Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing a plea against protests over the new citizenship law said that the country is going through a critical time and the "endeavour must be to bring peace".

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/criticism-is-not-best-form-of-correction-cji-sa-bobde-266833">S A Bobde</a> made the observations on a petition filed by a lawyer named Vineet Dhanda seeking stern legal action against those disturbing peace and harmony in the country in the name of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/citizenship-amendment-bill-avoidable-controversy-267862">Citizenship (Amendment) Act</a>.

The court said, "The country is going through the critical time, the endeavour must be to bring peace and such petitions do not help."

Dhanda also sought an urgent listing of his petition seeking to declare the newly amended citizenship law "constitutional".

The top court said it will hear his plea as soon as the violence stops. The plea also sought a direction to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/election-commission-clean-chit-to-pm-modi-in-two-more-speeches-215735">Election Commission of India</a> to identify and take strict action against political parties who are spreading false rumours and violence in the country in the name of the Act.

It further sought a direction to publicise the law extensively through newspapers, electronic media and other means of advertisement.

Dhanda also sought a direction to Centre to clarify that the Act is not against the spirit of the Constitution and is in no sense against any citizen of India.

Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing a plea against protests over the new citizenship law said that the country is going through a critical time and the "endeavour must be to bring peace".

Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing a plea against protests over the new citizenship law said that the country is going through a critical time and the "endeavour must be to bring peace". A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde made the observations on a petition filed by a lawyer named Vineet Dhanda seeking stern legal action against those disturbing peace and harmony in the country in the name of Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The court said, "The country is going through the critical time, the endeavour must be to bring peace and such petitions do not help." Dhanda also sought an urgent listing of his petition seeking to declare the newly amended citizenship law "constitutional". The top court said it will hear his plea as soon as the violence stops. The plea also sought a direction to the Election Commission of India to identify and take strict action against political parties who are spreading false rumours and violence in the country in the name of the Act. It further sought a direction to publicise the law extensively through newspapers, electronic media and other means of advertisement. Dhanda also sought a direction to Centre to clarify that the Act is not against the spirit of the Constitution and is in no sense against any citizen of India.

CAA protests: Endeavour must be to bring peace, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear on January 10 the Central government's petition seeking to transfer those PILs filed and pending in various state High Courts against the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to the apex court.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, mentioned the matter before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde.

He requested the top court to hear the matter by contending that the High Courts may take different views on the same issue.

After hearing the mentioning, CJI Bobde agreed to hear the petition on Friday.

It is to be noted that as many as 60 petitions have been filed before the court challenging the newly amended law.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear on January 10 the Central government's petition seeking to transfer those PILs filed and pending in various state High Courts against the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to the apex court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to hear on January 10 the Central government's petition seeking to transfer those PILs filed and pending in various state High Courts against the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to the apex court. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, mentioned the matter before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde. He requested the top court to hear the matter by contending that the High Courts may take different views on the same issue. After hearing the mentioning, CJI Bobde agreed to hear the petition on Friday. It is to be noted that as many as 60 petitions have been filed before the court challenging the newly amended law. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Supreme Court to hear Centre's PIL regarding transfer of pleas against CAA from state High Courts on January 10

The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Tuesday "strongly condemned" the violence against students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) by "anti-social elements", reported news agency ANI.

The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Tuesday "strongly condemned" the violence against students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) by "anti-social elements", reported news agency ANI. The SCBA also condemned the "inaction" Delhi Police and called upon the authorities to act and ensure that the rule of law prevails. On Sunday, a masked mob entered the varsity and attacked the students with sticks and rods in which more than 30 students were injured and taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre. Earlier today a group of lawyers read out the preamble of the Constitution at the Supreme Court lawns. Several universities across the country, including West Bengal`s Jadavpur University and Uttar Pradesh`s Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), led demonstrations against the violence on Monday, and leaders across political lines have condemned the incident. (With inputs from ANI)

Supreme Court Bar Association condemns JNU violence

The Pakistani government has decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict in the army chief <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-qamar-javed-bajwas-term-as-army-chief-extended-for-another-3-years-244163">Qamar Javed Bajwa</a>'s tenure extension case.

Law Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-bar-councils-nation-wide-strike-on-july-2-to-protest-reference-against-judges-231772">Farogh Nasim</a> and the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-attorney-general-seeks-death-penalty-for-accused-in-khashoggi-killing-188066">Attorney General</a> have prepared the first draft of the review petition.

The government will be challenging the court's order on the basis of "many legal aspects" that were not reviewed by it, Dawn reported quoting the law minister.

Prime Minister Imran Khan had extended Bajwa's tenure for another three years on August 19, 2019. The president then granted him the extension.

The extension was then challenged on the grounds that it is offensive to Article 243(4)(b) of the Constitution. The case was initially filed by the Jurists' Foundation but after it asked to withdraw the case, the court decided to take it up against itself. During the hearing, the court explored the scope of Article 243 of the Constitution, and the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-set-to-amend-army-act-for-kulbhushan-jadhav-to-appeal-261785">Pakistan Army Act, 1952</a>.

On November 28, the court extended Bajwa's tenure by six months and ordered the government to make a law regulating such appointments. The detailed 43-page written verdict in the case was released on December 16.

The judgment stated that the matter is being handed over to parliament in order to avoid such mistakes in the future. It also urged parliament to assign a tenure for the post of the army chief. 
It added that the federal government had included the word, extension, during the hearing held on November 26, however, the legislation was incorrect as it did not mention the details of the army chief's period of services and retirement age.

The court while announcing the order had given six months to the government for the legislation on the matter from parliament.

The Pakistani government has decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict in the army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa's tenure extension case. Law Minister Farogh Nasim and the Attorney General have prepared the first draft of the review petition.

The Pakistani government has decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict in the army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa's tenure extension case. Law Minister Farogh Nasim and the Attorney General have prepared the first draft of the review petition. The government will be challenging the court's order on the basis of "many legal aspects" that were not reviewed by it, Dawn reported quoting the law minister. Prime Minister Imran Khan had extended Bajwa's tenure for another three years on August 19, 2019. The president then granted him the extension. The extension was then challenged on the grounds that it is offensive to Article 243(4)(b) of the Constitution. The case was initially filed by the Jurists' Foundation but after it asked to withdraw the case, the court decided to take it up against itself. During the hearing, the court explored the scope of Article 243 of the Constitution, and the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. On November 28, the court extended Bajwa's tenure by six months and ordered the government to make a law regulating such appointments. The detailed 43-page written verdict in the case was released on December 16. The judgment stated that the matter is being handed over to parliament in order to avoid such mistakes in the future. It also urged parliament to assign a tenure for the post of the army chief. It added that the federal government had included the word, extension, during the hearing held on November 26, however, the legislation was incorrect as it did not mention the details of the army chief's period of services and retirement age. The court while announcing the order had given six months to the government for the legislation on the matter from parliament.

Pakistan government to file review plea against Supreme Court verdict in Qamar Javed Bajwa extension case

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come.

Many of these verdicts were passed during the tenure of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi's who also brought an end to, inarguably one of the most talked-about court cases in the history of India - Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

As the year draws to a close, let's have a look at the court verdict that gripped nation's attention through this year.

Ayodhya verdict

In November, the country waited with bated breath to know whether the disputed site in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya, belonged to Hindus or Muslims. As the day inched closers, prohibitory orders were imposed in different parts of the country as people stayed glued to their TV sets and social media sites to know all details of the verdict in real-time.

On November 9, a five-judge bench of the apex court unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and handed over the entire disputed land which was spread over 2.7 acres to a trust, which would be formed by the government. The trust is now tasked to monitor the construction of a temple at the site.

Calling the demolition of Babri Masjid an "egregious violation of the rule of law", the top court gave alternative five acres of land for the construction of a mosque at a prominent location in the same city. Not happy with the allotment of a separate land, a batch of petitions were filed against the judgment which was all later dismissed.

Rafale verdict

Rafale jet fighter deal not only remained a discussed topic in the defence circle but also made its way to the electoral battle before the issue was settled by the top court orders.

A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against the court's December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale jets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France. The petitioners had sought registration of FIR and CBI probe into their complaint against Rafale purchase.

In 2018, the court had dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in the procurement of jets. The court also said that it was not their job to go into the issue of pricing of the fighter planes.

On the outset, the bench also closed a contempt petition filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Rafale case to the top court.

Sabarimala case

In a 3:2 split verdict, the Supreme Court referred to a larger constitution bench a batch of review petitions against its September 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple.

The 2018 judgement of the court had sparked a series of protest across the state. This had lead to the filing of petitions seeking review of the top court's order. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people.

The review plea which was allowed by the court and will be heard in the time to come also argued that the Sabarimala deity is a "Brahmachari" [celibate] and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. Now, it is to be seen what the seven-judge bench rules in the matter.

Dismissal of Nirbhaya rapist's review petition

One of the death-row convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case, Akshay Kumar Singh, availed one of his legal remedies and moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its order which had convicted him and three others in the case.

Nirbhaya's mother also moved an application opposing his petition and at the same time pressing that they be hanged soon.

Giving relief to her, the top court rejected Akshay's petition. The review petition of the other three convicts was already rejected by the court last year. Now, the convicts who are facing the gallows will file curative and mercy petitions as a last resort. They are raped and murdered a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in December 2012. The case shook the conscience of the entire nation and also helped in shaping the rape laws.

Chief Justice of India under Right to Information

In an unusual case, the Supreme Court approached itself as one of the litigants. The case in question was whether the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The issue arose from an appeal filed by the secretary-general and central public information officer of the apex court against the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared the CJI's office a "public authority" under the RTI Act.

Observing that transparency strengthens judicial independence, the Supreme Court last month ruled that the Chief Justice of India's Office is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of RTI Act. It, however, contended that the Act cannot be used as a means of surveillance.

Maharashtra government formation

The government formed by BJP's Devendra Fadnavis and NCP's Ajit Pawar came crumbing down after the Supreme Court ordered for a floor test to be conducted.

Observing that there is a possibility of horse-trading if the floor test is delayed, the court ordered it to be conducted through an open ballot and be telecasted live to determine the strength of the BJP-led Maharashtra government.

Within hours, Fadnavis resigned from the post of chief minister thus paving a way for Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena to form the government.

Sexual harassment charges against Ranjan Gogoi

The Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi after allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against him by a former woman staffer earlier this year.

Feeling dejected, the woman said that she is on the verge of losing faith in the idea of justice. The clean chit was given to the CJI also received widespread criticism after the report of the committee was not made public.

Maradu flat demolition

The Supreme Court in May this year ordered the Kerala government to demolish four high-rise buildings in Maradu area of Kerala's Kochi city for violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules. As many as four hundred flats are set to be razed down by a controlled explosion on January 11 and 12 next year.

The apex court also ordered the state government to give interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the disgruntled flat owners.

P Chidambaram bail petition&nbsp;

Former finance minister P Chidambaram, who was put under lock and key in a matter pertaining to a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media during his tenure in 2007, sought bail from the Supreme Court.

Chidambaram was lodged in Tihar Jail in both corruption and money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respectively. The bail plea was allowed by the Supreme Court in both cases.

The court observed that he was not a flight risk and that there was no possibility of him tampering with the evidence.

Reservation to Maratha community

The Supreme Court refused to stay the judgment passed by Bombay High Court and upheld the reservation given to the Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs.

The order had come days after the Bombay High Court directed to cap the reservation for the community at 12 per cent for admission in educational institutions and 13 per cent for government jobs.

Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA registration

In a major relief to the disgruntled homebuyers, the top court cancelled Amrapali's Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act registration. The court directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete the unfinished housing projects of Amrapali in Noida and Greater Noida areas and handover them to the homebuyers as soon as possible.

The bench also directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a detailed investigation against the group for diverting homebuyers' money.

Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus petition

After the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was abrogated and various politicians were put under detention, CPI-M general secretary Sitaram Yechury approached the court challenging the detention of his party leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami.

He moved a Habeas Corpus petition which seeks the person under arrest to be brought before a court, especially to secure their release.

The Supreme Court then allowed Yechury to meet his friend in Srinagar and filed an affidavit. On its basis, Tarigami was shifted to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for treatment. In another case, the court refused to pass any order on Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, who is under detention, before it.

Dilution of SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court allowed Centre's petition seeking review of the court's earlier judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Centre had sought review of judgment which stated that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act and arrest of public servants can only be made after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP.

Karnataka MLA disqualification

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs under the anti-defection law and allowed them to contest the by-elections in the state.

The verdict cleared the air around the relation between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The rebel legislators were disqualified after they tendered their resignation. The move had led to the fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state.&nbsp;

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come.

Country's apex court - the Supreme Court of India pronounced a series of landmark judgments in 2019, which not only will remain embedded in history but also in our minds in times to come. Many of these verdicts were passed during the tenure of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi's who also brought an end to, inarguably one of the most talked-about court cases in the history of India - Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. As the year draws to a close, let's have a look at the court verdict that gripped nation's attention through this year. Ayodhya verdict In November, the country waited with bated breath to know whether the disputed site in Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya, belonged to Hindus or Muslims. As the day inched closers, prohibitory orders were imposed in different parts of the country as people stayed glued to their TV sets and social media sites to know all details of the verdict in real-time. On November 9, a five-judge bench of the apex court unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and handed over the entire disputed land which was spread over 2.7 acres to a trust, which would be formed by the government. The trust is now tasked to monitor the construction of a temple at the site. Calling the demolition of Babri Masjid an "egregious violation of the rule of law", the top court gave alternative five acres of land for the construction of a mosque at a prominent location in the same city. Not happy with the allotment of a separate land, a batch of petitions were filed against the judgment which was all later dismissed. Rafale verdict Rafale jet fighter deal not only remained a discussed topic in the defence circle but also made its way to the electoral battle before the issue was settled by the top court orders. A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph dismissed a batch of review petitions filed against the court's December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale jets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France. The petitioners had sought registration of FIR and CBI probe into their complaint against Rafale purchase. In 2018, the court had dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in the procurement of jets. The court also said that it was not their job to go into the issue of pricing of the fighter planes. On the outset, the bench also closed a contempt petition filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Rafale case to the top court. Sabarimala case In a 3:2 split verdict, the Supreme Court referred to a larger constitution bench a batch of review petitions against its September 2018 verdict allowing entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple. The 2018 judgement of the court had sparked a series of protest across the state. This had lead to the filing of petitions seeking review of the top court's order. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people. The review plea which was allowed by the court and will be heard in the time to come also argued that the Sabarimala deity is a "Brahmachari" [celibate] and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. Now, it is to be seen what the seven-judge bench rules in the matter. Dismissal of Nirbhaya rapist's review petition One of the death-row convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case, Akshay Kumar Singh, availed one of his legal remedies and moved the Supreme Court seeking review of its order which had convicted him and three others in the case. Nirbhaya's mother also moved an application opposing his petition and at the same time pressing that they be hanged soon. Giving relief to her, the top court rejected Akshay's petition. The review petition of the other three convicts was already rejected by the court last year. Now, the convicts who are facing the gallows will file curative and mercy petitions as a last resort. They are raped and murdered a 23-year-old girl in a moving bus in December 2012. The case shook the conscience of the entire nation and also helped in shaping the rape laws. Chief Justice of India under Right to Information In an unusual case, the Supreme Court approached itself as one of the litigants. The case in question was whether the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The issue arose from an appeal filed by the secretary-general and central public information officer of the apex court against the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared the CJI's office a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Observing that transparency strengthens judicial independence, the Supreme Court last month ruled that the Chief Justice of India's Office is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of RTI Act. It, however, contended that the Act cannot be used as a means of surveillance. Maharashtra government formation The government formed by BJP's Devendra Fadnavis and NCP's Ajit Pawar came crumbing down after the Supreme Court ordered for a floor test to be conducted. Observing that there is a possibility of horse-trading if the floor test is delayed, the court ordered it to be conducted through an open ballot and be telecasted live to determine the strength of the BJP-led Maharashtra government. Within hours, Fadnavis resigned from the post of chief minister thus paving a way for Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena to form the government. Sexual harassment charges against Ranjan Gogoi The Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to former CJI Ranjan Gogoi after allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against him by a former woman staffer earlier this year. Feeling dejected, the woman said that she is on the verge of losing faith in the idea of justice. The clean chit was given to the CJI also received widespread criticism after the report of the committee was not made public. Maradu flat demolition The Supreme Court in May this year ordered the Kerala government to demolish four high-rise buildings in Maradu area of Kerala's Kochi city for violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules. As many as four hundred flats are set to be razed down by a controlled explosion on January 11 and 12 next year. The apex court also ordered the state government to give interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the disgruntled flat owners. P Chidambaram bail petition Former finance minister P Chidambaram, who was put under lock and key in a matter pertaining to a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media during his tenure in 2007, sought bail from the Supreme Court. Chidambaram was lodged in Tihar Jail in both corruption and money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respectively. The bail plea was allowed by the Supreme Court in both cases. The court observed that he was not a flight risk and that there was no possibility of him tampering with the evidence. Reservation to Maratha community The Supreme Court refused to stay the judgment passed by Bombay High Court and upheld the reservation given to the Maratha community in educational institutions and government jobs. The order had come days after the Bombay High Court directed to cap the reservation for the community at 12 per cent for admission in educational institutions and 13 per cent for government jobs. Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA registration In a major relief to the disgruntled homebuyers, the top court cancelled Amrapali's Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act registration. The court directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to complete the unfinished housing projects of Amrapali in Noida and Greater Noida areas and handover them to the homebuyers as soon as possible. The bench also directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a detailed investigation against the group for diverting homebuyers' money. Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus petition After the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was abrogated and various politicians were put under detention, CPI-M general secretary Sitaram Yechury approached the court challenging the detention of his party leader Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami. He moved a Habeas Corpus petition which seeks the person under arrest to be brought before a court, especially to secure their release. The Supreme Court then allowed Yechury to meet his friend in Srinagar and filed an affidavit. On its basis, Tarigami was shifted to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for treatment. In another case, the court refused to pass any order on Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, who is under detention, before it. Dilution of SC/ST Act The Supreme Court allowed Centre's petition seeking review of the court's earlier judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Centre had sought review of judgment which stated that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the Act and arrest of public servants can only be made after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the SSP. Karnataka MLA disqualification The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs under the anti-defection law and allowed them to contest the by-elections in the state. The verdict cleared the air around the relation between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The rebel legislators were disqualified after they tendered their resignation. The move had led to the fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state.

From the corridors of judiciary: Supreme Court verdicts that held nation's attention in 2019

The Sabarimala review petitions will be now heard by a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in January 2020.

On December 13, the Supreme Court had said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which, it had said, will be constituted soon.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde had made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists -- Bindu Ammini and Fathima A S -- seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine.

"There is a judgment [allowing women entry] in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any violence," the court had observed.

The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists. In November, a man had sprayed chili and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple.

Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine. The apex court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter.

The top court had last year allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed.

Allowing their review petitions, the court had last month referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Sabarimala review petitions will be now heard by a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in January 2020. On December 13, the Supreme Court had said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which, it had said, will be constituted soon.

The Sabarimala review petitions will be now heard by a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in January 2020. On December 13, the Supreme Court had said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which, it had said, will be constituted soon. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde had made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists -- Bindu Ammini and Fathima A S -- seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine. "There is a judgment [allowing women entry] in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any violence," the court had observed. The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists. In November, a man had sprayed chili and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple. Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine. The apex court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter. The top court had last year allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed. Allowing their review petitions, the court had last month referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.

Larger constitution bench of Supreme Court to Sabarimala review petitions in January

Even as Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in India has led to lot of global reactions, member of the central government coalition in Malaysia P Ramasamy has questioned the Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad and has said that he "may not have understood the purpose of the new amendment to the citizenship law in India."

Writing in Free Malaysia Today, one of the most popular websites of the south-east Asian country, Ramasamy said Mahathir Bin Mohamad may have "overreacted by saying that India should not deprive Muslims of their citizenship."

P Ramasamy is the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang state situated in northwestern peninsular Malaysia and he is a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which is part of the Pakatan Harapan coalition led by Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad.

Explaining the CAA law, Ramasamy said, "new amendment to India’s citizenship law is not about depriving Muslims of their citizenship. Far from it. The new law has nothing to do with Muslims in India."

Adding, "It is about fast-tracking citizenship for non-Muslim minorities like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Parsis, who have been shunned and discriminated in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, countries that have declared themselves as the Islamic nation".

India has slammed Malaysian PM for his comments on the law that was passed by India's parliament in early December.&nbsp;

The ministry of external affairs in a release said, "Prime Minister of Malaysia’s comment is factually inaccurate" and New Delhi "call upon Malaysia to refrain from commenting on internal developments in India, especially without a right understanding of the facts."

Malaysian PM has two times in the past few days reacted on India's CAA law.&nbsp;

On Saturday morning he again commented on the law saying it is unfortunate and "to exclude Muslims from becoming citizens even by due process is unfair. Have voice our disagreement".

Mahathir was among the few global leaders, along with Turkey's President Erdoğan who were critical of New Delhi after it removed the special status for the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Even as Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in India has led to lot of global reactions, member of the central government coalition in Malaysia P Ramasamy has questioned the Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad and has said that he "may not have understood the purpose of the new amendment to the citizenship law in India.

Even as Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in India has led to lot of global reactions, member of the central government coalition in Malaysia P Ramasamy has questioned the Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad and has said that he "may not have understood the purpose of the new amendment to the citizenship law in India." Writing in Free Malaysia Today, one of the most popular websites of the south-east Asian country, Ramasamy said Mahathir Bin Mohamad may have "overreacted by saying that India should not deprive Muslims of their citizenship." P Ramasamy is the Deputy Chief Minister of Penang state situated in northwestern peninsular Malaysia and he is a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) which is part of the Pakatan Harapan coalition led by Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad. Explaining the CAA law, Ramasamy said, "new amendment to India’s citizenship law is not about depriving Muslims of their citizenship. Far from it. The new law has nothing to do with Muslims in India." Adding, "It is about fast-tracking citizenship for non-Muslim minorities like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Parsis, who have been shunned and discriminated in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, countries that have declared themselves as the Islamic nation". India has slammed Malaysian PM for his comments on the law that was passed by India's parliament in early December. The ministry of external affairs in a release said, "Prime Minister of Malaysia’s comment is factually inaccurate" and New Delhi "call upon Malaysia to refrain from commenting on internal developments in India, especially without a right understanding of the facts." Malaysian PM has two times in the past few days reacted on India's CAA law. On Saturday morning he again commented on the law saying it is unfortunate and "to exclude Muslims from becoming citizens even by due process is unfair. Have voice our disagreement". Mahathir was among the few global leaders, along with Turkey's President Erdoğan who were critical of New Delhi after it removed the special status for the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

CAA fallout: Member of Malaysian central government coalition says PM Mahathir has overreacted

At least 59 petitions has been filed by political parties, students and, lawyers in Supreme Court against the Amended Citizenship Act in India.

WION Dispatch: 59 petitions filed in Supreme Court against Amended Citizenship Act

Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the review petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the death-row convicts, in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape and murder case. Earlier during proceedings, Senior advocate AP Singh, representing Akshay, told a newly-constituted bench headed by Justice R Banumathi that his client has been "falsely implicated" in the case and argued against the death penalty awarded to him.

Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the review petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the death-row convicts, in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape and murder case. Earlier during proceedings, Senior advocate AP Singh, representing Akshay, told a newly-constituted bench headed by Justice R Banumathi that his client has been "falsely implicated" in the case and argued against the death penalty awarded to him. "Death penalty is a primitive method of punishment. Execution kills the criminal not the crime. Use of the death penalty did not seem to have a deterrent effect on criminals and convicts," Singh contended. The counsel said that the victim died of septicaemia and drug overdose and wrong reports were made to falsely implicate his client. "The dying declaration was doubtful. This was tutored. This was not voluntary. She has not named Akshay as the accused who had committed the offence," he added. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi state, said that no mercy should be granted. "There are crimes where humanity is put to shame...crimes when God cries...there should be no mercy," he said. Akshay has moved the top court seeking review of its 2017 verdict which upheld the death penalty awarded to him and three others in the case.

2012 Delhi gangrape: Supreme Court rejects review petition of Akshay Kumar Singh

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stall the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act after a three judge-bench led by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde along with Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant heard 20 petitions challenging the Act.&nbsp;

Up to 60 petitions have been filed so far questioning the legal validity of the Act that has stirred violent protests throughout the country.

The court also issued a notice to the Centre on a batch of pleas challenging the CAA, asking the Centre to file its response by the second week of January.&nbsp;

The petitioners come from all walks of life including Political parties like Indian union of Muslim League, Asom Gana Parishad, Kamal Haasan’s Makkal Needhi Maiam; leading politicians Jairam Ramesh, Mahua Moitra and Asaduddin Owaisi; a lawyers association from Assam and student movements like Democratic Youth Federation of India and All Assam Students Union.&nbsp;

The petitioners want the newly enforced law to be struck down as violative of Fundamental Rights (Article 14), opposed to Secularism that forms a basic feature of our Constitution and also wants the Court to decide whether religion can be the basis to declare someone a citizen as it has never happened in the past.

The petitioners want to know the basis on which Centre has concluded that non-Muslim migrants need to be included as citizens while denying it to Muslim migrants along with questioning the discretion of Centre to exclude Sri Lanka and Burma where religious persecution has forced many to take shelter in India.

They question the assumption that Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh face no discrimination and list out Shias and Ahmediyas in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan as examples.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 became an Act after receiving formal assent from President Ram Nath Kovind on December 13.&nbsp;

The highly contentious Act seeks to grant Indian citizenship to undocumented religious minorities-namely Hindus, Sikh, Jain, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from the neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan who moved to the country before the date of December 31, 2014.

&nbsp;It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 which regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds by adding provisions for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b) that they shall not be treated as illegal migrants. Illegal migrants are not eligible for Indian Citizenship.

&nbsp;Under the provisions for procurement of citizenship by naturalisation, the BJP lead Indian government seeks to amend the requirement that the applicant must have resided in India "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years" for the mentioned six religious communities from the three Muslim majority countries through Section 2(1) (b).

The Bill also seeks to amend provisions related to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, making it possible to cancel OCI registration of these persons in case of violation of any law notified by the Central Government.

The apex court said it would hear petitions challenging the law on January 22 as December 18 is the last working day of the Supreme Court before it reopens January 1 after winter break.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stall the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act after a three judge-bench led by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde along with Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant heard 20 petitions challenging the Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stall the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act after a three judge-bench led by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde along with Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant heard 20 petitions challenging the Act. Up to 60 petitions have been filed so far questioning the legal validity of the Act that has stirred violent protests throughout the country. The court also issued a notice to the Centre on a batch of pleas challenging the CAA, asking the Centre to file its response by the second week of January. The petitioners come from all walks of life including Political parties like Indian union of Muslim League, Asom Gana Parishad, Kamal Haasan’s Makkal Needhi Maiam; leading politicians Jairam Ramesh, Mahua Moitra and Asaduddin Owaisi; a lawyers association from Assam and student movements like Democratic Youth Federation of India and All Assam Students Union. The petitioners want the newly enforced law to be struck down as violative of Fundamental Rights (Article 14), opposed to Secularism that forms a basic feature of our Constitution and also wants the Court to decide whether religion can be the basis to declare someone a citizen as it has never happened in the past. The petitioners want to know the basis on which Centre has concluded that non-Muslim migrants need to be included as citizens while denying it to Muslim migrants along with questioning the discretion of Centre to exclude Sri Lanka and Burma where religious persecution has forced many to take shelter in India. They question the assumption that Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh face no discrimination and list out Shias and Ahmediyas in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan as examples. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 became an Act after receiving formal assent from President Ram Nath Kovind on December 13. The highly contentious Act seeks to grant Indian citizenship to undocumented religious minorities-namely Hindus, Sikh, Jain, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from the neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan who moved to the country before the date of December 31, 2014. It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 which regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds by adding provisions for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b) that they shall not be treated as illegal migrants. Illegal migrants are not eligible for Indian Citizenship. Under the provisions for procurement of citizenship by naturalisation, the BJP lead Indian government seeks to amend the requirement that the applicant must have resided in India "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years" for the mentioned six religious communities from the three Muslim majority countries through Section 2(1) (b). The Bill also seeks to amend provisions related to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, making it possible to cancel OCI registration of these persons in case of violation of any law notified by the Central Government. The apex court said it would hear petitions challenging the law on January 22 as December 18 is the last working day of the Supreme Court before it reopens January 1 after winter break.

As Supreme Court refuses to stall implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, here is what petitioners are seeking

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stall the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act that lays out a path for non-Muslim minorities from some neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan to apply for Indian citizenship, despite violent protests across the country.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stall the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Act that lays out a path for non-Muslim minorities from some neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan to apply for Indian citizenship, despite violent protests across the country. A Bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The court also issued a notice to the Centre on a batch of pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The apex court has asked the Centre to file it response by the second week of January. The apex court said it would hear petitions challenging the law on January 22. The petitioners argue that it violates India's secular constitution.

Supreme Court refuses to stall implementation of CAA, issues notice to Centre  

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday plea of a convict seeking review of the court`s earlier judgment upholding his death penalty in the Nirbhaya gang rape-and-murder case.

The new bench has been constituted to hear Akshay Kumar Singh's review petition after Chief Justice SA Bobde recused himself on personal grounds from a bench, which also comprised Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, from hearing the case earlier today.

Justice SA Bopanna has replaced the Chief Justice in the new bench. Notably, Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan were part of the court's bench which rejected the review petitions of other three convicts in the case.

Akshay had moved the court seeking review of its 2017 verdict which had upheld the death penalty awarded to him and three others in the case. Singh has sought modification and leniency in the sentence.

In May 2017, Mukesh, Akshay, Pawan and Vinay had knocked the doors of the apex court against a Delhi High Court order which confirmed the capital punishment awarded to them by the trial court in September 2013.

The top court also upheld their death penalty.

In a voluminous judgement, the bench of the top court had held the attitude of offenders as "bestial proclivity" and said, "It sounds like a story from a different world where humanity is treated with irreverence."

Subsequently, the three convicts besides Akshay sought review of the judgment but it was dismissed.

They are facing the gallows for rape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012.

Besides four convicts, prime accused Ram Singh had committed suicide in the Tihar jail during the trial of the case. Another accused appeared was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday plea of a convict seeking review of the court`s earlier judgment upholding his death penalty in the Nirbhaya gang rape-and-murder case.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday plea of a convict seeking review of the court`s earlier judgment upholding his death penalty in the Nirbhaya gang rape-and-murder case. The new bench has been constituted to hear Akshay Kumar Singh's review petition after Chief Justice SA Bobde recused himself on personal grounds from a bench, which also comprised Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, from hearing the case earlier today. Justice SA Bopanna has replaced the Chief Justice in the new bench. Notably, Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan were part of the court's bench which rejected the review petitions of other three convicts in the case. Akshay had moved the court seeking review of its 2017 verdict which had upheld the death penalty awarded to him and three others in the case. Singh has sought modification and leniency in the sentence. In May 2017, Mukesh, Akshay, Pawan and Vinay had knocked the doors of the apex court against a Delhi High Court order which confirmed the capital punishment awarded to them by the trial court in September 2013. The top court also upheld their death penalty. In a voluminous judgement, the bench of the top court had held the attitude of offenders as "bestial proclivity" and said, "It sounds like a story from a different world where humanity is treated with irreverence." Subsequently, the three convicts besides Akshay sought review of the judgment but it was dismissed. They are facing the gallows for rape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012. Besides four convicts, prime accused Ram Singh had committed suicide in the Tihar jail during the trial of the case. Another accused appeared was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court.

New Supreme Court bench to hear convict's review plea in Nirbhaya gangrape case on Wednesday

Watch in WION Dispatch: Protest in East Delhi turns violent over CAA. Watch this video as WION's Principle Diplomatic Siddhant Sibbal tells you more on this. #WIONDispatch #WION

WION Dispatch: Protest in East Delhi turns violent over CAA

In Anti-CAA Protests, SC refused to probe into police action on the protesters and asked to approach High Court for the same. Watch this video to know more.#CAA #SupremeCourt #HighCourt

Anti-CAA Protests: SC refused to probe into police action, asked to approach High Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to urgently list a matter related to the amended citizenship law and said that it cannot assume jurisdiction for whatever is happening across the country.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to urgently list a matter related to the amended citizenship law and said that it cannot assume jurisdiction for whatever is happening across the country. "We are not a trial court. We cannot assume jurisdiction for whatever is happening all over the country. The situations may be different, facts and circumstances may be different," a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde told senior advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who mentioned the matter before it for urgent hearing. Chief Justice S A Bobde said that he should have moved the High Court first. Upadhyay contended before the apex court that, in the name of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, public properties, including trains and fire tenders were destroyed in West Bengal`s Murshidabad. He sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the case. The Act grants Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Parsi communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Another petition was mentioned before the top court relating to the Jamia Millia Islamia violence. It sought an investigation to be conducted under the supervision of LG. (With inputs from ANI)

Citizenship Amendment Act: Chief Justice Bobde asks petitioner to approach High Court

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-put-on-hold-local-body-polls-in-9-newly-formed-districts-in-tamil-nadu-266599">DMK</a>) on Tuesday filed a petition in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-protests-supreme-court-to-hear-plea-after-violence-stops-268456">Supreme Court</a> against the recently-enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

DMK President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-sujiths-demise-tamil-nadu-chief-minister-urges-public-to-cover-borewells-announces-solatium-of-rs-20-lakhs-258693">MK Stalin</a> also protested against the amended citizenship law in Kanchipuram today.

Protests were also held by party leaders Kanimozhi and Dayanidhi Maran in Chennai Collectorate and Chepauk, respectively.

DMK chief MK Stalin even termed the law as a direct assault on secularism, equality, and fraternity and slammed the AIADMK saying its stand is "completely exposed for its decision to support this immoral legislation".

DMK party leaders and cadre have been protesting against the citizenship law ever since it was passed in both Houses of the Parliament and received the assent of the President.

Protests have also erupted across the country over the new law.

The act seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Parsi communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-protests-against-citizenship-amendment-act-the-story-so-far-268597/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on Tuesday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the recently-enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. DMK President MK Stalin also protested against the amended citizenship law in Kanchipuram today.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on Tuesday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the recently-enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. DMK President MK Stalin also protested against the amended citizenship law in Kanchipuram today. Protests were also held by party leaders Kanimozhi and Dayanidhi Maran in Chennai Collectorate and Chepauk, respectively. DMK chief MK Stalin even termed the law as a direct assault on secularism, equality, and fraternity and slammed the AIADMK saying its stand is "completely exposed for its decision to support this immoral legislation". DMK party leaders and cadre have been protesting against the citizenship law ever since it was passed in both Houses of the Parliament and received the assent of the President. Protests have also erupted across the country over the new law. The act seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Parsi communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

DMK files petition in Supreme Court against Citizenship (Amendment) Act

Supreme Court junks plea on Telangana encounter deaths, asks petioner to approach Telangana High Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a petition relating to the custodial death of four persons accused of raping and murdering a veterinary doctor in Telangana, earlier this month, reported news agency ANI.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde asked activist K Sajaya to approach Telangana High Court with the petition for collection of evidence concerning custodial death.

The veterinarian was gang-raped and killed by four people before they burnt her body in Telangana`s Shamshabad on November 27. Her charred body was recovered a day later.A few days later, the accused -- Mohammed Arif, Naveen, Shiva, and Chennakeshavulu -- were killed in a police encounter.

Following the encounter, a batch of petitions was filed in the top court. Subsequently, the court had last week ordered setting up of a three-member inquiry commission to probe the encounter case.&nbsp;

Supreme Court junks plea on Telangana encounter deaths, asks petioner to approach Telangana High Court The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a petition relating to the custodial death of four persons accused of raping and murdering a veterinary doctor in Telangana, earlier this month, reported news agency ANI.

Supreme Court junks plea on Telangana encounter deaths, asks petioner to approach Telangana High Court The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a petition relating to the custodial death of four persons accused of raping and murdering a veterinary doctor in Telangana, earlier this month, reported news agency ANI. A Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde asked activist K Sajaya to approach Telangana High Court with the petition for collection of evidence concerning custodial death. The veterinarian was gang-raped and killed by four people before they burnt her body in Telangana`s Shamshabad on November 27. Her charred body was recovered a day later.A few days later, the accused -- Mohammed Arif, Naveen, Shiva, and Chennakeshavulu -- were killed in a police encounter. Following the encounter, a batch of petitions was filed in the top court. Subsequently, the court had last week ordered setting up of a three-member inquiry commission to probe the encounter case.

Supreme Court junks plea on Telangana encounter deaths, asks petitioner to approach Telangana High Court

Watch in WION Dispatch: SC to probe police action at JMI University. Watch this video as WION's Principle Diplomatic Siddhant Sibbal, WION's Correspondent Nishita & WION's Political Editor Kartikeya Sharma tells you more on this. #WIONDispatch #WION

WION Dispatch: SC to probe police action at JMI University

The Apex Court will hear petitions over Citizenship Amendment Bill on December 18. #CAA #SupremeCourt

Anti-CAA protest: Apex court to hear petitions on December 18

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will not take suo motu cognizance of the petition filed against protests in Delhi until "violence and destruction of public properties" stops.

"Let the rioting stop. Public property is being destroyed. The court can`t do anything right now. We will determine the rights but not in the atmosphere of riots. Let this stop and then we will take suo motu cognizance. If protests violence and destruction of public properties continues, we will not hear it. Come back tomorrow," a bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde was quoted as saying.&nbsp;

The matter came up for hearing against the backdrop of violent protests in Delhi`s Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University yesterday over newly enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

Mentioning the matter before the bench, senior advocate Indira Jaising&nbsp;requested the apex court to take suo motu cognizance of violence.

"Human right violence is taking place all over the country. No one can stop the peaceful protest in this country. Hundreds of students injured, buses are burnt by the police and blame is being put on students," she said.

On these contentions, the Chief Justice Bobde said the law and order situation should be handled by the police.

"Just because they happen to be students, it doesn`t mean they can take law and order in their own hands. This has to be decided when things cool down. This is not the frame of mind when we can decide anything. We will take cognizance, but let this stop. We will see what we can do. First, we want to assure that there is peace," CJI Bobde said.

He, however, clarified that the court is "not against rights and peaceful demonstration" by the protesters.

The Act provides citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities who faced religious persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan and arrived in India before December 31, 2014.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will not take suo motu cognizance of the petition filed against protests in Delhi until "violence and destruction of public properties" stops.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will not take suo motu cognizance of the petition filed against protests in Delhi until "violence and destruction of public properties" stops. "Let the rioting stop. Public property is being destroyed. The court can`t do anything right now. We will determine the rights but not in the atmosphere of riots. Let this stop and then we will take suo motu cognizance. If protests violence and destruction of public properties continues, we will not hear it. Come back tomorrow," a bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde was quoted as saying. The matter came up for hearing against the backdrop of violent protests in Delhi`s Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University yesterday over newly enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Mentioning the matter before the bench, senior advocate Indira Jaising requested the apex court to take suo motu cognizance of violence. "Human right violence is taking place all over the country. No one can stop the peaceful protest in this country. Hundreds of students injured, buses are burnt by the police and blame is being put on students," she said. On these contentions, the Chief Justice Bobde said the law and order situation should be handled by the police. "Just because they happen to be students, it doesn`t mean they can take law and order in their own hands. This has to be decided when things cool down. This is not the frame of mind when we can decide anything. We will take cognizance, but let this stop. We will see what we can do. First, we want to assure that there is peace," CJI Bobde said. He, however, clarified that the court is "not against rights and peaceful demonstration" by the protesters. The Act provides citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities who faced religious persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan and arrived in India before December 31, 2014. (With inputs from ANI)

Citizenship Amendment Act: Supreme Court agrees to hear plea once violence stops

The Supreme Court on Friday said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which it said will be constituted soon.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists -- Bindu Ammini and Fathima A S -- seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine.

"There is a judgment [allowing women entry] in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any violence," the court observed.

The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists.

In November, a man had sprayed chilli and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple. Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine.

The court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter.

The top court had last year allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed.

Allowing their review petitions, the court had last month referred the matter to a seven-judge bench. It is yet to be constituted.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which it said will be constituted soon.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that its 2018 order on Sabarimala temple issue was "not final" as the matter is pending before a seven-judge bench, which it said will be constituted soon. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde made these observations while passing an order on a petition filed by two activists -- Bindu Ammini and Fathima A S -- seeking safe passage for women inside the shrine. "There is a judgment [allowing women entry] in the Sabarimala temple, but it is equally true that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench. We do not want any violence," the court observed. The apex court, however, granted police protection to the two activists. In November, a man had sprayed chilli and pepper on Bindu's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple. Fathima had also tried to enter the shrine. The court refused to pass any other order in connection to the matter. The top court had last year allowed girls and women of all age groups to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala, following which a batch of review petitions was filed. Allowing their review petitions, the court had last month referred the matter to a seven-judge bench. It is yet to be constituted.

Sabarimala case: Seven-judge bench to be constituted soon, says Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iuml-to-file-plea-in-supreme-court-against-citizenship-amendment-bill-267775">Indian Union Muslim League</a> (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-one-can-take-away-your-rights-unique-identity-prime-minister-assures-assam-on-citizenship-amendment-bill-267780">Citizenship (Amendment) Bill</a>, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

IUML, in its petition, requested the apex court to stay the Bill and its operation. The Muslim League also pleaded to declare it "illegal and void" for violating Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

In a copy made available to ANI, the league requested the court to pass and grant an interim stay on the operation of the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015; and decision arising from the aforesaid rules.

"Kapil Sibal will be representing us in the court. We are confident that we will win the case as it is strong both legally and morally. The Bill violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution," said Mohammad Bashir, IUML member and Lok Sabha lawmaker from Ponnani.

The lawmaker said the Constitution of India is being "ruthlessly ignored" by the government.

The Bill, which was passed by Parliament on Wednesday, faced its first legal challenge with the filing of the petition.

IUML national secretary <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-chaired-all-party-meeting-over-one-nation-one-election-underway-at-parliament-228677">P K Kunhalikutty </a>also said that since the Bill discriminates on the grounds of religion, it will not stand any ground in the top court.

The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favor of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. 
&nbsp;

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the question of legality of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament. IUML, in its petition, requested the apex court to stay the Bill and its operation. The Muslim League also pleaded to declare it "illegal and void" for violating Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In a copy made available to ANI, the league requested the court to pass and grant an interim stay on the operation of the Foreigner Amendment (Order), 2015 and Passport (Entry Into Rules), Amendment Rules, 2015; and decision arising from the aforesaid rules. "Kapil Sibal will be representing us in the court. We are confident that we will win the case as it is strong both legally and morally. The Bill violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution," said Mohammad Bashir, IUML member and Lok Sabha lawmaker from Ponnani. The lawmaker said the Constitution of India is being "ruthlessly ignored" by the government. The Bill, which was passed by Parliament on Wednesday, faced its first legal challenge with the filing of the petition. IUML national secretary P K Kunhalikutty also said that since the Bill discriminates on the grounds of religion, it will not stand any ground in the top court. The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favor of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Indian Union Muslim League moves Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Bill

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will&nbsp;file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Four petitioners including Lok Sabha MPs Kunhalikutty PK, Navas Kani, ET Mohammed Basheer and Rajya Sabha MP Abdul Wahab of IUML will also speak to media after filing the plea.

Opposition parties and locals in northeastern states are staging protest against the passage of the CAB.

Indefinite curfew has been imposed in few districts of Assam in the wake of protests after the passage of the CAB in Rajya Sabha.

The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament. Four petitioners including Lok Sabha MPs Kunhalikutty PK, Navas Kani, ET Mohammed Basheer and Rajya Sabha MP Abdul Wahab of IUML will also speak to media after filing the plea. Opposition parties and locals in northeastern states are staging protest against the passage of the CAB. Indefinite curfew has been imposed in few districts of Assam in the wake of protests after the passage of the CAB in Rajya Sabha. The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

IUML to file plea in Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Bill

Nirbhaya's mother on Thursday said that she has appealed to the Supreme Court and Central government to execute the convicts immediately.

"It has been two and a half years since the Supreme Court passed the order on their conviction and 18 months since their review petitions were dismissed. I have appealed to the court and government to hang them immediately," Asha Devi told ANI.

Her comments came in the backdrop of the Supreme Court decision to hear the review petition of one of the convicts Akshay Kumar Singh in the 2012 gang rape case on December 17.

"Court should hear review petition but the petition should have been dismissed earlier. We have no option but to accept the Supreme Court's decision," she said.

We have been struggling for seven years, Devi said, adding that the court must announce the date of their execution soon.

She said that promises of fast-track courts and installation of CCTV cameras which were made in 2012 have not been fulfilled yet.

"In 2012, several such promises were made. Fast track courts have been made but nobody questions the non-availability of judges in them."

Her daughter, a paramedic student, was gang-raped and murder on December 16, 2012, by six men. All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder.

One of the accused was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court, while another accused committed suicide in Tihar jail. The rest of the convicts are facing the gallows.

The apex court had confirmed capital punishment for the four men in 2017.

One of the convicts, Vinay, moved a mercy petition last month but has now sought to withdraw it.

Nirbhaya's mother on Thursday said that she has appealed to the Supreme Court and Central government to execute the convicts immediately. "It has been two and a half years since the Supreme Court passed the order on their conviction and 18 months since their review petitions were dismissed.

Nirbhaya's mother on Thursday said that she has appealed to the Supreme Court and Central government to execute the convicts immediately. "It has been two and a half years since the Supreme Court passed the order on their conviction and 18 months since their review petitions were dismissed. I have appealed to the court and government to hang them immediately," Asha Devi told ANI. Her comments came in the backdrop of the Supreme Court decision to hear the review petition of one of the convicts Akshay Kumar Singh in the 2012 gang rape case on December 17. "Court should hear review petition but the petition should have been dismissed earlier. We have no option but to accept the Supreme Court's decision," she said. We have been struggling for seven years, Devi said, adding that the court must announce the date of their execution soon. She said that promises of fast-track courts and installation of CCTV cameras which were made in 2012 have not been fulfilled yet. "In 2012, several such promises were made. Fast track courts have been made but nobody questions the non-availability of judges in them." Her daughter, a paramedic student, was gang-raped and murder on December 16, 2012, by six men. All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accused was a minor and appeared before a juvenile justice court, while another accused committed suicide in Tihar jail. The rest of the convicts are facing the gallows. The apex court had confirmed capital punishment for the four men in 2017. One of the convicts, Vinay, moved a mercy petition last month but has now sought to withdraw it.

Nirbhaya's mother appeals to Supreme Court, Centre to execute the convicts immediately

The Supreme Court on December 12 dismissed a batch of petitions seeking review of its November 9 Ayodhya land dispute case verdict, which cleared the way for construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site.

Supreme Court dismisses all review petitions in Ayodhya verdict

In a big relief for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission has given him a clean chit in 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots.

The final report of Justice Nanavati -Mehta Commission on the 2002 Gujarat riots&nbsp;tabled in the Gujarat Assembly by Home Minister Pradipsinh Jadeja on Wednesday.

In the report, it is mentioned that the post-Godhra train burning riots were not organised. The reports were submitted based on the incident and the action taken by the government.

The first part of the report of the commission was submitted in the year 2008 by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission.&nbsp;

The first part covered the Godhra train burning incident in which it had concluded that burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express near Godhra Railway Station was a "planned conspiracy".

The first part also gave clean chit to the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi.

The Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission was formed soon after the train carnage.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

In a big relief for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission has given him a clean chit in 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots. The final report of Justice Nanavati -Mehta Commission on the 2002 Gujarat riots tabled in the Gujarat Assembly by Home Minister Pradipsinh Jadeja on Wednesday.

In a big relief for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission has given him a clean chit in 2002 post-Godhra Gujarat riots. The final report of Justice Nanavati -Mehta Commission on the 2002 Gujarat riots tabled in the Gujarat Assembly by Home Minister Pradipsinh Jadeja on Wednesday. In the report, it is mentioned that the post-Godhra train burning riots were not organised. The reports were submitted based on the incident and the action taken by the government. The first part of the report of the commission was submitted in the year 2008 by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. The first part covered the Godhra train burning incident in which it had concluded that burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express near Godhra Railway Station was a "planned conspiracy". The first part also gave clean chit to the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi. The Justice Nanavati-Mehta Commission was formed soon after the train carnage. (With inputs from ANI)

2002 Gujarat riots: Nanavati-Mehta Commission gives clean chit to Narendra Modi

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the petitions that are seeking a review of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-up-shia-central-waqf-board-chairman-raises-objection-against-allotment-of-5-acre-land-to-sunnis-267473">Ayodhya land verdict</a>.

The five-judge constitution bench will hear the petitions at 1.40 pm tomorrow.&nbsp;

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who replaced the former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will decide whether the hearing should take place in an open court or in a chamber.

Earlier in the day, Hindu litigant Nirmohi Akhara filed a review petition in the apex court.&nbsp;

A five-judge bench ruled in favour of Ram Lalla last month. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/six-review-pleas-filed-in-supreme-court-over-ayodhya-land-verdict-266711">The disputed land</a> spread over 2.7 acres was then allotted for the construction of Ram temple, overlooked by a trust formed by the government.&nbsp;

Additionally, five acres of land at a prominent location was given for the construction of a mosque. The court has also asked the central government to give representation to the Nirmohi Akhara in the new trust.

Ever since <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-security-tightened-ahead-of-babri-masjids-demolition-anniversary-266485">the judgment</a> was announced, many review petitions have been filed.

(With inputs from ANI)

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the petitions that are seeking a review of the Ayodhya land verdict. The five-judge constitution bench will hear the petitions at 1.

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the petitions that are seeking a review of the Ayodhya land verdict. The five-judge constitution bench will hear the petitions at 1.40 pm tomorrow. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who replaced the former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will decide whether the hearing should take place in an open court or in a chamber. Earlier in the day, Hindu litigant Nirmohi Akhara filed a review petition in the apex court. A five-judge bench ruled in favour of Ram Lalla last month. The disputed land spread over 2.7 acres was then allotted for the construction of Ram temple, overlooked by a trust formed by the government. Additionally, five acres of land at a prominent location was given for the construction of a mosque. The court has also asked the central government to give representation to the Nirmohi Akhara in the new trust. Ever since the judgment was announced, many review petitions have been filed. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya land verdict: Supreme Court to hear review petitions tomorrow

Former Union Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/chidambaram-filed-false-cases-against-me-pm-modi-shah-when-he-was-fm-nitin-gadkari-266193">P Chidambaram</a> on Wednesday appeared as an advocate in the Supreme Court, for the first time after getting bail in the INX Media case.

Chidambaram appeared in the apex court against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-pass-order-on-plea-against-government-formation-in-maharashtra-264525">Kapil Sibal</a> and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ncp-congress-shiv-sena-petition-supreme-court-to-pass-order-tomorrow-1030-am-264329">Abhishek Manu Singhvi</a> in connection with the hearing in a domestic violence and divorce case.

Interestingly, Sibal and Singhvi had represented Chidambaram for getting bail in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/inx-media-case-sc-order-on-p-chidambaram-bail-plea-266109"> INX Media case</a>.

The former Union Finance Minister was released from Delhi's Tihar Jail on December 4 after being granted bail and on Thursday he attended the ongoing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-to-attend-parliament-from-thursday-karti-chidambaram-266188">Winter Session of Parliament</a>.

The senior Congress leader had on December 4 said that he was happy to have stepped out from the jail and breathing the air of freedom after 106 days.

"I am happy that I have stepped out and breathing the air of freedom after 106 days," he said after meeting Congress president Sonia Gandhi at her residence here.

The apex court set aside the Delhi High Court's order which had refused to grant bail to Chidambaram and directed him not to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses in the case.

The court has directed Chidambaram not to give press interviews and make public statements with regard to this case. The court also directed him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh plus two sureties of the same amount.

Chidambaram had sought the bail in a case pertaining to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-reaches-parliament-day-after-bail-grant-266336">Foreign Investment Promotion Board</a> (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as the Finance Minister.

The CBI had registered a corruption case in this regard in May 2017. Later that year, the ED also lodged a money laundering case against him. The Congress leader was first arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 21 this year in the INX Media corruption case but was granted bail by the Supreme Court two months later.

He was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case on October 16.

Former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday appeared as an advocate in the Supreme Court, for the first time after getting bail in the INX Media case. Chidambaram appeared in the apex court against Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi in connection with the hearing in a domestic violence and divorce case.

Former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday appeared as an advocate in the Supreme Court, for the first time after getting bail in the INX Media case. Chidambaram appeared in the apex court against Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi in connection with the hearing in a domestic violence and divorce case. Interestingly, Sibal and Singhvi had represented Chidambaram for getting bail in the INX Media case. The former Union Finance Minister was released from Delhi's Tihar Jail on December 4 after being granted bail and on Thursday he attended the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament. The senior Congress leader had on December 4 said that he was happy to have stepped out from the jail and breathing the air of freedom after 106 days. "I am happy that I have stepped out and breathing the air of freedom after 106 days," he said after meeting Congress president Sonia Gandhi at her residence here. The apex court set aside the Delhi High Court's order which had refused to grant bail to Chidambaram and directed him not to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses in the case. The court has directed Chidambaram not to give press interviews and make public statements with regard to this case. The court also directed him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh plus two sureties of the same amount. Chidambaram had sought the bail in a case pertaining to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as the Finance Minister. The CBI had registered a corruption case in this regard in May 2017. Later that year, the ED also lodged a money laundering case against him. The Congress leader was first arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 21 this year in the INX Media corruption case but was granted bail by the Supreme Court two months later. He was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case on October 16.

P Chidambaram appears as advocate in Supreme Court for first time after getting bail

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-army-to-decide-on-granting-special-commission-to-female-officers-263289">Supreme Court </a>on Wednesday proposed to appoint a former apex court judge to inquire into the encounter of the four accused in the Telangana vet's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/four-accused-in-hyderabad-veterinary-doctors-rape-and-murder-case-killed-in-encounter-266525">rape and murder case</a>.

The veterinarian was gang-raped and killed by four people before they burnt her body in Telangana's Shamshabad on November 27. Her charred body was recovered a day later.

A few days later, the accused Mohammed Arif, Naveen, Shiva, and Chennakeshavulu were killed in a police encounter. Soon after, the legality of the police action was questioned before the Supreme Court as well as the Telangana High Court.

The apex court said that it is aware that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/telangana-high-court-to-hear-encounter-case-today-267055">Telangana High Court</a> is seized of the matter. "We will appoint former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the matter who will sit in Delhi and inquire," the court said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed to appoint a former apex court judge to inquire into the encounter of the four accused in the Telangana vet's rape and murder case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed to appoint a former apex court judge to inquire into the encounter of the four accused in the Telangana vet's rape and murder case. The veterinarian was gang-raped and killed by four people before they burnt her body in Telangana's Shamshabad on November 27. Her charred body was recovered a day later. A few days later, the accused Mohammed Arif, Naveen, Shiva, and Chennakeshavulu were killed in a police encounter. Soon after, the legality of the police action was questioned before the Supreme Court as well as the Telangana High Court. The apex court said that it is aware that Telangana High Court is seized of the matter. "We will appoint former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the matter who will sit in Delhi and inquire," the court said.

Former top court judge to inquire Telangana encounter, proposes Supreme Court

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-army-to-decide-on-granting-special-commission-to-female-officers-263289">Supreme Court </a>on Wednesday allowed a petition of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/northern-railways-started-using-automatic-train-coach-washing-system-152175">Northern Railways </a>to cut 452 trees in and around 30 kilometers of Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to lay down a new railway track from Delhi-Mathura-Agra, with a condition of compensatory afforestation.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-must-never-take-the-form-of-revenge-cji-sa-bobde-266822">S A Bobde </a>directed the member secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to appoint an officer to visit the site and inspect the trees that have been planted by the Northern Railways as compensation.

The officer should take note of whether the saplings are being watered and nourished, whether any saplings have died, and whether dead saplings have been replaced, apex court says. The bench sought a status report from the office within three months.

The top court said there is "no doubt" about the importance of the new railway line. Permission to cut 452 trees will be subject to conditions and compensatory afforestation must be done.

The bench also asked the petitioner and environmentalist M C Mehta and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to inspect and submit a report within six weeks with remedial action on the problem of open drains, overflowing sewers in Agra town and vicinity of Taj.

The TTZ, established on December 30, 1996, to protect the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pollution-is-killing-taj-mahal-report-138741">Taj Mahal</a> from pollution through an order of Supreme Court, is a 10,400 sq km area spread across the districts of Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Hathras and Etah in Uttar Pradesh and Bharatpur district of Rajasthan.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a petition of the Northern Railways to cut 452 trees in and around 30 kilometers of Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to lay down a new railway track from Delhi-Mathura-Agra, with a condition of compensatory afforestation.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a petition of the Northern Railways to cut 452 trees in and around 30 kilometers of Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to lay down a new railway track from Delhi-Mathura-Agra, with a condition of compensatory afforestation. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde directed the member secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to appoint an officer to visit the site and inspect the trees that have been planted by the Northern Railways as compensation. The officer should take note of whether the saplings are being watered and nourished, whether any saplings have died, and whether dead saplings have been replaced, apex court says. The bench sought a status report from the office within three months. The top court said there is "no doubt" about the importance of the new railway line. Permission to cut 452 trees will be subject to conditions and compensatory afforestation must be done. The bench also asked the petitioner and environmentalist M C Mehta and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to inspect and submit a report within six weeks with remedial action on the problem of open drains, overflowing sewers in Agra town and vicinity of Taj. The TTZ, established on December 30, 1996, to protect the Taj Mahal from pollution through an order of Supreme Court, is a 10,400 sq km area spread across the districts of Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Hathras and Etah in Uttar Pradesh and Bharatpur district of Rajasthan.

Supreme Court allows plea seeking felling of tress around Taj Trapezium Zone

Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts in the brutal December 16, 2012, gang-rape and murder case, on Tuesday, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking modification and leniency. 
 
Singh was sentenced to death by a trial court on September 13, 2013, for raping and murdering the 23-year-old woman physiotherapist on the&nbsp;night of December 16, 2012, in the national capital. 
 
His sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court and finally by the Supreme Court. 
 
The convict,&nbsp;Akshay,&nbsp;in his review petition pleaded and requested the Supreme Court to consider his prayer and review its earlier judgement of May 5, 2017, in which the top cop sentenced him to the gallows. 
 
"We are requesting the apex court to conduct the review petition hearing in an open court," Dr AP Singh, the lawyer for the convict, told ANI. 
 
The apex court had on May 5, 2017, upheld the death sentence of all the four convicts in the brutal December 16 gangrape and murder case. 
The apex court, while dismissing the appeal of the four convicts, had said that the crime fell in the rarest of rare category and "shaken the conscience of the society."

Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts in the brutal December 16, 2012, gang-rape and murder case, on Tuesday, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking modification and leniency.

Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts in the brutal December 16, 2012, gang-rape and murder case, on Tuesday, filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking modification and leniency. Singh was sentenced to death by a trial court on September 13, 2013, for raping and murdering the 23-year-old woman physiotherapist on the night of December 16, 2012, in the national capital. His sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court and finally by the Supreme Court. The convict, Akshay, in his review petition pleaded and requested the Supreme Court to consider his prayer and review its earlier judgement of May 5, 2017, in which the top cop sentenced him to the gallows. "We are requesting the apex court to conduct the review petition hearing in an open court," Dr AP Singh, the lawyer for the convict, told ANI. The apex court had on May 5, 2017, upheld the death sentence of all the four convicts in the brutal December 16 gangrape and murder case. The apex court, while dismissing the appeal of the four convicts, had said that the crime fell in the rarest of rare category and "shaken the conscience of the society."

Nirbhaya case: Convict files review petition seeking leniency in Supreme Court

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news

supreme court