The US&nbsp;Supreme Court on Monday left in place a&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians.

The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down as a violation of the US&nbsp;Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely divided on abortion rights.

On March 4, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/arms-sales-worldwide-up-by-nearly-5-report-267299">the court</a> is scheduled to hear its first major abortion case in three years in a dispute over the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors.

The ACLU said the&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;law has no medical basis and that its sole purpose is to coerce a woman into not getting an abortion.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women's Surgical Center,&nbsp;Kentucky's only licensed abortion clinic, as well as physicians who work there shortly after the law was passed in 2017.

Kentucky&nbsp;requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman can view the images of the fetus. The medical staff are required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible. They are also required to make audible the sound of the fetal heartbeat.

The law requires the physicians to continue with the process even if the patient objects and shows signs of distress. Doctors can be fined and referred to the state's medical licensing board if they fail to comply with the&nbsp;Kentucky&nbsp;law.

On the Louisiana law case next year, the high court's ruling could lead to new curbs on access to abortion. Numerous Republican-backed measures restricting abortion have been passed at the state level in recent years.&nbsp;

The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court, which includes two conservative justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, to uphold laws that lower courts have ruled unconstitutional. The court has shifted to the right after Justice Anthony Kennedy, a decisive vote in favour of abortion rights, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has a thin judicial record on the issue.

In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it violated the free speech rights of the facilities. In that 5-4 ruling along ideological grounds, the court's conservative justices were in the majority.

A federal judge in 2017 struck down the law but in an April 2019 ruling the Cincinnati-based 6th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals declared it lawful. The 6th Circuit found that because the law "requires the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading and relevant information about an abortion, we hold that it does not violate a doctor's right to free speech under the First Amendment."

In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by North Carolina to revive a similar law that had been struck down. A similar law in Texas was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2012.

The US Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians.

The US Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky restriction requiring doctors to show and describe ultrasound images to women seeking an abortion, turning away a challenge arguing that the measure violates the free speech rights of physicians. The justices declined without comment to hear an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of a lower court ruling that upheld the law after a federal judge previously had struck it down as a violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and is closely divided on abortion rights. On March 4, the court is scheduled to hear its first major abortion case in three years in a dispute over the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors. The ACLU said the Kentucky law has no medical basis and that its sole purpose is to coerce a woman into not getting an abortion. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women's Surgical Center, Kentucky's only licensed abortion clinic, as well as physicians who work there shortly after the law was passed in 2017. Kentucky requires a physician or qualified technician to perform the ultrasound and position the screen so the woman can view the images of the fetus. The medical staff are required to describe what the images show, including the size of the fetus and any organs or appendages visible. They are also required to make audible the sound of the fetal heartbeat. The law requires the physicians to continue with the process even if the patient objects and shows signs of distress. Doctors can be fined and referred to the state's medical licensing board if they fail to comply with the Kentucky law. On the Louisiana law case next year, the high court's ruling could lead to new curbs on access to abortion. Numerous Republican-backed measures restricting abortion have been passed at the state level in recent years. The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court, which includes two conservative justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, to uphold laws that lower courts have ruled unconstitutional. The court has shifted to the right after Justice Anthony Kennedy, a decisive vote in favour of abortion rights, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has a thin judicial record on the issue. In 2018, the Supreme Court blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it violated the free speech rights of the facilities. In that 5-4 ruling along ideological grounds, the court's conservative justices were in the majority. A federal judge in 2017 struck down the law but in an April 2019 ruling the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared it lawful. The 6th Circuit found that because the law "requires the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading and relevant information about an abortion, we hold that it does not violate a doctor's right to free speech under the First Amendment." In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by North Carolina to revive a similar law that had been struck down. A similar law in Texas was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2012.

United States Supreme Court leaves Kentucky abortion restriction in place

A total of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jamiat-ulema-e-hind-files-review-petition-against-ayodhya-verdict-265738">six petitions </a>were filed on Friday challenging the Supreme Court`s November 9 decision granting ownership rights to Hindus parties in Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

While five review petitions were filed by people supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPBL), one has been filed by Peace Party of India. Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Nahboob filed review petitions through advocates on record (AORs) MR Shamshad, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi.

All of these petitioners are supported by the AIMPBL.In a press release, AIMPBL said, "Muslim Personal Board General Secretary Mohammad Wali Rahmani expressed his satisfaction and extended gratitude and thanks to Rajiv Dhavan and other senior counsels and AORs.

"Rajiv Dhavan had appeared for Muslim parties in the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute suit and has recently been sacked by the AIMPBL. "Title could not have been given to Hindu parties on the basis of exclusive possession of entire site which never existed at any point in time with the Hindus, since it is admitted that Muslims entered and prayed at the site till 16th December 1949 and were later prevented from doing so because of the attachment while unfairly permitting Hindu worship following criminal trespass," one of the petitions read.

It further said, "The November 9 judgment erred in accepting the juristic personality of the idol entitled it to the middle dome of the courtyard after holding that the idol was illegally and forcibly put there. An idol, as the deity, cannot be simultaneously illegally placed and legally valid to claim the title."

"The Judgment in Review condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it," the review plea further said, adding that the court erred in not considering that there was a dedication of the mosque which was self-evident from the inscriptions, read petitions. On November 9, the apex court had directed for setting up of a trust to construct Ram Temple and provide five-acre land to Muslims in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

A total of six petitions were filed on Friday challenging the Supreme Court`s November 9 decision granting ownership rights to Hindus parties in Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

A total of six petitions were filed on Friday challenging the Supreme Court`s November 9 decision granting ownership rights to Hindus parties in Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. While five review petitions were filed by people supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPBL), one has been filed by Peace Party of India. Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Nahboob filed review petitions through advocates on record (AORs) MR Shamshad, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi. All of these petitioners are supported by the AIMPBL.In a press release, AIMPBL said, "Muslim Personal Board General Secretary Mohammad Wali Rahmani expressed his satisfaction and extended gratitude and thanks to Rajiv Dhavan and other senior counsels and AORs. "Rajiv Dhavan had appeared for Muslim parties in the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute suit and has recently been sacked by the AIMPBL. "Title could not have been given to Hindu parties on the basis of exclusive possession of entire site which never existed at any point in time with the Hindus, since it is admitted that Muslims entered and prayed at the site till 16th December 1949 and were later prevented from doing so because of the attachment while unfairly permitting Hindu worship following criminal trespass," one of the petitions read. It further said, "The November 9 judgment erred in accepting the juristic personality of the idol entitled it to the middle dome of the courtyard after holding that the idol was illegally and forcibly put there. An idol, as the deity, cannot be simultaneously illegally placed and legally valid to claim the title." "The Judgment in Review condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it," the review plea further said, adding that the court erred in not considering that there was a dedication of the mosque which was self-evident from the inscriptions, read petitions. On November 9, the apex court had directed for setting up of a trust to construct Ram Temple and provide five-acre land to Muslims in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

Six review pleas filed in Supreme Court against Ayodhya land verdict

The Supreme Court on Friday said that the local body elections in Tamil Nadu can go ahead as per the earlier schedule of December 27 and 30, but it has put on hold elections in nine newly formed districts.

A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde, and also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant passed the order after hearing the petition filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

The Supreme Court also directed that the delimitation process should be conducted in these nine districts of Tamil Nadu as soon as possible and local body elections be held there within four months.

DMK had on December 2 filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court seeking its direction to stay the Tamil Nadu state local body election notification.

The petition in the case was filed by C R Jayasukin before the apex court seeking a direction to stay the Tamil Nadu state local body election notification.

The petitioner sought a direction from the Apex Court that the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission of December 2 should be struck down.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday said that the local body elections in Tamil Nadu can go ahead as per the earlier schedule of December 27 and 30, but it has put on hold elections in nine newly formed districts.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that the local body elections in Tamil Nadu can go ahead as per the earlier schedule of December 27 and 30, but it has put on hold elections in nine newly formed districts. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde, and also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant passed the order after hearing the petition filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The Supreme Court also directed that the delimitation process should be conducted in these nine districts of Tamil Nadu as soon as possible and local body elections be held there within four months. DMK had on December 2 filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court seeking its direction to stay the Tamil Nadu state local body election notification. The petition in the case was filed by C R Jayasukin before the apex court seeking a direction to stay the Tamil Nadu state local body election notification. The petitioner sought a direction from the Apex Court that the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission of December 2 should be struck down.

Supreme Court put on hold local body polls in 9 newly formed districts in Tamil Nadu

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who was released from Delhi's Tihar Jail on Wednesday after being <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-p-chidambaram-gets-bail-from-supreme-court-266087">granted bail</a> in the INX Media money laundering case, on Thursday reached Parliament to attend the ongoing Winter Session.

The senior Congress leader had on Wednesday 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 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-to-attend-parliament-from-thursday-karti-chidambaram-266188">Chidambaram</a> 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.

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who was released from Delhi's Tihar Jail on Wednesday after being granted bail in the INX Media money laundering case, on Thursday reached Parliament to attend the ongoing Winter Session.

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who was released from Delhi's Tihar Jail on Wednesday after being granted bail in the INX Media money laundering case, on Thursday reached Parliament to attend the ongoing Winter Session. The senior Congress leader had on Wednesday 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 reaches Parliament day after bail grant

The Supreme Court is likely to hear a plea of activist Bindu Ammini next week, seeking its direction to Kerala police to provide her security to enter <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../will-visit-sabarimala-temple-as-it-is-our- constitutional-right-trupti-desai-264546">Sabarimala temple</a>.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant said that the court will hear it likely next week, along with the one petition already pending before it.

Senior lawyer Indira Jaising mentioned the matter before the apex court on Thursday, seeking an urgent hearing into the case.

In the plea, MS Bindu, popularly known as Bindu Ammini, said she was allegedly attacked by a mob outside the police commissioner's office recently.

In November, a man had sprayed chilli and pepper on Bindu Ammini's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple.

She was not given help and assistance to enter into the Sabarimala temple, the plea said.

The activist also said that the Supreme Court judgement allowing entry of women of menstruation age in the temple was being flouted.

To this, the CJI Bobde said, "There's a larger bench now on the issue. The September verdict is not the last word in this issue."

On Wednesday, the court agreed to hear next week the plea of one Fathima AS seeking directions to the Kerala government to provide safe passage to women into Sabarimala temple.

In September last year, the court allowed the women of menstruating ages to enter and offer prayers at the shrine.

Subsequently, a series of review petitions were filed challenging the order of the court. The petitioners asserted that the deity is a celibate and centuries-old beliefs should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers.

The top court had last month referred these review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear a plea of activist Bindu Ammini next week, seeking its direction to Kerala police to provide her security to enter Sabarimala temple.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear a plea of activist Bindu Ammini next week, seeking its direction to Kerala police to provide her security to enter Sabarimala temple. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant said that the court will hear it likely next week, along with the one petition already pending before it. Senior lawyer Indira Jaising mentioned the matter before the apex court on Thursday, seeking an urgent hearing into the case. In the plea, MS Bindu, popularly known as Bindu Ammini, said she was allegedly attacked by a mob outside the police commissioner's office recently. In November, a man had sprayed chilli and pepper on Bindu Ammini's face when she was on her way to Sabarimala temple. She was not given help and assistance to enter into the Sabarimala temple, the plea said. The activist also said that the Supreme Court judgement allowing entry of women of menstruation age in the temple was being flouted. To this, the CJI Bobde said, "There's a larger bench now on the issue. The September verdict is not the last word in this issue." On Wednesday, the court agreed to hear next week the plea of one Fathima AS seeking directions to the Kerala government to provide safe passage to women into Sabarimala temple. In September last year, the court allowed the women of menstruating ages to enter and offer prayers at the shrine. Subsequently, a series of review petitions were filed challenging the order of the court. The petitioners asserted that the deity is a celibate and centuries-old beliefs should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. The top court had last month referred these review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench.

Supreme Court likely to hear Bindu Amini's plea on Sabarimala entry next week

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted bail to Congress leader and former Union minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

A bench&nbsp;headed by Justice R Banumathi had on November 28 reserved judgement on the appeal filed by Chidambaram who has challenged the November 15 verdict of the Delhi High Court denying him bail in the case.

Supreme Court has said that P Chidambaram should not tamper with the evidence and not influence the witnesses. He should also not give press interviews or make public statements in connection with this case.

Apex court has also directed P Chidambaram to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakhs along with two sureties of the same amount. Chidambaram is also barred from travelling abroad without the Court's permission.

"They will take the Supreme Court order to lower court and submit the sureties &amp; bail bonds there, then the order to release him from jail will be issued. He will be released once we get the release order," said Sandeep Goel, DG Tihar Prison.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted bail to Congress leader and former Union minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted bail to Congress leader and former Union minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A bench headed by Justice R Banumathi had on November 28 reserved judgement on the appeal filed by Chidambaram who has challenged the November 15 verdict of the Delhi High Court denying him bail in the case. Supreme Court has said that P Chidambaram should not tamper with the evidence and not influence the witnesses. He should also not give press interviews or make public statements in connection with this case. Apex court has also directed P Chidambaram to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakhs along with two sureties of the same amount. Chidambaram is also barred from travelling abroad without the Court's permission. "They will take the Supreme Court order to lower court and submit the sureties & bail bonds there, then the order to release him from jail will be issued. He will be released once we get the release order," said Sandeep Goel, DG Tihar Prison.

INX Media case: P Chidambaram gets bail from Supreme Court, bars him from speaking to media

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has started contacting allies as the government looks to amend the Army Act to continue army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa's extension beyond six months. 
 
The development comes days after Pakistan's Supreme Court granted conditional permission to extend Army Chief General Qamar Jawed Bajwa's tenure. 
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi met a delegation of the Muttahida Quami Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) on Sunday in Karachi. 
 
Pakistan based newspaper Dawn quoted an MQM-P source as saying that the main purpose of the meeting was to show that the PTI-led coalition, of which the MQM-P is a vital part, was intact and that there would be smooth sailing in legislation pertaining to the extension of army chief's tenure. 
 
Qureshi and MQM-P leader Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui spoke to media after their meeting. 
 
"We are bound to [carry out] that legislation. We have accepted it respectfully," Foreign Minister Qureshi said, responding to a question if the government would succeed in amending the Army Act. 
 
Siddiqui said his party would continue to extend "unconditional" support to the PTI-led government on "important national issues". 
 
On November 28, in a major blow to the PTI government and Pakistani Army, the Supreme Court had granted conditional permission to extend the country's incumbent Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa's tenure by only six months instead of three years, which the Imran Khan-led government had given in August.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has started contacting allies as the government looks to amend the Army Act to continue army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa's extension beyond six months.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has started contacting allies as the government looks to amend the Army Act to continue army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa's extension beyond six months. The development comes days after Pakistan's Supreme Court granted conditional permission to extend Army Chief General Qamar Jawed Bajwa's tenure. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi met a delegation of the Muttahida Quami Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) on Sunday in Karachi. Pakistan based newspaper Dawn quoted an MQM-P source as saying that the main purpose of the meeting was to show that the PTI-led coalition, of which the MQM-P is a vital part, was intact and that there would be smooth sailing in legislation pertaining to the extension of army chief's tenure. Qureshi and MQM-P leader Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui spoke to media after their meeting. "We are bound to [carry out] that legislation. We have accepted it respectfully," Foreign Minister Qureshi said, responding to a question if the government would succeed in amending the Army Act. Siddiqui said his party would continue to extend "unconditional" support to the PTI-led government on "important national issues". On November 28, in a major blow to the PTI government and Pakistani Army, the Supreme Court had granted conditional permission to extend the country's incumbent Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa's tenure by only six months instead of three years, which the Imran Khan-led government had given in August.

Pakistan: After SC decision, PTI contacts allies to amend Army Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition filed against Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance for staking claim to form the government in Maharashtra by "breaching of trust of voters against the mandate".

A bench headed Chief Justice S A Bobde denied urgent hearing after a lawyer mentioned the matter before it.

He sought an urgent hearing in the matter and sought a direction to restrain Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari from inviting Shiv Sena-NCP-INC alliance to form the government.

This came a day after BJP's Devendra Fadnavis resigned from the post of Maharashtra Chief Minister hours after the apex court directed a floor test to be conducted in the Assembly.

Later in the evening, the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress combine met Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and staked claim to form the government in Maharashtra, following which the Governor announced that Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray will take oath as the Chief Minister of the state on November 28.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition filed against Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance for staking claim to form the government in Maharashtra by "breaching of trust of voters against the mandate".

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a petition filed against Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance for staking claim to form the government in Maharashtra by "breaching of trust of voters against the mandate". A bench headed Chief Justice S A Bobde denied urgent hearing after a lawyer mentioned the matter before it. He sought an urgent hearing in the matter and sought a direction to restrain Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari from inviting Shiv Sena-NCP-INC alliance to form the government. This came a day after BJP's Devendra Fadnavis resigned from the post of Maharashtra Chief Minister hours after the apex court directed a floor test to be conducted in the Assembly. Later in the evening, the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress combine met Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari and staked claim to form the government in Maharashtra, following which the Governor announced that Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray will take oath as the Chief Minister of the state on November 28.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing in plea against Congress-Shiv Sena-NCP Maharashtra alliance

Top Court orders floor test in Maharashtra assembly tomorrow to prove majority support. Watch video to know more.

Top Court orders floor test in Maharashtra assembly tomorrow to prove majority support

Women rights activist <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-visit-sabarimala-next-unannounced-using-guerilla-tactics-trupti-desai-177797">Trupti Desai </a>on Tuesday said that she will visit Sabarimala temple as it is her Constitutional right.

Speaking to ANI, Desai said: "Today is the Constitution Day and on this day, we will go to Sabarimala temple as it is our right."

Accompanied by several other women, She said, "The rights under the Constitution allow us to pray to God and the right to equality, which is somewhere taken away from us despite the Supreme Court's order that there is no stay on women's entry in Sabarimala temple. So we will go inside the temple today."

"No one can stop us whether it is <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-government-wont-give-protection-to-women-visiting-sabarimala-temple-says-kerala-devaswom-board-minister-262448">local police or government</a> because if they stop us then it is a contempt of court. Even if they want to stop us then they should give that in writing to us that we cannot go inside the shrine," she said.

The activist said, "They ask to us bring the court's order if you want to enter the shrine, well I say to them to show us the order that says we are not allowed to enter the temple. This is an attempt to diminish the voice of women, we have come from different states and we will not go back till we enter the Sabarimala temple."

On being asked if she had asked for her security and protection from the government, Desai said, "I have written to Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Kerala Chief Minister and the DGP here demanding security. Whether we get that or not we will visit the temple today."

The Supreme Court had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-sabarimala-temple-to-reopen-today-tight-security-in-place-262519">lifted a traditional ban</a> on entry of women of menstrual age (10-50 years) on September 28 last year.

Despite the apex court's ruling, a string of protests took place at the Sabarimala temple and its surrounding areas in the state, when several women attempted to visit the shrine but were stopped by Lord Ayyappa devotees.

Women rights activist Trupti Desai on Tuesday said that she will visit Sabarimala temple as it is her Constitutional right. Speaking to ANI, Desai said: "Today is the Constitution Day and on this day, we will go to Sabarimala temple as it is our right.

Women rights activist Trupti Desai on Tuesday said that she will visit Sabarimala temple as it is her Constitutional right. Speaking to ANI, Desai said: "Today is the Constitution Day and on this day, we will go to Sabarimala temple as it is our right." Accompanied by several other women, She said, "The rights under the Constitution allow us to pray to God and the right to equality, which is somewhere taken away from us despite the Supreme Court's order that there is no stay on women's entry in Sabarimala temple. So we will go inside the temple today." "No one can stop us whether it is local police or government because if they stop us then it is a contempt of court. Even if they want to stop us then they should give that in writing to us that we cannot go inside the shrine," she said. The activist said, "They ask to us bring the court's order if you want to enter the shrine, well I say to them to show us the order that says we are not allowed to enter the temple. This is an attempt to diminish the voice of women, we have come from different states and we will not go back till we enter the Sabarimala temple." On being asked if she had asked for her security and protection from the government, Desai said, "I have written to Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Kerala Chief Minister and the DGP here demanding security. Whether we get that or not we will visit the temple today." The Supreme Court had lifted a traditional ban on entry of women of menstrual age (10-50 years) on September 28 last year. Despite the apex court's ruling, a string of protests took place at the Sabarimala temple and its surrounding areas in the state, when several women attempted to visit the shrine but were stopped by Lord Ayyappa devotees.

Will visit Sabarimala temple as it is our Constitutional right: Trupti Desai

The Supreme Court will pass its order on Tuesday morning over a joint petition filed by Shiv Sena, Congress and Nationalist Congress Party against the decision of the Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to invite BJP to form the government in the state. 
 
A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Ashok Bhushan, and Sanjiv Khanna on Monday heard the arguments put forth by counsels appearing for Governor, Maharashtra BJP and other parties and reserved its order. 
 
The petitions were filed after BJP's Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP's Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister on Saturday morning. 
 
This came when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the government formation had reached the final stage. 
On the directions of the top court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra Governor's office, handed over an original letter of Governor inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form a government. 
 
Mehta said that the Governor, in absolute discretion, invited the largest party [BJP] to form the government on November 23. 
 
"Devendra Fadnavis staked claim following the letter of NCP's Ajit Pawar along with letters of support of 11 independent and other MLAs. The Governor then wrote to the President and requested for revocation of the President's Rule; Governor in his wisdom invited the leader of the largest party," he submitted. 
 
The Solicitor General added that Fadnavis has a support of 170 MLAs. He also sought two-three days' time from the court to file a reply by asserting that he wants to place additional material on record. 
 
Meanwhile, Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra BJP, echoed similar sentiments and said that the governor has an absolute discretion to appoint the Chief Minister. 
 
"Judicial review not permitted. The floor test is imperative. But it is the discretion of the Speaker to decide when the floor test is to be held," he said. 
Senior Advocate, Maninder Singh next made his submissions on behalf of NCP's Ajit Pawar and said that there was nothing contrary to show that his client was not the NCP leader as of November 22. 
 
"My list [granting support to BJP] was constitutionally, legally correct. There is nothing to show that I was not the NCP leader on November 22. I will resolve disputes within my party but this petition must end now," Singh told the court on behalf of Ajit Pawar. 
 
The contentions were made after NCP chief Sharad Pawar said that the decision to support the BJP was not backed by him and was his nephew's [Ajit Pawar] personal one. 
 
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Shiv Sena, said, "What was the national emergency that President rule was revoked at 5.17 am and swearing-in was at 8 am? President Rule was revoked at 5.17 am which means everything happened before 5.17." 
 
He further said that a floor test must be conducted within 24 hours with videography and a single ballot. 
 
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Congress, referred the motion to invite the BJP to form the government in Maharashtra as "murder of democracy". 
 
"What BJP alliance has shown to Court are signatures of 54 NCP MLAs electing Ajit Pawar as legislative party leader. They were not signed in support of joining the BJP alliance to form a government. NCP's support to Ajit Pawar was without any covering letter. How can the Governor turn a blind eye to this," he told the court. 
 
On Monday, NCP legislative party leader Jayant Patil along with Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde, Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan and others visited Raj Bhawan and gave a letter showing the strength of 162 MLAs to the officials at Raj Bhavan.

The Supreme Court will pass its order on Tuesday morning over a joint petition filed by Shiv Sena, Congress and Nationalist Congress Party against the decision of the Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to invite BJP to form the government in the state.

The Supreme Court will pass its order on Tuesday morning over a joint petition filed by Shiv Sena, Congress and Nationalist Congress Party against the decision of the Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to invite BJP to form the government in the state. A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Ashok Bhushan, and Sanjiv Khanna on Monday heard the arguments put forth by counsels appearing for Governor, Maharashtra BJP and other parties and reserved its order. The petitions were filed after BJP's Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP's Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister on Saturday morning. This came when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the government formation had reached the final stage. On the directions of the top court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra Governor's office, handed over an original letter of Governor inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form a government. Mehta said that the Governor, in absolute discretion, invited the largest party [BJP] to form the government on November 23. "Devendra Fadnavis staked claim following the letter of NCP's Ajit Pawar along with letters of support of 11 independent and other MLAs. The Governor then wrote to the President and requested for revocation of the President's Rule; Governor in his wisdom invited the leader of the largest party," he submitted. The Solicitor General added that Fadnavis has a support of 170 MLAs. He also sought two-three days' time from the court to file a reply by asserting that he wants to place additional material on record. Meanwhile, Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra BJP, echoed similar sentiments and said that the governor has an absolute discretion to appoint the Chief Minister. "Judicial review not permitted. The floor test is imperative. But it is the discretion of the Speaker to decide when the floor test is to be held," he said. Senior Advocate, Maninder Singh next made his submissions on behalf of NCP's Ajit Pawar and said that there was nothing contrary to show that his client was not the NCP leader as of November 22. "My list [granting support to BJP] was constitutionally, legally correct. There is nothing to show that I was not the NCP leader on November 22. I will resolve disputes within my party but this petition must end now," Singh told the court on behalf of Ajit Pawar. The contentions were made after NCP chief Sharad Pawar said that the decision to support the BJP was not backed by him and was his nephew's [Ajit Pawar] personal one. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Shiv Sena, said, "What was the national emergency that President rule was revoked at 5.17 am and swearing-in was at 8 am? President Rule was revoked at 5.17 am which means everything happened before 5.17." He further said that a floor test must be conducted within 24 hours with videography and a single ballot. Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Congress, referred the motion to invite the BJP to form the government in Maharashtra as "murder of democracy". "What BJP alliance has shown to Court are signatures of 54 NCP MLAs electing Ajit Pawar as legislative party leader. They were not signed in support of joining the BJP alliance to form a government. NCP's support to Ajit Pawar was without any covering letter. How can the Governor turn a blind eye to this," he told the court. On Monday, NCP legislative party leader Jayant Patil along with Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde, Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan and others visited Raj Bhawan and gave a letter showing the strength of 162 MLAs to the officials at Raj Bhavan.

Supreme Court to pass order on plea against government formation in Maharashtra

Maharashtra political turmoil: Top court to pass orders at 10:30 AM today. Watch video to know more.

Maharashtra political turmoil: Top court to pass orders at 10:30 AM today

Pakistan: SC puts hold on Bajwa's tenure extension. Watch video to know more.

Pakistan: SC puts hold on Bajwa's tenure extension

Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order for tomorrow 10.30 am on a joint petition filed by the NCP-Congress and Shiv Sena against the formation of BJP-led government in Maharashtra.

Earlier appearing for NCP-Congress, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Shiv Sena urged the court order floor test immediately.&nbsp;

''When both the groups were open for Floor Test, why should there be a delay? Does a single NCP MLA here say we will join the BJP alliance? Is there a single covering letter saying this. This was the fraud committed on democracy,'' Singhvi said.

Meanwhile, Mukul Rohatgi, representing Maharashtra BJP, told the top court that it cannot direct Maharashtra Governor to initiate the Floor Test within 24 hours.&nbsp;

Floor Test should not be tomorrow. Reasonable time for it is 7 days, Rohatgi argued.

Kapil Sibal argued that what was the national emergency that President rule was revoked at 5.17 and swearing-in was at 8 am?.&nbsp;

President rule was revoked at 5.17 am that means everything happened before 5.17, he added.&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order for tomorrow 10.30 am on a joint petition filed by the NCP-Congress and Shiv Sena against the formation of BJP-led government in Maharashtra.

Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order for tomorrow 10.30 am on a joint petition filed by the NCP-Congress and Shiv Sena against the formation of BJP-led government in Maharashtra. Earlier appearing for NCP-Congress, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Shiv Sena urged the court order floor test immediately. ''When both the groups were open for Floor Test, why should there be a delay? Does a single NCP MLA here say we will join the BJP alliance? Is there a single covering letter saying this. This was the fraud committed on democracy,'' Singhvi said. Meanwhile, Mukul Rohatgi, representing Maharashtra BJP, told the top court that it cannot direct Maharashtra Governor to initiate the Floor Test within 24 hours. Floor Test should not be tomorrow. Reasonable time for it is 7 days, Rohatgi argued. Kapil Sibal argued that what was the national emergency that President rule was revoked at 5.17 and swearing-in was at 8 am?. President rule was revoked at 5.17 am that means everything happened before 5.17, he added.

NCP-Congress-Shiv Sena petition: Supreme Court to pass order tomorrow at 10.30 am

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the Maharashtra Governor`s office, on Monday, sought time from the Supreme Court to file a reply while handing over to SC the original letter of Maharashtra Governor inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form Government in the state.

While arguing over a petition filed by Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress against the decision taken by the Maharastra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to invite BJP and NCP to form the government in the state.

"I have the original documents with me. I am seeking time to file a reply as there are questions that need to be discussed," Mehta told the bench.

"Present position is, Governor has invited the majority alliance in the House to form a government. Devendra Fadnavis staked claim following the letter of Ajit Pawar along with letters of support of 11 independent and other MLAs", the solicitor general added.

In a special hearing yesterday, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Ashok Bhushan, and Sanjiv Khanna had asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce relevant documents including Maharashtra Governor`s letter inviting BJP to form the government and letter of support of MLAs by 10 am today.

This came after the BJP formed the government on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP`s Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Shiv Sena and his colleague Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Congress-NCP in the apex court. Maharashtra BJP unit was represented by Mukul Rohatgi.

BJP won 105 seats, Shiv Sena bagged 56 seats, 54 seats went to NCP while Congress secured 44 seats in the 288-member Assembly.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the Maharashtra Governor`s office, on Monday, sought time from the Supreme Court to file a reply while handing over to SC the original letter of Maharashtra Governor inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form Government in the state.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for the Maharashtra Governor`s office, on Monday, sought time from the Supreme Court to file a reply while handing over to SC the original letter of Maharashtra Governor inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form Government in the state. While arguing over a petition filed by Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress against the decision taken by the Maharastra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to invite BJP and NCP to form the government in the state. "I have the original documents with me. I am seeking time to file a reply as there are questions that need to be discussed," Mehta told the bench. "Present position is, Governor has invited the majority alliance in the House to form a government. Devendra Fadnavis staked claim following the letter of Ajit Pawar along with letters of support of 11 independent and other MLAs", the solicitor general added. In a special hearing yesterday, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Ashok Bhushan, and Sanjiv Khanna had asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce relevant documents including Maharashtra Governor`s letter inviting BJP to form the government and letter of support of MLAs by 10 am today. This came after the BJP formed the government on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP`s Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Shiv Sena and his colleague Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Congress-NCP in the apex court. Maharashtra BJP unit was represented by Mukul Rohatgi. BJP won 105 seats, Shiv Sena bagged 56 seats, 54 seats went to NCP while Congress secured 44 seats in the 288-member Assembly.

Governor invited majority alliance in House to form government: Solicitor General Mehta tells court

Maharashtra Floor Test: Apex Court to pass order today at 10.30 AM. Watch video to know more.

Maharashtra Floor Test: Apex Court to pass order today at 10.30 AM

District and Sessions&nbsp;Judge of Patiala House Court on Monday approved <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nirbhaya-rape-case-court-seeks-status-report-from-tihar-jail-authorities-224277">Nirbhaya</a>`s parents` application seeking transfer of the case to Additional Sessions Judge Satish Arora.

In December last year, Nirbhaya`s parents had approached the court seeking the case to be fast-tracked. The Court has also slated the matter for hearing on November 28.

Earlier, due to the transfer of the judges, the matter kept on getting adjourned.

Advocate Seema Samriddhi Kushwaha, who is representing Nirbhaya`s parents in the case, said, "We had approached the court when legal remedies of the convicts got exhausted. We are seeking the court`s direction to the Tihar Jail authorities to expedite the execution of the rape convicts."

On December 16 in 2012, a 23-year-old paramedic student was gang-raped inside a running bus by six persons in the national capital.

The victim, who was severely assaulted and thrown out on the road along with her male friend, succumbed to injuries a few days later.

Out of the six perpetrators, one committed suicide by hanging himself in prison, while another, a juvenile, served maximum punishment of three years in a reform home and was set free in 2015.

The remaining four rapists were convicted and handed death sentence by a trial court in 2013, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ncp-congress-shiv-sena-petition-supreme-court-to-pass-order-tomorrow-1030-am-264329">Supreme Court</a> upheld the Delhi High Court`s verdict in 2017.

On October 31 earlier this year, the Tihar Jail administration had issued a notice to the convicts asking them to file a mercy plea before the president.

As per law, the convicts can plead for mercy from the President and seek commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. If the President allows the mercy petition, then the convicts may escape the gallows.

District and Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court on Monday approved Nirbhaya`s parents` application seeking transfer of the case to Additional Sessions Judge Satish Arora.

District and Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court on Monday approved Nirbhaya`s parents` application seeking transfer of the case to Additional Sessions Judge Satish Arora. In December last year, Nirbhaya`s parents had approached the court seeking the case to be fast-tracked. The Court has also slated the matter for hearing on November 28. Earlier, due to the transfer of the judges, the matter kept on getting adjourned. Advocate Seema Samriddhi Kushwaha, who is representing Nirbhaya`s parents in the case, said, "We had approached the court when legal remedies of the convicts got exhausted. We are seeking the court`s direction to the Tihar Jail authorities to expedite the execution of the rape convicts." On December 16 in 2012, a 23-year-old paramedic student was gang-raped inside a running bus by six persons in the national capital. The victim, who was severely assaulted and thrown out on the road along with her male friend, succumbed to injuries a few days later. Out of the six perpetrators, one committed suicide by hanging himself in prison, while another, a juvenile, served maximum punishment of three years in a reform home and was set free in 2015. The remaining four rapists were convicted and handed death sentence by a trial court in 2013, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court`s verdict in 2017. On October 31 earlier this year, the Tihar Jail administration had issued a notice to the convicts asking them to file a mercy plea before the president. As per law, the convicts can plead for mercy from the President and seek commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. If the President allows the mercy petition, then the convicts may escape the gallows.

Nirbhaya case: Parents' plea seeking to expedite execution of convicts to be heard by new judge

The Supreme Court will on Sunday hear a joint plea of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress against the decision of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, inviting BJP's Devendra Fadnavis to form the government in the state on November 23.

The petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to order a floor test to be held on Sunday (today) itself.

Senior Congress leader and advocate Kapil Sibal will appear in the court on behalf of the petitioners. The matter will be heard at 11:30 am.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala had confirmed that the petition was filed by three political parties on Saturday evening in the apex court requesting for an immediate floor test in order to "expose the illegitimate and unconstitutional government" headed by Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar.

"The registry has intimated to us that the petition will be heard on Sunday at 11:30. We are very confident that the majesty of law and the Constitution will prevail and forces led by the BJP, who have taken a contract for the murder of democracy will get a befitting reply through the majesty of law," he had said.

The plea will be heard by the bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat for Congress-NCP-Shiv Sena had said that in their petition, they have requested the Supreme Court to order a floor test to be held on Sunday (today) itself.

"We have said that without any majority of Fadnavis and the BJP, the Governor called and installed him as the Chief Minister of the state. We have also asked for an urgent direction for a floor test to be held on Sunday itself within 24 hours as was directed by the court in Karnataka case. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will hear us. Our petition has been numbered," he had said.

After a prolonged uncertainty over the government formation that lasted for nearly a month, Devendra Fadnavis on Saturday early morning took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, while Ajit Pawar as his deputy chief minister.

The Supreme Court will on Sunday hear a joint plea of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress against the decision of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, inviting BJP's Devendra Fadnavis to form the government in the state on November 23.

The Supreme Court will on Sunday hear a joint plea of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress against the decision of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, inviting BJP's Devendra Fadnavis to form the government in the state on November 23. The petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to order a floor test to be held on Sunday (today) itself. Senior Congress leader and advocate Kapil Sibal will appear in the court on behalf of the petitioners. The matter will be heard at 11:30 am. Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala had confirmed that the petition was filed by three political parties on Saturday evening in the apex court requesting for an immediate floor test in order to "expose the illegitimate and unconstitutional government" headed by Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar. "The registry has intimated to us that the petition will be heard on Sunday at 11:30. We are very confident that the majesty of law and the Constitution will prevail and forces led by the BJP, who have taken a contract for the murder of democracy will get a befitting reply through the majesty of law," he had said. The plea will be heard by the bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat for Congress-NCP-Shiv Sena had said that in their petition, they have requested the Supreme Court to order a floor test to be held on Sunday (today) itself. "We have said that without any majority of Fadnavis and the BJP, the Governor called and installed him as the Chief Minister of the state. We have also asked for an urgent direction for a floor test to be held on Sunday itself within 24 hours as was directed by the court in Karnataka case. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will hear us. Our petition has been numbered," he had said. After a prolonged uncertainty over the government formation that lasted for nearly a month, Devendra Fadnavis on Saturday early morning took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, while Ajit Pawar as his deputy chief minister.

Maharashtra political crisis: All eyes on Supreme Court today

The Supreme Court on Sunday while hearing the NCP-Sena-Congress joint plea against BJP-led government formation in Maharashtra remarked that the "sky is the limit for Supreme Court" and "anybody can ask for anything in Court".

The remark was made by Justice NV Ramana when senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the BJP, questioned the plea filed by Congress-NCP-Shiv Sena.

"In this court, the sky is the limit, anybody can ask for anything. Any person can ask to make him the Prime Minister," observed Justice NV Ramana.

The Bench consisting Justice Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce relevant documents including Maharashtra Governor's letter inviting BJP to form the government and letter of support of MLAs by 10 am tomorrow.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi while arguing on behalf of BJP in Supreme Court appealed the court not to pass an order to fix the date for the floor test in Maharashtra Assembly and asserted that Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari has committed no "illegality".

"There is no need for the court to pass order today. There was no illegality in the Governor's decision. The court should not pass an order to fix the date of the floor test. The three parties here have no fundamental rights," said Rohatgi."

There are some things that are with the President which are not even open to judicial intervention," he argued.

At a time when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the formation of a non-BJP government in the state had seemingly reached the final stage, the BJP formed the government in a surprise development on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP's Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister.

The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44.

The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) late on Saturday moved 44 MLAs to the Renaissance Hotel here on Saturday. The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Sunday while hearing the NCP-Sena-Congress joint plea against BJP-led government formation in Maharashtra remarked that the "sky is the limit for Supreme Court" and "anybody can ask for anything in Court".

The Supreme Court on Sunday while hearing the NCP-Sena-Congress joint plea against BJP-led government formation in Maharashtra remarked that the "sky is the limit for Supreme Court" and "anybody can ask for anything in Court". The remark was made by Justice NV Ramana when senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the BJP, questioned the plea filed by Congress-NCP-Shiv Sena. "In this court, the sky is the limit, anybody can ask for anything. Any person can ask to make him the Prime Minister," observed Justice NV Ramana. The Bench consisting Justice Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce relevant documents including Maharashtra Governor's letter inviting BJP to form the government and letter of support of MLAs by 10 am tomorrow. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi while arguing on behalf of BJP in Supreme Court appealed the court not to pass an order to fix the date for the floor test in Maharashtra Assembly and asserted that Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari has committed no "illegality". "There is no need for the court to pass order today. There was no illegality in the Governor's decision. The court should not pass an order to fix the date of the floor test. The three parties here have no fundamental rights," said Rohatgi." There are some things that are with the President which are not even open to judicial intervention," he argued. At a time when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the formation of a non-BJP government in the state had seemingly reached the final stage, the BJP formed the government in a surprise development on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, with NCP's Ajit Pawar as his Deputy Chief Minister. The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) late on Saturday moved 44 MLAs to the Renaissance Hotel here on Saturday. The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44.

Anybody can ask for anything: SC while hearing plea on Maharashtra government formation

SC asks government to produce government’s letter and to pass order tomorrow at 10:30 AM.

SC asks government to produce government’s letter

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal on Sunday argued in the Supreme Court that the move of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari inviting Devendra Fadnavis to form government in the state is "biased, malafide and contrary" to all laws established by the apex court.

He further appealed the court to order a floor test in Maharashtra Assembly, today itself."When somebody had announced at 7 pm that we are forming the government, the act of Governor is biased, mala-fide, and contrary to all laws established by this Court," said Sibal.

"Court should order floor test today itself. If BJP has the majority, let them prove in the Assembly. If they don`t, let us stake the claim," he said.

"The majority is 145 seats in the state. The pre-poll alliance comes first. The pre-poll alliance broke down. Now, we are relying on the post-poll alliance," argued Sibal.

Arguing on the way President Rule was revoked in Maharashtra, Sibal asked, "At 5.17 am yesterday President`s Rule was revoked and at 8 am two persons sworn-in as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. What documents were given?"

While senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra BJP said, "I don`t know why there is hearing on Sunday, there should not be any hearing on Sunday. According to me this matter (Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress` plea) should not be listed.''

"A three-judge bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice N V Ramana and comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna is hearing a joint plea of Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP against the decision of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form the government.

At a time when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the formation of a non-BJP government in the state had seemingly reached the final stage, the BJP formed the government in a surprise development on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, while Ajit Pawar of NCP as his Deputy Chief Minister.

The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44.&nbsp;

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal on Sunday argued in the Supreme Court that the move of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari inviting Devendra Fadnavis to form government in the state is "biased, malafide and contrary" to all laws established by the apex court.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal on Sunday argued in the Supreme Court that the move of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari inviting Devendra Fadnavis to form government in the state is "biased, malafide and contrary" to all laws established by the apex court. He further appealed the court to order a floor test in Maharashtra Assembly, today itself."When somebody had announced at 7 pm that we are forming the government, the act of Governor is biased, mala-fide, and contrary to all laws established by this Court," said Sibal. "Court should order floor test today itself. If BJP has the majority, let them prove in the Assembly. If they don`t, let us stake the claim," he said. "The majority is 145 seats in the state. The pre-poll alliance comes first. The pre-poll alliance broke down. Now, we are relying on the post-poll alliance," argued Sibal. Arguing on the way President Rule was revoked in Maharashtra, Sibal asked, "At 5.17 am yesterday President`s Rule was revoked and at 8 am two persons sworn-in as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. What documents were given?" While senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Maharashtra BJP said, "I don`t know why there is hearing on Sunday, there should not be any hearing on Sunday. According to me this matter (Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress` plea) should not be listed.'' "A three-judge bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice N V Ramana and comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna is hearing a joint plea of Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP against the decision of Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari inviting BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis to form the government. At a time when deliberations among Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena on the formation of a non-BJP government in the state had seemingly reached the final stage, the BJP formed the government in a surprise development on Saturday morning when Devendra Fadnavis took oath for the second consecutive term as the state Chief Minister, while Ajit Pawar of NCP as his Deputy Chief Minister. The BJP won 105 seats in the 288-member assembly followed by Shiv Sena 56, NCP 54 and Congress 44.

Maharashtra Guv's move biased, malafide and contrary to all laws: Kapil Sibal in SC

Japan&nbsp;is not at fault for the inability of&nbsp;parents&nbsp;to see their&nbsp;children&nbsp;after separating despite having visitation rights, a court ruled on Friday, in a case that critics say highlights the ineptitude of a judicial system that lacks enforcement powers.

Fourteen&nbsp;parents&nbsp;had sued the government claiming damages of 9 million yen ($82,900), arguing that having no legal framework to ensure proper&nbsp;access&nbsp;to&nbsp;children&nbsp;was unconstitutional.

Parental alienation has long been an acute problem in&nbsp;Japan, with&nbsp;children&nbsp;often losing contact with the non-custodial parent after an acrimonious split.

Unlike most developed countries,&nbsp;Japan&nbsp;has no joint-custody system after divorce, and court-ordered visitation rights are often ignored with impunity.

The World Health Organisation this year classified parental alienation as a health condition, while the United Nations stipulates&nbsp;children&nbsp;should have the right to maintain bonds with both&nbsp;parents.

In the Tokyo District Court ruling, presiding judge Tatsuro Maezawa said the UN treaty was "merely an agreement to respect" those rights but had no binding power.

Tommaso Perina, an Italian resident of Tokyo and the only non-Japanese plaintiff, said the ruling went&nbsp;against&nbsp;the Supreme Court's stance, expressed in a parliamentary committee last week, that judges must adhere to international treaties in handing out rulings.

Perina lost custody of his&nbsp;children&nbsp;after his wife decided unilaterally in late 2016 not to return to Tokyo from her hometown to the north. Perina said he has not seen his&nbsp;children, aged 6 and 4, for more than two years.

A family court rejected Perina's plea for custody and granted him two hours' visitation a month.

Court documents reviewed by Reuters show Perina's wife had claimed domestic violence but the judge ruled&nbsp;against&nbsp;her, saying her testimony lacked credibility.

"It's ridiculous – you'd spend more time with a pet turtle," Perina told Reuters. "But my wife is refusing even that. I'm worried about my&nbsp;children&nbsp;because&nbsp;Japanese courts don't seem to understand what's in the best interest of&nbsp;children."

Multiple attempts by Reuters to reach Perina's wife by telephone were unsuccessful.

Perina remains married to her, has full parental rights and has been paying alimony of 170,000 yen a month since December 2016.

Perina has sought help through diplomatic channels - Ambassador Giorgio Starace called his situation a case of "minor abduction" - while even <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/emergency-declared-in-venice-following-severe-floods-262727">Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte </a>spoke to his&nbsp;Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, to no avail.

"I've reached the peak of what I can do," Perina said.

"Because when you have the head of a state talking for your kids and they cannot help the situation... Who can ask for more than that?"

Japan is not at fault for the inability of parents to see their children after separating despite having visitation rights, a court ruled on Friday, in a case that critics say highlights the ineptitude of a judicial system that lacks enforcement powers.

Japan is not at fault for the inability of parents to see their children after separating despite having visitation rights, a court ruled on Friday, in a case that critics say highlights the ineptitude of a judicial system that lacks enforcement powers. Fourteen parents had sued the government claiming damages of 9 million yen ($82,900), arguing that having no legal framework to ensure proper access to children was unconstitutional. Parental alienation has long been an acute problem in Japan, with children often losing contact with the non-custodial parent after an acrimonious split. Unlike most developed countries, Japan has no joint-custody system after divorce, and court-ordered visitation rights are often ignored with impunity. The World Health Organisation this year classified parental alienation as a health condition, while the United Nations stipulates children should have the right to maintain bonds with both parents. In the Tokyo District Court ruling, presiding judge Tatsuro Maezawa said the UN treaty was "merely an agreement to respect" those rights but had no binding power. Tommaso Perina, an Italian resident of Tokyo and the only non-Japanese plaintiff, said the ruling went against the Supreme Court's stance, expressed in a parliamentary committee last week, that judges must adhere to international treaties in handing out rulings. Perina lost custody of his children after his wife decided unilaterally in late 2016 not to return to Tokyo from her hometown to the north. Perina said he has not seen his children, aged 6 and 4, for more than two years. A family court rejected Perina's plea for custody and granted him two hours' visitation a month. Court documents reviewed by Reuters show Perina's wife had claimed domestic violence but the judge ruled against her, saying her testimony lacked credibility. "It's ridiculous – you'd spend more time with a pet turtle," Perina told Reuters. "But my wife is refusing even that. I'm worried about my children because Japanese courts don't seem to understand what's in the best interest of children." Multiple attempts by Reuters to reach Perina's wife by telephone were unsuccessful. Perina remains married to her, has full parental rights and has been paying alimony of 170,000 yen a month since December 2016. Perina has sought help through diplomatic channels - Ambassador Giorgio Starace called his situation a case of "minor abduction" - while even Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte spoke to his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, to no avail. "I've reached the peak of what I can do," Perina said. "Because when you have the head of a state talking for your kids and they cannot help the situation... Who can ask for more than that?"

Japan rules against divorced parents seeking access to children

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the recent amendments to Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, which allowed private entities to access the Aadhaar data.

The petition, jointly filed by retired Indian Army officer S G Vombatkare and human rights activist Bezwada Wilson, challenged the constitutional validity of the act.

A bench headed by Chief Justice B S Bobde sought their response and said that the case will be heard along with the petition challenging the ordinance on the same.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the recent amendments to Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, which allowed private entities to access the Aadhaar data.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the recent amendments to Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, which allowed private entities to access the Aadhaar data. The petition, jointly filed by retired Indian Army officer S G Vombatkare and human rights activist Bezwada Wilson, challenged the constitutional validity of the act. A bench headed by Chief Justice B S Bobde sought their response and said that the case will be heard along with the petition challenging the ordinance on the same.

Supreme Court issues notices on plea challenging Aadhaar data usage by private entities

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that there is normalcy in Kashmir and the situation which is being depicted about the region is "incorrect."

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, made these contentions on a petition filed by Kashmir Times Editor Anuradha Bhasin on the imposition of communication blockade in the region.

She has alleged that following the revocation of its special status, the Central government had disabled various media activities.

"The petitioner (Anuradha Bhasin) has chosen not to publish the newspaper from Kashmir. It is her wish. There were no restrictions as such. There is normalcy of life in Kashmir. The situation presented and depicted is incorrect," Mehta told a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana.

Mehta said that access to the internet, printers and other facilities was given to the media professionals.

"At regular intervals, media professionals were briefed and provided press briefs. Media kiosks were facilitated at the DCP offices to various media professionals," Mehta said.

While justifying certain restrictions imposed in the region, the Solicitor General said that authorities had applied their minds in imposing or lifting the curbs.

"It is a preventive measure. It is not a long drawn trial. It is not a danger to public life. Ninety-nine per cent people are happy and living a normal life there," he said.

In August, the Central government scrapped Article 370 and bifurcated the erstwhile state into two UTs -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region.

Normalcy is gradually returning to Jammu and Kashmir as mobile and landline services have been restored in both UTs and restrictions under Section 144 on movement have been withdrawn or relaxed.

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that there is normalcy in Kashmir and the situation which is being depicted about the region is "incorrect." Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, made these contentions on a petition filed by Kashmir Times Editor Anuradha Bhasin on the imposition of communication blockade in the region.

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that there is normalcy in Kashmir and the situation which is being depicted about the region is "incorrect." Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, made these contentions on a petition filed by Kashmir Times Editor Anuradha Bhasin on the imposition of communication blockade in the region. She has alleged that following the revocation of its special status, the Central government had disabled various media activities. "The petitioner (Anuradha Bhasin) has chosen not to publish the newspaper from Kashmir. It is her wish. There were no restrictions as such. There is normalcy of life in Kashmir. The situation presented and depicted is incorrect," Mehta told a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana. Mehta said that access to the internet, printers and other facilities was given to the media professionals. "At regular intervals, media professionals were briefed and provided press briefs. Media kiosks were facilitated at the DCP offices to various media professionals," Mehta said. While justifying certain restrictions imposed in the region, the Solicitor General said that authorities had applied their minds in imposing or lifting the curbs. "It is a preventive measure. It is not a long drawn trial. It is not a danger to public life. Ninety-nine per cent people are happy and living a normal life there," he said. In August, the Central government scrapped Article 370 and bifurcated the erstwhile state into two UTs -- Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region. Normalcy is gradually returning to Jammu and Kashmir as mobile and landline services have been restored in both UTs and restrictions under Section 144 on movement have been withdrawn or relaxed.

There is normalcy in Kashmir: Centre tells Supreme Court

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-seeking-deportation-of-rohingyas-bangladeshis-next-month-263568">Supreme Court</a> bench consisting of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy, and B R Gavai on Thursday heard a plea pertaining to the imposition of information blockade in Jammu and Kashmir.

"The Central government cannot put a blanket ban on freedom of speech and expression", senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said in the Supreme Court while referring to the restrictions placed in Jammu and Kashmir after its special status was revoked on August 5.

"There should be reasonable restrictions. People of this country have the right to freedom of speech and expression and nobody can put this into ransom," Arora, representing activists Shoaib Ahmed and Tesheen Poonawala, told the top court. The counsel further argued that the purpose to impose such conditions on the people "must be legitimate".

"One has to listen to both sides. In a democratic setup, people of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jammu-kashmir-situation-fully-normal-none-died-in-police-firing-since-august-5-amit-shah-263354">Jammu and Kashmir</a> have all the rights to voice their opinion whatever they want and desire," she added.

Opposing her contentions, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-to-examine-dreamers-program-that-trump-wants-axed-261490">Solicitor General</a> (SG) Tushar Mehta said that the decision was taken by the government under its constitutional rights to put these bans".

"We are the victims of cross border terrorism. The problem is there since 1947. Please accept the hard reality," Mehta told the apex Court. 
He said that rights have not been taken away from the people but conferred to them.

"Right to education was applied. The application of many laws will help the vulnerable people in Jammu and Kashmir," Mehta added.

In August, the central government had scrapped Article 370 and bifurcate the erstwhile state into two UTs Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region.

Normalcy is gradually returning to Jammu and Kashmir as mobile and landline services have been restored in both UTs and restrictions under Section 144 on movement withdrawn or relaxed.

The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy, and B R Gavai on Thursday heard a plea pertaining to the imposition of information blockade in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy, and B R Gavai on Thursday heard a plea pertaining to the imposition of information blockade in Jammu and Kashmir. "The Central government cannot put a blanket ban on freedom of speech and expression", senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said in the Supreme Court while referring to the restrictions placed in Jammu and Kashmir after its special status was revoked on August 5. "There should be reasonable restrictions. People of this country have the right to freedom of speech and expression and nobody can put this into ransom," Arora, representing activists Shoaib Ahmed and Tesheen Poonawala, told the top court. The counsel further argued that the purpose to impose such conditions on the people "must be legitimate". "One has to listen to both sides. In a democratic setup, people of Jammu and Kashmir have all the rights to voice their opinion whatever they want and desire," she added. Opposing her contentions, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said that the decision was taken by the government under its constitutional rights to put these bans". "We are the victims of cross border terrorism. The problem is there since 1947. Please accept the hard reality," Mehta told the apex Court. He said that rights have not been taken away from the people but conferred to them. "Right to education was applied. The application of many laws will help the vulnerable people in Jammu and Kashmir," Mehta added. In August, the central government had scrapped Article 370 and bifurcate the erstwhile state into two UTs Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region. Normalcy is gradually returning to Jammu and Kashmir as mobile and landline services have been restored in both UTs and restrictions under Section 144 on movement withdrawn or relaxed.

Supreme Court hears plea against information blockade in Jammu & Kashmir, counsel argues purpose must be 'legitimate'

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 sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on an appeal filed by former union finance minister P Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court's order dismissing his bail petition in the INX Media money laundering case.

A bench of Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy issued a notice to the probe agency and posted the matter for hearing to November 26.

Chidambaram sought 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 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. He was arrested by the ED on October 16 and is currently in judicial custody.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-delhi-high-court-rejects-p-chidambarams-bail-plea-262420">Denying bail to Chidambaram</a> in the case, the High Court had stated that prima facie allegations against him are "serious in nature" and he played an "active and key role" in the offence.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Chidambaram today, submitted before the top court that their client has been in jail for over 90 days and has cleared the triple test criterion to avail the bail.

Chidambaram had sought bail on the health grounds. The Congress leader also asserted that no part of the triple test, which includes flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, has been made out against him.

He stated that there was no allegation that he was a flight risk following the issuance of a Look out Circular (LOC).

Chidambaram was first <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-chidambaram-sent-to-judicial-custody-till-november-13-court-allows-home-cooked-food-258871">arrested by the CBI</a> in a corruption case on August 21. He was, however, granted bail by the Supreme Court in that case on

October 22, but he could not be released from the jail since ED arrested him on October 16 in money laundering case related to the same matter.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on an appeal filed by former union finance minister P Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court's order dismissing his bail petition in the INX Media money laundering case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on an appeal filed by former union finance minister P Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court's order dismissing his bail petition in the INX Media money laundering case. A bench of Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy issued a notice to the probe agency and posted the matter for hearing to November 26. Chidambaram sought 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 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. He was arrested by the ED on October 16 and is currently in judicial custody. Denying bail to Chidambaram in the case, the High Court had stated that prima facie allegations against him are "serious in nature" and he played an "active and key role" in the offence. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Chidambaram today, submitted before the top court that their client has been in jail for over 90 days and has cleared the triple test criterion to avail the bail. Chidambaram had sought bail on the health grounds. The Congress leader also asserted that no part of the triple test, which includes flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence, has been made out against him. He stated that there was no allegation that he was a flight risk following the issuance of a Look out Circular (LOC). Chidambaram was first arrested by the CBI in a corruption case on August 21. He was, however, granted bail by the Supreme Court in that case on October 22, but he could not be released from the jail since ED arrested him on October 16 in money laundering case related to the same matter.

INX Media case: Supreme Court issues notice to ED on Chidambaram's bail plea

The Supreme Court granted another opportunity to the Indian Army to take a final decision on granting Permanent Commission (PC) to eight women Army officers, against the bar on their absorption in the armed forces, the lawyer appearing for women Army officers told ANI. 
 
"One another opportunity has been given to the Indian Army to consider granting Permanent Commission to eight women officers, who had approached the Apex court in 2010," the lawyer, Aishwarya Bhatti, told ANI on Tuesday. 
 
The PC would be granted for consideration by the Army to those women Army officers, who had approached the apex court, seeking a direction in this regard, according to Bhatti. 
 
After being apprised by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, that the issue is being already considered for giving the women Army officers the PC, the SC bench, headed by Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, said, "We can pass an order but we are giving you an opportunity to take credit for it." 
 
ASG Jain today told the apex court that the central government had finally decided and agreed to grant PC, but the decision left out the women who had first approached the court in this regard. 
 
In an affidavit filed by the Union of India, it had stated that the three wings of the armed forces,&nbsp;Army, Navy and Air force,&nbsp;and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are actively considering the issue of parity between male and female officers in securing the PC in the Armed forces, with regard to the various pending and concluded litigations before various Courts.

The Supreme Court granted another opportunity to the Indian Army to take a final decision on granting Permanent Commission (PC) to eight women Army officers, against the bar on their absorption in the armed forces, the lawyer appearing for women Army officers told ANI.

The Supreme Court granted another opportunity to the Indian Army to take a final decision on granting Permanent Commission (PC) to eight women Army officers, against the bar on their absorption in the armed forces, the lawyer appearing for women Army officers told ANI. "One another opportunity has been given to the Indian Army to consider granting Permanent Commission to eight women officers, who had approached the Apex court in 2010," the lawyer, Aishwarya Bhatti, told ANI on Tuesday. The PC would be granted for consideration by the Army to those women Army officers, who had approached the apex court, seeking a direction in this regard, according to Bhatti. After being apprised by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, that the issue is being already considered for giving the women Army officers the PC, the SC bench, headed by Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, said, "We can pass an order but we are giving you an opportunity to take credit for it." ASG Jain today told the apex court that the central government had finally decided and agreed to grant PC, but the decision left out the women who had first approached the court in this regard. In an affidavit filed by the Union of India, it had stated that the three wings of the armed forces, Army, Navy and Air force, and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are actively considering the issue of parity between male and female officers in securing the PC in the Armed forces, with regard to the various pending and concluded litigations before various Courts.

Supreme Court asks Army to decide on granting special commission to female officers

A petition was filed in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/make-new-law-regarding-entry-of-women-into-sabarimala-temple-supreme-court-263366">Supreme Court</a> on Wednesday seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to investigate the 17th Lok Sabha election results for discrepancies.

The petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause submitted that they are not challenging the final result of the 2019 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ten-agencies-allowed-to-intercept-information-government-in-lok-sabha-on-pegasus-whatsapp-row-263323">Lok Sabha</a> elections.

"However, the issues and irregularities that arose in the conduct of the election are being cited as arguments for seeking the prayers sought in the petition for effectuating free and fair elections, the survival of democracy and for the enforcement of fundamental rights," the petition stated.

The BJP-led NDA government had returned to a thumping majority in the elections. 
The petitioner also sought a direction to the poll body to conduct actual and accurate reconciliation of data before declaring any election result.

"That in order to uphold and preserve the sanctity of elections, it is undeniably imperative that election results are accurate. The entire electoral process is damaged if elections are not credible even in the absence of a demonstrable scam," the plea said. 
The petition was filed to ensure that the democratic process is not subverted by electoral irregularities, it stated.

The petition cited a letter written by former IAS officer Kannan Gopinath to the Chief Election Commissioner regarding serious loopholes and vulnerabilities in the use of VVPAT machines which made EVMs susceptible to potential hacking.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to investigate the 17th Lok Sabha election results for discrepancies.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to investigate the 17th Lok Sabha election results for discrepancies. The petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause submitted that they are not challenging the final result of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. "However, the issues and irregularities that arose in the conduct of the election are being cited as arguments for seeking the prayers sought in the petition for effectuating free and fair elections, the survival of democracy and for the enforcement of fundamental rights," the petition stated. The BJP-led NDA government had returned to a thumping majority in the elections. The petitioner also sought a direction to the poll body to conduct actual and accurate reconciliation of data before declaring any election result. "That in order to uphold and preserve the sanctity of elections, it is undeniably imperative that election results are accurate. The entire electoral process is damaged if elections are not credible even in the absence of a demonstrable scam," the plea said. The petition was filed to ensure that the democratic process is not subverted by electoral irregularities, it stated. The petition cited a letter written by former IAS officer Kannan Gopinath to the Chief Election Commissioner regarding serious loopholes and vulnerabilities in the use of VVPAT machines which made EVMs susceptible to potential hacking.

Petition in Supreme Court seeks probe into Lok Sabha election results

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Kerala government to bring about a new law for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/devotees-visiting-sabarimala-temple-without-any-fear-devaswom-board-minister-262753">Sabarimala temple</a> matter in four weeks. 
 
A three-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, B R Gavai and Subhash Reddy asked the state government to file a draft in four weeks and adjourned the matter for the 3rd week of January 2020. 
 
The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Pandalam Royal Family seeking the protection of their rights. 
 
The royal family was one among the batch of petitioners who had challenged top court's September 28, 2018 judgment, which declared that women of all age groups could enter the shrine. 
 
The court had last week referred these review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench. 
 
The apex court verdict came on 65 petitions - including 56 review petitions, four fresh writ petitions, and five transfer pleas. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people. 
 
They argued that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kerala-devotees-pay-obeisance-at-sabarimala-temple-262681">Sabarimala deity</a> is a "Brahmachari" (celibate) and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Kerala government to bring about a new law for Sabarimala temple matter in four weeks. A three-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, B R Gavai and Subhash Reddy asked the state government to file a draft in four weeks and adjourned the matter for the 3rd week of January 2020.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Kerala government to bring about a new law for Sabarimala temple matter in four weeks. A three-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, B R Gavai and Subhash Reddy asked the state government to file a draft in four weeks and adjourned the matter for the 3rd week of January 2020. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Pandalam Royal Family seeking the protection of their rights. The royal family was one among the batch of petitioners who had challenged top court's September 28, 2018 judgment, which declared that women of all age groups could enter the shrine. The court had last week referred these review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench. The apex court verdict came on 65 petitions - including 56 review petitions, four fresh writ petitions, and five transfer pleas. The petitions challenged the authority of the court to intervene in a belief of the people. They argued that the Sabarimala deity is a "Brahmachari" (celibate) and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers.

Make new law regarding entry of women into Sabarimala temple: Supreme Court to Kerala government

Central government on Tuesday informed Lok Sabha on that it has issued advisories to state and UTs to take measures to curb incidents of mob lynching in the country.

In reply to CPI MPs K Subbarayan and M Selvaraj's questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs told the House that it has sensitised people through audiovisual media to check false news and rumours that could incite mob violence on the Supreme Court's directions.

The Supreme Court, in July 2018, passed a slew of directions for the Centre and states to curb incident of mob lynching in the country. The court had also recommended that Parliament enacts a separate law to check and punish the perpetrators of such crimes.

"In pursuance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment dated 17.07.2018, advisories dated 23.07.2018 and 25.09.2018 were issued to the State Governments and Union Territory

Administrations for taking measures to curb incidents of mob lynching in the country. The Government through audio-visual media has also generated public awareness to curb the menace of mob lynching," the answer read.

It further said, "The government has also sensitised the service providers to take steps to check the propagation of false news and rumours having potential to incite the mob 
violence and lynching."

The government also informed Lok Sabha that Rajasthan and Manipur have passed bills to check the crime that are "reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President". 
Several people have been killed in different incidents of mob lynching in many states over the years.

Central government on Tuesday informed Lok Sabha on that it has issued advisories to state and UTs to take measures to curb incidents of mob lynching in the country.

Central government on Tuesday informed Lok Sabha on that it has issued advisories to state and UTs to take measures to curb incidents of mob lynching in the country. In reply to CPI MPs K Subbarayan and M Selvaraj's questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs told the House that it has sensitised people through audiovisual media to check false news and rumours that could incite mob violence on the Supreme Court's directions. The Supreme Court, in July 2018, passed a slew of directions for the Centre and states to curb incident of mob lynching in the country. The court had also recommended that Parliament enacts a separate law to check and punish the perpetrators of such crimes. "In pursuance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment dated 17.07.2018, advisories dated 23.07.2018 and 25.09.2018 were issued to the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations for taking measures to curb incidents of mob lynching in the country. The Government through audio-visual media has also generated public awareness to curb the menace of mob lynching," the answer read. It further said, "The government has also sensitised the service providers to take steps to check the propagation of false news and rumours having potential to incite the mob violence and lynching." The government also informed Lok Sabha that Rajasthan and Manipur have passed bills to check the crime that are "reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President". Several people have been killed in different incidents of mob lynching in many states over the years.

Issued advisories to state, UTs to take measures to curb mob lynching: Centre informs Lok Sabha

Indian shares edged higher on Monday, driven mostly by a surge in banking stocks after the top court last week provided relief to lenders in a case related to a steel company and on hopes of more support from the government towards ailing sectors.

The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the path for steelmaker <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/supreme-court-clears-path-for-arcelormittal-to-acquire-essar-steel-262263">ArcelorMittal SA to take over</a> bankrupt Essar Steel, and the judgment comes as a big reprieve for banks which are struggling with bad loans worth $140 billion.

"The Essar Steel verdict is very positive for the banking sector. Also, the banking sector results have been marginally better than expected," said Vinod Nair, head of research at Geojit Financial Services.

The government is coming up with positive measures to help the economy and ailing sectors like telecom, boosting investor confidence, he added.

The finance minister said on Friday the government was discussing the issue around telecom companies, but no final call had been taken yet.

This comes after India's two top mobile carriers warned last week that their ability to operate and make profits would depend on relief from the government.

The NSE Nifty 50 index was up 0.1 per cent&nbsp;at 11,903 as of 0410 GMT, while the S&amp;P BSE&nbsp;Sensex&nbsp;was 0.3 per cent&nbsp;higher at 40,495.

The Nifty public sector bank index was the top gainer, rising 1.4 per cent. State Bank of India led the rally with a rise of 1.8 per cent.

Indian shares edged higher on Monday, driven mostly by a surge in banking stocks after the top court last week provided relief to lenders in a case related to a steel company and on hopes of more support from the government towards ailing sectors.

Indian shares edged higher on Monday, driven mostly by a surge in banking stocks after the top court last week provided relief to lenders in a case related to a steel company and on hopes of more support from the government towards ailing sectors. The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the path for steelmaker ArcelorMittal SA to take over bankrupt Essar Steel, and the judgment comes as a big reprieve for banks which are struggling with bad loans worth $140 billion. "The Essar Steel verdict is very positive for the banking sector. Also, the banking sector results have been marginally better than expected," said Vinod Nair, head of research at Geojit Financial Services. The government is coming up with positive measures to help the economy and ailing sectors like telecom, boosting investor confidence, he added. The finance minister said on Friday the government was discussing the issue around telecom companies, but no final call had been taken yet. This comes after India's two top mobile carriers warned last week that their ability to operate and make profits would depend on relief from the government. The NSE Nifty 50 index was up 0.1 per cent at 11,903 as of 0410 GMT, while the S&P BSE Sensex was 0.3 per cent higher at 40,495. The Nifty public sector bank index was the top gainer, rising 1.4 per cent. State Bank of India led the rally with a rise of 1.8 per cent.

Nifty, Sensex tick up; Public sector banks lead gains

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