The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to fund and set up exclusive courts in every district where 100 or more cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are pending.

The special courts for the trial of cases of sexual offences against children should start functioning with 60 days, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta ordered. These courts will not hear any other cases except those under the POCSO Act, it said.

The fund will not only take care of the appointment of presiding officers but also court staff, support staff, besides the infrastructure for vulnerable court complexes, the court noted. It asked the Centre to file a progress report in four weeks.&nbsp;

The bench also directed the chief secretaries of all states to ensure the effective functioning of the forensic science laboratories (FSL).&nbsp;

The order came after amicus curiae and senior advocate V Giri submitted his report on the directions of the court. Giri said there is a lack of proper judicial infrastructure for the trial of POCSO cases.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked its registry to collate district-wise data from the registrars of all the high courts on the total number of child rape cases and how long these have been pending.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to fund and set up exclusive courts in every district where 100 or more cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are pending.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre to fund and set up exclusive courts in every district where 100 or more cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are pending. The special courts for the trial of cases of sexual offences against children should start functioning with 60 days, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta ordered. These courts will not hear any other cases except those under the POCSO Act, it said. The fund will not only take care of the appointment of presiding officers but also court staff, support staff, besides the infrastructure for vulnerable court complexes, the court noted. It asked the Centre to file a progress report in four weeks. The bench also directed the chief secretaries of all states to ensure the effective functioning of the forensic science laboratories (FSL). The order came after amicus curiae and senior advocate V Giri submitted his report on the directions of the court. Giri said there is a lack of proper judicial infrastructure for the trial of POCSO cases. Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked its registry to collate district-wise data from the registrars of all the high courts on the total number of child rape cases and how long these have been pending.

Supreme Court directs Centre to fund, set up special POCSO courts

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed two Independent Karnataka MLAs to withdraw their petition with respect to the floor test in the Assembly after the Congress-JD(S) government lost the trust vote.

&nbsp;A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi passed the order after the lawmakers -- H Nagesh and R Shankar -- pleaded to withdraw it. In the petition, the duo, who had earlier withdrew their support to the Congress-JD (S) government in Karnataka, sought a direction to conclude the floor test in the state Assembly.&nbsp;

The legislators had made Karnataka Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, outgoing Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, and the central government respondents in their petition.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Kumaraswamy, told the apex court that he has no objection to the withdrawal of the petition. During the course of proceeding, the Chief Justice pulled up Mukul Rohatgi, the counsel for the rebel lawmakers, for his absence from the courtroom for the second consecutive day.&nbsp;

The top court had adjourned the matter over his absence, yesterday. "When the court wants counsel to be present, he is not present. But, when he wants an urgent listing he is present 11pm, wants midnight hearing at 2am, 3am and what not...," the court said.&nbsp;

The Congress-JD(S) coalition government fell on Tuesday as it lost the trust vote in the Assembly. Following the defeat, Kumaraswamy submitted his resignation to Governor Vajubhai Vala at Raj Bhavan, along with his cabinet ministers.&nbsp;

The defeat marked the end of an uneasy coalition that was formed after the assembly polls on May 23, 2018, which returned a hung verdict after three main parties in the state- Congress, BJP and the JD (S) contested against each other in the polls.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed two Independent Karnataka MLAs to withdraw their petition with respect to the floor test in the Assembly after the Congress-JD(S) government lost the trust vote.

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed two Independent Karnataka MLAs to withdraw their petition with respect to the floor test in the Assembly after the Congress-JD(S) government lost the trust vote. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi passed the order after the lawmakers -- H Nagesh and R Shankar -- pleaded to withdraw it. In the petition, the duo, who had earlier withdrew their support to the Congress-JD (S) government in Karnataka, sought a direction to conclude the floor test in the state Assembly. The legislators had made Karnataka Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, outgoing Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, and the central government respondents in their petition. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Kumaraswamy, told the apex court that he has no objection to the withdrawal of the petition. During the course of proceeding, the Chief Justice pulled up Mukul Rohatgi, the counsel for the rebel lawmakers, for his absence from the courtroom for the second consecutive day. The top court had adjourned the matter over his absence, yesterday. "When the court wants counsel to be present, he is not present. But, when he wants an urgent listing he is present 11pm, wants midnight hearing at 2am, 3am and what not...," the court said. The Congress-JD(S) coalition government fell on Tuesday as it lost the trust vote in the Assembly. Following the defeat, Kumaraswamy submitted his resignation to Governor Vajubhai Vala at Raj Bhavan, along with his cabinet ministers. The defeat marked the end of an uneasy coalition that was formed after the assembly polls on May 23, 2018, which returned a hung verdict after three main parties in the state- Congress, BJP and the JD (S) contested against each other in the polls.

Supreme Court allows Karnataka Independent MLAs to withdraw petition on trust vote

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard.&nbsp;

During the course of the proceedings, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner M Alagarsamy, argued that illegal sand mining is going on across the country.&nbsp;

"It is a rampant problem across the country which needs to be tackled immediately," Bhushan contended. Quoting a media article, Bhushan submitted that a special investigation team, headed by a senior IAS officer, has revealed illegal mining of 1 crore metric tonnes of beach sand from Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari districts in Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;

Alagarsamy sought a direction to the investigating agency to register and investigate the "scams" highlighted by him.&nbsp;

The petition said that a direction should be issued to the Centre not to grant environment clearance for sand mining projects without taking into account the cumulative impact of the sand mining in the entire area.&nbsp;

It pleaded for prosecution and termination of the leases of those entities that were found to have committed illegal sand mining. The plea sought denial of environment clearance to any sand mining project without procuring a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental management plan (EMP) and public consultation, and appraisal as per the EIA Notification, 2006.&nbsp;

The petition submitted that the court should direct the Centre and states to cease all river and beach sand mining activities owing to the non-implementation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and office memorandum dated December 24, 3013. A direction was also sought by the petitioner to the MoEF to constitute a committee for monitoring all such activities along with investigation and registration of cases against illegal mining by the CBI.&nbsp;

The Centre and states should ensure the existence of an approved mining plan under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for all sand mining projects, the petition added.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre, CBI and five states on a petition seeking investigation into alleged illegal sand mining. A bench headed by Justice SA Bobde sought a response from the Ministry of Environment and Fores (MoEF), Ministry of Mines, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in this regard. During the course of the proceedings, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for petitioner M Alagarsamy, argued that illegal sand mining is going on across the country. "It is a rampant problem across the country which needs to be tackled immediately," Bhushan contended. Quoting a media article, Bhushan submitted that a special investigation team, headed by a senior IAS officer, has revealed illegal mining of 1 crore metric tonnes of beach sand from Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari districts in Tamil Nadu. Alagarsamy sought a direction to the investigating agency to register and investigate the "scams" highlighted by him. The petition said that a direction should be issued to the Centre not to grant environment clearance for sand mining projects without taking into account the cumulative impact of the sand mining in the entire area. It pleaded for prosecution and termination of the leases of those entities that were found to have committed illegal sand mining. The plea sought denial of environment clearance to any sand mining project without procuring a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental management plan (EMP) and public consultation, and appraisal as per the EIA Notification, 2006. The petition submitted that the court should direct the Centre and states to cease all river and beach sand mining activities owing to the non-implementation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and office memorandum dated December 24, 3013. A direction was also sought by the petitioner to the MoEF to constitute a committee for monitoring all such activities along with investigation and registration of cases against illegal mining by the CBI. The Centre and states should ensure the existence of an approved mining plan under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for all sand mining projects, the petition added.

llegal sand mining: Supreme Court seeks response from Centre, CBI and 5 states

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a plea seeking annulment of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/devendra-fadnavis-birthday-maharashtra-chief-minister-office-team-donates-1-day-salary-to-chief-minister-relief-fund-237736">Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis</a>'s election to the state Assembly.

The plea alleged that Fadnavis had suppressed information about two pending criminal cases against him while filing nomination from Nagpur's South West Assembly constituency in 2009 and 2014.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose reserved the order after hearing arguments from the parties in the case.

The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the plea of one Satish Ukey seeking annulment of Fadanavis's election. Ukey later approached the apex court challenging the high court order.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a plea seeking annulment of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's election to the state Assembly. The plea alleged that Fadnavis had suppressed information about two pending criminal cases against him while filing nomination from Nagpur's South West Assembly constituency in 2009 and 2014.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a plea seeking annulment of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's election to the state Assembly. The plea alleged that Fadnavis had suppressed information about two pending criminal cases against him while filing nomination from Nagpur's South West Assembly constituency in 2009 and 2014. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose reserved the order after hearing arguments from the parties in the case. The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the plea of one Satish Ukey seeking annulment of Fadanavis's election. Ukey later approached the apex court challenging the high court order.

Supreme Court reserves order on plea against Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019.

On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23. 
 
Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-nrc-matter-on-july-23-india-cant-be-refugee-capital-of-the-world-says-government-237043">pleaded the Supreme Court to extend</a> the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world."

Last week, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-identify-deport-illegal-immigrants-from-every-inch-of-india-says-amit-shah-236665">Union Minister Amit Shah had said</a> that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law."&nbsp;

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019. On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23.

Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for the final publication of National Register of Citizens (NRC) from July 31 to August 31, 2019. On July 19, the top court had deferred the hearing in NRC matter to fixed July 23. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam. Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world." Last week, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law. Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law." The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court extends deadline for final publication of NRC to August 31

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing till Wednesday on a plea filed by two Independent Karnataka MLAs seeking directions on the trust vote.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it will hear the matter on Wednesday after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu, representing Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, appeared optimistic and assured the court that the floor test might take place by the end of the day.

The two MLAs, H Nagesh and R Shankar, who withdrew support to the Congress-JD(S) government in Karnataka, have made state Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, and the Central government as respondents in their petition.&nbsp;

On Friday, the Assembly failed to meet two deadlines set by Governor Vajubhai Vala to complete the trust vote.

After which, chief minister Kumaraswamy moved the Supreme Court challenging the Governor's directive to the government saying it was in violation of well-settled law laid down by the court.

Last week, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Karnataka Speaker K R Ramesh cannot be forced to decide on the resignations of 15 rebel MLAs within a time frame.

The top court also said that the 15 rebel MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the Assembly proceedings or the trust vote on Thursday.

Karnataka government has been reduced to a minority in the Assembly after 16 rebel legislators resigned and 2 Independents withdrew support to it. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing till Wednesday on a plea filed by two Independent Karnataka MLAs seeking directions on the trust vote. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it will hear the matter on Wednesday after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu, representing Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, appeared optimistic and assured the court that the floor test might take place by the end of the day.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing till Wednesday on a plea filed by two Independent Karnataka MLAs seeking directions on the trust vote. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it will hear the matter on Wednesday after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu, representing Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, appeared optimistic and assured the court that the floor test might take place by the end of the day. The two MLAs, H Nagesh and R Shankar, who withdrew support to the Congress-JD(S) government in Karnataka, have made state Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar, Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, and the Central government as respondents in their petition. On Friday, the Assembly failed to meet two deadlines set by Governor Vajubhai Vala to complete the trust vote. After which, chief minister Kumaraswamy moved the Supreme Court challenging the Governor's directive to the government saying it was in violation of well-settled law laid down by the court. Last week, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Karnataka Speaker K R Ramesh cannot be forced to decide on the resignations of 15 rebel MLAs within a time frame. The top court also said that the 15 rebel MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the Assembly proceedings or the trust vote on Thursday. Karnataka government has been reduced to a minority in the Assembly after 16 rebel legislators resigned and 2 Independents withdrew support to it. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court defers hearing on plea filed by Karnataka Independent MLAs seeking trust vote

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-democratic-congresswoman-should-apologize-to-america-237518&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi2z5WmuMjjAhXN63MBHTx7BTE4ChAWMAN6BAgOEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw0hPftQsY_ekxSVDPZWQJZy">Donald Trump</a> for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve.

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be&nbsp;removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.

Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings.

The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed.

Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting."

Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed.

The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president.

About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April.

WATCH:&nbsp;Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back'

<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/somalis-on-trump-telling-congresswomen-go-back-237454/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Here is how the impeachment process works.

Why impeachment? 
The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution.

They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings.

How does it work? 
Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members.

If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened.

Can the Supreme Court overturn? 
No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary.

Party breakdown in Congress? 
The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

Who becomes President if Trump is removed? 
In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed.

A dark cloud of impeachment has threatened President Donald Trump for many months, with Democrats in the US House of Representatives, where any such effort to remove him from office would begin, divided about whether to proceed. In American politics, few procedures are as arduous or as divisive as the Constitution's carefully balanced law for ousting a chief executive found to be unfit to serve. No president has ever been removed as a direct result of it. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has been under investigation. A turning point came in mid-April with the release of a redacted version of a long-awaited report from former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller. On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before two House committees about his report, with Democrats planning to focus the proceedings on Trump's conduct. The strategy, described by Democratic congressional aides, is intended to build support among Americans for Democrats' investigative agenda, possibly leading to impeachment proceedings. The 448-page Mueller report explored an effort by Moscow to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump win. It described contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians but found insufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The Mueller report also described numerous attempts by Trump and his advisers to impede Mueller's investigation but offered no conclusion on whether obstruction of justice was committed. Trump has attacked Mueller, called his probe a "witch hunt" and scorned talk of impeachment as "dirty, filthy, disgusting." Some lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled House favour starting the impeachment process, but their leaders have resisted these demands. Last week, an impeachment resolution came to a vote on the House floor and was killed. The Senate is controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, meaning that any impeachment proceedings that might begin in the House would likely die in the Republican-controlled Senate, unless public sentiment was to shift dramatically in favour of removing the president. About 45 per cent of Americans said Trump should be impeached in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, up from 40 per cent in April. WATCH: Somalis on Trump telling congresswomen 'go back' × Here is how the impeachment process works. Why impeachment? The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared that its powers could be abused. So they included impeachment as a central part of the Constitution. They gave the House "the sole power of impeachment;" the Senate, "the sole power to try all impeachments" and the chief justice of the Supreme Court the duty of presiding over impeachment trials in the Senate. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings. How does it work? Impeachment begins in the House, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the House's 435 members. If the House approves such a resolution, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president. This has never happened. Can the Supreme Court overturn? No. Trump has said on Twitter that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But the founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary. Party breakdown in Congress? The House has 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent and two vacant seats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. Who becomes President if Trump is removed? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021.

What it would take for US Congress to impeach Trump?

Supreme Court has directed the trial court judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition&nbsp;case against senior BJP Leaders LK Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti to conclude the hearing in nine months.

Earlier, apex court&nbsp;had given a term extension to&nbsp;the trial court judge hearing the case, now the court has allowed him to continue beyond his retirement to conclude the trial and deliver judgment.

However, The Uttar Pradesh government told the top court that the state government rules did not&nbsp;permit giving an extension to a judicial officer. This prompted the court to use its wide power under Article 142 to order extension for the judge citing public interest.&nbsp;

UP government will pass necessary orders within four weeks in consultation with the Allahabad High Court. Subsequently, the&nbsp;chief secretary shall inform compliance of the court's direction by filing an affidavit after four weeks.

On April 19, 2017, the top court had ordered a day-to-day trial to be concluded in two years in the politically sensitive case.

While dubbing the demolition of the medieval era monument as a "crime" which shook the "secular fabric of the Constitution", it had allowed the CBI's plea on restoration of criminal conspiracy charge against the VVIP accused.

The court had also said that if the trial was adjourned, then it should be fixed on the next day or a closely proximate date and the reasons for it shall be recorded in writing.

CBI shall ensure that on every date fixed for recording of evidence, some prosecution witnesses must remain present so that for want of witnesses the matter is not adjourned, it had said.

The court had termed the Allahabad High Court's February 12, 2001 verdict dropping conspiracy charge against Advani and others "erroneous".

Supreme Court has directed the trial court judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case against senior BJP Leaders LK Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti to conclude the hearing in nine months.

Supreme Court has directed the trial court judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case against senior BJP Leaders LK Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti to conclude the hearing in nine months. Earlier, apex court had given a term extension to the trial court judge hearing the case, now the court has allowed him to continue beyond his retirement to conclude the trial and deliver judgment. However, The Uttar Pradesh government told the top court that the state government rules did not permit giving an extension to a judicial officer. This prompted the court to use its wide power under Article 142 to order extension for the judge citing public interest. UP government will pass necessary orders within four weeks in consultation with the Allahabad High Court. Subsequently, the chief secretary shall inform compliance of the court's direction by filing an affidavit after four weeks. On April 19, 2017, the top court had ordered a day-to-day trial to be concluded in two years in the politically sensitive case. While dubbing the demolition of the medieval era monument as a "crime" which shook the "secular fabric of the Constitution", it had allowed the CBI's plea on restoration of criminal conspiracy charge against the VVIP accused. The court had also said that if the trial was adjourned, then it should be fixed on the next day or a closely proximate date and the reasons for it shall be recorded in writing. CBI shall ensure that on every date fixed for recording of evidence, some prosecution witnesses must remain present so that for want of witnesses the matter is not adjourned, it had said. The court had termed the Allahabad High Court's February 12, 2001 verdict dropping conspiracy charge against Advani and others "erroneous".

Babri Masjid demolition case: Supreme Court directs trial court to conclude hearing in 9 months

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter.

Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world."

On Wednesday, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law.

Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law."&nbsp;

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam.

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed July 23 for further hearing in National Register of Citizens (NRC) matter. Solicitor General (SG) and senior Supreme Court lawyer, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Assam Government, pleaded the Supreme Court to extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of NRC in Assam. Mehta told the SC, "There is a growing perception that lakhs of illegal migrants have been included in the NRC list in alleged collusion with local NRC officials in the state of Assam. Illegal immigrants have to be dealt severely. India cannot be the refugee capital of the world." On Wednesday, Union Minister Amit Shah had said that the government is determined to identify all the illegal immigrants and infiltrators living on every inch of this country and deport them as per the international law. Responding to a supplementary query by Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan in the Rajya Sabha, Shah said: "It is a very good question. The NRC is part of the Assam Accord and was also in (BJP's) election manifesto based on which the government has came to power. The government will identify illegal immigrants living on every inch of the country's soil and will deport them as per international law." The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants". The government has maintained that its intention is to ensure no illegal immigrant is registered under the NRC and no genuine citizen is left out of it. (With inputs from agencies)

NRC matter: 'India can't be refugee capital of the world,' Centre tells Supreme Court

After receiving the second deadline set by Governor Vajubhai Vala, Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy on Friday said the Governor's second letter has hurt him and asked Speaker KR Ramesh to handle the new directive.

&nbsp;"I leave the decision on the floor test to you (the Speaker). It won't be directed by Delhi. I request you to protect me from the letter sent by the Governor," Kumaraswamy said.&nbsp;

Furthermore, Kumaraswamy moved the apex court, questioning the deadlines set by the Governor one after another.

In his application, Kumaraswamy contended: "No such direction on trust vote could have been issued by Governor when confidence motion was already initiated."&nbsp;

After missing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-governor-issues-new-deadline-to-cm-kumaraswamy-for-floor-test-congress-moves-supreme-court-237114">the 1.30 pm deadline</a>, Kumaraswamy received a fresh directive from the Governor to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government by 6pm today.

An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Congress has also moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs.

The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators.

The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-rebel-congress-jds-mlas-refuse-to-participate-in-trust-vote-on-thursday-236642">Congress and JD(S) </a>cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings.

Earlier in the day, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint.

"Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker.

"Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added.

Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-governor-asks-chief-minister-to-hold-floor-test-on-friday-as-congress-jds-delay-trust-vote-236984">moved confidence motion in the state Assembly</a> at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers.

Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

After receiving the second deadline set by Governor Vajubhai Vala, Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy on Friday said the Governor's second letter has hurt him and asked Speaker KR Ramesh to handle the new directive.

After receiving the second deadline set by Governor Vajubhai Vala, Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy on Friday said the Governor's second letter has hurt him and asked Speaker KR Ramesh to handle the new directive. "I leave the decision on the floor test to you (the Speaker). It won't be directed by Delhi. I request you to protect me from the letter sent by the Governor," Kumaraswamy said. Furthermore, Kumaraswamy moved the apex court, questioning the deadlines set by the Governor one after another. In his application, Kumaraswamy contended: "No such direction on trust vote could have been issued by Governor when confidence motion was already initiated." After missing the 1.30 pm deadline, Kumaraswamy received a fresh directive from the Governor to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government by 6pm today. An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order. Meanwhile, Congress has also moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs. The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators. The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings. Earlier in the day, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint. "Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker. "Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added. Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy moved confidence motion in the state Assembly at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers. Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. (With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka Governor's new deadline for floor test expires; Kumaraswamy, Congress move Supreme Court

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government.

In a letter to the chief minister, he asked him to hold&nbsp;the floor test in the Assembly by 6pm today. 
 
On Thursday, Governor, in a letter to Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy, asked him to hold the floor test by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-governor-asks-chief-minister-to-hold-floor-test-on-friday-as-congress-jds-delay-trust-vote-236984">1.30pm on Friday.</a>&nbsp;

An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Congress has moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs. 
 
The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators. 
 
The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the Congress and JD-S cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-chief-minister-hd-kumaraswamy-resumes-debate-as-trust-vote-deadline-nears-237056">Earlier in the day</a>, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint.

"Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker.

"Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added.

Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-hd-kumaraswamy-moves-confidence-motion-to-prove-majority-of-jds-congress-government-236840">moved confidence motion</a> in the state Assembly at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers.

He claimed that the dissenting legislators had moved the apex court with the BJP's assistance."A situation has been created so that people lose trust in us. Without any discussion they have wanted a trust vote", Kumaraswamy said.

Senior Congress leader and former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah that a floor test in the House will not be appropriate until a clarification is attained on the Supreme Court order allowing freedom to the 15 rebel MLAs from participating in the House proceedings.

"If we go ahead with the confidence motion, if the whip is applicable and they (rebel MLAs) don't come to the house because of the SC order, it will be a big loss to the coalition government," he said.

Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government.

Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala on Friday issued a new deadline to chief minister HD Kumaraswamy to hold the floor test to prove the majority of JD(S)-Congress government. In a letter to the chief minister, he asked him to hold the floor test in the Assembly by 6pm today. On Thursday, Governor, in a letter to Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy, asked him to hold the floor test by 1.30pm on Friday. An earlier letter to the Speaker by Governor to conduct the floor test by the end of Thursday was merely dismissed as a suggestion and not an order. Meanwhile, Congress has moved the Supreme Court saying that its July 17 order compromises party’s right to issue whip to its MLAs. The petition said the July 17 order was passed without even arraying the Congress Legislature Party which has 79 MLAs in the Assembly. It further said under the Tenth Schedule a political party has a constitutional right to issue a whip to its legislators. The court had ruled that 15 MLAs from the Congress and JD-S cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings. Earlier in the day, Speaker Ramesh Kumar said that the directive of the Governor is applied to the chief minister and he cannot be forced by any time constraint. "Unless the discussion is complete, you cannot press for the division of votes for the floor test," said the Speaker. "Governor's order has to be followed or not, it has to be decided by the chief minister because the letter was sent to him, so he has to decide," he further added. Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy moved confidence motion in the state Assembly at 11am on Thursday to prove the majority of his government amidst rebellion by a section of the lawmakers. He claimed that the dissenting legislators had moved the apex court with the BJP's assistance."A situation has been created so that people lose trust in us. Without any discussion they have wanted a trust vote", Kumaraswamy said. Senior Congress leader and former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah that a floor test in the House will not be appropriate until a clarification is attained on the Supreme Court order allowing freedom to the 15 rebel MLAs from participating in the House proceedings. "If we go ahead with the confidence motion, if the whip is applicable and they (rebel MLAs) don't come to the house because of the SC order, it will be a big loss to the coalition government," he said. Meanwhile, BJP leaders claimed JD(S)-Congress coalition was delaying the trust vote fearing imminent defeat due to lack of majority numbers. (With inputs from agencies)

Karnataka Governor issues new deadline to chief minister Kumaraswamy for floor test; Congress moves Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India will now hear the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case on August 2. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed report in Supreme Court by July 31.

In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day to day basis from July 25.&nbsp;

The original plaintiff had sought an early hearing in the case.

Senior lawyer SK Parasaran arguing for one of the applicants told the top court that mediation talks were neither making much progress nor able to bring any positive results.&nbsp;

However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan representing Muslim parties said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel.

“I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account,'' he said.

To resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah.&nbsp;Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu are the other two members of the panel.&nbsp;While forming the panel court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India will now hear the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case on August 2. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed report in Supreme Court by July 31.

The Supreme Court of India will now hear the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case on August 2. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed report in Supreme Court by July 31. In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day to day basis from July 25. The original plaintiff had sought an early hearing in the case. Senior lawyer SK Parasaran arguing for one of the applicants told the top court that mediation talks were neither making much progress nor able to bring any positive results. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan representing Muslim parties said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel. “I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account,'' he said. To resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu are the other two members of the panel. While forming the panel court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.

Supreme Court to hear Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case on August 2 

In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate.

However, the court said that the Speaker's order on the resignations of the MLAs, whenever it is taken, should be placed before it.

"Until further orders, the 15 Members of the Assembly ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said in its verdict.

The court observed that Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar cannot be forced to decide within a time frame on the resignations of the rebel MLAs.

"In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 members of the House within such time frame as the Speaker may consider appropriate," the bench said.

A floor test is scheduled for tomorrow in the Assembly when it will take up the Confidence Motion to be moved by Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy.

In the 224-member House, the 13-month-old coalition is precariously placed if the rebels keep out of the Assembly during the vote tomorrow.&nbsp;

Without the support of the rebels, the coalition enjoys the support of around 100 members as against the support of 105 being claimed by the Opposition BJP.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the rebel MLAs, told reporters, "In view of the trust vote kept for tomorrow, the Supreme Court has said two important things - the 15 MLAs will not be compelled to attend the House tomorrow. All the 15 MLAs are given the liberty that they may or may not go to the House tomorrow".&nbsp;

"The three-line whip issued to the rebel MLAs to attend the House tomorrow is not operative in view of the Supreme Court judgement. Secondly, the Speaker has been given time to decide on the resignations as and when he wants to decide."The Speaker welcomed the apex court's order saying he respected it.

Karnataka minister and chief troubleshooter for the Congress, D K Shiv Kumar also welcomed the order saying the Speaker's position under the tenth schedule has been respected but warned the rebels whether they would like to lose the chances of becoming a minister by keeping away from voting tomorrow.

He said while the MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings, there was also the question of the effectiveness of the anti-defection law under which political parties are empowered to issue whip to the members to participate in the business of the House and vote in accordance with its direction.

Kumar said the rebel MLAs, some of whom are experienced MLAs for five or seven terms, were being "misled".

The rebel MLAs had filed a petition before the apex court claiming that the Speaker was not deciding on their resignation letters and was attempting to force them to participate in the voting by threatening disqualification.

Those who filed the petition included Pratap Gouda Patil, Ramesh Jarkhiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, BC Patil, S T Somashekar, Arbail Sivaram Hebbar and Mahesh Kumathalli from Congress and K Gopalaiah, H D Vishwanath and Narayan Gowda from JD(S).

Five other rebel MLAs - K Sudhakar, Roshan Baig, MTB Nagaraj, Muniratna and Anand Singh - had approached the court on July 13 contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Speaker.&nbsp;

In its order, the court observed that the issue arising in the case is whether the resignations submitted by MLAs a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) should have priority in the decision-making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the requests for resignation.

Referring to the arguments of counsels for the parties on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191, 221(2) and 361B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the court said we have considered the same.

"Constitutional principles should not receive an exhaustive enumeration by the Court unless such an exercise is inevitable and unavoidable to resolve the issues that may have arisen any judicial proceedings."In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid questions should receive an answer only at a later stage of the proceedings," the judges said.

The imperative necessity at this stage, the judges said, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before them.&nbsp;

The bench said, "such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particular, the no-trust motion against the present government, which we are told is due for being taken up on July 18, 2019".

"In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon'ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon'ble Speaker may consider appropriate" they said.

"We also take the view that in the present case, the discretion of the Hon`ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon'ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190," they added.

The also observed that read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution.

"The order of the Hon'ble Speaker on the issue of the resignation, as and when passed, be placed before the Court. We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same. We order accordingly," the judges said. &nbsp;

In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate.

In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate. However, the court said that the Speaker's order on the resignations of the MLAs, whenever it is taken, should be placed before it. "Until further orders, the 15 Members of the Assembly ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said in its verdict. The court observed that Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar cannot be forced to decide within a time frame on the resignations of the rebel MLAs. "In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 members of the House within such time frame as the Speaker may consider appropriate," the bench said. A floor test is scheduled for tomorrow in the Assembly when it will take up the Confidence Motion to be moved by Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy. In the 224-member House, the 13-month-old coalition is precariously placed if the rebels keep out of the Assembly during the vote tomorrow. Without the support of the rebels, the coalition enjoys the support of around 100 members as against the support of 105 being claimed by the Opposition BJP. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the rebel MLAs, told reporters, "In view of the trust vote kept for tomorrow, the Supreme Court has said two important things - the 15 MLAs will not be compelled to attend the House tomorrow. All the 15 MLAs are given the liberty that they may or may not go to the House tomorrow". "The three-line whip issued to the rebel MLAs to attend the House tomorrow is not operative in view of the Supreme Court judgement. Secondly, the Speaker has been given time to decide on the resignations as and when he wants to decide."The Speaker welcomed the apex court's order saying he respected it. Karnataka minister and chief troubleshooter for the Congress, D K Shiv Kumar also welcomed the order saying the Speaker's position under the tenth schedule has been respected but warned the rebels whether they would like to lose the chances of becoming a minister by keeping away from voting tomorrow. He said while the MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings, there was also the question of the effectiveness of the anti-defection law under which political parties are empowered to issue whip to the members to participate in the business of the House and vote in accordance with its direction. Kumar said the rebel MLAs, some of whom are experienced MLAs for five or seven terms, were being "misled". The rebel MLAs had filed a petition before the apex court claiming that the Speaker was not deciding on their resignation letters and was attempting to force them to participate in the voting by threatening disqualification. Those who filed the petition included Pratap Gouda Patil, Ramesh Jarkhiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, BC Patil, S T Somashekar, Arbail Sivaram Hebbar and Mahesh Kumathalli from Congress and K Gopalaiah, H D Vishwanath and Narayan Gowda from JD(S). Five other rebel MLAs - K Sudhakar, Roshan Baig, MTB Nagaraj, Muniratna and Anand Singh - had approached the court on July 13 contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Speaker. In its order, the court observed that the issue arising in the case is whether the resignations submitted by MLAs a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) should have priority in the decision-making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the requests for resignation. Referring to the arguments of counsels for the parties on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191, 221(2) and 361B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the court said we have considered the same. "Constitutional principles should not receive an exhaustive enumeration by the Court unless such an exercise is inevitable and unavoidable to resolve the issues that may have arisen any judicial proceedings."In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid questions should receive an answer only at a later stage of the proceedings," the judges said. The imperative necessity at this stage, the judges said, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before them. The bench said, "such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particular, the no-trust motion against the present government, which we are told is due for being taken up on July 18, 2019". "In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon'ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon'ble Speaker may consider appropriate" they said. "We also take the view that in the present case, the discretion of the Hon`ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon'ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190," they added. The also observed that read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution. "The order of the Hon'ble Speaker on the issue of the resignation, as and when passed, be placed before the Court. We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same. We order accordingly," the judges said.

Supreme Court verdict leaves Karnataka govt hanging by a thread

Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on 15 rebel&nbsp;Karnataka MLAs plea against Speaker K R Ramesh for not accepting their resignations.

The top court will pronounce the verdict at 10.30am on Wednesday. 
 
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Deepak Gupta heard the submissions made by the counsels of both the petitioners and the respondents.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi representing rebel MLAs said, "I don't want to be an MLA. Nobody can force me. My resignation must be accepted."

Rohatgi said the Speaker can't hold the resignations for so many days. "This is an attempt to scuttle their resignations. The Speaker is trying to make a decision on both the issues-resignation and disqualification-at the same time," he said. 
 
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing Speaker, said that four of the MLAs who had resigned did not even present themselves before the Speaker."The rules are clear. The member of the House has to personally appear before the Speaker," he said, when asked by the CJI if the resignations were not genuine.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed Karnataka Speaker K R Ramesh to not to decide on the resignations or disqualifications of the MLAs till Tuesday.

Supreme Court's direction had come after ten Congress and JD(S) MLAs moved the top court, seeking a direction to the Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification from the House.

Following which Speaker K R Ramesh had urged the apex court to recall its order which asked him to take a decision on the resignation of MLAs during the course of the day i.e. July 11.

On Monday, five other rebel MLAs approached the Supreme Court seeking direction to the speaker to accept their resignations at the earliest.

Meanwhile, the Kumaraswamy government will face the trust vote in Karnataka Assembly at 11am on Thursday.

Karnataka government has been reduced to minority in the Assembly after 16 rebel legislators resigned and 2 Independents withdrew support to it.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on 15 rebel Karnataka MLAs plea against Speaker K R Ramesh for not accepting their resignations. The top court will pronounce the verdict at 10.

Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on 15 rebel Karnataka MLAs plea against Speaker K R Ramesh for not accepting their resignations. The top court will pronounce the verdict at 10.30am on Wednesday. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Deepak Gupta heard the submissions made by the counsels of both the petitioners and the respondents. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi representing rebel MLAs said, "I don't want to be an MLA. Nobody can force me. My resignation must be accepted." Rohatgi said the Speaker can't hold the resignations for so many days. "This is an attempt to scuttle their resignations. The Speaker is trying to make a decision on both the issues-resignation and disqualification-at the same time," he said. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing Speaker, said that four of the MLAs who had resigned did not even present themselves before the Speaker."The rules are clear. The member of the House has to personally appear before the Speaker," he said, when asked by the CJI if the resignations were not genuine. The Supreme Court on Friday directed Karnataka Speaker K R Ramesh to not to decide on the resignations or disqualifications of the MLAs till Tuesday. Supreme Court's direction had come after ten Congress and JD(S) MLAs moved the top court, seeking a direction to the Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification from the House. Following which Speaker K R Ramesh had urged the apex court to recall its order which asked him to take a decision on the resignation of MLAs during the course of the day i.e. July 11. On Monday, five other rebel MLAs approached the Supreme Court seeking direction to the speaker to accept their resignations at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Kumaraswamy government will face the trust vote in Karnataka Assembly at 11am on Thursday. Karnataka government has been reduced to minority in the Assembly after 16 rebel legislators resigned and 2 Independents withdrew support to it. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court to pronounce order in Karnataka rebel MLAs case on Wednesday

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouris-sole-abortion-clinic-awaits-ruling-on-whether-it-can-stay-open-231189">abortion</a>.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.&nbsp;

The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother.&nbsp;

It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights.&nbsp;

The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea.

The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-put-stay-on-installation-of-cctv-cameras-in-government-schools-235310/amp&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjgsZCs5LbjAhXH6XMBHdOZCskQFjAFegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Vb-uvNezOp0z2buIMxZU8">Article 21</a> of the Constitution.

Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities.&nbsp;

The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea.

"The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added.

The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea.

"The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences.&nbsp;

Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre on a petition filed by three women seeking a direction to decriminalise abortion. A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea by three women -- Swati Agarwal, Garima Sekseria, and Prachi Vats. The top court agreed to hear the plea of women challenging the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The trio, in their petition, stated that the act allows abortion only to save the life of the mother. It submitted that the restrictions and exceptions in the act violate women's rights. The issue of safe abortion and restriction on the reproductive choice of women and other incidental issues require consideration and urgent resolution by this Court since it severely, drastically and irreversibly affects all women of the country and is not a regional issue pertaining to any particular state, stated the plea. The plea also asserted that section 3(2) (b) of the act is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 3(2) (b) restricts the right to seek an abortion on the ground of risk to the life of pregnant woman, grave injury to her physical or mental health and substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities. The Indian Penal Code was enacted including sections 312-316 which criminalized abortion unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, submitted the plea. "The impugned provisions and the lack of access to safe abortions affects the fundamental right to health, reproductive choice and right to privacy of women of the country," it added. The MTPA provision amounts to hostile discrimination against single women without any nexus to the object which is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, said the plea. "The object of MTPA is to enable a woman to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy since a pregnancy entails several physical, mental and socio-economic consequences. Keeping the object in view there is no rationale for not affording the same protection to an unmarried woman," it said while adding that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea seeking to decriminalise abortion

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to self-styled godman <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/smaller-parties-in-delhis-election-ring-not-for-victory-but-to-make-their-points-215325&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjc2ZPT2rbjAhXG7nMBHWW3DMUQFjAAegQIAhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2x5r3Va14f1b5bdG9i8WfM">Asaram Bapu</a> in connection with the Surat sexual assault case.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said that the trial in the case needs to be concluded before the bail is granted to the accused.

The top court also asked the trial court in Gujarat to complete the trial in the case.

In 2013, two Surat-based sisters had approached police alleging that they were raped by Asaram and his son Narayan Sai.

One of the victims accused 47-year-old Sai of raping her multiple times between 2002 and 2005, while she was staying at his ashram.&nbsp;

He was arrested in December 2013 from Pipli in Haryana.

Asaram is serving a <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/asarams-son-narayan-sai-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-in-rape-case-214781&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjH_sb82rbjAhXA7XMBHTH8CNIQFjABegQIEhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Ao8C4zxm44s75hiEj5eE_">life sentence</a> for raping a minor girl in Manai village in Rajasthan in 2013.

The controversial godman was found guilty under some sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central jail.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu in connection with the Surat sexual assault case. A two-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said that the trial in the case needs to be concluded before the bail is granted to the accused.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant bail to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu in connection with the Surat sexual assault case. A two-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said that the trial in the case needs to be concluded before the bail is granted to the accused. The top court also asked the trial court in Gujarat to complete the trial in the case. In 2013, two Surat-based sisters had approached police alleging that they were raped by Asaram and his son Narayan Sai. One of the victims accused 47-year-old Sai of raping her multiple times between 2002 and 2005, while she was staying at his ashram. He was arrested in December 2013 from Pipli in Haryana. Asaram is serving a life sentence for raping a minor girl in Manai village in Rajasthan in 2013. The controversial godman was found guilty under some sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central jail.

Supreme Court refuses to grant bail to Asaram Bapu in sexual assault case

A special judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case against senior BJP leaders, including L K Advani, has moved the Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude the trial in the case.

In a letter to the court in May, Special Judge SK Yadav conveyed that he is set to retire on September 30 this year.

He submitted that he has been hearing the case for the last two years on a daily basis and it will take another six months to conclude it.

The matter came up on Monday before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, which asked the Uttar Pradesh government to apprise it of the rules and regulations to be followed in case a trial court judge is retiring and the mechanism for an extension.

The bench posted the matter for hearing to July 19.

In April 2017, the apex court had asked the special judge to complete the trial in two years.

Yadav is hearing the case against senior BJP leaders -- Advani, Kalyan Singh and Murli Manohar Joshi -- in connection with the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

A special judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case against senior BJP leaders, including L K Advani, has moved the Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude the trial in the case.

A special judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case against senior BJP leaders, including L K Advani, has moved the Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude the trial in the case. In a letter to the court in May, Special Judge SK Yadav conveyed that he is set to retire on September 30 this year. He submitted that he has been hearing the case for the last two years on a daily basis and it will take another six months to conclude it. The matter came up on Monday before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, which asked the Uttar Pradesh government to apprise it of the rules and regulations to be followed in case a trial court judge is retiring and the mechanism for an extension. The bench posted the matter for hearing to July 19. In April 2017, the apex court had asked the special judge to complete the trial in two years. Yadav is hearing the case against senior BJP leaders -- Advani, Kalyan Singh and Murli Manohar Joshi -- in connection with the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

Babri Masjid demolition case: Special judge moves Supreme Court seeking more time to conclude trial

Five more Karnataka Congress MLAs moved the Supreme Court on Saturday, contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar.

The petition, filed by Anand Singh, K Sudhakar, N Nagaraju, Munirathna and Roshan Baig of the Congress party, has sought a direction to the Speaker to not proceed with the application for their disqualification.

The legislators also claimed that there was no disqualification proceeding against them when they resigned.

"The disqualification proceedings are being used to threaten and intimidate the MLAs. On one hand, the Speaker is not acting upon the resignation and on the other, a whip has been issued threatening disqualification for failure to attend the legislature proceeding starting July 12," the petition stated.

The rebel MLAs said that when some of the applicants submitted their resignation on July 10, they were manhandled in the Assembly and were confined.

"They were rescued by the police personnel from the Legislative Assembly," the plea said.

The plea also submitted that their resignations were in "accordance with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and the Conduct of Business of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly."

On Friday, the Supreme Court took up the petitions of 10 dissident MLAs and directed the Speaker to maintain the status quo on their resignation and disqualification till July 16.

The 13-month-old Congress-JD(S) government slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly on July 6.

It is worth mentioning that R Shankar and H Nagesh, who have taken back their support to the ruling party, have requested the Speaker to make separate sitting arrangement for them in the Assembly.

Five more Karnataka Congress MLAs moved the Supreme Court on Saturday, contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar.

Five more Karnataka Congress MLAs moved the Supreme Court on Saturday, contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar. The petition, filed by Anand Singh, K Sudhakar, N Nagaraju, Munirathna and Roshan Baig of the Congress party, has sought a direction to the Speaker to not proceed with the application for their disqualification. The legislators also claimed that there was no disqualification proceeding against them when they resigned. "The disqualification proceedings are being used to threaten and intimidate the MLAs. On one hand, the Speaker is not acting upon the resignation and on the other, a whip has been issued threatening disqualification for failure to attend the legislature proceeding starting July 12," the petition stated. The rebel MLAs said that when some of the applicants submitted their resignation on July 10, they were manhandled in the Assembly and were confined. "They were rescued by the police personnel from the Legislative Assembly," the plea said. The plea also submitted that their resignations were in "accordance with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and the Conduct of Business of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly." On Friday, the Supreme Court took up the petitions of 10 dissident MLAs and directed the Speaker to maintain the status quo on their resignation and disqualification till July 16. The 13-month-old Congress-JD(S) government slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly on July 6. It is worth mentioning that R Shankar and H Nagesh, who have taken back their support to the ruling party, have requested the Speaker to make separate sitting arrangement for them in the Assembly.

Five more Karnataka Congress MLAs move Supreme Court

Amid ongoing political turmoil in Karnataka, Congress leader <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-congress-minister-shivakumar-arrives-in-mumbai-to-meet-rebel-mlas-234501&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjxh8fgmbHjAhWMFYgKHZOGBXYQFjACegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0hrXppdMDWkpIabkqj_GVs">DK Shivakumar</a> visited the residence of Congress MLA and state minister MTB Nagaraj early on Saturday morning to convince him to take back his resignation.&nbsp;

Hoskote MLA Nagaraj and Chikballapur Congress MLA Dr. K Sudhakar resigned from the Assembly on July 10.

Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar had ruled out accepting their resignations "overnight".&nbsp;

"Two MLAs Dr. K Sudhakar and MTB Nagaraj have resigned from the Assembly.&nbsp;

I have not accepted any resignation, I cannot do it overnight like that.&nbsp;

I have given them time on the 17th.&nbsp;

I will go through the procedure and take a decision," Kumar had said on July 10 while speaking to media persons in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-kumaraswamy-reaches-bengaluru-will-hold-meet-with-jds-congress-leaders-233825&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiZy7WimrHjAhUGfd4KHROnDbg4ChAWMAR6BAgDEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JsU9U9APZbRbYdrXYY_-i">Bengaluru</a>.

Meanwhile, on Friday, the Supreme Court took up the pleas of 10 dissident MLAs and directed the Speaker to maintain the status quo on their resignation and disqualification till July 16.

The 13-month-old <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-jds-alliance-going-strong-despite-efforts-to-destabilise-kumaraswamy-235169&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjxh8fgmbHjAhWMFYgKHZOGBXYQFjAAegQIBhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1vg0QtHQcrOK6Uzk45f6uJ">Congress-JD(S) government</a> slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly last week.

Amid ongoing political turmoil in Karnataka, Congress leader DK Shivakumar visited the residence of Congress MLA and state minister MTB Nagaraj early on Saturday morning to convince him to take back his resignation.

Amid ongoing political turmoil in Karnataka, Congress leader DK Shivakumar visited the residence of Congress MLA and state minister MTB Nagaraj early on Saturday morning to convince him to take back his resignation. Hoskote MLA Nagaraj and Chikballapur Congress MLA Dr. K Sudhakar resigned from the Assembly on July 10. Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar had ruled out accepting their resignations "overnight". "Two MLAs Dr. K Sudhakar and MTB Nagaraj have resigned from the Assembly. I have not accepted any resignation, I cannot do it overnight like that. I have given them time on the 17th. I will go through the procedure and take a decision," Kumar had said on July 10 while speaking to media persons in Bengaluru. Meanwhile, on Friday, the Supreme Court took up the pleas of 10 dissident MLAs and directed the Speaker to maintain the status quo on their resignation and disqualification till July 16. The 13-month-old Congress-JD(S) government slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly last week.

Shivakumar meets rebel Congress MLA MTB Nagaraj in Bengaluru, asks to reconsider resignation

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls. 
 
A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose heard the petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor. The bench asked her to approach the Delhi High Court, if she wants, for any relief in the case. 
 
The PIL of advocate Anuja Kapoor stated that a girl studying in class 10 in Chhattisgarh had allegedly committed suicide after being allegedly stripped and searched during her board examination by the inspecting officials.&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls.

Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction for laying down guidelines for flying squads and invigilators on frisking of students before examination halls. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose heard the petition filed by advocate Anuja Kapoor. The bench asked her to approach the Delhi High Court, if she wants, for any relief in the case. The PIL of advocate Anuja Kapoor stated that a girl studying in class 10 in Chhattisgarh had allegedly committed suicide after being allegedly stripped and searched during her board examination by the inspecting officials.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking guidelines for frisking of students during examinations

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed 10 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs of Karnataka to meet state Assembly Speaker in the evening today and serve their resignation if "they wish to do so".

"Meet the Karnataka Assembly Speaker at 6 pm today and submit their resignations if they so wish." the top court stated, adding that, "security would be provided to the MLAs." State DGP has been directed to provide protection to all the rebel MLAs.

The apex court also noted that the Karnataka Speaker will have to take a call on the issue in remaining part the day.&nbsp;

The matter has been posted for next hearing on July 12.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Supreme Court says Karnataka Speaker has to take a decision in remaining part the day. The Court also ordered the DGP of Karnataka to provide protection to all the rebel MLAs and adjourned the hearing for tomorrow (July 12). <a href="https://t.co/ih2fE1AKR3">https://t.co/ih2fE1AKR3</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1149193322734477312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amidst-crisis-kumaraswamy-to-chair-cabinet-meeting-today-234806">Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy</a> will be holding a cabinet meeting at Vidhan Soudha in Bangalore today.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-crisis-congress-minister-shivakumar-arrives-in-mumbai-to-meet-rebel-mlas-234501">Karnataka Water Minister</a> returned to Bangalore on Wednesday from Mumbai late in the evening after he was detained by Mumbai Police and not allowed to meet the rebel MLAs who are currently lodged at a Mumbai hotel.

Shivakumar said it was a "matter of shame" that he was "forcefully deported" back to Bangalore.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Karnataka Minister and Congress leader DK Shivakumar in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bengaluru?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Bengaluru</a>: We have confidence that the MLAs will be with us. I hope they will come back and withdraw their resignation. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Karnataka?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Karnataka</a> <a href="https://t.co/qmfqPsPRee">pic.twitter.com/qmfqPsPRee</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1149201706187730945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Mumbai is known for its hospitality. I had booked a room there and was on an official visit to meet my friends and colleagues, but BJP and officials misused their authority. It's a matter of shame," Shivakumar told ANI.

On Thursday, Shivakumar expressed hope that the MLAs will be with the coalition and take back their resignation.&nbsp;

"We have confidence that the MLAs will be with us. I hope they will come back and withdraw their resignation," he told reporters today.&nbsp;

The 13-month old Congress-JD(S) government slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly last week.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed 10 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs of Karnataka to meet state Assembly Speaker in the evening today and serve their resignation if "they wish to do so".

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed 10 rebel Congress-JDS MLAs of Karnataka to meet state Assembly Speaker in the evening today and serve their resignation if "they wish to do so". "Meet the Karnataka Assembly Speaker at 6 pm today and submit their resignations if they so wish." the top court stated, adding that, "security would be provided to the MLAs." State DGP has been directed to provide protection to all the rebel MLAs. The apex court also noted that the Karnataka Speaker will have to take a call on the issue in remaining part the day. The matter has been posted for next hearing on July 12. The Supreme Court says Karnataka Speaker has to take a decision in remaining part the day. The Court also ordered the DGP of Karnataka to provide protection to all the rebel MLAs and adjourned the hearing for tomorrow (July 12). https://t.co/ih2fE1AKR3 — ANI (@ANI) July 11, 2019 × Meanwhile, Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy will be holding a cabinet meeting at Vidhan Soudha in Bangalore today. Karnataka Water Minister returned to Bangalore on Wednesday from Mumbai late in the evening after he was detained by Mumbai Police and not allowed to meet the rebel MLAs who are currently lodged at a Mumbai hotel. Shivakumar said it was a "matter of shame" that he was "forcefully deported" back to Bangalore. Karnataka Minister and Congress leader DK Shivakumar in #Bengaluru: We have confidence that the MLAs will be with us. I hope they will come back and withdraw their resignation. #Karnataka pic.twitter.com/qmfqPsPRee — ANI (@ANI) July 11, 2019 × "Mumbai is known for its hospitality. I had booked a room there and was on an official visit to meet my friends and colleagues, but BJP and officials misused their authority. It's a matter of shame," Shivakumar told ANI. On Thursday, Shivakumar expressed hope that the MLAs will be with the coalition and take back their resignation. "We have confidence that the MLAs will be with us. I hope they will come back and withdraw their resignation," he told reporters today. The 13-month old Congress-JD(S) government slumped into crisis following the resignation of 10 MLAs from the membership of the state Assembly last week.

Meet Karnataka Assembly Speaker at 6pm today: Supreme Court directs rebel Karnataka MLAs

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-progress-made-in-ayodhya-case-plaintiff-tells-supreme-court-234343">Ayodhya land dispute case</a>.

This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case.&nbsp;

Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application.

The court had appointed a mediation panel previously to resolve the dispute. The mediation panel is led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case. This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case. This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application. The court had appointed a mediation panel previously to resolve the dispute. The mediation panel is led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu.

Supreme Courts hears plea that calls for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the mediation panel to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute to submit a status report in the case by July 18. The apex court has fixed July 25 as the next date for hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya land dispute: Top Court likely to begin hearing from July 25

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application.

In order to resolve the title dispute case, the court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.

The court had earlier granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the case. The court extended the deadline till August 15 for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya.

The mediation is taking place at Faizabad, close to Ayodhya.

The court had said the mediators will be at liberty to co-opt other members of the panel if needed and seek further legal assistance as and when required. The mediation process must be completed in eight weeks, it further said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application. In order to resolve the title dispute case, the court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings. The court had earlier granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the case. The court extended the deadline till August 15 for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya. The mediation is taking place at Faizabad, close to Ayodhya. The court had said the mediators will be at liberty to co-opt other members of the panel if needed and seek further legal assistance as and when required. The mediation process must be completed in eight weeks, it further said.

No progress made in Ayodhya case, plaintiff tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case. 
 
The apex court had, on March 29, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment for murdering one of his employees. He was directed to surrender by July 7. 
 
Rajagopal had moved the court seeking more time to surrender citing medical grounds. His plea was, however, dismissed by a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, today. 
 
According to the prosecution, an astrologer advised Rajagopal to marry Jeevajothi, the daughter of a Saravana Bhavan employee, in order to become rich, following which he tried to woo her.&nbsp;

Watch: How lust and money led to spectacular fall of India’s ‘Dosa King’&nbsp;

<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/how-lust-and-money-led-to-spectacular-fall-of-indias-dosa-king-232807/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As he could not succeed in his plan, he hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the employee of Saravana hotel, Prince Shantakumar, who was married to Jeevajothi. 
 
Shantakumar was murdered in October 2001 and his dead body was found in Kodaikanal city of Tamil Nadu. 
 
A Sessions Court had convicted Rajagopal and four others to ten years of imprisonment, but later the Madras high court set aside the Sessions court`s order and increased the jail term to life term under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
 
Rajagopal then challenged the high court`s order before the apex court, which was rejected. Upholding the Madras HC&nbsp;judgement, the top court convicted and sentenced Rajagopal to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant relief to P Rajagopal, founder of Saravana Bhavan restaurant group, who had sought more time to surrender in a 2001 murder case. The apex court had, on March 29, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment for murdering one of his employees. He was directed to surrender by July 7. Rajagopal had moved the court seeking more time to surrender citing medical grounds. His plea was, however, dismissed by a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana, today. According to the prosecution, an astrologer advised Rajagopal to marry Jeevajothi, the daughter of a Saravana Bhavan employee, in order to become rich, following which he tried to woo her. Watch: How lust and money led to spectacular fall of India’s ‘Dosa King’ × As he could not succeed in his plan, he hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the employee of Saravana hotel, Prince Shantakumar, who was married to Jeevajothi. Shantakumar was murdered in October 2001 and his dead body was found in Kodaikanal city of Tamil Nadu. A Sessions Court had convicted Rajagopal and four others to ten years of imprisonment, but later the Madras high court set aside the Sessions court`s order and increased the jail term to life term under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Rajagopal then challenged the high court`s order before the apex court, which was rejected. Upholding the Madras HC judgement, the top court convicted and sentenced Rajagopal to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court rejects Saravana Bhavan founder's plea seeking time to surrender in murder case

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/starting-fairly-soon-says-trump-on-immigration-raids-233453">Starting 'fairly soon', says Trump on immigration raids</a>

President Donald Trump said on Friday mass deportation roundups would begin "fairly soon" as US migrant advocates vowed their communities would be "ready" when immigration officers come.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-donald-trump-seeks-to-override-supreme-court-ruling-on-census-233448">US President Donald Trump seeks to override Supreme Court ruling on census</a>

President Donald Trump said Friday he was weighing an executive order to overcome a Supreme Court ruling blocking his administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 US census, which opponents say is politically motivated.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/fuel-prices-go-up-in-delhi-petrol-up-by-rs-245-at-rs-7296-233462">Fuel prices go up in Delhi, petrol costlier by Rs 2.45 at Rs 72.96</a>

Petrol price in Delhi went up on Saturday by Rs 2.45, it will now cost Rs 72.96 per litre in the capital city. Diesel price has gone up by Rs 2.36, now at 66.69 per litre in Delhi.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-founder-jeff-bezos-divorce-final-with-38-billion-settlement-report-233449">Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' divorce final with $38 billion settlement: Report</a>

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' divorce from his wife of 25 years, MacKenzie Bezos, was finalised by a Seattle-area judge on Friday, paving the way for her to receive $38.3 billion worth of Amazon stock, Bloomberg reported.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alaska-heat-wave-shatters-citys-record-disrupts-jobs-and-lives-233451">Alaska heat wave shatters city's record, disrupts jobs and lives</a>

Fourth of July fireworks were cancelled due to risk of wildfires caused by 'extreme dry weather conditions,' as temperatures matching those in Miami highlighted rapid warming in a region considered particularly vulnerable to climate change.&nbsp;

Starting 'fairly soon', says Trump on immigration raids President Donald Trump said on Friday mass deportation roundups would begin "fairly soon" as US migrant advocates vowed their communities would be "ready" when immigration officers come.

Starting 'fairly soon', says Trump on immigration raids President Donald Trump said on Friday mass deportation roundups would begin "fairly soon" as US migrant advocates vowed their communities would be "ready" when immigration officers come. US President Donald Trump seeks to override Supreme Court ruling on census President Donald Trump said Friday he was weighing an executive order to overcome a Supreme Court ruling blocking his administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 US census, which opponents say is politically motivated. Fuel prices go up in Delhi, petrol costlier by Rs 2.45 at Rs 72.96 Petrol price in Delhi went up on Saturday by Rs 2.45, it will now cost Rs 72.96 per litre in the capital city. Diesel price has gone up by Rs 2.36, now at 66.69 per litre in Delhi. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' divorce final with $38 billion settlement: Report Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' divorce from his wife of 25 years, MacKenzie Bezos, was finalised by a Seattle-area judge on Friday, paving the way for her to receive $38.3 billion worth of Amazon stock, Bloomberg reported. Alaska heat wave shatters city's record, disrupts jobs and lives Fourth of July fireworks were cancelled due to risk of wildfires caused by 'extreme dry weather conditions,' as temperatures matching those in Miami highlighted rapid warming in a region considered particularly vulnerable to climate change.

News brief: Big stories of the day

President Donald Trump said Friday he was weighing an executive order to overcome a Supreme Court ruling blocking his administration from adding a question about <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-abandons-controversial-census-change-232627">citizenship to the 2020 US census</a>, which opponents say is politically motivated.

A week after the high court blocked the question and the administration announced it would accept the decision, the Justice Department also indicated Friday that it was seeking a new legal justification to add the citizenship question to the decennial national survey.

Trump appeared determined to find a way around the court's June 27 ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts said the administration had "contrived" a bogus reason to add the question, claiming it would help enforce minority rights.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the government however provided documents to the court showing that the proposal by Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross originally arose from Republican efforts to dilute voter support for Democrats in immigrant-heavy districts.

Trump himself appeared to confirm that Friday, saying the question is important "for districting," the process of outlining congressional districts.

Asked if he would resort to an executive order to override the Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 decision, Trump replied: "We're thinking about doing that. We have four or five ways we can do it."

Printing of census forms underway

On Tuesday, Ross accepted the high court ruling and announced that the US Census Bureau would immediately begin printing census questionnaires without a question on whether respondent households had any non-citizens in them.

But on Wednesday Trump stunned his own Commerce and Justice Departments, announcing via Twitter that he would continue fighting to add the question.

"The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE!" he said.

Watch:&nbsp;US is 'stronger than it ever was before', says Trump

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-us-is-stronger-than-it-ever-was-before-233358/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question."

Hours later Justice Department lawyers told a lower court judge that they were blindsided by Trump's tweet.

On Friday, they indicated in a fresh court filing that they were looking for new legal rationales for adding the citizenship question that might be accepted by the Supreme Court.

They gave no date as to when that could happen.

But it was virtually certain that any new justification, or any Trump order on the issue, would be challenged immediately in lawsuits, forcing the case back to the high court.

That could risk delaying the crucial census, already on a tight timeline due to the delay from earlier litigation.

The Justice Department declined to answer questions on what rationale they could use to justify adding the question or whether an executive order -- which could spark a constitutional crisis -- is forthcoming.

Democrats said the rational remains clear -- to weaken their electoral districts.

"This is a partisan attempt to rig the census and electoral districts for years to come," said Democratic Representative Carolyn Maloney.

President Donald Trump said Friday he was weighing an executive order to overcome a Supreme Court ruling blocking his administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 US census, which opponents say is politically motivated.

President Donald Trump said Friday he was weighing an executive order to overcome a Supreme Court ruling blocking his administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 US census, which opponents say is politically motivated. A week after the high court blocked the question and the administration announced it would accept the decision, the Justice Department also indicated Friday that it was seeking a new legal justification to add the citizenship question to the decennial national survey. Trump appeared determined to find a way around the court's June 27 ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts said the administration had "contrived" a bogus reason to add the question, claiming it would help enforce minority rights. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the government however provided documents to the court showing that the proposal by Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross originally arose from Republican efforts to dilute voter support for Democrats in immigrant-heavy districts. Trump himself appeared to confirm that Friday, saying the question is important "for districting," the process of outlining congressional districts. Asked if he would resort to an executive order to override the Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 decision, Trump replied: "We're thinking about doing that. We have four or five ways we can do it." Printing of census forms underway On Tuesday, Ross accepted the high court ruling and announced that the US Census Bureau would immediately begin printing census questionnaires without a question on whether respondent households had any non-citizens in them. But on Wednesday Trump stunned his own Commerce and Justice Departments, announcing via Twitter that he would continue fighting to add the question. "The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE!" he said. Watch: US is 'stronger than it ever was before', says Trump "We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question." Hours later Justice Department lawyers told a lower court judge that they were blindsided by Trump's tweet. On Friday, they indicated in a fresh court filing that they were looking for new legal rationales for adding the citizenship question that might be accepted by the Supreme Court. They gave no date as to when that could happen. But it was virtually certain that any new justification, or any Trump order on the issue, would be challenged immediately in lawsuits, forcing the case back to the high court. That could risk delaying the crucial census, already on a tight timeline due to the delay from earlier litigation. The Justice Department declined to answer questions on what rationale they could use to justify adding the question or whether an executive order -- which could spark a constitutional crisis -- is forthcoming. Democrats said the rational remains clear -- to weaken their electoral districts. "This is a partisan attempt to rig the census and electoral districts for years to come," said Democratic Representative Carolyn Maloney.

US President Donald Trump seeks to override Supreme Court ruling on census

Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar ordinance for permitting voluntary use of Aadhaar as identity proof for opening bank accounts and procuring mobile phone connections.

A Bench of Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde and Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai asked the Centre and UIDAI to file reply on the plea by retired Indian Army Officers SG Vombatkare and Human Rights activist Bezwada Wilson.

The petition filed by advocate Vipin Nair said that the Aadhaar Ordinance creates a "backdoor to permit private parties" to access the Aadhaar eco-system, thus enabling state and private surveillance of citizens.

The petition added that the Ordinance and regulations permit the commercial exploitation of personal and sensitive information which has been collected and stored for state purposes only.

It sought a direction that private entities which have access to the Aadhaar database are under a public duty to ensure that Aadhaar numbers and the data available through the Aadhaar database are not stored by these private entities.

The petition sought direction "to declare the Aadhaar (Pricing of Aadhaar Authentication Services) Regulations, 2019 as ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void, and in particular violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar ordinance for permitting voluntary use of Aadhaar as identity proof for opening bank accounts and procuring mobile phone connections.

Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government and The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar ordinance for permitting voluntary use of Aadhaar as identity proof for opening bank accounts and procuring mobile phone connections. A Bench of Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde and Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai asked the Centre and UIDAI to file reply on the plea by retired Indian Army Officers SG Vombatkare and Human Rights activist Bezwada Wilson. The petition filed by advocate Vipin Nair said that the Aadhaar Ordinance creates a "backdoor to permit private parties" to access the Aadhaar eco-system, thus enabling state and private surveillance of citizens. The petition added that the Ordinance and regulations permit the commercial exploitation of personal and sensitive information which has been collected and stored for state purposes only. It sought a direction that private entities which have access to the Aadhaar database are under a public duty to ensure that Aadhaar numbers and the data available through the Aadhaar database are not stored by these private entities. The petition sought direction "to declare the Aadhaar (Pricing of Aadhaar Authentication Services) Regulations, 2019 as ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void, and in particular violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

Supreme Court issues notices to Centre, UIDAI on petition challenging Aadhar ordinance

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rbi-asks-banks-to-disclose-ilfs-provisions-in-q4-accounts-213288">National Company Law Appellate Tribunal</a> (NCLAT) rejected on Thursday a petition challenging <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/steel-firms-thyssenkrupp-and-tata-merge-in-landmark-deal-making-europes-second-largest-steelmaker-148054">ArcelorMittal</a> SA's proposed takeover of debt-ridden <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/gujarat-high-court-dismisses-essar-steels-plea-challenging-rbi-order-on-bankruptcy-18013/amp">Essar Steel</a>, removing a hurdle in billionaire Lakshmi Mittal's entry into the country's fast-growing steel market.

The NCLAT said that the Supreme Court had already cleared the takeover bid and therefore it could not consider the appeal by Essar's founders Shashi Ruia and Ravi Ruia, lawyer Ravin Kapur said.

Kapur's law firm, Phoenix Legal, is representing some of the lenders to Essar Steel, one of 12 large steel and other infrastructure companies which defaulted and were referred to India's bankruptcy court in 2017.

"The judge said the Ruia plea has to be rejected for various reasons including that it suffered from unreasonable delays," Kapur said.

The Essar Steel case has dragged on for about 700 days and has seen global and local steel firms locking horns to grab Essar's assets.

In April, the Supreme Court asked ArcelorMittal to halt payments to Essar Steel's lenders until various appeals were disposed of in the courts.

ArcelorMittal has been trying to enter India's steel market, which is dominated by local companies, for over a decade but bureaucratic hassles and land acquisition woes stifled its bids.

"We note today's ruling by the NCLAT. We need to review the full written order to understand any implications on completion of the transaction," ArcelorMittal said in an emailed statement.

An Essar spokesman said the firm would consider the latest court order.

"We are awaiting the detailed order and will decide our course of action thereafter," the spokesman said.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected on Thursday a petition challenging ArcelorMittal SA's proposed takeover of debt-ridden Essar Steel, removing a hurdle in billionaire Lakshmi Mittal's entry into the country's fast-growing steel market.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected on Thursday a petition challenging ArcelorMittal SA's proposed takeover of debt-ridden Essar Steel, removing a hurdle in billionaire Lakshmi Mittal's entry into the country's fast-growing steel market. The NCLAT said that the Supreme Court had already cleared the takeover bid and therefore it could not consider the appeal by Essar's founders Shashi Ruia and Ravi Ruia, lawyer Ravin Kapur said. Kapur's law firm, Phoenix Legal, is representing some of the lenders to Essar Steel, one of 12 large steel and other infrastructure companies which defaulted and were referred to India's bankruptcy court in 2017. "The judge said the Ruia plea has to be rejected for various reasons including that it suffered from unreasonable delays," Kapur said. The Essar Steel case has dragged on for about 700 days and has seen global and local steel firms locking horns to grab Essar's assets. In April, the Supreme Court asked ArcelorMittal to halt payments to Essar Steel's lenders until various appeals were disposed of in the courts. ArcelorMittal has been trying to enter India's steel market, which is dominated by local companies, for over a decade but bureaucratic hassles and land acquisition woes stifled its bids. "We note today's ruling by the NCLAT. We need to review the full written order to understand any implications on completion of the transaction," ArcelorMittal said in an emailed statement. An Essar spokesman said the firm would consider the latest court order. "We are awaiting the detailed order and will decide our course of action thereafter," the spokesman said.

Court rejects plea against ArcelorMittal's bid for Essar Steel

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We are not inclined to entertain this transfer petition. The Madras High Court can very well address all the issues."

Earlier, the apex court had directed the Madras High Court to decide on April 24 the plea of TikTok seeking interim relief of lifting the ban imposed by it.

On April 24, the Madras HC had lifted its ban on the social media App with the condition that it will not host obscene content.&nbsp;

The HC had imposed ban on the App on April 3 after the Centre claimed that it carried content which "encouraged pornography and degraded culture."

"Minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app," the HC had said. The court had said it was evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate content were made available through such mobile applications.

It's ruling came after advocate and social activist Muthu Kumar&nbsp;filed public interest litigation calling for a ban. The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order.

The TokTok app is owned by Chinese-based Bytedance that claims to have over 50 million active users in India. TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the plea filed by the Chinese video app TikTok seeking transfer of cases relating to ban on it from the Madras High Court to the top court. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We are not inclined to entertain this transfer petition. The Madras High Court can very well address all the issues." Earlier, the apex court had directed the Madras High Court to decide on April 24 the plea of TikTok seeking interim relief of lifting the ban imposed by it. On April 24, the Madras HC had lifted its ban on the social media App with the condition that it will not host obscene content. The HC had imposed ban on the App on April 3 after the Centre claimed that it carried content which "encouraged pornography and degraded culture." "Minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app," the HC had said. The court had said it was evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate content were made available through such mobile applications. It's ruling came after advocate and social activist Muthu Kumar filed public interest litigation calling for a ban. The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order. The TokTok app is owned by Chinese-based Bytedance that claims to have over 50 million active users in India. TikTok allows users to create and share short videos with special effects. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court rejects TikTok's plea seeking transfer of cases relating to ban from Madras high court

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-slams-donald-trumps-gross-interference-in-hong-kong-232352">President Donald Trump's government</a> on Tuesday gave up a controversial attempt to put a question about citizenship on next year's census, handing a victory to those who argued the new item would lead to discrimination against minority residents.

The decision followed a Supreme Court ruling that the case for adding the citizenship question was not convincing.

Trump's initial reaction to the ruling had been to call for a delay in the imminent printing of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-census-citizenship-question-for-now-230965">2020 census</a> forms, holding up the census in order to allow time for a new appeal.

That bid has now been dropped, ending any chance of changing the format of the massive, once-every-decade survey.

"We're glad the #2020Census will begin printing without a citizenship question," said New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who led a group of states challenging the administration on the issue.

Just this Monday, Trump had been defiant, telling reporters he wanted the census to find out who was a citizen "as opposed to an illegal."

"It is a big difference to me between being a citizen of the United States and being illegal," he said.

Opponents argued that the question which has not been included since 1950 would drive many immigrants to avoid answering out of fear of being caught up in Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration.

This would render them invisible, skewing the population count and resulting in fewer government resources for the areas they live in while distorting the lines of congressional districts, which are based on numbers of residents.

This was the intention all along, said Joe Biden, the frontrunner in the contest to become the Democratic opponent to Trump in 2020 presidential elections.

"Make no mistake, the Trump Administration added a citizenship question to the Census to deliberately cut out the voices of immigrants and communities of colour. It's wrong and goes against our core values as a nation," Biden tweeted.

The Census Bureau's experts said that 1.6 to 6.5 million immigrants, notably Hispanics, would avoid the census or lie to census takers if faced with the citizenship question. 
&nbsp;

President Donald Trump's government on Tuesday gave up a controversial attempt to put a question about citizenship on next year's census, handing a victory to those who argued the new item would lead to discrimination against minority residents.

President Donald Trump's government on Tuesday gave up a controversial attempt to put a question about citizenship on next year's census, handing a victory to those who argued the new item would lead to discrimination against minority residents. The decision followed a Supreme Court ruling that the case for adding the citizenship question was not convincing. Trump's initial reaction to the ruling had been to call for a delay in the imminent printing of the 2020 census forms, holding up the census in order to allow time for a new appeal. That bid has now been dropped, ending any chance of changing the format of the massive, once-every-decade survey. "We're glad the #2020Census will begin printing without a citizenship question," said New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who led a group of states challenging the administration on the issue. Just this Monday, Trump had been defiant, telling reporters he wanted the census to find out who was a citizen "as opposed to an illegal." "It is a big difference to me between being a citizen of the United States and being illegal," he said. Opponents argued that the question which has not been included since 1950 would drive many immigrants to avoid answering out of fear of being caught up in Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. This would render them invisible, skewing the population count and resulting in fewer government resources for the areas they live in while distorting the lines of congressional districts, which are based on numbers of residents. This was the intention all along, said Joe Biden, the frontrunner in the contest to become the Democratic opponent to Trump in 2020 presidential elections. "Make no mistake, the Trump Administration added a citizenship question to the Census to deliberately cut out the voices of immigrants and communities of colour. It's wrong and goes against our core values as a nation," Biden tweeted. The Census Bureau's experts said that 1.6 to 6.5 million immigrants, notably Hispanics, would avoid the census or lie to census takers if faced with the citizenship question.

Donald Trump abandons controversial census change

supreme-court

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

supreme court