The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre and government of northern states in India over their approach towards curbing&nbsp;pollution.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra came down heavily on the chief secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi on the matters related to stubble burning, construction activities, road dust among factors that contribute towards air pollution.&nbsp;

"You cannot deal with road dust, construction &amp; demolition or garbage dumping. Why are you holding the post?" Justice Mishra told Delhi Chief Secretary Ajay Kumar Dev, reports ANI.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Air Pollution matter in Supreme Court: Justice Mishra asked Delhi Chief Secretary, you cannot deal with road dust, construction &amp; demolition or garbage dumping. Why are you holding the post?
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1192045566957481987?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

This is the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-supreme-court-asks-logic-behind-odd-even-scheme-imposes-fine-of-rs-1-lakh-on-violators-of-construction-ban-259884">second time </a>in two days the top court has&nbsp;questioned Delhi's approach towards improving&nbsp;Delhi's toxic air.

"Cars create less pollution. What are you [Delhi]&nbsp;getting from this odd-even? What is the logic behind the odd-even scheme? Banning diesel vehicles we can understand, but what is the point of odd-even scheme," the SC told the Delhi government on Monday.

The governments of Punjab and Haryana were also not sparred on the issue of stubble burning.

"We want immediate action to deal with stubble burning. It seems that there is no coordination among the officers and the state government to deal with this situation," Justice Mishra said to Punjab government, reports ANI. Justice Mishra told Punjab and neighbouring Haryana governments that they have "miserably" failed in performing its duty.&nbsp;

In order to prevent farmers from burning stubble, the SC ordered an incentive of Rs 100 per quintal to small and marginal farmers of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh for handling residue of non-Basmati rice crops.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court also questioned the implementation of the funds coming from World Bank in order to improve infrastructure. "So much of funds have come, where is the concept of a smart city? Why have the roads not improved," Justice Mishra asked.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Air Pollution matter in Supreme Court: Justice Mishra says, what is happening to the funds coming from World Bank for better infrastructure and development. So much of funds have come, where is the concept of smart city? Why have the roads not improved?
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1192047222235336705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Earlier today, Delhi's air quality improved slightly from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhis-air-quality-improves-but-still-under-very-poor-category-259978">"very poor" to "poor" category</a>. Schools also reopened&nbsp;in the national capital on Wednesday.

Due to the arrival of winter combined with other factors such as stubble burning, bursting of crackers, etc, the national capital and its adjoining areas have been covered in a thick blanket of smog from the past few weeks.

As per a report by WHO, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-complete-halt-to-stubble-burning-around-delhi-260081">14 Indian cities </a>feature in world's 15 most polluted cities. Nearly 10 lakh people die each year in India due to pollution.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre and government of northern states in India over their approach towards curbing pollution. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra came down heavily on the chief secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi on the matters related to stubble burning, construction activities, road dust among factors that contribute towards air pollution.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre and government of northern states in India over their approach towards curbing pollution. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra came down heavily on the chief secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi on the matters related to stubble burning, construction activities, road dust among factors that contribute towards air pollution. "You cannot deal with road dust, construction & demolition or garbage dumping. Why are you holding the post?" Justice Mishra told Delhi Chief Secretary Ajay Kumar Dev, reports ANI. Air Pollution matter in Supreme Court: Justice Mishra asked Delhi Chief Secretary, you cannot deal with road dust, construction & demolition or garbage dumping. Why are you holding the post? — ANI (@ANI) November 6, 2019 × This is the second time in two days the top court has questioned Delhi's approach towards improving Delhi's toxic air. "Cars create less pollution. What are you [Delhi] getting from this odd-even? What is the logic behind the odd-even scheme? Banning diesel vehicles we can understand, but what is the point of odd-even scheme," the SC told the Delhi government on Monday. The governments of Punjab and Haryana were also not sparred on the issue of stubble burning. "We want immediate action to deal with stubble burning. It seems that there is no coordination among the officers and the state government to deal with this situation," Justice Mishra said to Punjab government, reports ANI. Justice Mishra told Punjab and neighbouring Haryana governments that they have "miserably" failed in performing its duty. In order to prevent farmers from burning stubble, the SC ordered an incentive of Rs 100 per quintal to small and marginal farmers of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh for handling residue of non-Basmati rice crops. The Supreme Court also questioned the implementation of the funds coming from World Bank in order to improve infrastructure. "So much of funds have come, where is the concept of a smart city? Why have the roads not improved," Justice Mishra asked. Air Pollution matter in Supreme Court: Justice Mishra says, what is happening to the funds coming from World Bank for better infrastructure and development. So much of funds have come, where is the concept of smart city? Why have the roads not improved? — ANI (@ANI) November 6, 2019 × Earlier today, Delhi's air quality improved slightly from "very poor" to "poor" category. Schools also reopened in the national capital on Wednesday. Due to the arrival of winter combined with other factors such as stubble burning, bursting of crackers, etc, the national capital and its adjoining areas have been covered in a thick blanket of smog from the past few weeks. As per a report by WHO, 14 Indian cities feature in world's 15 most polluted cities. Nearly 10 lakh people die each year in India due to pollution.

Supreme Court pulls up Centre, state governments over failure to improve air quality

Assured that Ayodhya verdict will come in the favour of Hindus, the RSS has decided not to press for temples in Mathura and Kashi. Highly placed functionary in the RSS confirmed to WION that RSS does not want immediate polarisation after the Ayodhya verdict.

Thinking within the organization is that since both Kashi and Mathura issues can become legal immediately, there is no point pursuing them as it would lead to hard political posturing and will put pressure on the BJP government at the Centre.

This is a marked departure from the time when slogans like, "Ayodhya abhi jhanki hai, Mathura Kashi baaki hai.” Though Ayodhya remained central to BJP’s political agenda, Kashi and Mathura were also part of popular political imagination in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

The only difference is that the Ayodhya issue was formally adopted by the BJP at the Palampur session in Himachal Pradesh. BJP in the session decided to participate in the Ramjanambhomi Mandir movement which till then was being piloted by VHP, an affiliate of the RSS. The VHP had launched a campaign for the construction of the temple at Ram Janambhomi in 1984.

A senior source within the RSS told WION that RSS does not want the Ayodhya judgment to be seen as either victory or defeat. &nbsp;

“We want this judgment to be seen as justice and nothing more and nothing less,” said a senior functionary. Highly placed functionary also said that the RSS does not want to do hard posturing immediately after the judgment lest it becomes political fodder to be used against them later.

Moreover, since the BJP is in power, the demand for these two issues will strengthen the argument put forward by opposing parties in the Supreme Court that if Ayodhya verdict goes in the favour of those arguing for a temple, then the matter will not end there.

It is for this reason the RSS has started a massive outreach programme even before the Supreme Court's judgement. Friends of RSS have launched a website called www.ayodhyafacts.com which presents the point of view of the RSS on the Ayodhya movement and the history of the site. The website is a compilation of every major aspect of the Ayodhya case and related legal and historical material.

On the other hand, RSS has decided to launch a nationwide campaign on the Indian value system soon after the verdict is delivered. The RSS wants the new campaign to bring together under the rubric of cultural nationalism which is built around the values which emanates from Ramayana and Mahabharata, two epic texts which continue to influence the life of crores of Indians even today. The focus will remain on Indian family values and concept of Bharat.

Assured that Ayodhya verdict will come in the favour of Hindus, the RSS has decided not to press for temples in Mathura and Kashi. Highly placed functionary in the RSS confirmed to WION that RSS does not want immediate polarisation after the Ayodhya verdict.

Assured that Ayodhya verdict will come in the favour of Hindus, the RSS has decided not to press for temples in Mathura and Kashi. Highly placed functionary in the RSS confirmed to WION that RSS does not want immediate polarisation after the Ayodhya verdict. Thinking within the organization is that since both Kashi and Mathura issues can become legal immediately, there is no point pursuing them as it would lead to hard political posturing and will put pressure on the BJP government at the Centre. This is a marked departure from the time when slogans like, "Ayodhya abhi jhanki hai, Mathura Kashi baaki hai.” Though Ayodhya remained central to BJP’s political agenda, Kashi and Mathura were also part of popular political imagination in Uttar Pradesh. The only difference is that the Ayodhya issue was formally adopted by the BJP at the Palampur session in Himachal Pradesh. BJP in the session decided to participate in the Ramjanambhomi Mandir movement which till then was being piloted by VHP, an affiliate of the RSS. The VHP had launched a campaign for the construction of the temple at Ram Janambhomi in 1984. A senior source within the RSS told WION that RSS does not want the Ayodhya judgment to be seen as either victory or defeat. “We want this judgment to be seen as justice and nothing more and nothing less,” said a senior functionary. Highly placed functionary also said that the RSS does not want to do hard posturing immediately after the judgment lest it becomes political fodder to be used against them later. Moreover, since the BJP is in power, the demand for these two issues will strengthen the argument put forward by opposing parties in the Supreme Court that if Ayodhya verdict goes in the favour of those arguing for a temple, then the matter will not end there. It is for this reason the RSS has started a massive outreach programme even before the Supreme Court's judgement. Friends of RSS have launched a website called www.ayodhyafacts.com which presents the point of view of the RSS on the Ayodhya movement and the history of the site. The website is a compilation of every major aspect of the Ayodhya case and related legal and historical material. On the other hand, RSS has decided to launch a nationwide campaign on the Indian value system soon after the verdict is delivered. The RSS wants the new campaign to bring together under the rubric of cultural nationalism which is built around the values which emanates from Ramayana and Mahabharata, two epic texts which continue to influence the life of crores of Indians even today. The focus will remain on Indian family values and concept of Bharat.

RSS not to press for Mathura and Kashi temples issue post Ayodhya verdict

To improve the worsening air quality in the national capital, the Supreme Court ordered a complete halt to stubble burning around Delhi. Stubble burning is regarded as one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and is generally done during this time of the year.&nbsp;

Responding to the plea filed by activists, the apex court said that people of India are losing "precious years" due to air pollution, adding that this cannot be allowed in a "civilised" country, reports AFP.

The Supreme Court also added that the entire police administration and the police department will be held liable if its latest directions are not followed.&nbsp;

Earlier on Tuesday, Delhi's air quality showed signs of improvement as it moved to "very poor" from the "severe" category. As per the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) recordings, Delhi's overall air quality was marked at 397, which falls under the "very poor" category. Delhi's pollution levels started dropping down marginally later on Monday due to an increase in wind speed.&nbsp;

The IMD predicted light rains on November 7 in Delhi which can further improve the air quality.

Northern India, every year during this time faces the menace of smog, due to stubble burning, bursting of crackers, and construction activities as the cooler air gets mixed with pollutants from these activities that make&nbsp;the air toxic and difficult to breathe.&nbsp;

On Monday, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal implemented the odd-even rationing scheme, in which cars with odd and even number plates are allowed to hit streets on alternate days. Kejriwal described the first day of the scheme as a success adding that nearly 15 lakh cars were off the road which prevented pollution and traffic.

However, Vijay Goel, a member of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defied the odd-even rules and called the scheme an election gimmick. Delhi is due for the legislative elections next year.&nbsp;

So far, steps such as banning construction activities in Delhi, parking an air purifier&nbsp;vehicle in front of Taj Mahal have been taken to reduce air pollution levels. Delhi schools are also closed until Wednesday.&nbsp;

As per a report by WHO, 14 Indian cities are a part of 15 most polluted cities in the world, including Delhi. Around 10 lakh people die each year in India due to pollution.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

To improve the worsening air quality in the national capital, the Supreme Court ordered a complete halt to stubble burning around Delhi. Stubble burning is regarded as one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and is generally done during this time of the year.

To improve the worsening air quality in the national capital, the Supreme Court ordered a complete halt to stubble burning around Delhi. Stubble burning is regarded as one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and is generally done during this time of the year. Responding to the plea filed by activists, the apex court said that people of India are losing "precious years" due to air pollution, adding that this cannot be allowed in a "civilised" country, reports AFP. The Supreme Court also added that the entire police administration and the police department will be held liable if its latest directions are not followed. Earlier on Tuesday, Delhi's air quality showed signs of improvement as it moved to "very poor" from the "severe" category. As per the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) recordings, Delhi's overall air quality was marked at 397, which falls under the "very poor" category. Delhi's pollution levels started dropping down marginally later on Monday due to an increase in wind speed. The IMD predicted light rains on November 7 in Delhi which can further improve the air quality. Northern India, every year during this time faces the menace of smog, due to stubble burning, bursting of crackers, and construction activities as the cooler air gets mixed with pollutants from these activities that make the air toxic and difficult to breathe. On Monday, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal implemented the odd-even rationing scheme, in which cars with odd and even number plates are allowed to hit streets on alternate days. Kejriwal described the first day of the scheme as a success adding that nearly 15 lakh cars were off the road which prevented pollution and traffic. However, Vijay Goel, a member of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defied the odd-even rules and called the scheme an election gimmick. Delhi is due for the legislative elections next year. So far, steps such as banning construction activities in Delhi, parking an air purifier vehicle in front of Taj Mahal have been taken to reduce air pollution levels. Delhi schools are also closed until Wednesday. As per a report by WHO, 14 Indian cities are a part of 15 most polluted cities in the world, including Delhi. Around 10 lakh people die each year in India due to pollution.

Supreme Court orders complete halt to stubble burning around Delhi

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supreme-court-reserves-ayodhya-verdict-after-40-days-of-hearing-256283">pronouncement of judgement</a> on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18.

According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB.

The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18.

The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh.

"Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said.

These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state.

Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict.

The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel.

The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP.

Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated.

The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-sharad-arvind-bobde-appointed-next-cji-will-take-oath-on-november-18-258727">Gogoi demits office</a>.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel. A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18. According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB. The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18. The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh. "Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said. These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state. Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict. The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel. The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP. Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated. The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi demits office.

Centre gives UP 4000 CAPF personnel to maintain law and order before, after Ayodhya judgement

Ahead of the expected verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit by Supreme Court, the District Magistrate of Ayodhya has issued various directives keeping in mind the law and order situation in the district.

Ahead of the expected verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit by Supreme Court, the District Magistrate of Ayodhya has issued various directives keeping in mind the law and order situation in the district. In an order dated October 30, the District Magistrate has prohibited all persons, organisations or groups from attempting to disturb social harmony through any programs or statements. Civilians have also been barred from keeping, using or demonstrating firearms, explosives, lathi or other sharp weapons. Licensed weapons have also been banned for use and demonstration at public events. "In any public place, no person will join such a group whose motive is to participate in activities against the law," the order stated.Some other directives in the order included a ban on accumulating explosives, acid or stones, ban on the use of loudspeakers and strict action on defamatory posts against deities on social media. Uttar Pradesh DGP OP Singh on Sunday said that the state police is ready and if needed the National Security Act (NSA) will be imposed on elements who attempt to disrupt law and order ahead of the apex court verdict. A five-judge Supreme Court bench heard the Ayodhya case on a day-to-day basis for 40 days and reserved its verdict on October 16. The apex court is expected to deliver its verdict on a dispute over the ownership of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya district in Uttar Pradesh before November 17, when the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi retires. The Hindu parties, during the hearing, had argued that the entire 2.77 acres of land is the birthplace or "janm sthan" of Lord Ram while the Muslim parties claimed the title over the land, saying Muslims had ownership of the land since 1528 when the mosque was built.

District Magistrate issues directives ahead of Ayodhya verdict

A plea was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court seeking NIA investigation and lodging of FIR against Facebook, WhatsApp, and NSO Group under the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly violating fundamental privacy of Indians. 
 
RSS Idealogue KN Govindacharya filed the petition seeking a direction to initiate perjury proceedings against WhatsApp for allegedly misleading apex court in a case by claiming that users data is fully encrypted and no one including WhatsApp has the key. 
 
The plea was filed in the wake of reports about WhatsApp's revelation that some journalists, lawyers and human rights activists were spied upon using a surveillance technology developed by Israel-based NSO Group. 
 
Govindacharya also sought protection and enforcement of the fundamental right of privacy of crores of Indians, which is being violated by illegal surveillance being carried out by Apps and Internet Companies.

A plea was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court seeking NIA investigation and lodging of FIR against Facebook, WhatsApp, and NSO Group under the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly violating fundamental privacy of Indians.

A plea was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court seeking NIA investigation and lodging of FIR against Facebook, WhatsApp, and NSO Group under the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Indian Penal Code for allegedly violating fundamental privacy of Indians. RSS Idealogue KN Govindacharya filed the petition seeking a direction to initiate perjury proceedings against WhatsApp for allegedly misleading apex court in a case by claiming that users data is fully encrypted and no one including WhatsApp has the key. The plea was filed in the wake of reports about WhatsApp's revelation that some journalists, lawyers and human rights activists were spied upon using a surveillance technology developed by Israel-based NSO Group. Govindacharya also sought protection and enforcement of the fundamental right of privacy of crores of Indians, which is being violated by illegal surveillance being carried out by Apps and Internet Companies.

Plea filed in SC seeking NIA investigation against WhatsApp, others for snooping

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that it is not possible to make laws to circumvent the Supreme Court's order permitting entry of women of all age into the Sabarimala temple. 
 
"Supreme Court's verdict on women entry in Sabarimala temple is related to fundamental rights. Making law to circumvent the apex court's verdict is not possible. The state government is bound to implement it," Vijayan said in the legislative assembly. 
 
The Chief Minister's statement came in response to a question raised by United Democratic Front (UDF) MLAs in the matter. 
 
Vijayan said that the state government's stand is to implement the court's order. 
 
"This is the government's policy in the case of the review petition. One section tried to create problems last year and attacked police and devotees. Devotees do not need to worry. All arrangements have been made to ensure peaceful 'Darshan'. 
 
The Supreme Court had on September 28 last year permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. 
 
The temple is being opened for a three-month-long annual pilgrimage later this month.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that it is not possible to make laws to circumvent the Supreme Court's order permitting entry of women of all age into the Sabarimala temple.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that it is not possible to make laws to circumvent the Supreme Court's order permitting entry of women of all age into the Sabarimala temple. "Supreme Court's verdict on women entry in Sabarimala temple is related to fundamental rights. Making law to circumvent the apex court's verdict is not possible. The state government is bound to implement it," Vijayan said in the legislative assembly. The Chief Minister's statement came in response to a question raised by United Democratic Front (UDF) MLAs in the matter. Vijayan said that the state government's stand is to implement the court's order. "This is the government's policy in the case of the review petition. One section tried to create problems last year and attacked police and devotees. Devotees do not need to worry. All arrangements have been made to ensure peaceful 'Darshan'. The Supreme Court had on September 28 last year permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. The temple is being opened for a three-month-long annual pilgrimage later this month.

Not possible to circumvent Sabrimala SC verdict through legislation: Kerala CM Vijayan

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will consider the bail application of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who was sentenced to life in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi decided to hear the matter after it was mentioned before it by Kumar for an early hearing.

The Delhi High Court had in December last year <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-congress-leader-sajjan-kumar-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-to-surrender-by-december-31-184695">convicted Kumar</a> for killing five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment area of Southwest Delhi and burning down a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar on November 1 and 2 in 1984.

The High Court had convicted him by reversing a verdict given by a trial court in the case.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will consider the bail application of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who was sentenced to life in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it will consider the bail application of former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who was sentenced to life in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi decided to hear the matter after it was mentioned before it by Kumar for an early hearing. The Delhi High Court had in December last year convicted Kumar for killing five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment area of Southwest Delhi and burning down a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar on November 1 and 2 in 1984. The High Court had convicted him by reversing a verdict given by a trial court in the case.

SC agrees to consider bail application of 1984 anti-sikh riots convict Sajjan Kumar

Everyone should respect the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and the state government will implement the order with "full commitment," said Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath here on Wednesday.

Speaking at an event here, the Chief Minister said that his government will implement the court's judgement, irrespective of whichever side it favours.

"I thank the Supreme Court that it is going to settle the centuries-old case through day-to-day hearing. We all should respect the court verdict. We will implement it with full commitment," said Yogi.

Stating that 'sants' are born to make history, the Chief Minister said that he has been working for reviving the old identity of Ayodhya for the last two and a half years.

"Two and a half years ago, there used to be damaged roads, hanging wires without electricity. We have widened the roads and improved the lighting in Ayodhya. Now, water does not stagnate in Ram Ki Paidi," said Yogi.

A five-judgement Supreme Court bench heard the politically-sensitive Ayodhya case on a day-to-day basis for 40 days and reserved its verdict on October 16.

The court is expected to deliver its verdict on a dispute over the ownership of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya district in Uttar Pradesh before November 17, when the Chief Justice retires.

The Hindu parties, during the hearing, had argued that the entire 2.77 acres of land is the birthplace or "janmasthan" of Lord Ram while the Muslim parties claimed the title over the land, saying Muslims had ownership of the land since 1528 when the mosque was built.

Everyone should respect the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and the state government will implement the order with "full commitment," said Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath here on Wednesday.

Everyone should respect the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and the state government will implement the order with "full commitment," said Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath here on Wednesday. Speaking at an event here, the Chief Minister said that his government will implement the court's judgement, irrespective of whichever side it favours. "I thank the Supreme Court that it is going to settle the centuries-old case through day-to-day hearing. We all should respect the court verdict. We will implement it with full commitment," said Yogi. Stating that 'sants' are born to make history, the Chief Minister said that he has been working for reviving the old identity of Ayodhya for the last two and a half years. "Two and a half years ago, there used to be damaged roads, hanging wires without electricity. We have widened the roads and improved the lighting in Ayodhya. Now, water does not stagnate in Ram Ki Paidi," said Yogi. A five-judgement Supreme Court bench heard the politically-sensitive Ayodhya case on a day-to-day basis for 40 days and reserved its verdict on October 16. The court is expected to deliver its verdict on a dispute over the ownership of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya district in Uttar Pradesh before November 17, when the Chief Justice retires. The Hindu parties, during the hearing, had argued that the entire 2.77 acres of land is the birthplace or "janmasthan" of Lord Ram while the Muslim parties claimed the title over the land, saying Muslims had ownership of the land since 1528 when the mosque was built.

Everyone should respect Supreme Court verdict in Ayodhya case: Yogi Adityanath

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order of granting bail to senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX media case.

Earlier on October 22, the apex court granted bail to Chidambaram in alleged connection with the INX media case registered by the CBI.

Granting bail to Chidambaram, the top court had noted that the charge sheet has been filed against Chidambaram and other co-accused on October 18, 2019, he is in custody from August 21, 2019, for about two months and the co-accused were already granted bail.

However, Chidambaram is still lodged at the Tihar jail and is currently in the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the INX Media case till October 30.

The ED which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was remanded in custody by a special court.

The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order of granting bail to senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX media case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order of granting bail to senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX media case. Earlier on October 22, the apex court granted bail to Chidambaram in alleged connection with the INX media case registered by the CBI. Granting bail to Chidambaram, the top court had noted that the charge sheet has been filed against Chidambaram and other co-accused on October 18, 2019, he is in custody from August 21, 2019, for about two months and the co-accused were already granted bail. However, Chidambaram is still lodged at the Tihar jail and is currently in the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the INX Media case till October 30. The ED which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was remanded in custody by a special court. The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister.

INX media case: CBI files review petition in Supreme Court against Chidambaram's bail

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency.

On October 23, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to Shivakumar while taking into note that he had been extensively interrogated by the probe agency since his arrest on September 3.

It had said that there was no material on record to show that he was a flight risk and there was no chance of tampering of evidence as all files are already under the custody of the agency.

Shivakumar had approached the High Court challenging the trial court`s order denying him bail.

He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

While granting him the bail, the High Court had asked him not to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave the country without prior permission to the court and make himself available for investigation when required.

The alleged money laundering case was registered against him by the ED in September last year, based on a complaint filed the Income Tax Department, alleging tax evasion and hawala transactions amounting to crores.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency. On October 23, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to Shivakumar while taking into note that he had been extensively interrogated by the probe agency since his arrest on September 3. It had said that there was no material on record to show that he was a flight risk and there was no chance of tampering of evidence as all files are already under the custody of the agency. Shivakumar had approached the High Court challenging the trial court`s order denying him bail. He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While granting him the bail, the High Court had asked him not to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave the country without prior permission to the court and make himself available for investigation when required. The alleged money laundering case was registered against him by the ED in September last year, based on a complaint filed the Income Tax Department, alleging tax evasion and hawala transactions amounting to crores.

Enforcement Directorate moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order granting bail to Shivakumar

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in connection with the INX Media case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A three-judge Bench of Justice R Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy granted bail to Chidambaram.

Chidambaram is currently in the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) till October 24 in the INX Media money laundering case.

Chidambaram, who is currently in judicial custody in Tihar jail, had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the apex court days after the High Court dismissed his bail plea contending that he might influence the witnesses in the case.

Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the judgement of the Delhi High Court is set aside and Chidambaram be released on bail if not required in another case. He shall not leave the country without the trial court's permission.

This judgement of the top court will not have any bearing on the other case.

Chidambaram can be released provided he is not arrested in any other case and on the personal bond of Rs 1 lakh. Chidambaram has to make himself available for interrogation, the top court stated.

The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. ED is investigating the alleged offense of money laundering that arose out of the FIR.

While the CBI arrested him in August, he was booked by the ED last week.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in connection with the INX Media case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in connection with the INX Media case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A three-judge Bench of Justice R Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy granted bail to Chidambaram. Chidambaram is currently in the custody of Enforcement Directorate (ED) till October 24 in the INX Media money laundering case. Chidambaram, who is currently in judicial custody in Tihar jail, had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the apex court days after the High Court dismissed his bail plea contending that he might influence the witnesses in the case. Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the judgement of the Delhi High Court is set aside and Chidambaram be released on bail if not required in another case. He shall not leave the country without the trial court's permission. This judgement of the top court will not have any bearing on the other case. Chidambaram can be released provided he is not arrested in any other case and on the personal bond of Rs 1 lakh. Chidambaram has to make himself available for interrogation, the top court stated. The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. ED is investigating the alleged offense of money laundering that arose out of the FIR. While the CBI arrested him in August, he was booked by the ED last week.

INX media corruption case: Supreme Court grants Chidambaram bail

The Supreme Court on Friday, after hearing from all the parties, reserved the verdict on a petition filed by former Union Finance Minister and senior Indian National Congress leader P Chidambaram against a Delhi High Court order which had dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

A bench headed by Justice R Banumathi reserved the judgement on the bail hearing plea after hearing arguments from the counsels of Chidambaram and CBI.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, said, "Illegal investment comes into INX and that the investment also goes out without permission (downstream). There was a downstream investment into other companies of INX without any application. A very scientific and professional investigation has resulted in this charge sheet."

"Sometimes, the position of the accused is such that his presence is enough to influence and intimidate the witnesses. At least till some part of the trial is conducted and some material witnesses are examined, the court will face this situation. Chidambaram should not be granted bail until some of the crucial witnesses are examined in the trial in INX media case. This is not a usual bail application," Mehta added.

The CBI said that that people are witnessing an era where persons who are accused of financial offences are fleeing the country.

"We have people who have fled the country. They all were responsible people and had a reputation standing in society. They had properties in the country. I am not comparing. We, as a nation are facing this problem. I am not comparing but arguing on this principle. We can't take the risk again," Mehta said.

Lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chidambaram, said that putting a person in jail for a longer period of time and incarcerating him does not do any good to criminal jurisprudence. "They should present a strong case for arrest after filing charge-sheet," he said.

"If their charge sheet has found me guilty, then let them prove it in court during the trial. There is no point to bring it all here in a matter of bail. I will answer the allegations in the trial," Sibal added.

As Sibal started his arguments, Mehta raised an objection to his reference to the 2G spectrum case.

Sibal said, "I can argue the way I want. " Mehta on the other hand, replied, "Don't bring up fairytales."

Sibal replied to Mehta saying, "Sometimes you threaten, sometimes you interrupt."

Amidst the pandemonium, Justice Bhanumathi stepped in and said, "Then sometimes you both smile, laugh and talk to each other." 
Sibal said that Chidambaram never submitted an application to travel out of the country.

"Chidambaram never gave an application to travel out of the country. Where can he run away? The world knows him. Can we escape trial? It's a spurious, unreasonable and thoughtless to say he has flight risk," he said.

"Solicitor General Tushar Mehta makes the unique argument that Chidambaram will come to the conclusion that he is bound to be convicted and will run away.

What is this new jurisprudence? He has never even once applied for foreign travel," the advocate added.

Sibal alleged that it is a clear purpose of CBI to seek further custody of Chidambaram in order to humiliate him.

Earlier in the day, the CBI filed a chargesheet in a Delhi Court here in connection with the INX media case. P Chidambaram, his son Karti Chidambaram, former media baron Peter Mukerjea among others have been named in the CBI chargesheet.

Chidambaram was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A special court had on Thursday sent him to the ED custody till October 24.

Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar, while sending Chidambaram to the custody, allowed an application filed by the Congress leader seeking western toilet, home-cooked food, medicine and a separate cell. 
In August, the senior Congress leader was booked by the CBI to probe the charges of corruption in the same case.

In the CBI case, the court extended his judicial custody in Tihar jail till October 24.

The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister.

ED is investigating the alleged offence of money laundering that arose out of the FIR.

(With inputs from ANI)

The Supreme Court on Friday, after hearing from all the parties, reserved the verdict on a petition filed by former Union Finance Minister and senior Indian National Congress leader P Chidambaram against a Delhi High Court order which had dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

The Supreme Court on Friday, after hearing from all the parties, reserved the verdict on a petition filed by former Union Finance Minister and senior Indian National Congress leader P Chidambaram against a Delhi High Court order which had dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case. A bench headed by Justice R Banumathi reserved the judgement on the bail hearing plea after hearing arguments from the counsels of Chidambaram and CBI. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, said, "Illegal investment comes into INX and that the investment also goes out without permission (downstream). There was a downstream investment into other companies of INX without any application. A very scientific and professional investigation has resulted in this charge sheet." "Sometimes, the position of the accused is such that his presence is enough to influence and intimidate the witnesses. At least till some part of the trial is conducted and some material witnesses are examined, the court will face this situation. Chidambaram should not be granted bail until some of the crucial witnesses are examined in the trial in INX media case. This is not a usual bail application," Mehta added. The CBI said that that people are witnessing an era where persons who are accused of financial offences are fleeing the country. "We have people who have fled the country. They all were responsible people and had a reputation standing in society. They had properties in the country. I am not comparing. We, as a nation are facing this problem. I am not comparing but arguing on this principle. We can't take the risk again," Mehta said. Lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chidambaram, said that putting a person in jail for a longer period of time and incarcerating him does not do any good to criminal jurisprudence. "They should present a strong case for arrest after filing charge-sheet," he said. "If their charge sheet has found me guilty, then let them prove it in court during the trial. There is no point to bring it all here in a matter of bail. I will answer the allegations in the trial," Sibal added. As Sibal started his arguments, Mehta raised an objection to his reference to the 2G spectrum case. Sibal said, "I can argue the way I want. " Mehta on the other hand, replied, "Don't bring up fairytales." Sibal replied to Mehta saying, "Sometimes you threaten, sometimes you interrupt." Amidst the pandemonium, Justice Bhanumathi stepped in and said, "Then sometimes you both smile, laugh and talk to each other." Sibal said that Chidambaram never submitted an application to travel out of the country. "Chidambaram never gave an application to travel out of the country. Where can he run away? The world knows him. Can we escape trial? It's a spurious, unreasonable and thoughtless to say he has flight risk," he said. "Solicitor General Tushar Mehta makes the unique argument that Chidambaram will come to the conclusion that he is bound to be convicted and will run away. What is this new jurisprudence? He has never even once applied for foreign travel," the advocate added. Sibal alleged that it is a clear purpose of CBI to seek further custody of Chidambaram in order to humiliate him. Earlier in the day, the CBI filed a chargesheet in a Delhi Court here in connection with the INX media case. P Chidambaram, his son Karti Chidambaram, former media baron Peter Mukerjea among others have been named in the CBI chargesheet. Chidambaram was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A special court had on Thursday sent him to the ED custody till October 24. Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar, while sending Chidambaram to the custody, allowed an application filed by the Congress leader seeking western toilet, home-cooked food, medicine and a separate cell. In August, the senior Congress leader was booked by the CBI to probe the charges of corruption in the same case. In the CBI case, the court extended his judicial custody in Tihar jail till October 24. The case pertains to an FIR registered by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 by Chidambaram when he was the Finance Minister. ED is investigating the alleged offence of money laundering that arose out of the FIR. (With inputs from ANI)

INX media case: Supreme Court reserves judgement on Chidambaram's bail plea

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the transfer of Assam NRC coordinator, Prateek Hajela, to Madhya Pradesh on deputation.

A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, however, did not specify the reason, behind transferring Hajela to Madhya Pradesh.

After the final list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) was published in Assam, several complaints were filed against Hajela alleging discrepancies in the list.

"A total of 3,11,21,004 persons are found eligible for inclusion in final NRC, leaving out 19,06,657 persons, including those who did not submit their claims," NRC State Coordinator Prateek Hajela had announced when the final list was published on August 31.

The list is aimed at segregating Indian citizens living in Assam from those who had illegally entered the state from Bangladesh.

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the transfer of Assam NRC coordinator, Prateek Hajela, to Madhya Pradesh on deputation. A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, however, did not specify the reason, behind transferring Hajela to Madhya Pradesh.

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the transfer of Assam NRC coordinator, Prateek Hajela, to Madhya Pradesh on deputation. A bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, however, did not specify the reason, behind transferring Hajela to Madhya Pradesh. After the final list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) was published in Assam, several complaints were filed against Hajela alleging discrepancies in the list. "A total of 3,11,21,004 persons are found eligible for inclusion in final NRC, leaving out 19,06,657 persons, including those who did not submit their claims," NRC State Coordinator Prateek Hajela had announced when the final list was published on August 31. The list is aimed at segregating Indian citizens living in Assam from those who had illegally entered the state from Bangladesh.

Supreme Court orders transfer of Assam NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela to Madhya Pradesh on deputation

On the last day of hearing in the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-supreme-court-directs-up-government-to-provide-security-to-wakf-board-chief-255961">the Sunni Waqf board</a>&nbsp;which is&nbsp;one of the petitioners sought to withdraw from the&nbsp;Ayodhya title dispute.

The mediation panel informed India's highest court about the Waqf board’s decision as a five-judge Constitution bench&nbsp;headed by Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi began its hearing in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-ayodhya-land-dispute-case-from-today-240984">Ayodhya case in the Supreme</a> Court today.

The top court has been hearing the case for the past thirty-nine days, today is the fortieth&nbsp;day of the hearing.&nbsp;

The hearing is likely to end today.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi during the hearing dismissed intervention application of one of the parties Hindu Maya Sabha in the Ayodhya land case.&nbsp;

"This matter is going to be over by 5pm today. Enough is enough," CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.

On the last day of hearing in the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, the Sunni Waqf board which is one of the petitioners sought to withdraw from the Ayodhya title dispute.

On the last day of hearing in the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, the Sunni Waqf board which is one of the petitioners sought to withdraw from the Ayodhya title dispute. The mediation panel informed India's highest court about the Waqf board’s decision as a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi began its hearing in the Ayodhya case in the Supreme Court today. The top court has been hearing the case for the past thirty-nine days, today is the fortieth day of the hearing. The hearing is likely to end today. CJI Ranjan Gogoi during the hearing dismissed intervention application of one of the parties Hindu Maya Sabha in the Ayodhya land case. "This matter is going to be over by 5pm today. Enough is enough," CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.

Sunni Waqf board seeks to withdraw from Ayodhya title dispute

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up on Wednesday.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day. Tomorrow is 40th day and last day of hearing in the case."

The five-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre of disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing in the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled. The judgment is likely to be pronounced on November 4-5.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up on Wednesday. During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up on Wednesday. During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day. Tomorrow is 40th day and last day of hearing in the case." The five-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre of disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla. The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing in the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled. The judgment is likely to be pronounced on November 4-5. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court likely to conclude hearing today

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case after hearing arguments from all the concerned parties.

The top court has been hearing the case for the past thirty-nine days, with today marking&nbsp;the fortieth day of the hearing.&nbsp;

On the&nbsp;final day of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who heads the five-judge bench hearing the case, had allocated initial 45 minutes to Hindu parties followed by one hour to Muslim side, and then four slots of 45 minute each to assorted parties involved in the matter.

It is expected and very likely that the judgement would be pronounced by the top court between November 4-17, as the CJI is going to retire on November 17.

While talking to media, Varun Sinha, Hindu Mahasabha's lawyer said, "Supreme Court has reserved the order and has made it clear that the decision will come, in this case, within 23 days."

As the proceedings today concludes in the case after 40 days, it turned out to be the second-longest /lengthiest hearing ever in the history of the Supreme Court, after the Kesavananda Bharati case, which went on for 68 days, while the third one was a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar case, which was heard for 38 days.&nbsp;

The four other judges, in the five-judge Constitution bench which heard the case, were - Justices Sharad Arvind Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, D Y Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;

The apex court was hearing the case from August 6 this year, on a day-to-day basis (five days a week) after the mediation process, conducted by a three-member Mediation panel, headed by Justice (Retired) FMI Kalifullah, in the case failed.&nbsp;

Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court judgement trifurcating the 2.77 acres of the disputed land at Ayodhya into three equal parts to Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. These three parties — Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara — however, knocked the doors of the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict and sought a modification of the High Court judgement.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case after hearing arguments from all the concerned parties.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case after hearing arguments from all the concerned parties. The top court has been hearing the case for the past thirty-nine days, with today marking the fortieth day of the hearing. On the final day of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who heads the five-judge bench hearing the case, had allocated initial 45 minutes to Hindu parties followed by one hour to Muslim side, and then four slots of 45 minute each to assorted parties involved in the matter. It is expected and very likely that the judgement would be pronounced by the top court between November 4-17, as the CJI is going to retire on November 17. While talking to media, Varun Sinha, Hindu Mahasabha's lawyer said, "Supreme Court has reserved the order and has made it clear that the decision will come, in this case, within 23 days." As the proceedings today concludes in the case after 40 days, it turned out to be the second-longest /lengthiest hearing ever in the history of the Supreme Court, after the Kesavananda Bharati case, which went on for 68 days, while the third one was a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar case, which was heard for 38 days. The four other judges, in the five-judge Constitution bench which heard the case, were - Justices Sharad Arvind Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, D Y Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer. The apex court was hearing the case from August 6 this year, on a day-to-day basis (five days a week) after the mediation process, conducted by a three-member Mediation panel, headed by Justice (Retired) FMI Kalifullah, in the case failed. Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court judgement trifurcating the 2.77 acres of the disputed land at Ayodhya into three equal parts to Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. These three parties — Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara — however, knocked the doors of the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict and sought a modification of the High Court judgement. (With inputs from agencies)

Ayodhya title case: Supreme Court wraps up hearing, reserves judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved the verdict in the contentious and politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid land dispute case.

Supreme Court Reserves Ayodhya Verdict After 40-days of Hearing

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up by tomorrow.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day. Tomorrow is 40th day and last day of hearing in the case."

The five-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre of disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing in the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled to. The judgment is likely to be passed on November 4-5.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up by tomorrow. During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday hinted that the arguments in the sensitive Ayodhya case may be wrapped up by tomorrow. During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi said: "Today is 39th day. Tomorrow is 40th day and last day of hearing in the case." The five-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre of disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla. The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing in the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled to. The judgment is likely to be passed on November 4-5. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya title case: Supreme Court likely to wrap up hearing on Wednesday

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the government of Uttar Pradesh to provide security to Sunni Wakf Board Chairman Zufar Ahmad Farooqui after he apprehended a threat to his life.

Farooqi had informed the five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court that he feared for his life through Sriram Panchu, one of the mediators in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babari Masjid case.

Earlier today, the Sunni Central Waqf Board had told the court that it possesses the impugned land.

"We have been in possession throughout. There is nothing to suggest or show that the plaintiff (Nirmohi Akahara and others) are the proprietor of the disputed land in question," Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Waqf Board, told the bench.

The counsel had said that there is no proof from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to ascertain that a temple was destroyed to build the mosque at the impugned site.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled to, thus leaving merely three days of active hearing now. The judgment on the same will be passed on November 4-5.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the government of Uttar Pradesh to provide security to Sunni Wakf Board Chairman Zufar Ahmad Farooqui after he apprehended a threat to his life.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the government of Uttar Pradesh to provide security to Sunni Wakf Board Chairman Zufar Ahmad Farooqui after he apprehended a threat to his life. Farooqi had informed the five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court that he feared for his life through Sriram Panchu, one of the mediators in the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babari Masjid case. Earlier today, the Sunni Central Waqf Board had told the court that it possesses the impugned land. "We have been in possession throughout. There is nothing to suggest or show that the plaintiff (Nirmohi Akahara and others) are the proprietor of the disputed land in question," Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Waqf Board, told the bench. The counsel had said that there is no proof from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to ascertain that a temple was destroyed to build the mosque at the impugned site. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing appeals challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992. The top court had recently said that it would wrap up hearing the case on October 17, a day earlier than it was scheduled to, thus leaving merely three days of active hearing now. The judgment on the same will be passed on November 4-5.

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court directs UP government to provide security to Wakf Board chief

It's been almost a hundred years since the advent of the Catalan independence movement. And today could mark a historic moment in this long and drawn-out struggle.

Spain's top court is scheduled to issue the verdict today its highly-anticipated verdict in the trial of 12 Catalan leaders over their role in the 2017 referendum.

Spain’s Supreme Court is expected to announce on Monday its highly-anticipated verdict in the trial of 12 Catalan separatist leaders over their role in the region’s 2017 banned referendum and short-lived independence declaration.

The leaders face charges ranging from sedition to misuse of public office — charges that the leaders have vehemently denied.

9 out of the 12 accused face jail time.

Reports indicate that the court will waive the charges of rebellion against the accused -- but even then, jail time of up to 12 years, is what awaits them if convicted.

The hearing has stretched over the last 4 months, at the end of which all 12 accused were allowed to argue their case.

Who are the 12 accused?

Many of Catalonia's tallest politicians figure in the list.

A former vice-president, a former speaker of the parliament, and other prominent former ministers.

Needless to say, the public is outraged by the trial, more than 100 people gathered outside a jail in northern Barcelona in support of their leaders.

Their demand was very simple — acquit the leaders and release them immediately.

If the court does pronounce a 'guilty' verdict, it could end up galvanising the Catalan public and aggravate what is already the worst political crisis the country has faced since the end of general Francisco franco's dictatorship.

Madrid has responded by stepping up the security apparatus in Catalonia.

The issue dates back to 2017 when Catalonia's leaders decided to hold an independence referendum.

The Spanish government, however, was staunchly opposed to it.

They moved the country's constitutional court and declared the referendum illegal.

Despite the ruling, the Catalan leaders went ahead with the referendum, which resulted in 92 per cent people demanding freedom.

On account of the results, the Catalan parliament declared the region independent.

This prompted Madrid to send in its forces and impose Spanish rule along with the arrest of many prominent Catalan leaders.

Even then, the outrage was palpable with hundreds taking to the streets triggering violent clashes with the police.

It's been almost a hundred years since the advent of the Catalan independence movement. And today could mark a historic moment in this long and drawn-out struggle.

It's been almost a hundred years since the advent of the Catalan independence movement. And today could mark a historic moment in this long and drawn-out struggle. Spain's top court is scheduled to issue the verdict today its highly-anticipated verdict in the trial of 12 Catalan leaders over their role in the 2017 referendum. Spain’s Supreme Court is expected to announce on Monday its highly-anticipated verdict in the trial of 12 Catalan separatist leaders over their role in the region’s 2017 banned referendum and short-lived independence declaration. The leaders face charges ranging from sedition to misuse of public office — charges that the leaders have vehemently denied. 9 out of the 12 accused face jail time. Reports indicate that the court will waive the charges of rebellion against the accused -- but even then, jail time of up to 12 years, is what awaits them if convicted. The hearing has stretched over the last 4 months, at the end of which all 12 accused were allowed to argue their case. Who are the 12 accused? Many of Catalonia's tallest politicians figure in the list. A former vice-president, a former speaker of the parliament, and other prominent former ministers. Needless to say, the public is outraged by the trial, more than 100 people gathered outside a jail in northern Barcelona in support of their leaders. Their demand was very simple — acquit the leaders and release them immediately. If the court does pronounce a 'guilty' verdict, it could end up galvanising the Catalan public and aggravate what is already the worst political crisis the country has faced since the end of general Francisco franco's dictatorship. Madrid has responded by stepping up the security apparatus in Catalonia. The issue dates back to 2017 when Catalonia's leaders decided to hold an independence referendum. The Spanish government, however, was staunchly opposed to it. They moved the country's constitutional court and declared the referendum illegal. Despite the ruling, the Catalan leaders went ahead with the referendum, which resulted in 92 per cent people demanding freedom. On account of the results, the Catalan parliament declared the region independent. This prompted Madrid to send in its forces and impose Spanish rule along with the arrest of many prominent Catalan leaders. Even then, the outrage was palpable with hundreds taking to the streets triggering violent clashes with the police.

Catalan separatist leaders' trial: Spain's Supreme Court expected to announce verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notices-to-centre-uidai-on-petition-challenging-aadhar-ordinance-233388">refused to entertain a petition</a> seeking a direction to the central government to link social media accounts with the Aadhaar number to check the menace of fake and paid news. 
 
A bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, however, allowed the petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, to approach the concerned High Court. 
 
"Everything doesn't need to come to the Supreme Court. This issue is before the Madras High Court, you go there," the top court said. 
 
Upadhyay, through his petition, sought a direction to the Centre to deactivate the duplicate and fake social media accounts in order to control fake and paid news. 
 
The plea also wanted the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-plans-to-open-aadhar-seva-kendras-in-53-cities-170507">government to link the profiles on such platforms</a>, including those on Facebook and Twitter with the Aadhaar number.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking a direction to the central government to link social media accounts with the Aadhaar number to check the menace of fake and paid news.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking a direction to the central government to link social media accounts with the Aadhaar number to check the menace of fake and paid news. A bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, however, allowed the petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, to approach the concerned High Court. "Everything doesn't need to come to the Supreme Court. This issue is before the Madras High Court, you go there," the top court said. Upadhyay, through his petition, sought a direction to the Centre to deactivate the duplicate and fake social media accounts in order to control fake and paid news. The plea also wanted the government to link the profiles on such platforms, including those on Facebook and Twitter with the Aadhaar number.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea for linking social media with Aadhar

The United States&nbsp;Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments in a major LGBT rights dispute over whether a landmark decades-old federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex covers gay and transgender employees.

The justices, on the second day of their new nine-month term, kicked off a scheduled two hours of arguments in three related cases as LGBT rights activists held a demonstration near the courthouse.

The Supreme Court delivered an important gay rights decision in 2015 legalising same-sex marriage nationwide. Its dynamics on LGBT issues, however, changed following the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed gay rights in major cases and wrote the same-sex marriage ruling.

At issue is whether gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, colour, national origin and religion.

The legal fight focuses on the definition of "sex" in Title VII. The plaintiffs, along with civil rights groups and many large companies, have argued that discriminating against gay and transgender workers is inherently based on their sex and consequently is illegal.

A couple of hundred demonstrators advocating for LGBT rights gathered a short distance from the white marble courthouse on an overcast day in the U.S. capital. They chanted for equal rights and held signs including ones that read, "Do fire Trump. Don't fire LGBTQ workers," "Discrimination is bad for business" and "LGBT Americans power our economy."

Police moved demonstrators away from the plaza in front of the courthouse due to concern over "suspicious" packages.

"I am here because I'm a queer person and right now my right to live my life as everyone else is being determined by nine people, none of whom are queer, all of whom are cisgender," said Washington resident Raegan Davis, 21. "I feel like it's important for our voices to be part of this conversation because if we aren't here there's no guarantee that they will."

'This has to stop'

A small group of demonstrators opposing gay and transgender rights also was present holding signs including two that read, "Fear God" and "Sin and shame, not pride."

"This has to stop. The more and more we give to the homosexual community, the more and more this nation is going to be destroyed," said Jacob Phelps, 36, from Topeka, Kansas, who held a sign that read, "Jesus will return in wrath." "It's very easy in the workplace, shut your mouth, do what you’re supposed to do."

The court's 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices appointed by President Donald Trump, whose administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity.

The arguments present the court with its first major test on gay and transgender rights since Trump appointed conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy, with the four liberal justices sympathetic to LGBT rights. Kavanaugh, whose approach to gay rights is unclear, could provide a pivotal vote.

A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs would give gay and transgender workers greater protections, especially in the 28 US&nbsp;states that do not already have comprehensive measures against employment discrimination. A ruling against the plaintiffs would mean gay and transgender people in those states would have few options to challenge workplace discrimination.

The court will hear two cases about gay people who have said they were fired due to their sexual orientation. One involves a former county child welfare services coordinator from Georgia named Gerald Bostock. The other involves a New York skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda. He died after the case began and the matter is being pursued by his estate.

The third case involves a Detroit funeral home's bid to reverse a lower court ruling that it violated Title VII by firing a transgender funeral director named Aimee Stephens after Stephens revealed plans to transition from male to female.

Rulings in the cases are due by the end of June.

Trump, a Republican with vigorous support among evangelical Christian voters, has pursued policies taking aim at gay and transgender rights. His administration has supported the right of certain businesses to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religious objections to gay marriage, restricted transgender service members in the military and rescinded protections on bathroom access for transgender students in public schools.

Trump's Justice Department and the employers in the cases have argued that Congress did not intend for Title VII to cover gay and transgender people when it passed the law. Conservative religious groups and various Republican-led states back the administration.

Big business, typically eager to avoid liability in employment disputes, is backing the LGBT plaintiffs. More than 200 companies, including Amazon, Alphabet Inc's Google and Bank of America Corp, joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the justices to rule in favour of the plaintiffs.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments in a major LGBT rights dispute over whether a landmark decades-old federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex covers gay and transgender employees.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments in a major LGBT rights dispute over whether a landmark decades-old federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex covers gay and transgender employees. The justices, on the second day of their new nine-month term, kicked off a scheduled two hours of arguments in three related cases as LGBT rights activists held a demonstration near the courthouse. The Supreme Court delivered an important gay rights decision in 2015 legalising same-sex marriage nationwide. Its dynamics on LGBT issues, however, changed following the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed gay rights in major cases and wrote the same-sex marriage ruling. At issue is whether gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, colour, national origin and religion. The legal fight focuses on the definition of "sex" in Title VII. The plaintiffs, along with civil rights groups and many large companies, have argued that discriminating against gay and transgender workers is inherently based on their sex and consequently is illegal. A couple of hundred demonstrators advocating for LGBT rights gathered a short distance from the white marble courthouse on an overcast day in the U.S. capital. They chanted for equal rights and held signs including ones that read, "Do fire Trump. Don't fire LGBTQ workers," "Discrimination is bad for business" and "LGBT Americans power our economy." Police moved demonstrators away from the plaza in front of the courthouse due to concern over "suspicious" packages. "I am here because I'm a queer person and right now my right to live my life as everyone else is being determined by nine people, none of whom are queer, all of whom are cisgender," said Washington resident Raegan Davis, 21. "I feel like it's important for our voices to be part of this conversation because if we aren't here there's no guarantee that they will." 'This has to stop' A small group of demonstrators opposing gay and transgender rights also was present holding signs including two that read, "Fear God" and "Sin and shame, not pride." "This has to stop. The more and more we give to the homosexual community, the more and more this nation is going to be destroyed," said Jacob Phelps, 36, from Topeka, Kansas, who held a sign that read, "Jesus will return in wrath." "It's very easy in the workplace, shut your mouth, do what you’re supposed to do." The court's 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices appointed by President Donald Trump, whose administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity. The arguments present the court with its first major test on gay and transgender rights since Trump appointed conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy, with the four liberal justices sympathetic to LGBT rights. Kavanaugh, whose approach to gay rights is unclear, could provide a pivotal vote. A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs would give gay and transgender workers greater protections, especially in the 28 US states that do not already have comprehensive measures against employment discrimination. A ruling against the plaintiffs would mean gay and transgender people in those states would have few options to challenge workplace discrimination. The court will hear two cases about gay people who have said they were fired due to their sexual orientation. One involves a former county child welfare services coordinator from Georgia named Gerald Bostock. The other involves a New York skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda. He died after the case began and the matter is being pursued by his estate. The third case involves a Detroit funeral home's bid to reverse a lower court ruling that it violated Title VII by firing a transgender funeral director named Aimee Stephens after Stephens revealed plans to transition from male to female. Rulings in the cases are due by the end of June. Trump, a Republican with vigorous support among evangelical Christian voters, has pursued policies taking aim at gay and transgender rights. His administration has supported the right of certain businesses to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religious objections to gay marriage, restricted transgender service members in the military and rescinded protections on bathroom access for transgender students in public schools. Trump's Justice Department and the employers in the cases have argued that Congress did not intend for Title VII to cover gay and transgender people when it passed the law. Conservative religious groups and various Republican-led states back the administration. Big business, typically eager to avoid liability in employment disputes, is backing the LGBT plaintiffs. More than 200 companies, including Amazon, Alphabet Inc's Google and Bank of America Corp, joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the justices to rule in favour of the plaintiffs.

United States Supreme Court takes on workplace gay and transgender rights

In the Aarey forest felling case, Supreme Court halts trees cutting. SC asks the Maharashtra govt to not cut more trees and release arrested activists as soon as possible. Maharashtra govt also promises to comply with the order.

Aarey forest felling case: SC halts tree felling, asks Maharashtra to release arrested activists

Twenty-nine protestors were released from Thane jail after bail was granted to them on Sunday.

They were arrested from Aarey on charges of disturbing public order and obstructing government officials from performing their duties.

The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) started axing the trees on Friday night after the Bombay High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by NGOs and activists against the tree felling.&nbsp;

Resolved to save the trees, many protestors gathered at the site to raise their voice against the felling of trees.&nbsp;

Later, more people joined the protestors near the Aarey colony area, where the Mumbai Police imposed Section 144, thereby banning unlawful assembly.

The police had detained at least 84 protestors for allegedly disturbing public order and obstructing government officials from performing their duties.&nbsp;

Twenty-nine out of 84 protestors were sent to five-day judicial custody by a local court on Saturday. The 29 protestors were granted bail on Sunday by Dindoshi court on a cash bond of Rs 7,000 each and asked to appear at the police station for further inquiry.

A special bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the plea submitted by a group of law students protesting against the felling of trees in Mumbai`s Aarey Colony for construction of a metro car shed.

Twenty-nine protestors were released from Thane jail after bail was granted to them on Sunday. They were arrested from Aarey on charges of disturbing public order and obstructing government officials from performing their duties.

Twenty-nine protestors were released from Thane jail after bail was granted to them on Sunday. They were arrested from Aarey on charges of disturbing public order and obstructing government officials from performing their duties. The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) started axing the trees on Friday night after the Bombay High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by NGOs and activists against the tree felling. Resolved to save the trees, many protestors gathered at the site to raise their voice against the felling of trees. Later, more people joined the protestors near the Aarey colony area, where the Mumbai Police imposed Section 144, thereby banning unlawful assembly. The police had detained at least 84 protestors for allegedly disturbing public order and obstructing government officials from performing their duties. Twenty-nine out of 84 protestors were sent to five-day judicial custody by a local court on Saturday. The 29 protestors were granted bail on Sunday by Dindoshi court on a cash bond of Rs 7,000 each and asked to appear at the police station for further inquiry. A special bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the plea submitted by a group of law students protesting against the felling of trees in Mumbai`s Aarey Colony for construction of a metro car shed.

Aarey row: 29 protesters released from Thane jail

The Supreme Court on Monday has asked the Maharashtra government to not cut more trees at Aarey Colony and ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding felling of trees.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that henceforth no trees will be cut in the colony.

The top court also ordered the <a href="wionews.com/india-news/aarey-row-29-protesters-released-from-thane-jail-254162">release of the activists</a> who were arrested for protesting against Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL).

The court also asked Tushar Mehta to include the Ministry of Forest and Environment as a party in the matter.

A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan directed the government to maintain the status quo and said it would further hear all the petitions in the matter on October 21.

Earlier today, twenty-nine protestors were released from Thane jail after bail was granted to them on Sunday.

The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) started cutting the trees on Friday night after the Bombay High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by NGOs and activists against the tree felling.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)

The Supreme Court on Monday has asked the Maharashtra government to not cut more trees at Aarey Colony and ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding felling of trees.

The Supreme Court on Monday has asked the Maharashtra government to not cut more trees at Aarey Colony and ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding felling of trees. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that henceforth no trees will be cut in the colony. The top court also ordered the release of the activists who were arrested for protesting against Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL). The court also asked Tushar Mehta to include the Ministry of Forest and Environment as a party in the matter. A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan directed the government to maintain the status quo and said it would further hear all the petitions in the matter on October 21. Earlier today, twenty-nine protestors were released from Thane jail after bail was granted to them on Sunday. The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) started cutting the trees on Friday night after the Bombay High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by NGOs and activists against the tree felling. (With inputs from ANI)

Supreme Court stops tree felling in Mumbai's Aarey forest till next hearing

Union Minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said that India's green cover had increased by 15,000 square kilometres in the last four years.

While addressing a press conference here, Javadekar was asked about the ongoing issue of Aarey Colony in Mumbai.

"Supreme Court has given a decision on it, so I will not comment on the matter," Javadekar said.

However, Javadekar stated that the policy and the practice is, "if you cut one tree, you plant and ensure the growth of five trees."

Asked whether afforestation has worked, Javadekar replied, "In the last four years, the green cover of the country has increased by 15,000 square kilometres. There are only a few countries in the world whose green cover has increased, that includes India."

A special bench of the Supreme Court today asked the Maharashtra government to ensure that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-maharashtra-government-to-not-cut-more-trees-in-aarey-forest-254181">no trees are further axed</a> at Mumbai's Aarey Colony.

A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan directed the government to maintain the status quo and said it would further hear all the petitions in the matter on October 21.

The court passed the directive after hearing a suo moto PIL based on a letter written by a group of law students to the court against the felling of trees.&nbsp;

Union Minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said that India's green cover had increased by 15,000 square kilometres in the last four years. While addressing a press conference here, Javadekar was asked about the ongoing issue of Aarey Colony in Mumbai.

Union Minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said that India's green cover had increased by 15,000 square kilometres in the last four years. While addressing a press conference here, Javadekar was asked about the ongoing issue of Aarey Colony in Mumbai. "Supreme Court has given a decision on it, so I will not comment on the matter," Javadekar said. However, Javadekar stated that the policy and the practice is, "if you cut one tree, you plant and ensure the growth of five trees." Asked whether afforestation has worked, Javadekar replied, "In the last four years, the green cover of the country has increased by 15,000 square kilometres. There are only a few countries in the world whose green cover has increased, that includes India." A special bench of the Supreme Court today asked the Maharashtra government to ensure that no trees are further axed at Mumbai's Aarey Colony. A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan directed the government to maintain the status quo and said it would further hear all the petitions in the matter on October 21. The court passed the directive after hearing a suo moto PIL based on a letter written by a group of law students to the court against the felling of trees.

India's green cover has increased by 15,000 sq km in last four years: Union minister Prakash Javadekar

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-partially-sets-aside-its-2018-order-allows-centres-review-petition-against-dilution-of-scst-act-253040">Supreme Court</a> on Friday said that no hearing would take place tomorrow in Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid land (Title) dispute case.

The top court also announced that it will hear the case till 4 in the evening, instead of 5 pm.

The five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We would not sit and hear the matter (Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid land dispute case) on Saturday. We will also hear the case today till 4 pm."

The lawyers fighting the case were speculating that there would be another hearing on Saturday, as the apex court has announced to conclude the hearing in case by October 18.

It is likely that the apex court would pronounce the judgment before November 17, the date on which the CJI is slated to retire.

Notably, the apex court since August this year is hearing the case every day.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday said that no hearing would take place tomorrow in Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid land (Title) dispute case. The top court also announced that it will hear the case till 4 in the evening, instead of 5 pm.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that no hearing would take place tomorrow in Ram Mandir and Babri Masjid land (Title) dispute case. The top court also announced that it will hear the case till 4 in the evening, instead of 5 pm. The five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We would not sit and hear the matter (Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid land dispute case) on Saturday. We will also hear the case today till 4 pm." The lawyers fighting the case were speculating that there would be another hearing on Saturday, as the apex court has announced to conclude the hearing in case by October 18. It is likely that the apex court would pronounce the judgment before November 17, the date on which the CJI is slated to retire. Notably, the apex court since August this year is hearing the case every day.

No hearing on Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid case tomorrow: Supreme Court

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

The High Court had dismissed Chidambaram's plea asserting that he might influence witnesses in the case.

Following this, Chidambaram's counsel, Kapil Sibal, moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court today, seeking urgent hearing into it.

A bench of Justice N V Ramana, however, assured that Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will take a decision on the matter later during the day.

The file has been sent to him for consideration for the listing of the matter.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Chidambaram on August 21 following which he was sent to judicial custody, which is slated to end today.

While CBI is probing the corruption allegations, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is looking into money laundering allegations against him in the case.

Chidambaram is facing probe for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union finance minister.&nbsp;

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case.

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent order of the Delhi High Court that dismissed his bail plea in the INX Media case. The High Court had dismissed Chidambaram's plea asserting that he might influence witnesses in the case. Following this, Chidambaram's counsel, Kapil Sibal, moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court today, seeking urgent hearing into it. A bench of Justice N V Ramana, however, assured that Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will take a decision on the matter later during the day. The file has been sent to him for consideration for the listing of the matter. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Chidambaram on August 21 following which he was sent to judicial custody, which is slated to end today. While CBI is probing the corruption allegations, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is looking into money laundering allegations against him in the case. Chidambaram is facing probe for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union finance minister.

INX Media: P Chidambaram moves Supreme Court challenging after Delhi high court dismissed bail

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said India and Mauritius are diverse and vibrant democracies, which are committed to working for the prosperity of their people as well as for peace in the region and the world.

Prime Minister Modi, after jointly inaugurated two landmark projects in Mauritius with his island nation counterpart Pravind Jugnauth via video conference on Thursday, said: "These projects are the symbol of India's strong commitment to the development of Mauritius."

"We are proud that India has partnered with Mauritius in these and other projects of direct public interest. Last year, a joint project provided e-tablets to young children. The new Supreme Court building and one thousand social housing units are coming up rapidly," added Modi.

PM Modi and Jugnauth jointly inaugurated the Phase-1 of the Metro Express and a new ENT Hospital.

"This is a new chapter in our shared history, heritage and cooperation. These developments make the inauguration of the first phase of the Metro project an even more joyous occasion. The Metro will provide clean, efficient and time-saving transport. It will contribute to economic activities and tourism," said Modi.

Talking about the hospital, the Prime Minister said the project will contribute to quality healthcare. "The state-of-the-art ENT hospital will contribute to quality healthcare. It has an energy-efficient building and will offer paper-less services."

"Both these projects will serve the people of Mauritius. They are a symbol of India's strong commitment to the development of Mauritius," he added.

Modi also thanked the Mauritius government for joining the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure as a founding member.

Jugnauth thanked India for the support and assistance and said the people of Mauritius will ever be grateful to India.

"Without India's support and assistance, we will never have progressed so quickly in implementing not only the metro express project but also projects such as new ENT Hospital that we relaunched a few moments ago," he said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said India and Mauritius are diverse and vibrant democracies, which are committed to working for the prosperity of their people as well as for peace in the region and the world.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said India and Mauritius are diverse and vibrant democracies, which are committed to working for the prosperity of their people as well as for peace in the region and the world. Prime Minister Modi, after jointly inaugurated two landmark projects in Mauritius with his island nation counterpart Pravind Jugnauth via video conference on Thursday, said: "These projects are the symbol of India's strong commitment to the development of Mauritius." "We are proud that India has partnered with Mauritius in these and other projects of direct public interest. Last year, a joint project provided e-tablets to young children. The new Supreme Court building and one thousand social housing units are coming up rapidly," added Modi. PM Modi and Jugnauth jointly inaugurated the Phase-1 of the Metro Express and a new ENT Hospital. "This is a new chapter in our shared history, heritage and cooperation. These developments make the inauguration of the first phase of the Metro project an even more joyous occasion. The Metro will provide clean, efficient and time-saving transport. It will contribute to economic activities and tourism," said Modi. Talking about the hospital, the Prime Minister said the project will contribute to quality healthcare. "The state-of-the-art ENT hospital will contribute to quality healthcare. It has an energy-efficient building and will offer paper-less services." "Both these projects will serve the people of Mauritius. They are a symbol of India's strong commitment to the development of Mauritius," he added. Modi also thanked the Mauritius government for joining the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure as a founding member. Jugnauth thanked India for the support and assistance and said the people of Mauritius will ever be grateful to India. "Without India's support and assistance, we will never have progressed so quickly in implementing not only the metro express project but also projects such as new ENT Hospital that we relaunched a few moments ago," he said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurates two landmark projects in Mauritius via video conference

The Supreme Court on Tuesday partially allowed the review petition filed by the Centre against a March 2018 judgment of diluting various stringent provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Setting aside a two-judge bench order, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, said that the top court should not have ventured to frame guidelines as it comes within the domain of legislatures.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-abrogation-supreme-court-seeks-centres-reply-on-pleas-challenging-decision-253017">apex court</a> observed that people belonging to SC and ST communities are still being abused and discriminated and that the abuse of the SC/ST Act cannot be a ground to dilute its provisions.

"Classes of SC/ST are suffering economically and socially for centuries," the bench said.

The court reserved its order on the review petition on September 18.

A two-judge bench had earlier this month referred the review plea to a three-judge bench for hearing the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/wont-grant-any-extra-day-after-october-18-to-complete-arguments-sc-tells-parties-in-ayodhya-case-252178">case</a>.

The three-judge bench today had set aside its March 20, 2018, order by which it had directed that a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act "only after prior approval by the competent authority" and that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the SC/ST Act.

The Centre had filed the review petition asking it to rethink its verdict after a backlash from the SC/ST community against the decision, which resulted in widespread protests across the country.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday partially allowed the review petition filed by the Centre against a March 2018 judgment of diluting various stringent provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday partially allowed the review petition filed by the Centre against a March 2018 judgment of diluting various stringent provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Setting aside a two-judge bench order, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, said that the top court should not have ventured to frame guidelines as it comes within the domain of legislatures. The apex court observed that people belonging to SC and ST communities are still being abused and discriminated and that the abuse of the SC/ST Act cannot be a ground to dilute its provisions. "Classes of SC/ST are suffering economically and socially for centuries," the bench said. The court reserved its order on the review petition on September 18. A two-judge bench had earlier this month referred the review plea to a three-judge bench for hearing the case. The three-judge bench today had set aside its March 20, 2018, order by which it had directed that a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act "only after prior approval by the competent authority" and that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the SC/ST Act. The Centre had filed the review petition asking it to rethink its verdict after a backlash from the SC/ST community against the decision, which resulted in widespread protests across the country.

Supreme Court partially sets aside its 2018 order, allows Centre's review petition against dilution of SC/ST Act

supreme-court

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

supreme court