Watch WION Playlist, 21st August 2019. To know more watch the video...

Watch WION Playlist, 21st August 2019

Former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for interim protection from will now be heard on Friday.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister <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">P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest</a>. Justice NV Ramana said that petition had defects, which were removed only now, because of which it could not be listed for hearing today.&nbsp;

Earlier, a bench headed by senior-most judge Justice NV Ramana referred Chidambaram's plea to Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.

CJI Gogoi, however, had commenced hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case due to which Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal was unable to mention the matter before him for urgent hearing. After lunch, Sibal again mentioned the matter before Justice Ramana saying it had not been listed yet.

"We cannot hear the matter until its listing is not done," Ramana told senior advocate Kapil Sibal after his repeated requests to list the case.&nbsp;

"A lookout notice has been issued against him. He is not the man to run away. Our person is not running away. We can also give an undertaking for it," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
INX Media case: Congress leader P Chidambaram’s (in file pic) lawyers Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid &amp; Vivek Tankha were present before the CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s Constitution Bench when the Ayodhya Bench was rising for the day, but did not mention urgent listing of interim bail case. <a href="https://t.co/8zvXTzUYvW">pic.twitter.com/8zvXTzUYvW</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1164130480930865154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 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>

Sibal said that the CJI will rise only at 4 pm which means the matter will not be heard today. Justice Ramana said that these things are usually done by the evening.

"We have done all that we could do. You have to wait."

Earlier in the day, CBI and ED filed caveats in the Supreme Court over Chidambaram's plea seeking protection from arrest in the INX media case.

With the caveat being filed, the apex court cannot pass any order on the former finance minister's plea without hearing the probe agencies.

Senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal is representing P Chidambaram who suffered a setback on Tuesday after Delhi High Court&nbsp;dismissed both&nbsp;his anticipatory bail pleas&nbsp;in connection with INX Media case.&nbsp;

Chidambaram is now <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-asks-p-chidambaram-to-appear-within-2-hours-244532">vulnerable to an arrest</a> and has been missing ever since a team of Enforcement Directorate and the CBI arrived at his Jor Bagh residence on Tuesday evening. A lookout notice against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-key-conspirator-in-inx-media-case-delhi-high-court-244471">Chidambaram</a> has been issued.&nbsp;

Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/inx-media-case-delhi-hc-denies-anticipatory-bail-to-p-chidambaram-244402/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister.

The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018.

The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail.

(With inputs from ANI) 
&nbsp;

Former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for interim protection from will now be heard on Friday. The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest.

Former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for interim protection from will now be heard on Friday. The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest. Justice NV Ramana said that petition had defects, which were removed only now, because of which it could not be listed for hearing today. Earlier, a bench headed by senior-most judge Justice NV Ramana referred Chidambaram's plea to Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. CJI Gogoi, however, had commenced hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case due to which Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal was unable to mention the matter before him for urgent hearing. After lunch, Sibal again mentioned the matter before Justice Ramana saying it had not been listed yet. "We cannot hear the matter until its listing is not done," Ramana told senior advocate Kapil Sibal after his repeated requests to list the case. "A lookout notice has been issued against him. He is not the man to run away. Our person is not running away. We can also give an undertaking for it," he said. INX Media case: Congress leader P Chidambaram’s (in file pic) lawyers Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid & Vivek Tankha were present before the CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s Constitution Bench when the Ayodhya Bench was rising for the day, but did not mention urgent listing of interim bail case. pic.twitter.com/8zvXTzUYvW — ANI (@ANI) August 21, 2019 × Sibal said that the CJI will rise only at 4 pm which means the matter will not be heard today. Justice Ramana said that these things are usually done by the evening. "We have done all that we could do. You have to wait." Earlier in the day, CBI and ED filed caveats in the Supreme Court over Chidambaram's plea seeking protection from arrest in the INX media case. With the caveat being filed, the apex court cannot pass any order on the former finance minister's plea without hearing the probe agencies. Senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal is representing P Chidambaram who suffered a setback on Tuesday after Delhi High Court dismissed both his anticipatory bail pleas in connection with INX Media case. Chidambaram is now vulnerable to an arrest and has been missing ever since a team of Enforcement Directorate and the CBI arrived at his Jor Bagh residence on Tuesday evening. A lookout notice against Chidambaram has been issued. Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister. The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018. The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail. (With inputs from ANI)

INX media case: Supreme Court to hear Chidambaram's plea for protection against arrest on Friday

P Chidambaram's lawyers on Wednesday filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in Supreme Court seeking interim relief against yesterday's order of the Delhi High Court canceling Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea, however, the matter could not be listed for hearing before CJI bench.

WION Dispatch: Major setback for India's former FM P Chidambaram

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister <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">P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest</a>. Justice NV Ramana said that petition had defects, which were removed only now, because of which it could not be listed for hearing today.&nbsp;

Earlier, a bench headed by senior-most judge Justice NV Ramana referred Chidambaram's plea to Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.

CJI Gogoi, however, had commenced hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case due to which Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal was unable to mention the matter before him for urgent hearing. After lunch, Sibal again mentioned the matter before Justice Ramana saying it had not been listed yet.

"We cannot hear the matter until its listing is not done," Ramana told senior advocate Kapil Sibal after his repeated requests to list the case.&nbsp;

"A lookout notice has been issued against him. He is not the man to run away. Our person is not running away. We can also give an undertaking for it," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
INX Media case: Congress leader P Chidambaram’s (in file pic) lawyers Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid &amp; Vivek Tankha were present before the CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s Constitution Bench when the Ayodhya Bench was rising for the day, but did not mention urgent listing of interim bail case. <a href="https://t.co/8zvXTzUYvW">pic.twitter.com/8zvXTzUYvW</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1164130480930865154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 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>

Sibal said that the CJI will rise only at 4 pm which means the matter will not be heard today. Justice Ramana said that these things are usually done by the evening.

"We have done all that we could do. You have to wait."

Earlier in the day, CBI and ED filed caveats in the Supreme Court over Chidambaram's plea seeking protection from arrest in the INX media case.

With the caveat being filed, the apex court cannot pass any order on the former finance minister's plea without hearing the probe agencies.

Senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal is representing P Chidambaram who suffered a setback on Tuesday after Delhi High Court&nbsp;dismissed both&nbsp;his anticipatory bail pleas&nbsp;in connection with INX Media case.&nbsp;

Chidambaram is now <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-asks-p-chidambaram-to-appear-within-2-hours-244532">vulnerable to an arrest</a> and has been missing ever since a team of Enforcement Directorate and the CBI arrived at his Jor Bagh residence on Tuesday evening. A lookout notice against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-key-conspirator-in-inx-media-case-delhi-high-court-244471">Chidambaram</a> has been issued.&nbsp;

Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/inx-media-case-delhi-hc-denies-anticipatory-bail-to-p-chidambaram-244402/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

&nbsp;The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister.

The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018.

The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail.

The Congress has described the government`s action against its leader as political vendetta and accused it of maintaining double standard over the issue of corruption.

(With inputs from ANI) 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest. Justice NV Ramana said that petition had defects, which were removed only now, because of which it could not be listed for hearing today.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to list former finance minister P Chidambaram's petition for protection from arrest. Justice NV Ramana said that petition had defects, which were removed only now, because of which it could not be listed for hearing today. Earlier, a bench headed by senior-most judge Justice NV Ramana referred Chidambaram's plea to Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. CJI Gogoi, however, had commenced hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case due to which Chidambaram's counsel Kapil Sibal was unable to mention the matter before him for urgent hearing. After lunch, Sibal again mentioned the matter before Justice Ramana saying it had not been listed yet. "We cannot hear the matter until its listing is not done," Ramana told senior advocate Kapil Sibal after his repeated requests to list the case. "A lookout notice has been issued against him. He is not the man to run away. Our person is not running away. We can also give an undertaking for it," he said. INX Media case: Congress leader P Chidambaram’s (in file pic) lawyers Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid & Vivek Tankha were present before the CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s Constitution Bench when the Ayodhya Bench was rising for the day, but did not mention urgent listing of interim bail case. pic.twitter.com/8zvXTzUYvW — ANI (@ANI) August 21, 2019 × Sibal said that the CJI will rise only at 4 pm which means the matter will not be heard today. Justice Ramana said that these things are usually done by the evening. "We have done all that we could do. You have to wait." Earlier in the day, CBI and ED filed caveats in the Supreme Court over Chidambaram's plea seeking protection from arrest in the INX media case. With the caveat being filed, the apex court cannot pass any order on the former finance minister's plea without hearing the probe agencies. Senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal is representing P Chidambaram who suffered a setback on Tuesday after Delhi High Court dismissed both his anticipatory bail pleas in connection with INX Media case. Chidambaram is now vulnerable to an arrest and has been missing ever since a team of Enforcement Directorate and the CBI arrived at his Jor Bagh residence on Tuesday evening. A lookout notice against Chidambaram has been issued. Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister. The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018. The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail. The Congress has described the government`s action against its leader as political vendetta and accused it of maintaining double standard over the issue of corruption. (With inputs from ANI)

Supreme Court refuses urgent listing of P Chidambaram's plea for protection from arrest

INX Media Case: No relief for P Chidambaram in SC so far

The Supreme Court has not given an immediate relief to P. Chidambaram in connection to the INX Media Case. Fresh lookout notice has been issued against former FM.

INX Media Case Live Updates: Lookout notice issued against P Chidambaram

There was no relief for former finance minister P Chidambaram, as the Supreme Court bench hearing his plea against arrest referred the matter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

The hearing in the case has been scheduled for today afternoon.

The Congress leader had moved the top court on Tuesday after a six-member team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-asks-p-chidambaram-to-appear-within-2-hours-244532">arrived at his Jor Bagh residence</a> in New Delhi to arrest him.

The teams of the investigating agencies reached his residence after the Delhi High Court on Tuesday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/p-chidambaram-key-conspirator-in-inx-media-case-delhi-high-court-244471">refused to grant him protection</a> from arrest in the INX Media case, but couldn't find him there and left after a while.

The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister.

The investigating agency on Wednesday issued a lookout notice against Chidambaram since he has been missing since Tuesday.

Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/inx-media-case-delhi-hc-denies-anticipatory-bail-to-p-chidambaram-244402/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018.

The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail.

The Congress has described the government`s action against its leader as political vendetta and accused it of maintaining double standard over the issue of corruption.

(With inputs from agencies)

There was no relief for former finance minister P Chidambaram, as the Supreme Court bench hearing his plea against arrest referred the matter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

There was no relief for former finance minister P Chidambaram, as the Supreme Court bench hearing his plea against arrest referred the matter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi. The hearing in the case has been scheduled for today afternoon. The Congress leader had moved the top court on Tuesday after a six-member team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials arrived at his Jor Bagh residence in New Delhi to arrest him. The teams of the investigating agencies reached his residence after the Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant him protection from arrest in the INX Media case, but couldn't find him there and left after a while. The CBI is investigating Chidambaram in the INX Media case, which it had registered on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during his tenure as finance minister. The investigating agency on Wednesday issued a lookout notice against Chidambaram since he has been missing since Tuesday. Watch: Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Chidambaram The ED is probing the money laundering case which it lodged in 2018. The Delhi High Court said facts prima facie reveal that Chidambaram is the kingpin, the key conspirator, in the case. The high court observed that the magnitude and enormity of material brought forth by investigating agencies clearly does not entitle him any pre-arrest bail. The Congress has described the government`s action against its leader as political vendetta and accused it of maintaining double standard over the issue of corruption. (With inputs from agencies)

No immediate relief for P Chidambaram, his plea against arrest referred to Chief Justice of India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, Twitter, Google, and YouTube on a plea filed by Facebook seeking transfer to the court petitions pending before different high courts, demanding to interlink of Aadhaar database with social media profiles.

Several petitions are pending before Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts seeking their direction for the interlinking of Aadhaar data with social media accounts for identity authentication.

A bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose said the Madras High Court shall continue hearing the pleas but shall not pass any order.

The apex court will further take up the matter for hearing on September 13.

The petition was filed by the social media giant last week. Facebook and WhatsApp told the bench that the matter should be adjudicated by it and sought transfer of petitions pending before high courts to the top court as any order passed against them will have global ramifications.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Facebook, argued that the issue is of such a magnitude that only the top court should take a decision on it.

"It affects the privacy of the whole nation. This is the policy matter," he said.

Rohatgi further argued that any order passed by the high courts will have wider ramifications as Facebook is a global entity and it has to abide by laws of different nations.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for WhatsApp, told the court that the Central government is concerned about the messaging platform's end-to-end encryption and it is looking into it to frame some guidelines.

"While the government is dealing with this matter, let all the pleas come here. This can't be decided by high courts, it's a policy issue and should be decided by the Supreme Court. These are very serious issues," Sibal added.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, contended that 18 hearings have taken place on the petitions in the Madras High Court and the judgement would come in another month.

"Facebook should not object to it," he said.

Citing the example of the controversial Blue Whale challenge, he argued that social media platforms should provide details about the origin of a message.

"Online games like the Blue Whale caused deaths in India because service providers did not provide details of the 'originator'. We had a serious situation during the Blue Whale game. Government of India struggled to find out about its originator, some said it's from Russia. Government is not equipped to detect the originator," Venugopal said.

He further said,&nbsp;"It is pertinent for social media platforms to share data with law enforcement agencies to ensure criminal activities like abetment to suicide or call for violence inter alia, through these platforms is curbed."After hearing the arguments, the bench said that a balance has to be struck between the protection of people's privacy online as well as a mechanism to identify people who commit an online criminal offence."

There is a conflict between the right to privacy and the duty to prevent crimes online. There is no doubt that there has to be a balance between the two," the court observed.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, Twitter, Google, and YouTube on a plea filed by Facebook seeking transfer to the court petitions pending before different high courts, demanding to interlink of Aadhaar database with social media profiles.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, Twitter, Google, and YouTube on a plea filed by Facebook seeking transfer to the court petitions pending before different high courts, demanding to interlink of Aadhaar database with social media profiles. Several petitions are pending before Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts seeking their direction for the interlinking of Aadhaar data with social media accounts for identity authentication. A bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose said the Madras High Court shall continue hearing the pleas but shall not pass any order. The apex court will further take up the matter for hearing on September 13. The petition was filed by the social media giant last week. Facebook and WhatsApp told the bench that the matter should be adjudicated by it and sought transfer of petitions pending before high courts to the top court as any order passed against them will have global ramifications. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Facebook, argued that the issue is of such a magnitude that only the top court should take a decision on it. "It affects the privacy of the whole nation. This is the policy matter," he said. Rohatgi further argued that any order passed by the high courts will have wider ramifications as Facebook is a global entity and it has to abide by laws of different nations. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for WhatsApp, told the court that the Central government is concerned about the messaging platform's end-to-end encryption and it is looking into it to frame some guidelines. "While the government is dealing with this matter, let all the pleas come here. This can't be decided by high courts, it's a policy issue and should be decided by the Supreme Court. These are very serious issues," Sibal added. Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, contended that 18 hearings have taken place on the petitions in the Madras High Court and the judgement would come in another month. "Facebook should not object to it," he said. Citing the example of the controversial Blue Whale challenge, he argued that social media platforms should provide details about the origin of a message. "Online games like the Blue Whale caused deaths in India because service providers did not provide details of the 'originator'. We had a serious situation during the Blue Whale game. Government of India struggled to find out about its originator, some said it's from Russia. Government is not equipped to detect the originator," Venugopal said. He further said, "It is pertinent for social media platforms to share data with law enforcement agencies to ensure criminal activities like abetment to suicide or call for violence inter alia, through these platforms is curbed."After hearing the arguments, the bench said that a balance has to be struck between the protection of people's privacy online as well as a mechanism to identify people who commit an online criminal offence." There is a conflict between the right to privacy and the duty to prevent crimes online. There is no doubt that there has to be a balance between the two," the court observed.

Supreme Court issues notices to Centre, social media majors on Facebook plea

India's top court has adjourned the hearing of petitions challening Article 370 that revoked special status to ertswhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu &amp; Kashmir, and Ladakh.

The special Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing PILs that sought lifting of media and communication ban in the valley.&nbsp;

The pleas will now be listed next week for hearing.&nbsp;

Lawyer ML Sharma was at the receiving end of CJI's for filing frivolous PILs. Gogoi told Sharma, "What kind of petition is this? I tried to read the petition for half an hour and could not understand it. We should dismiss this, but we don't want to because it will have an effect on other petitions".&nbsp;

While a lawyer suggested the CJI to impose heavy cost on serial PIL man Sharma, Gogoi refused to fine him looking at his deteriorating health conditions.&nbsp;

Sharma was seen in court wearing black glasses due to an injury in his right eye and head covered in a handkerchief.

Six similar petitions have been filed related to the new developing changes in the Jammu and Kashmir valley, another petition that challenges complete lockdown of the Jammu and Kashmir has been listed for hearing next week. But Gogoi was fuming with anger at the visible defects in the petitions.&nbsp;

"Four other petitions on Jammu and Kashmir also have defects which are yet to be cured. We accommodate you in between Ayodhya hearing and this is what we get in return", remarked the CJI.

Meanwhile, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta informed the court that restrictions are being lifted in the valley. "Please trust your security agencies. We are reviewing the situation every day. We are working with the best interest in mind", he said.&nbsp;

India's supreme court was hearing a plea that challenged the presidential order which had paved the way for the introduction of the Jammu &amp; Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 thereby bifurcated the state into two Union Territories - Jammu &amp; Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Another petition was filed by Kashmir Times journalist seeking lifting of restrictions on communication services and movement in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea stated that the continuing restrictions were "excessive, disproportionate and gross abuse of state power".

India's top court has adjourned the hearing of petitions challening Article 370 that revoked special status to ertswhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.

India's top court has adjourned the hearing of petitions challening Article 370 that revoked special status to ertswhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh. The special Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing PILs that sought lifting of media and communication ban in the valley. The pleas will now be listed next week for hearing. Lawyer ML Sharma was at the receiving end of CJI's for filing frivolous PILs. Gogoi told Sharma, "What kind of petition is this? I tried to read the petition for half an hour and could not understand it. We should dismiss this, but we don't want to because it will have an effect on other petitions". While a lawyer suggested the CJI to impose heavy cost on serial PIL man Sharma, Gogoi refused to fine him looking at his deteriorating health conditions. Sharma was seen in court wearing black glasses due to an injury in his right eye and head covered in a handkerchief. Six similar petitions have been filed related to the new developing changes in the Jammu and Kashmir valley, another petition that challenges complete lockdown of the Jammu and Kashmir has been listed for hearing next week. But Gogoi was fuming with anger at the visible defects in the petitions. "Four other petitions on Jammu and Kashmir also have defects which are yet to be cured. We accommodate you in between Ayodhya hearing and this is what we get in return", remarked the CJI. Meanwhile, additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta informed the court that restrictions are being lifted in the valley. "Please trust your security agencies. We are reviewing the situation every day. We are working with the best interest in mind", he said. India's supreme court was hearing a plea that challenged the presidential order which had paved the way for the introduction of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 thereby bifurcated the state into two Union Territories - Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh. Another petition was filed by Kashmir Times journalist seeking lifting of restrictions on communication services and movement in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea stated that the continuing restrictions were "excessive, disproportionate and gross abuse of state power".

Chief Justice of India Gogoi stops short of fining petitioner challenging Article 370, adjourns hearing 

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time.

"The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench.&nbsp;

The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;

The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks.&nbsp;

The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

 
&nbsp;

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Centre on Friday sought one more week to decide on the implementation of Supreme Court Collegium`s recommendation to appoint Bombay High Court`s Justice Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the issue will be considered and Centre needs one week time. "The decision of the Centre will be informed to the Collegium," Tushar Mehta told the bench. The Bench indicated that the date will be fixed on the administrative side for a hearing next week. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to take a decision by August 14 on the recommendation of the Court`s Collegium to appoint Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Solicitor General had said that the matter was under consideration and sought two weeks. The plea was filed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates` Association seeking a direction to the Centre to implement the Supreme Court collegium`s recommendation to appoint Akil Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Advocates` Association said that Kureshi was appointed as a judge of Gujarat High Court in 2004 and was functioning as acting Chief Justice of High Court when he was transferred to Bombay High Court on November 2018

Centre seeks one week's time to take decision on Justice Akil Kureshi's elevation

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-41-lakh-found-ineligible-under-draft-nrc-government-informs-rajya-sabha-238218">National Register of Citizens (NRC).</a>

In an interim order, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said, "Only hard copies of lists of inclusions and exclusions to be provided at district offices. The NRC to be updated according to the law laid down in the Section 66A judgment."

In its 2015 judgement, the court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on the ground it violated freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

On July 23, the apex court had extended the deadline for the final publication of the NRC in Assam from July 31 to August 31.

Justices Gogoi and Nariman had passed the order on a plea filed by the Centre and Assam government for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../deadline-for-finalisation-of-assam-nrc-will-not- be-extended-supreme-court-216925">extension of the deadline</a>.

The court had, however, refused to allow a plea for 20 per cent sample re-verification of those included and excluded from the NRC.

The court is monitoring the NRC exercise aimed at identifying illegal immigrants in Assam, which has been facing an influx of people from Bangladesh for decades.

The NRC containing the names of Indian citizens was first prepared in 1951.

When the draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018, there was a huge controversy over the exclusion of 40.7 lakh people from it.

The draft NRC included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total 3.29 crore applications.

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Considering the Citizenship Act and rules, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for the data in Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC). In an interim order, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said, "Only hard copies of lists of inclusions and exclusions to be provided at district offices. The NRC to be updated according to the law laid down in the Section 66A judgment." In its 2015 judgement, the court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on the ground it violated freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. On July 23, the apex court had extended the deadline for the final publication of the NRC in Assam from July 31 to August 31. Justices Gogoi and Nariman had passed the order on a plea filed by the Centre and Assam government for extension of the deadline. The court had, however, refused to allow a plea for 20 per cent sample re-verification of those included and excluded from the NRC. The court is monitoring the NRC exercise aimed at identifying illegal immigrants in Assam, which has been facing an influx of people from Bangladesh for decades. The NRC containing the names of Indian citizens was first prepared in 1951. When the draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018, there was a huge controversy over the exclusion of 40.7 lakh people from it. The draft NRC included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total 3.29 crore applications.

Supreme Court asks Centre to maintain Aadhaar-like secrecy for Assam NRC data

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-revoked-from-jammu-and-kashmir-all-you-need-to-know-240772">Article 370</a>.

The court said it will wait for the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/article-370-scrapped-special-privileges-and-autonomy-never-touched-lives-of-common-people-of-jammu-and-kashmir-241451">normalcy to return</a> in&nbsp;the valley and scheduled the hearing of the matter after two weeks.

The petition, filed by social activist Tehseen Poonawala, sought lifting of curfew and other restrictions including blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels. 
 
WATCH:

<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/pakistans-desperation-grows-poland-backs-bilateral-solution-on-jk-242639/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Attorney General for the government, Tushar Mehta, told the court that government was reviewing the day-to-day situation in the Union Territory. It is a highly sensitive situation but it is in the interest of everyone. Not a single drop of blood has been shed, no one has died so far," he said.&nbsp;

Attorney General KK Venugopal also supported the argument given by Mehta and said every step is taken to bring normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.

The three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra told the petitioner, "We shall wait for the restoration of normalcy, if nothing happens you can back to the court."

Centre last week abolished Article 370 and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links, TV channels as 'temporary measures' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to issue directions to the central government on a petition seeking lifting of all restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370. The court said it will wait for the normalcy to return in the valley and scheduled the hearing of the matter after two weeks. The petition, filed by social activist Tehseen Poonawala, sought lifting of curfew and other restrictions including blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels. WATCH: × Attorney General for the government, Tushar Mehta, told the court that government was reviewing the day-to-day situation in the Union Territory. It is a highly sensitive situation but it is in the interest of everyone. Not a single drop of blood has been shed, no one has died so far," he said. Attorney General KK Venugopal also supported the argument given by Mehta and said every step is taken to bring normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra told the petitioner, "We shall wait for the restoration of normalcy, if nothing happens you can back to the court." Centre last week abolished Article 370 and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links, TV channels as 'temporary measures' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. (With inputs from agencies)

Article 370 revoked: Government needs time to bring back normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will consider listing the plea filed by Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of a prominent daily in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/article-370-scrapped-special-privileges-and-autonomy-never-touched-lives-of-common-people-of-jammu-and-kashmir-241451">Jammu and Kashmir</a>, seeking lifting of restrictions on journalists in the valley. 
 
Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, had filed the plea in the top court seeking a direction for the central government and the administration of Jammu and Kashmir to immediately relax all restrictions on freedom of movement of journalists&nbsp;in the Union Territory.

Centre last week abolished <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/article-370-revoked-from-jammu-and-kashmir-all-you-need-to-know-240772">Article 370 </a>and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

The Centre has deployed a huge contingent of central forces in the Valley anticipating violence after scrapping Article 370. 
 
Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links as a 'temporary measure' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will consider listing the plea filed by Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of a prominent daily in Jammu and Kashmir, seeking lifting of restrictions on journalists in the valley.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will consider listing the plea filed by Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of a prominent daily in Jammu and Kashmir, seeking lifting of restrictions on journalists in the valley. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, had filed the plea in the top court seeking a direction for the central government and the administration of Jammu and Kashmir to immediately relax all restrictions on freedom of movement of journalists in the Union Territory. Centre last week abolished Article 370 and moved a separate bill to bifurcate the state into two separate union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Centre has deployed a huge contingent of central forces in the Valley anticipating violence after scrapping Article 370. Restrictions have also been imposed on communication links as a 'temporary measure' taken to maintain peace and prevent the circulation of misinformation and rumours. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court admits Kashmir editor's plea seeking removal of restrictions on journalists

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-mamata-banerjee-takes-a-u-turn-on-national-register-of-citizens-156891">National Register of Citizens (NRC)</a> which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".&nbsp;

"We will not be bothered by what others say about our orders and judgments. We will continue to oversee <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/additional-exclusion-list-to-draft-nrc-published-in-assam-102-lakh-people-named-230525">NRC </a>finalised as per the scheduled date of August 31, " the apex court bench said.

The NRC in Assam is being updated under the monitoring of the Supreme Court and the final list is scheduled to be released on August 31.&nbsp;

NRC authorities have started a re-verification of some of the people whose names figured in the draft NRC published last year.

The Supreme Court had recently turned down a petition from the Assam government as well as from the Central government seeking sample re-verification of 20 per cent of people in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10 per cent sample re-verification for people in other districts.

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) which aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". "We will not be bothered by what others say about our orders and judgments. We will continue to oversee NRC finalised as per the scheduled date of August 31, " the apex court bench said. The NRC in Assam is being updated under the monitoring of the Supreme Court and the final list is scheduled to be released on August 31. NRC authorities have started a re-verification of some of the people whose names figured in the draft NRC published last year. The Supreme Court had recently turned down a petition from the Assam government as well as from the Central government seeking sample re-verification of 20 per cent of people in districts bordering Bangladesh and 10 per cent sample re-verification for people in other districts. (With inputs from agencies)

SC reserves order on National Register of Citizens, says 'We will not be bothered about what others say'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.

"Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended.

"There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added.

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things.

Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara.

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case.

Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6.

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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982. Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits. "Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended. "There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then. Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara. He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961. A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case. Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6. 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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court seeks evidence of possession of Ram Janmabhoomi from Nirmohi Akhara

Two Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee, including the panel`s chairman, asked the National Archives on Tuesday for records from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh`s service in the White House under former President George W. Bush.

In a letter to the National Archives and Records Administration, Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Representative Hank Johnson said they were seeking records from 2001 to 2006 that include documents unavailable during Kavanaugh`s 2018 Senate confirmation, which was dominated by allegations of sexual misconduct.

The lawmakers said the committee is considering legislative proposals to create a "code of conduct for Supreme Court justices" involving the transparency of court proceedings, the adequacy of justices` financial disclosures and circumstances in which justices or judges must disqualify themselves from cases.

"The court`s fidelity to the principles of equal and impartial justice, as well as the public`s faith in the integrity of the judiciary, are foundational to maintaining the rule of law," they wrote.&nbsp;

Officials at the Supreme Court were not immediately available for comment. The National Archives had no immediate comment.&nbsp;

The Republican-led Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh to the high court last year after hearings dominated by accusations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Kavanaugh, who had served on the special counsel team that investigated Democratic President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, forcefully denied the allegations.

Nadler and Johnson said the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Kavanaugh`s confirmation to the full Senate after reviewing only a fraction of his White House records. Kavanaugh was nominated to the high court by President Donald Trump.&nbsp;

Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on Nadler`s committee, in a statement denounced the records request as "harassment" and accused Democrats of pursuing a "smear" campaign against a sitting Supreme Court justice.&nbsp;

In their letter, Nadler and Johnson said they wanted records from Kavanaugh`s service in the White House counsel`s office from 2001 to 2003 and as White House staff secretary from 2003 to 2006. The list includes Kavanaugh`s emails and office file textual records from his stint as staff secretary.&nbsp;

Johnson chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, which held a hearing in June on promoting ethics, accountability and transparency in the federal courts.&nbsp;

Two Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee, including the panel`s chairman, asked the National Archives on Tuesday for records from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh`s service in the White House under former President George W.

Two Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee, including the panel`s chairman, asked the National Archives on Tuesday for records from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh`s service in the White House under former President George W. Bush. In a letter to the National Archives and Records Administration, Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Representative Hank Johnson said they were seeking records from 2001 to 2006 that include documents unavailable during Kavanaugh`s 2018 Senate confirmation, which was dominated by allegations of sexual misconduct. The lawmakers said the committee is considering legislative proposals to create a "code of conduct for Supreme Court justices" involving the transparency of court proceedings, the adequacy of justices` financial disclosures and circumstances in which justices or judges must disqualify themselves from cases. "The court`s fidelity to the principles of equal and impartial justice, as well as the public`s faith in the integrity of the judiciary, are foundational to maintaining the rule of law," they wrote. Officials at the Supreme Court were not immediately available for comment. The National Archives had no immediate comment. The Republican-led Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh to the high court last year after hearings dominated by accusations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Kavanaugh, who had served on the special counsel team that investigated Democratic President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, forcefully denied the allegations. Nadler and Johnson said the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Kavanaugh`s confirmation to the full Senate after reviewing only a fraction of his White House records. Kavanaugh was nominated to the high court by President Donald Trump. Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on Nadler`s committee, in a statement denounced the records request as "harassment" and accused Democrats of pursuing a "smear" campaign against a sitting Supreme Court justice. In their letter, Nadler and Johnson said they wanted records from Kavanaugh`s service in the White House counsel`s office from 2001 to 2003 and as White House staff secretary from 2003 to 2006. The list includes Kavanaugh`s emails and office file textual records from his stint as staff secretary. Johnson chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, which held a hearing in June on promoting ethics, accountability and transparency in the federal courts.

US House Democrats seek Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's records

The Supreme Court started the hearing of&nbsp;Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Day-to-day hearing begins in the Supreme Court in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. <a href="https://t.co/WtOdmrLFsn">pic.twitter.com/WtOdmrLFsn</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1158606831700402177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the petition before a bench headed by Justice S A Bobde, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-live-streaming-of-proceeding-will-require-deliberation-and-institutional-decision-making-says-supreme-court-240785">seeking live streaming</a> and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case.

Supreme Court said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making.&nbsp;

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 started the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on Tuesday. The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

The Supreme Court started the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on Tuesday. The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6. Day-to-day hearing begins in the Supreme Court in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. pic.twitter.com/WtOdmrLFsn — ANI (@ANI) August 6, 2019 × Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the petition before a bench headed by Justice S A Bobde, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. Supreme Court said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making. 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.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Day-to-day hearing begins in Supreme Court

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed after a reply by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

As on June 1, there were 58,669 cases pending in the apex court.

Prasad said it was not possible for the Chief Justice of India to constitute five Judges Bench on a regular basis to hear cases involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as it would result in constitution of less number of division benches which would lead to delay in hearing of other civil and criminal matters.

The feeder cadre of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 to 1,079 and presently new High Courts have also been established in the previous years, he said.

"This has led to an increase in the disposal of cases at the High Court level leading to a larger number of appeals to the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three excluding the Chief Justice of India", he said.

The Chief Justice of India had intimated the government that inadequate strength of judges is one of the prime reasons for the backlog of cases in the apex court.&nbsp;

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed after a reply by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. As on June 1, there were 58,669 cases pending in the apex court. Prasad said it was not possible for the Chief Justice of India to constitute five Judges Bench on a regular basis to hear cases involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as it would result in constitution of less number of division benches which would lead to delay in hearing of other civil and criminal matters. The feeder cadre of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 to 1,079 and presently new High Courts have also been established in the previous years, he said. "This has led to an increase in the disposal of cases at the High Court level leading to a larger number of appeals to the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three excluding the Chief Justice of India", he said. The Chief Justice of India had intimated the government that inadequate strength of judges is one of the prime reasons for the backlog of cases in the apex court.

Lok Sabha passes bill to increase number of judges in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who is undergoing life imprisonment in one of the cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

A division bench headed by Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, passed the order, on a bail plea moved by the convict.

On December 17 last year, the Delhi High Court had convicted Kumar by reversing a verdict given by a trial court on the murder of five members of a family in and torching of a gurdwara in Delhi's Raj Nagar area on November 1, 1984, following the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

Two weeks after Kumar was awarded life sentence in connection with the riots case, the Congress leader surrendered at the Karkardooma District Court. In January earlier this year, the three-time former lawmaker, moved the court challenging his conviction.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who is undergoing life imprisonment in one of the cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, who is undergoing life imprisonment in one of the cases related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. A division bench headed by Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, passed the order, on a bail plea moved by the convict. On December 17 last year, the Delhi High Court had convicted Kumar by reversing a verdict given by a trial court on the murder of five members of a family in and torching of a gurdwara in Delhi's Raj Nagar area on November 1, 1984, following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Two weeks after Kumar was awarded life sentence in connection with the riots case, the Congress leader surrendered at the Karkardooma District Court. In January earlier this year, the three-time former lawmaker, moved the court challenging his conviction.

1984 anti-Sikh riots: Supreme Court refuses to grant bail to Sajjan Kumar

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-mediation-panel-submits-report-to-supreme-court-240004">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case</a> would require deliberation and institutional decision making.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case.

Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered.

Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The live streaming of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-mediation-failed-to-yield-results-daily-hearing-from-august-6-240161">the Ayodhya case</a> is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated.

"This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated.

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

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 Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case would require deliberation and institutional decision making. A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. Singh submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public is being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution. The live streaming of the Ayodhya case is required because in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public is also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the plea, filed through advocate Virag Gupta, stated. "This Court has already held that `right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people," it stated. The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter, failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and decided to hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6. 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.

Ayodhya case: Live streaming of proceeding will require deliberation and institutional decision making, says Supreme Court

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-mediation-failed-to-yield-results-daily-hearing-from-august-6-240161">Supreme Court</a> has given the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/reserve-bank-of-india-to-cut-rates-again-in-august-as-doves-prevail-report-238360">central bank</a> six weeks to report on whether <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/whatsapp-to-roll-out-payments-feature-in-india-this-year-238593">WhatsApp</a> had complied with data localisation norms as the Facebook-owned messenger gears up to launch a payments service in the country, a person involved in the matter said.

WhatsApp has been testing a peer-to-peer payments service for over a year in India, its biggest market by users, but local data storage norms have delayed an official launch.

Foreign payment companies were caught off guard last year by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-seen-set-for-fourth-interest-rate-cut-of-2019-240215">Reserve Bank of India</a>'s (RBI) directive that said all payments data should be stored "only in India" for "unfettered supervisory access".

This June it clarified the rules saying foreign payment firms can process transactions made in India outside of the country but the related data should be brought back for local storage within 24 hours.

WhatsApp faced an additional hurdle as a Delhi-based think-tank, the Centre For Accountability And Systemic Change, alleged in a petition to the Supreme Court last year that the firm was not compliant with payments data localisation rules.

It is in regard to this petition that the Supreme Court has now asked the RBI to file a response.

WhatsApp did not immediately respond to a request for comment while the Reserve Bank of India declined to comment.

Last week, WhatsApp's global head Will Cathcart said WhatsApp was all set to roll out its payments service in India this year and that it was now in full compliance with the data localisation norms.

On Friday, the Supreme Court also asked the federal government to make clear, within six weeks, its position on whether the company's grievance officer should be based in India, according to the person.

WhatsApp has a California-based grievance officer who handles India-related issues. Current Indian rules do not mandate a tech company to have such an executive stationed in the country - a rule the government wants to change.

The country's technology minister has said in parliament that New Delhi is seriously considering that social media firms "be required to locate their grievance officer in India".

WhatsApp has previously said it is working on having a grievance officer based in India.

The Supreme Court has given the central bank six weeks to report on whether WhatsApp had complied with data localisation norms as the Facebook-owned messenger gears up to launch a payments service in the country, a person involved in the matter said.

The Supreme Court has given the central bank six weeks to report on whether WhatsApp had complied with data localisation norms as the Facebook-owned messenger gears up to launch a payments service in the country, a person involved in the matter said. WhatsApp has been testing a peer-to-peer payments service for over a year in India, its biggest market by users, but local data storage norms have delayed an official launch. Foreign payment companies were caught off guard last year by the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) directive that said all payments data should be stored "only in India" for "unfettered supervisory access". This June it clarified the rules saying foreign payment firms can process transactions made in India outside of the country but the related data should be brought back for local storage within 24 hours. WhatsApp faced an additional hurdle as a Delhi-based think-tank, the Centre For Accountability And Systemic Change, alleged in a petition to the Supreme Court last year that the firm was not compliant with payments data localisation rules. It is in regard to this petition that the Supreme Court has now asked the RBI to file a response. WhatsApp did not immediately respond to a request for comment while the Reserve Bank of India declined to comment. Last week, WhatsApp's global head Will Cathcart said WhatsApp was all set to roll out its payments service in India this year and that it was now in full compliance with the data localisation norms. On Friday, the Supreme Court also asked the federal government to make clear, within six weeks, its position on whether the company's grievance officer should be based in India, according to the person. WhatsApp has a California-based grievance officer who handles India-related issues. Current Indian rules do not mandate a tech company to have such an executive stationed in the country - a rule the government wants to change. The country's technology minister has said in parliament that New Delhi is seriously considering that social media firms "be required to locate their grievance officer in India". WhatsApp has previously said it is working on having a grievance officer based in India.

Supreme Court asks RBI to confirm WhatsApp's compliance with local data rules

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi deferred the matter after being informed that Mallya`s lawyer Fali S Nariman was not well.&nbsp;

In his plea, the embattled businessman has submitted that no properties other than those related to Kingfisher Airlines, which is facing cases of alleged irregularities, should be attached.&nbsp;

On July 11, the Bombay High court had dismissed Mallya's petition seeking a stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by a government agency.&nbsp;

A special PMLA court had on January 5 declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender and directed that the properties of the 63-year-old be confiscated. He had fled the country in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then.&nbsp;

Last month, the Royal Courts of Justice had granted permission to Mallya to appeal against the UK Home Secretary`s order extraditing him to India to face trial on charges of fraud and money laundering to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till August 13 the hearing on a petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya seeking a stay on confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi deferred the matter after being informed that Mallya`s lawyer Fali S Nariman was not well. In his plea, the embattled businessman has submitted that no properties other than those related to Kingfisher Airlines, which is facing cases of alleged irregularities, should be attached. On July 11, the Bombay High court had dismissed Mallya's petition seeking a stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by a government agency. A special PMLA court had on January 5 declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender and directed that the properties of the 63-year-old be confiscated. He had fled the country in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then. Last month, the Royal Courts of Justice had granted permission to Mallya to appeal against the UK Home Secretary`s order extraditing him to India to face trial on charges of fraud and money laundering to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore.

Supreme Court adjourns till August 13 hearing on Vijay Mallya's plea against confiscation of properties

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the presence of a "responsible" CBI officer before it by 12 noon to inform about progress in the Unnao rape case.

After commencement of hearing post noon, the top court is also likely to transfer the cases related to the matter to Delhi from Uttar Pradesh.

During the court proceedings, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also sought full details of investigation about the status in the rape case and accident of the victim and also asked the Solicitor General to interact with CBI Director regarding the cases.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pleaded the CJI to adjourn the case for tomorrow arguing that CBI officers who are investigating the matter are in Lucknow.

Mehta told the apex court that he spoke to the CBI director and the officers investigating the Unnao cases, and added that it will not be possible for them to reach Delhi by 12 noon.&nbsp;

However, CJI refused to adjourn the case. Supreme Court said that if necessary, chamber hearing may take place.&nbsp;

Yesterday, CJI Gogoi had sought an explanation from the Secretary-General of Supreme Court for the delay in placing the letter of Unnao rape survivor`s mother before the court.

"This morning I read in the papers that the Unnao victim had written to the Supreme Court. I was informed about the letter yesterday. I have not yet seen the letter. It is yet to be placed before me. We try to do something constructive amid this highly destructive volatile environment and this happens," Ranjan Gogoi remarked.

On July 28, a truck rammed into the vehicle in which the Unnao rape survivor, her counsel and two aunts were travelling to Raebareli. While she and her lawyer sustained grievous injuries, her aunts were killed on the spot.&nbsp;

The Unnao rape survivor and her lawyer, who is being treated at King George`s Medical University are stable, the hospital said on Wednesday.

The Uttar Pradesh Police filed a case of murder against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and nine others in connection with the accident.&nbsp;

Probe in the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday after which the CBI registered a case in connection with the rape survivor`s accident in Raebareli.

Sengar, a legislator from Bangermau in Unnao district, had allegedly raped the girl at his residence in Unnao on June 4, 2017, where she had gone to seek a job. He is currently lodged in Sitapur district jail.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the presence of a "responsible" CBI officer before it by 12 noon to inform about progress in the Unnao rape case. After commencement of hearing post noon, the top court is also likely to transfer the cases related to the matter to Delhi from Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the presence of a "responsible" CBI officer before it by 12 noon to inform about progress in the Unnao rape case. After commencement of hearing post noon, the top court is also likely to transfer the cases related to the matter to Delhi from Uttar Pradesh. During the court proceedings, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also sought full details of investigation about the status in the rape case and accident of the victim and also asked the Solicitor General to interact with CBI Director regarding the cases. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pleaded the CJI to adjourn the case for tomorrow arguing that CBI officers who are investigating the matter are in Lucknow. Mehta told the apex court that he spoke to the CBI director and the officers investigating the Unnao cases, and added that it will not be possible for them to reach Delhi by 12 noon. However, CJI refused to adjourn the case. Supreme Court said that if necessary, chamber hearing may take place. Yesterday, CJI Gogoi had sought an explanation from the Secretary-General of Supreme Court for the delay in placing the letter of Unnao rape survivor`s mother before the court. "This morning I read in the papers that the Unnao victim had written to the Supreme Court. I was informed about the letter yesterday. I have not yet seen the letter. It is yet to be placed before me. We try to do something constructive amid this highly destructive volatile environment and this happens," Ranjan Gogoi remarked. On July 28, a truck rammed into the vehicle in which the Unnao rape survivor, her counsel and two aunts were travelling to Raebareli. While she and her lawyer sustained grievous injuries, her aunts were killed on the spot. The Unnao rape survivor and her lawyer, who is being treated at King George`s Medical University are stable, the hospital said on Wednesday. The Uttar Pradesh Police filed a case of murder against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and nine others in connection with the accident. Probe in the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday after which the CBI registered a case in connection with the rape survivor`s accident in Raebareli. Sengar, a legislator from Bangermau in Unnao district, had allegedly raped the girl at his residence in Unnao on June 4, 2017, where she had gone to seek a job. He is currently lodged in Sitapur district jail.

Unnao cases: SC seeks presence of 'responsible' CBI officer by 12 noon

The mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute on Thursday submitted its report in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court.

The report was given to the Supreme Court registry.

A Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had on July 18 asked by the three-member committee, headed by retired apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, to continue with the mediation process and submit a report on the progress made till July 31.

The bench, which also comprises Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, will take up on Friday a batch of petitions seeking an end to the mediation process and the start of hearing in the Ayodhya title suit.

The petitions have submitted that no progress has been made in the mediation ordered by the apex court to explore an amicable settlement to the land dispute.

Among the petitioners is Rajendra Singh, son of one of the original plaintiffs — Gopal Singh Visharad.

On July 11, K Parasaran, the senior lawyer for Singh, had argued that the mediation process is unlikely to yield any positive result.

"Since mediation is unlikely to bring any positive result, the court should give a date for a hearing in the case," he had submitted.

However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, had contested the stand taken by Parasaran.

The court had on March 8 constituted the mediation panel which also comprises Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior Madras High Court advocate Sriram Panchu.

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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

The mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute on Thursday submitted its report in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court. The report was given to the Supreme Court registry.

The mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute on Thursday submitted its report in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court. The report was given to the Supreme Court registry. A Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had on July 18 asked by the three-member committee, headed by retired apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, to continue with the mediation process and submit a report on the progress made till July 31. The bench, which also comprises Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, will take up on Friday a batch of petitions seeking an end to the mediation process and the start of hearing in the Ayodhya title suit. The petitions have submitted that no progress has been made in the mediation ordered by the apex court to explore an amicable settlement to the land dispute. Among the petitioners is Rajendra Singh, son of one of the original plaintiffs — Gopal Singh Visharad. On July 11, K Parasaran, the senior lawyer for Singh, had argued that the mediation process is unlikely to yield any positive result. "Since mediation is unlikely to bring any positive result, the court should give a date for a hearing in the case," he had submitted. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, had contested the stand taken by Parasaran. The court had on March 8 constituted the mediation panel which also comprises Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior Madras High Court advocate Sriram Panchu. 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 Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Mediation panel submits report to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to take necessary steps and consider bringing a law to regulate mobile app-based taxi service providers like <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/courtesy-matters-uber-to-remove-riders-who-misbehave-or-damage-properties-despite-warnings-193758">Ola and Uber </a>to ensure the safety of women.

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde was hearing a petition filed by Nipun Saxena related to safety and security of women. Nipun had filed the petition after Nirbhaya gangrape case in 2012.

The bench also comprising Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice B R Gavai asked the petitioner to make a representation before the government containing suggestion on the regulation of the app-based taxi services.

The court also asked the state governments to set up 'Crisis Centre' in each district to deal with sexual offence cases against women. It also asked states to comply with the guidelines and standard operating procedures framed by the Central government on the running of a Crisis Centre. 
 
A Crisis Centre helps sexual assault victims by providing counselling and other services. 
 
There have been several instances in the recent past across the country wherein women were assaulted while travelling in Ola and Uber cabs. 
 
(With reports from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to take necessary steps and consider bringing a law to regulate mobile app-based taxi service providers like Ola and Uber to ensure the safety of women.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to take necessary steps and consider bringing a law to regulate mobile app-based taxi service providers like Ola and Uber to ensure the safety of women. A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde was hearing a petition filed by Nipun Saxena related to safety and security of women. Nipun had filed the petition after Nirbhaya gangrape case in 2012. The bench also comprising Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice B R Gavai asked the petitioner to make a representation before the government containing suggestion on the regulation of the app-based taxi services. The court also asked the state governments to set up 'Crisis Centre' in each district to deal with sexual offence cases against women. It also asked states to comply with the guidelines and standard operating procedures framed by the Central government on the running of a Crisis Centre. A Crisis Centre helps sexual assault victims by providing counselling and other services. There have been several instances in the recent past across the country wherein women were assaulted while travelling in Ola and Uber cabs. (With reports from agencies)

Women safety: Supreme Court asks Centre to consider law to regulate Ola, Uber; directs states to set up crisis centres

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned fugitive businessman <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/vijay-mallya-moves-supreme-court-seeking-stay-on-confiscation-of-properties-238928">Vijay Mallya's case</a> until August 2.

Mallya on July 27 had moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Supreme Court adjourns fugitive Vijay Mallya's petition to Friday, August 02. He had, on Saturday, moved the Supreme Court seeking its direction of stay on confiscation of all properties owned by him and his relatives. (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/6zxhqzvy0Z">pic.twitter.com/6zxhqzvy0Z</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1155717354346700800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 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>

In his plea, Mallya has said that he wanted attachment of only those properties related to Kingfisher Airlines facing cases of alleged irregularities.

A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) had in 2016 filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Mallya for his failure to repay the loan amount of more than Rs 8,000 crore to various banks.

Mallya had allegedly failed to pay dues to more than 15 banks. The liquor tycoon had taken loans to pay dues of his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

The former Kingfisher Airlines boss is currently in London fighting an extradition case against India authorities.

The consortium of banks had urged the court to direct Mallya to return to India and repay the loan.

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya's case until August 2. Mallya on July 27 had moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives.

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya's case until August 2. Mallya on July 27 had moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. Supreme Court adjourns fugitive Vijay Mallya's petition to Friday, August 02. He had, on Saturday, moved the Supreme Court seeking its direction of stay on confiscation of all properties owned by him and his relatives. (file pic) pic.twitter.com/6zxhqzvy0Z — ANI (@ANI) July 29, 2019 × In his plea, Mallya has said that he wanted attachment of only those properties related to Kingfisher Airlines facing cases of alleged irregularities. A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) had in 2016 filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Mallya for his failure to repay the loan amount of more than Rs 8,000 crore to various banks. Mallya had allegedly failed to pay dues to more than 15 banks. The liquor tycoon had taken loans to pay dues of his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. The former Kingfisher Airlines boss is currently in London fighting an extradition case against India authorities. The consortium of banks had urged the court to direct Mallya to return to India and repay the loan.

Supreme Court adjourns Vijay Mallya's property case

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/get-your-facts-right-about-me-being-chor-liquor-baron-vijay-mallya-tells-netizens-235669">Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya</a> on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-dismisses-mallyas-plea-on-confiscation-of-properties-234947">confiscation of properties</a> owned by him and his relatives.

In his plea, Mallya has said that he wanted attachment of only those properties related to Kingfisher Airlines facing cases of alleged irregularities.

The matter is listed for hearing on July 29 before the apex court.

A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) had in 2016 filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Mallya for his failure to repay the loan amount of more than Rs 8000 crore to various banks.

Mallya had allegedly failed to pay dues to more than 15 banks. The liquor tycoon had taken loans in order to pay dues of his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

The consortium of banks had urged the court to direct Mallya to return to India and repay the loan.

On July 11, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Mallya`s plea seeking stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by government agencies.

Mallya had fled India in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then.&nbsp;

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. In his plea, Mallya has said that he wanted attachment of only those properties related to Kingfisher Airlines facing cases of alleged irregularities.

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. In his plea, Mallya has said that he wanted attachment of only those properties related to Kingfisher Airlines facing cases of alleged irregularities. The matter is listed for hearing on July 29 before the apex court. A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) had in 2016 filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Mallya for his failure to repay the loan amount of more than Rs 8000 crore to various banks. Mallya had allegedly failed to pay dues to more than 15 banks. The liquor tycoon had taken loans in order to pay dues of his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. The consortium of banks had urged the court to direct Mallya to return to India and repay the loan. On July 11, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Mallya`s plea seeking stay on the procedure for the confiscation of his properties by government agencies. Mallya had fled India in March 2016 and has been living in the United Kingdom since then.

Vijay Mallya moves Supreme Court seeking stay on confiscation of properties

Youth Bar Association of India (YBAI) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking direction for framing guidelines to protect the identity, reputation and integrity of individual(s) allegedly accused of sexual offences till completion of the investigation.

The petition, filed by lawyers Sanpreet Singh Ajmani and Kuldeep Rai, will come up for hearing on July 29.

The allegation of sexual harassment tarnishes the image, repute and goodwill of such person in the society and it adversely affects his entire life in all terms, even if, at later point of time he (accused) is found to be innocent, YBAI stated in its petition.

The petition, a copy of which has been accessed by ANI, also states that now it's high time that certain guidelines must also be formulated to protect the integrity of the person alleged to have committed such crime.

The petition further suggested directions may also be issued to the media (Print, Electronic and Social) to not to disclose the identity of such person until and unless such crime is investigated by the competent agency.

"It is well settled that a person is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty but so much so, nowadays, the moment an allegation of such nature is levelled and it is published in the media, the person loses his integrity in the society," the petition stated.

"That person also suffers a loss of his hard-earned repute, image and goodwill in the society, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever," it added.&nbsp;

Youth Bar Association of India (YBAI) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking direction for framing guidelines to protect the identity, reputation and integrity of individual(s) allegedly accused of sexual offences till completion of the investigation.

Youth Bar Association of India (YBAI) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking direction for framing guidelines to protect the identity, reputation and integrity of individual(s) allegedly accused of sexual offences till completion of the investigation. The petition, filed by lawyers Sanpreet Singh Ajmani and Kuldeep Rai, will come up for hearing on July 29. The allegation of sexual harassment tarnishes the image, repute and goodwill of such person in the society and it adversely affects his entire life in all terms, even if, at later point of time he (accused) is found to be innocent, YBAI stated in its petition. The petition, a copy of which has been accessed by ANI, also states that now it's high time that certain guidelines must also be formulated to protect the integrity of the person alleged to have committed such crime. The petition further suggested directions may also be issued to the media (Print, Electronic and Social) to not to disclose the identity of such person until and unless such crime is investigated by the competent agency. "It is well settled that a person is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty but so much so, nowadays, the moment an allegation of such nature is levelled and it is published in the media, the person loses his integrity in the society," the petition stated. "That person also suffers a loss of his hard-earned repute, image and goodwill in the society, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever," it added.

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking guidelines to protect identity of sexual crime accused

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for three months public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to allow non-resident Indians to vote through postal or e-ballots during elections in India.

A Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta adjourned the case after the advocate appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that Bill to allow NRIs to vote is likely to be passed in the ongoing session of Parliament.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Nagender Chindam, chairman of London-based Pravasi Bharat organisation, and other NRIs including Shamsheer V P.

The petitions stated that 114 countries, including 20 Asian nations, have adopted external voting, which could be held by setting up polling booths at diplomatic missions or through postal, proxy or electronic voting.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for three months public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to allow non-resident Indians to vote through postal or e-ballots during elections in India.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for three months public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to allow non-resident Indians to vote through postal or e-ballots during elections in India. A Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta adjourned the case after the advocate appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that Bill to allow NRIs to vote is likely to be passed in the ongoing session of Parliament. The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Nagender Chindam, chairman of London-based Pravasi Bharat organisation, and other NRIs including Shamsheer V P. The petitions stated that 114 countries, including 20 Asian nations, have adopted external voting, which could be held by setting up polling booths at diplomatic missions or through postal, proxy or electronic voting.

Supreme Court adjourns PIL on direction to allow NRIs to vote through postal, e-ballots

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain public interest litigations (PILs) pertaining to the treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur and asked the petitioners to approach the Patna High Court.

"Encephalitis has broken out. Was this done intentionally by someone? What can we do? These are not matters we can hear," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta said.

The advocates for the petition argued that 57 per cent posts of doctors were vacant in Bihar, to which the court said, "the health ministry is looking into this".

"What do you want? That we open it up and try to fill up posts of doctors? We are trying to fill up posts of judges and you see where we have got with that. There's a shortage of doctors, there's a shortage of judges, MPs, water and sunlight. What all do we look at?" the bench asked.

The petition, filed by Advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, sought direction to the Centre and Bihar to constitute a fact-finding committee to determine the role of persons or entities' negligence in the treatment of children.

The petitioners had also asked Bihar government to grant compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the surviving members of the families of those who died due to the negligence of the state machinery.

Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had announced a compensation of Rs 4 lakh each to the families of those who died of AES.

Encephalitis is a viral disease that causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions, and headache.

According to official data, as many as 176 children had lost their lives due to AES in the state.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain public interest litigations (PILs) pertaining to the treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur and asked the petitioners to approach the Patna High Court.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain public interest litigations (PILs) pertaining to the treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur and asked the petitioners to approach the Patna High Court. "Encephalitis has broken out. Was this done intentionally by someone? What can we do? These are not matters we can hear," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta said. The advocates for the petition argued that 57 per cent posts of doctors were vacant in Bihar, to which the court said, "the health ministry is looking into this". "What do you want? That we open it up and try to fill up posts of doctors? We are trying to fill up posts of judges and you see where we have got with that. There's a shortage of doctors, there's a shortage of judges, MPs, water and sunlight. What all do we look at?" the bench asked. The petition, filed by Advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, sought direction to the Centre and Bihar to constitute a fact-finding committee to determine the role of persons or entities' negligence in the treatment of children. The petitioners had also asked Bihar government to grant compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the surviving members of the families of those who died due to the negligence of the state machinery. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had announced a compensation of Rs 4 lakh each to the families of those who died of AES. Encephalitis is a viral disease that causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions, and headache. According to official data, as many as 176 children had lost their lives due to AES in the state.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain pleas on treatment of children suffering from AES in Bihar

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