Maldives lawmakers voted on Monday to dismiss the Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge - a move the government said was part of an overhaul of the judiciary, but the opposition branded an attack on the independence of the courts.

Lawmakers said they were acting on the recommendation of the parliament-appointed judicial watchdog which said this month that some of the top court's judges had violated the constitution and "usurped the powers of parliament".

There was no immediate comment from Chief Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, the judge, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, or their offices.

Amnesty International said in 2018 that it was concerned about the lack of judicial independence in the Indian Ocean nation, but did not immediately issue a statement about Monday's vote.

President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih came to power in September 2018, promising to improve law enforcement and end what he called corruption in the country's institutions.

Two months later, the Judicial Service Commission watchdog launched an investigation into senior judges.

Last month it said it had found 17 instances where the top court's judges had "violated the constitution or usurped the powers of parliament of independent state institutions".

Those violations, it said, included the suspension of dozens of lawyers after they called for judicial reforms and a ruling which stripped a dozen lawmakers of their seats after they joined the then opposition, now ruling party, in 2017.

The Supreme Court and its judges have not commented during the course of the investigation. The watchdog said the Chief Justice's office had received a copy of the report but returned it.

The chairman of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party, Hassan Latheef, said the vote was a milestone in its reform efforts. "I believe, we still do have enormous work to shape up a modern judiciary, " he told Reuters.

Opposition lawmaker Adam Shareef said he accepted there were problems with the judicial system. "But we believe that the dismissal of the Chief Justice is against the spirit of the constitution," he added.

"The current government with its huge majority is meddling in the judiciary," he added.

A total of 69 mostly ruling party lawmakers voted to impeach the chief justice and the judge, MPs and officials said, more than the two-thirds majority needed in the 87-member house to push the motion through under the constitution.

Maldives lawmakers voted on Monday to dismiss the Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge - a move the government said was part of an overhaul of the judiciary, but the opposition branded an attack on the independence of the courts.

Maldives lawmakers voted on Monday to dismiss the Chief Justice and a Supreme Court judge - a move the government said was part of an overhaul of the judiciary, but the opposition branded an attack on the independence of the courts. Lawmakers said they were acting on the recommendation of the parliament-appointed judicial watchdog which said this month that some of the top court's judges had violated the constitution and "usurped the powers of parliament". There was no immediate comment from Chief Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi, the judge, Adam Mohamed Abdulla, or their offices. Amnesty International said in 2018 that it was concerned about the lack of judicial independence in the Indian Ocean nation, but did not immediately issue a statement about Monday's vote. President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih came to power in September 2018, promising to improve law enforcement and end what he called corruption in the country's institutions. Two months later, the Judicial Service Commission watchdog launched an investigation into senior judges. Last month it said it had found 17 instances where the top court's judges had "violated the constitution or usurped the powers of parliament of independent state institutions". Those violations, it said, included the suspension of dozens of lawyers after they called for judicial reforms and a ruling which stripped a dozen lawmakers of their seats after they joined the then opposition, now ruling party, in 2017. The Supreme Court and its judges have not commented during the course of the investigation. The watchdog said the Chief Justice's office had received a copy of the report but returned it. The chairman of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party, Hassan Latheef, said the vote was a milestone in its reform efforts. "I believe, we still do have enormous work to shape up a modern judiciary, " he told Reuters. Opposition lawmaker Adam Shareef said he accepted there were problems with the judicial system. "But we believe that the dismissal of the Chief Justice is against the spirit of the constitution," he added. "The current government with its huge majority is meddling in the judiciary," he added. A total of 69 mostly ruling party lawmakers voted to impeach the chief justice and the judge, MPs and officials said, more than the two-thirds majority needed in the 87-member house to push the motion through under the constitution.

Maldives lawmakers dismiss Chief Justice and senior judge

Iqbal Ansari, one of the petitioners in Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, on Sunday distanced himself from the decision of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to seek review of the Supreme Court order in the matter.

"We respect the apex court's ruling. We are Muslims of India and respect the law of the land. We would not go further on this issue," Ansari told ANI here. "Since there are so many litigants in the case, I cannot take guarantee of everyone."

On November 9, a five-judge bench ordered the construction of Ram Temple while directing the government to give five acres of land to build a mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

Earlier today, AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani announced the decision to file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.

"We will file the review petition in the Supreme Court and we will not also accept the 5 acres of land to be given to us on the direction of the apex court, as it is against Sharia," Jilani told media persons in Lucknow.

Iqbal Ansari, one of the petitioners in Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, on Sunday distanced himself from the decision of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to seek review of the Supreme Court order in the matter.

Iqbal Ansari, one of the petitioners in Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, on Sunday distanced himself from the decision of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to seek review of the Supreme Court order in the matter. "We respect the apex court's ruling. We are Muslims of India and respect the law of the land. We would not go further on this issue," Ansari told ANI here. "Since there are so many litigants in the case, I cannot take guarantee of everyone." On November 9, a five-judge bench ordered the construction of Ram Temple while directing the government to give five acres of land to build a mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Earlier today, AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani announced the decision to file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit. "We will file the review petition in the Supreme Court and we will not also accept the 5 acres of land to be given to us on the direction of the apex court, as it is against Sharia," Jilani told media persons in Lucknow.

Plaintiff Iqbal Ansari distances from AIMPLB decision to seek review of Supreme Court ruling in Ayodhya case

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case, on Sunday convened a high-level meeting here to discuss the verdict of the Supreme Court in the matter and formulate the future course of action.

The meeting chaired by the head of Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Dinendra Das, was also attended by its Sarpanch Raja Ram Chandra Das here. All Panchs of Nirmohi Akhara were present in the meeting.

"We held a meeting to discuss the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ram temple. We welcome the verdict but the Supreme Court did not take a stand on several issues. We also discussed these matters and are formulating a future course of action," the Sarpanch told ANI.

He said that the Nirmohi Akhara has been demanding the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya since the year 1885.

Swamy Ram Suresh Das, who was also present in the meeting said: "We also performed 'Sarju Pujan' and prayed that the temple is constructed without any obstruction."

The Supreme Court had, in its November 9 judgment, directed that representation may be given to Nirmohi Akhara in the central trust to be set up to oversee the contested property in Ayodhya.

The Supreme Court had also directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and give a suitable plot of land measuring five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case, on Sunday convened a high-level meeting here to discuss the verdict of the Supreme Court in the matter and formulate the future course of action.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case, on Sunday convened a high-level meeting here to discuss the verdict of the Supreme Court in the matter and formulate the future course of action. The meeting chaired by the head of Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Dinendra Das, was also attended by its Sarpanch Raja Ram Chandra Das here. All Panchs of Nirmohi Akhara were present in the meeting. "We held a meeting to discuss the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ram temple. We welcome the verdict but the Supreme Court did not take a stand on several issues. We also discussed these matters and are formulating a future course of action," the Sarpanch told ANI. He said that the Nirmohi Akhara has been demanding the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya since the year 1885. Swamy Ram Suresh Das, who was also present in the meeting said: "We also performed 'Sarju Pujan' and prayed that the temple is constructed without any obstruction." The Supreme Court had, in its November 9 judgment, directed that representation may be given to Nirmohi Akhara in the central trust to be set up to oversee the contested property in Ayodhya. The Supreme Court had also directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and give a suitable plot of land measuring five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board.

Nirmohi Akhara convenes meeting to discuss future course of action on Ayodhya verdict

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Sunday decided to file a review petition against Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya issue.

The board also rejected the apex court order in which they granted 5 acres of land under Article 142 for a new mosque saying it was against Shariat and Waqf law.

Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title suit has said that the land of the mosque belongs to Allah and under Sharia law, it cannot be given to anybody. Zafaryab Jilani is also secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

"We will file the review petition in the Supreme Court and we will not also accept the 5 acres of land to be given to us on the direction of the apex court, as it is against Sharia," said Jilani.

The decision was taken during the Working Committee meeting of the AIMPLB held here.

"In the Supreme Court verdict, such things have been written that will lead to confrontation with each other. According to Sharia, the Masjid remains at the place where it is once built. It is not allowed as per Sharia to accept anything in place of Masjid be it land, money or any other thing adjoining it," said Maulana Rahman while addressing the press conference.

The Supreme Court on Saturday (November 9) directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and set up a trust for the same.

The apex court further directed the government to give a suitable plot of land measuring five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board.

A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a batch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court which trifurcated the site between the parties -- Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.

A decade-long legal dispute was fought by Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

(With inputs from ANI)

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Sunday decided to file a review petition against Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya issue. The board also rejected the apex court order in which they granted 5 acres of land under Article 142 for a new mosque saying it was against Shariat and Waqf law.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Sunday decided to file a review petition against Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya issue. The board also rejected the apex court order in which they granted 5 acres of land under Article 142 for a new mosque saying it was against Shariat and Waqf law. Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title suit has said that the land of the mosque belongs to Allah and under Sharia law, it cannot be given to anybody. Zafaryab Jilani is also secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). "We will file the review petition in the Supreme Court and we will not also accept the 5 acres of land to be given to us on the direction of the apex court, as it is against Sharia," said Jilani. The decision was taken during the Working Committee meeting of the AIMPLB held here. "In the Supreme Court verdict, such things have been written that will lead to confrontation with each other. According to Sharia, the Masjid remains at the place where it is once built. It is not allowed as per Sharia to accept anything in place of Masjid be it land, money or any other thing adjoining it," said Maulana Rahman while addressing the press conference. The Supreme Court on Saturday (November 9) directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and set up a trust for the same. The apex court further directed the government to give a suitable plot of land measuring five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board. A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a batch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court which trifurcated the site between the parties -- Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. A decade-long legal dispute was fought by Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya Judgement: Muslim Law Board to file a review petition, refuses alternative 5-acre plot

Amid tight security arrangements, sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala Temple was opened on Saturday in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district.

The temple has been opened for a two-month for Mandala Puja and though it has been opened by priests at 5 pm today, devotees visit from November 17.

The opening of the shrine comes days after a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had referred a clutch of petitions seeking review of its order which paved the way for the entry of women into Sabarimala temple in Kerala to a larger seven-judge bench by a majority 3:2 ruling.

The top court also observed that the right to worship by an individual cannot outweigh the rights of a religious group.

While Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra sent the review petitions to a larger bench, Justices Nariman and Chandrachud authored a dissenting judgment.

The review petitions challenged the authority of the apex court to intervene in the belief of the people.&nbsp;

It argued that the temple deity is a "Brahmachari" (celibate) and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers.

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, wherein several women attempted to visit the shrine but were stopped by Lord Ayyappa devotees.

Women rights activist Trupti Desai, who has been a vehement critic of the restriction on the entry of women of a certain age group in the temple, had said that she will be visiting the shrine after November 20 regardless of whether or not she is provided security cover by the state government.&nbsp;

Amid tight security arrangements, sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala Temple was opened on Saturday in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. The temple has been opened for a two-month for Mandala Puja and though it has been opened by priests at 5 pm today, devotees visit from November 17.

Amid tight security arrangements, sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala Temple was opened on Saturday in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. The temple has been opened for a two-month for Mandala Puja and though it has been opened by priests at 5 pm today, devotees visit from November 17. The opening of the shrine comes days after a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had referred a clutch of petitions seeking review of its order which paved the way for the entry of women into Sabarimala temple in Kerala to a larger seven-judge bench by a majority 3:2 ruling. The top court also observed that the right to worship by an individual cannot outweigh the rights of a religious group. While Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra sent the review petitions to a larger bench, Justices Nariman and Chandrachud authored a dissenting judgment. The review petitions challenged the authority of the apex court to intervene in the belief of the people. It argued that the temple deity is a "Brahmachari" (celibate) and "centuries-old beliefs" should not be disturbed by the entry of menstruating women worshippers. 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, wherein several women attempted to visit the shrine but were stopped by Lord Ayyappa devotees. Women rights activist Trupti Desai, who has been a vehement critic of the restriction on the entry of women of a certain age group in the temple, had said that she will be visiting the shrine after November 20 regardless of whether or not she is provided security cover by the state government.

Amid tight security arrangements, Sabarimala temple opens for prayer

The&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;cleared the&nbsp;path&nbsp;on Friday for&nbsp;steelmaker&nbsp;ArcelorMittal&nbsp;SA&nbsp; to take over bankrupt&nbsp;Essar&nbsp;Steel, following a legal tussle that has dragged through multiple&nbsp;courts for over two years.

The apex&nbsp;court&nbsp;said operational creditors cannot be treated on par with financial creditors of a bankrupt company, in a ruling that provides relief to lenders and sets a precedent that could speed-up the resolution of other insolvency cases.

Banks had moved the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;earlier this year after an appellate&nbsp;court&nbsp;judge put the claims of&nbsp;Essar's operational creditors on par with those of its lenders.

Essar&nbsp;Steel, with debts from banks worth nearly 500 billion rupees ($7.01 billion), was among the so-called dirty dozen - twelve large&nbsp;steel&nbsp;and other infrastructure companies which defaulted and were referred to India's bankruptcy&nbsp;court&nbsp;in 2017.

The Supreme Court cleared the path on Friday for steelmaker ArcelorMittal SA to take over bankrupt Essar Steel, following a legal tussle that has dragged through multiple courts for over two years.

The Supreme Court cleared the path on Friday for steelmaker ArcelorMittal SA to take over bankrupt Essar Steel, following a legal tussle that has dragged through multiple courts for over two years. The apex court said operational creditors cannot be treated on par with financial creditors of a bankrupt company, in a ruling that provides relief to lenders and sets a precedent that could speed-up the resolution of other insolvency cases. Banks had moved the Supreme Court earlier this year after an appellate court judge put the claims of Essar's operational creditors on par with those of its lenders. Essar Steel, with debts from banks worth nearly 500 billion rupees ($7.01 billion), was among the so-called dirty dozen - twelve large steel and other infrastructure companies which defaulted and were referred to India's bankruptcy court in 2017.

Supreme Court clears path for ArcelorMittal to acquire Essar Steel

Outgoing Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Friday said that a part of him will always remain with the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is set to retire on November 17, was accorded farewell on his last day in the apex court. Gogoi's successor SA Bobde and other judges were present at the function.

The chief, however, gave no speech. In an official message jotted down by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and read out by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) at the function, he said, "Although I won't be a formal part of this extraordinary and much-respected institution any longer but a part of me will always remain with it and will always wish the best for it."

He said that over the past 40 years as a lawyer and judge, it was his privilege to watch the majesty of law from close quarters.

"It provided me with an opportunity to contribute to the institution which I tried to serve to the best of my abilities. I have tried to address pressing issues of the justice delivery system," the message undersigned by Chief Justice Gogoi read.

He also lauded the Supreme Court Bar Association and said that it must serve as an exemplar to other bar associations across the country.

On his last working day today, Gogoi who assumed the office of the Chief Justice of India on October 3 in 2018, visited the Samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat and paid respects.

Outgoing Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Friday said that a part of him will always remain with the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is set to retire on November 17, was accorded farewell on his last day in the apex court.

Outgoing Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Friday said that a part of him will always remain with the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is set to retire on November 17, was accorded farewell on his last day in the apex court. Gogoi's successor SA Bobde and other judges were present at the function. The chief, however, gave no speech. In an official message jotted down by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and read out by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) at the function, he said, "Although I won't be a formal part of this extraordinary and much-respected institution any longer but a part of me will always remain with it and will always wish the best for it." He said that over the past 40 years as a lawyer and judge, it was his privilege to watch the majesty of law from close quarters. "It provided me with an opportunity to contribute to the institution which I tried to serve to the best of my abilities. I have tried to address pressing issues of the justice delivery system," the message undersigned by Chief Justice Gogoi read. He also lauded the Supreme Court Bar Association and said that it must serve as an exemplar to other bar associations across the country. On his last working day today, Gogoi who assumed the office of the Chief Justice of India on October 3 in 2018, visited the Samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat and paid respects.

A part of me will always remain with Supreme Court: Outgoing CJI Ranjan Gogoi

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pelosi-says-trump-has-admitted-to-bribery-as-impeachment-probe-intensifies-262171">Donald Trump</a> on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to bar a prosecutor from obtaining his tax returns, arguing that as president he has blanket immunity.

Trump, a former New York businessman, is the first American president since Richard Nixon not to make his tax returns public, arguing they're under audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

Opposition Democrats have turned to the courts to force their release in a case that's considered a crucial test of the separation of powers. And if the US high court,&nbsp;where conservative judges hold the majority, decides to take up the case, their decision will receive endless scrutiny.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, a Democrat, has demanded Trump's tax returns dating back to 2011 as part of an investigation into payments made by Michael Cohen, the president's former personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who claimed to have had a sexual liaison with Trump before he ran for president in 2016.

Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump must hand over the documents.

But the president's attorneys argue that he enjoys immunity both from prosecution and from any acts of investigation.

"For the first time in our nation's history, a state or local prosecutor has launched a criminal investigation of the President of the United States and subjected him to coercive criminal process," Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow said, according to US media.

"Politically motivated subpoenas like this one are a perfect illustration of why a sitting president should be categorically immune from state criminal process," he said.

At a hearing on the case on October 23, one of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/despite-wonderful-meeting-trump-and-erdogan-fail-to-resolve-conflicts-262004">Trump's</a> lawyers went so far as to argue that the president would have immunity even if he shot someone in the street,&nbsp;a statement immediately challenged by jurists and mocked by Democrats.

There have been various other attempts to obtain the returns by Democratic lawmakers in New York and in the House of Representatives.

Donald Trump on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to bar a prosecutor from obtaining his tax returns, arguing that as president he has blanket immunity. Trump, a former New York businessman, is the first American president since Richard Nixon not to make his tax returns public, arguing they're under audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

Donald Trump on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to bar a prosecutor from obtaining his tax returns, arguing that as president he has blanket immunity. Trump, a former New York businessman, is the first American president since Richard Nixon not to make his tax returns public, arguing they're under audit by the Internal Revenue Service. Opposition Democrats have turned to the courts to force their release in a case that's considered a crucial test of the separation of powers. And if the US high court, where conservative judges hold the majority, decides to take up the case, their decision will receive endless scrutiny. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, a Democrat, has demanded Trump's tax returns dating back to 2011 as part of an investigation into payments made by Michael Cohen, the president's former personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who claimed to have had a sexual liaison with Trump before he ran for president in 2016. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump must hand over the documents. But the president's attorneys argue that he enjoys immunity both from prosecution and from any acts of investigation. "For the first time in our nation's history, a state or local prosecutor has launched a criminal investigation of the President of the United States and subjected him to coercive criminal process," Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow said, according to US media. "Politically motivated subpoenas like this one are a perfect illustration of why a sitting president should be categorically immune from state criminal process," he said. At a hearing on the case on October 23, one of Trump's lawyers went so far as to argue that the president would have immunity even if he shot someone in the street, a statement immediately challenged by jurists and mocked by Democrats. There have been various other attempts to obtain the returns by Democratic lawmakers in New York and in the House of Representatives.

Donald Trump asks United States Supreme Court to protect his tax returns

The Supreme Court on Friday called the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/govt-to-decide-extending-odd-even-if-air-quality-in-delhi-doesnt-improve-in-2-3-days-arvind-kejriwal-262285">odd-even rationing scheme </a>"half-baked" and said that it might not be a solution to control the deteriorating air quality in the national capital. The apex court said that despite the implementation of the scheme, the pollution levels have continued to increase.

Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Delhi government, told the court that if certain exemptions are removed, it will help. "We are trying to work it out further. If two-wheelers are not allowed, the city will come to a standstill," he said. He further said that stubble burning is the main cause of air pollution.

The court pulled up AAP-led Delhi government and asked it to apprise it about the effect of the scheme on air pollution levels. "Even Delhi government's affidavit says we have not conducted such study on the odd-even. It's a halfway solution, either it's full odd-even or no odd-even, there has to be no exemption. We don't know whether it's really working or not," the top court said.

It added, "Delhi is suffering badly, the AQI is almost 600 even today. How do people breathe?"

The court also directed the Centre to prepare a road map for installation of air-purifying towers to deal with the pollution crisis in the national capital. The air pollution levels in Delhi and its adjoining areas remained in the 'severe'&nbsp;category today for the third consecutive day.

The overall Air Quality Index (AQI) in the national capital was recorded at 482 which falls under the 'Severe'&nbsp;category with PM10 being 504 and PM2.5 - 332, according to Center-run SAFAR.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday called the odd-even rationing scheme "half-baked" and said that it might not be a solution to control the deteriorating air quality in the national capital.

The Supreme Court on Friday called the odd-even rationing scheme "half-baked" and said that it might not be a solution to control the deteriorating air quality in the national capital. The apex court said that despite the implementation of the scheme, the pollution levels have continued to increase. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Delhi government, told the court that if certain exemptions are removed, it will help. "We are trying to work it out further. If two-wheelers are not allowed, the city will come to a standstill," he said. He further said that stubble burning is the main cause of air pollution. The court pulled up AAP-led Delhi government and asked it to apprise it about the effect of the scheme on air pollution levels. "Even Delhi government's affidavit says we have not conducted such study on the odd-even. It's a halfway solution, either it's full odd-even or no odd-even, there has to be no exemption. We don't know whether it's really working or not," the top court said. It added, "Delhi is suffering badly, the AQI is almost 600 even today. How do people breathe?" The court also directed the Centre to prepare a road map for installation of air-purifying towers to deal with the pollution crisis in the national capital. The air pollution levels in Delhi and its adjoining areas remained in the 'severe' category today for the third consecutive day. The overall Air Quality Index (AQI) in the national capital was recorded at 482 which falls under the 'Severe' category with PM10 being 504 and PM2.5 - 332, according to Center-run SAFAR.

Supreme Court again pulls up Delhi govt, says odd-even not a solution to air pollution

'No inquiry needed on Rafale' says Supreme Court; Dismisses review pleas. Watch video to know more.

'No inquiry needed on Rafale' says Supreme Court; Dismisses review pleas

Sabarimala case Exclusive: Supreme Court refers case to larger bench. Watch video to know more

Sabarimala case Exclusive: Supreme Court refers case to larger bench

Apex court dismisses all review petitions in Rafale fighter jets deal case. Watch video to know more.

Apex court dismisses all review petitions in Rafale fighter jets deal case

Sabarimala case: Apex Court five-judge bench to deliver the verdict. Watch video to know more.

Sabarimala case: Apex Court five-judge bench to deliver the verdict

Indian mobile carrier Vodafone Idea on Thursday reported the biggest quarterly loss in India's corporate history after making provisions for outstanding government dues.

Vodafone Idea, made up of the local unit of Vodafone Group Plc and billionaire Kumar Mangalam Birla's Idea Cellular, reported a consolidated net loss of 509 billion rupees ($7.13 billion) in the second quarter to September.

The company took a charge of 256.78 billion rupees for the quarter after India's Supreme Court last month upheld a demand by the telecoms department that wireless carriers pay 920 billion rupees in overdue levies and interest.

Vodafone Idea and rival Bharti Airtel, two of India's three main mobile carriers, will have to pay a bulk of this state demand.

Bharti Airtel on Thursday reported a consolidated net loss of 230.45 billion rupees ($3.23 billion) in three months to September.

Bharti said it made a provision of 284.50 billion rupees, more than 92% of the overall charge for exceptional items, after the Supreme Court ruling.

Telecom providers in India pay the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) nearly 3-5% of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) in usage charges for spectrum or airwaves and 8% of AGR as licence fees.

The DoT and the mobile carriers have been at odds over the definition of AGR. The companies argue that AGR should comprise just revenue accrued from core services, while the DoT says AGR should include all revenue.

The Supreme Court last month upheld the DoT's view on AGR.

Vodafone Idea said it was in active discussions with the government seeking financial relief and also in the process of filing a review petition with the Supreme Court.

"It is to be noted that our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on obtaining the reliefs from the government... and positive outcome of the proposed legal remedy," Vodafone Idea said in a statement.

The company's gross debt at end-Sept. stood at 1.17 trillion rupees. Analysts have previously warned that Vodafone Idea will be the worst hit after the Supreme Court ruling given its already stretched balance sheet.

"Vodafone results are a reflection of the company’s inability to compete effectively in a three-player market," said Deepa Dasani of HDFC Securities.

"Apart from its impact on its equity value, this result will surely result in wider financial repercussions because it will hit the lenders and debt investors in the company, including mutual funds."

Analysts on average expected Vodafone Idea to report a consolidated net loss of 44.22 billion rupees for the quarter, according to Refinitiv data, although those figures did not include the charge.

The wireless carrier had posted a net loss of 49.74 billion rupees a year ago.

Vodafone Idea's consolidated revenue from operations for the quarter rose 41.4% year-on-year to 108.44 billion rupees.

On Thursday, Vodafone Idea said it plans to sell its 11.15% stake in mobile mast operator Indus Towers once its merger with Bharti Infratel receives regulatory clearances.

Bharti Airtel's MD and CEO, India &amp; South Asia, Gopal Vittal said: "We continue to engage with the government and are evaluating various options available to us."

"We are hopeful that the government will take a considerate view in this matter given the fragile state of the industry," Gobal said.

Analysts on average expected Bharti Airtel to report a loss of 11.16 billion rupees for the three months to the end of September, according to Refinitiv data.

Bharti, which runs operations in South Asia and Africa, said its Indian revenue rose 3% year-on-year to 153.61 billion rupees.

Earlier on Thursday, Singapore-based Singtel posted a second-quarter loss of S$668 million ($491.29 million) hurt by a one-time charge recorded by Bharti.

Singtel is the biggest shareholder in Bharti Airtel, with an effective stake of about 35%.

Indian mobile carrier Vodafone Idea on Thursday reported the biggest quarterly loss in India's corporate history after making provisions for outstanding government dues.

Indian mobile carrier Vodafone Idea on Thursday reported the biggest quarterly loss in India's corporate history after making provisions for outstanding government dues. Vodafone Idea, made up of the local unit of Vodafone Group Plc and billionaire Kumar Mangalam Birla's Idea Cellular, reported a consolidated net loss of 509 billion rupees ($7.13 billion) in the second quarter to September. The company took a charge of 256.78 billion rupees for the quarter after India's Supreme Court last month upheld a demand by the telecoms department that wireless carriers pay 920 billion rupees in overdue levies and interest. Vodafone Idea and rival Bharti Airtel, two of India's three main mobile carriers, will have to pay a bulk of this state demand. Bharti Airtel on Thursday reported a consolidated net loss of 230.45 billion rupees ($3.23 billion) in three months to September. Bharti said it made a provision of 284.50 billion rupees, more than 92% of the overall charge for exceptional items, after the Supreme Court ruling. Telecom providers in India pay the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) nearly 3-5% of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) in usage charges for spectrum or airwaves and 8% of AGR as licence fees. The DoT and the mobile carriers have been at odds over the definition of AGR. The companies argue that AGR should comprise just revenue accrued from core services, while the DoT says AGR should include all revenue. The Supreme Court last month upheld the DoT's view on AGR. Vodafone Idea said it was in active discussions with the government seeking financial relief and also in the process of filing a review petition with the Supreme Court. "It is to be noted that our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on obtaining the reliefs from the government... and positive outcome of the proposed legal remedy," Vodafone Idea said in a statement. The company's gross debt at end-Sept. stood at 1.17 trillion rupees. Analysts have previously warned that Vodafone Idea will be the worst hit after the Supreme Court ruling given its already stretched balance sheet. "Vodafone results are a reflection of the company’s inability to compete effectively in a three-player market," said Deepa Dasani of HDFC Securities. "Apart from its impact on its equity value, this result will surely result in wider financial repercussions because it will hit the lenders and debt investors in the company, including mutual funds." Analysts on average expected Vodafone Idea to report a consolidated net loss of 44.22 billion rupees for the quarter, according to Refinitiv data, although those figures did not include the charge. The wireless carrier had posted a net loss of 49.74 billion rupees a year ago. Vodafone Idea's consolidated revenue from operations for the quarter rose 41.4% year-on-year to 108.44 billion rupees. On Thursday, Vodafone Idea said it plans to sell its 11.15% stake in mobile mast operator Indus Towers once its merger with Bharti Infratel receives regulatory clearances. Bharti Airtel's MD and CEO, India & South Asia, Gopal Vittal said: "We continue to engage with the government and are evaluating various options available to us." "We are hopeful that the government will take a considerate view in this matter given the fragile state of the industry," Gobal said. Analysts on average expected Bharti Airtel to report a loss of 11.16 billion rupees for the three months to the end of September, according to Refinitiv data. Bharti, which runs operations in South Asia and Africa, said its Indian revenue rose 3% year-on-year to 153.61 billion rupees. Earlier on Thursday, Singapore-based Singtel posted a second-quarter loss of S$668 million ($491.29 million) hurt by a one-time charge recorded by Bharti. Singtel is the biggest shareholder in Bharti Airtel, with an effective stake of about 35%.

Vodafone Idea makes $7 billion loss after provisions for government dues

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets by the Indian government and observed that it is not their function to determine the prices of jets.

A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the pleas as they were bereft of 'merit'.

A batch of petitions, filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and others, sought CBI probe into the purchase of Rafale jets.

The review was sought on the grounds that judgment contained several errors.

The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph, further held that matter cannot be dealt with because of "mere suspicion" by the petitioners.

"Insofar as the aspect of pricing is concerned, the court satisfied itself with the material made available. It is not the function of this Court to determine the prices," the bench observed.

The top court added, "On the perusal of documents we had found that one cannot compare apples and oranges. Thus, the pricing of the basic aircraft had to be compared which was competitively marginally lower. As to what should be loaded on the aircraft or not and what further pricing should be added has to be left to the best judgment of the competent authorities."

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets by the Indian government and observed that it is not their function to determine the prices of jets.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets by the Indian government and observed that it is not their function to determine the prices of jets. A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the pleas as they were bereft of 'merit'. A batch of petitions, filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and others, sought CBI probe into the purchase of Rafale jets. The review was sought on the grounds that judgment contained several errors. The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph, further held that matter cannot be dealt with because of "mere suspicion" by the petitioners. "Insofar as the aspect of pricing is concerned, the court satisfied itself with the material made available. It is not the function of this Court to determine the prices," the bench observed. The top court added, "On the perusal of documents we had found that one cannot compare apples and oranges. Thus, the pricing of the basic aircraft had to be compared which was competitively marginally lower. As to what should be loaded on the aircraft or not and what further pricing should be added has to be left to the best judgment of the competent authorities."

Rafale deal verdict: Not our function to determine fighter jet’s prices, says Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Thursday referred the review petitions in the&nbsp;Sabarimala&nbsp;case to a larger&nbsp;constitution&nbsp;bench.

A seven-judge bench will now hear the case. The verdict was reached with a 3:2 majority with&nbsp;Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice DY Chandrachud giving a&nbsp;dissenting judgement.&nbsp;

India's top court had on September 28 last year had permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple.

A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict had said banning women's entry into the temple was gender discrimination and violated the rights of Hindu women.

Women of menstruating age, that is between the ages of 10 and 50, were barred from entering the Sabarimala&nbsp;temple by its officials, who argued that the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa, had taken a vow of celibacy.

Following the verdict, several women had tried to enter the temple amid heavy security even as protesters surrounded them and opposed their movement into the temple.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Thursday referred the review petitions in the Sabarimala case to a larger constitution bench. A seven-judge bench will now hear the case. The verdict was reached with a 3:2 majority with Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice DY Chandrachud giving a dissenting judgement.

Supreme Court on Thursday referred the review petitions in the Sabarimala case to a larger constitution bench. A seven-judge bench will now hear the case. The verdict was reached with a 3:2 majority with Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice DY Chandrachud giving a dissenting judgement. India's top court had on September 28 last year had permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict had said banning women's entry into the temple was gender discrimination and violated the rights of Hindu women. Women of menstruating age, that is between the ages of 10 and 50, were barred from entering the Sabarimala temple by its officials, who argued that the temple deity, Lord Ayyappa, had taken a vow of celibacy. Following the verdict, several women had tried to enter the temple amid heavy security even as protesters surrounded them and opposed their movement into the temple.

Supreme Court refers Sabarimala case to larger constitution bench

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed a contempt case against Congress leader <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bjp-slams-rahul-gandhi-over-chowkidar-chor-hai-remark-rafale-claims-after-sc-verdict-demands-apology-262036">Rahul Gandhi</a> for his "chowkidar chor hai" (Watchman is the thief) remark with a "word of caution" to him and observed that no court should be dragged into political discourse.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi closed the contempt petition and accepted Rahul Gandhi's apology for wrongly attributing his infamous "chowkidar chor hai" remark in Rafale case to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and opined that a person holding a place of importance in political spectrum should have been more careful.

"We would not like to continue these proceedings further and, thus, close the contempt proceedings with a word of caution for the contemnor to be more careful in the future. No court should be dragged into this political discourse," the apex court stated in the verdict.

The comments were made by Gandhi in pursuant to the top court's order on the Rafale deal. Gandhi, who was then the president of the Congress party, allegedly said that the apex court had accepted that "chowkidar"&nbsp;(a reference to Prime Minister Modi), is a "chor"&nbsp;(thief).

BJP lawmaker Meenakshi Lekhi accused Gandhi of misquoting the court and filed a contempt petition. Gandhi had then tendered an unconditional apology to the court and sought closure of the contempt proceedings against him. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, today observed that Gandhi made allegations without verification.

"The contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) deemed it appropriate to make statements as if this Court had given an imprimatur to his allegations against the Prime Minister, which was far from the truth," the bench said.

The top court said that initially Gandhi did not accept his mistake or tendered an apology, but later during the course of proceedings, a "better wisdom" dawned on him.

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed a contempt case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his "chowkidar chor hai" (Watchman is the thief) remark with a "word of caution" to him and observed that no court should be dragged into political discourse.

The Supreme Court on Thursday closed a contempt case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his "chowkidar chor hai" (Watchman is the thief) remark with a "word of caution" to him and observed that no court should be dragged into political discourse. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi closed the contempt petition and accepted Rahul Gandhi's apology for wrongly attributing his infamous "chowkidar chor hai" remark in Rafale case to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and opined that a person holding a place of importance in political spectrum should have been more careful. "We would not like to continue these proceedings further and, thus, close the contempt proceedings with a word of caution for the contemnor to be more careful in the future. No court should be dragged into this political discourse," the apex court stated in the verdict. The comments were made by Gandhi in pursuant to the top court's order on the Rafale deal. Gandhi, who was then the president of the Congress party, allegedly said that the apex court had accepted that "chowkidar" (a reference to Prime Minister Modi), is a "chor" (thief). BJP lawmaker Meenakshi Lekhi accused Gandhi of misquoting the court and filed a contempt petition. Gandhi had then tendered an unconditional apology to the court and sought closure of the contempt proceedings against him. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, today observed that Gandhi made allegations without verification. "The contemnor (Rahul Gandhi) deemed it appropriate to make statements as if this Court had given an imprimatur to his allegations against the Prime Minister, which was far from the truth," the bench said. The top court said that initially Gandhi did not accept his mistake or tendered an apology, but later during the course of proceedings, a "better wisdom" dawned on him.

Court should not be dragged into political discourse: Supreme Court on Rahul Gandhi contempt case

Home Minister and BJP chief Amit Shah on Thursday sought an apology from Congress after<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-dismisses-rafale-review-petitions-261965"> Supreme Court dismissed review petitions</a> in the Rafale case and said that judgment was a befitting reply to those leaders and parties who rely "on malicious and baseless campaigns".

Shah said the verdict reaffirms the government's credentials as one which is transparent and corruption-free.

"Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the review petition on Rafale is a befitting reply to those leaders and parties who rely on malicious and baseless campaigns. Today's decision, yet again, reaffirms Modi sarkar's credentials as a govt which is transparent and corruption-free," he said.

Shah said the top court's ruling in the matter proved that the disruption of proceedings in Parliament was a "sham".

Watch: 'No inquiry needed on Rafale' says Supreme Court; Dismisses review pleas

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/no-inquiry-needed-on-rafale-says-supreme-court-dismisses-review-pleas-261986/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He also targeted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his allegations against the government about Rafale controversy saying "politics was above national interest for him" and sought an apology.

"Now, it has been proved that the disruption of Parliament over Rafale was a sham. Time could have been better utilised for the welfare of people. After today's rebuke from SC, Congress and its leader, for whom politics is above national interest, must apologise to the nation," Shah said.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions challenging its verdict in the Rafale case on December 14, 2018.

A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph passed the order on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld the purchase of 36 Rafale jets by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France.

The top court also accepted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's apology for bringing in the court ruling in relation to his "chowkidar chor hai" (Watchman&nbsp;is the thief) remark in the Rafale case and said that a person holding a place of importance in political spectrum should have been more careful.

Home Minister and BJP chief Amit Shah on Thursday sought an apology from Congress after Supreme Court dismissed review petitions in the Rafale case and said that judgment was a befitting reply to those leaders and parties who rely "on malicious and baseless campaigns".

Home Minister and BJP chief Amit Shah on Thursday sought an apology from Congress after Supreme Court dismissed review petitions in the Rafale case and said that judgment was a befitting reply to those leaders and parties who rely "on malicious and baseless campaigns". Shah said the verdict reaffirms the government's credentials as one which is transparent and corruption-free. "Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the review petition on Rafale is a befitting reply to those leaders and parties who rely on malicious and baseless campaigns. Today's decision, yet again, reaffirms Modi sarkar's credentials as a govt which is transparent and corruption-free," he said. Shah said the top court's ruling in the matter proved that the disruption of proceedings in Parliament was a "sham". Watch: 'No inquiry needed on Rafale' says Supreme Court; Dismisses review pleas × He also targeted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his allegations against the government about Rafale controversy saying "politics was above national interest for him" and sought an apology. "Now, it has been proved that the disruption of Parliament over Rafale was a sham. Time could have been better utilised for the welfare of people. After today's rebuke from SC, Congress and its leader, for whom politics is above national interest, must apologise to the nation," Shah said. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions challenging its verdict in the Rafale case on December 14, 2018. A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph passed the order on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict which had upheld the purchase of 36 Rafale jets by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government from France. The top court also accepted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's apology for bringing in the court ruling in relation to his "chowkidar chor hai" (Watchman is the thief) remark in the Rafale case and said that a person holding a place of importance in political spectrum should have been more careful.

Rafale deal verdict: Supreme Court's decision a befitting reply to those relying on malicious campaigns, says Amit Shah

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh welcomes SC verdict over Rafale, says 'NDA govt vindicated'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the decision of the then speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs under the anti-defection law and said that they can contest the upcoming by-elections in the state.

"We are upholding the order of the Speaker," said Justice Ramana while reading out the judgment. The top court said that resignation does not take away the power of disqualification by the speaker. "Since we are deciding disqualification, resignation is not needed to be gone into. As such there is no doubt that disqualification has nothing to do with resignation," the court said.

The rebel legislators were disqualified by the then speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in July under the anti-defection law after they tendered their resignation. They were also barred from contesting polls for the duration of the current assembly, which is slated to end in 2023. The move had led to a fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state.

The disgruntled MLAs then moved the apex court challenging their disqualification. They sought quashing of the order passed by the speaker and prohibition imposed on them to contest elections.

The matter was reserved by the court on October 25. The elections for 15 out of 17 seats are slated to be held on December 5. They were earlier scheduled to be conducted on October 21 but were deferred by the Election Commission (EC) as the petitions of disqualified MLAs were pending in the top court.

The poll body had withheld the elections for two seats -- Maski and Rajarajeshwari -- as the petitions against these Assembly constituencies are pending in the Karnataka High Court.

After their&nbsp;disqualification, the strength of the 224-member Assembly had come down to 207. This had brought down the majority mark to 104. The BJP, which helms the government in the state, has 106 MLAs in the Assembly. With the by-poll elections, the majority mark will climb to 222 and the BJP will have to win a minimum of six out of fifteen seats to keep its majority.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the decision of the then speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs under the anti-defection law and said that they can contest the upcoming by-elections in the state.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the decision of the then speaker KR Ramesh Kumar to disqualify 17 rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs under the anti-defection law and said that they can contest the upcoming by-elections in the state. "We are upholding the order of the Speaker," said Justice Ramana while reading out the judgment. The top court said that resignation does not take away the power of disqualification by the speaker. "Since we are deciding disqualification, resignation is not needed to be gone into. As such there is no doubt that disqualification has nothing to do with resignation," the court said. The rebel legislators were disqualified by the then speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in July under the anti-defection law after they tendered their resignation. They were also barred from contesting polls for the duration of the current assembly, which is slated to end in 2023. The move had led to a fall of the Congress-JD (S) coalition government, paving way for BJP to stake claim to form a new government in the state. The disgruntled MLAs then moved the apex court challenging their disqualification. They sought quashing of the order passed by the speaker and prohibition imposed on them to contest elections. The matter was reserved by the court on October 25. The elections for 15 out of 17 seats are slated to be held on December 5. They were earlier scheduled to be conducted on October 21 but were deferred by the Election Commission (EC) as the petitions of disqualified MLAs were pending in the top court. The poll body had withheld the elections for two seats -- Maski and Rajarajeshwari -- as the petitions against these Assembly constituencies are pending in the Karnataka High Court. After their disqualification, the strength of the 224-member Assembly had come down to 207. This had brought down the majority mark to 104. The BJP, which helms the government in the state, has 106 MLAs in the Assembly. With the by-poll elections, the majority mark will climb to 222 and the BJP will have to win a minimum of six out of fifteen seats to keep its majority.

SC upholds disqualification of Karnataka's rebel MLAs, permits them to contest bypolls

The supreme court's decision is expected by June 2020

Top Court to decide fate of Dreamers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government to explore Hydrogen based fuel technology to find solutions to combat air pollution in Northern India including Delhi-NCR.

The Centre told the apex court that it is exploring the technology and is looking at methods using which Japan has tackled the pollution crisis.

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi directed the Centre to submit the report on the matter by December 3.

The bench took suo moto cognizance of the issue. During winter season each year, most of northern India suffers from a spike in toxicity in the air due to the change in weather patterns and crop residue burning in the neighbouring states of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.

Not only that, but a dip in temperature along with low wind speed also tends to trap air pollutants closer to the ground.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government to explore Hydrogen based fuel technology to find solutions to combat air pollution in Northern India including Delhi-NCR.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government to explore Hydrogen based fuel technology to find solutions to combat air pollution in Northern India including Delhi-NCR. The Centre told the apex court that it is exploring the technology and is looking at methods using which Japan has tackled the pollution crisis. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi directed the Centre to submit the report on the matter by December 3. The bench took suo moto cognizance of the issue. During winter season each year, most of northern India suffers from a spike in toxicity in the air due to the change in weather patterns and crop residue burning in the neighbouring states of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Not only that, but a dip in temperature along with low wind speed also tends to trap air pollutants closer to the ground.

Supreme Court directs Centre to explore Hydrogen based fuel technology to combat air pollution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the AAP-led Delhi government to provide data on pollution levels in the national capital from the date on which the odd-even scheme commenced till November 14.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta issued a notice to the Delhi government on a petition challenging the odd-even rationing scheme formulated by it.

The scheme entails cars with odd and even number plates to run on alternate days in a bid to curb air pollution.

The traffic rationing measure was initiated by the AAP-led Delhi government from 4-15 November.

The top court also asked the city government and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to provide data on the air quality index (AQI) from October 1 to December 31 of last year.

A petition filed by advocate Sanjiv Kumar submitted that the initiative takes sadistic pleasure in robbing the middle class of their right to earn a livelihood.

"This scheme takes sadistic pleasure in robbing the middle class of their right to drive to earn their livelihood by doing their jobs. It is nothing but a political gimmick for self-promotion and advertisement under the smokescreen of curbing pollution," the petition submitted.

The plea stated that the scheme impedes a persons` fundamental right to move freely in the country; discriminates on grounds of gender as women are exempted from it; and two-wheelers, which cause the maximum pollution, have been exempted from the scheme, while CNG vehicles are not.

The AAP-government had clarified earlier that the exemption of CNG vehicles would have caused congestion on the roads in a reply to a batch of petitions in the Delhi High Court.

The city government also said that two-wheelers were exempted from the scheme as they constitute 66 per cent of the total fleet in the national capital and if they were forced "off the road, it would have serious consequences on not just individual citizens but also on the public transport".&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the AAP-led Delhi government to provide data on pollution levels in the national capital from the date on which the odd-even scheme commenced till November 14.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the AAP-led Delhi government to provide data on pollution levels in the national capital from the date on which the odd-even scheme commenced till November 14. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta issued a notice to the Delhi government on a petition challenging the odd-even rationing scheme formulated by it. The scheme entails cars with odd and even number plates to run on alternate days in a bid to curb air pollution. The traffic rationing measure was initiated by the AAP-led Delhi government from 4-15 November. The top court also asked the city government and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to provide data on the air quality index (AQI) from October 1 to December 31 of last year. A petition filed by advocate Sanjiv Kumar submitted that the initiative takes sadistic pleasure in robbing the middle class of their right to earn a livelihood. "This scheme takes sadistic pleasure in robbing the middle class of their right to drive to earn their livelihood by doing their jobs. It is nothing but a political gimmick for self-promotion and advertisement under the smokescreen of curbing pollution," the petition submitted. The plea stated that the scheme impedes a persons` fundamental right to move freely in the country; discriminates on grounds of gender as women are exempted from it; and two-wheelers, which cause the maximum pollution, have been exempted from the scheme, while CNG vehicles are not. The AAP-government had clarified earlier that the exemption of CNG vehicles would have caused congestion on the roads in a reply to a batch of petitions in the Delhi High Court. The city government also said that two-wheelers were exempted from the scheme as they constitute 66 per cent of the total fleet in the national capital and if they were forced "off the road, it would have serious consequences on not just individual citizens but also on the public transport".

Supreme Court asks Delhi government to submit data on pollution levels

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence.

A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna were hearing a petition challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which ruled that office of CJI comes under the purview of RTI.

The apex court said that the public interest demands that the transparency is maintained.

"Right to privacy and confidentiality is an important aspect and it has to be balanced. There has to be a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy as well as confidentiality and independence of the judiciary,"&nbsp;it said.

Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution.

In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges` assets but the information was denied.

Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India`s office comes within the ambit of the Act.In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the latter was upheld.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence. A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna were hearing a petition challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which ruled that office of CJI comes under the purview of RTI. The apex court said that the public interest demands that the transparency is maintained. "Right to privacy and confidentiality is an important aspect and it has to be balanced. There has to be a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy as well as confidentiality and independence of the judiciary," it said. Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution. In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges` assets but the information was denied. Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India`s office comes within the ambit of the Act.In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the latter was upheld.

RTI Act applicable to office of Chief Justice: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will pronounce the verdict on a batch of review petitions filed in both Rafale and Sabarimala cases tomorrow.

The Sabarimala verdict will be delivered by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra at 10:30 am.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph will pronounce the Rafale verdict pursuant to Sabrimala's judgment.

In the Sabarimala case, the apex court had on September 28 in 2018 lifted a ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the premises of Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabrimala. The order was reserved by the court in February earlier this year. The order which will be announced tomorrow is likely to uphold or set aside the 2018 order.

In the Rafale case, the petitioners had moved the top court seeking review of its verdict which dismissed a plea challenging India's agreement with France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The verdict on the Rafale case was reserved in May.

The Supreme Court will pronounce the verdict on a batch of review petitions filed in both Rafale and Sabarimala cases tomorrow. The Sabarimala verdict will be delivered by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra at 10:30 am.

The Supreme Court will pronounce the verdict on a batch of review petitions filed in both Rafale and Sabarimala cases tomorrow. The Sabarimala verdict will be delivered by a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra at 10:30 am. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph will pronounce the Rafale verdict pursuant to Sabrimala's judgment. In the Sabarimala case, the apex court had on September 28 in 2018 lifted a ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years into the premises of Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabrimala. The order was reserved by the court in February earlier this year. The order which will be announced tomorrow is likely to uphold or set aside the 2018 order. In the Rafale case, the petitioners had moved the top court seeking review of its verdict which dismissed a plea challenging India's agreement with France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The verdict on the Rafale case was reserved in May.

SC to announce verdict on Rafale, Sabarimala review petition tomorrow

The Supreme Court will, on Wednesday, pronounce the verdict on whether or not the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The order will be passed by a five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna on a petition filed by a Supreme Court Secretary-General challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court.

The High Court in its order had declared the CJI's office a "public authority" and said that it should come under the RTI Act.

The bench had reserved the order on April 4. Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution.

In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges'&nbsp;assets but the information was denied.

Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India's office comes within the ambit of the Act.

In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the same was upheld.

The Supreme Court will, on Wednesday, pronounce the verdict on whether or not the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Supreme Court will, on Wednesday, pronounce the verdict on whether or not the office of Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act. The order will be passed by a five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna on a petition filed by a Supreme Court Secretary-General challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court in its order had declared the CJI's office a "public authority" and said that it should come under the RTI Act. The bench had reserved the order on April 4. Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution. In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges' assets but the information was denied. Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India's office comes within the ambit of the Act. In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the same was upheld.

Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on inclusion of CJI's office under RTI Act tomorrow

With today’s Ayodhya verdict, for me personally, it’s a sense of closure and relief though it has taken 27 long years.

It all started way back in 1992, I had just joined as a rookie reporter. When you start your career, you are thrown around from one story to another. I was one day packed off to Kashmir, the next day I was told&nbsp;to cover Delhi Police and another day to cover some other story. It was all very exciting for a young reporter, moving from one story to another.

In September 1992, if I remember correctly, I was asked one late evening to board the late-night train to Faizabad, at that point of time Ayodhya-Faizabad were twin cities. We arrived early morning. There was a slight nip in the air and the first thing we did was to have a kulhad chai&nbsp;at the platform. Then I searched for a hotel, finally, we found one decent hotel in Faizabad.

After a brief stop at the hotel, we were off to Ayodhya. As we moved in the bylanes of sleepy Ayodhya, we saw people of both communities going about their daily chores. My first impression of the Babri Masjid – as it was popularly known at that point of time was a disappointment.&nbsp;

It was a dilapidated&nbsp;structure in the middle of the bylanes of Ayodhya. But it was very well guarded by security personnel. We went about talking to a crosssection of locals – all said that there wasn’t any dispute between local communities, it is only the outsiders who were trying to provoke the people.

Subsequently, in the next three months, I went several times to cover one story after another as the issue started gaining momentum. Every now and then, leaders of various political parties would descend on Ayodhya and make a controversial comment.&nbsp;

Religious leaders too started making a beeline to Ayodhya to stay relevant in the Babri Masjid space. The once deserted road between Lucknow and Ayodhya by early November had come alive and hordes of cars would descend on Ayodhya early morning and by late evening the traffic would reverse from Ayodhya to Lucknow.

On Dec 1-2, 1992, if I remember correctly, I was again sent to Ayodhya as the big day of December 6 was approaching. I along with a few of my colleagues boarded the night train to Faizabad from Delhi.

This time the air in the twin city was tense&nbsp;as hordes of people from every nook and corner of India were descending on the twin city. Every street was full of kar sevaks chanting “Jai Sri Ram”. The sleepy Ayodhya was fully awake. The local shops were doing brisk business. They hadn't seen this kind of influx probably post 1990 when kar sevaks had descended on Ayodhya and then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mulayam Singh had instructed police personnel&nbsp;not to allow anyone to enter Ayodhya resulting in firing by the police leading to the deaths of several people with many wounded.

However, the December of 1992 was different. Every day a new political leader would land up in Ayodhya and ask people to assemble at the disputed site for the symbolic kar sewa. My every evening was spent among the VHP and BJP leaders with endless cups of tea. I would try to figure out what would happen on December 6, and I would always hear the same ‘on record - all will be normal after symbolic kar sewa and the big rally which was to take place near the disputed structure but I could feel that it is going to be much more than a symbolic kar sewa.

A day before the ceremony, all journalists including the international press who had descended on Ayodhya were asked to get press cards issued from local VHP leaders. We all were given pink coloured cards – clearly identifying us as journalists who will be allowed to go near the venue of kar sewa.

Than the D-Day arrived, Dec 6. &nbsp;

The two hotels in Faizabad were fully occupied by journalists both Indian and international and the place was buzzing. The question doing the rounds was what will happen today?&nbsp;

All of us were eager to reach the site early and not miss anything. I and my colleagues were ready early and started moving towards Ayodhya. The streets were full of kar sewaks moving slowly towards the venue.&nbsp;

The security was tight as the UP police were&nbsp;checking vehicles including ours – it seemed like a perfectly normal day. We arrived at the venue shortly after 9 am, the crowd had started assembling. The time for pooja was fixed for around 12 noon. Slowly the crowd started swelling, but it was very well organized. The volunteers wearing saffron bands were checking cards and ushering people including journalists to various enclosures. All seemed so normal on a sunny winter morning.

I and my colleagues spread out at the venue. Suddenly, shortly after 12 noon, I saw a fresh group of youths wearing yellow bands descending on the venue, the saffron band wearing youth gave a clear passage to the yellow band youth.&nbsp;

It happened so suddenly, I was completely at a loss. My camera person, who was senior to me, was quick to point out that something big was about to happen, we rushed behind the structure – and within minutes a group of these yellow bearing-bands were on the structure. Some saw my camera person filming this and they rushed towards us and within minutes our camera was broken and taken away. And both of us were thrashed mercilessly. As a young reporter, I did not understand what our crime was. I was lying on the ground with blood coming out from my head. Long ago, I had heard somewhere that by applying soil blood coming out could be stopped, I did, and the blood stopped seeping.&nbsp;

I was still on the ground, suddenly an old man appeared from nowhere and took me inside his hut which was nearby. He gave me water and a saffron band, so that I could reach my car. I still remember his face and his helping hand and the rest, as they say, is history.

Post-December 6, I kept visiting Ayodhya for some congregation or another till the late 1990s.

Last night, when the Supreme Court announced that it will deliver the verdict today, same sense of excitement returned as my thoughts went back to that December afternoon but the difference was at that point I was in Ayodhya and today sitting in the newsroom, I saw history unfold with today’s unanimous verdict by India’s top court.

Now, I feel a sense of closure. And probably for the locals too of the twin cities of Ayodhya–Faizabad, they will now be able go about their daily chores. And with a new temple, whenever it is built, local businesses will roar again.

With today’s Ayodhya verdict, for me personally, it’s a sense of closure and relief though it has taken 27 long years. It all started way back in 1992, I had just joined as a rookie reporter.

With today’s Ayodhya verdict, for me personally, it’s a sense of closure and relief though it has taken 27 long years. It all started way back in 1992, I had just joined as a rookie reporter. When you start your career, you are thrown around from one story to another. I was one day packed off to Kashmir, the next day I was told to cover Delhi Police and another day to cover some other story. It was all very exciting for a young reporter, moving from one story to another. In September 1992, if I remember correctly, I was asked one late evening to board the late-night train to Faizabad, at that point of time Ayodhya-Faizabad were twin cities. We arrived early morning. There was a slight nip in the air and the first thing we did was to have a kulhad chai at the platform. Then I searched for a hotel, finally, we found one decent hotel in Faizabad. After a brief stop at the hotel, we were off to Ayodhya. As we moved in the bylanes of sleepy Ayodhya, we saw people of both communities going about their daily chores. My first impression of the Babri Masjid – as it was popularly known at that point of time was a disappointment. It was a dilapidated structure in the middle of the bylanes of Ayodhya. But it was very well guarded by security personnel. We went about talking to a crosssection of locals – all said that there wasn’t any dispute between local communities, it is only the outsiders who were trying to provoke the people. Subsequently, in the next three months, I went several times to cover one story after another as the issue started gaining momentum. Every now and then, leaders of various political parties would descend on Ayodhya and make a controversial comment. Religious leaders too started making a beeline to Ayodhya to stay relevant in the Babri Masjid space. The once deserted road between Lucknow and Ayodhya by early November had come alive and hordes of cars would descend on Ayodhya early morning and by late evening the traffic would reverse from Ayodhya to Lucknow. On Dec 1-2, 1992, if I remember correctly, I was again sent to Ayodhya as the big day of December 6 was approaching. I along with a few of my colleagues boarded the night train to Faizabad from Delhi. This time the air in the twin city was tense as hordes of people from every nook and corner of India were descending on the twin city. Every street was full of kar sevaks chanting “Jai Sri Ram”. The sleepy Ayodhya was fully awake. The local shops were doing brisk business. They hadn't seen this kind of influx probably post 1990 when kar sevaks had descended on Ayodhya and then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Mulayam Singh had instructed police personnel not to allow anyone to enter Ayodhya resulting in firing by the police leading to the deaths of several people with many wounded. However, the December of 1992 was different. Every day a new political leader would land up in Ayodhya and ask people to assemble at the disputed site for the symbolic kar sewa. My every evening was spent among the VHP and BJP leaders with endless cups of tea. I would try to figure out what would happen on December 6, and I would always hear the same ‘on record - all will be normal after symbolic kar sewa and the big rally which was to take place near the disputed structure but I could feel that it is going to be much more than a symbolic kar sewa. A day before the ceremony, all journalists including the international press who had descended on Ayodhya were asked to get press cards issued from local VHP leaders. We all were given pink coloured cards – clearly identifying us as journalists who will be allowed to go near the venue of kar sewa. Than the D-Day arrived, Dec 6. The two hotels in Faizabad were fully occupied by journalists both Indian and international and the place was buzzing. The question doing the rounds was what will happen today? All of us were eager to reach the site early and not miss anything. I and my colleagues were ready early and started moving towards Ayodhya. The streets were full of kar sewaks moving slowly towards the venue. The security was tight as the UP police were checking vehicles including ours – it seemed like a perfectly normal day. We arrived at the venue shortly after 9 am, the crowd had started assembling. The time for pooja was fixed for around 12 noon. Slowly the crowd started swelling, but it was very well organized. The volunteers wearing saffron bands were checking cards and ushering people including journalists to various enclosures. All seemed so normal on a sunny winter morning. I and my colleagues spread out at the venue. Suddenly, shortly after 12 noon, I saw a fresh group of youths wearing yellow bands descending on the venue, the saffron band wearing youth gave a clear passage to the yellow band youth. It happened so suddenly, I was completely at a loss. My camera person, who was senior to me, was quick to point out that something big was about to happen, we rushed behind the structure – and within minutes a group of these yellow bearing-bands were on the structure. Some saw my camera person filming this and they rushed towards us and within minutes our camera was broken and taken away. And both of us were thrashed mercilessly. As a young reporter, I did not understand what our crime was. I was lying on the ground with blood coming out from my head. Long ago, I had heard somewhere that by applying soil blood coming out could be stopped, I did, and the blood stopped seeping. I was still on the ground, suddenly an old man appeared from nowhere and took me inside his hut which was nearby. He gave me water and a saffron band, so that I could reach my car. I still remember his face and his helping hand and the rest, as they say, is history. Post-December 6, I kept visiting Ayodhya for some congregation or another till the late 1990s. Last night, when the Supreme Court announced that it will deliver the verdict today, same sense of excitement returned as my thoughts went back to that December afternoon but the difference was at that point I was in Ayodhya and today sitting in the newsroom, I saw history unfold with today’s unanimous verdict by India’s top court. Now, I feel a sense of closure. And probably for the locals too of the twin cities of Ayodhya–Faizabad, they will now be able go about their daily chores. And with a new temple, whenever it is built, local businesses will roar again.

Reporting from Ayodhya on December 6, 1992

Supreme Court of India on Sauturday asked the Centre to set up a Trust in three months and hand over the disputed land to the it to build the Ram Temple. The court also directed the Centre to hand over a suitable plot of land measuring 5 acres to Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of mosque.

Supreme Court of India on Sauturday asked the Centre to set up a Trust in three months and hand over the disputed land to the it to build the Ram Temple. The court also directed the Centre to hand over a suitable plot of land measuring 5 acres to Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of mosque. In a unanimous judgement, a five-judge constition bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said the Sunni Waqf Board, which was a party to the title suit, should be given an alternate land somewhere else to build a mosque. The disputed land of 2.77 acre has been given to the Hindus. The Centre will make suitable provisions by handing over the land to the trust, the top court said. The SC upheld the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which concluded that a temple existed at the dispute site. The court also said that that desctruction of mosque was violation of rule of law.

Ram Temple to be built on disputed land; separate plot of land for mosque

Security has been beefed up across the country ahead of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-supreme-court-to-deliver-title-suit-verdict-at-1030-am-tomorrow-260896"> politically-sensitive Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case</a>. The apex court will pronounce the landmark verdict at 10:30 today.

The security arrangements were heightened in&nbsp;Uttar Pradesh especially in Ayodhya district&nbsp;to avoid any untoward incident after the verdict is pronounced.

"Paramilitary forces have been deployed in Ayodhya, aerial surveillance is being done," said DGP of Uttar Pradesh, adding, Intelligence machinery has been geared up, random checks are also taking place. An ADG rank officer has been deployed in Ayodhya to keep an eye on operations."&nbsp;

In precautionary measures, Section 144 which prohibits an assembly of more than four people in an area has been imposed in parts of the country.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/a-timeline-of-ramjanbhommi-babri-masjid-land-dispute-260912">A timeline of Ramjanbhommi-Babri Masjid land dispute</a>

The national capital also turned into a fortress as Section 144 was imposed in parts of the city. Security personnel were also seen outside the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi's security has also&nbsp;been upgraded to Z-plus which is one of the highest in the country. The Z+ security cover is provided by one of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), preferably the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-school-colleges-shut-in-up-mp-karnataka-jk-delhi-section-144-imposed-260914">Schools, colleges and other educational institutes will remain closed</a> in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka.

Even in Delhi all government schools and many private schools are closed, as it is a second Saturday and the government has advised all private schools to also remain closed today.

On Friday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath held a video conference with all district magistrates and senior officials directing them to crack down on those trying to disrupt peace.

Watch: Heavy security deploymed in Ayodhya

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-braces-for-ayodhya-judgment-heavy-security-deployment-in-ayodhya-260674/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court will pronounce its historic judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case today.

The court will deliver its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court order, which trifurcated the 2.77 acres disputed land between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, and Ramlalla Virajman.

Ahead of the verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for peace and unity and said the court judgement will not be a victory or defeat for anyone.&nbsp;

Several other prominent political leaders have also appealed citizens to maintain peace and not believe rumour being spread on social media.

(With inputs from agencies)

Security has been beefed up across the country ahead of the politically-sensitive Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The apex court will pronounce the landmark verdict at 10:30 today.

Security has been beefed up across the country ahead of the politically-sensitive Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The apex court will pronounce the landmark verdict at 10:30 today. The security arrangements were heightened in Uttar Pradesh especially in Ayodhya district to avoid any untoward incident after the verdict is pronounced. "Paramilitary forces have been deployed in Ayodhya, aerial surveillance is being done," said DGP of Uttar Pradesh, adding, Intelligence machinery has been geared up, random checks are also taking place. An ADG rank officer has been deployed in Ayodhya to keep an eye on operations." In precautionary measures, Section 144 which prohibits an assembly of more than four people in an area has been imposed in parts of the country. Also read: A timeline of Ramjanbhommi-Babri Masjid land dispute The national capital also turned into a fortress as Section 144 was imposed in parts of the city. Security personnel were also seen outside the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi's security has also been upgraded to Z-plus which is one of the highest in the country. The Z+ security cover is provided by one of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), preferably the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Schools, colleges and other educational institutes will remain closed in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka. Even in Delhi all government schools and many private schools are closed, as it is a second Saturday and the government has advised all private schools to also remain closed today. On Friday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath held a video conference with all district magistrates and senior officials directing them to crack down on those trying to disrupt peace. Watch: Heavy security deploymed in Ayodhya × The Supreme Court will pronounce its historic judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case today. The court will deliver its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court order, which trifurcated the 2.77 acres disputed land between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, and Ramlalla Virajman. Ahead of the verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for peace and unity and said the court judgement will not be a victory or defeat for anyone. Several other prominent political leaders have also appealed citizens to maintain peace and not believe rumour being spread on social media. (With inputs from agencies)

Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid case: Security beefed up across the country ahead of verdict

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-temple-to-be-built-on-disputed-land-separate-plot-of-land-for-mosque-260935">Supreme Court in its historic judgment</a> on Saturday called the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-will-further-increase-peoples-faith-in-judicial-processes-pm-modi-261012">Ayodhya land title dispute</a> case, which had trifurcated 2.77 acres of the contested area between three parties in 2010, 'legally unsustainable'.

Passing a unanimous verdict on the case, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ruled, "The three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. The solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible. Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity."

A 1045-page judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

The bench also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer directed the central government to form a trust to monitor the construction of a temple at the contested site and also directed that a five-acre plot to be allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque.

The apex court said that no evidence was offered by the Muslim parties to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure of the Mosque's dome.

It, however, said that there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.The court added that there is "clear evidence" to establish that the Hindus worshiped in the outer courtyard.

"As regards to the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857," the judgment stated.

The bench said that justice would not prevail if it were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims. It also observed that the damage to the Babri mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 leading to the ouster of the Muslims and the eventual destruction on 6th December 1992 constituted a serious violation of the rule of law.

"They have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law," the judgment stated.

The contentions of Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the litigants in the case, of being a shebait (devotee) were also rejected by the court.

It, however, asked the Central government to give it an appropriate role of management in the trust formed by the government to oversee the temple construction. The legal battle between the two parties dates back to the British era. The first appeal was, however, filed in 1950.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court in its historic judgment on Saturday called the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ayodhya land title dispute case, which had trifurcated 2.

The Supreme Court in its historic judgment on Saturday called the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ayodhya land title dispute case, which had trifurcated 2.77 acres of the contested area between three parties in 2010, 'legally unsustainable'. Passing a unanimous verdict on the case, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ruled, "The three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. The solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible. Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity." A 1045-page judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court. The bench also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer directed the central government to form a trust to monitor the construction of a temple at the contested site and also directed that a five-acre plot to be allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque. The apex court said that no evidence was offered by the Muslim parties to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure of the Mosque's dome. It, however, said that there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.The court added that there is "clear evidence" to establish that the Hindus worshiped in the outer courtyard. "As regards to the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857," the judgment stated. The bench said that justice would not prevail if it were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims. It also observed that the damage to the Babri mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 leading to the ouster of the Muslims and the eventual destruction on 6th December 1992 constituted a serious violation of the rule of law. "They have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law," the judgment stated. The contentions of Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the litigants in the case, of being a shebait (devotee) were also rejected by the court. It, however, asked the Central government to give it an appropriate role of management in the trust formed by the government to oversee the temple construction. The legal battle between the two parties dates back to the British era. The first appeal was, however, filed in 1950.

Supreme Court calls Allahabad High Court order on Ayodhya 'legally unsustainable'

Wasim Rizvi, a member of Shia Waqf Board, on Saturday welcomed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ram-temple-to-be-built-on-disputed-land-separate-plot-of-land-for-mosque-260935">Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case</a>, saying that the ownership rights of the disputed site have rightly been accorded to Hindus.

"The disputed site has been given to Hindus for Ram temple construction. I congratulate all Indians for this verdict," Rizvi told ANI.

"As the Supreme Court has accepted that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi, then the Shia Waqf Board should get five acres of land as Mir Baqi was a Shia. We will take legal advice over this. Sunnis have no right over it," he added.

The Supreme Court on Saturday directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and set up a trust for this.

The apex court also directed the government to give a suitable plot of land measuring five-acre to the Sunni Waqf Board.

A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a batch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had trifurcated the site among Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.

A decade-long legal dispute was fought by right-wing party Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

Wasim Rizvi, a member of Shia Waqf Board, on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case, saying that the ownership rights of the disputed site have rightly been accorded to Hindus.

Wasim Rizvi, a member of Shia Waqf Board, on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case, saying that the ownership rights of the disputed site have rightly been accorded to Hindus. "The disputed site has been given to Hindus for Ram temple construction. I congratulate all Indians for this verdict," Rizvi told ANI. "As the Supreme Court has accepted that the mosque was built by Mir Baqi, then the Shia Waqf Board should get five acres of land as Mir Baqi was a Shia. We will take legal advice over this. Sunnis have no right over it," he added. The Supreme Court on Saturday directed the Central government to hand over the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of a temple and set up a trust for this. The apex court also directed the government to give a suitable plot of land measuring five-acre to the Sunni Waqf Board. A five-judge constitution bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer passed the order on a batch of petitions against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had trifurcated the site among Ramlalla Virajman, Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. A decade-long legal dispute was fought by right-wing party Hindu Mahasabha, a sect of Hindu monks Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

Ownership rights of disputed site rightly accorded to Hindus: Shia Waqf Board

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