The apex court had on June 18 said that in the interest of public health and safety of citizens, this year's Puri Rath Yatra cannot be allowed due to the COVID-19 pandemic

India: Puri Rath Yatra gets green signal from Supreme Court

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the historic Lord Jagannath's Rath Yatra in Puri can be allowed to be held this year without public participation in view of the coronavirus pandemic.

"The tradition of centuries may not be stopped," the Centre said, while seeking modification of the apex court's June 18 order staying the yatra.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lord-jagannath-wont-forgive-us-says-supreme-court-as-it-stays-this-years-rath-yatra-306803">'Lord Jagannath won't forgive us,' says Supreme Court as it stays this year's Rath Yatra</a>

"It is a matter of faith for crores. If Lord Jagannath will not come out tomorrow, he cannot come out for 12 years as per traditions," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, said.

The state government can impose curfew for a day, Mehta said.

The Odisha government also supported the Centre's stand in the apex court, which is likely to hear the modification plea during the day itself.

The Puri Rath Yatra is attended by lakhs of people from across the world and is scheduled from June 23.

The apex court had on June 18 said that in the interest of public health and safety of citizens, this year's Rath Yatra, cannot be allowed and that "Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow" it.&nbsp;

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the historic Lord Jagannath's Rath Yatra in Puri can be allowed to be held this year without public participation in view of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the historic Lord Jagannath's Rath Yatra in Puri can be allowed to be held this year without public participation in view of the coronavirus pandemic. "The tradition of centuries may not be stopped," the Centre said, while seeking modification of the apex court's June 18 order staying the yatra. Also read | 'Lord Jagannath won't forgive us,' says Supreme Court as it stays this year's Rath Yatra "It is a matter of faith for crores. If Lord Jagannath will not come out tomorrow, he cannot come out for 12 years as per traditions," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, said. The state government can impose curfew for a day, Mehta said. The Odisha government also supported the Centre's stand in the apex court, which is likely to hear the modification plea during the day itself. The Puri Rath Yatra is attended by lakhs of people from across the world and is scheduled from June 23. The apex court had on June 18 said that in the interest of public health and safety of citizens, this year's Rath Yatra, cannot be allowed and that "Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow" it.

Centre moves SC, seeks nod for Puri Rath Yatra without public participation

The Supreme Court has directed its registry to explain why the petition filed by businessman Vijay Mallya, who has sought review of its 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children, was not listed before the concerned court for last three years.

A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, which took up Mallya's review petition in-chamber on June 16, directed the apex court registry to furnish all the details including names of officials who had dealt with the file concerning the review petition for last three years.

"According to the record, placed before us, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years.

"Before we deal with the submissions raised in the review petition, we direct the registry to explain why the review petition was not listed before the concerned court for last three years," the bench said in its June 16 order which was uploaded on the apex court website on Friday.

Taking strong note of the undue delay in listing of the review petition, the bench asked the registry to furnish explanation within two weeks.

"The review petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," the bench said in its order, adding, "As per office report on limitation the review petition was filed in time."

Mallya had filed the petition seeking review of the apex court's May 9, 2017 order by which he was held guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the court's order.

Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is presently in the United Kingdom.

The apex court's 2017 order had come on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in "flagrant violation" of various judicial orders.

The apex court had earlier asked Mallya about the "truthfulness" of his disclosure of assets and the transfer of money to his children.

It was dealing with pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to Mallya to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively.

The banks had then alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in "flagrant violation" of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.

Prior to that, the apex court had rapped Mallya for not making full disclosure of his overseas properties and had asked him to do so within a month.

Mallya had last month lost his application seeking leave to appeal his extradition to India in the UK Supreme Court, setting a 28-day clock on his removal from the UK.

The UK top court's decision marks a big legal setback to the 64-year-old flamboyant businessman, who had earlier lost his High Court appeal against an extradition order to India on charges of alleged fraud and money laundering related to unrecovered loans to his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

Mallya has been based in the UK since March 2016 and remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed three years ago by Scotland Yard on April 18, 2017.

The Supreme Court has directed its registry to explain why the petition filed by businessman Vijay Mallya, who has sought review of its 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children, was not listed before the concerned court for last three years.

The Supreme Court has directed its registry to explain why the petition filed by businessman Vijay Mallya, who has sought review of its 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children, was not listed before the concerned court for last three years. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, which took up Mallya's review petition in-chamber on June 16, directed the apex court registry to furnish all the details including names of officials who had dealt with the file concerning the review petition for last three years. "According to the record, placed before us, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the review petition, we direct the registry to explain why the review petition was not listed before the concerned court for last three years," the bench said in its June 16 order which was uploaded on the apex court website on Friday. Taking strong note of the undue delay in listing of the review petition, the bench asked the registry to furnish explanation within two weeks. "The review petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," the bench said in its order, adding, "As per office report on limitation the review petition was filed in time." Mallya had filed the petition seeking review of the apex court's May 9, 2017 order by which he was held guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the court's order. Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is presently in the United Kingdom. The apex court's 2017 order had come on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in "flagrant violation" of various judicial orders. The apex court had earlier asked Mallya about the "truthfulness" of his disclosure of assets and the transfer of money to his children. It was dealing with pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to Mallya to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively. The banks had then alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in "flagrant violation" of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court. Prior to that, the apex court had rapped Mallya for not making full disclosure of his overseas properties and had asked him to do so within a month. Mallya had last month lost his application seeking leave to appeal his extradition to India in the UK Supreme Court, setting a 28-day clock on his removal from the UK. The UK top court's decision marks a big legal setback to the 64-year-old flamboyant businessman, who had earlier lost his High Court appeal against an extradition order to India on charges of alleged fraud and money laundering related to unrecovered loans to his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. Mallya has been based in the UK since March 2016 and remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed three years ago by Scotland Yard on April 18, 2017.

Supreme Court seeks explanation from registry on why Vijay Mallya's review plea not listed since 2017

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to make appropriate use of Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF), aimed at assisting overseas Indian nationals in times of distress and emergency, for repatriation of economically weaker persons including migrant labourers who are stranded in Gulf countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, however, said it would be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in this regard to the government which may be considered in accordance with law.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that these are "matter of policy" and if the petitioner makes a representation to the government, the same shall be considered by the Centre.

"We are of the view that no direction can be issued as prayed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Government of India which may be considered in accordance with law," said the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and M R Shah, which heard the matter through video-conferencing.

The counsel appearing for petitioner NGO Pravasi Legal Cell told the bench that ICWF could be utilised for repatriation of economically weaker persons stranded in Gulf countries due to the pandemic.

The plea, filed through advocate Jose Abraham, said that the government has decided to facilitate the return of Indians stranded abroad in a phased manner but is going to charge fare for such repatriation.

It claimed that a vast majority of Indian expatriates in Gulf countries are involved in low-skilled labour and are struggling to meet their basic needs in the dire jobless situation arising out of the coronavirus pandemic.

"Fixing fare for repatriation of at the time of distress would further put burden on the migrant labourers who are already out of job and proper shelter, putting them in a vulnerable condition living abroad," the plea said.

It said that the government authorities should use the ICWF, set up in 2009, which is aimed at assisting overseas Indian nationals in times of distress and emergency in the 'most deserving cases' on a 'means tested basis' for repatriating poor migrant labourers.

It said that ICWF was set up by the government for critical support in emergency evacuation of Indian nationals from conflict zones, countries affected by natural disasters and other challenging situations.

The plea said the government should consider the situation of migrant workers, who have already lost their jobs and are living in miserable condition in Gulf countries, and make use of ICWF for bearing the cost of repatriation of such needy Indian citizens without any charge.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to make appropriate use of Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF), aimed at assisting overseas Indian nationals in times of distress and emergency, for repatriation of economically weaker persons including migrant labourers who are stranded in Gulf countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to make appropriate use of Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF), aimed at assisting overseas Indian nationals in times of distress and emergency, for repatriation of economically weaker persons including migrant labourers who are stranded in Gulf countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, however, said it would be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in this regard to the government which may be considered in accordance with law. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that these are "matter of policy" and if the petitioner makes a representation to the government, the same shall be considered by the Centre. "We are of the view that no direction can be issued as prayed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Government of India which may be considered in accordance with law," said the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and M R Shah, which heard the matter through video-conferencing. The counsel appearing for petitioner NGO Pravasi Legal Cell told the bench that ICWF could be utilised for repatriation of economically weaker persons stranded in Gulf countries due to the pandemic. The plea, filed through advocate Jose Abraham, said that the government has decided to facilitate the return of Indians stranded abroad in a phased manner but is going to charge fare for such repatriation. It claimed that a vast majority of Indian expatriates in Gulf countries are involved in low-skilled labour and are struggling to meet their basic needs in the dire jobless situation arising out of the coronavirus pandemic. "Fixing fare for repatriation of at the time of distress would further put burden on the migrant labourers who are already out of job and proper shelter, putting them in a vulnerable condition living abroad," the plea said. It said that the government authorities should use the ICWF, set up in 2009, which is aimed at assisting overseas Indian nationals in times of distress and emergency in the 'most deserving cases' on a 'means tested basis' for repatriating poor migrant labourers. It said that ICWF was set up by the government for critical support in emergency evacuation of Indian nationals from conflict zones, countries affected by natural disasters and other challenging situations. The plea said the government should consider the situation of migrant workers, who have already lost their jobs and are living in miserable condition in Gulf countries, and make use of ICWF for bearing the cost of repatriation of such needy Indian citizens without any charge.

SC dismisses plea for using ICWF for repatriation of stranded Indians

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it.

A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan had passed the order after taking suo motu cognisance in the matter related to the plight of migrant labourers amid the coronavirus-induced lockdown.

The top court today said that it's June 9 order was very clear and asked the Central government and States to ensure that all migrants reach their home within 15 days.

The court asked the authorities concerned to ensure that no migrants have to pay anything to go back to their respective states, villages, and towns.

Hearing the matter few days before the completion of the stipulated time period, the court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to speak with all the States and Union Territories to comply with the order dated June 9 in the matter.

The apex court asked the Central government to ensure that due publicity is given to the orders and fixed the matter for further hearing in July.

The Supreme Court had on June 9 directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre and States to ensure compliance of its June 9 order and transport all those migrant labourers wanting to go to their respective villages within the stipulated time period given by it. A bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan had passed the order after taking suo motu cognisance in the matter related to the plight of migrant labourers amid the coronavirus-induced lockdown. The top court today said that it's June 9 order was very clear and asked the Central government and States to ensure that all migrants reach their home within 15 days. The court asked the authorities concerned to ensure that no migrants have to pay anything to go back to their respective states, villages, and towns. Hearing the matter few days before the completion of the stipulated time period, the court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to speak with all the States and Union Territories to comply with the order dated June 9 in the matter. The apex court asked the Central government to ensure that due publicity is given to the orders and fixed the matter for further hearing in July. The Supreme Court had on June 9 directed States and Union Territories to identify stranded migrant workers across the country willing to go back to their native places and transport them home within a period of 15 days.

Supreme Court asks Centre, States to ensure compliance of order to transport migrants back home

The Supreme Court of India today stays Jagannath yatra to avoid further spreading of Coronavirus amongst masses. The decision is taken under public interest. Moreover CJI SA Bobde says that 'If we allow Puri Yatra this year then lord jagannath will never forgive us'

India: Top Court halts Jagannath yatra to avoid spreading of COVID-19

"Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow" were the words of the Supreme Court on Thursday as it stayed this year's historic Puri Rath Yatra which is held in the eastern Indian state of Odisha.

"Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow this year's Rath Yatra to go, " Chief Justice SA Bobde said, adding that a large gathering could not be allowed during the coronavirus pandemic.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-india-gears-up-for-unlock-10-devotees-flock-to-religious-places-304096">COVID 19: India gears up for Unlock 1.0; devotees flock to religious places</a>

The three-judge bench, including Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and AS Bopanna asked&nbsp;Odisha's government to not permit the yatra or pilgrimage procession anywhere in the state to avoid the spread of COVID-19.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/malls-hotels-religious-places-set-to-reopen-on-monday-amid-sharp-uptick-in-coronavirus-cases-304079">Malls, hotels, religious places set to reopen on Monday amid sharp uptick in coronavirus cases</a>

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for an NGO, argued that if Rath Yatra would take place, a huge gathering would follow, which will add to the risk of coronavirus infections.

A counsel appearing for an intervenor said the state government has issued a notification that there will be no public gathering till June 30.

The PIL was filed by an Odisha-based NGO seeking cancellation or postponement of this year's Rath Yatra, which carries on for 10 to 12 days and is attended by millions of worshippers from across the world.

"Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow" were the words of the Supreme Court on Thursday as it stayed this year's historic Puri Rath Yatra which is held in the eastern Indian state of Odisha.

"Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow" were the words of the Supreme Court on Thursday as it stayed this year's historic Puri Rath Yatra which is held in the eastern Indian state of Odisha. "Lord Jagannath won't forgive us if we allow this year's Rath Yatra to go, " Chief Justice SA Bobde said, adding that a large gathering could not be allowed during the coronavirus pandemic. Also read | COVID 19: India gears up for Unlock 1.0; devotees flock to religious places The three-judge bench, including Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and AS Bopanna asked Odisha's government to not permit the yatra or pilgrimage procession anywhere in the state to avoid the spread of COVID-19. Also read | Malls, hotels, religious places set to reopen on Monday amid sharp uptick in coronavirus cases Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for an NGO, argued that if Rath Yatra would take place, a huge gathering would follow, which will add to the risk of coronavirus infections. A counsel appearing for an intervenor said the state government has issued a notification that there will be no public gathering till June 30. The PIL was filed by an Odisha-based NGO seeking cancellation or postponement of this year's Rath Yatra, which carries on for 10 to 12 days and is attended by millions of worshippers from across the world.

'Lord Jagannath won't forgive us,' says Supreme Court as it stays this year's Rath Yatra

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

LGBT community applaud Supreme Court ruling

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court while hearing the lapses in proper treatment of COVID-19 patients rapped the state governments for its lack of "care and concern" shown to dead bodies.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-india-reports-over-10000-cases-in-one-day-death-toll-rises-to-8498-305307">Also Read:&nbsp;India reports over 10,000 cases in one day; death toll rises to 8,498</a>

"Dead bodies are being put like this, what is this going on?' Justice Shah asked the states.

India's top court said that the government hospitals aren't giving due care and concern to the bodies with the patients' families not even informed about the deaths.&nbsp;

In some cases, families haven't been able to attend the last rites, India's highest court said.

India's apex court issued notices to state governments including Delhi and the capital's LNJP hospital seeking a reply on the matter.&nbsp;

The court asked the Chief Secretaries of states to look into the situation of patient management system and submit a status report.

(With ANI inputs)

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court while hearing the lapses in proper treatment of COVID-19 patients rapped the state governments for its lack of "care and concern" shown to dead bodies.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court while hearing the lapses in proper treatment of COVID-19 patients rapped the state governments for its lack of "care and concern" shown to dead bodies. Also Read: India reports over 10,000 cases in one day; death toll rises to 8,498 "Dead bodies are being put like this, what is this going on?' Justice Shah asked the states. India's top court said that the government hospitals aren't giving due care and concern to the bodies with the patients' families not even informed about the deaths. In some cases, families haven't been able to attend the last rites, India's highest court said. India's apex court issued notices to state governments including Delhi and the capital's LNJP hospital seeking a reply on the matter. The court asked the Chief Secretaries of states to look into the situation of patient management system and submit a status report. (With ANI inputs)

Coronavirus: Hospitals not showing due concern to dead bodies, says Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court Friday asked the Centre and the airline companies to discuss modalities for full refund of tickets for domestic and international flights which were cancelled following the COVID-19 lockdown.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul and M R Shah asked the Centre to take a stand on the issue and work out ways for full refund.

A plea was also raised that airlines across the world are facing tough time due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and they too be heard as parties to the plea filed by an&nbsp;NGO.

The top court has now fixed the plea for further hearing after three weeks.

It had on Monday had sought responses from the Centre and the DGCA on the plea seeking directions to airlines operating domestic and international fights in India to refund full amount collected for tickets due to cancellation of flights in wake of the lockdown.

The plea urged the court to declare the alleged action of airlines of not refunding entire value of cancelled air tickets as violative of the civil aviation requirement issued by the authority.

"It is submitted that the airlines instead of providing the full refund of the amount collected for the tickets due to ancellation, are providing a credit shell, valid up to one year, which is clear in violation of the Civil Aviation Requirement of May 2008 issued by the DGCA which clearly states that the option of holding the refund amount in credit shell by the airlines shall be the prerogative of the passenger and not a default practice of the airline," the plea said.

Referring to the earlier prevalent practice, it has said in case of credit card payments, refund shall be made by the airlines within seven days of the cancellation to account of the credit-card holder and in case of a cash transaction, the refund shall be "made immediately" by the airline office from where the ticket was purchased.

The Civil Aviation Requirement of May 2008 sets a limit of 30 working days for airlines to complete the refund process for tickets booked through travel agents/ portals, the plea has said.

The plea referred to the April 16 office memorandum of the Ministry of Civil Aviation which deals with refund of ticket amount collected without levy of cancellation charge.

It claimed that the memorandum directed airlines to provide full refund to only those people who booked tickets during the lockdown period, and "leaving out people who booked tickets prior to lockdown but the flights cancelled due to lockdown amounts to treating equals unequally and thus the same is in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution".

The plea said: "It is clear from the Office Memorandum that directs the airlines to refund only those tickets that were booked during the lockdown period, leaves out the vast majority of passengers who had booked tickets before the flights were banned."

"Which indirectly approves to the practice of the airlines providing Credit Shell for booking effected before the lockdown, though the same clearly violates the refund rules of the DGCA."

There was no question of anyone booking a ticket during the lockdown knowing that schedule passenger flights were cancelled for period of travel and this made Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Civil Aviation "ambiguous and devoid of any logic", the plea has claimed.

The Supreme Court Friday asked the Centre and the airline companies to discuss modalities for full refund of tickets for domestic and international flights which were cancelled following the COVID-19 lockdown.

The Supreme Court Friday asked the Centre and the airline companies to discuss modalities for full refund of tickets for domestic and international flights which were cancelled following the COVID-19 lockdown. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul and M R Shah asked the Centre to take a stand on the issue and work out ways for full refund. A plea was also raised that airlines across the world are facing tough time due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and they too be heard as parties to the plea filed by an NGO. The top court has now fixed the plea for further hearing after three weeks. It had on Monday had sought responses from the Centre and the DGCA on the plea seeking directions to airlines operating domestic and international fights in India to refund full amount collected for tickets due to cancellation of flights in wake of the lockdown. The plea urged the court to declare the alleged action of airlines of not refunding entire value of cancelled air tickets as violative of the civil aviation requirement issued by the authority. "It is submitted that the airlines instead of providing the full refund of the amount collected for the tickets due to ancellation, are providing a credit shell, valid up to one year, which is clear in violation of the Civil Aviation Requirement of May 2008 issued by the DGCA which clearly states that the option of holding the refund amount in credit shell by the airlines shall be the prerogative of the passenger and not a default practice of the airline," the plea said. Referring to the earlier prevalent practice, it has said in case of credit card payments, refund shall be made by the airlines within seven days of the cancellation to account of the credit-card holder and in case of a cash transaction, the refund shall be "made immediately" by the airline office from where the ticket was purchased. The Civil Aviation Requirement of May 2008 sets a limit of 30 working days for airlines to complete the refund process for tickets booked through travel agents/ portals, the plea has said. The plea referred to the April 16 office memorandum of the Ministry of Civil Aviation which deals with refund of ticket amount collected without levy of cancellation charge. It claimed that the memorandum directed airlines to provide full refund to only those people who booked tickets during the lockdown period, and "leaving out people who booked tickets prior to lockdown but the flights cancelled due to lockdown amounts to treating equals unequally and thus the same is in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution". The plea said: "It is clear from the Office Memorandum that directs the airlines to refund only those tickets that were booked during the lockdown period, leaves out the vast majority of passengers who had booked tickets before the flights were banned." "Which indirectly approves to the practice of the airlines providing Credit Shell for booking effected before the lockdown, though the same clearly violates the refund rules of the DGCA." There was no question of anyone booking a ticket during the lockdown knowing that schedule passenger flights were cancelled for period of travel and this made Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Civil Aviation "ambiguous and devoid of any logic", the plea has claimed.

Government, Airlines should discuss ticket refund: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre and state governments to send all the migrant workers to their native places within 15 days and formulate employment schemes after conducting their skill mapping to rehabilitate them.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah also directed the Centre to provide additional trains within 24 hours of states making the demand for sending the migrant workers back to their native places.

The top court also directed authorities to consider withdrawing all cases against migrant workers for alleged violation of lockdown norms under the Disaster Management Act.

The bench also directed the authorities to identify and register migrant workers who want to go back to their native places and conclude the exercise, including their transportation, within 15 days from Tuesday.

The bench, which posted the matter for further hearing in July, said the schemes for welfare and employment of migrant workers should be publicised adequately.

The top court, which pronounced its order through video conferencing, asked the state governments to consider granting counselling to migrant workers, who have returned to their homes and provide them employment opportunities as per their skill sets.

The top court had on June 5 reserved its order on the suo motu case registered on the plights of migrant workers during the coronavirus-triggered lockdown period.

It had said that it intended to give 15 days to the Centre and the state governments for sending to native places all the migrant workers wanting to return home and they should be registered by the authorities for extending benefits of welfare measures, including employment opportunities.

The top court, which after taking suo motu note of the plight of such workers, had directed on May 28 that they should not be charged train or bus fare and should be provided food free of cost.

It had taken note of the submissions of the Centre and the state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country during the nationwide lockdown.

The Centre has said it has done its "best" and that till June 3, over 4,200 'Shramik Special' trains have been deployed to transport migrant workers to their native places.

It had said till now, over one crore stranded migrant workers across the country have been sent to their destinations and most of the trains have ended up in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The Centre had said that the state governments can inform as to how many more migrant workers need to be shifted and how many trains are required for that purpose.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had assured the court that trains required are being made available to the concerned states and they would be provided in the future as well when demands are raised.

The law officer had said the Indian Railways has run 802 trains for transportation of workers from Maharashtra to various places in the country and if a state puts in a request for trains, then they are being provided within a day.

The counsel for states, including Gujarat, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, West Bengal and Kerala, had given data about migrant workers.

"Out of 22 lakhs, 2.5 lakhs migrant workers are remaining," counsel for Gujarat had said.

The counsel for Delhi had said that now, less than 10,000 such people wanted to go back.

Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government had said that over 100 special trains were used for transporting people back to the state from various parts of the country.

The Bihar government had said that 28 lakh migrant workers have returned to the state and the government has been taking steps for providing them employment.

The Kerala government had said that out of 4.34 lakh migrant workers, over 1 lakh have been transported so far. And 1.61 lakh wanted to remain in the state leaving 1.2 lakh such people who are yet to be sent back.

On May 28, the top court had directed that the migrant workers wanting to return to their home states will not be charged train or bus fares and those stranded across the country will be provided food free of cost by the authorities concerned.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre and state governments to send all the migrant workers to their native places within 15 days and formulate employment schemes after conducting their skill mapping to rehabilitate them.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre and state governments to send all the migrant workers to their native places within 15 days and formulate employment schemes after conducting their skill mapping to rehabilitate them. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah also directed the Centre to provide additional trains within 24 hours of states making the demand for sending the migrant workers back to their native places. The top court also directed authorities to consider withdrawing all cases against migrant workers for alleged violation of lockdown norms under the Disaster Management Act. The bench also directed the authorities to identify and register migrant workers who want to go back to their native places and conclude the exercise, including their transportation, within 15 days from Tuesday. The bench, which posted the matter for further hearing in July, said the schemes for welfare and employment of migrant workers should be publicised adequately. The top court, which pronounced its order through video conferencing, asked the state governments to consider granting counselling to migrant workers, who have returned to their homes and provide them employment opportunities as per their skill sets. The top court had on June 5 reserved its order on the suo motu case registered on the plights of migrant workers during the coronavirus-triggered lockdown period. It had said that it intended to give 15 days to the Centre and the state governments for sending to native places all the migrant workers wanting to return home and they should be registered by the authorities for extending benefits of welfare measures, including employment opportunities. The top court, which after taking suo motu note of the plight of such workers, had directed on May 28 that they should not be charged train or bus fare and should be provided food free of cost. It had taken note of the submissions of the Centre and the state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country during the nationwide lockdown. The Centre has said it has done its "best" and that till June 3, over 4,200 'Shramik Special' trains have been deployed to transport migrant workers to their native places. It had said till now, over one crore stranded migrant workers across the country have been sent to their destinations and most of the trains have ended up in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Centre had said that the state governments can inform as to how many more migrant workers need to be shifted and how many trains are required for that purpose. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had assured the court that trains required are being made available to the concerned states and they would be provided in the future as well when demands are raised. The law officer had said the Indian Railways has run 802 trains for transportation of workers from Maharashtra to various places in the country and if a state puts in a request for trains, then they are being provided within a day. The counsel for states, including Gujarat, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, West Bengal and Kerala, had given data about migrant workers. "Out of 22 lakhs, 2.5 lakhs migrant workers are remaining," counsel for Gujarat had said. The counsel for Delhi had said that now, less than 10,000 such people wanted to go back. Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government had said that over 100 special trains were used for transporting people back to the state from various parts of the country. The Bihar government had said that 28 lakh migrant workers have returned to the state and the government has been taking steps for providing them employment. The Kerala government had said that out of 4.34 lakh migrant workers, over 1 lakh have been transported so far. And 1.61 lakh wanted to remain in the state leaving 1.2 lakh such people who are yet to be sent back. On May 28, the top court had directed that the migrant workers wanting to return to their home states will not be charged train or bus fares and those stranded across the country will be provided food free of cost by the authorities concerned.

Supreme Court directs Centre, state governments to transport migrant workers back to home states in 15 days

NEW DELHI:&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government not to fill up all the 69,000 posts of assistant basic teachers and instead keep 37,339 posts vacant, which are currently held by Shiksha Mitras.

The top court said it had directed the state government on May 21 that the services of all the Siksha Mitras, presently working on the post of assistant teachers, shall not be disturbed.

A bench of Justices M M Shantangoudar and Vineet Saran said that despite the order it is, prima facie, borne out from the records now produced that the State Government is proceeding with the selection to fill up all the posts.

Such process to be adopted by the State Government shall not be permitted in view of the interim order passed by this Court on May 21, 2020.

The top court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging various orders of the high court and the government on the issue of appointment of assistant basic teachers.

Counsel for petitioners pointed out that it was not disputed by any party that 37,339 persons, who are currently working as Shiksha Mitras, have appeared for the examination of assistant basic teachers.

In view of the same, it is open for the State Government to fill up the remaining posts of assistant teachers other than 37,339. In other words, 37,339 posts of assistant teachers shall be kept vacant. Other posts can be filled up, the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 14.

Appointment of assistant basic teachers in Uttar Pradesh has seen several rounds of litigations from High Court to Supreme Court.

It is second round of litigation in the top court.

On June 3, the Allahabad High Court, while hearing pleas of several unsuccessful candidates, had stayed the appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers in the state, holding that there has been an 'error' in the evaluation of question paper.

The top court on May 21, had issued notice and sought state government's reply on a batch of pleas challenging the May 6 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the state's decision to keep higher cut-off marks for the appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers.

It had said that pending notice, the services of all Shiksha Mitras who are presently holding their posts as assistant teachers shall not be disturbed.

The top court had, however, allowed the state government to fill up the remaining posts of assistant teachers by taking resort to the present selection process.

It had asked the state government to explain through a chart detailing the vacancies and the chronology of events in the process which was undertaken for the appointments.

The bench had asked the UP government to submit the details as how many Shiksha Mitras are presently working in the State and how many Shiksha Mitras appeared in the instant selection process.

It had sought to know how many Shiksha Mitras secured more than 45 per cent marks in General Category or more than 40 per cent marks in reserved category; and the roll numbers of Shiksha Mitras who have secured more than 45 per cent or 40 per cent marks.

The top court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to explain as to why it changed the earlier criteria of 45 per cent cut-off marks for the general category and 40 per cent for the reserved category.

Several petitions, including those by individuals and Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shiksha Mitra Association, have been filed challenging the May 6 decision of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court.

The high court's final verdict of May 6 this year had paved the way for completing the process for appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers in Uttar Pradesh.

It had directed the state government to complete the process of appointment within the next three months.

The process is almost already complete on the strength of the interim directions of the division bench issued on May 29, last year and only result is to be declared finally.

The division bench has set aside the single bench order that had quashed the government order by which it had fixed the criteria of 65 per cent qualifying marks for general category candidates and 60 percent for reserved category candidates for appointment as a basic teacher.

The single bench had said that the minimum cut-off marks would be 45 per cent for general and 40 per cent for reserved candidates.

On July 25, 2017, the top court had asked the state government to cancel the recruitment of 1,37, 517 teachers on the post of TET Assistant Teacher but gave them the benefit of experience in two recruitment process.

Six months later, on January 17, 2018, the government had issued the order for the written examination for the assistant teachers' posts for the first time to hire 69,000 teachers.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government not to fill up all the 69,000 posts of assistant basic teachers and instead keep 37,339 posts vacant, which are currently held by Shiksha Mitras.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government not to fill up all the 69,000 posts of assistant basic teachers and instead keep 37,339 posts vacant, which are currently held by Shiksha Mitras. The top court said it had directed the state government on May 21 that the services of all the Siksha Mitras, presently working on the post of assistant teachers, shall not be disturbed. A bench of Justices M M Shantangoudar and Vineet Saran said that despite the order it is, prima facie, borne out from the records now produced that the State Government is proceeding with the selection to fill up all the posts. Such process to be adopted by the State Government shall not be permitted in view of the interim order passed by this Court on May 21, 2020. The top court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging various orders of the high court and the government on the issue of appointment of assistant basic teachers. Counsel for petitioners pointed out that it was not disputed by any party that 37,339 persons, who are currently working as Shiksha Mitras, have appeared for the examination of assistant basic teachers. In view of the same, it is open for the State Government to fill up the remaining posts of assistant teachers other than 37,339. In other words, 37,339 posts of assistant teachers shall be kept vacant. Other posts can be filled up, the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 14. Appointment of assistant basic teachers in Uttar Pradesh has seen several rounds of litigations from High Court to Supreme Court. It is second round of litigation in the top court. On June 3, the Allahabad High Court, while hearing pleas of several unsuccessful candidates, had stayed the appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers in the state, holding that there has been an 'error' in the evaluation of question paper. The top court on May 21, had issued notice and sought state government's reply on a batch of pleas challenging the May 6 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the state's decision to keep higher cut-off marks for the appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers. It had said that pending notice, the services of all Shiksha Mitras who are presently holding their posts as assistant teachers shall not be disturbed. The top court had, however, allowed the state government to fill up the remaining posts of assistant teachers by taking resort to the present selection process. It had asked the state government to explain through a chart detailing the vacancies and the chronology of events in the process which was undertaken for the appointments. The bench had asked the UP government to submit the details as how many Shiksha Mitras are presently working in the State and how many Shiksha Mitras appeared in the instant selection process. It had sought to know how many Shiksha Mitras secured more than 45 per cent marks in General Category or more than 40 per cent marks in reserved category; and the roll numbers of Shiksha Mitras who have secured more than 45 per cent or 40 per cent marks. The top court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to explain as to why it changed the earlier criteria of 45 per cent cut-off marks for the general category and 40 per cent for the reserved category. Several petitions, including those by individuals and Uttar Pradesh Prathmik Shiksha Mitra Association, have been filed challenging the May 6 decision of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court. The high court's final verdict of May 6 this year had paved the way for completing the process for appointment of 69,000 assistant basic teachers in Uttar Pradesh. It had directed the state government to complete the process of appointment within the next three months. The process is almost already complete on the strength of the interim directions of the division bench issued on May 29, last year and only result is to be declared finally. The division bench has set aside the single bench order that had quashed the government order by which it had fixed the criteria of 65 per cent qualifying marks for general category candidates and 60 percent for reserved category candidates for appointment as a basic teacher. The single bench had said that the minimum cut-off marks would be 45 per cent for general and 40 per cent for reserved candidates. On July 25, 2017, the top court had asked the state government to cancel the recruitment of 1,37, 517 teachers on the post of TET Assistant Teacher but gave them the benefit of experience in two recruitment process. Six months later, on January 17, 2018, the government had issued the order for the written examination for the assistant teachers' posts for the first time to hire 69,000 teachers.

Supreme Court bars Uttar Pradesh government from filling 37,339 posts of assistant teachers

All migrant workers are to be identified and transported back to their home towns within 15 days, the Supreme Court ordered all states today.

India: Send stranded migrants to their homes in 15 days, says Top court

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to&nbsp;coronavirus lockdown.

The nationwide lockdown was announced from March 25 to combat the spread of the global pandemic, COVID-19.

Here are the key observations made by the Supreme Court:

June 5 Hearing

1. The Supreme Court on June 5&nbsp;said it intends to give 15 days to the Centre and states for transporting all stranded migrant workers to their native places.

2. The apex court will pronounce its order on June 9 on the issue including their registration and employment opportunities.

3. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that till now over one crore migrant workers have been transported to their destinations through trains and buses.

4. Tushar Mehta assured the bench that necessary trains are being made available to the concerned states and it would be provided in future as well when demands are raised. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/congress-must-continue-to-engage-with-migrant-workers-in-a-time-of-crisis-like-covid-19-303351">Also Read: Congress must continue to engage with migrant workers</a>

May 28&nbsp;Hearing

5. On May 28, the top court directed that no fare for travel either by train or bus be charged from migrant workers, stranded across the country.

6. The court also said that all the migrant workers stranded at various places shall be provided food by concerned states and Union Territories (UTs).

7. The court further observed that the originating state shall provide meals and water at the station and during the journey, the Railways would provide the same to the migrant workers.

8. The bench directed that migrant workers found walking on the roads should immediately be taken to shelters and provided food and other necessary facilities.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-21-lakh-migrant-labourers-have-returned-to-up-official-302023">Also Read: Over 21 lakh migrant labourers have returned to UP</a>

May 26 Hearing

9. The Supreme Court on May 26 took cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers and said there have been “inadequacies and certain lapses” on the part of the central and state governments in dealing with the crisis.

10. The top court issued notice to the central government, all states and Union Territories to submit their responses by May 28. 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to coronavirus lockdown.

The Supreme Court on Friday took note of the submissions of the Centre and state governments on steps taken so far to mitigate the miseries of the migrant workers stranded across the country due to coronavirus lockdown. The nationwide lockdown was announced from March 25 to combat the spread of the global pandemic, COVID-19. Here are the key observations made by the Supreme Court: June 5 Hearing 1. The Supreme Court on June 5 said it intends to give 15 days to the Centre and states for transporting all stranded migrant workers to their native places. 2. The apex court will pronounce its order on June 9 on the issue including their registration and employment opportunities. 3. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that till now over one crore migrant workers have been transported to their destinations through trains and buses. 4. Tushar Mehta assured the bench that necessary trains are being made available to the concerned states and it would be provided in future as well when demands are raised. Also Read: Congress must continue to engage with migrant workers May 28 Hearing 5. On May 28, the top court directed that no fare for travel either by train or bus be charged from migrant workers, stranded across the country. 6. The court also said that all the migrant workers stranded at various places shall be provided food by concerned states and Union Territories (UTs). 7. The court further observed that the originating state shall provide meals and water at the station and during the journey, the Railways would provide the same to the migrant workers. 8. The bench directed that migrant workers found walking on the roads should immediately be taken to shelters and provided food and other necessary facilities. Also Read: Over 21 lakh migrant labourers have returned to UP May 26 Hearing 9. The Supreme Court on May 26 took cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers and said there have been “inadequacies and certain lapses” on the part of the central and state governments in dealing with the crisis. 10. The top court issued notice to the central government, all states and Union Territories to submit their responses by May 28. (With inputs from PTI)

A look at the Supreme Court's observations on the migrant workers crisis due to coronavirus lockdown: Key points

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat"&nbsp;as a sense of pride.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/raveesh-kumar-appointed-as-next-ambassador-of-india-to-finland-302902" hreflang="en">Raveesh Kumar appointed as next Ambassador of India to Finland</a>

The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to send a written copy of his plea to concerned ministries that will decide representation appropriately.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/armies-of-india-and-china-to-hold-lt-gen-level-talks-on-june-6-to-resolve-ladakh-crisis-302898" hreflang="en">Armies of India and China to hold Lt Gen level talks on June 6 to resolve Ladakh crisis</a>

The Delhi-based petitioner said the time is ripe to recognise the country by its original name rather than its "English"&nbsp;name.&nbsp;

The plea revolves around Article 1 will ensure "the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past."

The plea read: "The removal of the English name, though appears symbolic, will instil a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for the future generations. In fact, replacing India with Bharat would justify the hard-fought freedom achieved by our ancestors."

"The nature of injury being caused to the public is the loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule," the plea contended.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat" as a sense of pride.

India's Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking the Centre to amend the constitution and replace the word 'India' with 'Bharat'. According to reports, the petitioner wanted to get over the "colonial" name and use "Bharat" as a sense of pride. Also read: Raveesh Kumar appointed as next Ambassador of India to Finland The Supreme Court asked the petitioner to send a written copy of his plea to concerned ministries that will decide representation appropriately. Also read: Armies of India and China to hold Lt Gen level talks on June 6 to resolve Ladakh crisis The Delhi-based petitioner said the time is ripe to recognise the country by its original name rather than its "English" name. The plea revolves around Article 1 will ensure "the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past." The plea read: "The removal of the English name, though appears symbolic, will instil a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for the future generations. In fact, replacing India with Bharat would justify the hard-fought freedom achieved by our ancestors." "The nature of injury being caused to the public is the loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule," the plea contended.

Supreme Court rejects plea to change India's name to 'Bharat'

The Supreme Court Thursday said the governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh must hold a meeting and consider evolving a common policy and portal to facilitate inter-state movement in the NCR which is allegedly restricted amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said these states should endeavour to find out a common programme and portal for inter-state movement within the National Capital Region.

The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and M R Shah, further stated that there should be a consistent policy in this regard for the NCR.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/employers-and-employees-to-negotiate-themselves-for-wages-during-lockdown-sc-303247">Also read:&nbsp;Employers and employees to negotiate themselves for wages during lockdown: SC</a>

The apex court was hearing via video-conferencing a plea, filed through advocate Anindita Mitra, which has raised the issue of alleged restriction on movement for permissible activities in the NCR owing to sealing of borders due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The bench said a recommendation suggests that there should be one common pass for NCR which should be recognised in these states.

It asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instructions on this issue and posted the matter for hearing after a week.

The counsel appearing for Haryana informed the bench that the state has lifted the restrictions on movement at its borders.

On May 15, the apex court had sought responses from the Centre and governments of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi on the plea which has alleged that "complete sealing of borders" within the NCR and restrictions imposed on the movement of citizens was in violation of the new guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

The plea has sought to declare as unconstitutional the measures by the district administrations of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh which allegedly restrict movement for permissible activities in areas falling within the NCR due to "blanket orders of sealing borders without reasonable exceptions".

The plea has referred to the April 29 order of district administrations in Haryana, which is applicable to Gurugram and Sonepat, and May 3 public statement by the district administrations of Uttar Pardesh about Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad.

It has alleged that these measures are in violation of the MHA's May 1 guidelines which allow movement for permissible activities and has been adopted by these states.

It has sought to declare as illegal such measures which restrict movement in the NCR.

It has also sought directions to governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to set up and maintain a common portal or mechanism for movement pass within the NCR for permissible activities as per MHA's guidelines.

The Supreme Court Thursday said the governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh must hold a meeting and consider evolving a common policy and portal to facilitate inter-state movement in the NCR which is allegedly restricted amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court Thursday said the governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh must hold a meeting and consider evolving a common policy and portal to facilitate inter-state movement in the NCR which is allegedly restricted amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan said these states should endeavour to find out a common programme and portal for inter-state movement within the National Capital Region. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and M R Shah, further stated that there should be a consistent policy in this regard for the NCR. Also read: Employers and employees to negotiate themselves for wages during lockdown: SC The apex court was hearing via video-conferencing a plea, filed through advocate Anindita Mitra, which has raised the issue of alleged restriction on movement for permissible activities in the NCR owing to sealing of borders due to the coronavirus pandemic. The bench said a recommendation suggests that there should be one common pass for NCR which should be recognised in these states. It asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instructions on this issue and posted the matter for hearing after a week. The counsel appearing for Haryana informed the bench that the state has lifted the restrictions on movement at its borders. On May 15, the apex court had sought responses from the Centre and governments of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi on the plea which has alleged that "complete sealing of borders" within the NCR and restrictions imposed on the movement of citizens was in violation of the new guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The plea has sought to declare as unconstitutional the measures by the district administrations of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh which allegedly restrict movement for permissible activities in areas falling within the NCR due to "blanket orders of sealing borders without reasonable exceptions". The plea has referred to the April 29 order of district administrations in Haryana, which is applicable to Gurugram and Sonepat, and May 3 public statement by the district administrations of Uttar Pardesh about Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad. It has alleged that these measures are in violation of the MHA's May 1 guidelines which allow movement for permissible activities and has been adopted by these states. It has sought to declare as illegal such measures which restrict movement in the NCR. It has also sought directions to governments of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to set up and maintain a common portal or mechanism for movement pass within the NCR for permissible activities as per MHA's guidelines.

Supreme Court asks NCR states to hold meeting to consider a common policy for interstate travel

The Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification on payment of wages, observed that some negotiations have to happen between employers and workers to iron out what has to be done for the salary for these 54 days.

The Centre told the Apex Court that the payment of wages to workers during this lockdown period is a matter between employers and employees. It further said that it would not interfere. In contrast, the Centre had directed payment of full wages during the lockdown.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-change-indias-name-to-bharat-302982">Also read:&nbsp;Supreme Court rejects plea to change India's name to 'Bharat'</a>

A bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, and also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a direction to pay wages to the employees during this lockdown period.

Justice Kaul said: "On one hand you (Centre) are trying to put money in the pocket of worker. So now some negotiation is required for a solution."&nbsp;

The Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification on payment of wages, observed that some negotiations have to happen between employers and workers to iron out what has to be done for the salary for these 54 days.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification on payment of wages, observed that some negotiations have to happen between employers and workers to iron out what has to be done for the salary for these 54 days. The Centre told the Apex Court that the payment of wages to workers during this lockdown period is a matter between employers and employees. It further said that it would not interfere. In contrast, the Centre had directed payment of full wages during the lockdown. Also read: Supreme Court rejects plea to change India's name to 'Bharat' A bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, and also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a direction to pay wages to the employees during this lockdown period. Justice Kaul said: "On one hand you (Centre) are trying to put money in the pocket of worker. So now some negotiation is required for a solution."

Employers and employees to negotiate themselves for wages during lockdown: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Air India to keep the middle seats occupied while operating its non-scheduled flights to bring back Indians stranded abroad up to June 6 while observing that the government should be more worried about the health of citizens rather than the health of commercial airlines.

The top court said that after June 6, Air India will operate its non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay High Court.

The Centre and Air India had moved the apex court challenging the interim order of the High Court by which it had asked the national carrier to operate its non-scheduled flights by keeping the middle seats vacant.

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopana and Hrishikesh Roy, which took up the appeals filed urgently through video conferencing despite the holiday for Eid, remanded the matter back to the High Court with a request to pass an effective interim order after hearing all concerned on the date fixed by it, i.E. June 2, 2020, or soon thereafter.

We are of the considered view that the petitioner - Air India should be allowed to operate the non-scheduled flights with the middle seats booking up to June 6, 2020. However, after that the Air India will operate non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay High Court thereafter, it said.

The bench observed that authorities must consider the importance of maintaining social distancing as shoulder to shoulder sitting is dangerous, due to the contagious pandemic.

The bench said normally it is not inclined to interfere with the interim orders made by the courts below.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre and Air India, said that due to the directions of the High Court a lot of "anxiety and difficulties" have arisen among the passengers who are stranded on foreign soil after they were issued tickets for travel.

"Moreover, in some cases, the travel plans of families who were travelling together have been disrupted because those in the families who had middle seats have to be offloaded and remain behind," the bench said, while noting the submissions of Mehta, who said that passengers stranded abroad are facing difficulty due to want of proper shelter and money.

The bench said it would consider it necessary for the High Court to arrive at a prima facie finding regarding the safety and health of the passengers qua the COVID-19 virus, whether the flight is a scheduled flight or a non-scheduled flight.

 
"We make it clear that the Director General of Civil Aviation is free to alter any norms he may consider necessary during the pendency of the matter in the interest of public health and safety of the passengers rather than of commercial considerations," the bench said in its order, while disposing of the appeal.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Air India to keep the middle seats occupied while operating its non-scheduled flights to bring back Indians stranded abroad up to June 6 while observing that the government should be more worried about the health of citizens rather than the health of commercial airlines.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Air India to keep the middle seats occupied while operating its non-scheduled flights to bring back Indians stranded abroad up to June 6 while observing that the government should be more worried about the health of citizens rather than the health of commercial airlines. The top court said that after June 6, Air India will operate its non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay High Court. The Centre and Air India had moved the apex court challenging the interim order of the High Court by which it had asked the national carrier to operate its non-scheduled flights by keeping the middle seats vacant. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopana and Hrishikesh Roy, which took up the appeals filed urgently through video conferencing despite the holiday for Eid, remanded the matter back to the High Court with a request to pass an effective interim order after hearing all concerned on the date fixed by it, i.E. June 2, 2020, or soon thereafter. We are of the considered view that the petitioner - Air India should be allowed to operate the non-scheduled flights with the middle seats booking up to June 6, 2020. However, after that the Air India will operate non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay High Court thereafter, it said. The bench observed that authorities must consider the importance of maintaining social distancing as shoulder to shoulder sitting is dangerous, due to the contagious pandemic. The bench said normally it is not inclined to interfere with the interim orders made by the courts below. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre and Air India, said that due to the directions of the High Court a lot of "anxiety and difficulties" have arisen among the passengers who are stranded on foreign soil after they were issued tickets for travel. "Moreover, in some cases, the travel plans of families who were travelling together have been disrupted because those in the families who had middle seats have to be offloaded and remain behind," the bench said, while noting the submissions of Mehta, who said that passengers stranded abroad are facing difficulty due to want of proper shelter and money. The bench said it would consider it necessary for the High Court to arrive at a prima facie finding regarding the safety and health of the passengers qua the COVID-19 virus, whether the flight is a scheduled flight or a non-scheduled flight. "We make it clear that the Director General of Civil Aviation is free to alter any norms he may consider necessary during the pendency of the matter in the interest of public health and safety of the passengers rather than of commercial considerations," the bench said in its order, while disposing of the appeal.

SC allows AI to operate till June 6 flights with occupied middle seats to fly stranded Indians

The Supreme Court Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea which has sought a ban on the use of video communications app 'Zoom' for official as well as personal purposes until appropriate legislation is put in place.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the Centre on the plea which has raised privacy concern and claimed that continued use of Zoom app is "making the users vulnerable and prone to cyber threats".

The matter came up for hearing through video-conferencing before the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, which asked the Centre to file its reply within four weeks on the plea which has arrayed US-based Zoom Video Communications as one of the respondents in the case.

The plea, filed by Delhi resident Harsh Chugh, has also sought a direction to the Centre to carry out an exhaustive technical study into the security and privacy risks of using Zoom application.

The plea, filed through advocate Wajeeh Shafiq, has alleged that continued usage of this app might put the national security at stake and might also give a boom to a number of cyber-threats and cyber crimes in India.

"The global COVID-19 pandemic has drastically reshaped the way in which consumers, businesses and schools communicate.

Rather than lending a hand to people in need, Zoom violates the privacy of its millions of users by misusing and exploiting their personal information and falsely, deceptively and misleadingly advertising fictitious security benefits of the program," the plea has said.

It has alleged that Zoom app "practices data hoarding and cyber hoarding" which includes mass storage of personal data of its users and stores cloud recordings, instant messages and files.

"Zoom is reported to have a bug that can be abused intentionally to leak information of users to third parties.

The app has falsely claiming calls are end-to-end encrypted when they are not," the plea said while claiming that Zoom had also apologised publicly for "mistakenly routing traffic through China" where internet is heavily monitored by the government.

It has alleged that Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), the nodal cyber security agency, has also warned Zoom users of cyber risks.

The plea said that due to privacy and security concerns, several organizations across the world have banned the use of Zoom app.

Claiming that cyberspace risk is increasing everyday due to global connectivity and online services which makes it easier to hack and access sensitive data of users, the plea said it is not that difficult to hack if a secure network is not used.

The Supreme Court Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea which has sought a ban on the use of video communications app 'Zoom' for official as well as personal purposes until appropriate legislation is put in place.

The Supreme Court Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea which has sought a ban on the use of video communications app 'Zoom' for official as well as personal purposes until appropriate legislation is put in place. A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde issued notice to the Centre on the plea which has raised privacy concern and claimed that continued use of Zoom app is "making the users vulnerable and prone to cyber threats". The matter came up for hearing through video-conferencing before the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, which asked the Centre to file its reply within four weeks on the plea which has arrayed US-based Zoom Video Communications as one of the respondents in the case. The plea, filed by Delhi resident Harsh Chugh, has also sought a direction to the Centre to carry out an exhaustive technical study into the security and privacy risks of using Zoom application. The plea, filed through advocate Wajeeh Shafiq, has alleged that continued usage of this app might put the national security at stake and might also give a boom to a number of cyber-threats and cyber crimes in India. "The global COVID-19 pandemic has drastically reshaped the way in which consumers, businesses and schools communicate. Rather than lending a hand to people in need, Zoom violates the privacy of its millions of users by misusing and exploiting their personal information and falsely, deceptively and misleadingly advertising fictitious security benefits of the program," the plea has said. It has alleged that Zoom app "practices data hoarding and cyber hoarding" which includes mass storage of personal data of its users and stores cloud recordings, instant messages and files. "Zoom is reported to have a bug that can be abused intentionally to leak information of users to third parties. The app has falsely claiming calls are end-to-end encrypted when they are not," the plea said while claiming that Zoom had also apologised publicly for "mistakenly routing traffic through China" where internet is heavily monitored by the government. It has alleged that Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), the nodal cyber security agency, has also warned Zoom users of cyber risks. The plea said that due to privacy and security concerns, several organizations across the world have banned the use of Zoom app. Claiming that cyberspace risk is increasing everyday due to global connectivity and online services which makes it easier to hack and access sensitive data of users, the plea said it is not that difficult to hack if a secure network is not used.

SC seeks Centre's reply on plea for ban on Zoom app until appropriate legislation is put in place

Supreme Court on Monday ordered the setting up of a high powered committee to look into the matter regarding restoration of 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir. The Committee will be headed by the MHA Secretary.&nbsp;

The apex court passed this order while delivering its judgement on various pleas for restoration of 4G internet services in Jammu and Kashmir. The pleas claimed that the 2G services are not sufficient enough to conduct education and other services.

''This court has to ensure that national security and human rights are balanced. We do recognize that UT has plunged into crisis. At the same time court is cognizant to the concerns related to ongoing pandemic and hardships,'' Justice NV Ramana said while passing the order.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Internet service was stopped in J&amp;K on August 5 last year and was restored in phases in the second week of January. At present, only 2G mobile internet is allowed. However, internet on the fixed-line broadband services is working normally.

Supreme Court on Monday ordered the setting up of a high powered committee to look into the matter regarding restoration of 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir. The Committee will be headed by the MHA Secretary.

Supreme Court on Monday ordered the setting up of a high powered committee to look into the matter regarding restoration of 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir. The Committee will be headed by the MHA Secretary. The apex court passed this order while delivering its judgement on various pleas for restoration of 4G internet services in Jammu and Kashmir. The pleas claimed that the 2G services are not sufficient enough to conduct education and other services. ''This court has to ensure that national security and human rights are balanced. We do recognize that UT has plunged into crisis. At the same time court is cognizant to the concerns related to ongoing pandemic and hardships,'' Justice NV Ramana said while passing the order. Internet service was stopped in J&K on August 5 last year and was restored in phases in the second week of January. At present, only 2G mobile internet is allowed. However, internet on the fixed-line broadband services is working normally.

4G restoration in J&K:  SC orders setting up of a high powered committee headed by MHA Secretary

The Supreme Court of India on Friday disposed of a PIL (public interest litigation) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing as it is being sold at liquor shops.&nbsp;

Justice Ashok Bhushan said even asked the states to consider the indirect sale or home delivery of liquor while maintaining social distancing norms and standards.

After hearing the petition, Justice Ashok Bhushan, heading the bench said, as quoted by news agency ANI said, "We will not pass any order but the states should consider an indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards", Justice Ashok Bhushan, heading the bench said. <a href="https://t.co/qCb6B9NMx0">https://t.co/qCb6B9NMx0</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1258666958288859145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, To ensure social distancing and to stop overcrowding at liquor shops, the Delhi government on Thursday launched an e-token service with a time slot for people to buy alcohol at any nearby store. The Delhi government in a statement said that it took this decision to encourage people to avoid long queues by applying for an e-token.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday disposed of a PIL (public interest litigation) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing as it is being sold at liquor shops.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday disposed of a PIL (public interest litigation) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing as it is being sold at liquor shops. Justice Ashok Bhushan said even asked the states to consider the indirect sale or home delivery of liquor while maintaining social distancing norms and standards. After hearing the petition, Justice Ashok Bhushan, heading the bench said, as quoted by news agency ANI said, "We will not pass any order but the states should consider an indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards." "We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards", Justice Ashok Bhushan, heading the bench said. https://t.co/qCb6B9NMx0 — ANI (@ANI) May 8, 2020 × Meanwhile, To ensure social distancing and to stop overcrowding at liquor shops, the Delhi government on Thursday launched an e-token service with a time slot for people to buy alcohol at any nearby store. The Delhi government in a statement said that it took this decision to encourage people to avoid long queues by applying for an e-token.

Consider home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing: Supreme Court to states

Facebook on Wednesday announced the first members of its independent "supreme court" empowered to make decisions on what kind of content should be allowed and not allowed on the social media and Instagram, reported news agency AFP.

The oversight board is to make final decisions regarding the kinds of posts that would land social media in trouble&nbsp;about censorship, misinformation or free speech, AFP report said.

Facebook public policy director Brent Harris described the creation of the board as the "beginning of a fundamental change in the way some of the most difficult content decisions on Facebook will be made."

The 20 members of the panel announced Wednesday come from various countries and include jurists, human rights activists, journalists, a Nobel peace laureate and a former Danish prime minister, the report added.

"This is a group that has a diverse set of insights, backgrounds, and beliefs but share a deep commitment to advancing human rights and freedom of expression," board director Thomas Hughes said during a phone briefing.

The board is to be expanded to 40 members. It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or traveling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

Board members have met virtually and training has started, according to Hughes.

The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018.

Facebook on Wednesday announced the first members of its independent "supreme court" empowered to make decisions on what kind of content should be allowed and not allowed on the social media and Instagram, reported news agency AFP.

Facebook on Wednesday announced the first members of its independent "supreme court" empowered to make decisions on what kind of content should be allowed and not allowed on the social media and Instagram, reported news agency AFP. The oversight board is to make final decisions regarding the kinds of posts that would land social media in trouble about censorship, misinformation or free speech, AFP report said. Facebook public policy director Brent Harris described the creation of the board as the "beginning of a fundamental change in the way some of the most difficult content decisions on Facebook will be made." The 20 members of the panel announced Wednesday come from various countries and include jurists, human rights activists, journalists, a Nobel peace laureate and a former Danish prime minister, the report added. "This is a group that has a diverse set of insights, backgrounds, and beliefs but share a deep commitment to advancing human rights and freedom of expression," board director Thomas Hughes said during a phone briefing. The board is to be expanded to 40 members. It remained unclear when the board would start hearing cases due to restrictions on gathering or traveling caused by the deadly coronavirus pandemic. Board members have met virtually and training has started, according to Hughes. The board was first proposed by Facebook co-founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg in 2018.

Facebook announces members of its 'supreme court' for content

The Supreme Court Thursday said the Bar Council of India (BCI) may consider an emergency fund for independent practising advocates who need financial assistance and are “facing a tough time” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana, hearing a plea on the matter through video-conferencing, said it cannot pass direction for the creation of funds and set up a special category for lawyers when unfortunately the entire country is facing a difficult situation.

The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and B R Gavai, observed that some bar councils have taken up this issue and have also decided to help independent lawyers.

“This is something for the BCI to consider,” the bench told advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak, who filed the petition.

The apex court, while referring to the coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic, said the whole country is suffering and lawyers are also a part of it.

Pathak referred to the provision of the Advocates Act and said the BCI is responsible for safeguarding the rights, privileges and interests of advocates.

He said that courts and tribunals are closed due to the COVID-19 lockdown and independent practising lawyers are left with no other source of income. He argued that the top court can direct the BCI to take action in this regard as also for the future.

The bench said however that it is for the BCI to consider as to how well it is in a position to help.

Pathak, who filed the plea along with advocate Alok Singh, said that “advocates are also hit by this lockdown and facing financial crunch and if the lockdown further extends then this poses a serious threat to the life and liberty of the advocates who have litigation as the there only source of income.”

The plea has claimed that various state bar associations across the country are coming up with financial aid scheme for advocates but there is “no uniformity or equality” in those policies.

It has also sought a direction to the BCI and bar council of states to frame a policy for fund disbursal to independent advocates who are in dire need of financial assistance within the specified time limit.

The Supreme Court Thursday said the Bar Council of India (BCI) may consider an emergency fund for independent practising advocates who need financial assistance and are “facing a tough time” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court Thursday said the Bar Council of India (BCI) may consider an emergency fund for independent practising advocates who need financial assistance and are “facing a tough time” during the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana, hearing a plea on the matter through video-conferencing, said it cannot pass direction for the creation of funds and set up a special category for lawyers when unfortunately the entire country is facing a difficult situation. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and B R Gavai, observed that some bar councils have taken up this issue and have also decided to help independent lawyers. “This is something for the BCI to consider,” the bench told advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak, who filed the petition. The apex court, while referring to the coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic, said the whole country is suffering and lawyers are also a part of it. Pathak referred to the provision of the Advocates Act and said the BCI is responsible for safeguarding the rights, privileges and interests of advocates. He said that courts and tribunals are closed due to the COVID-19 lockdown and independent practising lawyers are left with no other source of income. He argued that the top court can direct the BCI to take action in this regard as also for the future. The bench said however that it is for the BCI to consider as to how well it is in a position to help. Pathak, who filed the plea along with advocate Alok Singh, said that “advocates are also hit by this lockdown and facing financial crunch and if the lockdown further extends then this poses a serious threat to the life and liberty of the advocates who have litigation as the there only source of income.” The plea has claimed that various state bar associations across the country are coming up with financial aid scheme for advocates but there is “no uniformity or equality” in those policies. It has also sought a direction to the BCI and bar council of states to frame a policy for fund disbursal to independent advocates who are in dire need of financial assistance within the specified time limit.

‘Entire country suffering’: Supreme Court rules out separate funds for lawyers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of Christian Michel, an alleged middleman in the AugustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused, on the ground that his petition "did not fall in the criteria for grant of relief".

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising Justice B R Gavai dismissed the bail application of Christian Michel.

Michel, in his bail application, stated that he is aged 59 years, and has a history of bad health which will make him easy prey to any Corona outbreak in the Tihar jail in Delhi and thereby he be released on bail.

"We don`t find any merit in the petition filed by the accused, petitioner in the case. We, thereby, dismiss the same," Justice Kaul observed.&nbsp;

The apex court did not consider his prayers and upheld the Delhi High Court order that his case did not fall in the criteria for grant of relief.

The accused, a 59-year-old British National, Michel is currently lodged in Tihar jail for his alleged involvement in the Augusta Westland VVIP chopper scam case.

Michel had moved the Apex Court after the Delhi High Court had rejected his bail application.

Michel was extradited from Dubai in 2018 and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with alleged irregularities in the chopper deal.&nbsp;

While the CBI is probing his alleged role as a middleman in the deal, the ED is investigating money laundering charges against him.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of Christian Michel, an alleged middleman in the AugustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused, on the ground that his petition "did not fall in the criteria for grant of relief".

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of Christian Michel, an alleged middleman in the AugustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused, on the ground that his petition "did not fall in the criteria for grant of relief". A two-judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising Justice B R Gavai dismissed the bail application of Christian Michel. Michel, in his bail application, stated that he is aged 59 years, and has a history of bad health which will make him easy prey to any Corona outbreak in the Tihar jail in Delhi and thereby he be released on bail. "We don`t find any merit in the petition filed by the accused, petitioner in the case. We, thereby, dismiss the same," Justice Kaul observed. The apex court did not consider his prayers and upheld the Delhi High Court order that his case did not fall in the criteria for grant of relief. The accused, a 59-year-old British National, Michel is currently lodged in Tihar jail for his alleged involvement in the Augusta Westland VVIP chopper scam case. Michel had moved the Apex Court after the Delhi High Court had rejected his bail application. Michel was extradited from Dubai in 2018 and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with alleged irregularities in the chopper deal. While the CBI is probing his alleged role as a middleman in the deal, the ED is investigating money laundering charges against him.

Supreme Court rejects bail application of alleged AugustaWestland middleman Christian Michel

The Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested that all COVID-19 tests should be made free of cost to all citizens, and asked the central government to look into creating a mechanism for providing reimbursement for the same to the private labs.

At present, private laboratories charge people to test for the coronavirus, though the same is capped at Rs 4500.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan suggested that the test should be conducted <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-stares-at-extension-of-coronavirus-lockdown-as-cases-cross-5000-291265">free of cost </a>in the identified private laboratories and said that the court will pass appropriate order on the matter.

The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by lawyer and petitioner Shashank Deo Sudhi via video-conferencing.

Sudhi sought a direction to the Centre and other respective authorities to provide free of cost the testing facility for COVID-19 to all citizens in the country.&nbsp;

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/coronavirus-facing-problem-in-supplying-essential-goods-only-15-trucks-are-on-roads-says-transporters-291295">118 laboratories</a> were doing 15,000 test capacity per day and added that 47 private laboratory chains have also been involved for the same.&nbsp;

During the hearing, the court asked the Centre to ensure private labs don`t charge a high amount for the test and suggested that the government can create an effective mechanism for reimbursement from the government for tests.&nbsp;

Mehta said that they will look into the suggestion and will try to devise what can be done best.

Sudhi, on the other hand, submitted that testing of coronavirus is very expensive and therefore the Central government should take all necessary steps to provide free of cost the testing facility for COVID-19 kits and others to all citizens in the country.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested that all COVID-19 tests should be made free of cost to all citizens, and asked the central government to look into creating a mechanism for providing reimbursement for the same to the private labs.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested that all COVID-19 tests should be made free of cost to all citizens, and asked the central government to look into creating a mechanism for providing reimbursement for the same to the private labs. At present, private laboratories charge people to test for the coronavirus, though the same is capped at Rs 4500. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan suggested that the test should be conducted free of cost in the identified private laboratories and said that the court will pass appropriate order on the matter. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by lawyer and petitioner Shashank Deo Sudhi via video-conferencing. Sudhi sought a direction to the Centre and other respective authorities to provide free of cost the testing facility for COVID-19 to all citizens in the country. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that 118 laboratories were doing 15,000 test capacity per day and added that 47 private laboratory chains have also been involved for the same. During the hearing, the court asked the Centre to ensure private labs don`t charge a high amount for the test and suggested that the government can create an effective mechanism for reimbursement from the government for tests. Mehta said that they will look into the suggestion and will try to devise what can be done best. Sudhi, on the other hand, submitted that testing of coronavirus is very expensive and therefore the Central government should take all necessary steps to provide free of cost the testing facility for COVID-19 kits and others to all citizens in the country.

COVID-19 test should be made free of cost for all citizens, Supreme Court suggests

A glance at major institutions that are shut down in India amid coronavirus concerns

The four accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case were <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-four-convicts-in-nirbhaya-case-hanged-in-tihar-jail-287467">hanged to death in the early hours of Friday morning.</a> Praising the verdict, several Bollywood celebrities took to Twitter and demanded stricter enforcement in future cases like these.

Several Bollywood celebrities including Rishi Kapoor, Riteish Deshmukh, Taapsee Pannu, and many more welcomed the execution. 
 
Riteish emphasized on the importance of reactive response to such crimes and added that more fast-track courts need to be in place to deal exclusively with rape cases. 
 
"Stricter law enforcement, harsher punishment &amp; fast courts for quick justice is the only way to instil fear in monsters who even think of such heinous acts. #JusticeForNirbhaya," Riteish tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Stricter law enforcement, harsher punishment &amp; fast courts for quick justice is the only way to instil fear in monsters who even think of such heinous acts. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeForNirbhaya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeForNirbhaya</a>
— Riteish Deshmukh (@Riteishd) <a href="https://twitter.com/Riteishd/status/1240808096907194369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Jaisi karni waisi bharni (you reap what you sow). Let this set an example not only in India but world over. Punishment for rape is by death. You have to respect womanhood. Shame on the people who delayed the execution. Jai Hind!," Kapoor wrote on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nirbhaya Justice. “Jaisi karni waisi bharni” Let this set an example not only in India but world over. Punishment for rape is by death. You have to respect womanhood. Shame on the people who delayed the execution. Jai Hind! <a href="https://t.co/ENyjTxwlMI">pic.twitter.com/ENyjTxwlMI</a>
— Rishi Kapoor (@chintskap) <a href="https://twitter.com/chintskap/status/1240836989244469248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Taapsee said the "long long battle" of the family finally came to end.

"It's done. Finally. I hope the parents can finally sleep slightly better tonight after YEARS. It's been a long long battle for them. Asha Devi," she tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It’s done. Finally. I hope the parents can finally sleep slightly better tonight after YEARS. It’s been a long long battle for them. Asha Devi 🙏🏼 <a href="https://t.co/XidMPTzKm4">https://t.co/XidMPTzKm4</a>
— taapsee pannu (@taapsee) <a href="https://twitter.com/taapsee/status/1240821314849390592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Preity Zinta also hopped on to the medium and said that there is a need for reform in Indian judicial system for faster judgements."Finally the #Nirbhayacase comes to an end. I wish it would have been faster but I`m happy it`s over. Finally she &amp; her parents are in peace. #RIPJyoti #RIPNirbhaya #Justicedelayed #TookTooLong," said Preity. 
Preity also said that many such crimes against women would have stopped if the rapists were hung back in 2012."If #Nirbhaya rapists were hung in 2012 the judicial system would have stopped so much crime against women. Fear of the law would have kept the lawless in check," read another tweet from the actor." 
Prevention is always better than cure. It`s time the Indian govt. takes steps for judicial reforms," Preity added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Finally the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Nirbhayacase?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Nirbhayacase</a> comes to an end. I wish it would have been faster but I’m happy it’s over. Finally she &amp; her parents are in peace. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RIPJyoti?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RIPJyoti</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RIPNirbhaya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RIPNirbhaya</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Justicedelayed?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Justicedelayed</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TookTooLong?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TookTooLong</a>
— Preity G Zinta (@realpreityzinta) <a href="https://twitter.com/realpreityzinta/status/1240793267622408193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Sushmita Sen lauded Nirbhaya's mother and wrote, "A Mother`s resilience, Asha Devi sees it through!! Finally some justice!! #Nirbhaya Dugga Dugga," tweeted Sen.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
A Mother’s resilience 🙏 Asha Devi sees it through!! Finally some justice!! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Nirbhaya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Nirbhaya</a> Dugga Dugga 🙏
— sushmita sen (@thesushmitasen) <a href="https://twitter.com/thesushmitasen/status/1240797656672169985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Actor Raveena Tandon also demanded swift justice in such cases in future. 
 
"The planet is less 4 monsters. 8 long years, the parents have waited for justice. High time we demand swift justice. We have finally put Nirbhaya to rest,"she wrote on the microblogging site.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Good Riddance . The planet is less 4 monsters . 8 long years, the parents have waited for justice . High time we demand swift justice. We have finally put Nirbhaya to rest . 🙏🏻 <a href="https://t.co/QH4yB04imb">https://t.co/QH4yB04imb</a>
— Raveena Tandon (@TandonRaveena) <a href="https://twitter.com/TandonRaveena/status/1240859380079153152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The four men -- Mukesh Singh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31) -- convicted for the 2012 gang rape and murder of the 23-year-old physiotherapy intern, who later came to be known as 'Nirbhaya', were hanged at 5.30 am inside Delhi's Tihar Jail.

The four accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case were hanged to death in the early hours of Friday morning. Praising the verdict, several Bollywood celebrities took to Twitter and demanded stricter enforcement in future cases like these.

The four accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case were hanged to death in the early hours of Friday morning. Praising the verdict, several Bollywood celebrities took to Twitter and demanded stricter enforcement in future cases like these. Several Bollywood celebrities including Rishi Kapoor, Riteish Deshmukh, Taapsee Pannu, and many more welcomed the execution. Riteish emphasized on the importance of reactive response to such crimes and added that more fast-track courts need to be in place to deal exclusively with rape cases. "Stricter law enforcement, harsher punishment & fast courts for quick justice is the only way to instil fear in monsters who even think of such heinous acts. #JusticeForNirbhaya," Riteish tweeted. Stricter law enforcement, harsher punishment & fast courts for quick justice is the only way to instil fear in monsters who even think of such heinous acts. #JusticeForNirbhaya — Riteish Deshmukh (@Riteishd) March 20, 2020 × "Jaisi karni waisi bharni (you reap what you sow). Let this set an example not only in India but world over. Punishment for rape is by death. You have to respect womanhood. Shame on the people who delayed the execution. Jai Hind!," Kapoor wrote on Twitter. Nirbhaya Justice. “Jaisi karni waisi bharni” Let this set an example not only in India but world over. Punishment for rape is by death. You have to respect womanhood. Shame on the people who delayed the execution. Jai Hind! pic.twitter.com/ENyjTxwlMI — Rishi Kapoor (@chintskap) March 20, 2020 × Taapsee said the "long long battle" of the family finally came to end. "It's done. Finally. I hope the parents can finally sleep slightly better tonight after YEARS. It's been a long long battle for them. Asha Devi," she tweeted. It’s done. Finally. I hope the parents can finally sleep slightly better tonight after YEARS. It’s been a long long battle for them. Asha Devi 🙏🏼 https://t.co/XidMPTzKm4 — taapsee pannu (@taapsee) March 20, 2020 × Preity Zinta also hopped on to the medium and said that there is a need for reform in Indian judicial system for faster judgements."Finally the #Nirbhayacase comes to an end. I wish it would have been faster but I`m happy it`s over. Finally she & her parents are in peace. #RIPJyoti #RIPNirbhaya #Justicedelayed #TookTooLong," said Preity. Preity also said that many such crimes against women would have stopped if the rapists were hung back in 2012."If #Nirbhaya rapists were hung in 2012 the judicial system would have stopped so much crime against women. Fear of the law would have kept the lawless in check," read another tweet from the actor." Prevention is always better than cure. It`s time the Indian govt. takes steps for judicial reforms," Preity added. Finally the #Nirbhayacase comes to an end. I wish it would have been faster but I’m happy it’s over. Finally she & her parents are in peace. #RIPJyoti #RIPNirbhaya #Justicedelayed #TookTooLong — Preity G Zinta (@realpreityzinta) March 20, 2020 × Sushmita Sen lauded Nirbhaya's mother and wrote, "A Mother`s resilience, Asha Devi sees it through!! Finally some justice!! #Nirbhaya Dugga Dugga," tweeted Sen. A Mother’s resilience 🙏 Asha Devi sees it through!! Finally some justice!! #Nirbhaya Dugga Dugga 🙏 — sushmita sen (@thesushmitasen) March 20, 2020 × Actor Raveena Tandon also demanded swift justice in such cases in future. "The planet is less 4 monsters. 8 long years, the parents have waited for justice. High time we demand swift justice. We have finally put Nirbhaya to rest,"she wrote on the microblogging site. Good Riddance . The planet is less 4 monsters . 8 long years, the parents have waited for justice . High time we demand swift justice. We have finally put Nirbhaya to rest . 🙏🏻 https://t.co/QH4yB04imb — Raveena Tandon (@TandonRaveena) March 20, 2020 × The four men -- Mukesh Singh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31) -- convicted for the 2012 gang rape and murder of the 23-year-old physiotherapy intern, who later came to be known as 'Nirbhaya', were hanged at 5.30 am inside Delhi's Tihar Jail.

'Finally some justice': Bollywood celebrities react to the hanging of Nirbhaya rape case convicts

India's mobile phone users have been putting up with poor connectivity for a while now. Telecom companies have not been investing in mobile infrastructure.

They don't have the money to do it anymore. That's because they are faced with a huge financial crisis themselves.

They owe thousands of crores in dues and the Supreme Court of India breathing down their neck.

Last year, the court had ordered them to pay the dues in 3 months. But to date, an overwhelming majority of this money has not been recovered.

The government suggested self-assessment by telecom companies. It filed a petition saying that this is in the interest of crores of consumers in India.

In response, the Supreme Court has lashed out at Telecom firms. Today it said that re-evaluation of dues will not be allowed. The court was furious and it was visible in the scathing remarks.

“We won't tolerate this, every company is violating orders. They want to hoodwink us. If required, we will summon MDs of all the telecom companies. We will send then to jail from here. We will recuse ourselves if this is the government's attitude,” said Justice Arun Mishra.

The central conflict between the government and telecom firms is the assessment of dues.

Telecom operators must pay the licence fee and spectrum charges. In October last year, the Supreme Court ordered telcos to pay over Rs 90,000 crores.&nbsp;

That verdict dealt a crippling blow to an already bruised industry. After the order, Vodafone idea and Bharti airtel posted their highest-ever losses.

Those two companies along with Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) and Reliance Jio calculated a combined liability of about Rs 37000 crores based on self-assessment.

The department of telecommunications has pegged its dues at over Rs 1 lakh crores. The companies say, as per their own assessment, they've already paid the dues. But according to the govt's calculations, they've only paid about 35% of the dues.

The latest Supreme Court order means they will have to pay the full amount. All they can bargain for is time. 
 
Who owns how much

Company &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Self-assessment &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Govt calculation

 
Bharti Airtel &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 13,004 cr&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 43, 980 cr

Vodafone Idea &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 21,533 cr&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rs 58, 254 cr

Tata Tele &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rs 2197 cr&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 16, 798 cr 
&nbsp; 
TOTAL &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 37000 cr (approx)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rs 1.19 lakh cr (approx)

India's mobile phone users have been putting up with poor connectivity for a while now. Telecom companies have not been investing in mobile infrastructure. They don't have the money to do it anymore.

India's mobile phone users have been putting up with poor connectivity for a while now. Telecom companies have not been investing in mobile infrastructure. They don't have the money to do it anymore. That's because they are faced with a huge financial crisis themselves. They owe thousands of crores in dues and the Supreme Court of India breathing down their neck. Last year, the court had ordered them to pay the dues in 3 months. But to date, an overwhelming majority of this money has not been recovered. The government suggested self-assessment by telecom companies. It filed a petition saying that this is in the interest of crores of consumers in India. In response, the Supreme Court has lashed out at Telecom firms. Today it said that re-evaluation of dues will not be allowed. The court was furious and it was visible in the scathing remarks. “We won't tolerate this, every company is violating orders. They want to hoodwink us. If required, we will summon MDs of all the telecom companies. We will send then to jail from here. We will recuse ourselves if this is the government's attitude,” said Justice Arun Mishra. The central conflict between the government and telecom firms is the assessment of dues. Telecom operators must pay the licence fee and spectrum charges. In October last year, the Supreme Court ordered telcos to pay over Rs 90,000 crores. That verdict dealt a crippling blow to an already bruised industry. After the order, Vodafone idea and Bharti airtel posted their highest-ever losses. Those two companies along with Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) and Reliance Jio calculated a combined liability of about Rs 37000 crores based on self-assessment. The department of telecommunications has pegged its dues at over Rs 1 lakh crores. The companies say, as per their own assessment, they've already paid the dues. But according to the govt's calculations, they've only paid about 35% of the dues. The latest Supreme Court order means they will have to pay the full amount. All they can bargain for is time. Who owns how much Company Self-assessment Govt calculation Bharti Airtel Rs 13,004 cr Rs 43, 980 cr Vodafone Idea Rs 21,533 cr Rs 58, 254 cr Tata Tele Rs 2197 cr Rs 16, 798 cr TOTAL Rs 37000 cr (approx) Rs 1.19 lakh cr (approx)

India's telecom crisis: Who owes how much

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. &nbsp;

This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash.&nbsp;

Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. &nbsp;

Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so.&nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. &nbsp;

Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. &nbsp;

Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same.&nbsp;

There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. 
 
Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts.

Judges manning the courts are custodians of the justice-delivery system. This system thrives and survives on public trust. For this reason, disputes engaging complex political, religious, and ethical dimensions find a quietus in courts. The most visible example in recent times was the settlement of the Ayodhya land dispute which brokered peace between two religious communities in India vying for a common piece of land. This verdict was given by a bench of five judges on November 9, 2019. The then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi presided over the bench. This verdict bought peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. The disputed area went to the majority Hindus while the minority Muslims got an alternate land of five acres. The nation was on the boil as the ruling party at the Centre – the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had made it their poll plank to construct a temple at this very site dedicated to Lord Ram, one of the Hindu Gods. The Court unanimously held the land to be Lord Ram’s birthplace. A mosque at this site had been brought down by Hindu karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Despite the heartburn, the verdict witnessed no communal backlash. Four months later, former CJI Gogoi, one of the architects of the Ayodhya verdict, has been nominated by Indian President Ram Nath Kovind as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The choice of the President is governed by the ruling political dispensation at the Centre. In this case, it is the BJP which benefitted the most from the Ayodhya verdict. Also, Gogoi was part of the bench that gave a clean chit to the same BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a multi-million dollar defence purchase deal. The clamour is growing for the ex-CJI to reject the offer. But Gogoi has decided to take oath. Gogoi knows that judges in the past, even CJIs, entered Parliament and accepted government posts. If Gogoi chooses to walk the beaten track, there is a disturbing history that should dissuade him from doing so. Justice (Retd) Bahrul Islam, served at the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1983. Six weeks remaining for his retirement, he resigned and got Congress ticket to Lok Sabha from Barpeta (Assam). A month before his resignation, he absolved chief minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, a tall Congress leader, in a case of forgery and criminal misconduct. Justice (Retd) Ranga Nath Mishra retired as CJI in 1991. In 1984, he headed a judicial commission to probe allegations whether the Delhi Sikh riots was orchestrated by the ruling Congress party and its leaders. The riots were in the aftermath of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Mishra’s report blamed the police but absolved the Congress party of any complicity. Within two years of his retirement, he became Chairman of India’s apex human rights body in October 1993. In 1998, Congress Party nominated him to the Rajya Sabha. A similar charge of quid pro quo was levelled against former CJI P Sathasivam. Soon after his retirement in April 2014, he became Governor of Kerala. A year ago, he favoured Amit Shah, the present Union Home Minister, who then faced a fake encounter case as the Home Minister of Gujarat. Sathasivam presided a bench that closed probe against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killing of one Tulsiram Prajapati. The judge responded to the criticism claiming any judge in his position would have ruled the same. There are other precedents too of judges accepting government posts. Judges after retirement are faced with a strong lure for political and constitutional offices. Many judges have hobnobbed with governments of the day for such posts. While nothing in law prevents judges from becoming Members of Parliament, it unnecessarily makes their decisions suspicious. This shakes public faith in judicial independence and casts doubts over their integrity. In England, there exists a bar upon retired judges to join the House of Commons. In India, this discretion is left to the judges. We do not need to control our judges. Their independence and impartiality have remained the hallmarks of their decision-making that has stood the test of time. For this reason, even the Constitution makers did not think it necessary to bar judges from holding post-retirement executive posts. But the time seems to be ripe for a rethink. After all, the judiciary is the last bastion for citizens to expect justice. And if public trust faulters, it will be hard for the judiciary to restore its institutional integrity. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Post-retirement jobs: Judiciary’s bane

Supreme Court on Tuesday granted permanent commission to&nbsp;women in the Indian Navy.

The bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said denying permanent commission to women officers who have served the nation would result in a serious miscarriage of justice.

India's top court said men and women officers should be treated equally and asked the government to consider granting permanent commission to all women officers in the Navy within three months with increments.

"Women can sail with the same efficiency as male officers and there should be no discrimination," the Supreme Court observed.

The apex court said, "Once the statutory bar was lifted to allow entry of women officers then male and female officers are to be treated equally in granting permanent commission."&nbsp;

The court quashed prospective effect of policy barring women officers inducted before 2008 from being granted permanent commission in Navy.

Supreme Court on Tuesday granted permanent commission to women in the Indian Navy. The bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said denying permanent commission to women officers who have served the nation would result in a serious miscarriage of justice.

Supreme Court on Tuesday granted permanent commission to women in the Indian Navy. The bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said denying permanent commission to women officers who have served the nation would result in a serious miscarriage of justice. India's top court said men and women officers should be treated equally and asked the government to consider granting permanent commission to all women officers in the Navy within three months with increments. "Women can sail with the same efficiency as male officers and there should be no discrimination," the Supreme Court observed. The apex court said, "Once the statutory bar was lifted to allow entry of women officers then male and female officers are to be treated equally in granting permanent commission." The court quashed prospective effect of policy barring women officers inducted before 2008 from being granted permanent commission in Navy.

Supreme Court grants permanent commission to women officers in Navy

A Delhi court on Friday sentenced expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar to 10 years' imprisonment in the murder case of Unnao rape victim's father.

District Judge Dharmesh Sharma directed both Kuldeep Singh Sengar and his brother Atul Singh Sengar to pay Rs 10 lakh each as compensation to the victim's family.

The victim's father had died in judicial custody on April 9, 2018.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-court-reserves-judgment-in-unnao-rape-case-267516">Delhi court reserves judgment in Unnao rape case</a>

The court had on March 4 convicted Kuldeep Singh Sengar for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the death of the Unnao rape victim's father.

Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted by the court along with seven others in the case, had denied any involvement in the death of the victim's father and had asserted that he has done no wrong.

On December 20 last year, Kuldeep Singh Sengar was sentenced to jail for "remainder of his natural biological life" in a separate case for raping the woman in 2017 when she was a minor.

Along with Kuldeep Singh Sengar, the then in-charge of Makhi Police Station Ashok Singh Bhadauria and then sub-inspector K P Singh, the court had held Vineet Mishra, Birendra Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh, Suman Singh and Atul (Sengar's brother) guilty of committing an offence under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unnao-rape-case-government-gives-rs-25-lakh-compensation-to-victims-family-trial-in-fast-track-court-266837"> Unnao rape case: Government gives Rs 25 lakh compensation to victim's family, trial in fast track court</a>

The other sections read with it are 166 (public servant disobeying law to cause injury to a person), 167 (public servant framing incorrect document to cause injury), 193 (false evidence), 201 (disappearance of evidence), 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure), 218 (public servant framing incorrect record to save a person from punishment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.

The court, however, had acquitted other accused constable Amir Khan, Shailendra Singh, Ram Sharan Singh and Sharadveer Singh giving them the benefit of doubt.

The CBI had examined 55 witnesses in support of the case and the defence had examined nine witnesses.

The court had recorded the statements of the rape victim's uncle, mother, sister and one of her father's colleague who had claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident.

According to the CBI, on April 3, 2018, there was an altercation between the rape victim's father and one Shashi Pratap Singh.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unnao-rape-case-cbi-files-charge-sheet-against-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar-150831">Unnao Rape Case: CBI files charge-sheet against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar</a>

The charge sheet filed on July 13, 2018, said the victim's father and his co-worker were returning to their village, Makhi when they asked Singh for a lift.

When Singh denied, an altercation ensued among them, the CBI had alleged.

Singh called his associates, following which Kuldeep Singh Sengar's brother Atul Singh Sengar reached the spot along with others and beat up the woman's father and his co-worker, the CBI claimed.

The woman's father was subsequently taken to the police station by them where an FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested.

The charge sheet said that all this while, Kuldeep Singh Sengar was in touch with the district police superintendent and Bhadauria.

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unnao-rape-case-cbi-arrests-bjp-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar-130306"> Unnao rape case: CBI arrests BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar</a>

Later, he also spoke to the doctor who examined the rape victim's father.

The case was transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1 last year.

In July 2019 a truck had rammed into the car the rape victim was travelling in with some family members and her lawyer. Two of her aunts died in the incident.

&nbsp;

A Delhi court on Friday sentenced expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar to 10 years' imprisonment in the murder case of Unnao rape victim's father. District Judge Dharmesh Sharma directed both Kuldeep Singh Sengar and his brother Atul Singh Sengar to pay Rs 10 lakh each as compensation to the victim's family.

A Delhi court on Friday sentenced expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar to 10 years' imprisonment in the murder case of Unnao rape victim's father. District Judge Dharmesh Sharma directed both Kuldeep Singh Sengar and his brother Atul Singh Sengar to pay Rs 10 lakh each as compensation to the victim's family. The victim's father had died in judicial custody on April 9, 2018. Also Read: Delhi court reserves judgment in Unnao rape case The court had on March 4 convicted Kuldeep Singh Sengar for culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the death of the Unnao rape victim's father. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was convicted by the court along with seven others in the case, had denied any involvement in the death of the victim's father and had asserted that he has done no wrong. On December 20 last year, Kuldeep Singh Sengar was sentenced to jail for "remainder of his natural biological life" in a separate case for raping the woman in 2017 when she was a minor. Along with Kuldeep Singh Sengar, the then in-charge of Makhi Police Station Ashok Singh Bhadauria and then sub-inspector K P Singh, the court had held Vineet Mishra, Birendra Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh, Suman Singh and Atul (Sengar's brother) guilty of committing an offence under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Also Read: Unnao rape case: Government gives Rs 25 lakh compensation to victim's family, trial in fast track court The other sections read with it are 166 (public servant disobeying law to cause injury to a person), 167 (public servant framing incorrect document to cause injury), 193 (false evidence), 201 (disappearance of evidence), 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure), 218 (public servant framing incorrect record to save a person from punishment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. The court, however, had acquitted other accused constable Amir Khan, Shailendra Singh, Ram Sharan Singh and Sharadveer Singh giving them the benefit of doubt. The CBI had examined 55 witnesses in support of the case and the defence had examined nine witnesses. The court had recorded the statements of the rape victim's uncle, mother, sister and one of her father's colleague who had claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. According to the CBI, on April 3, 2018, there was an altercation between the rape victim's father and one Shashi Pratap Singh. Also Read: Unnao Rape Case: CBI files charge-sheet against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar The charge sheet filed on July 13, 2018, said the victim's father and his co-worker were returning to their village, Makhi when they asked Singh for a lift. When Singh denied, an altercation ensued among them, the CBI had alleged. Singh called his associates, following which Kuldeep Singh Sengar's brother Atul Singh Sengar reached the spot along with others and beat up the woman's father and his co-worker, the CBI claimed. The woman's father was subsequently taken to the police station by them where an FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested. The charge sheet said that all this while, Kuldeep Singh Sengar was in touch with the district police superintendent and Bhadauria. Also Read: Unnao rape case: CBI arrests BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar Later, he also spoke to the doctor who examined the rape victim's father. The case was transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1 last year. In July 2019 a truck had rammed into the car the rape victim was travelling in with some family members and her lawyer. Two of her aunts died in the incident.

Unnao case: Delhi court sentences Kuldeep Sengar to 10 years in prison

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