Supreme Court`s judgement. Bhushan was convicted and a fine of Re 1 was imposed on him by the Supreme Court in connection with a suo motu criminal contempt of court case over two of his tweets. One of the tweets, posted on June 29, was related to his post on a picture of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad Arvind Bobde on a high-end bike. In his second tweet, Bhushan had expressed his opinion on the role of the last four CJIs amid the state of affairs in the country. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also hearing another contempt of court case against Bhushan for his interview to a magazine in 2009 in which he was quoted as saying that half of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.

Comments were made in good faith, founded on facts: Prashant Bhushan seeks review of conviction in SC

Ahead of the US elections 2020, the US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> has issued a lost of the 'ideal' Supreme Court judges, with an aim to woo his voters.

Trump has shortlisted some potential nominees for country's highest court. The potential list, assumable, includes his political allies such as&nbsp;Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

"Over the next four years, America's president will choose hundreds of federal judges and in all likelihood one, two, three and even four Supreme Court justices," Trump told reporters at the White House.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-white-house-ordered-me-not-to-report-russian-meddling-in-polls-whistleblower-326500">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: White House ordered me not to report Russian meddling in polls: Whistleblower</a>

"The outcome of these decisions will determine whether we hold fast to our nation's founding principles or whether they are lost forever," he added.

Experts believe the list of potential candidates is Trump's attempt to woo his Republican voters ahead of the upcoming <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US elections</a>.

Trump has claimed that if he wins the elections he will see to it that the appointed judges do justice to their position. He alleged that his rival, Joe Biden, will appoint judges who would be extremely radical and would"erase" the Second Amendment giving Americans the right to bear arms and "require taxpayers to fund extremely late term abortion."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-donald-trump-admits-downplaying-seriousness-of-covid-19-326412">Also read|&nbsp;US election 2020: Donald Trump admits 'downplaying' seriousness of COVID-19</a>

"They will remove the words 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, they will unilaterally declare the death penalty unconstitutional," he added.

Trump feels nominating the Supreme Court judges is one of the most important tasks of the US President — a post he is hoping to get re-elected for in the November elections.

Trump has appointed two conservative justices since taking office — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — which has resulted in a majority of conservative party in the court.

Ahead of the US elections 2020, the US President Donald Trump has issued a lost of the 'ideal' Supreme Court judges, with an aim to woo his voters. Trump has shortlisted some potential nominees for country's highest court.

Ahead of the US elections 2020, the US President Donald Trump has issued a lost of the 'ideal' Supreme Court judges, with an aim to woo his voters. Trump has shortlisted some potential nominees for country's highest court. The potential list, assumable, includes his political allies such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri. "Over the next four years, America's president will choose hundreds of federal judges and in all likelihood one, two, three and even four Supreme Court justices," Trump told reporters at the White House. Also read| US election 2020: White House ordered me not to report Russian meddling in polls: Whistleblower "The outcome of these decisions will determine whether we hold fast to our nation's founding principles or whether they are lost forever," he added. Experts believe the list of potential candidates is Trump's attempt to woo his Republican voters ahead of the upcoming US elections. Trump has claimed that if he wins the elections he will see to it that the appointed judges do justice to their position. He alleged that his rival, Joe Biden, will appoint judges who would be extremely radical and would"erase" the Second Amendment giving Americans the right to bear arms and "require taxpayers to fund extremely late term abortion." Also read| US election 2020: Donald Trump admits 'downplaying' seriousness of COVID-19 "They will remove the words 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, they will unilaterally declare the death penalty unconstitutional," he added. Trump feels nominating the Supreme Court judges is one of the most important tasks of the US President — a post he is hoping to get re-elected for in the November elections. Trump has appointed two conservative justices since taking office — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — which has resulted in a majority of conservative party in the court.

US election 2020: Trump issues list of potential Supreme Court judges to woo voters

The Supreme Court on Monday granted another four weeks to states, which have not yet filed affidavits on a plea seeking directions to provide masks and sanitisers to the elderly amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to file their responses.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan which had on August 4 directed that all eligible old age persons should be regularly paid pension and states should provide them necessary medicines, masks, sanitisers and other essential goods in wake of the pandemic.

The bench, also comprising Justices R S Reddy and M R Shah, was hearing a plea filed by former union minister and senior advocate Ashwani Kumar who has sought directions with regard to the elderly, saying they need more care and protection in this time of pandemic.

During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing, Kumar told the bench that only some states including Odisha and Punjab have responded to the petition so far.

Priority should be granted to elderly people who are being treated at hospitals, Kumar said.

Referring to an affidavit filed by Manipur, he said that states should be directed to file better affidavits detailing the action taken so far.

The bench, after hearing the submissions, granted four weeks further time to the states to file their responses on the plea.

In its August 4 order, the apex court had said that looking at their vulnerability, the elderly should be given priority in admission in a government hospital and in the event of any complaint made by them, the hospital administration shall take immediate steps to remedy their grievances.

The bench had said that the top court had already issued directions on December 13, 2018, in the matter and those directives were needed to be complied with by all concerned, including the states.

Kumar had earlier told the court that the elderly living alone is "worst sufferers" and they are not able to get medicines, masks, sanitisers and other essential goods.

In its December 2018 verdict, the apex court had said that statutory rights of over 10 crore elderly persons in India must be recognised and implemented.

It had directed the Centre to obtain information from all states and Union Territories about the number of old age homes in each district and had also suggested a relook at the pension for the elderly to make it is more realistic.

Emphasising the social justice aspect, the apex court had said that state is obligated to ensure that right to live with dignity, shelter and health of citizens, including the elderly, are not only protected but also enforced.

The apex court had pronounced the verdict on the pleas by Kumar and one Sanjeeb Panigrahi.

The court had noted in its 2018 order that the Centre had in 2007 fixed monthly pension of Rs 200 for persons between the age of 60 and 79 years and Rs 500 for those aged above 80.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted another four weeks to states, which have not yet filed affidavits on a plea seeking directions to provide masks and sanitisers to the elderly amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to file their responses.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted another four weeks to states, which have not yet filed affidavits on a plea seeking directions to provide masks and sanitisers to the elderly amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to file their responses. The matter came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan which had on August 4 directed that all eligible old age persons should be regularly paid pension and states should provide them necessary medicines, masks, sanitisers and other essential goods in wake of the pandemic. The bench, also comprising Justices R S Reddy and M R Shah, was hearing a plea filed by former union minister and senior advocate Ashwani Kumar who has sought directions with regard to the elderly, saying they need more care and protection in this time of pandemic. During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing, Kumar told the bench that only some states including Odisha and Punjab have responded to the petition so far. Priority should be granted to elderly people who are being treated at hospitals, Kumar said. Referring to an affidavit filed by Manipur, he said that states should be directed to file better affidavits detailing the action taken so far. The bench, after hearing the submissions, granted four weeks further time to the states to file their responses on the plea. In its August 4 order, the apex court had said that looking at their vulnerability, the elderly should be given priority in admission in a government hospital and in the event of any complaint made by them, the hospital administration shall take immediate steps to remedy their grievances. The bench had said that the top court had already issued directions on December 13, 2018, in the matter and those directives were needed to be complied with by all concerned, including the states. Kumar had earlier told the court that the elderly living alone is "worst sufferers" and they are not able to get medicines, masks, sanitisers and other essential goods. In its December 2018 verdict, the apex court had said that statutory rights of over 10 crore elderly persons in India must be recognised and implemented. It had directed the Centre to obtain information from all states and Union Territories about the number of old age homes in each district and had also suggested a relook at the pension for the elderly to make it is more realistic. Emphasising the social justice aspect, the apex court had said that state is obligated to ensure that right to live with dignity, shelter and health of citizens, including the elderly, are not only protected but also enforced. The apex court had pronounced the verdict on the pleas by Kumar and one Sanjeeb Panigrahi. The court had noted in its 2018 order that the Centre had in 2007 fixed monthly pension of Rs 200 for persons between the age of 60 and 79 years and Rs 500 for those aged above 80.

Plea for care of elderly during pandemic: Supreme Court grants four weeks to states to file affidavits

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court.

The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc.

It has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED) &amp; SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office) or by a Special Investigation Team to investigate various offences including money laundering and black money hoarding by directors &amp; beneficiaries of the company.

The plea alleged that the company collected franchise fees of Rs three lakh and assured certain payouts and attracted 500 investors.

However, the company defaulted in the payment during the lockdown and sent an email in May saying it was enforcing Force Majure (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) clause listed in the agreement, according to the plea.

"The injury is large because under a well-planned conspiracy, directors, sleeping partners and employees deceived the petitioners by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing them to deliver their hard earned money," the plea alleged.

A man was arrested in Uttar Pradesh's Noida in August in connection with a 'franchise fraud' in which scores of people have been allegedly duped to the tune of around Rs 30 crore.

According to police, a group of people in the National Capital Region (NCR) had floated a company, "Hypermart", registered in Sector 63 of Noida, and five-six more such firms to target people with offer of giving them a "franchise store" of the firm in their city.

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc.

A plea seeking investigation by multiple agencies in an alleged "franchise racket" has been filed in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by 38 individuals has alleged they have been cheated and duped by 'Westland Trade Private Limited' which floated bogus companies Hyper Supermarket, Hyper Mart etc. It has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED) & SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office) or by a Special Investigation Team to investigate various offences including money laundering and black money hoarding by directors & beneficiaries of the company. The plea alleged that the company collected franchise fees of Rs three lakh and assured certain payouts and attracted 500 investors. However, the company defaulted in the payment during the lockdown and sent an email in May saying it was enforcing Force Majure (unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract) clause listed in the agreement, according to the plea. "The injury is large because under a well-planned conspiracy, directors, sleeping partners and employees deceived the petitioners by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing them to deliver their hard earned money," the plea alleged. A man was arrested in Uttar Pradesh's Noida in August in connection with a 'franchise fraud' in which scores of people have been allegedly duped to the tune of around Rs 30 crore. According to police, a group of people in the National Capital Region (NCR) had floated a company, "Hypermart", registered in Sector 63 of Noida, and five-six more such firms to target people with offer of giving them a "franchise store" of the firm in their city.

Plea in Supreme Court for investigation in alleged 'franchise racket'

India`s top court on Tuesday gave telecom firms 10 years to pay back dues they owe to the federal government after they failed to make the payment by the January deadline.

Telecom providers in India pay the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) nearly 3-5% of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) in usage charges for spectrum or airwaves and 8% of AGR as licence fees, but they have been at odds on the definition of AGR.

The decision would provide some respite to embattled Vodafone Idea Ltd, a joint venture between Britain`s&nbsp; 
Vodafone Group Plc and India`s Idea Cellular, even though it had asked the court for 15 years to complete payments.

The Supreme Court, however, asked that telecoms firms pay 10% of the dues owed by March 31, 2021.

Vodafone Idea, seen as the most vulnerable if the court did not allow for staggered payments, has so far paid 78.54 billion Indian rupees ($1.08 billion), but still owes roughly 500 billion to the government.

Bharti Airtel has said it has paid its complete dues of 180 billion rupees on the basis of self-assessment, but still needs to pay another 259.76 billion rupees, according to government calculations.

Shares in Vodafone Idea were down 14.7%, while Bharti was up 5.3% at 0623 GMT. 
($1 = 72.7800 Indian rupees) 
&nbsp;

India`s top court on Tuesday gave telecom firms 10 years to pay back dues they owe to the federal government after they failed to make the payment by the January deadline.

India`s top court on Tuesday gave telecom firms 10 years to pay back dues they owe to the federal government after they failed to make the payment by the January deadline. Telecom providers in India pay the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) nearly 3-5% of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) in usage charges for spectrum or airwaves and 8% of AGR as licence fees, but they have been at odds on the definition of AGR. The decision would provide some respite to embattled Vodafone Idea Ltd, a joint venture between Britain`s Vodafone Group Plc and India`s Idea Cellular, even though it had asked the court for 15 years to complete payments. The Supreme Court, however, asked that telecoms firms pay 10% of the dues owed by March 31, 2021. Vodafone Idea, seen as the most vulnerable if the court did not allow for staggered payments, has so far paid 78.54 billion Indian rupees ($1.08 billion), but still owes roughly 500 billion to the government. Bharti Airtel has said it has paid its complete dues of 180 billion rupees on the basis of self-assessment, but still needs to pay another 259.76 billion rupees, according to government calculations. Shares in Vodafone Idea were down 14.7%, while Bharti was up 5.3% at 0623 GMT. ($1 = 72.7800 Indian rupees)

Supreme Court gives Vodafone-Idea, Airtel 10 years to pay AGR dues to government

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court.&nbsp;

On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order.

According to the Banks' allegations, Vijay Mallya hid the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in violation of the orders given by the Karnataka High Court. 
&nbsp; 
The Supreme Court's division bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan rejected the petition and said "We do not find any merits. Review petition dismissed".

Mallya, who is accused in a bank loan default case of over ₹9,000 crores involving his Kingfisher Airlines and is presently in the UK, had reportedly sought asylum in the country after having lost extradition proceedings.

In June, the apex court had asked its registry as to why Mallya's review petition had not been listed before the court concerned in the last three years. The Supreme Court directed the registry to provide all details including the names of officials who dealt with the file concerning the review petition in the last three years.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court. On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of businessman Vijay Mallya seeking review of 2017 verdict holding him guilty for contempt of court. On May 2017, the court held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order. According to the Banks' allegations, Vijay Mallya hid the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in violation of the orders given by the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court's division bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan rejected the petition and said "We do not find any merits. Review petition dismissed". Mallya, who is accused in a bank loan default case of over ₹9,000 crores involving his Kingfisher Airlines and is presently in the UK, had reportedly sought asylum in the country after having lost extradition proceedings. In June, the apex court had asked its registry as to why Mallya's review petition had not been listed before the court concerned in the last three years. The Supreme Court directed the registry to provide all details including the names of officials who dealt with the file concerning the review petition in the last three years.

Supreme Court rejects Vijay Mallya's plea seeking review against contempt order

The issue of conduct of NEET-JEE exams has found itself in legal tussle. After Supreme Court declined to entertain pleas for postponement of NEET and JEE exams, six ministers of Opposition ruled states have approached the top court for a review. These ministers from states of West Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have filed a review petition.

The petition, filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes, seeks postponement of exams slated to be held in September in light of coronavirus pandemic.

"Failed to balance the competing but equally important aspects of conducting the examination and securing safety of the student. Fails to ensure that mandatory safeguards are put in place during the conducting of the examinations," said the petition challenging the August 17 order. This has been cited by news agency IANS.

Also Read | <a href="http://13.235.153.162/india-news/tamil-nadu-health-minister-writes-to-union-minister-seeking-cancellation-of-neet-examination-323277">Tamil Nadu Health Minister writes to Union Minister seeking cancellation of NEET Examination</a>

"The advice of `Life Must Go On` may have sounded very philosophical underpinnings but cannot be a substitute for valid legal reasoning and logical analysis of the various aspects involved in the conduct of the NEET (UG) and JEE exams," the petitioners have argued.&nbsp;

The petitioners say that Central Government had ample time to set up at least one exam centre per district to conduct the examinations.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/cbse-board-exams-for-classes-10th-12th-cancelled-due-to-covid-19-pandemic-308574/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

"Having at least one centre per district would have minimised the inter-district long travel of the students and thereby reduced the chances of Covid-19 spread," says the petition.

The ministers, who have petitioned the Supreme Court have expressed posibillity of irreparable harm coming to the students as a result of spread of coronavirus. 
&nbsp;

The issue of conduct of NEET-JEE exams has found itself in legal tussle. After Supreme Court declined to entertain pleas for postponement of NEET and JEE exams, six ministers of Opposition ruled states have approached the top court for a review.

The issue of conduct of NEET-JEE exams has found itself in legal tussle. After Supreme Court declined to entertain pleas for postponement of NEET and JEE exams, six ministers of Opposition ruled states have approached the top court for a review. These ministers from states of West Bengal, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have filed a review petition. The petition, filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes, seeks postponement of exams slated to be held in September in light of coronavirus pandemic. "Failed to balance the competing but equally important aspects of conducting the examination and securing safety of the student. Fails to ensure that mandatory safeguards are put in place during the conducting of the examinations," said the petition challenging the August 17 order. This has been cited by news agency IANS. Also Read | Tamil Nadu Health Minister writes to Union Minister seeking cancellation of NEET Examination "The advice of `Life Must Go On` may have sounded very philosophical underpinnings but cannot be a substitute for valid legal reasoning and logical analysis of the various aspects involved in the conduct of the NEET (UG) and JEE exams," the petitioners have argued. The petitioners say that Central Government had ample time to set up at least one exam centre per district to conduct the examinations. × "Having at least one centre per district would have minimised the inter-district long travel of the students and thereby reduced the chances of Covid-19 spread," says the petition. The ministers, who have petitioned the Supreme Court have expressed posibillity of irreparable harm coming to the students as a result of spread of coronavirus.

NEET-JEE exams: 6 ministers of non-BJP ruled states approach SC for review of order

A three-judge bench of CJI SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian has on Thursday ruled that there would be no Muharram procession anywhere in the country on August 29.

India: Supreme Court denies permission for Muharram processions

The much-awaited verdict of the Supreme Court on the raging issue of holding final year examinations before September 30 may come on August 28, reports said.

SC on August 18 had reserved its order and asked for the parties to submit their responses in writing with the court.

A three-judge bench of the Apex court headed by justice Ashok Bhushan will pronounce it’s verdict at 10.30 am.

University Grants Commission had asked all universities and colleges to conduct their final year examinations before September 30 as any more delay will result in the loss of an academic year. The exams could be conducted online, offline or both.

Those who won’t be able to appear in the examination because of COVID or other difficulties, as states like Bihar and Assam are reeling under severe flood impacts, will be allowed to take the examinations later.

(With inputs from agencies)

The much-awaited verdict of the Supreme Court on the raging issue of holding final year examinations before September 30 may come on August 28, reports said. SC on August 18 had reserved its order and asked for the parties to submit their responses in writing with the court.

The much-awaited verdict of the Supreme Court on the raging issue of holding final year examinations before September 30 may come on August 28, reports said. SC on August 18 had reserved its order and asked for the parties to submit their responses in writing with the court. A three-judge bench of the Apex court headed by justice Ashok Bhushan will pronounce it’s verdict at 10.30 am. University Grants Commission had asked all universities and colleges to conduct their final year examinations before September 30 as any more delay will result in the loss of an academic year. The exams could be conducted online, offline or both. Those who won’t be able to appear in the examination because of COVID or other difficulties, as states like Bihar and Assam are reeling under severe flood impacts, will be allowed to take the examinations later. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court decision on UGC case on final year university exams 2020 on August 28

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking setting up of a three-judge panel to inquire into the conduct of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi as a judge of the apex court.

Gogoi is now a Rajya Sabha MP.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra termed as "infructuous" the public interest litigation (PIL), and said the petitioner did not press for a hearing in last two years and moreover, now Justice (retd) Gogoi has already demitted office.

"Why did not you (petitioner) press it for hearing in the last two years? This plea has become infructuous as he has demitted office," the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, said.

"Sorry we can't entertain," the bench told petitioner Arun Ramchandra Hublikar, who had sought inquiry into the alleged "omission and commission" by Justice (retd) Gogoi as a judge of the apex court.

The petitioner claimed before the bench that he had met the secretary general of the top court for listing of his plea but it was not listed.

Justice Gogoi, the first person from the northeast to reach the top of judiciary and credited for bringing the curtains down on the decades old politically and religiously sensitive Ayodhya land dispute, had retired as the CJI on November 17 last year.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking setting up of a three-judge panel to inquire into the conduct of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi as a judge of the apex court.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking setting up of a three-judge panel to inquire into the conduct of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi as a judge of the apex court. Gogoi is now a Rajya Sabha MP. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra termed as "infructuous" the public interest litigation (PIL), and said the petitioner did not press for a hearing in last two years and moreover, now Justice (retd) Gogoi has already demitted office. "Why did not you (petitioner) press it for hearing in the last two years? This plea has become infructuous as he has demitted office," the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, said. "Sorry we can't entertain," the bench told petitioner Arun Ramchandra Hublikar, who had sought inquiry into the alleged "omission and commission" by Justice (retd) Gogoi as a judge of the apex court. The petitioner claimed before the bench that he had met the secretary general of the top court for listing of his plea but it was not listed. Justice Gogoi, the first person from the northeast to reach the top of judiciary and credited for bringing the curtains down on the decades old politically and religiously sensitive Ayodhya land dispute, had retired as the CJI on November 17 last year.

Supreme Court rejects plea seeking inquiry into conduct of former CJI Ranjan Gogoi as judge

The state government welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court to order a CBI probe in the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi on said on Wednesday.

"We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court to allow CBI to continue with its probe of Sushant death case on the basis of FIR filed in Bihar. Our stand vindicated," he tweeted.

BJP MLA Ashish Shelar also appreciated the apex court for allowing CBI inquiry into the late actor's case stating that "hidden hands" misguiding police would "be exposed".

"Thanks Hon'ble SC! CBI enquiry = #Justice4ssr! "Hidden hands" misguidinh (misguiding) police investigation will be exposed! Jail time for "Pub &amp; party gang" who enjoyed illegally, while 15,000+ Mumbaikars died in lockdown! Note- Justice will b done, Shelar tweeted"

Holding that the FIR registered in Bihar's Patna over the death of Sushant Singh Rajput was legitimate, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the case.

The single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy also said that the Bihar Government was competent to recommend transferring the case to the CBI.

The apex court also asked Mumbai Police to hand over all the evidence collected so far in the case to the CBI. The state of Maharashtra refused the option to challenge the order, Justice Roy said.

The CBI has registered an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty and others in connection with the actor's death after the Centre accepted Bihar Government's recommendation to transfer the probe in the matter from Patna.

An FIR was registered in Patna on a complaint filed by KK Singh, Rajput's father, under sections related to abetment to suicide. Rajput was found dead at his Mumbai residence on June 14.

Earlier in the day, Bihar Police Association president Mritunjay Singh slammed the Mumbai Police, said that the whole country was "aware how much effort" was being made by the Mumbai Police in investigating the case. “The entire country knows how much effort Mumbai police was putting," Singh said.

The state government welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court to order a CBI probe in the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi on said on Wednesday.

The state government welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court to order a CBI probe in the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi on said on Wednesday. "We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court to allow CBI to continue with its probe of Sushant death case on the basis of FIR filed in Bihar. Our stand vindicated," he tweeted. BJP MLA Ashish Shelar also appreciated the apex court for allowing CBI inquiry into the late actor's case stating that "hidden hands" misguiding police would "be exposed". "Thanks Hon'ble SC! CBI enquiry = #Justice4ssr! "Hidden hands" misguidinh (misguiding) police investigation will be exposed! Jail time for "Pub & party gang" who enjoyed illegally, while 15,000+ Mumbaikars died in lockdown! Note- Justice will b done, Shelar tweeted" Holding that the FIR registered in Bihar's Patna over the death of Sushant Singh Rajput was legitimate, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the case. The single-judge bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy also said that the Bihar Government was competent to recommend transferring the case to the CBI. The apex court also asked Mumbai Police to hand over all the evidence collected so far in the case to the CBI. The state of Maharashtra refused the option to challenge the order, Justice Roy said. The CBI has registered an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty and others in connection with the actor's death after the Centre accepted Bihar Government's recommendation to transfer the probe in the matter from Patna. An FIR was registered in Patna on a complaint filed by KK Singh, Rajput's father, under sections related to abetment to suicide. Rajput was found dead at his Mumbai residence on June 14. Earlier in the day, Bihar Police Association president Mritunjay Singh slammed the Mumbai Police, said that the whole country was "aware how much effort" was being made by the Mumbai Police in investigating the case. “The entire country knows how much effort Mumbai police was putting," Singh said.

Welcome Supreme Court's decision to order CBI probe in Sushant's case, says Bihar Deputy CM

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra pronounced its verdicts in the suo motu contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his two tweets on the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and his four predecessors.

The bench will hear him on sentence on August 20. According to the criminal contempt of law, the maximum sentence can be of six months in jail or any other punishment court thinks for him.

Bhushan posted two tweets, one on the apex court on June 27 and the second on CJI SA Bobde on June 29. Both tweets were taken down by Twitter after the top court issued a contempt notice to Bhushan.

The June 27 tweet said, “When historians in the future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, &amp; more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”

The June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI S A Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”

On July 22, the top court had issued a show-cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him after taking note of a petition.

While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had earlier said these statements are prima facie capable of "undermining the dignity and authority" of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan in the matter, had said, The two tweets were not against the institution.

Bhushan has made an immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit, Dave had said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters.

Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, the senior advocate had said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out.

In a 142-page reply affidavit filed in the matter, Bhushan had stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court.

Bhushan, in the affidavit, has referred to several apex court judgements, speeches of former and serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases.

Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a 'reasonable restriction', the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday held senior advocate and renowned activist Prashant Bhushan guilty for contempt of court for his two tweets against the Judiciary. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra pronounced its verdicts in the suo motu contempt case against Prashant Bhushan for his two tweets on the judiciary, Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and his four predecessors. The bench will hear him on sentence on August 20. According to the criminal contempt of law, the maximum sentence can be of six months in jail or any other punishment court thinks for him. Bhushan posted two tweets, one on the apex court on June 27 and the second on CJI SA Bobde on June 29. Both tweets were taken down by Twitter after the top court issued a contempt notice to Bhushan. The June 27 tweet said, “When historians in the future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.” The June 29 tweet included a photo of CJI S A Bobde riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and said, “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in Lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!” On July 22, the top court had issued a show-cause notice to Bhushan after initiating the criminal contempt against him after taking note of a petition. While referring to the tweets by Bhushan, the apex court had earlier said these statements are prima facie capable of "undermining the dignity and authority" of the institution of the Supreme Court in general and the office of Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at large Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan in the matter, had said, The two tweets were not against the institution. Bhushan has made an immense contribution to the development of jurisprudence and there are at least 50 judgments to his credit, Dave had said, adding that the court has appreciated his contributions in cases like 2G scam, coal block allocation and in mining matters. Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case on the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, the senior advocate had said that even extremely uncharitable remarks against the judges were made and no contempt proceedings were made out. In a 142-page reply affidavit filed in the matter, Bhushan had stood by his two tweets and had said the expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court. Bhushan, in the affidavit, has referred to several apex court judgements, speeches of former and serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. Preventing citizens from demanding accountability and reforms and advocating for the same by generating public opinion is not a 'reasonable restriction', the affidavit had said, adding that the Article 129 cannot be pressed into service to stifle bonafide criticism. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary

A fresh twist emerged in Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide case on Tuesday when the late actor's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/sushant-singh-rajputs-father-files-complaint-against-actress-rhea-chakraborty-316540">father filed a FIR against Rajpuit's girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty. </a>Now, Rhea has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of investigation of the actor's death case to Mumbai police. 
 
Her lawyer Satish Maneshinde has filed the plea on Chakraborty`s behalf. 
 
In the FIR that had been registered against Chakraborty at Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna, the actor's father accused her and five others of cheating and abetment to suicide. 
 
Meanwhile, amid demands for the transfer of the case to CBI, Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh said Mumbai Police are investigating the case and it will not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 
 
Interestingly, Rhea had demanded CBI probe in the case earlier. 
 
Rajput was found dead in his Mumbai residence on June 14. According to the Maharashtra police, statements of 41 people, including filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, film critic Rajeev Masand, director-producer Sanjay Leela Bhansali, and filmmaker Aditya Chopra have been recorded in the investigation so far.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-Sushant-Singh-Rajputs-father-claims-Rs-15-crore-transferred-from-his-bank-account-in-FIR-316624">Sushant Singh Rajput's father claims Rs 15 crore transferred from his bank account in FIR</a>

A fresh twist emerged in Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide case on Tuesday when the late actor's father filed a FIR against Rajpuit's girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty. Now, Rhea has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of investigation of the actor's death case to Mumbai police.

A fresh twist emerged in Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide case on Tuesday when the late actor's father filed a FIR against Rajpuit's girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty. Now, Rhea has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of investigation of the actor's death case to Mumbai police. Her lawyer Satish Maneshinde has filed the plea on Chakraborty`s behalf. In the FIR that had been registered against Chakraborty at Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna, the actor's father accused her and five others of cheating and abetment to suicide. Meanwhile, amid demands for the transfer of the case to CBI, Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh said Mumbai Police are investigating the case and it will not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Interestingly, Rhea had demanded CBI probe in the case earlier. Rajput was found dead in his Mumbai residence on June 14. According to the Maharashtra police, statements of 41 people, including filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, film critic Rajeev Masand, director-producer Sanjay Leela Bhansali, and filmmaker Aditya Chopra have been recorded in the investigation so far. Sushant Singh Rajput's father claims Rs 15 crore transferred from his bank account in FIR

Sushant Singh Rajput case: Rhea Chakraborty files petition in SC seeking transfer of investigation to Mumbai

The Supreme Court Monday said it will not hear "even for a second" arguments on re-assessment of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) related dues of telecom companies which approximately run into Rs 1.6 lakh crore.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah reserved its verdict on the issue of timeline for staggered payment of AGR-related dues by telecom companies.

The Centre had earlier urged the top court that up to 20 years be given to telecom companies for the payment of dues in staggered manner.

''We will not hear arguments for re-assessment (of AGR related dues) even for a second,''&nbsp;the bench said.

During the hearing, the bench observed that 15 or 20 years is not a reasonable time period and the companies should come forward with appropriate time frame.

The top court said it would also examine the bona fides of some telecom companies going into insolvency.

On June 18, the top court was informed by the Centre that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has decided to withdraw 96 per cent of the Rs 4 lakh crore demand for AGR related dues raised against non-telecom PSUs like GAIL.

The court had asked the private telecom companies including Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea to come out with a reasonable payment plan, make some payment to show their bona fide&nbsp;and file their books of accounts for the last 10 years. PTI

The Supreme Court Monday said it will not hear "even for a second" arguments on re-assessment of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) related dues of telecom companies which approximately run into Rs 1.

The Supreme Court Monday said it will not hear "even for a second" arguments on re-assessment of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) related dues of telecom companies which approximately run into Rs 1.6 lakh crore. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah reserved its verdict on the issue of timeline for staggered payment of AGR-related dues by telecom companies. The Centre had earlier urged the top court that up to 20 years be given to telecom companies for the payment of dues in staggered manner. ''We will not hear arguments for re-assessment (of AGR related dues) even for a second,'' the bench said. During the hearing, the bench observed that 15 or 20 years is not a reasonable time period and the companies should come forward with appropriate time frame. The top court said it would also examine the bona fides of some telecom companies going into insolvency. On June 18, the top court was informed by the Centre that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has decided to withdraw 96 per cent of the Rs 4 lakh crore demand for AGR related dues raised against non-telecom PSUs like GAIL. The court had asked the private telecom companies including Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea to come out with a reasonable payment plan, make some payment to show their bona fide and file their books of accounts for the last 10 years. PTI

Will not hear arguments on reassessment of AGR related dues "even for a second": SC to telcos

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two petitions seeking the preservation of artifacts recovered from Ayodhya during excavation at Ram Janmabhoomi and for the remains left behind by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra dismissed the two pleas terming them frivolous and attempt to scuttle Ayodhya verdict and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on the petitioners.

The two pleas, filed by Satish Sambarkar and Dr Ambedkar Bodhikunja respectively, sought the protection of the artifacts recovered by the ASI from the Ram Janmabhoomi area.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pictures-temple-remains-and-idol-residues-found-in-ayodhya-300141">Have a look:&nbsp;Temple remains and idol residues found in Ayodhya</a>

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that artifacts being excavated may be protected. Even Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has also accepted that there are many artifacts in the area that need protection, she contended.

Justice Mishra, dismissing the pleas, said, "Stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that there is no Rule of Law and the Judgement of the Court (Ayodhya Verdict) will not be followed by anyone and no one will take action? We are dismissing this."

During the course of hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested the court that the bench may also kindly consider imposing costs on the petitioners.Justice Mishra, then, imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the two petitioners.

"Dismissed. A cost of Rupees 1 lakh each is imposed. Payable within 1 month from today," Justice Mishra said.

The Supreme Court had, in November last year, resolved a decades-old Ramjanmabhoomi temple-Babari Masjid dispute and directed the Central government to make necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple by forming a trust.

The apex court had also directed the Centre to allot five acres of suitable land to Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two petitions seeking the preservation of artifacts recovered from Ayodhya during excavation at Ram Janmabhoomi and for the remains left behind by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two petitions seeking the preservation of artifacts recovered from Ayodhya during excavation at Ram Janmabhoomi and for the remains left behind by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra dismissed the two pleas terming them frivolous and attempt to scuttle Ayodhya verdict and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on the petitioners. The two pleas, filed by Satish Sambarkar and Dr Ambedkar Bodhikunja respectively, sought the protection of the artifacts recovered by the ASI from the Ram Janmabhoomi area. Have a look: Temple remains and idol residues found in Ayodhya Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that artifacts being excavated may be protected. Even Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has also accepted that there are many artifacts in the area that need protection, she contended. Justice Mishra, dismissing the pleas, said, "Stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that there is no Rule of Law and the Judgement of the Court (Ayodhya Verdict) will not be followed by anyone and no one will take action? We are dismissing this." During the course of hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested the court that the bench may also kindly consider imposing costs on the petitioners.Justice Mishra, then, imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the two petitioners. "Dismissed. A cost of Rupees 1 lakh each is imposed. Payable within 1 month from today," Justice Mishra said. The Supreme Court had, in November last year, resolved a decades-old Ramjanmabhoomi temple-Babari Masjid dispute and directed the Central government to make necessary arrangements for the construction of the temple by forming a trust. The apex court had also directed the Centre to allot five acres of suitable land to Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque.

SC dismisses plea seeking preservation of artifacts recovered from Ayodhya, imposes fine

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging legal provisions which provide 100 per cent reservation to domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in public employment.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat asked Ladakh-based lawyer Najum Ul Huda to move the Jammu and Kashmir High Court with his plea.

The plea had sought "quashing of sections 3A, 5A, 6, 7 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act as violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as these sections direct 100 per cent reservation to the domicile of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir in public employment."

The plea, filed through lawyer Nishant Khatri, said that since the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year, the UT is equally subject to all laws and the Supreme Court judgments which are applicable to the rest of the country.

"Therefore, if any reservation has to be granted in the UT on the basis of residence, the same may be done only in consonance with Article 16(3) of the Constitution," the plea said.

It said that section 5A of the law which says that the only domicile of the state shall be eligible for appointment to any post was violative of Article 16 (3) of the Constitution which guarantees equal opportunity in employment.

The plea further said that the reservations contemplated in Article 16 should not exceed 50 per cent.

In March, the government issued the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order 2020 which notified changes in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act.

Section 5A of the Act stated that Level 4 posts will be reserved for domiciles.

In August last year, parliament abolished Article 370, which had provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and then divided the state into two UTs which were Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging legal provisions which provide 100 per cent reservation to domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in public employment.

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging legal provisions which provide 100 per cent reservation to domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in public employment. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat asked Ladakh-based lawyer Najum Ul Huda to move the Jammu and Kashmir High Court with his plea. The plea had sought "quashing of sections 3A, 5A, 6, 7 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act as violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as these sections direct 100 per cent reservation to the domicile of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir in public employment." The plea, filed through lawyer Nishant Khatri, said that since the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year, the UT is equally subject to all laws and the Supreme Court judgments which are applicable to the rest of the country. "Therefore, if any reservation has to be granted in the UT on the basis of residence, the same may be done only in consonance with Article 16(3) of the Constitution," the plea said. It said that section 5A of the law which says that the only domicile of the state shall be eligible for appointment to any post was violative of Article 16 (3) of the Constitution which guarantees equal opportunity in employment. The plea further said that the reservations contemplated in Article 16 should not exceed 50 per cent. In March, the government issued the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order 2020 which notified changes in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act. Section 5A of the Act stated that Level 4 posts will be reserved for domiciles. In August last year, parliament abolished Article 370, which had provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and then divided the state into two UTs which were Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea against 100 per cent domicile quota in J&K

The Supreme Court of India on Monday upheld the right of Travancore royal family in administration of historic Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which is considered one of the richest temples in the country.

A bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said that as an interim measure, the committee headed by the district judge of Thiruvananthapuram will look into the temple arrangements at present.

The controversy over the administration and management of the historic temple has been pending in the apex court for last nine years in the wake of charges of alleged financial irregularities.

The sprawling temple, an architectural splendour in granite, was rebuilt in its present form in the 18th century by the Travancore Royal House which had ruled southern Kerala and some adjoining parts of Tamil Nadu before integration of the princely state with the Indian Union in 1947.

Even after India's independence, the temple continued to be governed by a trust controlled by the erstwhile royal family for whom Lord Padmanabha (Vishnu) is their family deity.

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday upheld the right of Travancore royal family in administration of historic Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which is considered one of the richest temples in the country.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday upheld the right of Travancore royal family in administration of historic Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which is considered one of the richest temples in the country. A bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said that as an interim measure, the committee headed by the district judge of Thiruvananthapuram will look into the temple arrangements at present. The controversy over the administration and management of the historic temple has been pending in the apex court for last nine years in the wake of charges of alleged financial irregularities. The sprawling temple, an architectural splendour in granite, was rebuilt in its present form in the 18th century by the Travancore Royal House which had ruled southern Kerala and some adjoining parts of Tamil Nadu before integration of the princely state with the Indian Union in 1947. Even after India's independence, the temple continued to be governed by a trust controlled by the erstwhile royal family for whom Lord Padmanabha (Vishnu) is their family deity. (With inputs from PTI)

Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple: Supreme Court upholds the rights of Travancore royal family

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one more month to the Centre for implementation of its verdict on giving all serving SSC women officers permanent commission in the Army.

A bench headed by Justices D Y Chandrachud said that the Centre will have to comply with all its directions given in its verdict.

The top court's direction came on an application filed by the Centre seeking six months' time for implementation of the verdict citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a landmark verdict on February 17, the top court had directed that women officers in the Army be granted permanent commission and command postings, rejecting the Centre's stand of their physiological limitations as being based on "sex stereotypes" and "gender discrimination against women".

It had directed the Centre that within three months, all serving Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers have to be considered for Permanent Commissions (PCs) irrespective of them having crossed 14 years or, as the case may be, 20 years of service.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one more month to the Centre for implementation of its verdict on giving all serving SSC women officers permanent commission in the Army.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one more month to the Centre for implementation of its verdict on giving all serving SSC women officers permanent commission in the Army. A bench headed by Justices D Y Chandrachud said that the Centre will have to comply with all its directions given in its verdict. The top court's direction came on an application filed by the Centre seeking six months' time for implementation of the verdict citing the COVID-19 pandemic. In a landmark verdict on February 17, the top court had directed that women officers in the Army be granted permanent commission and command postings, rejecting the Centre's stand of their physiological limitations as being based on "sex stereotypes" and "gender discrimination against women". It had directed the Centre that within three months, all serving Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers have to be considered for Permanent Commissions (PCs) irrespective of them having crossed 14 years or, as the case may be, 20 years of service.

Supreme Court grants one more month to Centre for giving permanent commission to all women officers in Army

The Supreme Court Tuesday granted one more month to the Centre to implement its verdict directing that permanent commission be given to all serving SSC women officers in the Army.

The Supreme Court Tuesday granted one more month to the Centre to implement its verdict directing that permanent commission be given to all serving SSC women officers in the Army. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said the Centre will have to comply with all the directions in the verdict. The Centre told the bench that decision making on the issue is at a final stage and only formal orders remain to be issued. It said the court's verdict will be complied with in letter and spirit. The top court's direction came on the Centre's application seeking six months' time, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, to implement the verdict. In a landmark verdict on February 17, the top court had directed that women officers in the Army be granted permanent commission and command postings, rejecting the Centre's stand of their physiological limitations as being based on "sex stereotypes" and "gender discrimination against women". It had directed the Centre that within three months, all serving Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers have to be considered for Permanent Commission (PC) irrespective of them having crossed 14 years or, as the case may be, 20 years of service. It had said that the question of combat posting of women officers is a policy decision and was not dealt by the Delhi High Court in its 2010 verdict. The top court accepted the Centre's policy of February 25, 2019 to grant PC to SSC women officers in all the 10 streams in the Indian Army. Despite this policy, the Centre's stand in a matter before the top court was that provisions of Army Act contemplate that women will be eligible for enrolment only in those segments which the government permits. The top court had said that women officers have got numerous commendation certificates and laurels and their track record of service to the nation is beyond reproach. It had rejected the Centre's submission that women officers cannot be granted PC due to physiological limitations, all-male environment in a unit, combat capability and said that mindset change is required to recognize the values of the Constitution. "To cast aspersion on their abilities on the ground of gender is an affront not only to their dignity as women but to the dignity of the members of the Indian Army men and women who serve as equal citizens in a common mission," the top court had said. "The submissions advanced in the note tendered to this Court are based on sex stereotypes premised on assumptions about socially ascribed roles of gender which discriminate against women," it had said. It had said reliance on inherent physiological differences between men and women rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and constitutionally flawed notion that women are the "weaker sex" and may not undertake tasks that are "too arduous" for them. Rejecting the Centre's arguments, the top court had said it is founded on the physical strengths and weaknesses of men and women and on assumptions about women in the social context of marriage and family which do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officers. "To deny the grant of PC to women officers on the ground that this would upset the peculiar dynamics in a unit casts an undue burden on women officers which has been claimed as a ground for excluding women," it had said. It had held that the option of grant of PC shall be given to all women SSC officers and if those with more than 14 years of service do not opt for grant of PC then they will be entitled to continue in service until they attain 20 years of pensionable service. The top court had also cleared the hurdle for command postings for women by staying the enforcement of the expression "in various staff appointments only" and "on staff appointments only" in para-5 and Para-6 of notification dated February 25, 2019. They deal with grant of PC to SSC women officers in various staff appointments only and within their parent department. The top court had said SSC women officers with over 20 years of service who are not granted PC shall retire on pension in terms of policy decision. It had said that pension and other benefits would be made available to those officers in service or those who had moved the high court by filing the Writ Petitions. It had said that following the Delhi High Court 2010 judgment, the Centre was under a mandate to grant PC to women officers, to the exclusion of the Combat Arms, and at par with the grant of PC to their male counterparts. On the Centre's policy decision of February 25, 2019, the top court had said it is a recognition of right of women officers to equality of opportunity. The top court had noted that Indian Army has sanctioned 50,266 posts for officers, while the posts currently occupied are 40,825 including 1,653 by women officers. It had noted that there is shortage of 9,441 officers in the Indian Army. There are total of 1,653 women officers which is a miniscule 4 per cent of the total strength of commissioned officers in the Army, it had said. The total of 1,653 officers includes -- 77 having above 20 years of service, 255 having service tenure between 14 and 20 years and the fate of 322 women officers was to be decided by the verdict of the apex court.

SC grants a month more to Centre for giving permanent commission to women officers in Army

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act in a legal brief filed Thursday, putting health care at center stage in an election year already focused on the coronavirus pandemic’s impact.

The Justice Department said the 2010 health law, a signature achievement of the Obama administration, is invalid because Congress in 2017 ended the financial penalty for not having health insurance, though it didn’t take effect until 2019.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bolton-says-donald-trump-had-turned-a-blind-eye-to-coronavirus-pandemic-308499" hreflang="en">Bolton says Donald Trump had turned 'a blind eye' to coronavirus pandemic</a>

The administration's latest high court filing came the same day the government reported that close to half a million people who lost their health insurance amid the economic shutdown have gotten coverage through HealthCare.gov.

In a late-night filing,&nbsp;Solicitor General Noel Francisco&nbsp;said that once the law's individual coverage mandate and two key provisions are invalidated, "the remainder of the ACA should not be allowed to remain in effect."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-blocks-trump-from-ending-daca-immigrant-program-306946">US Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA immigrant program</a>

The justices&nbsp;will hear arguments in the case sometime next term, although it is unclear if they will occur before the November election.

In&nbsp;the case before the Supreme Court, Texas and other conservative-led states argue that the ACA was essentially rendered unconstitutional after Congress passed tax legislation in 2017 that eliminated the law's unpopular fines for not having health insurance, but left in place its requirement that virtually all Americans have coverage. 
&nbsp; 
After failing to repeal "Obamacare" in 2017 when Republicans fully controlled Congress, President Donald Trump has put the weight of his administration behind the legal challenge.

<ul data-layout="list-hierarchical-xs">
</ul>

It will be the third time the court has heard a significant challenge to the law. The case pits a coalition of Democratic attorneys general led by California and the House of Representatives, which are defending the law, against the Trump administration and a group of red state attorneys general led by Texas.

At issue is whether the law's individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional because Congress reduced the penalty for remaining uninsured to zero and, if so, whether that would bring down the entire law. A federal appeals court in December ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional but punted the decision on which, if any, of the law's provisions could be retained back to the district court -- which had previously found the entire law to be invalidated.

Some 20 million Americans could lose their health coverage and protections for people with preexisting health conditions also would be put at risk if the court agrees with the administration in a case that won't be heard before the fall. 
&nbsp;

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act in a legal brief filed Thursday, putting health care at center stage in an election year already focused on the coronavirus pandemic’s impact.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act in a legal brief filed Thursday, putting health care at center stage in an election year already focused on the coronavirus pandemic’s impact. The Justice Department said the 2010 health law, a signature achievement of the Obama administration, is invalid because Congress in 2017 ended the financial penalty for not having health insurance, though it didn’t take effect until 2019. Also read: Bolton says Donald Trump had turned 'a blind eye' to coronavirus pandemic The administration's latest high court filing came the same day the government reported that close to half a million people who lost their health insurance amid the economic shutdown have gotten coverage through HealthCare.gov. In a late-night filing, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that once the law's individual coverage mandate and two key provisions are invalidated, "the remainder of the ACA should not be allowed to remain in effect." Also read: US Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA immigrant program The justices will hear arguments in the case sometime next term, although it is unclear if they will occur before the November election. In the case before the Supreme Court, Texas and other conservative-led states argue that the ACA was essentially rendered unconstitutional after Congress passed tax legislation in 2017 that eliminated the law's unpopular fines for not having health insurance, but left in place its requirement that virtually all Americans have coverage. After failing to repeal "Obamacare" in 2017 when Republicans fully controlled Congress, President Donald Trump has put the weight of his administration behind the legal challenge. It will be the third time the court has heard a significant challenge to the law. The case pits a coalition of Democratic attorneys general led by California and the House of Representatives, which are defending the law, against the Trump administration and a group of red state attorneys general led by Texas. At issue is whether the law's individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional because Congress reduced the penalty for remaining uninsured to zero and, if so, whether that would bring down the entire law. A federal appeals court in December ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional but punted the decision on which, if any, of the law's provisions could be retained back to the district court -- which had previously found the entire law to be invalidated. Some 20 million Americans could lose their health coverage and protections for people with preexisting health conditions also would be put at risk if the court agrees with the administration in a case that won't be heard before the fall.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to invalidate Affordable Care Act

The matter for the CBSE remaining board exams has been adjourned for the time being and would be heard on June 25.

India: Supreme Court to take final call over class 10th, 12th board exams

One of the largest annual gatherings on Earth, the pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca, will be off-limits to most the world’s Muslims this year due to the threat of the coronavirus pandemic.

Is it that hard to pray at home?

Jagannath Rath Yatra in Puri begins amid coronavirus pandemic

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

supreme court