The Supreme Court on Thursday asked high-powered Committee comprising Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra, and Narmada Control Authority to resolve the issue of the rising water-level of Sardar Sarovar Dam, which is leading to submergence of villages.

A Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana said it will hear the matter on October 1.

The court was hearing a plea filed by people affected by submergence in Sardar Sarovar Dam.

The petition deals with the rehabilitation of people due to submergence as well as the water level to be maintained in the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat.

As many as 178 villages have been affected that caused the human calamity of the worst kind, petition said.

People are affected by submergence in Sardar Sarovar due to direction given by the Narmada Control Authority contrary to Narmada Tribunal`s Award (NWDTA) and earlier judgments of the top court, wherein it is mandated that no submergence should take place without rehabilitation, petition said.

It further stated that Sardar Sarovar being an inter-state project, terms and conditions of the award are binding on the states -Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.

By February 2017, the complete resettlement and rehabilitation should have been done, but it did not happen and due to the illegal decision, water started rising in the reservoir and was raised to reach the full reservoir level of 138.68 meter on September 2017, plea stated.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked high-powered Committee comprising Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra, and Narmada Control Authority to resolve the issue of the rising water-level of Sardar Sarovar Dam, which is leading to submergence of villages.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked high-powered Committee comprising Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra, and Narmada Control Authority to resolve the issue of the rising water-level of Sardar Sarovar Dam, which is leading to submergence of villages. A Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana said it will hear the matter on October 1. The court was hearing a plea filed by people affected by submergence in Sardar Sarovar Dam. The petition deals with the rehabilitation of people due to submergence as well as the water level to be maintained in the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat. As many as 178 villages have been affected that caused the human calamity of the worst kind, petition said. People are affected by submergence in Sardar Sarovar due to direction given by the Narmada Control Authority contrary to Narmada Tribunal`s Award (NWDTA) and earlier judgments of the top court, wherein it is mandated that no submergence should take place without rehabilitation, petition said. It further stated that Sardar Sarovar being an inter-state project, terms and conditions of the award are binding on the states -Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. By February 2017, the complete resettlement and rehabilitation should have been done, but it did not happen and due to the illegal decision, water started rising in the reservoir and was raised to reach the full reservoir level of 138.68 meter on September 2017, plea stated.

Supreme Court asks Committee to resolve issue of rising water-level of Sardar Sarovar Dam

In a clear indication that judgment in Ayodhya dispute case is likely to be delivered before CJI Ranjan Gogoi's retirement in November, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it cannot grant even a single extra day beyond October 18 to all petitioners to complete their submissions.

A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it doesn`t want to give even "one day extra" beyond October 18 after it was apprised by the lawyers that their submissions will be completed by the said date in "all the possibilities and manner".

Today was the 32nd day of the day-to-day hearing on a batch of appeals filed by Muslim and Hindu parties challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which has ruled to divide the disputed site into three equal parts.

The bench will write the landmark judgement for ownership of 2.77-acre land once the arguments are concluded by lawyers of UP Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmoni Akhada and Ram Deity three parties in the case.

On September 18, the court said that arguments have to be completed by October 18 even as the mediation panel may continue its work under confidentiality.

"As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to be likely completed by October 18," Gogoi had said.

Earlier, the court had observed that the hearing of the appeals, which is at a very advanced stage, will continue without any interruption.

It is to be noted that CJI Gogoi is set to demit office on November 17 and he has to deliver the judgement before that as he had entirely heard the case from the beginning of the arguments.

The court had also said that simultaneously the mediation process can go along with the hearing and if an amicable settlement is reached through it, the same can be filed before the court.

The day-to-day hearing started on August 6 after a court-appointed mediation panel failed to resolve the dispute through an amicable settlement.

In a clear indication that judgment in Ayodhya dispute case is likely to be delivered before CJI Ranjan Gogoi's retirement in November, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it cannot grant even a single extra day beyond October 18 to all petitioners to complete their submissions.

In a clear indication that judgment in Ayodhya dispute case is likely to be delivered before CJI Ranjan Gogoi's retirement in November, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it cannot grant even a single extra day beyond October 18 to all petitioners to complete their submissions. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it doesn`t want to give even "one day extra" beyond October 18 after it was apprised by the lawyers that their submissions will be completed by the said date in "all the possibilities and manner". Today was the 32nd day of the day-to-day hearing on a batch of appeals filed by Muslim and Hindu parties challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which has ruled to divide the disputed site into three equal parts. The bench will write the landmark judgement for ownership of 2.77-acre land once the arguments are concluded by lawyers of UP Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmoni Akhada and Ram Deity three parties in the case. On September 18, the court said that arguments have to be completed by October 18 even as the mediation panel may continue its work under confidentiality. "As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to be likely completed by October 18," Gogoi had said. Earlier, the court had observed that the hearing of the appeals, which is at a very advanced stage, will continue without any interruption. It is to be noted that CJI Gogoi is set to demit office on November 17 and he has to deliver the judgement before that as he had entirely heard the case from the beginning of the arguments. The court had also said that simultaneously the mediation process can go along with the hearing and if an amicable settlement is reached through it, the same can be filed before the court. The day-to-day hearing started on August 6 after a court-appointed mediation panel failed to resolve the dispute through an amicable settlement.

Won't grant any extra day after October 18 to complete arguments: Supreme Court tells parties in Ayodhya case

US President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;threw his weight Tuesday behind&nbsp;Boris&nbsp;Johnson's plan to exit the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-ruling-could-throw-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-into-more-disarray-251621">European Union</a> as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-vows-to-pursue-brexit-plan-despite-supreme-court-blow-251822">Brexit had to be done</a>.

"It takes a man like this to get it done,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done."

"It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the&nbsp;pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.&nbsp;

Trump also dismissed&nbsp;British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the&nbsp;Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully.

Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere."

Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes!

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-trouble-follows-boris-johnson-wherever-he-goes-250683/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful.

<meta name="uuid" content="uuidDg2f112Pi0um" /><meta charset="utf-8" />

The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson.

"He's a professional. It's just another day in the office,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of his British counterpart.

The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels.

Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels.

Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it.

He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election.

Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court. Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that Brexit had to be done. "It takes a man like this to get it done," Trump said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done." "It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump also dismissed British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully. Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere." Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes! × Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful. The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson. "He's a professional. It's just another day in the office," Trump said of his British counterpart. The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels. Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels. Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it. He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election. Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

Should PM Boris Johnson resign? Donald Trump says, 'he's not going anywhere'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rapped all the social media platforms for not being able to establish the original sender of messages.&nbsp; 
A bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta expressed concern over WhatsApp's inability in tracing message sources, adding that unregulated online media was a major concern.&nbsp;

During the course of hearing, justice Deepak Gupta remarked, "It is dangerous the way the technology is going. After the last hearing, I researched and found I could buy an Ak-47 on the dark web and in 30 minutes".&nbsp;

There has been massive concern over the spread of fake news, the government has been attempting to enable tractability of such messages but online messaging services like WhatsApp have maintained that they cannot do much as the messages are end-to-end encrypted which disallows privacy invasion. Visibly angered justice Deepak Gupta said he has denounced the use of smartphones, "I was thinking of giving up my smartphone and going back to the old way".

Expressing concern over the spread of fake news, the apex court asked the Centre to file an affidavit within three weeks to come up with social media guidelines without compromising individuals' privacy and protecting the sovereignty of the State.

“The originator (of fake messages) must be traced. At the same time, the sovereignty of the nation and the privacy of individuals should be maintained," said the bench.

The court was hearing a petition filed by social media giant Facebook Inc. for the transfer of the cases from High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh to the Supreme Court which sought to link Aadhaar with social media accounts.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rapped all the social media platforms for not being able to establish the original sender of messages. A bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta expressed concern over WhatsApp's inability in tracing message sources, adding that unregulated online media was a major concern.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rapped all the social media platforms for not being able to establish the original sender of messages. A bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta expressed concern over WhatsApp's inability in tracing message sources, adding that unregulated online media was a major concern. During the course of hearing, justice Deepak Gupta remarked, "It is dangerous the way the technology is going. After the last hearing, I researched and found I could buy an Ak-47 on the dark web and in 30 minutes". There has been massive concern over the spread of fake news, the government has been attempting to enable tractability of such messages but online messaging services like WhatsApp have maintained that they cannot do much as the messages are end-to-end encrypted which disallows privacy invasion. Visibly angered justice Deepak Gupta said he has denounced the use of smartphones, "I was thinking of giving up my smartphone and going back to the old way". Expressing concern over the spread of fake news, the apex court asked the Centre to file an affidavit within three weeks to come up with social media guidelines without compromising individuals' privacy and protecting the sovereignty of the State. “The originator (of fake messages) must be traced. At the same time, the sovereignty of the nation and the privacy of individuals should be maintained," said the bench. The court was hearing a petition filed by social media giant Facebook Inc. for the transfer of the cases from High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh to the Supreme Court which sought to link Aadhaar with social media accounts.

Sources of WhatsApp, other online messages must be traced: Supreme Court 

British Ministers of Parliament (MPs)&nbsp;return to the parliament on Wednesday following a momentous Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the parliament was unlawful.

The judgement has challenged&nbsp;Johnson's authority, prompting calls for his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/should-pm-boris-johnson-resign-donald-trump-says-hes-not-going-anywhere-251837">resignation</a> and casting further doubt on his promise to pull Britain out of the European Union on October 31.

The Conservative leader was due to arrive back from New York, heading straight into a political maelstrom triggered by Tuesday's damning court ruling that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful.

Britain's right-wing tabloids reacted angrily to the ruling, with The Sun saying it had been bombarded with letters from readers expressing "fury".

The Daily Telegraph said Johnson was "seen as the champion of the people against an establishment determined to stop Brexit", while for the Daily Mail, "The real political vandals are the out of touch MPs blocking Brexit".&nbsp;

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, announced that MPs would reconvene at 1030 GMT&nbsp;on Wednesday, while the upper House of Lords said it would return later the same day.

Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn called on Johnson to resign but said that he would not call a no-confidence vote in the parliament until the possibility of a no-deal Brexit had been eliminated.

"Our first priority is to prevent a no-deal exit from the European Union on October 31," Corbyn told BBC radio.

Bercow said there would be no Prime Minister's Questions - a weekly session held on Wednesdays - but there would be "full scope for urgent questions, for ministerial statements, and for applications for emergency debates".

Cabinet member Michael Gove said that&nbsp;the government would outline its next steps in parliament later on Wednesday.

"I don't think that the government should apologise for having a strong domestic agenda. I don't think we should apologise also for seeking to advance our exit from the European Union," Gove told the BBC.

Hammer blows for Johnson

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-told-boris-johnson-is-father-of-lies-250462">ruling</a> throws Johnson's Brexit planning into disarray - coming after a series of defeats in the parliament that have curbed his plans for Brexit even if there is no divorce deal with Brussels.

Johnson told British media that&nbsp;he "strongly disagreed" with the decision but would respect it.

The Prime Minister is likely to also renew his call for an early election to end the stand-off with parliament, having said in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that it was "the obvious thing to do".

Despite the series of hammer blows in the House of Commons and the courts as well as losing his parliamentary majority, Johnson is still riding high in the polls and keen for an election to try and win enough seats to push through Brexit.

But he requires the consent of opposition parties to hold a snap election and they are so far reluctant, preferring to use their working majority to keep a tight leash on Johnson as the EU departure deadline of October 31 looms.

Dead in a ditch

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/decision-to-suspend-uk-parliament-was-unlawful-supreme-court-251746">11 Supreme Court judges ruled on Tuesday</a> that the parliamentary suspension, which came into effect this month, was "unlawful, void and of no effect".

Johnson had argued that shutting down parliament until October 14 was a routine move to allow his new government to set out a new legislative programme.

But critics accused him of trying to silence MPs.

Johnson is likely to resist resignation calls, insisting that he must take Britain out of the EU next month regardless of the circumstances.

In the week between returning from their summer holiday and prorogation on September 10, MPs passed a law aiming to stop "no deal".

It obliges Johnson to ask to delay Brexit by three months if he has not agreed a divorce deal at an EU summit on October 17 and 18.

But the Prime Minister has said he would rather "be dead in a ditch" than ask for another extension, setting up a potential showdown.

Johnson said Tuesday that he hoped to amend the divorce deal struck between the EU and his predecessor Theresa May, which has been rejected by MPs three times.

British Ministers of Parliament (MPs) return to the parliament on Wednesday following a momentous Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the parliament was unlawful.

British Ministers of Parliament (MPs) return to the parliament on Wednesday following a momentous Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend the parliament was unlawful. The judgement has challenged Johnson's authority, prompting calls for his resignation and casting further doubt on his promise to pull Britain out of the European Union on October 31. The Conservative leader was due to arrive back from New York, heading straight into a political maelstrom triggered by Tuesday's damning court ruling that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. Britain's right-wing tabloids reacted angrily to the ruling, with The Sun saying it had been bombarded with letters from readers expressing "fury". The Daily Telegraph said Johnson was "seen as the champion of the people against an establishment determined to stop Brexit", while for the Daily Mail, "The real political vandals are the out of touch MPs blocking Brexit". The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, announced that MPs would reconvene at 1030 GMT on Wednesday, while the upper House of Lords said it would return later the same day. Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn called on Johnson to resign but said that he would not call a no-confidence vote in the parliament until the possibility of a no-deal Brexit had been eliminated. "Our first priority is to prevent a no-deal exit from the European Union on October 31," Corbyn told BBC radio. Bercow said there would be no Prime Minister's Questions - a weekly session held on Wednesdays - but there would be "full scope for urgent questions, for ministerial statements, and for applications for emergency debates". Cabinet member Michael Gove said that the government would outline its next steps in parliament later on Wednesday. "I don't think that the government should apologise for having a strong domestic agenda. I don't think we should apologise also for seeking to advance our exit from the European Union," Gove told the BBC. Hammer blows for Johnson The ruling throws Johnson's Brexit planning into disarray - coming after a series of defeats in the parliament that have curbed his plans for Brexit even if there is no divorce deal with Brussels. Johnson told British media that he "strongly disagreed" with the decision but would respect it. The Prime Minister is likely to also renew his call for an early election to end the stand-off with parliament, having said in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that it was "the obvious thing to do". Despite the series of hammer blows in the House of Commons and the courts as well as losing his parliamentary majority, Johnson is still riding high in the polls and keen for an election to try and win enough seats to push through Brexit. But he requires the consent of opposition parties to hold a snap election and they are so far reluctant, preferring to use their working majority to keep a tight leash on Johnson as the EU departure deadline of October 31 looms. Dead in a ditch The 11 Supreme Court judges ruled on Tuesday that the parliamentary suspension, which came into effect this month, was "unlawful, void and of no effect". Johnson had argued that shutting down parliament until October 14 was a routine move to allow his new government to set out a new legislative programme. But critics accused him of trying to silence MPs. Johnson is likely to resist resignation calls, insisting that he must take Britain out of the EU next month regardless of the circumstances. In the week between returning from their summer holiday and prorogation on September 10, MPs passed a law aiming to stop "no deal". It obliges Johnson to ask to delay Brexit by three months if he has not agreed a divorce deal at an EU summit on October 17 and 18. But the Prime Minister has said he would rather "be dead in a ditch" than ask for another extension, setting up a potential showdown. Johnson said Tuesday that he hoped to amend the divorce deal struck between the EU and his predecessor Theresa May, which has been rejected by MPs three times.

UK MPs return to parliament after Supreme Court ruling

Four new judges on Monday took oath as the Supreme Court Judges, increasing the total strength from 31 to 34 as sanctioned under the amended law.

The four new judges who sworn in are Chief Justice Krishna Murari of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court S Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice V Ramasubramanian of Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala High Court Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Recently, the Parliament had increased the number of judges in the top court from 31, including the Chief Justice of India to 34, highest ever.

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill was passed by the Parliament and President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent soon, thereafter, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended judges names to the government on August 28.

The Centre on September 18 cleared the appointments on Collegium`s recommendation.&nbsp;

Four new judges on Monday took oath as the Supreme Court Judges, increasing the total strength from 31 to 34 as sanctioned under the amended law. The four new judges who sworn in are Chief Justice Krishna Murari of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court S Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice V Ramasubramanian of Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala High Court Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Four new judges on Monday took oath as the Supreme Court Judges, increasing the total strength from 31 to 34 as sanctioned under the amended law. The four new judges who sworn in are Chief Justice Krishna Murari of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court S Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice V Ramasubramanian of Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala High Court Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Recently, the Parliament had increased the number of judges in the top court from 31, including the Chief Justice of India to 34, highest ever. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill was passed by the Parliament and President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent soon, thereafter, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended judges names to the government on August 28. The Centre on September 18 cleared the appointments on Collegium`s recommendation.

Four new judges take oath in Supreme Court

Gravitas: The Facebook Supreme Court!

A petition has been filled in the apex court seeking its direction in the issue of around 2,000 transgenders being excluded from the list of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/final-list-of-assam-nrc-out-over-19-lakh-excluded-311-crore-included-in-list-246782">National Register of Citizens</a> (NRC) of Assam.

Speaking to ANI on the issue of the exclusion of transgenders from the list, Assam's first transgender judge and petitioner Swati Bidhan Baruah said,&nbsp;"Most transgenders were abandoned, they do not have documents pertaining to before 1971. Objection applications did not contain 'others' as a gender category."

She also alleged that the NRC exercise was not inclusive for the transgender community.

"NRC was not inclusive for transgenders and forced them to accept male or female as their gender. We are hoping the Supreme Court will take into consideration our petition," Baruah said.

Over 3 crore persons were found eligible for inclusion in final NRC leaving out more than 19 lakh persons including those who did not submit their claims.

Those not satisfied with the outcome can file an appeal before Foreigners Tribunals, a government statement said.

A petition has been filled in the apex court seeking its direction in the issue of around 2,000 transgenders being excluded from the list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) of Assam.

A petition has been filled in the apex court seeking its direction in the issue of around 2,000 transgenders being excluded from the list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) of Assam. Speaking to ANI on the issue of the exclusion of transgenders from the list, Assam's first transgender judge and petitioner Swati Bidhan Baruah said, "Most transgenders were abandoned, they do not have documents pertaining to before 1971. Objection applications did not contain 'others' as a gender category." She also alleged that the NRC exercise was not inclusive for the transgender community. "NRC was not inclusive for transgenders and forced them to accept male or female as their gender. We are hoping the Supreme Court will take into consideration our petition," Baruah said. Over 3 crore persons were found eligible for inclusion in final NRC leaving out more than 19 lakh persons including those who did not submit their claims. Those not satisfied with the outcome can file an appeal before Foreigners Tribunals, a government statement said.

Around 2,000 transgender excluded from Assam NRC list, plea filed in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Ayodhya case hearings must be completed by October 18.

The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to be likely completed by October 18."

Gogoi further said that if the petitioners want, they can settle the dispute through mediation. The court also said daily hearings will continue in the case.

"Simultaneously the mediation process can go along with the hearing, which is going on in Supreme Court, and if an amicable settlement is reached through by it, the same can be filed before the Supreme Court," Gogoi further added.

Last month, after the Supreme Court observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, then the court decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Ayodhya case hearings must be completed by October 18. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to be likely completed by October 18.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Ayodhya case hearings must be completed by October 18. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, "As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to be likely completed by October 18." Gogoi further said that if the petitioners want, they can settle the dispute through mediation. The court also said daily hearings will continue in the case. "Simultaneously the mediation process can go along with the hearing, which is going on in Supreme Court, and if an amicable settlement is reached through by it, the same can be filed before the Supreme Court," Gogoi further added. Last month, after the Supreme Court observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, then the court decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, which ordered equal division of the 2.77 acres disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Supreme Court sets October 18 deadline to conclude Ayodhya case, allows mediation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the review petition filed by the Central government against its judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra heard the petition which was referred to it by a two-judge bench last week.

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.

A two-judge bench had, on March 2018, passed a slew of directions, directing that a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act "only after prior approval by the competent authority".

The apex court had held that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

It also introduced the anticipatory bail provision and a preliminary probe by the police before the arrest of the accused.

The Centre had filed the petition in the court and later made amendments in the Act to overcome the top court's order.

The implementation of the amendment in the law was not stayed by the court.

The court is seized of a bunch of other petitions opposing amendments to the Act passed by the Parliament that rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs.

The pleas alleged that Parliament had "arbitrarily" amended the law.

The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the review petition filed by the Central government against its judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the review petition filed by the Central government against its judgment which had diluted the stringent provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra heard the petition which was referred to it by a two-judge bench last week. 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. A two-judge bench had, on March 2018, passed a slew of directions, directing that a public servant could be arrested in cases lodged under the SC/ST Act "only after prior approval by the competent authority". The apex court had held that there will be no automatic arrest on a complaint filed under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It also introduced the anticipatory bail provision and a preliminary probe by the police before the arrest of the accused. The Centre had filed the petition in the court and later made amendments in the Act to overcome the top court's order. The implementation of the amendment in the law was not stayed by the court. The court is seized of a bunch of other petitions opposing amendments to the Act passed by the Parliament that rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs. The pleas alleged that Parliament had "arbitrarily" amended the law. The amendments provide that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.

Supreme Court reserves order on Centre's review plea against order diluting provisions of SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute to come up with a tentative time schedule or date when the arguments can be concluded.

On the 25th day of the arguments, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked all parties to apprise it as to when their arguments are likely to be completed, hinting that the court can pronounce the judgment as submissions are over.

On Friday, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim side, sought a break in the hearing.

"You (Dhavan) sit with your associates and inform about the number of days you will take to conclude your arguments," Gogoi said and also asked the Hindu parties as to how much more time will take to reply to Muslim parties.

During the course of the hearing, Dhavan read the pleadings of the Shia's in order to show the position of Shia's then and now.

He submitted before the bench that there was no evidence to conclude that Lord Ram was born on the spot inside the central dome where the Babri Masjid once stood.

"There was no difference between Shias and Sunnis over the Babri Mosque and it was vested in Allah," Dhavan told the court.

Dhavan submitted some photos of Babri Mosque captured in 1950 in a bid to convince the court that the disputed land belonged to Muslims.

"We don't have any objection to the Hindus, but the land belongs to us (Muslim side)," Dhavan told the bench.

Dhavan will continue his arguments on Wednesday.

The top court is hearing a batch of petitions filed by -- Hindu and Muslim and others sides -- challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which divided the disputed site into three equal parts.

The day-to-day hearing started on August 6 after a court-appointed mediation panel failed to resolve the dispute through amicable settlement.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute to come up with a tentative time schedule or date when the arguments can be concluded.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute to come up with a tentative time schedule or date when the arguments can be concluded. On the 25th day of the arguments, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked all parties to apprise it as to when their arguments are likely to be completed, hinting that the court can pronounce the judgment as submissions are over. On Friday, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim side, sought a break in the hearing. "You (Dhavan) sit with your associates and inform about the number of days you will take to conclude your arguments," Gogoi said and also asked the Hindu parties as to how much more time will take to reply to Muslim parties. During the course of the hearing, Dhavan read the pleadings of the Shia's in order to show the position of Shia's then and now. He submitted before the bench that there was no evidence to conclude that Lord Ram was born on the spot inside the central dome where the Babri Masjid once stood. "There was no difference between Shias and Sunnis over the Babri Mosque and it was vested in Allah," Dhavan told the court. Dhavan submitted some photos of Babri Mosque captured in 1950 in a bid to convince the court that the disputed land belonged to Muslims. "We don't have any objection to the Hindus, but the land belongs to us (Muslim side)," Dhavan told the bench. Dhavan will continue his arguments on Wednesday. The top court is hearing a batch of petitions filed by -- Hindu and Muslim and others sides -- challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which divided the disputed site into three equal parts. The day-to-day hearing started on August 6 after a court-appointed mediation panel failed to resolve the dispute through amicable settlement.

Supreme Court asks parties when can they conclude arguments in Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute

Supreme Court on Monday directed the government to ensure restoration of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir but made it clear that the government cannot compromise on national security.

Supreme Court on Monday directed the government to ensure restoration of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir but made it clear that the government cannot compromise on national security. The top court was hearing PILs challenging the communications blackout in the state following the abrogation of Article 370 which gave special status to the state. Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that the valley has remained calm while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that no loss of life has been reported in the valley since August 5 when the Centre revoked Article 370. The apex court asked the Union Of India and Jammu and Kashmir government to file an affidavit in the case, and fixed the matter to September 30 for further hearing. Earlier, the apex court set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear all the petitions related to the abrogation of Article 370 in the first week of October. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said that he may visit the valley if the requirement arises. "If the requirement arises, I may visit Jammu and Kashmir," Gogoi said.

Supreme Court directs Centre to ensure restoration of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir 

Supreme Court of India has directed govt to ensure normalcy in Jammu & Kashmir. Watch this video to know more.

WION Dispatch: Supreme Court directs govt to ensure normalcy in J&K

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-give-additional-120-million-to-help-venezuelan-migrants-247770">immigrants </a>at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-deny-citizenship-to-immigrants-who-use-public-benefits-us-242502">immigration policies</a>.

The court said the rule, which requires most<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-239846"> immigrants</a> who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travelled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Among the nine judges on the court, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The court`s ruling handed a victory to Trump at a time when much of his immigration agenda had been struck down by lower courts. "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" Trump said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum! <a href="https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob">https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171918282905018370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 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>

The rule would bar almost all <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shock-investment-urged-to-stem-flow-of-central-american-migrants-245236">immigrants</a> from applying for asylum at the southern border. It represents the latest effort by Trump`s administration to crack down on immigration, a signature issue during his presidency and 2020 re-election bid.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration`s policy in federal court said it violates US immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.

In her dissent, Sotomayor said that the government`s rule may be in significant tension with the asylum statute.

"It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere — without affording the public a chance to weigh in."

Eight days after the rule went into effect in July, California-based US District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it.

Then began a back-and-forth between Tigar and the 9th Circuit, which scaled back the injunction so that the Trump rule was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona while in effect in Texas and New Mexico.

Tigar ruled to restore the nationwide ban on Monday, but the 9th Circuit scaled it back again on Tuesday night.

They were both trumped by Supreme Court, which will allow the asylum restriction to remain in place until the underlying legality of the rule is determined at trial.

"This is just a temporary step, and we`re hopeful we`ll prevail at the end of the day," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said. "The lives of thousands of families are at stake."

The Republican president`s administration issued the rule in an attempt to reduce the surging number of asylum claims primarily by Central American migrants who have crossed the US-Mexico border in large numbers during his presidency.

The rule would block nearly all families and individuals from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from entering the United States as asylum seekers after crossing through Mexico. The rule would keep asylum protections for Mexican citizens.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the Trump administration was "pleased" by the Supreme Court`s decision, which he said rejected an "erroneous" ruling by the lower court judge.

But Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the US House of Representatives` Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren, the head of the judiciary panel`s immigration subcommittee, called the court`s decision disappointing.

"Lives will be lost. This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region," they said in a statement.

Government argued right to set policy

The rule drew legal challenges including from a coalition of groups represented by the ACLU who accused the administration of pursuing an "asylum ban" and jeopardizing the safety of migrants fleeing persecution.

In the administration`s request to fully enforce the rule, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay blocking the injunction while litigation over the issue proceeds because the judge`s order interferes with the government`s authority to establish immigration policy.

The administration said the rule screens out asylum claims that are unlikely to succeed and "deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States."

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies. The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travelled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues. Among the nine judges on the court, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. The court`s ruling handed a victory to Trump at a time when much of his immigration agenda had been struck down by lower courts. "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" Trump said on Twitter. BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum! https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019 × The rule would bar almost all immigrants from applying for asylum at the southern border. It represents the latest effort by Trump`s administration to crack down on immigration, a signature issue during his presidency and 2020 re-election bid. The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration`s policy in federal court said it violates US immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15. In her dissent, Sotomayor said that the government`s rule may be in significant tension with the asylum statute. "It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere — without affording the public a chance to weigh in." Eight days after the rule went into effect in July, California-based US District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it. Then began a back-and-forth between Tigar and the 9th Circuit, which scaled back the injunction so that the Trump rule was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona while in effect in Texas and New Mexico. Tigar ruled to restore the nationwide ban on Monday, but the 9th Circuit scaled it back again on Tuesday night. They were both trumped by Supreme Court, which will allow the asylum restriction to remain in place until the underlying legality of the rule is determined at trial. "This is just a temporary step, and we`re hopeful we`ll prevail at the end of the day," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said. "The lives of thousands of families are at stake." The Republican president`s administration issued the rule in an attempt to reduce the surging number of asylum claims primarily by Central American migrants who have crossed the US-Mexico border in large numbers during his presidency. The rule would block nearly all families and individuals from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from entering the United States as asylum seekers after crossing through Mexico. The rule would keep asylum protections for Mexican citizens. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the Trump administration was "pleased" by the Supreme Court`s decision, which he said rejected an "erroneous" ruling by the lower court judge. But Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the US House of Representatives` Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren, the head of the judiciary panel`s immigration subcommittee, called the court`s decision disappointing. "Lives will be lost. This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region," they said in a statement. Government argued right to set policy The rule drew legal challenges including from a coalition of groups represented by the ACLU who accused the administration of pursuing an "asylum ban" and jeopardizing the safety of migrants fleeing persecution. In the administration`s request to fully enforce the rule, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay blocking the injunction while litigation over the issue proceeds because the judge`s order interferes with the government`s authority to establish immigration policy. The administration said the rule screens out asylum claims that are unlikely to succeed and "deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States."

US Supreme Court allows Trump to deny asylum to many Central Americans

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited veteran lawyer <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jethmalanis-demise-marks-the-end-of-an-era-rajya-sabha-deputy-chairman-248476">Ram Jethmalani</a>'s residence in Delhi to pay his last respect to him on Sunday.

Jethmalani was a veteran lawyer and former Union Minister who <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/veteran-lawyer-ram-jethmalani-passes-at-95-248351">passed away at age 95</a> in Delhi on Sunday morning.

Earlier in the day, Narendra Modi tweeted, "In the passing away of Ram Jethmalani Ji, India has lost an exceptional lawyer and iconic public figure who made rich contributions both in the court and parliament. He was witty, courageous and never shied away from boldly expressing himself on any subject."

"One of the best aspects of Ram Jethmalani Ji was the ability to speak his mind. And, he did so without any fear. During the dark days of the Emergency, his fortitude and fight for public liberties will be remembered. Helping the needy was an integral part of his persona," the tweet added.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I consider myself fortunate to have got numerous opportunities to interact with Shri Ram Jethmalani Ji. In these sad moments, my condolences to his family, friends and many admirers. He may not be here but his pioneering work will live on! Om Shanti.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1170552268246011904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 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>

Jethmalani was one of the highest-paid lawyers in the Supreme Court and was considered as a doyen of criminal law.

Jethmalani became a member of Rajya Sabha in 1988 and later served as the law minister and urban development minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee cabinet. He was also appointed as the Chairman of Bar Council of India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited veteran lawyer Ram Jethmalani's residence in Delhi to pay his last respect to him on Sunday. Jethmalani was a veteran lawyer and former Union Minister who passed away at age 95 in Delhi on Sunday morning.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited veteran lawyer Ram Jethmalani's residence in Delhi to pay his last respect to him on Sunday. Jethmalani was a veteran lawyer and former Union Minister who passed away at age 95 in Delhi on Sunday morning. Earlier in the day, Narendra Modi tweeted, "In the passing away of Ram Jethmalani Ji, India has lost an exceptional lawyer and iconic public figure who made rich contributions both in the court and parliament. He was witty, courageous and never shied away from boldly expressing himself on any subject." "One of the best aspects of Ram Jethmalani Ji was the ability to speak his mind. And, he did so without any fear. During the dark days of the Emergency, his fortitude and fight for public liberties will be remembered. Helping the needy was an integral part of his persona," the tweet added. I consider myself fortunate to have got numerous opportunities to interact with Shri Ram Jethmalani Ji. In these sad moments, my condolences to his family, friends and many admirers. He may not be here but his pioneering work will live on! Om Shanti. — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) September 8, 2019 × Jethmalani was one of the highest-paid lawyers in the Supreme Court and was considered as a doyen of criminal law. Jethmalani became a member of Rajya Sabha in 1988 and later served as the law minister and urban development minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee cabinet. He was also appointed as the Chairman of Bar Council of India.

PM Narendra Modi visits Ram Jethmalani's residence to pay his last respect

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, the CBI and other such institutions are expected to function independently within the framework of the Constitution.

"To strengthen, our democracy we need principle, knowledgeable and visionary leaders. It needs political parties committed to safeguarding values enshrined in our Constitution. For our continued unity, the government has to deliver justice, liberty, equality, and environment that respect the contrary opinion," said Singh while addressing the students at Laxmipat University here.

"We have to respect the supremacy of Parliament and its procedures, the rules of the government and presidents. Serving the federal structures like the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, the Controller and Auditor General of India, the CBI, Vigilance Commission, the Information Commission and various other commissions constituted by the government from time to time are expected to function independently within the framework of the Constitution. We have to ensure that they do so," he added.

Major Opposition parties including the Congress have been accusing the central government of misusing institutions like the Election Commission and the CBI.

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, the CBI and other such institutions are expected to function independently within the framework of the Constitution.

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, the CBI and other such institutions are expected to function independently within the framework of the Constitution. "To strengthen, our democracy we need principle, knowledgeable and visionary leaders. It needs political parties committed to safeguarding values enshrined in our Constitution. For our continued unity, the government has to deliver justice, liberty, equality, and environment that respect the contrary opinion," said Singh while addressing the students at Laxmipat University here. "We have to respect the supremacy of Parliament and its procedures, the rules of the government and presidents. Serving the federal structures like the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, the Controller and Auditor General of India, the CBI, Vigilance Commission, the Information Commission and various other commissions constituted by the government from time to time are expected to function independently within the framework of the Constitution. We have to ensure that they do so," he added. Major Opposition parties including the Congress have been accusing the central government of misusing institutions like the Election Commission and the CBI.

Supreme Court, Election Commission, CBI expected to function independently: Manmohan Singh

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on AAP government in Delhi for its decision to give free metro rides to women in the national capital, asserting that it would make Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) an "unprofitable venture".

"Why you (Delhi government) are trying to give a free ride to women in metro trains? If you give a free ride to women, the DMRC will become an unprofitable venture," said a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta.

In June earlier this year, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had proposed free ride for women on all DTC buses, cluster buses and Delhi Metro trains. He had said that the proposal will be implemented within two to three months based on the feedback and suggestions from the public.

The Delhi Cabinet is yet to give its assent to the scheme.

The bench told the state government to properly use public money and refrain from giving free sops to people.

The apex court`s observation came on a petition filed by advocate M C Mehta with respect to the expansion of the fourth phase of the metro project in the state.

Taking cognizance of the petition, the court directed the Central and Delhi government to work out modalities and release Rs 2,447.19 crore of land cost for Phase IV metro within a week. It also asked the Centre to bear 50 per cent of the cost of the land for this purpose.

On March 8 earlier this year, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had approved three of the six corridors proposed under Phase-IV of the Delhi Metro.

The Phase-IV project consists of six corridors -- Aerocity to Tughlakabad, Inderlok to Indraprastha, Lajpat Nagar to Saket G Block, Mukundpur to Maujpur, Janakpuri West to R K Ashram and Rithala to Bawana and Narela, with a total length of 103.93 kilometres.

After the completion of Phase-IV, the total length of Delhi`s mass rapid transit system in the Delhi-NCR region would be approximately 453.58 kilometres.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on AAP government in Delhi for its decision to give free metro rides to women in the national capital, asserting that it would make Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) an "unprofitable venture".

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on AAP government in Delhi for its decision to give free metro rides to women in the national capital, asserting that it would make Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) an "unprofitable venture". "Why you (Delhi government) are trying to give a free ride to women in metro trains? If you give a free ride to women, the DMRC will become an unprofitable venture," said a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta. In June earlier this year, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had proposed free ride for women on all DTC buses, cluster buses and Delhi Metro trains. He had said that the proposal will be implemented within two to three months based on the feedback and suggestions from the public. The Delhi Cabinet is yet to give its assent to the scheme. The bench told the state government to properly use public money and refrain from giving free sops to people. The apex court`s observation came on a petition filed by advocate M C Mehta with respect to the expansion of the fourth phase of the metro project in the state. Taking cognizance of the petition, the court directed the Central and Delhi government to work out modalities and release Rs 2,447.19 crore of land cost for Phase IV metro within a week. It also asked the Centre to bear 50 per cent of the cost of the land for this purpose. On March 8 earlier this year, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had approved three of the six corridors proposed under Phase-IV of the Delhi Metro. The Phase-IV project consists of six corridors -- Aerocity to Tughlakabad, Inderlok to Indraprastha, Lajpat Nagar to Saket G Block, Mukundpur to Maujpur, Janakpuri West to R K Ashram and Rithala to Bawana and Narela, with a total length of 103.93 kilometres. After the completion of Phase-IV, the total length of Delhi`s mass rapid transit system in the Delhi-NCR region would be approximately 453.58 kilometres.

Supreme Court slams Delhi government over its decision to provide free rides to women in metro

Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the election of Prime Minister James Marape on September 20, a lawyer for opposition leader Patrick Pruaitch, who took the issue to court, said on Friday.

The case adds to political turmoil that has delayed progress on two important resources projects in PNG this year, a $13 billion plan to double its gas exports, led by Exxon Mobil Corp and Total SA, and plans to build a major new gold mine, Wafi-Golpu, led by Newcrest Mining.

Marape was voted in by parliament as prime minister in May, days after his predecessor, Peter O'Neill, quit after losing support from his own party over a range of grievances, including a gas deal with France's Total.

During the process of electing a new prime minister, opposition leader Pruaitch nominated O'Neill for the post but the nomination was withdrawn by the speaker of Parliament.

Pruaitch referred the issue to the Supreme Court, contending that the nomination process was improperly handled, invalidating Marape's election.

"The court declared yesterday that Pruaitch has the standing to bring such constitutional challenge and given the urgency of the matter, we asked the court to have the matter fixed as a special fixture for hearing," said Phillip Tabuchi, a lawyer for Pruaitch said in an email to Reuters.

The hearing has been fixed for September 20 before the full bench of PNG's Supreme Court, he said.

Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the election of Prime Minister James Marape on September 20, a lawyer for opposition leader Patrick Pruaitch, who took the issue to court, said on Friday.

Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the election of Prime Minister James Marape on September 20, a lawyer for opposition leader Patrick Pruaitch, who took the issue to court, said on Friday. The case adds to political turmoil that has delayed progress on two important resources projects in PNG this year, a $13 billion plan to double its gas exports, led by Exxon Mobil Corp and Total SA, and plans to build a major new gold mine, Wafi-Golpu, led by Newcrest Mining. Marape was voted in by parliament as prime minister in May, days after his predecessor, Peter O'Neill, quit after losing support from his own party over a range of grievances, including a gas deal with France's Total. During the process of electing a new prime minister, opposition leader Pruaitch nominated O'Neill for the post but the nomination was withdrawn by the speaker of Parliament. Pruaitch referred the issue to the Supreme Court, contending that the nomination process was improperly handled, invalidating Marape's election. "The court declared yesterday that Pruaitch has the standing to bring such constitutional challenge and given the urgency of the matter, we asked the court to have the matter fixed as a special fixture for hearing," said Phillip Tabuchi, a lawyer for Pruaitch said in an email to Reuters. The hearing has been fixed for September 20 before the full bench of PNG's Supreme Court, he said.

Papua New Guinea prime minister's election faces court challenge

The Supreme Court said on Thursday it will hear petitions against alleged media and communication restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir on September 16. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi declined to pass any order and said, "We will hear all the petitions on September 16.

The Supreme Court said on Thursday it will hear petitions against alleged media and communication restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir on September 16. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi declined to pass any order and said, "We will hear all the petitions on September 16." Lawyer Vrinda Grover, who appeared for Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin, submitted, "There could be a humanitarian crisis as per a video of a doctor."She said, "There are parts where journalists cannot enter. Media is there to report things...The situation is not good there, in my opinion." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the arguments of Grover and said that a large number of newspapers are being published in the region. Bhasin chose not to publish the newspaper from Srinagar, Mehta contended. Attorney General KK Venugopal said the situation has improved in the region and more than 80 per cent landline connections have been restored. There is no truth in the petitioner`s allegations that people do not have access to hospitals, he said, adding nearly 7 lakh patients attended OPD, over 4,000 underwent major surgeries and 40,000 had minor surgeries in the Valley since the revocation of the special status to J-K last month. On August 28, the apex court had issued notice to the Centre on Bhasin`s petition, which challenged the alleged restrictions on journalists in the Valley. She filed an additional affidavit in the court on Wednesday, saying the movement of journalists continues to be restricted in Srinagar. On August 13, Bhasin had moved the plea, claiming Kashmir Times was not published owing to the curbs on communication services and movement. She had alleged that a bar was put on journalists` rights provided under the different provisions of the Constitution. Last month, Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganization) Act, 2019, bifurcating the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and Ladakh without it.

Supreme Court to hear on September 16 petitions against media restrictions in J&K

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down former Finance Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-maintains-status-quo-extends-chidambarams-cbi-custody-till-september-5-247380">P Chidambaram's bail plea</a> stating that granting bail would affect the probe in the INX media case.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered maintenance of status quo in the INX Media case and directed that the CBI custody of arrested Congress leader and former Union finance minister P Chidambaram be extended till September 5.

During proceedings, the counsel appearing for the investigating agency submitted before a bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna that they do not want his custody, indicating that he should be sent to Tihar jail.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Supreme Court says, “Granting anticipatory bail at the initial stage may frustrate the investigation....It’s not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Economic offences stand at different footing and it has to be dealt with different approach." <a href="https://t.co/L3j8ET8a6i">https://t.co/L3j8ET8a6i</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1169478239296704513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 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>

The bench was hearing the petition filed by the Congress leader challenging his CBI custody.

Chidambaram`s lawyers - Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi - told the court that they will not press the petition for interim bail in the trial court until the apex court passes the order on September 5.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Supreme Court says P Chidambaram can move regular bail application before the trial court, for regular bail. <a href="https://t.co/3TaMYpzfxj">https://t.co/3TaMYpzfxj</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1169480331516268544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 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>

After the Delhi High Court rejected Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea on August 20, he was arrested and sent to the CBI's custody.&nbsp;

He has already been subjected to custodial interrogation by the agency for 12 days since then.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader P. Chidambaram being probed by ED in INX media case, he withdraws his appeal from the Court challenging trial court’s order of sending him to CBI custody. (File Pic) <a href="https://t.co/CEicgAXdC6">pic.twitter.com/CEicgAXdC6</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1169491712856576000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 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>

Chidambaram is facing probe in cases registered by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 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.

The ED is also seeking his custodial interrogation related to money laundering allegations. The Supreme Court, however, has granted him interim protection from arrest by the ED till September 5.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's bail plea stating that granting bail would affect the probe in the INX media case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's bail plea stating that granting bail would affect the probe in the INX media case. The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered maintenance of status quo in the INX Media case and directed that the CBI custody of arrested Congress leader and former Union finance minister P Chidambaram be extended till September 5. During proceedings, the counsel appearing for the investigating agency submitted before a bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna that they do not want his custody, indicating that he should be sent to Tihar jail. Supreme Court says, “Granting anticipatory bail at the initial stage may frustrate the investigation....It’s not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Economic offences stand at different footing and it has to be dealt with different approach." https://t.co/L3j8ET8a6i — ANI (@ANI) September 5, 2019 × The bench was hearing the petition filed by the Congress leader challenging his CBI custody. Chidambaram`s lawyers - Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi - told the court that they will not press the petition for interim bail in the trial court until the apex court passes the order on September 5. Supreme Court says P Chidambaram can move regular bail application before the trial court, for regular bail. https://t.co/3TaMYpzfxj — ANI (@ANI) September 5, 2019 × After the Delhi High Court rejected Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea on August 20, he was arrested and sent to the CBI's custody. He has already been subjected to custodial interrogation by the agency for 12 days since then. After Supreme Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader P. Chidambaram being probed by ED in INX media case, he withdraws his appeal from the Court challenging trial court’s order of sending him to CBI custody. (File Pic) pic.twitter.com/CEicgAXdC6 — ANI (@ANI) September 5, 2019 × Chidambaram is facing probe in cases registered by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 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. The ED is also seeking his custodial interrogation related to money laundering allegations. The Supreme Court, however, has granted him interim protection from arrest by the ED till September 5. (With inputs from ANI)

INX media case: No relief for Chidambaram as Supreme Court rejects bail plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered maintenance of status quo in the INX Media case and directed that the CBI custody of arrested Congress leader and former Union finance minister P Chidambaram be extended till September 5.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered maintenance of status quo in the INX Media case and directed that the CBI custody of arrested Congress leader and former Union finance minister P Chidambaram be extended till September 5. During proceedings, the counsel appearing for the investigating agency submitted before a bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna that they do not want his custody, indicating that he should be sent to Tihar jail. The bench was hearing the petition filed by the Congress leader challenging his CBI custody. Chidambaram`s lawyers -- Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi -- told the court that they will not press the petition for interim bail in the trial court until the apex court passes the order on September 5. Chidambaram was sent to CBI custody by the trial court for one day, yesterday. After the Delhi High Court rejected Chidambaram`s anticipatory bail plea on August 20, he was arrested and sent to the CBI`s custody. He has already been subjected to custodial interrogation by the agency for 12 days since then. Chidambaram is facing probe in cases registered by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 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. The ED is also seeking his custodial interrogation related to money laundering allegations. The Supreme Court, however, has granted him interim protection from arrest by the ED till September 5.

Supreme Court maintains status quo, extends Chidambaram's CBI custody till September 5

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved the judgement for September 5, on a plea filed by senior Congress leader P Chidambaram against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting his anticipatory plea in a case being probed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-it-is-good-news-indrani-mukerjea-on-p-chidambarams-arrest-246396">INX Media case</a>.

Also, the interim protection granted by the top court to the former finance minister Chidambaram in the Enforcement Directorate case has been extended till September 5, when the court will pronounce the judgement.

The apex court has posted the matter for September 2, the petition of Chidambaram challenging the August 22 order of the trial court remanding him to CBI's custody in the INX Media case.

Earlier in the day, the ED told the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX media case is required as if his plea for anticipatory bail is given it would affect cases involving Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Neerav Modi and Zakir Naik.

Disputing the contention of Chidambaram's lawyers, the agency also argued that the offence of money laundering is against the society, nation and the economy.

"Money laundering is an offence against society, nation and economy. Economic offences are gravest offences irrespective of quantum of sentence," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the probe agency told a Bench of Justice R Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna.

Countering the arguments of Chidambaram's advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi that Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) offences with seven years of punishment is not a grave offence because as per the Code of Criminal Procedure grave offences entail death penalty and life, Mehta said money laundering offences are "grave".

The top court was hearing Chidambaram's plea against Delhi High Court's order denying anticipatory bail to him in a case being probed by the ED.

Mehta also objected to the proposition made by Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal to confront him with evidence before presenting it in the court, saying it is "absurd" and would have "devastating results" and is "preposterous".

Whether the accused's reply was evasive or not is decided by investigating agency and not by the court, he added.

He said the ED has been investigating various sensitive and high profile cases under PMLA and if Chidambaram's plea is accepted it would affect cases against Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Neerav Modi, Zakir Naik, Sarada chit fund, terror funding and other cases.

Mehta also contended that if accused at large is confronted with the evidence collected, then the agency will have exposed its evidence and witnesses and it will give a chance to the accused to tamper with evidence and erase the money trail.

In 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance was given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister.

Following the FIR filed by CBI, ED had filed a case of money laundering against him.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved the judgement for September 5, on a plea filed by senior Congress leader P Chidambaram against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting his anticipatory plea in a case being probed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in INX Media case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved the judgement for September 5, on a plea filed by senior Congress leader P Chidambaram against the Delhi High Court's order rejecting his anticipatory plea in a case being probed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in INX Media case. Also, the interim protection granted by the top court to the former finance minister Chidambaram in the Enforcement Directorate case has been extended till September 5, when the court will pronounce the judgement. The apex court has posted the matter for September 2, the petition of Chidambaram challenging the August 22 order of the trial court remanding him to CBI's custody in the INX Media case. Earlier in the day, the ED told the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX media case is required as if his plea for anticipatory bail is given it would affect cases involving Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Neerav Modi and Zakir Naik. Disputing the contention of Chidambaram's lawyers, the agency also argued that the offence of money laundering is against the society, nation and the economy. "Money laundering is an offence against society, nation and economy. Economic offences are gravest offences irrespective of quantum of sentence," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the probe agency told a Bench of Justice R Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna. Countering the arguments of Chidambaram's advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi that Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) offences with seven years of punishment is not a grave offence because as per the Code of Criminal Procedure grave offences entail death penalty and life, Mehta said money laundering offences are "grave". The top court was hearing Chidambaram's plea against Delhi High Court's order denying anticipatory bail to him in a case being probed by the ED. Mehta also objected to the proposition made by Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal to confront him with evidence before presenting it in the court, saying it is "absurd" and would have "devastating results" and is "preposterous". Whether the accused's reply was evasive or not is decided by investigating agency and not by the court, he added. He said the ED has been investigating various sensitive and high profile cases under PMLA and if Chidambaram's plea is accepted it would affect cases against Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksi, Neerav Modi, Zakir Naik, Sarada chit fund, terror funding and other cases. Mehta also contended that if accused at large is confronted with the evidence collected, then the agency will have exposed its evidence and witnesses and it will give a chance to the accused to tamper with evidence and erase the money trail. In 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance was given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union finance minister. Following the FIR filed by CBI, ED had filed a case of money laundering against him.

SC reserves order on Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea, extends interim protection from arrest

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard petitions challenging Central government’s decision to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/repealing-article-370-is-indias-internal-matter-pm-modi-tells-un-secretary-general-245822">abrogate Article 370</a> and referred the matter to a 5-judge constitution bench. The matter has now been posted for review in October.&nbsp;

The top court has also issued notices to the Centre and state seeking their response on the issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Over 10 petitions were filed in the top court related to the recent developments in the Kashmir Valley.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court bench, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, allowed CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury to travel to Srinagar to meet former MLA Tarigami.&nbsp;

However, Solicitor General submitted in the apex court that Yechury’s visit is for political purpose and could endanger situation that is returning to normal. When solicitor general raised objections against the court’s order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi remarked, “what’s wrong with one citizen meeting another? If Mr Yechury indulges in any other act except meeting Tarigami, it will be considered as a violation of the Court's order”, he said.&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal was quick to add to the narrative and told the Supreme Court bench that, “it’s a very sensitive issue. Statements made here are seen and read at the UN.”

Neighbouring state Pakistan has raised tough objection on Article 370 abrogation. India has reiterated that the issue is the country's internal matter, maintaining that Kashmir remains a bilateral issue with Pakistan without any requirement for third-party mediation.&nbsp;

The Indian government had earlier this month repealed Article 370, which gave special powers to Jammu and Kashmir and also reorganised Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard petitions challenging Central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 and referred the matter to a 5-judge constitution bench.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard petitions challenging Central government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 and referred the matter to a 5-judge constitution bench. The matter has now been posted for review in October. The top court has also issued notices to the Centre and state seeking their response on the issue. Over 10 petitions were filed in the top court related to the recent developments in the Kashmir Valley. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court bench, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, allowed CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury to travel to Srinagar to meet former MLA Tarigami. However, Solicitor General submitted in the apex court that Yechury’s visit is for political purpose and could endanger situation that is returning to normal. When solicitor general raised objections against the court’s order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi remarked, “what’s wrong with one citizen meeting another? If Mr Yechury indulges in any other act except meeting Tarigami, it will be considered as a violation of the Court's order”, he said. Attorney General KK Venugopal was quick to add to the narrative and told the Supreme Court bench that, “it’s a very sensitive issue. Statements made here are seen and read at the UN.” Neighbouring state Pakistan has raised tough objection on Article 370 abrogation. India has reiterated that the issue is the country's internal matter, maintaining that Kashmir remains a bilateral issue with Pakistan without any requirement for third-party mediation. The Indian government had earlier this month repealed Article 370, which gave special powers to Jammu and Kashmir and also reorganised Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories.

Article 370 abrogation: Supreme Court to review petitions in October, notice sent to Centre

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided that a Constitution Bench will hear the pleas on the issue of abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. A five-judge Constitution Bench will hear the pleas and the hearing will commence in the first week of October.

Supreme Court: J&K matter to be heard in October

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the registrar will look into the urgent listing of the petition filed by 15 disqualified Congress-JD(S) MLAs against their ouster under the anti-defection law from the Karnataka Assembly.

Senior advocate V Giri mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana for the urgent listing.

In the petition, the legislators of the former JD(S)-Congress coalition government sought directions to quash the order passed by former Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar rejecting their resignation and disqualifying them from the Assembly.

In the petition, the legislators termed the then Speaker's decision as "wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide".

The petitioners also asserted that their resignations were "voluntary and genuine".

"Not only had they themselves submitted their resignations on July 6, but also appeared in person before the Speaker and submitted their resignation afresh on July 11 in accordance with the directions of the apex court passed on the same day," the plea submitted.

The ousted legislators further contended that the former Speaker rejected their resignation on "wholly extraneous grounds".

"The Speakers'&nbsp;insistence on them attending the proceedings before him on the date of the trust vote clearly speaks volumes of the manner in which the disqualification proceedings have been conducted against them," the petition said.

They also urged the court to call for the records of the proceedings before the then Speaker pertaining to the resignation and disqualification.

Kumar had disqualified 17 rebel MLAs, days after the Congress-JD(S) government collapsed after losing the confidence motion in the Assembly.

The leaders were disqualified by the Speaker, stating that they have "incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) and the disqualification would last till the end of the term of the Assembly May 23, 2023."&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the registrar will look into the urgent listing of the petition filed by 15 disqualified Congress-JD(S) MLAs against their ouster under the anti-defection law from the Karnataka Assembly.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the registrar will look into the urgent listing of the petition filed by 15 disqualified Congress-JD(S) MLAs against their ouster under the anti-defection law from the Karnataka Assembly. Senior advocate V Giri mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana for the urgent listing. In the petition, the legislators of the former JD(S)-Congress coalition government sought directions to quash the order passed by former Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar rejecting their resignation and disqualifying them from the Assembly. In the petition, the legislators termed the then Speaker's decision as "wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide". The petitioners also asserted that their resignations were "voluntary and genuine". "Not only had they themselves submitted their resignations on July 6, but also appeared in person before the Speaker and submitted their resignation afresh on July 11 in accordance with the directions of the apex court passed on the same day," the plea submitted. The ousted legislators further contended that the former Speaker rejected their resignation on "wholly extraneous grounds". "The Speakers' insistence on them attending the proceedings before him on the date of the trust vote clearly speaks volumes of the manner in which the disqualification proceedings have been conducted against them," the petition said. They also urged the court to call for the records of the proceedings before the then Speaker pertaining to the resignation and disqualification. Kumar had disqualified 17 rebel MLAs, days after the Congress-JD(S) government collapsed after losing the confidence motion in the Assembly. The leaders were disqualified by the Speaker, stating that they have "incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) and the disqualification would last till the end of the term of the Assembly May 23, 2023."

Supreme Court to look into plea filed by disqualified Karnataka MLAs against their ouster

Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed the anticipatory <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-court-orders-5-day-custody-for-chidambaram-244846">bail plea</a> of former finance minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/p-chidambaram-sent-to-cbi-custody-till-26-august-244935">P Chidambaram</a> in the INX Media money laundering case.&nbsp;

He was arrested by CBI officials amidst high drama last week from his residence in New Delhi.

A bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna said the petition has become 'infructuous' as he was arrested on August 21.

Watch: Former finance minister P Chidambaram arrested

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/p-chidambaram-arrested-chidambaram-to-be-produced-in-cbi-court-today-244714/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The apex court, however, asked him to move a regular bail plea before the appropriate court.

The Delhi High Court had on August 20 rejected Chidambaram`s anticipatory bail plea in the INX media case.

On August 21, he moved the Supreme Court and challenged Delhi High Court order but could not get an urgent hearing on the plea.

Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 and presented before a trial court, which remanded him to CBI custody till August 26.

The Enforcement Directorate and the CBI are probing how Chidambaram`s son Karti Chidambaram got the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance in 2007 when his father was the Finance Minister.

Karti Chidambaram was arrested on February 28, 2018, by the CBI for allegedly accepting money to facilitate the FIPB clearance to INX Media. He was later granted bail.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of former finance minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. He was arrested by CBI officials amidst high drama last week from his residence in New Delhi.

Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of former finance minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. He was arrested by CBI officials amidst high drama last week from his residence in New Delhi. A bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna said the petition has become 'infructuous' as he was arrested on August 21. Watch: Former finance minister P Chidambaram arrested × The apex court, however, asked him to move a regular bail plea before the appropriate court. The Delhi High Court had on August 20 rejected Chidambaram`s anticipatory bail plea in the INX media case. On August 21, he moved the Supreme Court and challenged Delhi High Court order but could not get an urgent hearing on the plea. Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 and presented before a trial court, which remanded him to CBI custody till August 26. The Enforcement Directorate and the CBI are probing how Chidambaram`s son Karti Chidambaram got the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance in 2007 when his father was the Finance Minister. Karti Chidambaram was arrested on February 28, 2018, by the CBI for allegedly accepting money to facilitate the FIPB clearance to INX Media. He was later granted bail. (With inputs from agencies)

INX Media case: Supreme Court dismisses Chidambaram's plea against CBI arrest

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-court-orders-5-day-custody-for-chidambaram-244846">under the&nbsp;CBI custody till August 26</a>.

The plea was filed by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court verdict of&nbsp;August 20 that dismissed his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-immediate-relief-for-p-chidambaram-his-plea-against-arrest-referred-to-chief-justice-of-india-244564">anticipatory bail plea</a> in the INX Media case.

The CBI court on Thursday ordered 5-day custody for Chidambaram who is accused in the INX media case.&nbsp;

During his remand with the CBI, Chidambaram will be allowed to meet with his lawyers and family members for 30 minutes every day. &nbsp;

Meanwhile, Chidambaram's bail petition against the Enforcement Directorate will be heard by the Supreme Court on August 27.

The CBI court on Thursday began hearing the matter Chidambaram's bail plea at Rouse Avenue District Court in New Delhi.&nbsp;

Chidambaram was arrested in the INX media case on Wednesday night after he failed to get relief from the Supreme Court over CBI and ED's pursuit of him as the matter was not heard by the court despite repeated efforts of his lawyers.

Chidambaram's arrest became an intense political drama as CBI officials had to climb the wall of his residence to get inside his home.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held under the CBI custody till August 26.

The Supreme Court today is all set to hear the bail plea of Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram, who is held under the CBI custody till August 26. The plea was filed by Chidambaram challenging the Delhi High Court verdict of August 20 that dismissed his anticipatory bail plea in the INX Media case. The CBI court on Thursday ordered 5-day custody for Chidambaram who is accused in the INX media case. During his remand with the CBI, Chidambaram will be allowed to meet with his lawyers and family members for 30 minutes every day. Meanwhile, Chidambaram's bail petition against the Enforcement Directorate will be heard by the Supreme Court on August 27. The CBI court on Thursday began hearing the matter Chidambaram's bail plea at Rouse Avenue District Court in New Delhi. Chidambaram was arrested in the INX media case on Wednesday night after he failed to get relief from the Supreme Court over CBI and ED's pursuit of him as the matter was not heard by the court despite repeated efforts of his lawyers. Chidambaram's arrest became an intense political drama as CBI officials had to climb the wall of his residence to get inside his home.

INX Media case: Supreme Court to hear P Chidambaram's bail plea today

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalises triple talaq and provides for a jail term up to three years for the husband.

A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana issued notice to the government on separate petitions filed by politician and Islamic scholar Amir Rashadi Madni and two organisations -- Samastha Kerala Jamaithul Ulema and Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind.

The petitioners sought an interim stay on the law, which came into force on August 1 after receiving the presidential assent.

Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, a Kerala-based organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics, in its petitions has submitted that the Act is violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

It has contended that the law could create "grave public mischief and may lead to polarisation and disharmony in society".

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalises triple talaq and provides for a jail term up to three years for the husband.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalises triple talaq and provides for a jail term up to three years for the husband. A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana issued notice to the government on separate petitions filed by politician and Islamic scholar Amir Rashadi Madni and two organisations -- Samastha Kerala Jamaithul Ulema and Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind. The petitioners sought an interim stay on the law, which came into force on August 1 after receiving the presidential assent. Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, a Kerala-based organisation of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics, in its petitions has submitted that the Act is violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. It has contended that the law could create "grave public mischief and may lead to polarisation and disharmony in society".

Supreme Court seeks response from Centre on pleas challenging triple talaq law

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram was arrested in the INX Media case on Wednesday night after he failed to get relief from the Supreme Court over CBI and ED's pursuit of him as the matter was not heard by the court despite repeated efforts of his lawyers.

WION Dispatch: Will CBI get 5-day custody of P Chidambaram? Verdict shortly

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site.

The five-judge member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the matter.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar was arguing for Gopal Singh Bisharad in the case.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the three parties- Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp;

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site.

The apex court on Thursday commenced the hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 10th consecutive day, with one of the litigants seeking enforcement of his right to worship at the disputed site. The five-judge member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the matter. Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Solicitor General (SG) Ranjit Kumar was arguing for Gopal Singh Bisharad in the case. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the three parties- Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Supreme Court hears Ayodhya Case for 10th consecutive day

No immediate relief for P Chidamabaram from the Supreme Court. The case has been forwarded to Chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. Watch full video to know more.

Chidambaram INX Media case: Ranjan Gogoi to decide on urgent hearing of plea after lunch

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