The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce.

A two-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice SA Bobde, and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, asked Kapur to approach the Delhi High court for seeking relief in the case.

The petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Kapur, seeking a direction to the Central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape.

The petition sought a direction to frame necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws and by-laws related to considering marital rape as a ground of divorce.

The petition also sought that there should be a proper guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape, so that accountability, responsibility, and liability of the concerned authorities could be assigned while awarding penalties to the accused.

To maintain the dignity of women in marriage, the petition of Anuja, pleaded to the Supreme Court that it should pass suitable directions to the respondent (UOI) keeping in mind the welfare, well-being and interest of the public.

Anuja's 47-page petition, a copy of which is available with the ANI, further claimed that there is no law for stopping the marital rape.

The petition said that the top court should hear the petition on an urgent basis and pass a direction which is the need of the hour in order to put a stop to such cases.

The petition further claimed that marital rape is not a crime and that there is no FIR (First Information Report) registered by a wife against her husband in any police station, rather, cases are being compromised by the police authorities to maintain the sanctity of the marriage between the victims and their husbands.

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce. A two-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice SA Bobde, and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, asked Kapur to approach the Delhi High court for seeking relief in the case. The petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Kapur, seeking a direction to the Central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape. The petition sought a direction to frame necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws and by-laws related to considering marital rape as a ground of divorce. The petition also sought that there should be a proper guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape, so that accountability, responsibility, and liability of the concerned authorities could be assigned while awarding penalties to the accused. To maintain the dignity of women in marriage, the petition of Anuja, pleaded to the Supreme Court that it should pass suitable directions to the respondent (UOI) keeping in mind the welfare, well-being and interest of the public. Anuja's 47-page petition, a copy of which is available with the ANI, further claimed that there is no law for stopping the marital rape. The petition said that the top court should hear the petition on an urgent basis and pass a direction which is the need of the hour in order to put a stop to such cases. The petition further claimed that marital rape is not a crime and that there is no FIR (First Information Report) registered by a wife against her husband in any police station, rather, cases are being compromised by the police authorities to maintain the sanctity of the marriage between the victims and their husbands.

Marital rape as ground for divorce: Supreme Court asks petitioner to approach Delhi High Court

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others.

The court was closed for the annual summer vacation from May 13 to June 30.

The apex court will work, after a full sanctioned strength of 31 judges -- after a long time -- with the recent appointment of two judges including Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

The court will also pronounce the judgement on a slew of review petitions pending before it.

It had reserved its verdict after hearing from former ministers, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh.

They wanted a direction to review the court's last year verdict, which had rejected their petitions for directing a probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

The top court will also pronounce the order on review petitions filed in the entry of women of all ages into the popular Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute matter, the most sensitive and important case, would also be heard, as the court, in its last hearing, had granted more time and asked the panel of mediators to amicably resolve the case through dialogues by August 15.

Although Gandhi had tendered his unconditional apology for his alleged jibe on "chowkidar chor hai" remark, the Supreme Court will hear the case and see whether the prosecution should be initiated or not against him.

A five-judge Constitution Bench will also deliver its judgement in a case whether the Chief Justice of India's office is covered under the purview of the transparency law, Right to Information Act (RTI).

The top court will also begin hearing of pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A roster which was issued, on June 2, by the top court will be implemented from Monday.

As per the new latest roster system, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters will now be heard by the benches headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman.

The four Justices will hear the PILs assigned to them by the CJI.

The election matters, which were vested earlier exclusively with the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, will now be shared with the bench headed by Justice Bobde.

According to the roster, Justices MM Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer will now head benches at the apex court.&nbsp;

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others.

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others. The court was closed for the annual summer vacation from May 13 to June 30. The apex court will work, after a full sanctioned strength of 31 judges -- after a long time -- with the recent appointment of two judges including Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant. The court will also pronounce the judgement on a slew of review petitions pending before it. It had reserved its verdict after hearing from former ministers, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. They wanted a direction to review the court's last year verdict, which had rejected their petitions for directing a probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. The top court will also pronounce the order on review petitions filed in the entry of women of all ages into the popular Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute matter, the most sensitive and important case, would also be heard, as the court, in its last hearing, had granted more time and asked the panel of mediators to amicably resolve the case through dialogues by August 15. Although Gandhi had tendered his unconditional apology for his alleged jibe on "chowkidar chor hai" remark, the Supreme Court will hear the case and see whether the prosecution should be initiated or not against him. A five-judge Constitution Bench will also deliver its judgement in a case whether the Chief Justice of India's office is covered under the purview of the transparency law, Right to Information Act (RTI). The top court will also begin hearing of pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. A roster which was issued, on June 2, by the top court will be implemented from Monday. As per the new latest roster system, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters will now be heard by the benches headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman. The four Justices will hear the PILs assigned to them by the CJI. The election matters, which were vested earlier exclusively with the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, will now be shared with the bench headed by Justice Bobde. According to the roster, Justices MM Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer will now head benches at the apex court.

Supreme Court to reopen today after six-week vacation, will hear key cases including Rafale, Ayodhya

Ten fundamental rights petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court here against the Sri Lankan government's decision to implement death penalty in the nation.

The petitions were filed by the lawyers of Professor C Gunaratne of Center for Policy Alternatives and several prisoners currently on death row at the Welikada Prison, Colombo Page reported.

The petitioners argued that the implementation of death penalty would result in the violation of fundamental rights as established in Article 12 (1) of the constitution.

The Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Welikada Prison Superintendent and several other parties have been named as respondents.

The petitioners have also requested the Supreme Court to issue an injunction order preventing the implementation of the death sentence.

Last week, President Maithripala Sirisena announced that he had signed the documents for execution of four big-time drug operators currently convicted and awaiting death sentence. However, without revealing their names or divulging any details regarding the executions, the President had noted that the convicts could appeal for clemency.

Following the decision, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had called Sirisena to express concern saying that the executions would directly contradict the country's commitment to maintaining a 43-year moratorium on death penalty at the UN General Assembly last year.\

On his part, Sirisena said protecting the nation and its future generations from the prolific risk of drug trafficking is the reason why he decided to implement death penalty in Sri Lanka.&nbsp;

Ten fundamental rights petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court here against the Sri Lankan government's decision to implement death penalty in the nation.

Ten fundamental rights petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court here against the Sri Lankan government's decision to implement death penalty in the nation. The petitions were filed by the lawyers of Professor C Gunaratne of Center for Policy Alternatives and several prisoners currently on death row at the Welikada Prison, Colombo Page reported. The petitioners argued that the implementation of death penalty would result in the violation of fundamental rights as established in Article 12 (1) of the constitution. The Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Welikada Prison Superintendent and several other parties have been named as respondents. The petitioners have also requested the Supreme Court to issue an injunction order preventing the implementation of the death sentence. Last week, President Maithripala Sirisena announced that he had signed the documents for execution of four big-time drug operators currently convicted and awaiting death sentence. However, without revealing their names or divulging any details regarding the executions, the President had noted that the convicts could appeal for clemency. Following the decision, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had called Sirisena to express concern saying that the executions would directly contradict the country's commitment to maintaining a 43-year moratorium on death penalty at the UN General Assembly last year.\ On his part, Sirisena said protecting the nation and its future generations from the prolific risk of drug trafficking is the reason why he decided to implement death penalty in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka: 10 fundamental rights petitions filed in Supreme Court against death penalty

The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea by rebel AAP MLA Devender Sehrawat challenging a disqualification notice under the anti-defection law issued to him by the Delhi Assembly Secretariat for reportedly joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

A vacation bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B R Gavai told the counsel appearing for Sehrawat that the lawmaker can raise his grievances during the proceedings on the disqualification notice before the Assembly Speaker.

After the court said it was not inclined to hear the plea, Sehrawat's counsel withdrew the petition.

Sehrawat, an MLA from Bijwasan Assembly segment, had claimed that he has still not taken the primary membership of the BJP and the disqualification notice issued to him was arbitrary and illegal.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea by rebel AAP MLA Devender Sehrawat challenging a disqualification notice under the anti-defection law issued to him by the Delhi Assembly Secretariat for reportedly joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea by rebel AAP MLA Devender Sehrawat challenging a disqualification notice under the anti-defection law issued to him by the Delhi Assembly Secretariat for reportedly joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A vacation bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B R Gavai told the counsel appearing for Sehrawat that the lawmaker can raise his grievances during the proceedings on the disqualification notice before the Assembly Speaker. After the court said it was not inclined to hear the plea, Sehrawat's counsel withdrew the petition. Sehrawat, an MLA from Bijwasan Assembly segment, had claimed that he has still not taken the primary membership of the BJP and the disqualification notice issued to him was arbitrary and illegal.

Supreme Court refuses to entertain AAP MLA Devender Sehrawat's plea challenging disqualification notice

The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.&nbsp;

The justices - in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court`s four liberals in the majority and writing the ruling - upheld part of a federal judge`s ruling barring the question in a victory for a group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations that had challenged the plan.

Opponents of the question have called it a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the population count.

As part of the ruling issued on the last day of the court`s current term, the justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department for it to decide how to proceed. But the clock is ticking, as census forms have to be printed in the coming months.

Further muddying the waters, there is also ongoing litigation in lower courts over recently unearthed evidence that the challengers have said reveals an illegal discriminatory motive by the administration for adding the question, which the high court could yet weigh in on.&nbsp;

The court ruled against the challengers on other claims, with the nine justices splitting in different ways. The court ruled on a separate 5-4 vote with the conservative justices in the majority that the US&nbsp;Constitution does not in theory prevent the administration from adding a citizenship question.

Opponents have said the question would instill fear in immigrant households that the information would be shared with law enforcement, deterring them from taking part.&nbsp;

The census, required by the US Constitution, is used to allot seats in the US&nbsp;House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds.

The intent of the citizenship question, opponents said, is to manufacture a deliberate undercount of areas with high immigrant and Latino populations, costing Democratic-leaning regions seats in the House, benefiting Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.&nbsp;

The administration argued that adding a question requiring people taking part in the census to declare whether they are a citizen was needed to better enforce a voting rights law, a rationale that opponents called a pretext for a political motive.

Roberts said that under a US&nbsp;law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions.

"Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise," Roberts wrote.

Roberts said that the explanation provided by the government was "more of a distraction."

In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision to add the citizenship question was "legally sound" and described the ruling against Trump as "an aberration."

The Republican president`s administration had appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the inclusion of the census question. The Justice Department had previously told the Supreme Court it needed a final decision on whether the question could be added by the end of this month.

Setback for Trump

The ruling marked the first major setback for Trump in a ruling at the Supreme Court, although both of Trump`s appointees to the court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voted in favor of his administration. Roberts was joined by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The Supreme Court had handed Trump some major victories since he took office in 2017, in particular a June 2018 ruling upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The court in January also let Trump`s policy barring many transgender people from the US military go into effect.&nbsp;

Manhattan-based US&nbsp;District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on January 15 that the Commerce Department`s decision to add the question violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also have issued rulings to block the question`s inclusion, saying it would violate the Constitution`s mandate to enumerate the population every 10 years.&nbsp;

Furman said the evidence showed that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross concealed his true motives for adding the question and that he and his aides had convinced the Justice Department to request a citizenship question.&nbsp;

Businesses also rely on census data to make critical strategic decisions, including where to invest capital. Citizenship has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census, featuring since then only on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population.

The Census Bureau's own experts estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question were asked.&nbsp;

While only US citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 per cent of the population.

Evidence surfaced in May that the challengers said showed that the administration`s plan to add a citizenship question was intended to discriminate against racial minorities.&nbsp;

Documents created by Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, showed that he was instrumental behind the scenes in instigating the addition of the citizenship question. He was an expert in drawing electoral district boundaries that maximize Republican chances of winning congressional elections.

Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are American citizens "would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats" and "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" in redrawing electoral districts based on census data.

Hofeller suggested the voting rights rationale in the newly disclosed documents.

The Trump administration called the newly surfaced evidence "conspiracy theory."

Most people living in the United States will be asked to fill out the census, whether online or on paper, by March 2020.

The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.

The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now. The justices - in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court`s four liberals in the majority and writing the ruling - upheld part of a federal judge`s ruling barring the question in a victory for a group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations that had challenged the plan. Opponents of the question have called it a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the population count. As part of the ruling issued on the last day of the court`s current term, the justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department for it to decide how to proceed. But the clock is ticking, as census forms have to be printed in the coming months. Further muddying the waters, there is also ongoing litigation in lower courts over recently unearthed evidence that the challengers have said reveals an illegal discriminatory motive by the administration for adding the question, which the high court could yet weigh in on. The court ruled against the challengers on other claims, with the nine justices splitting in different ways. The court ruled on a separate 5-4 vote with the conservative justices in the majority that the US Constitution does not in theory prevent the administration from adding a citizenship question. Opponents have said the question would instill fear in immigrant households that the information would be shared with law enforcement, deterring them from taking part. The census, required by the US Constitution, is used to allot seats in the US House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. The intent of the citizenship question, opponents said, is to manufacture a deliberate undercount of areas with high immigrant and Latino populations, costing Democratic-leaning regions seats in the House, benefiting Republicans and non-Hispanic whites. The administration argued that adding a question requiring people taking part in the census to declare whether they are a citizen was needed to better enforce a voting rights law, a rationale that opponents called a pretext for a political motive. Roberts said that under a US law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions. "Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise," Roberts wrote. Roberts said that the explanation provided by the government was "more of a distraction." In a dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the decision to add the citizenship question was "legally sound" and described the ruling against Trump as "an aberration." The Republican president`s administration had appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the inclusion of the census question. The Justice Department had previously told the Supreme Court it needed a final decision on whether the question could be added by the end of this month. Setback for Trump The ruling marked the first major setback for Trump in a ruling at the Supreme Court, although both of Trump`s appointees to the court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voted in favor of his administration. Roberts was joined by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court had handed Trump some major victories since he took office in 2017, in particular a June 2018 ruling upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The court in January also let Trump`s policy barring many transgender people from the US military go into effect. Manhattan-based US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on January 15 that the Commerce Department`s decision to add the question violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also have issued rulings to block the question`s inclusion, saying it would violate the Constitution`s mandate to enumerate the population every 10 years. Furman said the evidence showed that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross concealed his true motives for adding the question and that he and his aides had convinced the Justice Department to request a citizenship question. Businesses also rely on census data to make critical strategic decisions, including where to invest capital. Citizenship has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census, featuring since then only on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population. The Census Bureau's own experts estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question were asked. While only US citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 per cent of the population. Evidence surfaced in May that the challengers said showed that the administration`s plan to add a citizenship question was intended to discriminate against racial minorities. Documents created by Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, showed that he was instrumental behind the scenes in instigating the addition of the citizenship question. He was an expert in drawing electoral district boundaries that maximize Republican chances of winning congressional elections. Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are American citizens "would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats" and "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" in redrawing electoral districts based on census data. Hofeller suggested the voting rights rationale in the newly disclosed documents. The Trump administration called the newly surfaced evidence "conspiracy theory." Most people living in the United States will be asked to fill out the census, whether online or on paper, by March 2020.

US Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now

With the Supreme Court all set to work in its full strength of 31 judges from July 1 after summer vacation, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has notified a new roster of work which said top five judges of the apex court will be hearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters. On May 24, when the Supreme Court was on vacation, four new judges were administered the oath of office by the CJI taking the overall number of judges to 31 — the full sanctioned strength of the top court since 2008.

Earlier, fresh PIL matters were notified to be heard only by the CJI and the second senior-most judge after the CJI. However, apex court lawyers said though the previous notification on roster stated that two senior-most judges would hear the PIL matters, it was also assigned to the benches headed by judges who were not within the seniority of five-senior most judges.

According to the fresh roster uploaded on the apex court website, the CJI will deal with the PIL matters and it would be his discretion to assign PIL cases to other top four judges — S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and R F Nariman. The bench headed by the Chief Justice will also hear petitions on letters received, matters related to social justice, elections, company law, monopoly and restricted trade practices, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Security Exchange Board of India, Insurance and Reserve Bank of India.

The CJI has also kept with himself matters concerning arbitration, habeas corpus, criminal cases, contempt of court and ordinary civil matters. His bench will also deal with the issues relating to the appointment of constitutional functionaries, statutory appointments and appointment of other law officers. Besides matters pertaining to judicial officers and commissions of enquiry, would also be allocated before the bench headed by the CJI.

A bench led by Justice Bobde will hear matters related to direct and indirect taxes, mercantile law, commercial transactions including banking, election, appeals against orders of statutory bodies, arbitration appeals, the appointment of law officers, matters pertaining to employees of Supreme Court, high court, district courts and tribunals.

The Justice Bobde-led bench would also hear matters related to admissions to educational institutions other than medical and engineering colleges, leases, government contracts and contracts by local bodies. Justice Ramana has been assigned matters related to compensation, arbitration appeals, criminal matters, ordinary civil matters, mercantile laws, commercial transactions including banking, judicial officers matters and matters related to armed forces and paramilitary forces, admiralty and maritime laws. He will also hear matters related to religious charitable endowments and eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act.

Besides PIL and letter petitions, Justice Arun Mishra led bench has been assigned matters of land acquisition and requisition and indirect taxes. His bench will also hear matters of company law, monopoly and restricted trade practices, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Security Exchange Board of India, Insurance and Reserve Bank of India.

Besides these matters, Justice Mishra will also hear contempt of court, criminal and ordinary civil matters, admission and transfer matters of engineering, medical colleges and allocation of 15 per cent All India quota in medical and engineering colleges. Justice Nariman, the fifth in seniority in the apex court, has been assigned PIL and letter petitions besides direct taxes, rent act, compensation, family law, matters related to armed and paramilitary forces, lease, government contract and local bodies contracts. Other 10 benches have been assigned regular matters related to taxes, property, land and acquisition, service and compensation matters.

With the Supreme Court all set to work in its full strength of 31 judges from July 1 after summer vacation, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has notified a new roster of work which said top five judges of the apex court will be hearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters.

With the Supreme Court all set to work in its full strength of 31 judges from July 1 after summer vacation, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has notified a new roster of work which said top five judges of the apex court will be hearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters. On May 24, when the Supreme Court was on vacation, four new judges were administered the oath of office by the CJI taking the overall number of judges to 31 — the full sanctioned strength of the top court since 2008. Earlier, fresh PIL matters were notified to be heard only by the CJI and the second senior-most judge after the CJI. However, apex court lawyers said though the previous notification on roster stated that two senior-most judges would hear the PIL matters, it was also assigned to the benches headed by judges who were not within the seniority of five-senior most judges. According to the fresh roster uploaded on the apex court website, the CJI will deal with the PIL matters and it would be his discretion to assign PIL cases to other top four judges — S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and R F Nariman. The bench headed by the Chief Justice will also hear petitions on letters received, matters related to social justice, elections, company law, monopoly and restricted trade practices, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Security Exchange Board of India, Insurance and Reserve Bank of India. The CJI has also kept with himself matters concerning arbitration, habeas corpus, criminal cases, contempt of court and ordinary civil matters. His bench will also deal with the issues relating to the appointment of constitutional functionaries, statutory appointments and appointment of other law officers. Besides matters pertaining to judicial officers and commissions of enquiry, would also be allocated before the bench headed by the CJI. A bench led by Justice Bobde will hear matters related to direct and indirect taxes, mercantile law, commercial transactions including banking, election, appeals against orders of statutory bodies, arbitration appeals, the appointment of law officers, matters pertaining to employees of Supreme Court, high court, district courts and tribunals. The Justice Bobde-led bench would also hear matters related to admissions to educational institutions other than medical and engineering colleges, leases, government contracts and contracts by local bodies. Justice Ramana has been assigned matters related to compensation, arbitration appeals, criminal matters, ordinary civil matters, mercantile laws, commercial transactions including banking, judicial officers matters and matters related to armed forces and paramilitary forces, admiralty and maritime laws. He will also hear matters related to religious charitable endowments and eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act. Besides PIL and letter petitions, Justice Arun Mishra led bench has been assigned matters of land acquisition and requisition and indirect taxes. His bench will also hear matters of company law, monopoly and restricted trade practices, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Security Exchange Board of India, Insurance and Reserve Bank of India. Besides these matters, Justice Mishra will also hear contempt of court, criminal and ordinary civil matters, admission and transfer matters of engineering, medical colleges and allocation of 15 per cent All India quota in medical and engineering colleges. Justice Nariman, the fifth in seniority in the apex court, has been assigned PIL and letter petitions besides direct taxes, rent act, compensation, family law, matters related to armed and paramilitary forces, lease, government contract and local bodies contracts. Other 10 benches have been assigned regular matters related to taxes, property, land and acquisition, service and compensation matters.

New roster in Supreme Court: Top five judges to hear PIL matters

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Delhi High Court order permitting Rajeev Saxena, an approver in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland chopper scam, to go abroad for treatment of blood cancer and other ailments.&nbsp;

A vacation bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai also issued notice to Saxena on an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the June 10 Delhi High Court order permitting him to visit the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and Europe from June 25 to July 24.

The bench, which stayed the High Court order for three weeks, also asked the director of AIIMS to examine Saxena's mental and physical health and file a report within three weeks.

It also directed Saxena's counsel to seek instruction on whether his sister and sister-in law were willing to stand stand surety for him by depositing Rs 5 crore each as guarantee for allowing him to go abroad for treatment of blood cancer and other ailments.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said certain new facts with regard to other offences have come to light and the CBI is formally going to register an FIR against Saxena shortly.

He said the question of whether Saxena would return to India or not has become immaterial and the order permitting him to go abroad needed to be examined in the light of fresh facts.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Delhi High Court order permitting Rajeev Saxena, an approver in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland chopper scam, to go abroad for treatment of blood cancer and other ailments.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Delhi High Court order permitting Rajeev Saxena, an approver in a money laundering case related to the AgustaWestland chopper scam, to go abroad for treatment of blood cancer and other ailments. A vacation bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai also issued notice to Saxena on an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the June 10 Delhi High Court order permitting him to visit the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and Europe from June 25 to July 24. The bench, which stayed the High Court order for three weeks, also asked the director of AIIMS to examine Saxena's mental and physical health and file a report within three weeks. It also directed Saxena's counsel to seek instruction on whether his sister and sister-in law were willing to stand stand surety for him by depositing Rs 5 crore each as guarantee for allowing him to go abroad for treatment of blood cancer and other ailments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said certain new facts with regard to other offences have come to light and the CBI is formally going to register an FIR against Saxena shortly. He said the question of whether Saxena would return to India or not has become immaterial and the order permitting him to go abroad needed to be examined in the light of fresh facts.

Chopper scam: Supreme Court stays HC order allowing Rajeev Saxena to go abroad for treatment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by the Gujarat Congress against the Election Commission's decision to hold separate byelections to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state.

The two Rajya Sabha seats fell vacant after Amit Shah and Smriti Irani were elected to the Lok Sabha. However, the top court allowed the Gujarat Congress to file an 'election plea' after the conclusion of polls to fill the two Rajya Sabha seats.

An election petition is a procedure to call into question the election results of parliamentary, Assembly or local elections.

The petition was filed by Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Assembly Pareshbhai Dhanani.&nbsp;The Election Commission had clarified that the vacancies for bypolls to all Houses, including the Rajya Sabha, are considered "separate vacancies" and separate notifications are issued and separate polls are held, though the schedule can be the same. 
 
The Congress has fielded Gaurav Pandya and Chandrika Chudasama for the two Rajya Sabha seats.

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by the Gujarat Congress against the Election Commission's decision to hold separate byelections to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by the Gujarat Congress against the Election Commission's decision to hold separate byelections to two Rajya Sabha seats in the state. The two Rajya Sabha seats fell vacant after Amit Shah and Smriti Irani were elected to the Lok Sabha. However, the top court allowed the Gujarat Congress to file an 'election plea' after the conclusion of polls to fill the two Rajya Sabha seats. An election petition is a procedure to call into question the election results of parliamentary, Assembly or local elections. The petition was filed by Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Assembly Pareshbhai Dhanani. The Election Commission had clarified that the vacancies for bypolls to all Houses, including the Rajya Sabha, are considered "separate vacancies" and separate notifications are issued and separate polls are held, though the schedule can be the same. The Congress has fielded Gaurav Pandya and Chandrika Chudasama for the two Rajya Sabha seats. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court rejects Gujarat Congress's plea against EC decision to hold separate Rajya Sabha bypolls

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two lawyers, in connection with the outbreak of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-death-toll-due-to-suspected-acute-encephalitis-rises-to-167-229867">Acute Encephalitis Syndrome</a> (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district in which 130 children have lost their lives.

The plea, filed by advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, seeks a direction to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for treatment of children suffering from encephalitis.

A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant is slated to take up the plea.

The petition sought a direction to the Centre and the Bihar government to immediately arrange a 500-bed ICU (intensive care unit) with required medical professionals to deal with the emergent situation, which has occurred due to the outbreak of AES.

The two lawyers have also pleaded a direction to the Bihar government to notify an "extraordinary government order" directing all private medical institutions in the affected area to admit and provide treatment free of cost to the patients.

The PIL said that the disease is completely curable and lives of children are being lost due to the "inaction" of the state machinery, which "failed" to take any steps to prevent the outbreak.

Despite the death of more than 100 children, the state government has shown "no prompt" steps to prevent the spread of the disease in adjoining districts, the plea contended.

"There is a complete failure of the state machinery to deal with the outbreak of Japanese encephalitis (JE), AES or 'chamki bukhar'. There is no availability of doctors, beds, intensive care units to deal with an epidemic-level situation which has resulted in more than 126 reported death of children in Bihar particularly in Muzaffarpur and its adjoining areas," it said.

The petitioners also sought a direction to the Centre and the Bihar government to constitute a fact-finding committee to determine the role of persons or entities who were negligent resulting in the deaths.

The PIL submitted that the Bihar government should pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the next of kin of each of the deceased.

Encephalitis is a viral disease that causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headache. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two lawyers, in connection with the outbreak of the Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district in which 130 children have lost their lives.

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two lawyers, in connection with the outbreak of the Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district in which 130 children have lost their lives. The plea, filed by advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, seeks a direction to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for treatment of children suffering from encephalitis. A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant is slated to take up the plea. The petition sought a direction to the Centre and the Bihar government to immediately arrange a 500-bed ICU (intensive care unit) with required medical professionals to deal with the emergent situation, which has occurred due to the outbreak of AES. The two lawyers have also pleaded a direction to the Bihar government to notify an "extraordinary government order" directing all private medical institutions in the affected area to admit and provide treatment free of cost to the patients. The PIL said that the disease is completely curable and lives of children are being lost due to the "inaction" of the state machinery, which "failed" to take any steps to prevent the outbreak. Despite the death of more than 100 children, the state government has shown "no prompt" steps to prevent the spread of the disease in adjoining districts, the plea contended. "There is a complete failure of the state machinery to deal with the outbreak of Japanese encephalitis (JE), AES or 'chamki bukhar'. There is no availability of doctors, beds, intensive care units to deal with an epidemic-level situation which has resulted in more than 126 reported death of children in Bihar particularly in Muzaffarpur and its adjoining areas," it said. The petitioners also sought a direction to the Centre and the Bihar government to constitute a fact-finding committee to determine the role of persons or entities who were negligent resulting in the deaths. The PIL submitted that the Bihar government should pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the next of kin of each of the deceased. Encephalitis is a viral disease that causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headache.

Supreme Court to hear plea on Muzaffarpur encephalitis outbreak today

Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Central government, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh governments asking them to<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-on-muzaffarpur-encephalitis-outbreak-today-229879"> file affidavits</a> within seven days giving details of facilities dealing with public health, nutrition and sanitation, for treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur, reported news agency ANI.

The apex court order came following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two lawyers, in connection with the outbreak of the Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district in which 130 children have lost their lives.

The plea, filed by advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, sought a direction to urgently constitute a team of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-death-toll-due-to-suspected-acute-encephalitis-rises-to-167-229867">medical experts</a> for treatment of children suffering from encephalitis.

Watch: Families in Bihar flee villages as brain fever unleashes mayhem

<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/families-in-bihar-flee-villages-as-brain-fever-unleashes-mayhem-228983/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant heard the plea.

The PIL said that the disease is completely curable and lives of children are being lost due to the "inaction" of the state machinery, which "failed" to take any steps to prevent the outbreak.

Despite the death of more than 100 children, the state government has shown "no prompt" steps to prevent the spread of the disease in adjoining districts, the plea contended.

&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Central government, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh governments asking them to file affidavits within seven days giving details of facilities dealing with public health, nutrition and sanitation, for treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur, reported news agency ANI.

Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Central government, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh governments asking them to file affidavits within seven days giving details of facilities dealing with public health, nutrition and sanitation, for treatment of children suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur, reported news agency ANI. The apex court order came following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two lawyers, in connection with the outbreak of the Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district in which 130 children have lost their lives. The plea, filed by advocates Manohar Pratap and Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, sought a direction to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for treatment of children suffering from encephalitis. Watch: Families in Bihar flee villages as brain fever unleashes mayhem × A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant heard the plea. The PIL said that the disease is completely curable and lives of children are being lost due to the "inaction" of the state machinery, which "failed" to take any steps to prevent the outbreak. Despite the death of more than 100 children, the state government has shown "no prompt" steps to prevent the spread of the disease in adjoining districts, the plea contended.

Encephalitis deaths in Bihar: Supreme Court directs Centre, state govts to file response within 7 days

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

Gogoi has also urged the prime minister to make tenure appointments of retired apex court judges and high court judges under Articles 128 and 224A of the Constitution respectively to clear the backlog of cases pending for years.

The CJI, who wrote three letters to the PM, said there was pendency of 58,669 cases in the top court and the number was increasing due to the filing of more fresh cases.

Due to paucity of judges, the required number of Constitution benches to decide important cases involving questions of law were not being formed, the CJI said.

"You would recall that way back in 1988, about three decades ago, the judge strength of the SC was increased from 18 to 26, and then again after two decades in 2009, it was increased to 31, including the CJI, to expedite disposal of cases to keep pace with the rate of institution," he wrote.

"I request you to kindly consider, on top priority, to augment the judge-strength in the SC appropriately so that it can function more efficiently and effectively as it will go a long way to attain the ultimate goal of rendering timely justice to the litigant public," Gogoi wrote.

He said that though the size of the feeder cadre of chief justice and judges of the high courts has increased in the past yet the strength has not been increased proportionally in the top court.

In his second letter, the CJI urged Modi to consider bringing a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65 years.

"One of the prime reasons why we are not able to contain the ever-growing pendency is a shortage of HC judges. At present, 399 posts, or 37 per cent of sanctioned judge-strength, are vacant. The existing vacancies need to be filled immediately. However, despite best efforts put in by all stakeholders, it has not been possible to appoint judges to bring the working judge-strength anywhere close to the sanctioned judge-strength," Gogoi wrote.

The CJI also wrote that the retirement age of high court judges should be raised by three years to 65 years.

"This, in turn, would help in improving the vacancy position and consequently reducing pendency of cases. This would also be in consonance with the (repeated) recommendations made by parliamentary standing committees," he wrote.

Gogoi further said, "A judge takes time to evolve and by the time he is in a position to put innovative thoughts based on rich experience to the practice, he finds himself nearing retirement. This can be avoided if the age of retirement is raised to an appropriate level so that his vast experience, deeper insight and expertise can be utilised for a longer period."

"In my view also, if retired HC judges are considered for appointment in tribunals beyond the age of 62 years, they may continue in HCs up to 65 years. The proposal suggested will ensure continued availability of more experienced judges for a longer tenure," he wrote.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years. Gogoi has also urged the prime minister to make tenure appointments of retired apex court judges and high court judges under Articles 128 and 224A of the Constitution respectively to clear the backlog of cases pending for years. The CJI, who wrote three letters to the PM, said there was pendency of 58,669 cases in the top court and the number was increasing due to the filing of more fresh cases. Due to paucity of judges, the required number of Constitution benches to decide important cases involving questions of law were not being formed, the CJI said. "You would recall that way back in 1988, about three decades ago, the judge strength of the SC was increased from 18 to 26, and then again after two decades in 2009, it was increased to 31, including the CJI, to expedite disposal of cases to keep pace with the rate of institution," he wrote. "I request you to kindly consider, on top priority, to augment the judge-strength in the SC appropriately so that it can function more efficiently and effectively as it will go a long way to attain the ultimate goal of rendering timely justice to the litigant public," Gogoi wrote. He said that though the size of the feeder cadre of chief justice and judges of the high courts has increased in the past yet the strength has not been increased proportionally in the top court. In his second letter, the CJI urged Modi to consider bringing a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65 years. "One of the prime reasons why we are not able to contain the ever-growing pendency is a shortage of HC judges. At present, 399 posts, or 37 per cent of sanctioned judge-strength, are vacant. The existing vacancies need to be filled immediately. However, despite best efforts put in by all stakeholders, it has not been possible to appoint judges to bring the working judge-strength anywhere close to the sanctioned judge-strength," Gogoi wrote. The CJI also wrote that the retirement age of high court judges should be raised by three years to 65 years. "This, in turn, would help in improving the vacancy position and consequently reducing pendency of cases. This would also be in consonance with the (repeated) recommendations made by parliamentary standing committees," he wrote. Gogoi further said, "A judge takes time to evolve and by the time he is in a position to put innovative thoughts based on rich experience to the practice, he finds himself nearing retirement. This can be avoided if the age of retirement is raised to an appropriate level so that his vast experience, deeper insight and expertise can be utilised for a longer period." "In my view also, if retired HC judges are considered for appointment in tribunals beyond the age of 62 years, they may continue in HCs up to 65 years. The proposal suggested will ensure continued availability of more experienced judges for a longer tenure," he wrote.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi writes to PM Narendra Modi, seeks increase in number of Supreme Court judges

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-encephalitis-deaths-odisha-government-orders-laboratory-test-of-litchi-228533">Acute Encephalitis Syndrome</a> (AES), which has claimed more than 100 lives.

A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter.

The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease.

The petition filed by advocate Manohar Pratap claimed that he was deeply pained and saddened by the deaths of more than 100 children, mostly in the age group of one to 10 years, in the past week and the figures were rising day by day.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the Odisha government&nbsp;has ordered laboratory test of litchi fruit that is being sold in the markets in the state.

''Encephalitis is spreading in Litchi growing areas of Bihar &amp; other parts of country. In view of this, Food Safety Commissioner has been directed to collect&amp;test sample of Litchi being sold in market to ascertain toxic contents,'' Department of Health and Family Welfare said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES), which has claimed more than 100 lives.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES), which has claimed more than 100 lives. A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter. The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease. The petition filed by advocate Manohar Pratap claimed that he was deeply pained and saddened by the deaths of more than 100 children, mostly in the age group of one to 10 years, in the past week and the figures were rising day by day. Meanwhile, the Odisha government has ordered laboratory test of litchi fruit that is being sold in the markets in the state. ''Encephalitis is spreading in Litchi growing areas of Bihar & other parts of country. In view of this, Food Safety Commissioner has been directed to collect&test sample of Litchi being sold in market to ascertain toxic contents,'' Department of Health and Family Welfare said.

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking formation of team for treatment of kids affected by Encephalitis in Bihar

The death toll of children due to suspected <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-deputy-cm-sushil-modi-refuses-to-answer-questions-on-deaths-due-to-encephalitis-in-conference-228669">Acute Encephalitis Syndrome</a> (AES) in Bihar reached 128 on Sunday, news agency ANI reported citing Bihar Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme.

Acute Encephalitis Syndrome is a viral disease, which causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headaches and has been claiming lives in the Bihar districts for the past few weeks.

While the health experts have long been dumbfounded by the root of the encephalitis outbreak, commonly known as brain fever, in Bihar some have suggested that natural toxins in lychees could harm undernourished children by blocking their ability to produce enough blood sugar, which can lead to death.&nbsp;

The link to the fruit, however, is inconclusive, said Alok Ghosh, the Muzaffarpur district magistrate, who said that in about half of the known cases of encephalitis, the children had not consumed lychees, news agency Reuters reported.

But as a heat wave sweeps India, dehydration is also said to be a reason for the Encephalitis outbreak.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from AES.

A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant will hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter.

The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease.

The death toll of children due to suspected Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar reached 128 on Sunday, news agency ANI reported citing Bihar Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme.

The death toll of children due to suspected Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Bihar reached 128 on Sunday, news agency ANI reported citing Bihar Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme. Acute Encephalitis Syndrome is a viral disease, which causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headaches and has been claiming lives in the Bihar districts for the past few weeks. While the health experts have long been dumbfounded by the root of the encephalitis outbreak, commonly known as brain fever, in Bihar some have suggested that natural toxins in lychees could harm undernourished children by blocking their ability to produce enough blood sugar, which can lead to death. The link to the fruit, however, is inconclusive, said Alok Ghosh, the Muzaffarpur district magistrate, who said that in about half of the known cases of encephalitis, the children had not consumed lychees, news agency Reuters reported. But as a heat wave sweeps India, dehydration is also said to be a reason for the Encephalitis outbreak. Meanwhile, Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from AES. A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant will hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter. The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease.

Bihar: Death toll due to suspected acute encephalitis rises to 128

Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi refused to answer journalists' questions on deaths of children due to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-chief-minister-nitish-kumar-visits-muzaffarpur-to-take-stock-of-acute-encephalitis-outbreak-228249">Acute Encephalitis Syndrome</a> (AES)&nbsp;while addressing a press conference on Wednesday.

Over 100 children have died in Bihar due to the viral disease in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district including 93 children at Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital (SKMCH) and 19 others at Kejriwal Hospital.

While the number of children admitted to the hospital with AES is 372 since June 1, PTI reported.

The BJP leader was addressing media about the non-performing assets (NPA) crisis in the state and the performance of banks in the last financial year when was&nbsp;repeatedly questioned by reporters about child deaths due to the viral disease.

Reasoning his refusal over the questions Sushil Modi said,&nbsp;"I already told you this press conference is about banking committees."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi during a press conference refuses to answer journalists' questions on deaths of children due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur; says, "I already told you this press conference is about banking committees" <a href="https://t.co/dn4moNfJSC">pic.twitter.com/dn4moNfJSC</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1141285477082943488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 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>

Acute Encephalitis Syndrome is a viral disease, which causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headaches and has been claiming lives in the Bihar districts for the past few weeks.

Relatives of patients have alleged negligence by politicians to be the cause of the spread of AES. They have also complained about frequent power cuts and a shortage of beds.

Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-seeking-formation-of-team-for-treatment-of-kids-affected-by-encephalitis-in-bihar-228573">Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea</a> seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from&nbsp;AES.

A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant will hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter.

The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease.

(With inputs from agencies)

Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi refused to answer journalists' questions on deaths of children due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) while addressing a press conference on Wednesday.

Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi refused to answer journalists' questions on deaths of children due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) while addressing a press conference on Wednesday. Over 100 children have died in Bihar due to the viral disease in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district including 93 children at Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital (SKMCH) and 19 others at Kejriwal Hospital. While the number of children admitted to the hospital with AES is 372 since June 1, PTI reported. The BJP leader was addressing media about the non-performing assets (NPA) crisis in the state and the performance of banks in the last financial year when was repeatedly questioned by reporters about child deaths due to the viral disease. Reasoning his refusal over the questions Sushil Modi said, "I already told you this press conference is about banking committees." #WATCH Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi during a press conference refuses to answer journalists' questions on deaths of children due to Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur; says, "I already told you this press conference is about banking committees" pic.twitter.com/dn4moNfJSC — ANI (@ANI) June 19, 2019 × Acute Encephalitis Syndrome is a viral disease, which causes mild flu-like symptoms such as high fever, convulsions and headaches and has been claiming lives in the Bihar districts for the past few weeks. Relatives of patients have alleged negligence by politicians to be the cause of the spread of AES. They have also complained about frequent power cuts and a shortage of beds. Meanwhile, Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to urgently constitute a team of medical experts for the treatment of the children in Bihar's Muzaffarpur, who are suffering from AES. A vacation bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant will hear the plea next Monday after the petitioner's counsel sought an urgent listing of the matter. The plea also sought a direction to the Centre for providing all necessary medical equipment and other supports for the effective treatment of the children suffering from the epidemic disease. (With inputs from agencies)

Bihar Deputy CM Sushil Modi refuses to answer questions on deaths due to Encephalitis in conference

The Supreme Court Tuesday deferred the hearing on a plea seeking protection of doctors in government hospitals, saying <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-assurances-by-chief-minister-mamata-banerjee-agitating-doctors-call-off-strike-228076">since doctors have called off their strike</a> in West Bengal and other states, there is no urgency to hear the matter.

A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant said it will not issue notice (to the Centre) but is keeping the larger issue of protection of doctors open.

"We agreed to hear the plea today as there was a strike by doctors and medical fraternity in West Bengal and other states. The strike has been called off and there appears no urgency to hear the petition. List (the matter) before an appropriate bench," it said.

Meanwhile, the Indian Medical Association also filed an impleadment application seeking the court's intervention into the plea already filed, saying protection needs to be provided to doctors across the country.

The bench said it needs to take a holistic view in providing security to doctors.

"We can't protect doctors at the cost of other citizens. We have to look at the larger picture. We are not against the protection given to doctors," the bench said.

The Supreme Court Tuesday deferred the hearing on a plea seeking protection of doctors in government hospitals, saying since doctors have called off their strike in West Bengal and other states, there is no urgency to hear the matter.

The Supreme Court Tuesday deferred the hearing on a plea seeking protection of doctors in government hospitals, saying since doctors have called off their strike in West Bengal and other states, there is no urgency to hear the matter. A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant said it will not issue notice (to the Centre) but is keeping the larger issue of protection of doctors open. "We agreed to hear the plea today as there was a strike by doctors and medical fraternity in West Bengal and other states. The strike has been called off and there appears no urgency to hear the petition. List (the matter) before an appropriate bench," it said. Meanwhile, the Indian Medical Association also filed an impleadment application seeking the court's intervention into the plea already filed, saying protection needs to be provided to doctors across the country. The bench said it needs to take a holistic view in providing security to doctors. "We can't protect doctors at the cost of other citizens. We have to look at the larger picture. We are not against the protection given to doctors," the bench said.

As strikes end, Supreme Court defers hearing on security of doctors, keeps open 'larger issue' of their safety

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear on June 18 a plea seeking safety and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/hospitals-in-delhi-to-join-doctors-strike-call-today-227805">security of doctors in government hospitals</a> across the country.

A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to list the matter for Tuesday after the counsel appearing for the petitioner, advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, sought urgent hearing.

The plea was filed on Friday in the wake of protests by doctors in West Bengal against assault on their colleagues by the family of a patient, who died on Monday night.

The petition has also sought directions to Union ministries of home affairs and health and West Bengal to depute government-appointed security personnel at all state-run hospitals across the country to ensure safety and security of doctors.

Due to the protests, the healthcare services in the country have been badly disrupted and many people are dying because of absence of doctors, the plea said.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear on June 18 a plea seeking safety and security of doctors in government hospitals across the country. A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to list the matter for Tuesday after the counsel appearing for the petitioner, advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, sought urgent hearing.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear on June 18 a plea seeking safety and security of doctors in government hospitals across the country. A vacation bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant agreed to list the matter for Tuesday after the counsel appearing for the petitioner, advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, sought urgent hearing. The plea was filed on Friday in the wake of protests by doctors in West Bengal against assault on their colleagues by the family of a patient, who died on Monday night. The petition has also sought directions to Union ministries of home affairs and health and West Bengal to depute government-appointed security personnel at all state-run hospitals across the country to ensure safety and security of doctors. Due to the protests, the healthcare services in the country have been badly disrupted and many people are dying because of absence of doctors, the plea said.

Supreme Court to hear plea for safety, security of doctors at government hospitals on June 18

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday ordered the release of journalist Prashant Kanojia on bail. Kanojia was arrested along with the editor and head of a Noida-based channel objectionable content against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

"Even we take a lot in from the social media, but does that mean incarceration? Release him on bail and proceed against him," said a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi. The bench was hearing a Habeas Corpus (requiring an arrested person to be presented before court) petition filed bu Kanojia's wife Jigisha.

"Regardless of the contents of the tweet, it doesn't appear that arrest was warranted. The right to liberty of a citizen has been infringed upon," Justice Banerjee added. Kanojia was arrested on Saturday and lodged in Lucknow jail.

The Uttar Pradesh government defended the arrest and highlighted Kanojia's Twitter timeline. "We had gone through his Twitter timeline. His tweets are not restricted to political figures, he has posted tweets about gods and goddesses. His tweets are very strong and inflammatory. This is why Section 505 (inciting a particular community to commit offence against other community) of the Indian Penal Code was added," the UP government said. Though the bench said that it doesn't agree with Kanojia's tweets, it rejected the argument saying a person cannot be deprived of his personal liberty. "The Uttar Pradesh government can proceed against him, but he can't be put behind bars for his tweets," the bench said.

The bench also warned against posting stuff on Twitter. "It is very wrong to think whatever is uploaded will be swallowed by the public. People are educated," Justice Banerjee said.

The Editors Guild had on Sunday condemned the arrest of Kanojia and others, describing the police action as an "authoritarian misuse of laws" and an effort to intimidate the press.

An FIR was registered against Kanojia at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow on Friday night in which it was alleged that the accused made "objectionable comments against the chief minister and tried to malign his image".

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday ordered the release of journalist Prashant Kanojia on bail. Kanojia was arrested along with the editor and head of a Noida-based channel objectionable content against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday ordered the release of journalist Prashant Kanojia on bail. Kanojia was arrested along with the editor and head of a Noida-based channel objectionable content against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. "Even we take a lot in from the social media, but does that mean incarceration? Release him on bail and proceed against him," said a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi. The bench was hearing a Habeas Corpus (requiring an arrested person to be presented before court) petition filed bu Kanojia's wife Jigisha. "Regardless of the contents of the tweet, it doesn't appear that arrest was warranted. The right to liberty of a citizen has been infringed upon," Justice Banerjee added. Kanojia was arrested on Saturday and lodged in Lucknow jail. The Uttar Pradesh government defended the arrest and highlighted Kanojia's Twitter timeline. "We had gone through his Twitter timeline. His tweets are not restricted to political figures, he has posted tweets about gods and goddesses. His tweets are very strong and inflammatory. This is why Section 505 (inciting a particular community to commit offence against other community) of the Indian Penal Code was added," the UP government said. Though the bench said that it doesn't agree with Kanojia's tweets, it rejected the argument saying a person cannot be deprived of his personal liberty. "The Uttar Pradesh government can proceed against him, but he can't be put behind bars for his tweets," the bench said. The bench also warned against posting stuff on Twitter. "It is very wrong to think whatever is uploaded will be swallowed by the public. People are educated," Justice Banerjee said. The Editors Guild had on Sunday condemned the arrest of Kanojia and others, describing the police action as an "authoritarian misuse of laws" and an effort to intimidate the press. An FIR was registered against Kanojia at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow on Friday night in which it was alleged that the accused made "objectionable comments against the chief minister and tried to malign his image".

Don't appreciate Prashant Kanojia's tweets but he can't be put behind bars: Supreme Court orders release of journalist

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court Thursday appointed a seven-member bench to hear petitions filed against the sacked police chief and the former defence ministry secretary for allegedly failing to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks even though security authorities had prior intelligence warning.

The seven-judge bench appointed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya will consider the Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions against sacked police chief Pujith Jayasundara and Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando.&nbsp;

The case will be taken up on July 12.&nbsp;

The petitions were filed by a travel company executive, Janath S Vidanage,&nbsp;and the parents of two children killed by suicide bombers at one of the three Churches attacked on April 21.

The petitioners accused the sacked inspector-general and the former defence secretary of infringing the fundamental rights of the people by failing to prevent the attacks on three churches and three hotels even when intelligence information had forewarned.

Inspector-General Jayasundara was sent on compulsory leave by President Maithripala Sirisena for his alleged inaction on the intelligence shared by India, which warned of an impending attack by Islamic militants, and thereby, failing to prevent the serial blasts that killed 258 people.&nbsp;

Jayasundera has also filed the petition of his own rights in the Supreme Court against his "unfair dismissal" over the catastrophic intelligence failure.

In the petition submitted to the court last week, Jayasundara revealed a serious lack of communication between intelligence agencies and security arms of the government, all which fall under Sirisena.&nbsp;

He claimed he was sidelined and excluded from attending National Security Council meetings since a political rift between the president and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe emerged in October last year.

Giving evidence before a parliamentary probe committee on Thursday, Jayasundera maintained that he had been ignored for participation at Security Council meetings on orders of Sirisena.&nbsp;

Jayasundera said that he had not been privy to crucial security-related issues due to that.&nbsp;

In October 2018, Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.&nbsp;The police was under the control of Wickremesinghe.&nbsp;

In the 20-page complaint, the former police chief said Sirisena had asked Nilantha Jayawardena, the head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) -- country's premier spy agency, to report directly to the president on matters of national security.

Jayasundara claimed despite having intelligence inputs from India about an impending attack, the SIS chief did not take the warning seriously and take any action on it.&nbsp;

More than 250 people were killed in eight coordinated suicide bomb attacks carried out by local Jihadi group National Thowheed Jammath (NTJ) linked to the ISIS on April 21.&nbsp;

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court Thursday appointed a seven-member bench to hear petitions filed against the sacked police chief and the former defence ministry secretary for allegedly failing to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks even though security authorities had prior intelligence warning.

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court Thursday appointed a seven-member bench to hear petitions filed against the sacked police chief and the former defence ministry secretary for allegedly failing to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks even though security authorities had prior intelligence warning. The seven-judge bench appointed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya will consider the Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions against sacked police chief Pujith Jayasundara and Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando. The case will be taken up on July 12. The petitions were filed by a travel company executive, Janath S Vidanage, and the parents of two children killed by suicide bombers at one of the three Churches attacked on April 21. The petitioners accused the sacked inspector-general and the former defence secretary of infringing the fundamental rights of the people by failing to prevent the attacks on three churches and three hotels even when intelligence information had forewarned. Inspector-General Jayasundara was sent on compulsory leave by President Maithripala Sirisena for his alleged inaction on the intelligence shared by India, which warned of an impending attack by Islamic militants, and thereby, failing to prevent the serial blasts that killed 258 people. Jayasundera has also filed the petition of his own rights in the Supreme Court against his "unfair dismissal" over the catastrophic intelligence failure. In the petition submitted to the court last week, Jayasundara revealed a serious lack of communication between intelligence agencies and security arms of the government, all which fall under Sirisena. He claimed he was sidelined and excluded from attending National Security Council meetings since a political rift between the president and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe emerged in October last year. Giving evidence before a parliamentary probe committee on Thursday, Jayasundera maintained that he had been ignored for participation at Security Council meetings on orders of Sirisena. Jayasundera said that he had not been privy to crucial security-related issues due to that. In October 2018, Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The police was under the control of Wickremesinghe. In the 20-page complaint, the former police chief said Sirisena had asked Nilantha Jayawardena, the head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) -- country's premier spy agency, to report directly to the president on matters of national security. Jayasundara claimed despite having intelligence inputs from India about an impending attack, the SIS chief did not take the warning seriously and take any action on it. More than 250 people were killed in eight coordinated suicide bomb attacks carried out by local Jihadi group National Thowheed Jammath (NTJ) linked to the ISIS on April 21.

Sri Lanka Supreme Court appoints bench to hear pleas against former IGP, defence secretary

Sri Lanka's suspended police chief has petitioned the Supreme Court, accusing President Maithripala Sirisena of failing to prevent the Easter bombings that killed 258 people.

Police chief blames president for failing to prevent Sri Lanka attacks

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/deadline-for-finalisation-of-assam-nrc-will-not-be-extended-supreme-court-216925">NRC (National Register of Citizens</a>) co-ordinator, Prateek Hajela, to give a fair hearing to all those who wish to get themselves enrolled in the NRC process, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

The top court added that the process should not be cut short and that the same should be completed by July 31.

Earlier this month, the apex court had ruled that it will not extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court today asked the NRC (National Register of Citizens) Co-ordinator, Prateek Hajela, to consider and give a fair hearing to all the persons who wish to get themselves enrolled in the NRC process, without cut shorting the process and complete the same by July 31. <a href="https://t.co/652V0WUBDP">pic.twitter.com/652V0WUBDP</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1133984962934378496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court.

The final draft of NRC was released on July 30, 2018, that included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total applications of 3.29 crore. Around 40.7 lakh people had found their names excluded from the list.

A window ending December 31, 2018, was provided for those who wanted to file claims for re-inclusion.

Within this same period, people who suspected that foreigners have made their way to the list were also allowed to file their objections.

The first draft was published during the intervening nights of December 31, 2017, and January 1, 2018, containing 1.9 crore names.&nbsp;

The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the NRC (National Register of Citizens) co-ordinator, Prateek Hajela, to give a fair hearing to all those who wish to get themselves enrolled in the NRC process, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the NRC (National Register of Citizens) co-ordinator, Prateek Hajela, to give a fair hearing to all those who wish to get themselves enrolled in the NRC process, news agency ANI reported. The top court added that the process should not be cut short and that the same should be completed by July 31. Earlier this month, the apex court had ruled that it will not extend the July 31 deadline for finalisation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. Supreme Court today asked the NRC (National Register of Citizens) Co-ordinator, Prateek Hajela, to consider and give a fair hearing to all the persons who wish to get themselves enrolled in the NRC process, without cut shorting the process and complete the same by July 31. pic.twitter.com/652V0WUBDP — ANI (@ANI) May 30, 2019 × The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court. The final draft of NRC was released on July 30, 2018, that included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total applications of 3.29 crore. Around 40.7 lakh people had found their names excluded from the list. A window ending December 31, 2018, was provided for those who wanted to file claims for re-inclusion. Within this same period, people who suspected that foreigners have made their way to the list were also allowed to file their objections. The first draft was published during the intervening nights of December 31, 2017, and January 1, 2018, containing 1.9 crore names. The NRC aims to separate "genuine" citizens from "illegal immigrants".

Give fair hearing to all those who wish to get enrolled: Supreme Court on NRC list 

The Imran Khan government has filed a complaint of misconduct against some Supreme Court and High Court judges for hiding their foreign properties in countries like Spain and the UK, according to a media report on Tuesday.

President Arif Alvi has sent a reference of misconduct against three apex court judges who, allegedly, did not declare their foreign properties in their wealth statements, The Express Tribune reported.

However, there is no official confirmation whether the Supreme Judicial Council has received the reference against the judges.

The references, prepared by the law ministry, were filed with the help of a former Supreme Court judge, the report said.

The wife of one of the judges purchased some property in Spain which was not disclosed in his wealth statement, the report said.

Legal experts said they would see whether the spouse is listed as a dependent in the tax records of the judge.

A complaint has also been lodged against a few high courts judges, one of whom allegedly owns inherent property in the UK.

The cash-strapped Imran Khan government has vowed to bring back all ill-gotten wealth of people who have stashed them abroad.&nbsp;

The Imran Khan government has filed a complaint of misconduct against some Supreme Court and High Court judges for hiding their foreign properties in countries like Spain and the UK, according to a media report on Tuesday.

The Imran Khan government has filed a complaint of misconduct against some Supreme Court and High Court judges for hiding their foreign properties in countries like Spain and the UK, according to a media report on Tuesday. President Arif Alvi has sent a reference of misconduct against three apex court judges who, allegedly, did not declare their foreign properties in their wealth statements, The Express Tribune reported. However, there is no official confirmation whether the Supreme Judicial Council has received the reference against the judges. The references, prepared by the law ministry, were filed with the help of a former Supreme Court judge, the report said. The wife of one of the judges purchased some property in Spain which was not disclosed in his wealth statement, the report said. Legal experts said they would see whether the spouse is listed as a dependent in the tax records of the judge. A complaint has also been lodged against a few high courts judges, one of whom allegedly owns inherent property in the UK. The cash-strapped Imran Khan government has vowed to bring back all ill-gotten wealth of people who have stashed them abroad.

Pakistan turns heat on top judges, files cases for not disclosing properties abroad

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that there was no question of either registration of an FIR or investigation by CBI in the Rafale fighter jets deal as the apex court had already concluded that there was no reason for intervention by it on the "sensitive issue".

The Centre, which sought dismissal of petitions seeking review of the December 14 last year verdict which gave a clean chit to the government on procurement of 36 fighter jets from French firm Dassault, said CAG report "belied" the main arguments of petitioners regarding alleged "exorbitant price" of the jets.

In its 39-page written submissions filed in the top court, the Centre has said that petitioners and former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist advocate Prashant Bhushan have not made out any ground which would justify review of the "well reasoned" December 14 judgement last year.

"Especially, once this court had come to the conclusion that on all the three aspects i.e, the decision making process, pricing and Indian offset partner, there is no reason for intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts by the Indian Government, there is no question of either registration of FIR much less any investigation by the CBI," the government said.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on May 10 reserved its verdict on the pleas seeking review of the December 14 judgement in the Rafale case.

The apex court, in its December 14 verdict, had said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

Besides Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan, review petitions have also been filed by AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh and lawyer Vineet Dhandha.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

In its written submissions, the Centre has said in the garb of seeking review of the verdict and placing reliance on "some press reports and some incomplete internal file noting(s), copies of which were obtained unauthorisedly and illegally", the petitioners cannot seek to re-open the whole matter since scope of review petition is extremely limited.&nbsp;

"The review petition, it is therefore, submitted is an attempt to get a fishing and roving enquiry ordered, which this court has specifically declined to go into based on perceptions of individuals," it said.

The Centre also said the petitioners have not disclosed any new evidence in the review petition "except that they have now based their case on some unauthorisedly accessed documents copied from the secret files of the Ministry of Defence."

It said files and documents were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who took about two years to complete its study and finalise its report.&nbsp;

"The report of the CAG does not support the main argument of petitioners which has been perpetually repeated before this court that the cost of each aircraft under 36 Rafale contract is Rs 1,000 crore higher than what it would have been under the MMRCA bid," the Centre said.

"The basic price of the aircraft has been informed to the Parliament as approximately Rs 670 crore at prevailing exchange rate of November 2016; without associated equipments, weapons, India Specific Enhancements, maintenance support and services," it said.

It also said for the overall aircraft package, "the CAG has held that the contract was concluded at a price which is 2.86 per cent lower than the audit aligned price."

The government reiterated that it has no role in the selection of Indian offset partner which is a commercial decision of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).&nbsp;&nbsp;It said monitoring of progress in the government to government process by Prime Minister Office (PMO) cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations.

Regarding the petitioners' claim that government had suppressed and concealed material facts from the apex court, the Centre said these allegations are devoid of merit.

"It is submitted that the IGA for 36 Rafale procurement is between the two sovereign nations and the implementation of the project which is on schedule is being closely monitored by both the Governments. The adequate safeguards are built into IGA for ensuring smooth implementation of the project," it said.

"The training of Indian Air Force personnel is underway in France. Any attempt to bring this procurement under cloud may result into delay in implementation of the project and would affect the operational preparedness of Indian Air Force," the Centre said.

Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had earlier alleged in the apex court that the Centre "wilfully and deliberately" misled the court in the Rafale fighter jet case and this amounted to "wholesale fraud".

On the scope of judicial review, they had said apex court has consistently held that where the allegation is of corruption, procedural violations and mala fide decision making, the court will be well within its right to exercise the jurisdiction.

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that there was no question of either registration of an FIR or investigation by CBI in the Rafale fighter jets deal as the apex court had already concluded that there was no reason for intervention by it on the "sensitive issue".

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that there was no question of either registration of an FIR or investigation by CBI in the Rafale fighter jets deal as the apex court had already concluded that there was no reason for intervention by it on the "sensitive issue". The Centre, which sought dismissal of petitions seeking review of the December 14 last year verdict which gave a clean chit to the government on procurement of 36 fighter jets from French firm Dassault, said CAG report "belied" the main arguments of petitioners regarding alleged "exorbitant price" of the jets. In its 39-page written submissions filed in the top court, the Centre has said that petitioners and former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist advocate Prashant Bhushan have not made out any ground which would justify review of the "well reasoned" December 14 judgement last year. "Especially, once this court had come to the conclusion that on all the three aspects i.e, the decision making process, pricing and Indian offset partner, there is no reason for intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts by the Indian Government, there is no question of either registration of FIR much less any investigation by the CBI," the government said. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on May 10 reserved its verdict on the pleas seeking review of the December 14 judgement in the Rafale case. The apex court, in its December 14 verdict, had said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. Besides Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan, review petitions have also been filed by AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh and lawyer Vineet Dhandha. In its written submissions, the Centre has said in the garb of seeking review of the verdict and placing reliance on "some press reports and some incomplete internal file noting(s), copies of which were obtained unauthorisedly and illegally", the petitioners cannot seek to re-open the whole matter since scope of review petition is extremely limited. "The review petition, it is therefore, submitted is an attempt to get a fishing and roving enquiry ordered, which this court has specifically declined to go into based on perceptions of individuals," it said. The Centre also said the petitioners have not disclosed any new evidence in the review petition "except that they have now based their case on some unauthorisedly accessed documents copied from the secret files of the Ministry of Defence." It said files and documents were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who took about two years to complete its study and finalise its report. "The report of the CAG does not support the main argument of petitioners which has been perpetually repeated before this court that the cost of each aircraft under 36 Rafale contract is Rs 1,000 crore higher than what it would have been under the MMRCA bid," the Centre said. "The basic price of the aircraft has been informed to the Parliament as approximately Rs 670 crore at prevailing exchange rate of November 2016; without associated equipments, weapons, India Specific Enhancements, maintenance support and services," it said. It also said for the overall aircraft package, "the CAG has held that the contract was concluded at a price which is 2.86 per cent lower than the audit aligned price." The government reiterated that it has no role in the selection of Indian offset partner which is a commercial decision of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). It said monitoring of progress in the government to government process by Prime Minister Office (PMO) cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations. Regarding the petitioners' claim that government had suppressed and concealed material facts from the apex court, the Centre said these allegations are devoid of merit. "It is submitted that the IGA for 36 Rafale procurement is between the two sovereign nations and the implementation of the project which is on schedule is being closely monitored by both the Governments. The adequate safeguards are built into IGA for ensuring smooth implementation of the project," it said. "The training of Indian Air Force personnel is underway in France. Any attempt to bring this procurement under cloud may result into delay in implementation of the project and would affect the operational preparedness of Indian Air Force," the Centre said. Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had earlier alleged in the apex court that the Centre "wilfully and deliberately" misled the court in the Rafale fighter jet case and this amounted to "wholesale fraud". On the scope of judicial review, they had said apex court has consistently held that where the allegation is of corruption, procedural violations and mala fide decision making, the court will be well within its right to exercise the jurisdiction.

No question of FIR registration or CBI probe into Rafale deal: Centre to Supreme Court

The government is learnt to have cleared the names of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-reiterates-names-of-justices-bose-bopanna-for-elevation-to-apex-court-217242">four judges for their elevation to the Supreme Court</a>, sources said Wednesday.

Once the appointments formally come through, the top court will have its full sanctioned strength of 31 judges (including the chief justice). As of now, the apex court is functioning with 27 judges.

The four names cleared by the government are justices Aniruddha Bose, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant.

The names of justices Bose and Bopanna were earlier returned by the government to the SC collegium citing seniority and representation of regions as the reasons.

But in its resolution passed earlier this month, the collegium had reiterated its recommendation to elevate justices Bose and Bopanna to the apex court, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity.

The collegium had also recommended the names of justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant for elevation to the apex court.

The five-member Collegium is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Sources aware of the development said the notification is expected either this evening or on Thursday morning once the President signs their warrant of appointment.

Justice Bose, whose parent high court is Calcutta, is the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court and is at number 12 in all-India seniority of judges.&nbsp;

Justice Bopanna, whose parent high court is Karnataka, is the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice and stands at number 36.

Justice Gavai is a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.&nbsp;

The government is learnt to have cleared the names of four judges for their elevation to the Supreme Court, sources said Wednesday. Once the appointments formally come through, the top court will have its full sanctioned strength of 31 judges (including the chief justice).

The government is learnt to have cleared the names of four judges for their elevation to the Supreme Court, sources said Wednesday. Once the appointments formally come through, the top court will have its full sanctioned strength of 31 judges (including the chief justice). As of now, the apex court is functioning with 27 judges. The four names cleared by the government are justices Aniruddha Bose, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant. The names of justices Bose and Bopanna were earlier returned by the government to the SC collegium citing seniority and representation of regions as the reasons. But in its resolution passed earlier this month, the collegium had reiterated its recommendation to elevate justices Bose and Bopanna to the apex court, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. The collegium had also recommended the names of justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant for elevation to the apex court. The five-member Collegium is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Sources aware of the development said the notification is expected either this evening or on Thursday morning once the President signs their warrant of appointment. Justice Bose, whose parent high court is Calcutta, is the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court and is at number 12 in all-India seniority of judges. Justice Bopanna, whose parent high court is Karnataka, is the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice and stands at number 36. Justice Gavai is a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Government clears names of 4 judges for elevation to Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/this-is-nonsense-says-supreme-court-dismissing-pil-seeking-100-vvpat-verification-220408">'This is nonsense,' says Supreme Court dismissing PIL seeking 100% VVPAT verification</a> 
 
A vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the plea, saying that a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had already dealt with the matter and passed an order.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/theres-no-bigger-motivation-than-indian-army-virat-kohli-ahead-of-cricket-world-cup-2019-220427">'There's no bigger motivation than Indian Army,' says Virat Kohli ahead of Cricket World Cup 2019</a> 
 
'If we go in with that motivation that we can do something for the Army, you will see a different level of passion coming out of us,' said Kohli

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-accuses-us-of-bullying-says-working-with-google-to-counter-ban-220421">Huawei accuses US of bullying, says working with Google to counter ban</a> 
 
The US government said it imposed the restrictions because of Huawei's involvement in activities contrary to national security or foreign policy interests.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/reports-of-alleged-evm-tampering-are-absolutely-false-election-commission-220417">Reports of alleged EVM tampering are 'absolutely false': Election Commission</a> 
 
The top poll body also stated that any lapse in the handling of reserve EVMs will be investigated and action will be taken against those responsible.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-amit-shah-meet-union-ministers-thank-them-for-service-to-nation-220445">PM Modi, Amit Shah meet Union ministers, thank them for 'service to nation'</a> 
 
Union ministers Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari, Arun Jaitley, JP Nadda and Prakash Javadekar were among the key leaders from the BJP at the meeting.

'This is nonsense,' says Supreme Court dismissing PIL seeking 100% VVPAT verification A vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the plea, saying that a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had already dealt with the matter and passed an order.

'This is nonsense,' says Supreme Court dismissing PIL seeking 100% VVPAT verification A vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the plea, saying that a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had already dealt with the matter and passed an order. 'There's no bigger motivation than Indian Army,' says Virat Kohli ahead of Cricket World Cup 2019 'If we go in with that motivation that we can do something for the Army, you will see a different level of passion coming out of us,' said Kohli Huawei accuses US of bullying, says working with Google to counter ban The US government said it imposed the restrictions because of Huawei's involvement in activities contrary to national security or foreign policy interests. Reports of alleged EVM tampering are 'absolutely false': Election Commission The top poll body also stated that any lapse in the handling of reserve EVMs will be investigated and action will be taken against those responsible. PM Modi, Amit Shah meet Union ministers, thank them for 'service to nation' Union ministers Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari, Arun Jaitley, JP Nadda and Prakash Javadekar were among the key leaders from the BJP at the meeting.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Election Commission on Tuesday said that the reports of alleged movement of EVMs, purportedly to replace polled EVMs in strongrooms are "absolutely false", adding that visuals doing the rounds in&nbsp;sections of media "do not pertain to any EVMs used during the polls".

"Complaints of alleged movement of EVMs, purportedly to replace polled EVMs in strongrooms, doing rounds in sections of media. Would like to unambiguously clarify that reports are absolutely false. Visuals seen viral on media do not pertain to any EVMs used during the polls," the EC clarified.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Election Commission: The provisions and protocols have been explained to the political parties on multiple occasions including in several of the 93 meetings held with them at the Commission since announcement of elections. <a href="https://t.co/AlYAbaokGg">https://t.co/AlYAbaokGg</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1130776864119635973?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"The provisions and protocols have been explained to the political parties on multiple occasions including in several of the 93 meetings held with them at the Commission since the announcement of elections," the Commission released.&nbsp;

The top poll body also stated that any lapse in the handling of reserve EVMs will be investigated and action will be taken against those responsible.&nbsp;

"The aspersions in clips being used in media merely pertain to the storage or movement of reserve unused EVMs. However, any case of lapse even in the handling of reserve EVMs is thoroughly investigated and disciplinary action will be taken against the officers responsible".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Election Commission: The aspersions in clips being used in media merely pertain to the storage or movement of reserve unused EVMs. However any case of lapse even in handling of reserve EVMs is thoroughly investigated and disciplinary action taken against the officers responsible
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1130777136841682944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday also <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/onus-of-ensuring-institutional-integrity-lies-with-election-commission-pranab-mukherjee-220406">expressed concern over alleged EVM tampering</a> and said that the onus of ensuring institutional integrity of the poll body lies with the EC and it must put all speculation to rest.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, 22 opposition parties submitted a memorandum before the Election Commission today requesting that the verification of VVPAT slips of randomly identified (05) polling stations should be done prior to the initiation of counting of votes and not after the completion of last round of counting, news agency ANI reported.

In the memorandum, the opposition leaders have also demanded that if any discrepancy is found anywhere during the VVPAT verification, 100 per cent counting of paper slips of VVPATs of all polling stations of that assembly segment should be done.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
In the memorandum, the opposition leaders have also demanded that if any discrepancy is found anywhere during the VVPAT verification, 100% counting of paper slips of VVPATs of all polling stations of that assembly segment should be done. <a href="https://t.co/mRIbkvlL4v">https://t.co/mRIbkvlL4v</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1130782089794772993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/this-is-nonsense-says-supreme-court-dismissing-pil-seeking-100-vvpat-verification-220408">The Supreme Court, earlier in the day, dismissed a PIL</a> seeking 100 per cent matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the counting of votes on May 23 for Lok Sabha polls.

"The CJI had dealt with this matter. Why are you taking chance before a two-judge vacation bench," the apex court asked.

"We cannot override the CJI's order... This is nonsense. The petition is taken on board. Dismissed," Justice Mishra said.

 
&nbsp;

The Election Commission on Tuesday said that the reports of alleged movement of EVMs, purportedly to replace polled EVMs in strongrooms are "absolutely false", adding that visuals doing the rounds in sections of media "do not pertain to any EVMs used during the polls".

The Election Commission on Tuesday said that the reports of alleged movement of EVMs, purportedly to replace polled EVMs in strongrooms are "absolutely false", adding that visuals doing the rounds in sections of media "do not pertain to any EVMs used during the polls". "Complaints of alleged movement of EVMs, purportedly to replace polled EVMs in strongrooms, doing rounds in sections of media. Would like to unambiguously clarify that reports are absolutely false. Visuals seen viral on media do not pertain to any EVMs used during the polls," the EC clarified. Election Commission: The provisions and protocols have been explained to the political parties on multiple occasions including in several of the 93 meetings held with them at the Commission since announcement of elections. https://t.co/AlYAbaokGg — ANI (@ANI) May 21, 2019 × "The provisions and protocols have been explained to the political parties on multiple occasions including in several of the 93 meetings held with them at the Commission since the announcement of elections," the Commission released. The top poll body also stated that any lapse in the handling of reserve EVMs will be investigated and action will be taken against those responsible. "The aspersions in clips being used in media merely pertain to the storage or movement of reserve unused EVMs. However, any case of lapse even in the handling of reserve EVMs is thoroughly investigated and disciplinary action will be taken against the officers responsible". Election Commission: The aspersions in clips being used in media merely pertain to the storage or movement of reserve unused EVMs. However any case of lapse even in handling of reserve EVMs is thoroughly investigated and disciplinary action taken against the officers responsible — ANI (@ANI) May 21, 2019 × Meanwhile, President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday also expressed concern over alleged EVM tampering and said that the onus of ensuring institutional integrity of the poll body lies with the EC and it must put all speculation to rest. Meanwhile, 22 opposition parties submitted a memorandum before the Election Commission today requesting that the verification of VVPAT slips of randomly identified (05) polling stations should be done prior to the initiation of counting of votes and not after the completion of last round of counting, news agency ANI reported. In the memorandum, the opposition leaders have also demanded that if any discrepancy is found anywhere during the VVPAT verification, 100 per cent counting of paper slips of VVPATs of all polling stations of that assembly segment should be done. In the memorandum, the opposition leaders have also demanded that if any discrepancy is found anywhere during the VVPAT verification, 100% counting of paper slips of VVPATs of all polling stations of that assembly segment should be done. https://t.co/mRIbkvlL4v — ANI (@ANI) May 21, 2019 × The Supreme Court, earlier in the day, dismissed a PIL seeking 100 per cent matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the counting of votes on May 23 for Lok Sabha polls. "The CJI had dealt with this matter. Why are you taking chance before a two-judge vacation bench," the apex court asked. "We cannot override the CJI's order... This is nonsense. The petition is taken on board. Dismissed," Justice Mishra said.

Reports of alleged EVM tampering are 'absolutely false': Election Commission

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking 100 per cent <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/what-happens-if-the-vvpat-count-doesnt-match-the-evm-count-218276">matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines</a> (EVMs) during the counting of votes on May 23 for Lok Sabha polls.

A vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the plea filed by a Chennai-based organisation 'Tech 4 All', saying that a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had already dealt with the matter and passed an order.

"The CJI had dealt with this matter. Why are you taking chance before a two-judge vacation bench," the apex court asked.

"We cannot override the CJI's order... This is nonsense. The petition is taken on board. Dismissed," Justice Mishra said.

The apex court had on May 7 dismissed a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu seeking that random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs be increased to 50 per cent.

The top court had on April 8 directed the Election Commission to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs from one to five polling booths per assembly segment in Lok Sabha polls, saying it would provide greater satisfaction not just to political parties but also to the entire electorate.

The plea filed by the Chennai-based organisation said that the model of EVMs employed for the 2019 Lok Shaba Elections are being used for the first time and there have been reports about malfunctioning of EVMs throughout the country.&nbsp;

"It is reported that till the third phase of Lok Shaba Election 2019, 49 out of 303 constituencies, that is 1/6th of constituencies suffered due to EVM malfunctioning," the plea said.

It gave examples of the states of Odisha and Goa where malfunctioning of EVMs and VVPATs were detected.

The plea said that in Odisha, the VVPAT machine meant for Parliamentary constituency was mistakenly attached to the Control unit and Ballot unit meant for Assembly constituency and the mistake was detected after 22 votes were casted in the newly replaced VVPAT.&nbsp;

"This is because the pairing was done wrongly. This clearly proves that the M3 controlling unit is technologically incapable of identifying its pair accepting and feeding any pair connected to it," the plea said.

It also said that during mocks polls in Goa, the entire set of EVM was replaced after complaints from one of the booth agents.

The plea said that as a "short term solution" to achieve total satisfaction among the electorate the number of machines subject to verification of VVPAT should be "increased to 100 per cent".

"As technocrats, we submit, in the long term the EVM should be replaced by Optical Ballot Scan machine which upholds the Tangible secret ballot system, verifiable even by a common man coupled with cost-effectiveness," the plea said.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking 100 per cent matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the counting of votes on May 23 for Lok Sabha polls.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking 100 per cent matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the counting of votes on May 23 for Lok Sabha polls. A vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the plea filed by a Chennai-based organisation 'Tech 4 All', saying that a larger bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had already dealt with the matter and passed an order. "The CJI had dealt with this matter. Why are you taking chance before a two-judge vacation bench," the apex court asked. "We cannot override the CJI's order... This is nonsense. The petition is taken on board. Dismissed," Justice Mishra said. The apex court had on May 7 dismissed a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu seeking that random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs be increased to 50 per cent. The top court had on April 8 directed the Election Commission to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs from one to five polling booths per assembly segment in Lok Sabha polls, saying it would provide greater satisfaction not just to political parties but also to the entire electorate. The plea filed by the Chennai-based organisation said that the model of EVMs employed for the 2019 Lok Shaba Elections are being used for the first time and there have been reports about malfunctioning of EVMs throughout the country. "It is reported that till the third phase of Lok Shaba Election 2019, 49 out of 303 constituencies, that is 1/6th of constituencies suffered due to EVM malfunctioning," the plea said. It gave examples of the states of Odisha and Goa where malfunctioning of EVMs and VVPATs were detected. The plea said that in Odisha, the VVPAT machine meant for Parliamentary constituency was mistakenly attached to the Control unit and Ballot unit meant for Assembly constituency and the mistake was detected after 22 votes were casted in the newly replaced VVPAT. "This is because the pairing was done wrongly. This clearly proves that the M3 controlling unit is technologically incapable of identifying its pair accepting and feeding any pair connected to it," the plea said. It also said that during mocks polls in Goa, the entire set of EVM was replaced after complaints from one of the booth agents. The plea said that as a "short term solution" to achieve total satisfaction among the electorate the number of machines subject to verification of VVPAT should be "increased to 100 per cent". "As technocrats, we submit, in the long term the EVM should be replaced by Optical Ballot Scan machine which upholds the Tangible secret ballot system, verifiable even by a common man coupled with cost-effectiveness," the plea said.

'This is nonsense,' says Supreme Court dismissing PIL seeking 100% VVPAT verification

India's top court, The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by former Kolkata police Chief Rajeev Kumar who wanted a special bench to hear his request to extend his arrest shield.

No reprieve for Bengal police chief Rajeev Kumar from Supreme Court

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/saradha-scam-supreme-court-vacates-order-granting-protection-from-arrest-to-ex-kolkata-commissioner-rajeev-kumar-219314">Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar</a> Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case.

Kumar's lawyer mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna. The council said the apex court had on May 17 granted seven days time to Kumar to approach the competent court for legal remedies but they want an extension of time as lawyers in Kolkata courts are presently on a strike.

Kumar's counsel said four days have already elapsed and they needed time to approach the competent court in Kolkata. However, the bench said since the May 17 order was passed by a three-judge bench, they can approach the registry for the listing of the matter before an appropriate bench.

"You are a lawyer and you know that CJI is the master of roster," the bench told Kumar's counsel and asked him to approach the registry for the listing of the matter. On May 17, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had withdrawn the protection from arrest granted to Kumar by its February 5 order.

The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate with the investigation of cases arising out of the scam.

The bench, however, had said the protection to Kumar would continue for seven days from May 17 to enable him to approach the competent court for relief. The top court had also expressed concern over the confrontation between the CBI and the West Bengal Police in the case, saying that "at the receiving end are silently waiting for lakhs of a small town and rural investors who have been deprived and looted of their savings".

The bench had said the situation was grim as both sides have hardened their stand and there was no administrative mechanism in place to avoid and resolve such conflicts between two wings of the police force in the country.

It had noted that the CBI had issued three notices on October 18 and October 23, 2017, and on December 8, 2018, asking Kumar to appear and join the investigation, but he had not responded.

The court had also noted that the West Bengal government and Kumar have alleged "political vendetta" and have made allegations against M Nageswara Rao, former interim CBI director. In its order, the court had said the CBI had alleged non-cooperation and charged WB state police with "obfuscating investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protecting big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal".

The court had noted the CBI's claim of having substantial material implicating Kumar, the then Commissioner, Bidhannagar Commissionerate, of connivance and complicity with the principal accused.

Earlier, Kumar in an affidavit before the court had alleged that he was targeted by the CBI in the chit fund case due to "mala fide intent" and "conflict of interest" of Rao as his family members were under the scanner post-demonetisation.

The Election Commission on Wednesday had ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control incidents of violence in the state and had asked him to report to the Union Home Ministry on Thursday.

Kumar was removed along with West Bengal's Principal Secretary (Home) Atri Bhattacharya after parts of Kolkata witnessed widespread violence during BJP president Amit Shah's massive roadshow in the city.&nbsp;

Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case.

Former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the seven-day protection granted to him by the apex court in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case. Kumar's lawyer mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna. The council said the apex court had on May 17 granted seven days time to Kumar to approach the competent court for legal remedies but they want an extension of time as lawyers in Kolkata courts are presently on a strike. Kumar's counsel said four days have already elapsed and they needed time to approach the competent court in Kolkata. However, the bench said since the May 17 order was passed by a three-judge bench, they can approach the registry for the listing of the matter before an appropriate bench. "You are a lawyer and you know that CJI is the master of roster," the bench told Kumar's counsel and asked him to approach the registry for the listing of the matter. On May 17, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had withdrawn the protection from arrest granted to Kumar by its February 5 order. The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate with the investigation of cases arising out of the scam. The bench, however, had said the protection to Kumar would continue for seven days from May 17 to enable him to approach the competent court for relief. The top court had also expressed concern over the confrontation between the CBI and the West Bengal Police in the case, saying that "at the receiving end are silently waiting for lakhs of a small town and rural investors who have been deprived and looted of their savings". The bench had said the situation was grim as both sides have hardened their stand and there was no administrative mechanism in place to avoid and resolve such conflicts between two wings of the police force in the country. It had noted that the CBI had issued three notices on October 18 and October 23, 2017, and on December 8, 2018, asking Kumar to appear and join the investigation, but he had not responded. The court had also noted that the West Bengal government and Kumar have alleged "political vendetta" and have made allegations against M Nageswara Rao, former interim CBI director. In its order, the court had said the CBI had alleged non-cooperation and charged WB state police with "obfuscating investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protecting big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal". The court had noted the CBI's claim of having substantial material implicating Kumar, the then Commissioner, Bidhannagar Commissionerate, of connivance and complicity with the principal accused. Earlier, Kumar in an affidavit before the court had alleged that he was targeted by the CBI in the chit fund case due to "mala fide intent" and "conflict of interest" of Rao as his family members were under the scanner post-demonetisation. The Election Commission on Wednesday had ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control incidents of violence in the state and had asked him to report to the Union Home Ministry on Thursday. Kumar was removed along with West Bengal's Principal Secretary (Home) Atri Bhattacharya after parts of Kolkata witnessed widespread violence during BJP president Amit Shah's massive roadshow in the city.

Saradha scam: Ex-Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar moves Supreme Court seeking extension of protection

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam.

The CBI had told the apex court that it wanted custodial interrogation of Kumar, who was earlier heading West Bengal Police SIT probing chit fund scam, as there was prima facie evidence of his allegedly trying to destroy or tamper with evidence and "shield high and mighty" in the case.

However, Kumar's counsel had countered CBI's submissions and told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the agency wanted his custodial interrogation "just to humiliate" him and CBI should not be allowed to abuse the process of law.

Kumar's counsel had told the bench that CBI's application seeking custodial interrogation of the IPS officer was a "mala fide exercise".

Kumar was earlier heading the West Bengal Police's special investigation team (SIT) probing the chit fund scam. The apex court had in May 2014 directed the CBI to investigate the case.

The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate into the investigation of cases arising out of the scam.

The Election Commission on Wednesday ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal and had asked him to report to Union Home Ministry on Thursday.

Kumar, involved in a face-off with the CBI in connection with the agency's investigation in Saradha and Rose Valley chit fund scams, was removed as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control the incidents of violence in the state.

During the arguments on CBI's plea, the apex court had said that it would examine whether there was evidence requiring Kumar's custodial interrogation in the case and had also perused the case diary placed before it by the agency.

CBI had claimed in the court that they were seeking vacation of interim protection granted to Kumar as some crucial evidence, collected by the West Bengal Police SIT, was not shared with it despite repeated requests.

Kumar's counsel had argued that the IPS officer was interrogated by the CBI for almost 40 hours and the agency was not able to spell out clearly as to what was the offence committed by him for which they want his custodial interrogation. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce verdict on Friday on the CBI application seeking vacation of the order which granted interim protection from arrest to former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam. The CBI had told the apex court that it wanted custodial interrogation of Kumar, who was earlier heading West Bengal Police SIT probing chit fund scam, as there was prima facie evidence of his allegedly trying to destroy or tamper with evidence and "shield high and mighty" in the case. However, Kumar's counsel had countered CBI's submissions and told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the agency wanted his custodial interrogation "just to humiliate" him and CBI should not be allowed to abuse the process of law. Kumar's counsel had told the bench that CBI's application seeking custodial interrogation of the IPS officer was a "mala fide exercise". Kumar was earlier heading the West Bengal Police's special investigation team (SIT) probing the chit fund scam. The apex court had in May 2014 directed the CBI to investigate the case. The apex court, on February 5, had granted protection from arrest to Kumar while directing him to appear before the CBI and "faithfully" cooperate into the investigation of cases arising out of the scam. The Election Commission on Wednesday ordered the removal of Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal and had asked him to report to Union Home Ministry on Thursday. Kumar, involved in a face-off with the CBI in connection with the agency's investigation in Saradha and Rose Valley chit fund scams, was removed as Additional Director General, CID, in West Bengal for allegedly failing to control the incidents of violence in the state. During the arguments on CBI's plea, the apex court had said that it would examine whether there was evidence requiring Kumar's custodial interrogation in the case and had also perused the case diary placed before it by the agency. CBI had claimed in the court that they were seeking vacation of interim protection granted to Kumar as some crucial evidence, collected by the West Bengal Police SIT, was not shared with it despite repeated requests. Kumar's counsel had argued that the IPS officer was interrogated by the CBI for almost 40 hours and the agency was not able to spell out clearly as to what was the offence committed by him for which they want his custodial interrogation.

Supreme Court to pass order on CBI plea for vacating interim protection granted to Rajeev Kumar

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the West Bengal government over the delay in release of BJP youth leader Priyanka Sharma.Watch full video to know more.

Supreme Court questions the delay in releasing BJP youth leader Priyanka Sharma

BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, who was released on bail on Wednesday said ''I'll&nbsp;fight the case, won't apologise''.&nbsp;

''My bail was granted yesterday, but I wasn't released for another 18 hours. They didn't allow me to meet my advocate and family. They made me sign an apology,'' she added.

Earlier Supreme Court pulled up the West Bengal government over the delay in the release Sharma who was arrested for sharing a meme of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

However, Sharma's lawyer told the apex court that she was released at 9:40-10:00 am.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Sharma. While the apex court first asked the BJP worker to apologise to Mamata Banerjee, the condition was later waived off.

Sharma's counsel NK Kaul told the Supreme Court Sharma was forced to sign an apology letter prepared by the Police which stated that she will not post similar meme again.

Meanwhile, the top court said that it will hear Sharma's application seeking action against the West Bengal police authorities in July first week.

BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, who was released on bail on Wednesday said ''I'll fight the case, won't apologise''. ''My bail was granted yesterday, but I wasn't released for another 18 hours.

BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, who was released on bail on Wednesday said ''I'll fight the case, won't apologise''. ''My bail was granted yesterday, but I wasn't released for another 18 hours. They didn't allow me to meet my advocate and family. They made me sign an apology,'' she added. Earlier Supreme Court pulled up the West Bengal government over the delay in the release Sharma who was arrested for sharing a meme of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. However, Sharma's lawyer told the apex court that she was released at 9:40-10:00 am. The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Sharma. While the apex court first asked the BJP worker to apologise to Mamata Banerjee, the condition was later waived off. Sharma's counsel NK Kaul told the Supreme Court Sharma was forced to sign an apology letter prepared by the Police which stated that she will not post similar meme again. Meanwhile, the top court said that it will hear Sharma's application seeking action against the West Bengal police authorities in July first week.

'Will fight case, won't apologise', says BJP youth wing convenor Priyanka Sharma  

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