The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on a notice sent by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/dmk-initiates-no-confidence-petition-against-assembly-speaker-after-notices-issued-to-aiadmk-mlas-214825">Tamil Nadu assembly speaker</a> to three MLAs of the ruling AIADMK party. The MLAs were said to be loyal towards the TTV Dhinakaran-led AMMK camp.&nbsp;

Two of the MLAs who had received the notice from assembly speaker P Dhanapal had approached the Supreme Court last week to stay the notice. The top court also issued a notice to the speaker and has sought an explanation. It is expected that the case will come up for a hearing after four weeks.

While Kapil Sibal represented the MLAs who had received the notice from the speaker, Mukul Rohatgi argued on behalf of the assembly speaker P Dhanapal.

On April 26th, the AIADMK's chief whip S Rajendran had submitted a recommendation to assembly speaker P Dhanapal regarding the disqualification of three AIADMK MLAs on the grounds of ‘anti-party’ activities. The MLAs were E Rathinasabapathi, VT Kalaiselvan and Prabhu, who were elected from Aranthangi, Vridhachalam and Kallakurichi assembly constituencies respectively.&nbsp;

Members of Tamil Nadu’s opposition party DMK met the assembly secretary on May 2 to present a notice to move a no-confidence petition against Dhanapal. This is in line with the party president MK Stalin’s earlier statement that the party would move a no-confidence motion against the speaker if he acts in a biased manner. &nbsp;

Opposition parties in the state have been alleging that the AIADMK government - which is surviving on a slim majority - is attempting to lower the strength of the house, fearing an impending defeat in the by-elections.&nbsp;

While the AIADMK government does face a major challenge due to anti-incumbency in these polls, it is also true that the DMK and its allies must sweep almost all of the 22 seats in order to get the simple majority in the House.

Responding to DMKs comments regarding AIADMK fearing defeat, Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami said that DMK leader MK Stalin had gone ahead with the no-confidence motion petition against the speaker as the opposition party was not confident of the bye-poll results.

The issue of MLAs disqualification had taken centre-stage in Tamil Nadu politics after the speaker disqualified 18 AIADMK legislators who had offered support to AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran in September 2017. Dhinakaran had fought a long battle in court to get the MLAs reinstated, but it went in vain after the Madras High Court upheld the disqualification in a judgement delivered in November 2018.&nbsp;

While 18 of the vacant assembly seats went to the polls on April 18 along with the general elections in Tamil Nadu, the remaining four assembly seats would go to the polls on May 19.&nbsp;

The leaders of the major parties are currently shuttling between these assembly constituencies in order to campaign for their respective candidates. The results of the by-polls to 22 assembly seats would be out on May 23 along with the results of the Lok Sabha polls.

The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on a notice sent by the Tamil Nadu assembly speaker to three MLAs of the ruling AIADMK party. The MLAs were said to be loyal towards the TTV Dhinakaran-led AMMK camp.

The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on a notice sent by the Tamil Nadu assembly speaker to three MLAs of the ruling AIADMK party. The MLAs were said to be loyal towards the TTV Dhinakaran-led AMMK camp. Two of the MLAs who had received the notice from assembly speaker P Dhanapal had approached the Supreme Court last week to stay the notice. The top court also issued a notice to the speaker and has sought an explanation. It is expected that the case will come up for a hearing after four weeks. While Kapil Sibal represented the MLAs who had received the notice from the speaker, Mukul Rohatgi argued on behalf of the assembly speaker P Dhanapal. On April 26th, the AIADMK's chief whip S Rajendran had submitted a recommendation to assembly speaker P Dhanapal regarding the disqualification of three AIADMK MLAs on the grounds of ‘anti-party’ activities. The MLAs were E Rathinasabapathi, VT Kalaiselvan and Prabhu, who were elected from Aranthangi, Vridhachalam and Kallakurichi assembly constituencies respectively. Members of Tamil Nadu’s opposition party DMK met the assembly secretary on May 2 to present a notice to move a no-confidence petition against Dhanapal. This is in line with the party president MK Stalin’s earlier statement that the party would move a no-confidence motion against the speaker if he acts in a biased manner. Opposition parties in the state have been alleging that the AIADMK government - which is surviving on a slim majority - is attempting to lower the strength of the house, fearing an impending defeat in the by-elections. While the AIADMK government does face a major challenge due to anti-incumbency in these polls, it is also true that the DMK and its allies must sweep almost all of the 22 seats in order to get the simple majority in the House. Responding to DMKs comments regarding AIADMK fearing defeat, Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami said that DMK leader MK Stalin had gone ahead with the no-confidence motion petition against the speaker as the opposition party was not confident of the bye-poll results. The issue of MLAs disqualification had taken centre-stage in Tamil Nadu politics after the speaker disqualified 18 AIADMK legislators who had offered support to AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran in September 2017. Dhinakaran had fought a long battle in court to get the MLAs reinstated, but it went in vain after the Madras High Court upheld the disqualification in a judgement delivered in November 2018. While 18 of the vacant assembly seats went to the polls on April 18 along with the general elections in Tamil Nadu, the remaining four assembly seats would go to the polls on May 19. The leaders of the major parties are currently shuttling between these assembly constituencies in order to campaign for their respective candidates. The results of the by-polls to 22 assembly seats would be out on May 23 along with the results of the Lok Sabha polls.

Supreme Court stays notice sent to 3 AIADMK MLAs by Tamil Nadu assembly speaker

The Central government has filed fresh affidavits in the Rafale review case in the Supreme Court stating that the apex court's judgement, which was pronounced last year on December 14, upholding 36 Rafale jets' deal was "correct," news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

The Centre, in its response, also noted that the "monitoring of progress by PMO of this Government to Government process cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations".&nbsp;

It added that the "unsubstantiated media reports and/or part internal file notings deliberately projected in a selective manner cannot form the basis for review".&nbsp;

The top court on Tuesday had issued a formal notice to the Central government asking it to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-reply-on-rafale-review-petition-posts-matter-for-hearing-on-may-6-214723">file its reply on the Rafale review petitions by May 4</a>. The matter will be put up for hearing on May 6.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Centre files fresh affidavits in Rafale review case in SC saying- the Dec 14, 2018 judgement upholding 36 Rafale jets' deal was correct and unsubstantiated media reports and/or part internal file notings deliberately projected in a selective manner cannot form basis for review. <a href="https://t.co/oMfFYdZltG">pic.twitter.com/oMfFYdZltG</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1124546148138487808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 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 Centre, in its letter on Monday, had said it needs time to file reply on merits on the review petitions.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Centre in affidavit in Rafale review petition case: the then Hon’ble Raksha Mantri had recorded on file that …”it appears that PMO and French President’s office are monitoring the progress of the issues which was an outcome of the summit meeting.” 2/2 <a href="https://t.co/yKwpR9sX5d">https://t.co/yKwpR9sX5d</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1124564394736738304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 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 petitions seek review of the apex court's verdict that was pronounced last year in December wherein it had dismissed the pleas challenging India's deal to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

The Supreme Court had quashed the pleas. In its decision, the apex court had said that there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process".

It added that there was no reason for any intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets.

 
&nbsp;

The Central government has filed fresh affidavits in the Rafale review case in the Supreme Court stating that the apex court's judgement, which was pronounced last year on December 14, upholding 36 Rafale jets' deal was "correct," news agency ANI reported.

The Central government has filed fresh affidavits in the Rafale review case in the Supreme Court stating that the apex court's judgement, which was pronounced last year on December 14, upholding 36 Rafale jets' deal was "correct," news agency ANI reported. The Centre, in its response, also noted that the "monitoring of progress by PMO of this Government to Government process cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations". It added that the "unsubstantiated media reports and/or part internal file notings deliberately projected in a selective manner cannot form the basis for review". The top court on Tuesday had issued a formal notice to the Central government asking it to file its reply on the Rafale review petitions by May 4. The matter will be put up for hearing on May 6. Centre files fresh affidavits in Rafale review case in SC saying- the Dec 14, 2018 judgement upholding 36 Rafale jets' deal was correct and unsubstantiated media reports and/or part internal file notings deliberately projected in a selective manner cannot form basis for review. pic.twitter.com/oMfFYdZltG — ANI (@ANI) May 4, 2019 × The Centre, in its letter on Monday, had said it needs time to file reply on merits on the review petitions. Centre in affidavit in Rafale review petition case: the then Hon’ble Raksha Mantri had recorded on file that …”it appears that PMO and French President’s office are monitoring the progress of the issues which was an outcome of the summit meeting.” 2/2 https://t.co/yKwpR9sX5d — ANI (@ANI) May 4, 2019 × The petitions seek review of the apex court's verdict that was pronounced last year in December wherein it had dismissed the pleas challenging India's deal to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. The Supreme Court had quashed the pleas. In its decision, the apex court had said that there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process". It added that there was no reason for any intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets.

'Monitoring by PMO cannot be construed as interference,' says Centre in fresh affidavits in Rafale review case

The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission to take a decision on a plea seeking to revise the voting time from 7 am to 5 am during Ramzan coinciding with the last three phases of the Lok Sabha elections.

IEW: Ramzan: Can polling time be revised?

The Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear next week a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders seeking a further increase in the random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in the ongoing general elections.

The apex court had on April 8 directed the Election Commission to increase random matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in five polling booths per assembly segment from one booth.&nbsp;

The top court, however, had not agreed to the demand of 21 Opposition leaders for counting of at least 50 per cent of VVPAT slips with EVMs in every assembly segment.

Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu had sought the review of the apex court's order, saying the "increase from 1 to 5 is not a reasonable number and does not lead to satisfaction desired by this court".

The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for petitioners, told the bench that the review plea be listed for hearing next week.

The bench accepted Singhvi's submission and said the matter will be heard next week.

The plea said,&nbsp;"The petitioners submit that the aforesaid increase to a mere 2 per cent is not sufficient and will not make any substantial difference to the situation that existed prior to the passing of the impugned order.&nbsp;

"Therefore, even though the petitioners have succeeded on the merits of their contention, their success does not resolve their grievance or cause any meaningful change to the situation that they were originally aggrieved of."

Referring to earlier observations of the apex court, it had said that the 2 per cent increase in the random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs would not achieve the purpose of raising "public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process".

The plea has opposed the Election Commission (EC) argument, which was accepted by the court, that as the elections were nearby and hence it would not be viable to increase the number of a random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs.&nbsp;

"It is submitted that, once this court agrees that the number of EVMs that should be subjected to VVPAT verification should be increased to a 'reasonable number', not increasing the same to a number which is 'reasonable' because it may not be 'viable' to do so renders the entire exercise otiose and futile," the plea has said.

Consequently, the 'viable number' must also necessarily be reasonable, it had said, alleging that at many booths in Andhra Pradesh the VVPAT machines were not working properly.

The Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear next week a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders seeking a further increase in the random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in the ongoing general elections.

The Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear next week a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders seeking a further increase in the random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in the ongoing general elections. The apex court had on April 8 directed the Election Commission to increase random matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in five polling booths per assembly segment from one booth. The top court, however, had not agreed to the demand of 21 Opposition leaders for counting of at least 50 per cent of VVPAT slips with EVMs in every assembly segment. Opposition leaders led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu had sought the review of the apex court's order, saying the "increase from 1 to 5 is not a reasonable number and does not lead to satisfaction desired by this court". The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for petitioners, told the bench that the review plea be listed for hearing next week. The bench accepted Singhvi's submission and said the matter will be heard next week. The plea said, "The petitioners submit that the aforesaid increase to a mere 2 per cent is not sufficient and will not make any substantial difference to the situation that existed prior to the passing of the impugned order. "Therefore, even though the petitioners have succeeded on the merits of their contention, their success does not resolve their grievance or cause any meaningful change to the situation that they were originally aggrieved of." Referring to earlier observations of the apex court, it had said that the 2 per cent increase in the random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs would not achieve the purpose of raising "public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process". The plea has opposed the Election Commission (EC) argument, which was accepted by the court, that as the elections were nearby and hence it would not be viable to increase the number of a random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs. "It is submitted that, once this court agrees that the number of EVMs that should be subjected to VVPAT verification should be increased to a 'reasonable number', not increasing the same to a number which is 'reasonable' because it may not be 'viable' to do so renders the entire exercise otiose and futile," the plea has said. Consequently, the 'viable number' must also necessarily be reasonable, it had said, alleging that at many booths in Andhra Pradesh the VVPAT machines were not working properly.

Matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs: Supreme Court agrees to hear review plea by 21 opposition leaders next week

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi agreed to hear the plea on May 6.

This decision came after the senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on the behalf of DMK, pleaded for an early hearing in the matter.

Sibal also told the apex court that speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly P&nbsp;Dhanapal himself had faced no-confidence motion while issuing a notice to three AIADMK MLAs, namely Rathinasabapathy, MLA of Aranthangi constituency, VT Kalaiselvan from Virudhachalam constituency, and VT Prabhu from Kallakuruchi constituency.

DMK president MK&nbsp;Stalin had claimed that the ruling AIADMK had sought to disqualify the three MLAs because the intelligence agencies had warned the government that retaining them in the party would have an "unfavourable outcome" in the bypoll to the 22 Assembly constituencies.

The chief whip of AIADMK S&nbsp;Rajendran had on April 26 met Tamil Nadu assembly speaker P&nbsp;Dhanapal and filed a petition to take action against three party MLAs on account of their "anti-party activities."Rajendran has accused the MLAs of working for Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam(AMMK) General Secretary TTV&nbsp;Dhinakaran.

Out of 234 seats in Tamil Nadu assembly, the ruling AIADMK has 114 members, the DMK has 88, the Congress has eight, while the IUML and the Independent members represent one constituency each.

In 2017, a total of 19 AIADMK MLAs had submitted a letter to then Governor CV Raowithdrawing support to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami.

As a retort, Rajendran asked Dhanapal to disqualify the MLAs stating that their actions amounted to voluntarily giving up their party membership.

Tamil Nadu Speaker had on September 18 disqualified 18 MLAs belonging to AIADMK. By-elections for these 18 seats were held on April 18 this year.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party against the notice of Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker disqualifying the three All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (AIADMK) MLAs for supporting Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dinakaran. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi agreed to hear the plea on May 6. This decision came after the senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on the behalf of DMK, pleaded for an early hearing in the matter. Sibal also told the apex court that speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly P Dhanapal himself had faced no-confidence motion while issuing a notice to three AIADMK MLAs, namely Rathinasabapathy, MLA of Aranthangi constituency, VT Kalaiselvan from Virudhachalam constituency, and VT Prabhu from Kallakuruchi constituency. DMK president MK Stalin had claimed that the ruling AIADMK had sought to disqualify the three MLAs because the intelligence agencies had warned the government that retaining them in the party would have an "unfavourable outcome" in the bypoll to the 22 Assembly constituencies. The chief whip of AIADMK S Rajendran had on April 26 met Tamil Nadu assembly speaker P Dhanapal and filed a petition to take action against three party MLAs on account of their "anti-party activities."Rajendran has accused the MLAs of working for Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam(AMMK) General Secretary TTV Dhinakaran. Out of 234 seats in Tamil Nadu assembly, the ruling AIADMK has 114 members, the DMK has 88, the Congress has eight, while the IUML and the Independent members represent one constituency each. In 2017, a total of 19 AIADMK MLAs had submitted a letter to then Governor CV Raowithdrawing support to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami. As a retort, Rajendran asked Dhanapal to disqualify the MLAs stating that their actions amounted to voluntarily giving up their party membership. Tamil Nadu Speaker had on September 18 disqualified 18 MLAs belonging to AIADMK. By-elections for these 18 seats were held on April 18 this year.

Supreme Court agrees to hear DMK's plea against disqualification of 3 AIADMK MLAs

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a petition seeking to disqualify Congress president Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections over his dual citizenship. This comes two days after the Centre issued a notice to Gandhi seeking the "factual position" on his citizenship within a fortnight.

In their petition before the Supreme Court, a group of activists have demanded that Gandhi's name should be removed from electoral rolls and sought his disqualification from contesting Lok Sabha polls.

The notice by the Union Home Ministry on Monday came on a complaint from Subramanian Swamy who claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a British national. A Home Ministry official said Swamy had first sent a complaint on Gandhi's citizenship issue in September 2017 and wrote a reminder recently.

A communication from Home Ministry said Swamy's letter also mentioned that in a British company's annual returns filed on October 10, 2005, and October 31, 2006, Rahul Gandhi's date of birth has been given as June 19, 1970, and he had declared his nationality as British.

As a row erupted, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said the notice is a normal process and "not a big development" and that the timing of the communication is not relevant.

The issue of Gandhi's dual citizenship was first raised by BJP leader Subramanium 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 a 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 a 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 has agreed to examine a petition seeking to disqualify Congress president Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections over his dual citizenship.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a petition seeking to disqualify Congress president Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections over his dual citizenship. This comes two days after the Centre issued a notice to Gandhi seeking the "factual position" on his citizenship within a fortnight. In their petition before the Supreme Court, a group of activists have demanded that Gandhi's name should be removed from electoral rolls and sought his disqualification from contesting Lok Sabha polls. The notice by the Union Home Ministry on Monday came on a complaint from Subramanian Swamy who claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a British national. A Home Ministry official said Swamy had first sent a complaint on Gandhi's citizenship issue in September 2017 and wrote a reminder recently. A communication from Home Ministry said Swamy's letter also mentioned that in a British company's annual returns filed on October 10, 2005, and October 31, 2006, Rahul Gandhi's date of birth has been given as June 19, 1970, and he had declared his nationality as British. As a row erupted, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said the notice is a normal process and "not a big development" and that the timing of the communication is not relevant. The issue of Gandhi's dual citizenship was first raised by BJP leader Subramanium 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 a 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 a 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)

Rahul Gandhi citizenship row: Supreme Court agrees to examine petition

Watch this segment of India Election Watch for latest updates of India Election as on 30th April 2019.

India Election Watch; 30th April 2019

Congress chief Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday apologised for attributing 'chowkidar chor hai' comment to the Supreme Court. Watch this video to know more.

Rahul Gandhi apologises to top court

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued a formal notice to the Central government asking it to file its reply on the Rafale review petitions by May 4. The matter has been posted for hearing on May 6. Attorney General KK Venugopal sought four weeks time to file reply on the review.

The direction was given by a top court bench headed by&nbsp;Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kaul and KM Joseph.

The development comes after the apex court on Monday&nbsp;had allowed the Centre to circulate a letter among parties concerned for the adjournment of today's hearing on pleas seeking review of its Rafale deal verdict of December 14 last year.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna allowed senior advocate R Balasubramanian, appearing for the Centre, to circulate the letter among the parties which include petitioners who have filed review pleas.

The petitions seek review of the apex court's verdict that was pronounced last year in December wherein it&nbsp;had dismissed the pleas challenging India's deal to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

The Supreme Court had quashed the pleas. In its decision, the apex court had said that there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process".

It added that there was no reason for any intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC issues a formal notice to Centre on review petitions filed against the December 14 judgement on Rafale deal. Attorney General KK Venugopal sought four weeks time to file reply on the review. Court asked Centre to file reply by May 4 &amp; posts the matter for hearing on May 6. <a href="https://t.co/J6XBkn6eCq">pic.twitter.com/J6XBkn6eCq</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1123152690681348097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, the Centre, in its letter on Monday, had said it needs time to file reply on merits on the review petitions.

The review petitions filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan was listed for hearing before a bench headed by the Chief Justice today in the post-lunch session.

Two other review petitions - filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh and advocate Vineet Dhanda - were also listed for hearing on Tuesday.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued a formal notice to the Central government asking it to file its reply on the Rafale review petitions by May 4. The matter has been posted for hearing on May 6.

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued a formal notice to the Central government asking it to file its reply on the Rafale review petitions by May 4. The matter has been posted for hearing on May 6. Attorney General KK Venugopal sought four weeks time to file reply on the review. The direction was given by a top court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kaul and KM Joseph. The development comes after the apex court on Monday had allowed the Centre to circulate a letter among parties concerned for the adjournment of today's hearing on pleas seeking review of its Rafale deal verdict of December 14 last year. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna allowed senior advocate R Balasubramanian, appearing for the Centre, to circulate the letter among the parties which include petitioners who have filed review pleas. The petitions seek review of the apex court's verdict that was pronounced last year in December wherein it had dismissed the pleas challenging India's deal to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. The Supreme Court had quashed the pleas. In its decision, the apex court had said that there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process". It added that there was no reason for any intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets. SC issues a formal notice to Centre on review petitions filed against the December 14 judgement on Rafale deal. Attorney General KK Venugopal sought four weeks time to file reply on the review. Court asked Centre to file reply by May 4 & posts the matter for hearing on May 6. pic.twitter.com/J6XBkn6eCq — ANI (@ANI) April 30, 2019 × Meanwhile, the Centre, in its letter on Monday, had said it needs time to file reply on merits on the review petitions. The review petitions filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan was listed for hearing before a bench headed by the Chief Justice today in the post-lunch session. Two other review petitions - filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh and advocate Vineet Dhanda - were also listed for hearing on Tuesday. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court asks Centre to reply on Rafale review petition, posts matter for hearing on May 6

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to Election Commission of India after hearing Congress MP Sushmita Dev's petition against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah for allegedly violating model code of conduct which is in place due to ongoing Lok Sabha polls in the country. 
&nbsp; 
Dev, Congress MP and president of the party's women's wing, had moved Supreme Court alleging PM Modi and Shah violated model code of conduct through their campaigning for elections. Dev also sought direction from the court to the Election Commission to decide without any "demur" the complaints against PM Modi and Amit Shah. 
&nbsp; 
Dev alleged in her petition that "inaction" by EC on complaints against top BJP leaders was "a sign of invidious discrimination" and was "arbitrary, capricious and impermissible" as it was destructive of the integrity of electoral process. 
&nbsp; 
"It is in public domain that they have indulged in hate speeches, repeatedly used the armed forces for political propaganda, despite a clear prohibition on the same by the EC," Dev said in her petition. 
&nbsp; 
"The lack of decision despite cogent evidences, representations and exhortations to the Respondent/ECI demonstrates abdication and indecision and a complete absence of justice, in ensuring a level playing field in ensuing general elections for the Lok Sabha. The inactions, omissions and commissions by the Respondent/ECI are in complete and direct violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and which are impeding free, fair and unbiased general elections," the petition said. 
&nbsp; 
The plea further said that under the Constitution, the poll panel is the "watchdog of free and fair elections and is duty-bound to circumvent the pressure and ascertain that ensuing elections are free from any impediments in order to uphold the democratic sanctity and fundamental rights of the voter". 
&nbsp; 
The court has posted the case for hearing on May 2.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to Election Commission of India after hearing Congress MP Sushmita Dev's petition against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah for allegedly violating model code of conduct which is in place due to ongoing Lok Sabha polls in the country.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to Election Commission of India after hearing Congress MP Sushmita Dev's petition against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah for allegedly violating model code of conduct which is in place due to ongoing Lok Sabha polls in the country. Dev, Congress MP and president of the party's women's wing, had moved Supreme Court alleging PM Modi and Shah violated model code of conduct through their campaigning for elections. Dev also sought direction from the court to the Election Commission to decide without any "demur" the complaints against PM Modi and Amit Shah. Dev alleged in her petition that "inaction" by EC on complaints against top BJP leaders was "a sign of invidious discrimination" and was "arbitrary, capricious and impermissible" as it was destructive of the integrity of electoral process. "It is in public domain that they have indulged in hate speeches, repeatedly used the armed forces for political propaganda, despite a clear prohibition on the same by the EC," Dev said in her petition. "The lack of decision despite cogent evidences, representations and exhortations to the Respondent/ECI demonstrates abdication and indecision and a complete absence of justice, in ensuring a level playing field in ensuing general elections for the Lok Sabha. The inactions, omissions and commissions by the Respondent/ECI are in complete and direct violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and which are impeding free, fair and unbiased general elections," the petition said. The plea further said that under the Constitution, the poll panel is the "watchdog of free and fair elections and is duty-bound to circumvent the pressure and ascertain that ensuing elections are free from any impediments in order to uphold the democratic sanctity and fundamental rights of the voter". The court has posted the case for hearing on May 2.

Supreme Court issues notice to Election Commission on complaint against PM Modi, Amit Shah

Congress president Rahul Gandhi has filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court 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 dated 15.04.2019. My statement was made in the heat of political campaigning," he said in his affidavit.

The court had on April 23 issued a <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">criminal contempt notice</a> to Gandhi for his remarks on its verdict in the Rafale case. Gandhi had called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a thief attributing his remark to the court's judgement.

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.

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi had moved court against Rahul Gandhi's remark. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition.

The Supreme Court will hear contempt case against Gandhi along with Rafale review petitions on April 30.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi has filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court reiterating his stand and again expressing regret on his remarks on the Rafale verdict.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi has filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court 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 dated 15.04.2019. My statement was made in the heat of political campaigning," he said in his affidavit. The court had on April 23 issued a criminal contempt notice to Gandhi for his remarks on its verdict in the Rafale case. Gandhi had called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a thief attributing his remark to the court's judgement. 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. BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi had moved court against Rahul Gandhi's remark. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition. The Supreme Court will hear contempt case against Gandhi along with Rafale review petitions on April 30.

Rafale verdict: In counter affidavit in Supreme Court, Rahul Gandhi again regrets 'chowkidar chor hai' comment

Former Indian cricket captain <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/dhoni-approaches-supreme-court-against-amrapali-for-rs-40-crore-dues-205934">Mahendra Singh Dhoni has moved the&nbsp;Supreme Court</a> fearing cancellation of a penthouse which he bought in an Amrapali project.

Dhoni informed the court that he booked the penthouse in Amrapali Safari in Ranchi, and he has also engaged as the brand ambassador for promoting projects of the group, a media report said.

The auditors informed the apex court that Dhoni was among the&nbsp;buyers who got flats at throwaway prices in Amrapali. To which Dhoni replied that he has also suffered like any other flat buyers as he did not receive the payments and that his name should also be added in the list of creditors of the real estate company.

Last month, Dhoni had&nbsp;approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Amrapali Group to settle his dues of &nbsp;Rs 40 crore towards his service to the real estate company as its brand ambassador.&nbsp;

The cricketer asked the court to allot him a land parcel belonging to the group to protect his financial interest.&nbsp;

Dhoni said that he entered into an agreement with the company to promote their various projects but he was not paid for his endorsements to the tune of 38.95 crore due to him.

Former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni has moved the Supreme Court fearing cancellation of a penthouse which he bought in an Amrapali project. Dhoni informed the court that he booked the penthouse in Amrapali Safari in Ranchi, and he has also engaged as the brand ambassador for promoting projects of the group, a media report said.

Former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni has moved the Supreme Court fearing cancellation of a penthouse which he bought in an Amrapali project. Dhoni informed the court that he booked the penthouse in Amrapali Safari in Ranchi, and he has also engaged as the brand ambassador for promoting projects of the group, a media report said. The auditors informed the apex court that Dhoni was among the buyers who got flats at throwaway prices in Amrapali. To which Dhoni replied that he has also suffered like any other flat buyers as he did not receive the payments and that his name should also be added in the list of creditors of the real estate company. Last month, Dhoni had approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Amrapali Group to settle his dues of Rs 40 crore towards his service to the real estate company as its brand ambassador. The cricketer asked the court to allot him a land parcel belonging to the group to protect his financial interest. Dhoni said that he entered into an agreement with the company to promote their various projects but he was not paid for his endorsements to the tune of 38.95 crore due to him.

MS Dhoni moves Supreme Court for possession of flat in Amrapali project

The Supreme Court Friday directed the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rbi-asks-banks-to-disclose-ilfs-provisions-in-q4-accounts-213288&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjutpmwou3hAhXd6XMBHeEhANgQFjABegQIEBAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1L07xkBtRV2Orfg5PrMmsB">Reserve Bank of India</a> (RBI) to disclose information pertaining to its annual inspection report of banks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless they are exempted under law.

A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao also directed the federal bank to review its policy to disclose information relating to banks under RTI, saying "it is duty bound under the law".

The bench, which did not go ahead with contempt proceedings against the RBI, made it clear that it was giving a last opportunity to it to comply with provisions of the transparency law.

The bench said it would have taken a serious view to the refusal of the RBI to part with information under RTI.

"Any further violation shall be viewed seriously," the bench said.

In January this year, the top court had issued contempt notice to RBI for not disclosing annual inspection report of banks under RTI.&nbsp;

Earlier, the apex court and the Central Information Commission, both had held that the RBI cannot deny information to an information seeker under the transparency law unless the material is exempted from disclosure under the law.&nbsp;

The RBI, in its defence, had said that it cannot disclose information as the annual inspection report of the bank contained "fiduciary" information as defined under the transparency law.&nbsp;

The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by RTI activist S C Agrawal against the RBI.&nbsp;

Agrawal had sought complete information including related documents from RBI on the imposition of fines on some banks for violating rules.

He had also sought the list of banks and the default for which show cause notices were issued to them before the fine was imposed.

Despite the apex court's judgement for disclosure of such information, the RBI had issued a "Disclosure Policy" under which it has listed certain information as being exempted from being disclosed of the RTI Act.

"It is to be noted that this specific information are similar to what were held not to be exempted by the Supreme Court," claimed the plea.

The RBI had refused to disclose such information on the grounds of economic interest and holding such information in a fiduciary relationship with these individual banks.

"Such reason is in direct contempt with this court's judgment. The information titles which are in contempt belong to the Department of Banking Regulation, Banking Supervision, Cooperative Banking Regulation/Department of Cooperative Banking Supervision and Consumer Education and Protection Department.

"This exempted information under the policy was held to be not exempted by the Supreme Court.

Thus, this exemption leads to contempt of this court's order," the plea has said.

The Supreme Court had in 2015 held that RBI should take rigid action against those banks and financial institutions which have been indulging in "disreputable business practices" and said it cannot withhold information on defaulters and other issues covered under the RTI Act.

It had further clarified that RBI cannot withhold information under the "guise" of confidence or trust with financial institutions and is accountable to provide the information sought by the general public.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to disclose information pertaining to its annual inspection report of banks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless they are exempted under law.

The Supreme Court Friday directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to disclose information pertaining to its annual inspection report of banks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless they are exempted under law. A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao also directed the federal bank to review its policy to disclose information relating to banks under RTI, saying "it is duty bound under the law". The bench, which did not go ahead with contempt proceedings against the RBI, made it clear that it was giving a last opportunity to it to comply with provisions of the transparency law. The bench said it would have taken a serious view to the refusal of the RBI to part with information under RTI. "Any further violation shall be viewed seriously," the bench said. In January this year, the top court had issued contempt notice to RBI for not disclosing annual inspection report of banks under RTI. Earlier, the apex court and the Central Information Commission, both had held that the RBI cannot deny information to an information seeker under the transparency law unless the material is exempted from disclosure under the law. The RBI, in its defence, had said that it cannot disclose information as the annual inspection report of the bank contained "fiduciary" information as defined under the transparency law. The bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by RTI activist S C Agrawal against the RBI. Agrawal had sought complete information including related documents from RBI on the imposition of fines on some banks for violating rules. He had also sought the list of banks and the default for which show cause notices were issued to them before the fine was imposed. Despite the apex court's judgement for disclosure of such information, the RBI had issued a "Disclosure Policy" under which it has listed certain information as being exempted from being disclosed of the RTI Act. "It is to be noted that this specific information are similar to what were held not to be exempted by the Supreme Court," claimed the plea. The RBI had refused to disclose such information on the grounds of economic interest and holding such information in a fiduciary relationship with these individual banks. "Such reason is in direct contempt with this court's judgment. The information titles which are in contempt belong to the Department of Banking Regulation, Banking Supervision, Cooperative Banking Regulation/Department of Cooperative Banking Supervision and Consumer Education and Protection Department. "This exempted information under the policy was held to be not exempted by the Supreme Court. Thus, this exemption leads to contempt of this court's order," the plea has said. The Supreme Court had in 2015 held that RBI should take rigid action against those banks and financial institutions which have been indulging in "disreputable business practices" and said it cannot withhold information on defaulters and other issues covered under the RTI Act. It had further clarified that RBI cannot withhold information under the "guise" of confidence or trust with financial institutions and is accountable to provide the information sought by the general public.

Supreme Court directs RBI to disclose information on bank inspection report under RTI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a contempt notice to Congress president Rahul Gandhi for his remarks on the court's verdict in Rafale case. Gandhi had called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a thief attributing his remark to the court's judgement.

In a criminal contempt case, when the court issues a notice, the person to whom the notice is served must appear in person unless exempted by the court itself. So far, the Supreme Court hasn't exempted Rahul Gandhi, so he will have to appear in person.

The Congress president had on April 10 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.

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi had moved court against Rahul Gandhi's remark. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition.

The court asked the Congress president to explain his remark and in his reply yesterday, Gandhi said he <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/regret-chowkidar-chor-hai-remark-against-pm-modi-in-rafale-deal-rahul-gandhi-in-response-to-supreme-court-notice-212506">"regrets" the remarks</a>. In his affidavit, the Congress president said the remark that the Supreme Court has agreed that PM Modi indulged in corruption in Rafale deal was "incorrectly attributed" to the court. Gandhi further said in the affidavit that he had made the statements in the heat of political campaigning which have been misused by his opponents.

"Rahul says he made wrong statements, he did not read the order. It was not clear to him and he holds SC in highest esteem. There is no apology from him in the affidavit. It only mentions the word regret," senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Lekhi, told the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

Rahul Gandhi's response is mere lip service, Rohatgi added.

Countering the argument, Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "For the last 18 months it (chowkidaar chor hai) is a political slogan and he (Rahul Gandhi) stands by it. If you want a political flog, then be it. There are 12 statements from the ruling party saying they got a clean chit from Supreme Court; even I can file contempt against such remarks."

He urged the top court to dismiss the plea, but CJI Gogoi issued contempt notice to Gandhi and posted the matter for further hearing on April 30.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a contempt notice to Congress president Rahul Gandhi for his remarks on the court's verdict in Rafale case. Gandhi had called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a thief attributing his remark to the court's judgement.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a contempt notice to Congress president Rahul Gandhi for his remarks on the court's verdict in Rafale case. Gandhi had called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a thief attributing his remark to the court's judgement. In a criminal contempt case, when the court issues a notice, the person to whom the notice is served must appear in person unless exempted by the court itself. So far, the Supreme Court hasn't exempted Rahul Gandhi, so he will have to appear in person. The Congress president had on April 10 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. BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi had moved court against Rahul Gandhi's remark. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition. The court asked the Congress president to explain his remark and in his reply yesterday, Gandhi said he "regrets" the remarks. In his affidavit, the Congress president said the remark that the Supreme Court has agreed that PM Modi indulged in corruption in Rafale deal was "incorrectly attributed" to the court. Gandhi further said in the affidavit that he had made the statements in the heat of political campaigning which have been misused by his opponents. "Rahul says he made wrong statements, he did not read the order. It was not clear to him and he holds SC in highest esteem. There is no apology from him in the affidavit. It only mentions the word regret," senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Lekhi, told the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. Rahul Gandhi's response is mere lip service, Rohatgi added. Countering the argument, Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "For the last 18 months it (chowkidaar chor hai) is a political slogan and he (Rahul Gandhi) stands by it. If you want a political flog, then be it. There are 12 statements from the ruling party saying they got a clean chit from Supreme Court; even I can file contempt against such remarks." He urged the top court to dismiss the plea, but CJI Gogoi issued contempt notice to Gandhi and posted the matter for further hearing on April 30.

Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Rahul Gandhi for attributing 'chowkidar chor hai' remark to its order

The Supreme Court Monday issued a notice to Union minister Smriti Irani in a case pertaining to two cross defamation complaints filed by Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam and the BJP leader against each other.

In one case, the Delhi High Court had quashed the summons issued against Irani in a defamation complaint filed against her by Nirupam.

The high court, however, had dismissed a similar plea of Nirupam seeking to set aside the summons issued against him in a cross defamation complaint filed by Irani.

The high court, on December 19 last year, had said the case against Nirupam will continue.

On Monday, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued the notice to Irani on two appeals filed by the Congress leader.

The Supreme Court Monday issued a notice to Union minister Smriti Irani in a case pertaining to two cross defamation complaints filed by Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam and the BJP leader against each other.

The Supreme Court Monday issued a notice to Union minister Smriti Irani in a case pertaining to two cross defamation complaints filed by Congress leader Sanjay Nirupam and the BJP leader against each other. In one case, the Delhi High Court had quashed the summons issued against Irani in a defamation complaint filed against her by Nirupam. The high court, however, had dismissed a similar plea of Nirupam seeking to set aside the summons issued against him in a cross defamation complaint filed by Irani. The high court, on December 19 last year, had said the case against Nirupam will continue. On Monday, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued the notice to Irani on two appeals filed by the Congress leader.

Supreme Court issues notice to Smriti Irani on Nirupam's plea seeking quashing of defamation complaint against him

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated.

The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a los of crores of rupees.

The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against ban, the order will stand vacated.

Google had last week <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-play-store-blocks-chinese-app-tiktok-in-india-after-court-order-211003">blocked access to TikTok</a> on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt.

The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched a public interest litigation calling for a ban.

The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order.

TikTok, which allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has become hugely popular in India but has been criticised by some politicians who say its content is inappropriate.

It had been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, app analytics firm Sensor Tower said in February. More than 30 million users in India installed it in January 2019, 12 times more than in the same month last year.

Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the app's platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music.

Bytedance challenged the Madras High Court's ban order in the Supreme Court earlier this month, saying it went against freedom of speech rights in India.

The top court had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-madras-hc-order-on-tiktok-app-210536">referred the case back</a> to the Madras High Court, where a judge rejected Bytedance's request to put the ban order on hold.

TikTok had earlier said in a statement that it had faith in the Indian judicial system and was "optimistic about an outcome that would be well received by millions" of its users.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday told Chinese company Bytedance Technology, maker of hugely popular video sharing app TikTok, that if Madras the High Court fails to decide by April 24 its plea for relief then its ban order will stand vacated. The company had told the court that the Madras High Court gave the order banning the app in India without hearing its side of the story. It also said that the ban has led to a los of crores of rupees. The Supreme Court bench then said the next date of hearing is April 24, and if the high court doesn't decide on the plea against ban, the order will stand vacated. Google had last week blocked access to TikTok on its Play Store in India. The decision was taken hours after the Madras High Court refused a request by Bytedance Technology to suspend a ban on TikTok, putting its future in one of its key markets in doubt. The Madras High Court had on April 3 asked the central government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. It's ruling came after an individual launched a public interest litigation calling for a ban. The Centre had sent a letter to Apple and Google to abide by the state court's order. TikTok, which allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has become hugely popular in India but has been criticised by some politicians who say its content is inappropriate. It had been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, app analytics firm Sensor Tower said in February. More than 30 million users in India installed it in January 2019, 12 times more than in the same month last year. Jokes, clips and footage related to India's thriving movie industry dominate the app's platform, along with memes and videos in which youngsters, some scantily clad, lip-sync and dance to popular music. Bytedance challenged the Madras High Court's ban order in the Supreme Court earlier this month, saying it went against freedom of speech rights in India. The top court had referred the case back to the Madras High Court, where a judge rejected Bytedance's request to put the ban order on hold. TikTok had earlier said in a statement that it had faith in the Indian judicial system and was "optimistic about an outcome that would be well received by millions" of its users. (With inputs from agencies)

If Madras High Court doesn't decide by April 24, ban on TikTok will be lifted: Supreme Court

Watch this segment of India Election Watch for latest updates of India Election as on 22nd April 2019.

India Election Watch; 22nd April 2019

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Monday said he regrets the remarks made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the Rafale deal. Gandhi made the submission in a response to a Supreme Court notice on a petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi.

In his affidavit, the Congress president said the remark that the Supreme Court has agreed that PM Modi indulged in corruption in Rafale deal was "incorrectly attributed" to the court. Gandhi further said in the affidavit that he had made the statements in the heat of political campaigning which have been misused by his opponents.

"At the outset, there was not the slightest intention to insinuate anything regarding the Supreme Court proceedings in any manner. On April 10, the issues relating to court proceedings unfortunately got juxtaposed and mingled with a political slogan being used extensively," the Congress president said in his reply.

The court, in a notice last week, had asked Gandhi to explain his alleged contemptuous remarks on recent the April 10 Rafale verdict. The court had asked the Congress president to reply to the notice by April 22.

"We make it clear that views, observations, findings attributed to this court in the alleged speeches, remarks made by Gandhi to media/public have been incorrectly attributed to this court. We also make it clear that this court had no occasion to make such observation in as much as it was deciding legal admissibility of certain documents which were objected by the attorney general," the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had said in a hearing on April 15.

The court's directive came on a contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Rahul Gandhi for his "chowkidar chor hai" remark for PM Modi. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, was hearing the plea where senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Supreme Court's recent dismissal of preliminary objections raised by the government in the ongoing Rafale review plea hearing have been deliberately misinterpreted by the Congress president.

Rohatgi said that Rahul Gandhi had come out in the public to make a remark that the "Supreme Court in its judgement said 'Chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hai'."

The bench said, "You were right to the extent we never said what has been brought in the petition. We will seek clarification."

The Congress president had on April 10 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 where he is contesting against BJP leader and Union minister Smriti Irani.

(With inputs from agencies)

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Monday said he regrets the remarks made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the Rafale deal. Gandhi made the submission in a response to a Supreme Court notice on a petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Monday said he regrets the remarks made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the Rafale deal. Gandhi made the submission in a response to a Supreme Court notice on a petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi. In his affidavit, the Congress president said the remark that the Supreme Court has agreed that PM Modi indulged in corruption in Rafale deal was "incorrectly attributed" to the court. Gandhi further said in the affidavit that he had made the statements in the heat of political campaigning which have been misused by his opponents. "At the outset, there was not the slightest intention to insinuate anything regarding the Supreme Court proceedings in any manner. On April 10, the issues relating to court proceedings unfortunately got juxtaposed and mingled with a political slogan being used extensively," the Congress president said in his reply. The court, in a notice last week, had asked Gandhi to explain his alleged contemptuous remarks on recent the April 10 Rafale verdict. The court had asked the Congress president to reply to the notice by April 22. "We make it clear that views, observations, findings attributed to this court in the alleged speeches, remarks made by Gandhi to media/public have been incorrectly attributed to this court. We also make it clear that this court had no occasion to make such observation in as much as it was deciding legal admissibility of certain documents which were objected by the attorney general," the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had said in a hearing on April 15. The court's directive came on a contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Rahul Gandhi for his "chowkidar chor hai" remark for PM Modi. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, was hearing the plea where senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Supreme Court's recent dismissal of preliminary objections raised by the government in the ongoing Rafale review plea hearing have been deliberately misinterpreted by the Congress president. Rohatgi said that Rahul Gandhi had come out in the public to make a remark that the "Supreme Court in its judgement said 'Chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hai'." The bench said, "You were right to the extent we never said what has been brought in the petition. We will seek clarification." The Congress president had on April 10 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 where he is contesting against BJP leader and Union minister Smriti Irani. (With inputs from agencies)

Regret chowkidar chor hai remark against PM Modi: Rahul Gandhi in response to Supreme Court notice

The Election Commission of India on Monday submitted its report in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court on Vivek Oberoi-starrer biopic `PM Narendra Modi`. 
 
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, posted the matter for hearing on Friday and directed that report be served to the petitioner (producers of the movie). 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/vivek-oberoi-meets-election-commission-officials-over-the-release-of-modi-biopic-says-happy-but-cant-reveal-their-response-211680">Last week, Vivek Oberoi had expressed happiness </a>at the response of the officials of the Election Commission who watched the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and said he hoped the film will be screened soon. 
 
On April 17, officials of the Election Commission watched the film in a special screening on the directions of the Supreme Court. A total of seven officials of a committee set up for the purpose were present for the screening of the biopic titled `PM Narendra Modi`. 
 
The top court had asked the EC to watch the Narendra Modi biopic and submit its view to the court by April 22 in a sealed cover. 
 
On April 12, makers of the Oberoi-starrer had moved the apex court, challenging the stay on the film`s release. The producer of the film, Sandip Ssingh, had said that the poll panel banned the movie without watching it. 
 
The film was scheduled to release on April 11, coinciding with the commencement of the Lok Sabha elections in the country. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-election-commission-stalls-release-of-modi-biopic-209258">However, on April 10, the EC stayed the release of the biopic</a> till national elections culminate, stating that the film disturbs the level-playing field.&nbsp;

The Election Commission of India on Monday submitted its report in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court on Vivek Oberoi-starrer biopic `PM Narendra Modi`. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, posted the matter for hearing on Friday and directed that report be served to the petitioner (producers of the movie).

The Election Commission of India on Monday submitted its report in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court on Vivek Oberoi-starrer biopic `PM Narendra Modi`. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, posted the matter for hearing on Friday and directed that report be served to the petitioner (producers of the movie). Last week, Vivek Oberoi had expressed happiness at the response of the officials of the Election Commission who watched the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and said he hoped the film will be screened soon. On April 17, officials of the Election Commission watched the film in a special screening on the directions of the Supreme Court. A total of seven officials of a committee set up for the purpose were present for the screening of the biopic titled `PM Narendra Modi`. The top court had asked the EC to watch the Narendra Modi biopic and submit its view to the court by April 22 in a sealed cover. On April 12, makers of the Oberoi-starrer had moved the apex court, challenging the stay on the film`s release. The producer of the film, Sandip Ssingh, had said that the poll panel banned the movie without watching it. The film was scheduled to release on April 11, coinciding with the commencement of the Lok Sabha elections in the country. However, on April 10, the EC stayed the release of the biopic till national elections culminate, stating that the film disturbs the level-playing field.

Narendra Modi biopic: Election Commission submits its report before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, National Commission for Women, Central Waqf Council and All India Muslim Personal Law Board on a plea seeking direction that Muslim women be allowed to enter mosques and offer prayers.

The petition, filed by Pune-based couple Yasmeen and Zubair Ahmed Peerzade, seeks direction to declare the prohibition on entry of Muslim women into mosques in the country "illegal and unconstitutional" as it violates of women's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of the Indian Constitution.

The bench told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that it will hear the matter because of the apex court's judgment in the case involving Kerala's Sabarimala temple.

"The only reason we may hear you is because of our judgment in the Sabarimala temple case," it said.

In September last year, the court had ruled in favour of allowing menstruating women to enter the holy shrine of lord Ayyapa in Kerala's Sabarimala temple. The court will decide if right to equality can be applied to non-state actors.

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, National Commission for Women, Central Waqf Council and All India Muslim Personal Law Board on a plea seeking direction that Muslim women be allowed to enter mosques and offer prayers.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre, National Commission for Women, Central Waqf Council and All India Muslim Personal Law Board on a plea seeking direction that Muslim women be allowed to enter mosques and offer prayers. The petition, filed by Pune-based couple Yasmeen and Zubair Ahmed Peerzade, seeks direction to declare the prohibition on entry of Muslim women into mosques in the country "illegal and unconstitutional" as it violates of women's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of the Indian Constitution. The bench told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that it will hear the matter because of the apex court's judgment in the case involving Kerala's Sabarimala temple. "The only reason we may hear you is because of our judgment in the Sabarimala temple case," it said. In September last year, the court had ruled in favour of allowing menstruating women to enter the holy shrine of lord Ayyapa in Kerala's Sabarimala temple. The court will decide if right to equality can be applied to non-state actors.

Women's entry in mosques: Supreme Court issues notice to the Centre, women's panel

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of the action taken by Election Commission against politicians who made statements violating model code of conduct. "It seems the Election Commission has finally woken up to its power and taken action against politicians," it said.

The court made the observation while hearing Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati's plea against ban imposed by the Election Commission on addressing public rallies for 48 hours. The top court refused to entertain Mayawati's plea saying there is no further action required.

The Election Commission had on Monday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-2019-election-commission-of-india-bans-adityanath-mayawati-for-violating-model-code-of-conduct-210566">temporarily banned Mayawati</a>, along with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/azam-khan-and-maneka-gandhi-also-temporarily-barred-from-election-campaigning-210703">Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan</a> and Union minister and BJP leader Maneka Gandhi from campaigning. While Yogi Adityanath and Azam Khan had been banned for 72 hours, Mayawati and Maneka Gandhi was barred from holding rallies for 48 hours.

The commission took the action against the political leaders for violating the Model Code of Conduct by making objectionable statements in their speeches.

The action by Election Commission came after the Supreme Court took note of the alleged hate speeches during poll campaign and sought to know from the poll panel the action initiated against them so far. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the Election Commission on Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering.

Mayawati was issued the notice for her speech in Deoband appealing to Muslims to not vote for a particular party. The BSP chief had prima facie violated the model code of conduct, the poll panel found. Adityanath was served the notice for his "Ali" and "Bajrang Bali" remarks while addressing a rally in Meerut.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of the action taken by Election Commission against politicians who made statements violating model code of conduct. "It seems the Election Commission has finally woken up to its power and taken action against politicians," it said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of the action taken by Election Commission against politicians who made statements violating model code of conduct. "It seems the Election Commission has finally woken up to its power and taken action against politicians," it said. The court made the observation while hearing Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati's plea against ban imposed by the Election Commission on addressing public rallies for 48 hours. The top court refused to entertain Mayawati's plea saying there is no further action required. The Election Commission had on Monday temporarily banned Mayawati, along with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and Union minister and BJP leader Maneka Gandhi from campaigning. While Yogi Adityanath and Azam Khan had been banned for 72 hours, Mayawati and Maneka Gandhi was barred from holding rallies for 48 hours. The commission took the action against the political leaders for violating the Model Code of Conduct by making objectionable statements in their speeches. The action by Election Commission came after the Supreme Court took note of the alleged hate speeches during poll campaign and sought to know from the poll panel the action initiated against them so far. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the Election Commission on Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering. Mayawati was issued the notice for her speech in Deoband appealing to Muslims to not vote for a particular party. The BSP chief had prima facie violated the model code of conduct, the poll panel found. Adityanath was served the notice for his "Ali" and "Bajrang Bali" remarks while addressing a rally in Meerut.

Election Commission has finally woken up to its power: Supreme Court on campaign ban on politicians

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought responses from Congress leader P Chidambaram's wife Nalini and son Karti on an appeal of the Income Tax department against the Madras High Court order quashing criminal prosecution against them in an alleged black money case.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while issuing notices to the two, made it clear that it will not stay the Madras High Court's 2018 order quashing criminal prosecution against the Chidambarams.

The issue relates to alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets and bank accounts held by Chidambaram's wife, son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi.&nbsp;

According to the I-T Department, the three had not disclosed a property they jointly owned in Cambridge in the UK worth Rs 5.37 crore in their returns which amounted to an offence under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act and Imposition of Tax Act.

The Madras High Court on November 2 last year had said no case was made out and quashed the criminal prosecution.

Family members of the former union minister had filed writ petitions challenging the criminal prosecution.

The department has also alleged that Karti Chidambaram had not disclosed an overseas bank account he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA.

He had also "failed" to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounted to committing an offence under the Black Money Act, the department had said in its complaint in the special court in May last year.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought responses from Congress leader P Chidambaram's wife Nalini and son Karti on an appeal of the Income Tax department against the Madras High Court order quashing criminal prosecution against them in an alleged black money case.

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought responses from Congress leader P Chidambaram's wife Nalini and son Karti on an appeal of the Income Tax department against the Madras High Court order quashing criminal prosecution against them in an alleged black money case. A bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while issuing notices to the two, made it clear that it will not stay the Madras High Court's 2018 order quashing criminal prosecution against the Chidambarams. The issue relates to alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets and bank accounts held by Chidambaram's wife, son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi. According to the I-T Department, the three had not disclosed a property they jointly owned in Cambridge in the UK worth Rs 5.37 crore in their returns which amounted to an offence under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act and Imposition of Tax Act. The Madras High Court on November 2 last year had said no case was made out and quashed the criminal prosecution. Family members of the former union minister had filed writ petitions challenging the criminal prosecution. The department has also alleged that Karti Chidambaram had not disclosed an overseas bank account he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA. He had also "failed" to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounted to committing an offence under the Black Money Act, the department had said in its complaint in the special court in May last year.

Supreme Court seeks response from P Chidambaram's wife, son Karti on IT department plea

Earlier, Madras HC had issued an Interim Order. Apple, Google asked to ban this application.

WION Wallet: Supreme court refuses to stay ban on Tik Tok

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Mayawati's counsel to file a separate appeal against the poll panel's order.

Taking note of the EC action, the court said<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/election-commission-has-finally-woken-up-to-its-power-supreme-court-on-campaign-ban-on-politicians-210816"> it seems the poll body has "woken up"</a> and barred various politicians from poll campaigning for varying hours.

The bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that no further order was required for now.

The Election Commission on Monday imposed a nationwide campaign ban on Adityanath for 72 hours and on Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and Mayawati for 48 hours from Tuesday for their "provocative" communal remarks, which it said had the "propensity to polarise the elections".

A 72-hour campaign ban has also been imposed on Samajwadi Party's Azam Khan for his alleged "khaki underwear" jibe against actor-politician Jaya Prada, who is his rival BJP candidate in Rampur Lok Sabha seat.&nbsp;

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.

The all-India ban on all four leaders -- two from the ruling BJP and two from opposition parties -- came into force from 6 am Tuesday.

While Adityanath, Mayawati and Gandhi were found guilty of violating the model code, the EC said Khan not only violated the poll code, he also disregarded its November 2013 directive asking politicians to desist from "deeds or actions construed as being repugnant to the honour and dignity of women".

For the first time a pan-India ban has been imposed on politicians, while any restriction on a chief minister and a union minister is unprecedented.

Mayawati alleged the order has been passed "under pressure" and it would be remembered as a "black day" in the EC's history. She has faced action for appealing to Muslims to not vote for the Congress to avoid their anti-BJP votes getting divided.&nbsp;

Her alliance partner and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav asked the EC whether it is capable to issue similar directives to the prime minister to stop him from asking for votes in name of the Army.

The EC order to bar Adityanath and Mayawati came soon after the Supreme Court asked the poll watchdog about the action it has initiated against them.

The apex court had on Monday expressed displeasure over the Election Commission not taking quick action against politicians for communal and hate speeches during the Lok Sabha campaigning and decided to examine the ambit of its power following submission that it was "toothless".

The bench had taken the cases of alleged communal speeches of Mayawati and Adityanath and asked the EC about the action taken so far against them while deciding to examine the statutory powers of the poll panel to deal with the violation of the model code of conduct (MCC).

The EC's counsel had said: "The power of the EC in this behalf is very limited. We can issue notice and seek reply but we cannot de-recognise a party or disqualify a candidate...We can only issue advisories and in case of a repeat offence, register a complaint."

Reacting sharply, the bench had said, "So you are basically saying you are toothless and powerless against hate speeches."

It had then said that besides sending a notice, an advisory and a criminal case can be filed only against such leader.&nbsp;

"It is stated by the counsel appearing for the EC that the power of the ECI for violation of the Model Code of Conduct by making hate speeches on grounds of religion, caste etc is circumscribed to issuing of notice and upon consideration of the reply to issue advisories.&nbsp;

"Only in case of repeated violation of the advisories, the EC has the power to file an FIR with the Police for initiation of criminal proceedings," the bench had noted in the order.

The apex court, on April 8, had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on the PIL seeking direction to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on castes and religions in the media in the run-up to general elections.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches.

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to consider BSP supremo Mayawati's plea challenging the EC's 48-hr campaign ban on her and expressed satisfaction over the poll body's action against leaders making hate speeches. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Mayawati's counsel to file a separate appeal against the poll panel's order. Taking note of the EC action, the court said it seems the poll body has "woken up" and barred various politicians from poll campaigning for varying hours. The bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that no further order was required for now. The Election Commission on Monday imposed a nationwide campaign ban on Adityanath for 72 hours and on Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and Mayawati for 48 hours from Tuesday for their "provocative" communal remarks, which it said had the "propensity to polarise the elections". A 72-hour campaign ban has also been imposed on Samajwadi Party's Azam Khan for his alleged "khaki underwear" jibe against actor-politician Jaya Prada, who is his rival BJP candidate in Rampur Lok Sabha seat. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections. The all-India ban on all four leaders -- two from the ruling BJP and two from opposition parties -- came into force from 6 am Tuesday. While Adityanath, Mayawati and Gandhi were found guilty of violating the model code, the EC said Khan not only violated the poll code, he also disregarded its November 2013 directive asking politicians to desist from "deeds or actions construed as being repugnant to the honour and dignity of women". For the first time a pan-India ban has been imposed on politicians, while any restriction on a chief minister and a union minister is unprecedented. Mayawati alleged the order has been passed "under pressure" and it would be remembered as a "black day" in the EC's history. She has faced action for appealing to Muslims to not vote for the Congress to avoid their anti-BJP votes getting divided. Her alliance partner and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav asked the EC whether it is capable to issue similar directives to the prime minister to stop him from asking for votes in name of the Army. The EC order to bar Adityanath and Mayawati came soon after the Supreme Court asked the poll watchdog about the action it has initiated against them. The apex court had on Monday expressed displeasure over the Election Commission not taking quick action against politicians for communal and hate speeches during the Lok Sabha campaigning and decided to examine the ambit of its power following submission that it was "toothless". The bench had taken the cases of alleged communal speeches of Mayawati and Adityanath and asked the EC about the action taken so far against them while deciding to examine the statutory powers of the poll panel to deal with the violation of the model code of conduct (MCC). The EC's counsel had said: "The power of the EC in this behalf is very limited. We can issue notice and seek reply but we cannot de-recognise a party or disqualify a candidate...We can only issue advisories and in case of a repeat offence, register a complaint." Reacting sharply, the bench had said, "So you are basically saying you are toothless and powerless against hate speeches." It had then said that besides sending a notice, an advisory and a criminal case can be filed only against such leader. "It is stated by the counsel appearing for the EC that the power of the ECI for violation of the Model Code of Conduct by making hate speeches on grounds of religion, caste etc is circumscribed to issuing of notice and upon consideration of the reply to issue advisories. "Only in case of repeated violation of the advisories, the EC has the power to file an FIR with the Police for initiation of criminal proceedings," the bench had noted in the order. The apex court, on April 8, had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on the PIL seeking direction to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on castes and religions in the media in the run-up to general elections.

Supreme Court refuses to consider Mayawati's plea against Election Commission order

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious displeasure after the Election Commission (EC) conveyed that it has limited power to act against leaders like <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-2019-election-commission-of-india-bans-adityanath-mayawati-for-violating-model-code-of-conduct-210566">BSP supremo Mayawati and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath</a>, who made statements along religious lines and violated the model code of conduct.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while taking note of EC's contention that it can merely issue notice, an advisory and then lodge criminal complaint on repeated violations of model code of conduct, summoned an official of the poll panel, who is well versed with the issue, to appear before it tomorrow.

The apex court took into account the EC's statement that notices were issued on a speech made by Mayawati asking Muslims to vote and Yogi Adityanath on 'Ali-Bajrang Bali'.

The Bench, which also comprised Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, pulled up the EC for not acting against them for their statements on religion and hate speeches.

"We would like to examine the matter. The representative of Election Commission should appear in the court tomorrow at 10.30 am," said the Bench.

The court was hearing a PIL seeking strict action against political parties if their spokespersons and representatives deliver speeches and make remarks in media on religion and caste.

During the hearing, the EC told the top court that it had issued three notices on violation of model code of conduct and the first notice was against Adityanath, which has been closed.

The second notice was against Mayawati, which she was to reply by April 12 but she has not replied yet, the EC said.

Chief Justice Gogoi said this is something the EC is duty bound to act on and it has to get into action immediately.

"What have you done when she (Mayawati) has not replied? What are you impart to do in law?" asked the top court.

The counsel appearing for EC replied that it issued notices and then an advisory. On repeated violation of model code of conduct, a criminal complaint can be filed, the EC counsel said.

"We can't disqualify them (politicians). We can't even derecognise these political parties," the EC counsel said.

"That's it? You (Election Commission) know your power? For violating the model code of conduct, all you can do is issue advisory?" Chief Justice Gogoi observed and said the court will examine the issue relating to the power of EC in model code of conduct violations by politicians.

The Bench then told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that EC says "we are toothless, we are powerless, we issue notices, then advisory and on repeated violation, we file complaint, this is their power".

Earlier, the top court had sought the EC's reply on the PIL filed by an NRI from Sharjah, Harpreet Mansukhani.

The petitioner also urged the top court to constitute a bench headed by former Supreme Court judges "to keep a close watch on the entire election process and check the fairness" of the EC during the Lok Sabha polls.

The petitioner pointed out that the spokespersons or media representatives of political parties/politicians who are not contesting the elections use hate speeches on TV channels and social media platform based on caste or religion and easily escape action since they usually do not contest elections.

"The concept of secular democracy promised under the Indian Constitution for the purity of elections is mandatory in order for a Democracy to thrive and succeed. It is a must for the EC and other legislative bodies to be kept free from unhealthy corrupt practices and unhealthy appeals of influence of religion, race, caste, community or language that could have a devastating effect on a country and its Constitution," stated the plea.

"Elections in India are being mutilated under the evil influence of the 'divide and rule policy'&nbsp;through evil influences of caste and religion which has led to communalism of politics which is a major concern for the security of people from the forces within and from forces outside the country. The communalism and caste-based politics has crossed all barriers which can result into an unknown alarmingly dangerous situation."

The petitioner also sought strict actions against media houses which use caste or religious lines for the debates.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious displeasure after the Election Commission (EC) conveyed that it has limited power to act against leaders like BSP supremo Mayawati and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who made statements along religious lines and violated the model code of conduct.

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious displeasure after the Election Commission (EC) conveyed that it has limited power to act against leaders like BSP supremo Mayawati and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who made statements along religious lines and violated the model code of conduct. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while taking note of EC's contention that it can merely issue notice, an advisory and then lodge criminal complaint on repeated violations of model code of conduct, summoned an official of the poll panel, who is well versed with the issue, to appear before it tomorrow. The apex court took into account the EC's statement that notices were issued on a speech made by Mayawati asking Muslims to vote and Yogi Adityanath on 'Ali-Bajrang Bali'. The Bench, which also comprised Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, pulled up the EC for not acting against them for their statements on religion and hate speeches. "We would like to examine the matter. The representative of Election Commission should appear in the court tomorrow at 10.30 am," said the Bench. The court was hearing a PIL seeking strict action against political parties if their spokespersons and representatives deliver speeches and make remarks in media on religion and caste. During the hearing, the EC told the top court that it had issued three notices on violation of model code of conduct and the first notice was against Adityanath, which has been closed. The second notice was against Mayawati, which she was to reply by April 12 but she has not replied yet, the EC said. Chief Justice Gogoi said this is something the EC is duty bound to act on and it has to get into action immediately. "What have you done when she (Mayawati) has not replied? What are you impart to do in law?" asked the top court. The counsel appearing for EC replied that it issued notices and then an advisory. On repeated violation of model code of conduct, a criminal complaint can be filed, the EC counsel said. "We can't disqualify them (politicians). We can't even derecognise these political parties," the EC counsel said. "That's it? You (Election Commission) know your power? For violating the model code of conduct, all you can do is issue advisory?" Chief Justice Gogoi observed and said the court will examine the issue relating to the power of EC in model code of conduct violations by politicians. The Bench then told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that EC says "we are toothless, we are powerless, we issue notices, then advisory and on repeated violation, we file complaint, this is their power". Earlier, the top court had sought the EC's reply on the PIL filed by an NRI from Sharjah, Harpreet Mansukhani. The petitioner also urged the top court to constitute a bench headed by former Supreme Court judges "to keep a close watch on the entire election process and check the fairness" of the EC during the Lok Sabha polls. The petitioner pointed out that the spokespersons or media representatives of political parties/politicians who are not contesting the elections use hate speeches on TV channels and social media platform based on caste or religion and easily escape action since they usually do not contest elections. "The concept of secular democracy promised under the Indian Constitution for the purity of elections is mandatory in order for a Democracy to thrive and succeed. It is a must for the EC and other legislative bodies to be kept free from unhealthy corrupt practices and unhealthy appeals of influence of religion, race, caste, community or language that could have a devastating effect on a country and its Constitution," stated the plea. "Elections in India are being mutilated under the evil influence of the 'divide and rule policy' through evil influences of caste and religion which has led to communalism of politics which is a major concern for the security of people from the forces within and from forces outside the country. The communalism and caste-based politics has crossed all barriers which can result into an unknown alarmingly dangerous situation." The petitioner also sought strict actions against media houses which use caste or religious lines for the debates.

Supreme Court summons EC official on Tuesday on its contention of 'limited power' over MCC violation

The Supreme Court of India asked the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-election-commission-stalls-release-of-modi-biopic-209258">Election Commision</a> on Monday to watch the biopic on Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-biopic-supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-release-of-film-208956">Narendra Modi</a> and submit its report by Friday. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea challenging the commission's ban on the release of the biopic till the general elections are over.

The court agreed to examine a plea against the ban and directed the Election Commission to submit in sealed cover its decision posting the matter for consideration on April 22.

The film's producers had moved the top court after the Election Commission had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-biopic-director-omung-kumar-if-releasing-the-film-at-the-time-of-elections-gets-box-office-results-then-why-not-209220">banned the film</a> from releasing before elections.

The poll panel had last week banned the screening of the biopic during the current poll period, saying any such film that subserves purpose of any political entity or individual should not be displayed in the electronic media.

The commission, in a separate order, had also directed the producers not to exhibit the film titled 'PM Narendra Modi' "till further orders".

Acting on the complaints of political parties, including the Congress, the poll panel had asserted that any biopic material with the potential to disturb the level playing field should not be displayed in the area where Model Code of Conduct was in force.

The EC order came after the apex court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by a Congress activist seeking stay on the release of the biopic, saying the poll panel was the right forum to decide the issue.

The commission's order came on April 10, a day before it was to be released, coinciding with the first phase of Lok Sabha elections. Votes for all 543 seats will be counted on May 23 after the end of the seven-phase polling on May 19.

The Supreme Court of India asked the Election Commision on Monday to watch the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and submit its report by Friday. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea challenging the commission's ban on the release of the biopic till the general elections are over.

The Supreme Court of India asked the Election Commision on Monday to watch the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and submit its report by Friday. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea challenging the commission's ban on the release of the biopic till the general elections are over. The court agreed to examine a plea against the ban and directed the Election Commission to submit in sealed cover its decision posting the matter for consideration on April 22. The film's producers had moved the top court after the Election Commission had banned the film from releasing before elections. The poll panel had last week banned the screening of the biopic during the current poll period, saying any such film that subserves purpose of any political entity or individual should not be displayed in the electronic media. The commission, in a separate order, had also directed the producers not to exhibit the film titled 'PM Narendra Modi' "till further orders". Acting on the complaints of political parties, including the Congress, the poll panel had asserted that any biopic material with the potential to disturb the level playing field should not be displayed in the area where Model Code of Conduct was in force. The EC order came after the apex court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by a Congress activist seeking stay on the release of the biopic, saying the poll panel was the right forum to decide the issue. The commission's order came on April 10, a day before it was to be released, coinciding with the first phase of Lok Sabha elections. Votes for all 543 seats will be counted on May 23 after the end of the seven-phase polling on May 19.

Ban on Modi biopic: Watch the film and submit report, Supreme Court directs Election Commission

The Supreme Court of India on Monday directed Congress president Rahul Gandhi to explain his alleged contemptuous remarks on recent the April 10 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-political-interference-in-tax-settlement-with-reliance-firm-france-over-le-mondes-rafale-bombshell-210236">Rafale verdict</a>.

The court has asked Rahul Gandhi has to reply to the notice by April 22.

"We make it clear that views, observations, findings attributed to this court in the alleged speeches, remarks made by Gandhi to media/public have been incorrectly attributed to this court. We also make it clear that this court had no occasion to make such observation in as much as it was deciding legal admissibility of certain documents which were objected by the attorney general," the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said.

The bench also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said, "Having clarified the matter we deem it appropriate to seek explanation from Rahul Gandhi."

The court's directive came on a contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Rahul Gandhi for his "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/main-bhi-chowkidar-vs-chowkidar-chor-hai-who-is-winning-205034">chowkidar chor hai</a>" remark for PM Modi. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, was hearing the plea where senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Supreme Court's recent dismissal of preliminary objections raised by the government in the ongoing Rafale review plea hearing have been deliberately misinterpreted by the Congress president.

Rohatgi said that Rahul Gandhi had come out in the public to make a remark that the "Supreme Court in its judgement said 'Chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hai'."

The bench said, "You were right to the extent we never said what has been brought in the petition. We will seek clarification."

The Congress president had on April 10 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 where he is contesting against BJP leader and Union minister Smriti Irani.

Rahul Gandhi had also recalled a recent interview by the Prime Minister, in which Modi had said the Supreme Court had given a clean chit to his government on the Rafale deal.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Monday directed Congress president Rahul Gandhi to explain his alleged contemptuous remarks on recent the April 10 Rafale verdict. The court has asked Rahul Gandhi has to reply to the notice by April 22.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday directed Congress president Rahul Gandhi to explain his alleged contemptuous remarks on recent the April 10 Rafale verdict. The court has asked Rahul Gandhi has to reply to the notice by April 22. "We make it clear that views, observations, findings attributed to this court in the alleged speeches, remarks made by Gandhi to media/public have been incorrectly attributed to this court. We also make it clear that this court had no occasion to make such observation in as much as it was deciding legal admissibility of certain documents which were objected by the attorney general," the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said. The bench also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said, "Having clarified the matter we deem it appropriate to seek explanation from Rahul Gandhi." The court's directive came on a contempt petition filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi against Rahul Gandhi for his "chowkidar chor hai" remark for PM Modi. "The words used and attributed by him to Supreme Court in the Rafale case has been made to appear something else. He is replacing his personal statement as Supreme Court's order and trying to create prejudice," Lekhi said in her petition. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, was hearing the plea where senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Supreme Court's recent dismissal of preliminary objections raised by the government in the ongoing Rafale review plea hearing have been deliberately misinterpreted by the Congress president. Rohatgi said that Rahul Gandhi had come out in the public to make a remark that the "Supreme Court in its judgement said 'Chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hai'." The bench said, "You were right to the extent we never said what has been brought in the petition. We will seek clarification." The Congress president had on April 10 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 where he is contesting against BJP leader and Union minister Smriti Irani. Rahul Gandhi had also recalled a recent interview by the Prime Minister, in which Modi had said the Supreme Court had given a clean chit to his government on the Rafale deal. (With inputs from agencies)

Explain contemptuous remarks on Rafale verdict, says Supreme Court in notice to Rahul Gandhi

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Congress president Rahul Gandhi in connection with a contempt petition filed against him by the Bharatiya Janata Party on the Rafale controversy.

Supreme Court to Rahul Gandhi: Explain ''Chowkidar Rafale Chor'' comments

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow.

The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Chinese company ByteDance against the High Court which said there were over billion downloads of its app and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order.

In its April 3 order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the Centre to ban the mobile app, voicing concern over "pornographic and inappropriate content" being made available through the app.

The order also restrained the media from telecasting videos made using the app.

The order had come after the court noted that through this app, children are being exposed to inappropriate content including pornography, adding that minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app.

"It is evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate contents are made available in this kind of cyber applications. The children are exposed to strangers and there is a possibility of the photographs and other private details of the children are being landed in the hands of predators or third parties," the bench had observed.

"On March 27, an auto driver was arrested for posting a video that included a woman from Chennai on TikTok Mobile App. A 15-year-old girl is said to have committed suicide at Mumbai for being scolded by her grandmother for use of TikTok Mobile App. An old man is said to have fallen in the waterfalls in Valparai, while taking a selfie or Tik Tok video. Before many tragic incidents would occur, the government has to take appropriate steps," the plea filed by Madurai senior lawyer Muttu Kumar read.

TikTok, an app that allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has over 54 million monthly active users in India.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay Madras High Court's order imposing a ban on Chinese video app TikTok. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter for hearing on April 22 as the case is coming up for hearing in the Madras High Court tomorrow. The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Chinese company ByteDance against the High Court which said there were over billion downloads of its app and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order. In its April 3 order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the Centre to ban the mobile app, voicing concern over "pornographic and inappropriate content" being made available through the app. The order also restrained the media from telecasting videos made using the app. The order had come after the court noted that through this app, children are being exposed to inappropriate content including pornography, adding that minors are also being exposed to strangers through this app. "It is evident from media reports that pornography and inappropriate contents are made available in this kind of cyber applications. The children are exposed to strangers and there is a possibility of the photographs and other private details of the children are being landed in the hands of predators or third parties," the bench had observed. "On March 27, an auto driver was arrested for posting a video that included a woman from Chennai on TikTok Mobile App. A 15-year-old girl is said to have committed suicide at Mumbai for being scolded by her grandmother for use of TikTok Mobile App. An old man is said to have fallen in the waterfalls in Valparai, while taking a selfie or Tik Tok video. Before many tragic incidents would occur, the government has to take appropriate steps," the plea filed by Madurai senior lawyer Muttu Kumar read. TikTok, an app that allows users to create and share short videos with special effects, has over 54 million monthly active users in India.

Supreme Court refuses to stay Madras HC order on TikTok app

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the EC for Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering.&nbsp;

The bench referred to submissions of the EC that they can issue a notice, then advisory and finally lodge a complaint against an errant politician for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by giving hate speeches based on caste and religion during the campaign.

"The EC says they are toothless. They say that they first issue a notice, then advisory and then complain," the bench said, adding it would examine the aspect relating to poll panel's power to deal with hate speeches during poll campaign.

During the hearing, the bench asked the counsel for EC as to what action they have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath for alleged hate speeches.

The counsel appearing for poll panel said that it has already issued notices against the two politicians.

"Tell us what actions you have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath," the bench asked and fixed the matter for tomorrow.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far.

The Supreme Court Monday took note of the alleged hate speeches made by BSP supremo Mayawati and UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during poll campaign and sought to know from the Election Commission the action initiated against them so far. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi summoned a representative of the EC for Tuesday while agreeing to examine the poll panel's contention that it has the limited legal power to deal with hate speeches of politicians during electioneering. The bench referred to submissions of the EC that they can issue a notice, then advisory and finally lodge a complaint against an errant politician for violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by giving hate speeches based on caste and religion during the campaign. "The EC says they are toothless. They say that they first issue a notice, then advisory and then complain," the bench said, adding it would examine the aspect relating to poll panel's power to deal with hate speeches during poll campaign. During the hearing, the bench asked the counsel for EC as to what action they have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath for alleged hate speeches. The counsel appearing for poll panel said that it has already issued notices against the two politicians. "Tell us what actions you have taken against Mayawati and Yogi Adityanath," the bench asked and fixed the matter for tomorrow. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by an NRI Yoga teacher based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeking a direction to the EC to take "strict action" against political parties if their spokespersons make remarks based on caste and religion in the media in the run-up to general elections.

Supreme Court takes note of alleged hate speeches made by Mayawati, Adityanath

In this segment of India Election Watch: In an interim order, the apex court directed all political parties to provide details of the amount of the bond and bank account of donors by May 30 to the poll panel. The question is; who funds Indian political parties and elections?

India Election Watch: Who funds India's elections?

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