The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to West Bengal BJP functionary Priyanka Sharma who was arrested on May 10 for allegedly posting a morphed picture of state Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Facebook. The court has asked her to apologise.

Supreme Court grants bail to Priyanka Sharma after her apology for Mamata Banerjee meme

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/my-daughter-got-arrested-because-she-used-to-work-for-bjp-priyankas-mother-218086">BJP&nbsp;worker Priyanka Sharma</a>, who was arrested for sharing a morphed picture of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. While the apex court first asked the BJP worker to apologise to Mamata Banerjee, the condition was later waived off.

"Subject to Priyanka Sharma tendering an apology in writing for putting up an objectionable picture on Facebook account, she shall be immediately released. At the time of release, she shall tender an apology in writing," a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna said in its previous order.

The court called back Sharma's lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul and informed him that it was waiving the condition of apology.

Senior advocate Kaul, during the hearing, contended that asking for an apology will amount to infringement of the Right to Freedom of Speech.

Meanwhile, family members of the youth wing worker celebrated the decision of the apex court.

Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) youth wing convenor Priyanka Sharma was arrested on Friday after she was accused of sharing a morphed photo of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media.

Following her arrest, Priyanka was&nbsp;sent to jail for 14 days.

This is not the first time that Banerjee took action against someone who took a dig at her. In 2012, Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of the Jadavpur University was arrested for forwarding a cartoon of the chief minister. In the same year, she had also termed a student "Maoist" for questioning her government`s policies.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, who was arrested for sharing a morphed picture of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, who was arrested for sharing a morphed picture of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. While the apex court first asked the BJP worker to apologise to Mamata Banerjee, the condition was later waived off. "Subject to Priyanka Sharma tendering an apology in writing for putting up an objectionable picture on Facebook account, she shall be immediately released. At the time of release, she shall tender an apology in writing," a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna said in its previous order. The court called back Sharma's lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul and informed him that it was waiving the condition of apology. Senior advocate Kaul, during the hearing, contended that asking for an apology will amount to infringement of the Right to Freedom of Speech. Meanwhile, family members of the youth wing worker celebrated the decision of the apex court. Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) youth wing convenor Priyanka Sharma was arrested on Friday after she was accused of sharing a morphed photo of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media. Following her arrest, Priyanka was sent to jail for 14 days. This is not the first time that Banerjee took action against someone who took a dig at her. In 2012, Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of the Jadavpur University was arrested for forwarding a cartoon of the chief minister. In the same year, she had also termed a student "Maoist" for questioning her government`s policies. (With inputs from agencies)

Mamata's meme: Supreme Court grants bail to BJP worker Priyanka Sharma, waives apology condition

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.&nbsp;

Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month.&nbsp;

The apex court Collegium, last week, reiterated its recommendation to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-reiterates-names-of-justices-bose-bopanna-for-elevation-to-apex-court-217242">elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna</a> to the top court, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The current Chief Justice of Delhi, Rajendra Menon will retire in June, 2019. <a href="https://t.co/2ggCqXqhI3">pic.twitter.com/2ggCqXqhI3</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1127862400517136385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 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 Collegium observed that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. It also recommended names of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for the elevation.

The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the Supreme Court's website on Thursday.

On Wednesday, the 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month. The apex court Collegium, last week, reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna to the top court, news agency PTI reported. The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The current Chief Justice of Delhi, Rajendra Menon will retire in June, 2019. pic.twitter.com/2ggCqXqhI3 — ANI (@ANI) May 13, 2019 × The Collegium observed that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. It also recommended names of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for the elevation. The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the Supreme Court's website on Thursday. On Wednesday, the 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court Collegium recommends Justice DN Patel as next Chief Justice of Delhi High Court 

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to advance poll timings to 5:30 am from 7 am for the seventh phase of Lok Sabha polls in view of searing heat and the month of Ramzan.&nbsp;

A vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna rejected the plea, saying the notified timing of voting is from 7 am to 6 pm and voters can cast vote in the morning also.

"The timings are from 7 am to 6 pm. People can come in the morning to cast their votes. They (EC) will face the logistical problem (if timings are advanced)," the bench told advocate Mohammad Nizamuddin Pasha who had filed the petition.&nbsp;

On May 2, the top court had asked the poll panel to pass "necessary orders" on a representation seeking advancing of voting timing for the remaining phase of Lok Sabha polls, which the EC had rejected on May 5.

The poll panel had turned down his representation as being "administratively not feasible".

Following the poll panel's decision, Pasha had approached the apex court with his plea,&nbsp;

"The reasoning given by the respondent (EC) in its order dated May 5 is ex-facie self-contradictory as the respondent claims it has already taken acute hot weather conditions and festivals into account in fixing poll timing but still has passed orders fixing the same standard polling hours that are issued in every election at any time in any part of the country," the plea had said.

Polling for the seventh phase of elections will be held on May 19.

The petitioner had earlier told the top court that during Ramzan, Muslims keep fast.

The plea had said the India Meteorological Department has issued warning indicating severe heatwave conditions over the next few days in poll-bound areas of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner had said harsh weather conditions would make it difficult for Muslims to go out and vote.

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to advance poll timings to 5:30 am from 7 am for the seventh phase of Lok Sabha polls in view of searing heat and the month of Ramzan.

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to advance poll timings to 5:30 am from 7 am for the seventh phase of Lok Sabha polls in view of searing heat and the month of Ramzan. A vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna rejected the plea, saying the notified timing of voting is from 7 am to 6 pm and voters can cast vote in the morning also. "The timings are from 7 am to 6 pm. People can come in the morning to cast their votes. They (EC) will face the logistical problem (if timings are advanced)," the bench told advocate Mohammad Nizamuddin Pasha who had filed the petition. On May 2, the top court had asked the poll panel to pass "necessary orders" on a representation seeking advancing of voting timing for the remaining phase of Lok Sabha polls, which the EC had rejected on May 5. The poll panel had turned down his representation as being "administratively not feasible". Following the poll panel's decision, Pasha had approached the apex court with his plea, "The reasoning given by the respondent (EC) in its order dated May 5 is ex-facie self-contradictory as the respondent claims it has already taken acute hot weather conditions and festivals into account in fixing poll timing but still has passed orders fixing the same standard polling hours that are issued in every election at any time in any part of the country," the plea had said. Polling for the seventh phase of elections will be held on May 19. The petitioner had earlier told the top court that during Ramzan, Muslims keep fast. The plea had said the India Meteorological Department has issued warning indicating severe heatwave conditions over the next few days in poll-bound areas of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner had said harsh weather conditions would make it difficult for Muslims to go out and vote.

Supreme Court dismisses plea to advance poll timing in Lok Sabha election

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear on May 17 the Centre's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's verdict which had quashed cadre allocation of IAS and IPS officers of the 2018 batch.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the high court had asked the government to redo the entire exercise.

Mehta told the court that those selected under the cadre in the 2018 batch have undergone training and were supposed to start joining their respective cadres from May 10.

The Delhi High Court had recently quashed the Centre's cadre allocations of IAS and IPS officers of the 2018 batch under the new policy and ordered fresh cadre allocation.

It had noted that re-allocation of cadres by authorities should not take much time as it is done electronically, that is through computer program or software, and authorities already possess requisite data.

The high court had said that it was inclined to grant relief to petitioners considering that they have approached the court at the very earliest and at a stage when neither IAS nor IPS officers of the 2018 batch have commenced their on-site training which is cadre-specific.

The court's verdict came on four petitions filed by various officers challenging the notification of Central government allocating cadres to candidates of Indian Police Service (IPS) on the basis of results of the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2017.

They had sought direction to the Centre to issue a new list allocating respective cadres to selected IPS candidates in the CSE, 2017, purely on the basis of merit and preferences indicated in the online form, by correctly interpreting the Office Memorandum (OM) of September 5, 2017.

The pleas had claimed that the interpretation of Cadre Allocation Policy 2017 adopted by authorities was unreasonable and grossly unfair, unjust and arbitrary.

"The same is violative of the principle of equality in as much, as, the more meritorious candidates, who have ranked higher in CSE, 2017, have been denied allocation to cadres for which they had given their preferences, and less meritorious candidates have been allocated to the said cadres," the officers' counsel had argued.

As per the 2017 office memorandum on cadre allocation policy, states and joint cadres were divided into five zones.

According to that policy, candidates were required to first give their choice in the descending order of preference from amongst various zones.

Thereafter, candidates will indicate one preference of cadre from each preferred zone.

The candidates will indicate their second cadre preference for every preferred zone thereafter.

A similar process will continue until a preference for all cadres is indicated by the candidate.

If a candidate does not give any preference for any of zones/cadres, it will be presumed that he has no specific preference for those zones/cadres and accordingly, if he is not allocated to any one of the cadres for which he has indicated preference, he shall be allotted along with other such candidates in the order of rank to any of the remaining cadres, arranged in an alphabetical order, in which there are vacancies in his category after allocation of all candidates who can be allotted to cadres in accordance with their preference, it had stated.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear on May 17 the Centre's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's verdict which had quashed cadre allocation of IAS and IPS officers of the 2018 batch.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear on May 17 the Centre's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's verdict which had quashed cadre allocation of IAS and IPS officers of the 2018 batch. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the high court had asked the government to redo the entire exercise. Mehta told the court that those selected under the cadre in the 2018 batch have undergone training and were supposed to start joining their respective cadres from May 10. The Delhi High Court had recently quashed the Centre's cadre allocations of IAS and IPS officers of the 2018 batch under the new policy and ordered fresh cadre allocation. It had noted that re-allocation of cadres by authorities should not take much time as it is done electronically, that is through computer program or software, and authorities already possess requisite data. The high court had said that it was inclined to grant relief to petitioners considering that they have approached the court at the very earliest and at a stage when neither IAS nor IPS officers of the 2018 batch have commenced their on-site training which is cadre-specific. The court's verdict came on four petitions filed by various officers challenging the notification of Central government allocating cadres to candidates of Indian Police Service (IPS) on the basis of results of the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2017. They had sought direction to the Centre to issue a new list allocating respective cadres to selected IPS candidates in the CSE, 2017, purely on the basis of merit and preferences indicated in the online form, by correctly interpreting the Office Memorandum (OM) of September 5, 2017. The pleas had claimed that the interpretation of Cadre Allocation Policy 2017 adopted by authorities was unreasonable and grossly unfair, unjust and arbitrary. "The same is violative of the principle of equality in as much, as, the more meritorious candidates, who have ranked higher in CSE, 2017, have been denied allocation to cadres for which they had given their preferences, and less meritorious candidates have been allocated to the said cadres," the officers' counsel had argued. As per the 2017 office memorandum on cadre allocation policy, states and joint cadres were divided into five zones. According to that policy, candidates were required to first give their choice in the descending order of preference from amongst various zones. Thereafter, candidates will indicate one preference of cadre from each preferred zone. The candidates will indicate their second cadre preference for every preferred zone thereafter. A similar process will continue until a preference for all cadres is indicated by the candidate. If a candidate does not give any preference for any of zones/cadres, it will be presumed that he has no specific preference for those zones/cadres and accordingly, if he is not allocated to any one of the cadres for which he has indicated preference, he shall be allotted along with other such candidates in the order of rank to any of the remaining cadres, arranged in an alphabetical order, in which there are vacancies in his category after allocation of all candidates who can be allotted to cadres in accordance with their preference, it had stated.

Supreme Court agrees to hear plea against Delhi HC verdict quashing cadre allocation of IAS, IPS officers

Top court of India defers Ayodhya case hearing, additional time is allowed to mediation panel till August 15. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya dispute: Mediation panel requested for more time

Supreme Court on Friday granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-nirmohi-akhara-requests-sc-to-move-mediation-proceedings-to-neutral-place-205855"> Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute</a> case.&nbsp;

The court extended the deadline till August 15th for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya.&nbsp;

"We have received the report from the mediation committee and additional time has been sought," the apex court said. The top court said it had received the mediation committee’s report on May 7th.

On March 8th, the Supreme Court had asked the panel to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks.&nbsp;

The five-judge bench is being headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi which includes Justices SA Bobde, SA Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan and DY Chandrachud.

“Chairperson of the committee has requested for additional time till August 15. We will allow the request," the court added.

India's top court had appointed three members - former apex court judge FM Ibrahim&nbsp; Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and advocate Sriram Panchu - as mediators to help settle the decades-long dispute.

"Nobody will come in the way of the mediation process," the Supreme Court declared.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi said the court would not like to short circuit the mediation process.

Supreme Court on Friday granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute case. The court extended the deadline till August 15th for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya.

Supreme Court on Friday granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute case. The court extended the deadline till August 15th for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya. "We have received the report from the mediation committee and additional time has been sought," the apex court said. The top court said it had received the mediation committee’s report on May 7th. On March 8th, the Supreme Court had asked the panel to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks. The five-judge bench is being headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi which includes Justices SA Bobde, SA Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan and DY Chandrachud. “Chairperson of the committee has requested for additional time till August 15. We will allow the request," the court added. India's top court had appointed three members - former apex court judge FM Ibrahim Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and advocate Sriram Panchu - as mediators to help settle the decades-long dispute. "Nobody will come in the way of the mediation process," the Supreme Court declared. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said the court would not like to short circuit the mediation process.

Supreme Court grants additional time to mediators in Ayodhya case

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-tenders-unconditional-apology-to-supreme-court-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-216903">36 Rafale fighter jets</a> on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.

The top court reserved its verdict on pleas, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking review of its December 14 judgement which gave clean chit to the Centre's Rafale deal to procure jets from the French firm, Dassault.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence. "The question is whether you are obliged to follow the Lalita Kumari judgment or not."

Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, that "there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence".

Justice Joseph referred to the earlier deal and asked the Centre as to why the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology.

"The court cannot decide such technical aspects," the law officer said.&nbsp;

On the court's question of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal said it was not an "unprecedented practice" and referred to such agreements with Russia and the US where there was such a waiver.

"It is a question of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments", he said.

The bench was hearing three review petitions filed by the trio, a lawyer Vineet Dhandha and AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh.

The apex court had said in the December verdict that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

At the outset, Bhushan submitted that the judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA.&nbsp;

He said the Centre misled the court by referring to non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year.&nbsp;

"How did the government anticipate even before the CAG report came that the pricing details of Rafale will be redacted. In a report submitted in November 2018, how did they know that the CAG report in February next&nbsp;year would redact pricing details," the lawyer asked.

Bhushan alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016.

One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said. "This is shocking that the government concealed this piece of information from the court. Doing away with the anti-corruption clauses and concealment of this fact from the court is by itself a sufficient ground to order a criminal investigation," he said.&nbsp;

He referred to the news articles and said that three experts of Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft.

"The benchmark price was firm and fixed. It was 5 billion Euros. But the final price for Rafale jets shot up to 55.6 per cent above the benchmark price and would continue to increase with time," he alleged.

Referring to reports, he alleged that besides the seven-member INT, which was negotiating the deal, "parallel negotiations" were undertaken by the PMO and this weaken the negotiating powers of the INT.&nbsp;

"Even the NSA was playing some role although he was not to be involved," he said.&nbsp;

"Anil Ambani was involved in this deal right from the beginning" and he even produced a film for the wife of a French leader, he said, alleging "quid pro quo" which required criminal investigation.

Shourie also addressed the bench on a separate plea seeking perjury prosecution of unknown government officials for misleading it during the hearing of the pleas.&nbsp;

Venugopal vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of the review petitions saying that the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.&nbsp;

"The Supreme Court has already decided the challenge to the Rafale deal. I would still say that the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret stolen documents," he said.&nbsp;

He then referred to clause 10 of the IGA between France and India and said that it mandated maintaining the secrecy of the deal.&nbsp;

Venugopal then referred to the CAG report and said that it has been found&nbsp; 
that the government got the jets at 2.86 per cent lower price.

The government is under obligation to put defence material undercover, he said, adding that "when the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact.

The Supreme Court Friday posed searching questions to the Centre on its deal with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets on issues like the "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the IGA pact. The top court reserved its verdict on pleas, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking review of its December 14 judgement which gave clean chit to the Centre's Rafale deal to procure jets from the French firm, Dassault. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred to a judgement in the Lalita Kumari case which said that an FIR is must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence. "The question is whether you are obliged to follow the Lalita Kumari judgment or not." Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, that "there has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence". Justice Joseph referred to the earlier deal and asked the Centre as to why the inter-governmental agreement (IGA) on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology. "The court cannot decide such technical aspects," the law officer said. On the court's question of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal said it was not an "unprecedented practice" and referred to such agreements with Russia and the US where there was such a waiver. "It is a question of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments", he said. The bench was hearing three review petitions filed by the trio, a lawyer Vineet Dhandha and AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh. The apex court had said in the December verdict that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. At the outset, Bhushan submitted that the judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it was seeking cancellation of IGA. He said the Centre misled the court by referring to non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year. "How did the government anticipate even before the CAG report came that the pricing details of Rafale will be redacted. In a report submitted in November 2018, how did they know that the CAG report in February next year would redact pricing details," the lawyer asked. Bhushan alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said that as many eight critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in September 2016. One of the clauses dealt with the aspect that the government can cancel the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said. "This is shocking that the government concealed this piece of information from the court. Doing away with the anti-corruption clauses and concealment of this fact from the court is by itself a sufficient ground to order a criminal investigation," he said. He referred to the news articles and said that three experts of Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had also raised the objections to the inflated pricing of the aircraft. "The benchmark price was firm and fixed. It was 5 billion Euros. But the final price for Rafale jets shot up to 55.6 per cent above the benchmark price and would continue to increase with time," he alleged. Referring to reports, he alleged that besides the seven-member INT, which was negotiating the deal, "parallel negotiations" were undertaken by the PMO and this weaken the negotiating powers of the INT. "Even the NSA was playing some role although he was not to be involved," he said. "Anil Ambani was involved in this deal right from the beginning" and he even produced a film for the wife of a French leader, he said, alleging "quid pro quo" which required criminal investigation. Shourie also addressed the bench on a separate plea seeking perjury prosecution of unknown government officials for misleading it during the hearing of the pleas. Venugopal vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of the review petitions saying that the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case. "The Supreme Court has already decided the challenge to the Rafale deal. I would still say that the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret stolen documents," he said. He then referred to clause 10 of the IGA between France and India and said that it mandated maintaining the secrecy of the deal. Venugopal then referred to the CAG report and said that it has been found that the government got the jets at 2.86 per cent lower price. The government is under obligation to put defence material undercover, he said, adding that "when the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".

Rafale case: Supreme Court poses queries on waiver of sovereign guarantee

The Supreme Court of India is scheduled today to hear issues relating to decades-old Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

India's top court to hear Ayodhya dispute today

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets.

Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan Friday sought from the Supreme Court setting aside its earlier verdict that dismissed their petition for criminal investigation into the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-tenders-unconditional-apology-to-supreme-court-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-216903">Rafale fighter jet deal case</a>.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, during the two-hour-long hearing, referred to various aspects including alleged suppression of material facts from the court and said that an FIR should have been lodged and a criminal investigation launched into the case.

He also referred to the documents relating to alleged parallel negotiations being undertaken by the PMO and said that three members of the Indian Negotiation Team had objected to the parallel negotiations.

He said that a prima facie cognisable offence has been committed and it warranted registration of the FIR.&nbsp;

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre objected to the review petition and said that the basic grounds for seeking review of the verdict are the same as they were in the main petition.

The petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret "stolen documents".

He also referred to the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France and said that this matter pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract for construction of flyover or dams.

Venugopal sought dismissal of the review petitions.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment last year which had dismissed the pleas challenging India's agreement with France to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets. Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan Friday sought from the Supreme Court setting aside its earlier verdict that dismissed their petition for criminal investigation into the Rafale fighter jet deal case. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, during the two-hour-long hearing, referred to various aspects including alleged suppression of material facts from the court and said that an FIR should have been lodged and a criminal investigation launched into the case. He also referred to the documents relating to alleged parallel negotiations being undertaken by the PMO and said that three members of the Indian Negotiation Team had objected to the parallel negotiations. He said that a prima facie cognisable offence has been committed and it warranted registration of the FIR. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre objected to the review petition and said that the basic grounds for seeking review of the verdict are the same as they were in the main petition. The petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret "stolen documents". He also referred to the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France and said that this matter pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract for construction of flyover or dams. Venugopal sought dismissal of the review petitions.

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Rafale review petitions 

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant to the Centre for their elevation as apex court judges.

Justice Gavai is presently a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

As per the Collegium recommendation uploaded on the top court's website, the five-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi met on Wednesday and recommended these two names for their elevation as Supreme Court judges.

Against the sanctioned strength of 31 judges, the apex court is presently functioning with 27 judges.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant to the Centre for their elevation as apex court judges. Justice Gavai is presently a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant to the Centre for their elevation as apex court judges. Justice Gavai is presently a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. As per the Collegium recommendation uploaded on the top court's website, the five-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi met on Wednesday and recommended these two names for their elevation as Supreme Court judges. Against the sanctioned strength of 31 judges, the apex court is presently functioning with 27 judges.

Supreme Court Collegium recommends names of Justice Gavai, Surya Kant for elevation as apex court judges

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The matter will come for the first time on Friday since March 8 order by which the top court had referred the decades-old politically sensitive case for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-mediation-in-ayodhya-case-appoints-three-member-panel-201901">mediation by a panel</a> headed by former apex court judge FM I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.

Spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, are the other two members of the panel of mediators.

The panel was asked by the apex court to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The matter will come for the first time on Friday since March 8 order by which the top court had referred the decades-old politically sensitive case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge FM I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. Spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, are the other two members of the panel of mediators. The panel was asked by the apex court to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks.

Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya land dispute case on Friday

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-sees-little-scope-for-jet-airways-revival-government-sources-216085">Jet Airways</a>' pilots' union has appealed to the Supreme Court of India to direct State Bank Of India (SBI) to release interim funding to try to revive the grounded airline, according to a court filing made on Tuesday which was reviewed by Reuters.

Jet halted all flight operations indefinitely on April 17 after its lenders rejected its plea for emergency funds, potentially the end of the line for what was once India's largest private airline.

The debt-laden airline has struggled to compete with low-cost carriers like IndiGo and SpiceJet that now dominate Indian skies, and its mounting losses forced it to ground its planes.

The National Aviator's Guild said in its petition that SBI's decision to not give the interim funding of 15 billion rupees ($216 million), after agreeing to it in March as part a resolution plan, has resulted in the airline being grounded and has impacted the livelihood of Jet's 22,000 employees.

This "singular decision" by SBI was responsible for the operations of Jet Airways coming to a stop and "substantial de-valuation/depreciation in the value of Jet", the union said in the court filing.

SBI, as part of the resolution plan, has also invited bids from potential investors to take a stake in Jet. So far no bidders have publicly shown interest and the final bids are expected to be submitted by May 10.

There was no immediate comment from SBI.

Without the emergency funds, Jet was unable to pay rentals on its leased aircraft, forcing lessors to take backplanes.

Its slots have been temporarily re-allocated to other airlines and some of its pilots and other employees who have not been paid in months have taken up jobs elsewhere.

The union has asked the Supreme Court to direct the civil aviation ministry and aviation regulator to decline any further de-registration requests for Jet's leased aircraft and not to reassign its slots to other airlines permanently, according to the filing.

Allocation of Jet's slots, allotment of its seats under the international bilateral agreement with other airlines and handing over its de-registered aircraft to other carriers without following due process has "further devalued the worth of Jet Airways", the union said in its petition.

"The consequence is that there is hardly any likelihood of some serious buyer for the airline," the pilots' union said in the petition, urging the court to act swiftly.

Jet Airways' pilots' union has appealed to the Supreme Court of India to direct State Bank Of India (SBI) to release interim funding to try to revive the grounded airline, according to a court filing made on Tuesday which was reviewed by Reuters.

Jet Airways' pilots' union has appealed to the Supreme Court of India to direct State Bank Of India (SBI) to release interim funding to try to revive the grounded airline, according to a court filing made on Tuesday which was reviewed by Reuters. Jet halted all flight operations indefinitely on April 17 after its lenders rejected its plea for emergency funds, potentially the end of the line for what was once India's largest private airline. The debt-laden airline has struggled to compete with low-cost carriers like IndiGo and SpiceJet that now dominate Indian skies, and its mounting losses forced it to ground its planes. The National Aviator's Guild said in its petition that SBI's decision to not give the interim funding of 15 billion rupees ($216 million), after agreeing to it in March as part a resolution plan, has resulted in the airline being grounded and has impacted the livelihood of Jet's 22,000 employees. This "singular decision" by SBI was responsible for the operations of Jet Airways coming to a stop and "substantial de-valuation/depreciation in the value of Jet", the union said in the court filing. SBI, as part of the resolution plan, has also invited bids from potential investors to take a stake in Jet. So far no bidders have publicly shown interest and the final bids are expected to be submitted by May 10. There was no immediate comment from SBI. Without the emergency funds, Jet was unable to pay rentals on its leased aircraft, forcing lessors to take backplanes. Its slots have been temporarily re-allocated to other airlines and some of its pilots and other employees who have not been paid in months have taken up jobs elsewhere. The union has asked the Supreme Court to direct the civil aviation ministry and aviation regulator to decline any further de-registration requests for Jet's leased aircraft and not to reassign its slots to other airlines permanently, according to the filing. Allocation of Jet's slots, allotment of its seats under the international bilateral agreement with other airlines and handing over its de-registered aircraft to other carriers without following due process has "further devalued the worth of Jet Airways", the union said in its petition. "The consequence is that there is hardly any likelihood of some serious buyer for the airline," the pilots' union said in the petition, urging the court to act swiftly.

Jet Airways pilots' union asks Supreme Court to direct SBI to release funds

Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by sacked Border Security Force constable Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging the rejection of his nomination from Varanasi Lok Sabha seat earlier.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi dismissing the plea said, "We don’t find any merit to entertain this petition."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Yadav, said, as per the earlier verdict of the apex court, the election petition can be filed during enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, also referred to various apex court judgments and said election petitions can only be filed after polls are over as it would vitiate the electoral process.

At the fag end of the hearing, Bhushan sought liberty from the court to file an election petition after polling is over.

Yadav, who was dismissed from the BSF in 2017 after complaining about the poor quality of food served to the soldiers in a video, which went viral, had filed nomination papers against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency. His nomination&nbsp;got rejected after he failed to submit a certificate asking for clarification on the reason behind his termination.

According to a report, he was asked to submit a certificate clarifying whether his services were terminated due to corruption or disloyalty to the government.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Yadav has alleged that he was given a very short period to submit the certificate and his nomination was rejected wrongfully.

In 2017, Yadav had posted four videos on social media which showed him complaining about unpalatable food at his camp along Indo-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir.

He was named as the Samajwadi Party candidate from Varanasi parliamentary constituency to take on Prime Minister Modi on Monday. Earlier, he was in the fray as an independent candidate.

Varanasi seat was won by Prime Minister Modi in the last Lok Sabha elections. He had defeated AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal with a massive margin of 3.37 lakh votes.

The election in Varanasi is slated to take place in the last phase of seven-phased Lok Sabha elections on May 19. The counting of votes will begin on May 23.

(With inputs from news agencies)

Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by sacked Border Security Force constable Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging the rejection of his nomination from Varanasi Lok Sabha seat earlier.

Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by sacked Border Security Force constable Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging the rejection of his nomination from Varanasi Lok Sabha seat earlier. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi dismissing the plea said, "We don’t find any merit to entertain this petition." Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Yadav, said, as per the earlier verdict of the apex court, the election petition can be filed during enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, also referred to various apex court judgments and said election petitions can only be filed after polls are over as it would vitiate the electoral process. At the fag end of the hearing, Bhushan sought liberty from the court to file an election petition after polling is over. Yadav, who was dismissed from the BSF in 2017 after complaining about the poor quality of food served to the soldiers in a video, which went viral, had filed nomination papers against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency. His nomination got rejected after he failed to submit a certificate asking for clarification on the reason behind his termination. According to a report, he was asked to submit a certificate clarifying whether his services were terminated due to corruption or disloyalty to the government. Meanwhile, Yadav has alleged that he was given a very short period to submit the certificate and his nomination was rejected wrongfully. In 2017, Yadav had posted four videos on social media which showed him complaining about unpalatable food at his camp along Indo-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir. He was named as the Samajwadi Party candidate from Varanasi parliamentary constituency to take on Prime Minister Modi on Monday. Earlier, he was in the fray as an independent candidate. Varanasi seat was won by Prime Minister Modi in the last Lok Sabha elections. He had defeated AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal with a massive margin of 3.37 lakh votes. The election in Varanasi is slated to take place in the last phase of seven-phased Lok Sabha elections on May 19. The counting of votes will begin on May 23. (With inputs from news agencies)

Supreme Court dismisses Tej Bahadur Yadav's plea challenging rejection of his nomination from Varanasi

Supreme Court of India dismisses second plea against Rahul Gandhi, Petition sought to debar Congress President from contesting elections. Watch this video to know more.

SC dismisses second plea against Rahul Gandhi

Rejecting the government's objections, the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna to the apex court, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity.

The Collegium has also recommended names of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-recommends-names-of-justice-gavai-surya-kant-for-elevation-as-apex-court-judges-217172">Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for elevation to the apex court</a>.

The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the apex court's website on Thursday.

The 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met on Wednesday and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges.

"In view of the above, on due consideration of all aspects mentioned in the file, the Collegium resolves to reiterate the aforementioned recommendation dated 12th April 2019, especially since nothing adverse regarding competence, conduct or integrity of Justices Aniruddha Bose, and AS Bopanna, has been pointed out," the Collegium said in its May 8 resolution.

The government had earlier returned the names of the two judges, citing seniority and representation of regions as the reasons.

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.

The government had returned Justice Bose's name to the Collegium last year as well when he was recommended to head the Delhi high court.

Justice Gavai is a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

"While recommending the names of Justice BR Gavai and Surya Kant, the Collegium has taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, apart from their competence, conduct and integrity," said the Collegium, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and RF Nariman, in its May 8 resolution.

It added, "The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts as well as to all sections of the society including those belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories, women and minorities. We are also conscious of the fact that some High Courts have remained unrepresented in the Supreme Court. The Collegium, therefore, recommends that Justice BR Gavai and Surya Kant, be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India."

As against the sanctioned strength of 31 judges, the apex court is currently functioning with 27 judges.&nbsp;

Rejecting the government's objections, the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna to the apex court, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity.

Rejecting the government's objections, the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna to the apex court, observing that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. The Collegium has also recommended names of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for elevation to the apex court. The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the apex court's website on Thursday. The 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met on Wednesday and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges. "In view of the above, on due consideration of all aspects mentioned in the file, the Collegium resolves to reiterate the aforementioned recommendation dated 12th April 2019, especially since nothing adverse regarding competence, conduct or integrity of Justices Aniruddha Bose, and AS Bopanna, has been pointed out," the Collegium said in its May 8 resolution. The government had earlier returned the names of the two judges, citing seniority and representation of regions as the reasons. 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. The government had returned Justice Bose's name to the Collegium last year as well when he was recommended to head the Delhi high court. Justice Gavai is a judge of the Bombay High Court and Justice Kant is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. "While recommending the names of Justice BR Gavai and Surya Kant, the Collegium has taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, apart from their competence, conduct and integrity," said the Collegium, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and RF Nariman, in its May 8 resolution. It added, "The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts as well as to all sections of the society including those belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories, women and minorities. We are also conscious of the fact that some High Courts have remained unrepresented in the Supreme Court. The Collegium, therefore, recommends that Justice BR Gavai and Surya Kant, be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India." As against the sanctioned strength of 31 judges, the apex court is currently functioning with 27 judges.

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates names of Justices Bose, Bopanna for elevation to apex court 

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Centre and the Election Commission to debar Congress President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-citizenship-row-supreme-court-agrees-to-examine-petition-215259">Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections</a> till the issue of his citizenship is decided.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the contention of the petitioners, who said that in a form along with the annual data of a UK-based company in 2005-06, it was allegedly mentioned that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-tenders-unconditional-apology-to-supreme-court-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-216903">Rahul Gandhi</a> is a British citizen.

"If some company in some form mentions his nationality as British, does he become a British citizen," the bench also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna told the petitioners.&nbsp;

Last week, the Home Ministry had issued a notice acting on a complaint by BJP Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy.

The complaint states that the Congress president had declared his nationality as British in a UK-based company.

The BJP leader demanded Rahul should dismiss these documents in a press conference and tell that he has not authenticated them.&nbsp;

The issue of Gandhi's dual citizenship was first raised by Subramanian Swamy in 2015, where he had written to the Prime Minister to deny the Congress president Indian citizenship. In November 2015, the Supreme Court has dismissed public interest litigation demanding CBI probe into the citizenship row noting that PILs were not meant to target one individual or organisation but was a medium to resolve human suffering through good governance.

A bench of then, Chief Justice of India H L Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy had rubbished the plea questioning the source and authenticity of the documents attached to the&nbsp;petition.

In 2016, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan had forwarded to the parliamentary ethics committee, headed by veteran BJP leader L K Advani, Swamy's "complaint of ethical misconduct" against Gandhi that he had accessed documents in which the Congress leader had called himself "British".

In his reply to the ethics committee on the allegations of British citizenship, Gandhi had said he had never "sought or acquired British citizenship" and that his "identity is that of an Indian".

He also questioned the committee's decision to look into a "complaint that is not in order", claiming it was "an endeavour to malign" him.

The panel had issued a notice to him, seeking an explanation to whether he had once declared himself a British citizen on the legal papers of a company in the United Kingdom.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Centre and the Election Commission to debar Congress President Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections till the issue of his citizenship is decided.

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Centre and the Election Commission to debar Congress President Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections till the issue of his citizenship is decided. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the contention of the petitioners, who said that in a form along with the annual data of a UK-based company in 2005-06, it was allegedly mentioned that Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen. "If some company in some form mentions his nationality as British, does he become a British citizen," the bench also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna told the petitioners. Last week, the Home Ministry had issued a notice acting on a complaint by BJP Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy. The complaint states that the Congress president had declared his nationality as British in a UK-based company. The BJP leader demanded Rahul should dismiss these documents in a press conference and tell that he has not authenticated them. The issue of Gandhi's dual citizenship was first raised by Subramanian Swamy in 2015, where he had written to the Prime Minister to deny the Congress president Indian citizenship. In November 2015, the Supreme Court has dismissed public interest litigation demanding CBI probe into the citizenship row noting that PILs were not meant to target one individual or organisation but was a medium to resolve human suffering through good governance. A bench of then, Chief Justice of India H L Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy had rubbished the plea questioning the source and authenticity of the documents attached to the petition. In 2016, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan had forwarded to the parliamentary ethics committee, headed by veteran BJP leader L K Advani, Swamy's "complaint of ethical misconduct" against Gandhi that he had accessed documents in which the Congress leader had called himself "British". In his reply to the ethics committee on the allegations of British citizenship, Gandhi had said he had never "sought or acquired British citizenship" and that his "identity is that of an Indian". He also questioned the committee's decision to look into a "complaint that is not in order", claiming it was "an endeavour to malign" him. The panel had issued a notice to him, seeking an explanation to whether he had once declared himself a British citizen on the legal papers of a company in the United Kingdom. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking to debar Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha polls

Asia Bibi is finally free to leave Pakistan. Supreme Court rejects petition to review acquittal of her blasphemy death sentence. watch full video to know more.

Asia Bibi is finally free to leave Pakistan

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday tendered unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for linking its April 10 order with his remark. Gandhi had accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of theft in the Rafale deal and based his 'chowkidar chor hai' remark on Supreme Court verdict.

The apology was offered in a fresh affidavit - the third by Congress president - filed by Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the court. In the affidavit, the Congress president said he holds Supreme Court in "highest esteem" and sought closure of contempt proceedings against him.

During the last hearing on April 30, the court had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/made-error-will-apologise-for-chowkidar-chor-hai-comment-rahul-gandhi-to-supreme-court-214727">lashed out at Gandhi</a> for the affidavit over his alleged contemptuous remark that the Congress president filed in connection with the court's April 10 verdict on Rafale case.

"You took 22 pages in the affidavit to express regret? We refrained from saying anything further in the last hearing but this is your second affidavit. You attributed the comment to us and now you are trying to justify?" the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said.

The bench asked Gandhi to file another affidavit.

After the court rap, Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench, "There's nothing wrong in the affidavit but allow me to rectify. I will apologise. I made error. For 18 months I have been trying to say that the PM and other party workers are complicit, hence the comment (chowkidar chor hai)."

Gandhi filed a second affidavit in the court last week reiterating his stand and again expressing regret on his remarks on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-contempt-notice-to-rahul-gandhi-for-attributing-chowkidar-chor-hai-remark-to-its-order-212836">Rafale verdict</a>. Gandhi said that unfortunate references to the court order and juxtaposition of the political slogan in the same breath ought not to be construed as suggesting that the court had given any finding or conclusion on that issue.

"It is unfortunate that this slogan got intermingled with my comments on and references to the apex court's order. My statement was made in the heat of political campaigning," he said in his affidavit.

The Congress president had claimed that the apex court has made it "clear" that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "committed a theft". He had made the statement while interacting with reporters in Amethi after filing his nomination papers.

The court is hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Gandhi for his remarks against PM Modi, which the apex court said was incorrectly attributed to it by the Congress chief.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday tendered unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for linking its April 10 order with his remark. Gandhi had accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of theft in the Rafale deal and based his 'chowkidar chor hai' remark on Supreme Court verdict.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday tendered unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for linking its April 10 order with his remark. Gandhi had accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of theft in the Rafale deal and based his 'chowkidar chor hai' remark on Supreme Court verdict. The apology was offered in a fresh affidavit - the third by Congress president - filed by Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the court. In the affidavit, the Congress president said he holds Supreme Court in "highest esteem" and sought closure of contempt proceedings against him. During the last hearing on April 30, the court had lashed out at Gandhi for the affidavit over his alleged contemptuous remark that the Congress president filed in connection with the court's April 10 verdict on Rafale case. "You took 22 pages in the affidavit to express regret? We refrained from saying anything further in the last hearing but this is your second affidavit. You attributed the comment to us and now you are trying to justify?" the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said. The bench asked Gandhi to file another affidavit. After the court rap, Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench, "There's nothing wrong in the affidavit but allow me to rectify. I will apologise. I made error. For 18 months I have been trying to say that the PM and other party workers are complicit, hence the comment (chowkidar chor hai)." Gandhi filed a second affidavit in the court last week reiterating his stand and again expressing regret on his remarks on the Rafale verdict. Gandhi said that unfortunate references to the court order and juxtaposition of the political slogan in the same breath ought not to be construed as suggesting that the court had given any finding or conclusion on that issue. "It is unfortunate that this slogan got intermingled with my comments on and references to the apex court's order. My statement was made in the heat of political campaigning," he said in his affidavit. The Congress president had claimed that the apex court has made it "clear" that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "committed a theft". He had made the statement while interacting with reporters in Amethi after filing his nomination papers. The court is hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Gandhi for his remarks against PM Modi, which the apex court said was incorrectly attributed to it by the Congress chief.

Rahul Gandhi tenders unconditional apology to Supreme Court for linking 'chowkidar chor hai' comment with Rafale verdict

Asia Bibi leaves Pakistan, sources say she is headed to Canada

Congress Chief Rahul Gandhi has extended an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for wrongfully attributing the chowkidar chor hai jibe to the court.

Rahul Gandhi tenders "Unconditional Apology" to Top Court for chowkidar chor hai attribution

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">clean chit</a> given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said.

They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ex-woman-employees-silence-hints-at-conspiracy-against-cji-say-sources-216779">sexual harassment allegations</a> against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee. The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the clean chit given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said. They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

'Why repeatedly skipping inquiries?' Sources on CJI accuser's demand for clean chit copy

Supreme Court rejects review plea filed by twenty-one Opposition parties seeking a direction to increase VVPAT verification from five to at least 50% of EVMs during counting of votes in the general elections 2019.

Supreme Court dismissed Opposition's plea seeking verification 50% of votes using VVPAT slips

The Supreme Court Tuesday allowed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aircel-maxis-case-special-cbi-court-extends-protection-to-chidambaram-karti-till-may-30-216381">Karti Chidambaram</a>, who is facing criminal cases being probed by the ED and CBI, to travel to the US, Germany and Spain this month.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said this nod to travel abroad was subject to compliance of conditions imposed earlier.&nbsp;

The apex court had in January granted Karti, son of Congress leader P Chidambaram, permission to travel abroad after depositing Rs 10 crore with the secretary general of the Supreme Court.

The top court had also asked him to file an undertaking that he would return and cooperate with the investigation.

Karti is facing criminal cases which are being probed by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI.

One of the cases relates to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance to INX Media for receiving foreign funds of Rs 305 crore when his father was the finance minister.

The Supreme Court Tuesday allowed Karti Chidambaram, who is facing criminal cases being probed by the ED and CBI, to travel to the US, Germany and Spain this month.

The Supreme Court Tuesday allowed Karti Chidambaram, who is facing criminal cases being probed by the ED and CBI, to travel to the US, Germany and Spain this month. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said this nod to travel abroad was subject to compliance of conditions imposed earlier. The apex court had in January granted Karti, son of Congress leader P Chidambaram, permission to travel abroad after depositing Rs 10 crore with the secretary general of the Supreme Court. The top court had also asked him to file an undertaking that he would return and cooperate with the investigation. Karti is facing criminal cases which are being probed by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI. One of the cases relates to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance to INX Media for receiving foreign funds of Rs 305 crore when his father was the finance minister.

Supreme Court allows Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad in May

Supreme Court rejects Opposition review plea on 50% VVPAT verification

EC has been accused of being biased by opposition and SC has been repeatedly asked to intervene in between. Is Election Commission fighting a perception table?

India Election Watch: Is Election Commission fighting a perception table?

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">gave a clean chit</a> to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court.

Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment.

All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added.

The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said.

The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said.

This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead. Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court. Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment. All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added. The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said. The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said. This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Ex-woman employee's silence hints at conspiracy against CJI, say sources

Supreme Court today rejected a review plea filed by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/opposition-parties-meet-ec-over-evm-issue-demand-matching-of-50-of-results-with-vvpats-195137">Opposition parties seeking direction</a> to increase VVPAT verification from five to at least 50 per cent of EVMs during the counting of votes which is due&nbsp;to take place on May 23rd after&nbsp;the end of the seventh phase of&nbsp;general elections.

Several Opposition parties, numbering 21&nbsp;in all had filed the petition.

"We are not inclined to modify our order, the Supreme Court said while dismissing review plea on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/industry/no-material-information-on-number-of-evms-vvpat-needed-for-simultaneous-polls-ec-171754">random matching of VVPAT slips</a>.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supreme-court-rejects-opposition-review-plea-on-50-vvpat-verification-216609/embed" width="560" height="350" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" autoplay=1 allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

The apex court had on April 8th directed the Election Commission(EC) to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in five polling booths per assembly segment from one booth.

&nbsp;

Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu had sought the review of the top court's order, asserting that the "increase from 1 to 5 is not a reasonable number and does not lead to satisfaction desired by this court".

However, in its affidavit, the EC had told India's top court that the Opposition leaders have been unable to raise any ground for altering the existing system of random counting of VVPAT slips from one polling booth per assembly segment, which was "found to be most suitable" after due studies and tests.

The leaders from six national and 15 regional parties, claiming to represent 70-75 per cent of the population, had also sought the setting aside of the EC guideline on random verification of one assembly seat.&nbsp;

Supreme Court today rejected a review plea filed by Opposition parties seeking direction to increase VVPAT verification from five to at least 50 per cent of EVMs during the counting of votes which is due to take place on May 23rd after the end of the seventh phase of general elections.

Supreme Court today rejected a review plea filed by Opposition parties seeking direction to increase VVPAT verification from five to at least 50 per cent of EVMs during the counting of votes which is due to take place on May 23rd after the end of the seventh phase of general elections. Several Opposition parties, numbering 21 in all had filed the petition. "We are not inclined to modify our order, the Supreme Court said while dismissing review plea on the random matching of VVPAT slips. The apex court had on April 8th directed the Election Commission(EC) to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in five polling booths per assembly segment from one booth. Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu had sought the review of the top court's order, asserting that the "increase from 1 to 5 is not a reasonable number and does not lead to satisfaction desired by this court". However, in its affidavit, the EC had told India's top court that the Opposition leaders have been unable to raise any ground for altering the existing system of random counting of VVPAT slips from one polling booth per assembly segment, which was "found to be most suitable" after due studies and tests. The leaders from six national and 15 regional parties, claiming to represent 70-75 per cent of the population, had also sought the setting aside of the EC guideline on random verification of one assembly seat.

No increase in VVPAT-EVM verification, rules Supreme Court after rejecting Opposition's plea

The Supreme Court Monday said it was "little perplexed" over the separate listing, contrary to its order, of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/rafale-deal-supreme-court-to-hear-review-petition-contempt-plea-against-rahul-gandhi-on-may-10-216412"> pleas seeking review of its verdict in Rafale case </a>and the contempt plea against Congress president Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chokidar chor hai" remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A special bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it had made it clear earlier that both the matters would be heard together but despite that, the contempt petition was not listed for hearing along with the review pleas on Monday.

The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, was told that the contempt petition against Gandhi was listed for hearing on May 10.

"We are little perplexed that the two cases are listed on two different dates when the order was that these matters will be heard together," the bench observed.

"This is the problem. There was order for listing both the matters together. We had dictated the order in an open court but it says one case on May 6 and other on May 10. How can this be done?," it said.

After a brief hearing, the bench ordered that the review pleas and contempt petition against Gandhi be listed together for hearing on May 10.

"The present matters and contempt petition (criminal)... Be listed together on May 10 at 2.00 PM," the bench said.

"We make it clear that the hearing scheduled for May 10 would be taken up and parties shall make an endeavour to complete the same on the said date. Rejoinder to the replies of Union of India may be filed, in the meantime," the bench said in its order.

At the outset, advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is one of the petitioners in the case along with former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, told the bench that there were three pleas before the court.

Bhushan said besides the review plea, there were two other applications -- one seeking perjury action against unknown government servants for allegedly misleading the court during the Rafale case hearing earlier and the other for production of certain documents.

Bhushan said he would argue on the review plea and application for production of certain documents&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and the court should allow Shourie to argue on the perjury application.

"Where is the connected matter of contempt?," the bench asked.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioner lawyers, Vineet Dhandha, referred to the apex court's April 30 order and said the contempt petition was listed for hearing on May 10.

"We had said that both the matters will be listed together," the bench said.

When Bhushan said the court should hear his arguments on the review plea for an hour, the CJI said, "My brother (Justice Kaul) has to take up miscellaneous matters in his court".

After the court dictated the order, Bhushan said that the Centre has not filed reply on the perjury application.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said no notice was issued to the government on the perjury application.

To this, the bench told Venugopal, "Did we issue any notice to the application for production of documents? But, you have filed your reply to this application".

Bhushan also told the court that he would file rejoinder to the Centre's affidavit which was filed last week.

Gandhi had made the contemptuous remark, "chowkidar chor hai", against Modi, which the apex court had said was wrongly attributed to it.

The top court had on April 30 given another opportunity to Gandhi for filing one more affidavit for his remark.

Though Gandhi, through his counsel, admitted that he made a mistake by wrongly attributing the remark to the Supreme Court, it observed that in the affidavit filed earlier, at one point the Congress President admitted the mistake and at one point denied making contemptuous remarks.

In its December 14, 2018 verdict, the apex court had said there was no occasion to doubt decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and dismissed all the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

The top court had said there was no substantial evidence of commercial favouritism to any private entity.&nbsp;

Later, in a setback to the Centre, the apex court had on April 10 allowed the plea relying on leaked documents for seeking review of its Rafale verdict and dismissed the government's preliminary objections claiming "privilege" over them.

The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

A deal to procure the jets was signed between India and France in 2015. The delivery is expected to begin in September this year.

The Supreme Court Monday said it was "little perplexed" over the separate listing, contrary to its order, of the pleas seeking review of its verdict in Rafale case and the contempt plea against Congress president Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chokidar chor hai" remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Supreme Court Monday said it was "little perplexed" over the separate listing, contrary to its order, of the pleas seeking review of its verdict in Rafale case and the contempt plea against Congress president Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chokidar chor hai" remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A special bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it had made it clear earlier that both the matters would be heard together but despite that, the contempt petition was not listed for hearing along with the review pleas on Monday. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, was told that the contempt petition against Gandhi was listed for hearing on May 10. "We are little perplexed that the two cases are listed on two different dates when the order was that these matters will be heard together," the bench observed. "This is the problem. There was order for listing both the matters together. We had dictated the order in an open court but it says one case on May 6 and other on May 10. How can this be done?," it said. After a brief hearing, the bench ordered that the review pleas and contempt petition against Gandhi be listed together for hearing on May 10. "The present matters and contempt petition (criminal)... Be listed together on May 10 at 2.00 PM," the bench said. "We make it clear that the hearing scheduled for May 10 would be taken up and parties shall make an endeavour to complete the same on the said date. Rejoinder to the replies of Union of India may be filed, in the meantime," the bench said in its order. At the outset, advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is one of the petitioners in the case along with former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, told the bench that there were three pleas before the court. Bhushan said besides the review plea, there were two other applications -- one seeking perjury action against unknown government servants for allegedly misleading the court during the Rafale case hearing earlier and the other for production of certain documents. Bhushan said he would argue on the review plea and application for production of certain documents and the court should allow Shourie to argue on the perjury application. "Where is the connected matter of contempt?," the bench asked. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioner lawyers, Vineet Dhandha, referred to the apex court's April 30 order and said the contempt petition was listed for hearing on May 10. "We had said that both the matters will be listed together," the bench said. When Bhushan said the court should hear his arguments on the review plea for an hour, the CJI said, "My brother (Justice Kaul) has to take up miscellaneous matters in his court". After the court dictated the order, Bhushan said that the Centre has not filed reply on the perjury application. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said no notice was issued to the government on the perjury application. To this, the bench told Venugopal, "Did we issue any notice to the application for production of documents? But, you have filed your reply to this application". Bhushan also told the court that he would file rejoinder to the Centre's affidavit which was filed last week. Gandhi had made the contemptuous remark, "chowkidar chor hai", against Modi, which the apex court had said was wrongly attributed to it. The top court had on April 30 given another opportunity to Gandhi for filing one more affidavit for his remark. Though Gandhi, through his counsel, admitted that he made a mistake by wrongly attributing the remark to the Supreme Court, it observed that in the affidavit filed earlier, at one point the Congress President admitted the mistake and at one point denied making contemptuous remarks. In its December 14, 2018 verdict, the apex court had said there was no occasion to doubt decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and dismissed all the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. The top court had said there was no substantial evidence of commercial favouritism to any private entity. Later, in a setback to the Centre, the apex court had on April 10 allowed the plea relying on leaked documents for seeking review of its Rafale verdict and dismissed the government's preliminary objections claiming "privilege" over them. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. A deal to procure the jets was signed between India and France in 2015. The delivery is expected to begin in September this year.

Supreme Court says perplexed over separate listing of contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, Rafale review pleas

Sacked BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav on Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission's decision to cancel his candidature from the Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is contesting.

Yadav, who was dismissed in 2017 after he posted a video online complaining about the food served to the troops, was fielded by the Samajwadi Party as its candidate from the Varanasi seat.

However, the returning officer rejected Yadav's nomination papers citing his failure to submit a certificate that he was not sacked for either corruption or disloyalty.

Yadav, in his plea, termed the decision of the poll panel discriminatory and unreasonable and said it should be set aside.&nbsp;

The SP had initially fielded Shalini Yadav as its candidate to contest against Modi and later nominated the sacked BSF jawan.

Sacked BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav on Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission's decision to cancel his candidature from the Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is contesting.

Sacked BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav on Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission's decision to cancel his candidature from the Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is contesting. Yadav, who was dismissed in 2017 after he posted a video online complaining about the food served to the troops, was fielded by the Samajwadi Party as its candidate from the Varanasi seat. However, the returning officer rejected Yadav's nomination papers citing his failure to submit a certificate that he was not sacked for either corruption or disloyalty. Yadav, in his plea, termed the decision of the poll panel discriminatory and unreasonable and said it should be set aside. The SP had initially fielded Shalini Yadav as its candidate to contest against Modi and later nominated the sacked BSF jawan.

Sacked BSF jawan moves Supreme Court against Election Commission decision to cancel his candidature

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case.&nbsp;

The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi.&nbsp;

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.&nbsp;

The committee has found "no substance" in the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against CJI by a former woman employee of the apex court.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-gravitas-sexual-harassment-allegations-against-cji-213533/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

A notice by the office of Supreme Court Secretary-General also said that the report of the committee constituted as part of the In-House procedure is not liable to be made public.

The In-House Inquiry committee has submitted its report dated May 5, 2019 in accordance with the In-House procedure, to the next senior judge, after Justice Bobde who is competent to receive the report and also sent a copy to the judge concerned, namely the Chief Justice of India, it said.

(With inputs from PTI)

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde on Monday gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1. The committee has found "no substance" in the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against CJI by a former woman employee of the apex court. A notice by the office of Supreme Court Secretary-General also said that the report of the committee constituted as part of the In-House procedure is not liable to be made public. The In-House Inquiry committee has submitted its report dated May 5, 2019 in accordance with the In-House procedure, to the next senior judge, after Justice Bobde who is competent to receive the report and also sent a copy to the judge concerned, namely the Chief Justice of India, it said. (With inputs from PTI)

CJI Ranjan Gogoi gets clean chit in sexual harassment case by Supreme Court's in-house panel

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