There seems to be no end to this drama anytime soon. Two days after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-election-commission-stalls-release-of-modi-biopic-209258">Election Commission stalled the release </a>of 'PM Narendra Modi' during the election season, the makers have moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision.&nbsp;

The matter has been listed for an early hearing and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter on 15th April now.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, the Election Commission had stalled the Modi biopic stating the content violated the Model Code Of Conduct. The EC had stated that the film would only be allowed to release after the general Lok Sabha elections get over. The makers had planned to release it on 11th April.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Makers of biopic 'PM Narendra Modi' move the Supreme Court against the stalling of the film's release. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case on April 15. <a href="https://t.co/QWh6CnPOlb">pic.twitter.com/QWh6CnPOlb</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1116575644110835720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 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>

Earlier this week, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-biopic-supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-release-of-film-208956">Supreme Court had declined to stall the release of the film</a>, observing that the“question of whether the film will tilt the electoral balance in favour of any political party is a question that can and should be addressed by the Election Commission of India.”

Starring Vivek Oberoi in the lead role, the film has been <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">directed by Omung Kumar</a> and co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sandeep Ssingh.&nbsp;

There seems to be no end to this drama anytime soon. Two days after the Election Commission stalled the release of 'PM Narendra Modi' during the election season, the makers have moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision.

There seems to be no end to this drama anytime soon. Two days after the Election Commission stalled the release of 'PM Narendra Modi' during the election season, the makers have moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision. The matter has been listed for an early hearing and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter on 15th April now. On Wednesday, the Election Commission had stalled the Modi biopic stating the content violated the Model Code Of Conduct. The EC had stated that the film would only be allowed to release after the general Lok Sabha elections get over. The makers had planned to release it on 11th April. Makers of biopic 'PM Narendra Modi' move the Supreme Court against the stalling of the film's release. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case on April 15. pic.twitter.com/QWh6CnPOlb — ANI (@ANI) April 12, 2019 × Earlier this week, the Supreme Court had declined to stall the release of the film, observing that the“question of whether the film will tilt the electoral balance in favour of any political party is a question that can and should be addressed by the Election Commission of India.” Starring Vivek Oberoi in the lead role, the film has been directed by Omung Kumar and co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sandeep Ssingh.

Makers of 'PM Narendra Modi' move Supreme Court against stalling of film's release

The Supreme Court on Friday said that all the political parties will have to mandatorily disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, pronounced the order while hearing a petition filed by an NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding.

The court said that electoral bonds will continue but further added that the details to be submitted before the Election Commission in a sealed envelope must also include the bank account details of the political parties. It asked the details of political funding till May 15 to be submitted by May 30.

The court had on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds.

The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency.

The NGO had sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process.

Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court during the hearing yesterday that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it."

Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said.

However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power".

Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days.

The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that all the political parties will have to mandatorily disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, pronounced the order while hearing a petition filed by an NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that all the political parties will have to mandatorily disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, pronounced the order while hearing a petition filed by an NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding. The court said that electoral bonds will continue but further added that the details to be submitted before the Election Commission in a sealed envelope must also include the bank account details of the political parties. It asked the details of political funding till May 15 to be submitted by May 30. The court had on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency. The NGO had sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process. Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court during the hearing yesterday that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India. Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it." Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said. However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power". Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days. The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

Political parties must submit details of funding through electoral bonds, says Supreme Court

Hearing a petition challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme, the Supreme Court on Friday directed all political parties to disclose details of donations received via electoral bond.

Supreme Court directs all parties to disclose details of donations received via electoral bondc

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cabinet-approves-aadhaar-ordinance-to-allow-its-use-as-id-proof-for-bank-accounts-sim-connection-200400&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwivoa2fvMrhAhUf7nMBHSojCH4QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0qq062J_i_MOrh6Ujt3z-v"> Aadhaar </a>Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani asked the Ministry of Law to indicate its stand by July 9, the next date of hearing.

The matter came up before the bench as the apex court on April 5 had directed the petitioners, both lawyers, to first move the high court.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court had in September last year declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.

The court had held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of Income Tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking for mobile connections.&nbsp;

According to the petitioners, Reepak Kansal and Yadunandan Bansal, the ordinance allows the private sector to use the Aadhaar infrastructure through the back door by amending the Indian Telegraph Act.

The petition has said that the ordinance amends the Telegraph Act to provide for voluntary use of Aadhaar for identity verification.

It has claimed that this allows telecom companies to use Aadhaar ID for identity verification.

The petitioners have also contended that there was "no extraordinary situation" which required passing of such an ordinance.

President Ram Nath Kovind had last month given his assent to the Aadhaar Ordinance that allowed voluntary use of Aadhaar as ID proof for obtaining mobile SIM cards and opening bank accounts.

The ordinance was necessitated because Rajya Sabha could not approve a Bill after its passage by Lok Sabha.

The Cabinet had approved the promulgation of the ordinance to give effect to changes proposed in Aadhaar and two others legislations.

The amendments provide for stiff penalties for violation of norms set for the use of Aadhaar and violation of privacy.

It bans storing of core biometric information as well as Aadhaar number by service providers in cases of individuals who have voluntarily offered the national ID as a means of authentication.

However, the amendments make it clear that anyone not offering Aadhaar cannot be denied any service, be it opening of a bank account or obtaining a mobile phone SIM card.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent Aadhaar Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent Aadhaar Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani asked the Ministry of Law to indicate its stand by July 9, the next date of hearing. The matter came up before the bench as the apex court on April 5 had directed the petitioners, both lawyers, to first move the high court. A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court had in September last year declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. The court had held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of Income Tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking for mobile connections. According to the petitioners, Reepak Kansal and Yadunandan Bansal, the ordinance allows the private sector to use the Aadhaar infrastructure through the back door by amending the Indian Telegraph Act. The petition has said that the ordinance amends the Telegraph Act to provide for voluntary use of Aadhaar for identity verification. It has claimed that this allows telecom companies to use Aadhaar ID for identity verification. The petitioners have also contended that there was "no extraordinary situation" which required passing of such an ordinance. President Ram Nath Kovind had last month given his assent to the Aadhaar Ordinance that allowed voluntary use of Aadhaar as ID proof for obtaining mobile SIM cards and opening bank accounts. The ordinance was necessitated because Rajya Sabha could not approve a Bill after its passage by Lok Sabha. The Cabinet had approved the promulgation of the ordinance to give effect to changes proposed in Aadhaar and two others legislations. The amendments provide for stiff penalties for violation of norms set for the use of Aadhaar and violation of privacy. It bans storing of core biometric information as well as Aadhaar number by service providers in cases of individuals who have voluntarily offered the national ID as a means of authentication. However, the amendments make it clear that anyone not offering Aadhaar cannot be denied any service, be it opening of a bank account or obtaining a mobile phone SIM card.

Plea challenges Aadhaar ordinance: High Court seeks Centre's stand

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/political-parties-must-submit-details-of-funding-through-electoral-bonds-says-supreme-court-209753">Supreme Court on Friday</a> said that all political parties have to disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The details should be submitted before the Election Commission in a sealed envelope and must also include the bank account details of the political parties.

Electoral bonds were introduced by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley during his budget speech in 2017. These bonds were introduced to bring more transparency to political fundings.

Here's all you need to know about electoral bonds:

When it was introduced?

Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act.

When it is available and how to use it?

The electoral bonds are available for a period of 10 days each in the month of January, April, July, and October. It has an additional period of 30 days specified by the central government in the year of general elections.

The bonds are interest-free and can be purchased from any value in multiples of Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh and Rs 1 crore. People can buy these bonds from specified branches of SBI. It is valid up to 15 days from purchase. It can be bought by making payments digitally or through a cheque. After that banks will forward the bond to designated political parties and they can convert these bonds in money via their registered bank accounts.

The political parties⁬ registered with Election Commission are eligible to receive these bonds.

The donor's identity is anonymous. The bank is not allowed to reveal the names of identities under any circumstances.

Which party has benefited most from electoral bonds?

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received around Rs 210 crore in 2017-2018 donations and thus emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the electoral bond scheme, Election Commission informed the Supreme Court. In total, bonds worth over Rs 1,000 crore were purchased until November 2018.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday said that all political parties have to disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The details should be submitted before the Election Commission in a sealed envelope and must also include the bank account details of the political parties.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that all political parties have to disclose the details of donations received through electoral bonds. The details should be submitted before the Election Commission in a sealed envelope and must also include the bank account details of the political parties. Electoral bonds were introduced by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley during his budget speech in 2017. These bonds were introduced to bring more transparency to political fundings. Here's all you need to know about electoral bonds: When it was introduced? Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. When it is available and how to use it? The electoral bonds are available for a period of 10 days each in the month of January, April, July, and October. It has an additional period of 30 days specified by the central government in the year of general elections. The bonds are interest-free and can be purchased from any value in multiples of Rs 1,000, Rs 10,000, Rs 1 lakh and Rs 1 crore. People can buy these bonds from specified branches of SBI. It is valid up to 15 days from purchase. It can be bought by making payments digitally or through a cheque. After that banks will forward the bond to designated political parties and they can convert these bonds in money via their registered bank accounts. The political parties⁬ registered with Election Commission are eligible to receive these bonds. The donor's identity is anonymous. The bank is not allowed to reveal the names of identities under any circumstances. Which party has benefited most from electoral bonds? Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received around Rs 210 crore in 2017-2018 donations and thus emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the electoral bond scheme, Election Commission informed the Supreme Court. In total, bonds worth over Rs 1,000 crore were purchased until November 2018.

All you need to know about electoral bonds

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the&nbsp;conduct of 'puja' in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/aimplb-calls-emergency-meeting-for-ayodhya-land-dispute-205195"> undisputed Ayodhya lands</a>.

"You will not let this country live in peace... Somebody has to always poke, " the apex court told the petitioner.

The court also refused to withdraw the Allahabad High Court orders imposing a Rs 5 lakh cost on the petitioner.

On March 8, the supreme court had appointed a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-mediation-in-ayodhya-case-appoints-three-member-panel-201901">mediation committee </a>for resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

In its hearing, the court had also restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case.

The court-appointed committee held its first sitting on March 13 and heard all parties who attended the proceedings.

The court was hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya between the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh and Ramlalla Virajman.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the conduct of 'puja' in the undisputed Ayodhya lands. "You will not let this country live in peace.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought the conduct of 'puja' in the undisputed Ayodhya lands. "You will not let this country live in peace... Somebody has to always poke, " the apex court told the petitioner. The court also refused to withdraw the Allahabad High Court orders imposing a Rs 5 lakh cost on the petitioner. On March 8, the supreme court had appointed a mediation committee for resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. In its hearing, the court had also restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case. The court-appointed committee held its first sitting on March 13 and heard all parties who attended the proceedings. The court was hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya between the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh and Ramlalla Virajman.

Supreme Court refuses 'puja' at Ayodhya, says somebody has to always poke

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by Cong activist in disproportionate assets (DA) case against Mulayam Singh Yadav.&nbsp;

Following the apex court`s direction, a preliminary enquiry was instituted into the Samajwadi Party patriarch`s alleged disproportionate assets.&nbsp;

The enquiry was closed in 2013.&nbsp;

The Solicitor General told the court that the agency closed the preliminary inquiry in 2013 as it did not find any conclusive evidence against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh.

The SC asked the CBI to file a detailed response in the DA case against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son. The next hearing in the matter will come up in July. The elections will already be over then.&nbsp;

Mulayam Singh Yadav had complained to the Supreme Court that the petition filed on election-eve was politically motivated. 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by Cong activist in disproportionate assets (DA) case against Mulayam Singh Yadav.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by Cong activist in disproportionate assets (DA) case against Mulayam Singh Yadav. Following the apex court`s direction, a preliminary enquiry was instituted into the Samajwadi Party patriarch`s alleged disproportionate assets. The enquiry was closed in 2013. The Solicitor General told the court that the agency closed the preliminary inquiry in 2013 as it did not find any conclusive evidence against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh. The SC asked the CBI to file a detailed response in the DA case against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son. The next hearing in the matter will come up in July. The elections will already be over then. Mulayam Singh Yadav had complained to the Supreme Court that the petition filed on election-eve was politically motivated.

SC gives CBI 4 weeks to reply on Mulayam's DA case

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday.

Tomorrow's order, however, will be interim and not the final one on the constitutionality of electoral bonds.

The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency.

The court is hearing the plea of NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding. The petitioner has sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process.

Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it."

Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said.

However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power".

Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days.

The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday. Tomorrow's order, however, will be interim and not the final one on the constitutionality of electoral bonds. The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency. The court is hearing the plea of NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding. The petitioner has sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process. Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India. Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it." Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said. However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power". Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days. The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

Should names of donors using electoral bonds be made public? Supreme Court to decide tomorrow

After the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ban-chinese-video-app-tiktok-madras-high-court-to-government-207807">Madras High Court called for a ban</a> on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive.

Bytedance which is one of the world's most valuable start-ups. The company's TikTok app lets users create and share short videos with special effects. It has become popular in rural India.

TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, says app analytics firm Sensor Tower.

A ban "amounts to curtailing of the rights of the citizens of India...who have been using the platform everyday to express themselves and create content," the company said in a court filing, asking for the order to be quashed.

The company's Monday filing is not public and has not previously been reported. The Supreme Court has set next Monday for a hearing.

Bytedance did not respond to a request for comment. India's information technology ministry also did not respond.

Last week, the Madras High Court had asked the federal government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators.

TikTok's inappropriate content was a dangerous aspect of the app, it added.

Bytedance said users flagged only a tiny proportion of TikTok videos, showing that a "very minuscule" proportion of its content was considered inappropriate or obscene. TikTok was primarily used to circulate amusing videos, it added.

It also argued that it could not be held liable for content posted by users.

In its filing, the company said TikTok had experienced immense success in India, which fuelled controversy. Bytedance employs more than 250 people in India and plans more investment as it expands the business, it added.

After the Madras High Court called for a ban on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive.

After the Madras High Court called for a ban on the video app TikTok, China's Bytedance Technology Co said in a request to the Supreme Court to quash the directive. Bytedance which is one of the world's most valuable start-ups. The company's TikTok app lets users create and share short videos with special effects. It has become popular in rural India. TikTok, whose video-only interface makes it easier to use than platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, has been downloaded more than 240 million times in India, says app analytics firm Sensor Tower. A ban "amounts to curtailing of the rights of the citizens of India...who have been using the platform everyday to express themselves and create content," the company said in a court filing, asking for the order to be quashed. The company's Monday filing is not public and has not previously been reported. The Supreme Court has set next Monday for a hearing. Bytedance did not respond to a request for comment. India's information technology ministry also did not respond. Last week, the Madras High Court had asked the federal government to ban TikTok, saying it encouraged pornography and made child users vulnerable to sexual predators. TikTok's inappropriate content was a dangerous aspect of the app, it added. Bytedance said users flagged only a tiny proportion of TikTok videos, showing that a "very minuscule" proportion of its content was considered inappropriate or obscene. TikTok was primarily used to circulate amusing videos, it added. It also argued that it could not be held liable for content posted by users. In its filing, the company said TikTok had experienced immense success in India, which fuelled controversy. Bytedance employs more than 250 people in India and plans more investment as it expands the business, it added.

Ban will amount to curtailing rights of citizens of India: TikTok to court

The Supreme Court has imposed a Rs 20 lakh fine on the West Bengal government for shadow banning Bengali film 'Bhobishyoter Bhoot' which has been directed by Anik Dutta. &nbsp;The political satire was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bengali-film-withdrawn-from-theatres-actor-soumitra-chatterjee-joins-fans-in-protest-198040">pulled down from theatres</a> by the state government earlier this year.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said the fine amount of Rs 20 lakh shall be given to producers and cinema hall owners as compensation for violation of their right to freedom of speech and expression.

The court was hearing a plea by the film producer which alleged the movie was taken down from a majority of theatres at the behest of the state authorities.

On 15th March, the top court directed the Mamata Banerjee government to ensure that no obstruction or restraint of any kind was imposed on the screening of the movie.

A communication was received by one of the producers of the movie from the Special Branch of West Bengal Police that the contents of the film may hurt public sentiments, which may lead to political law and order issues. 
The film was released on 15th February. Its story revolves around a group of ghosts, including a politician, who assemble at a refugee camp and try to be relevant in contemporary times.

The film was allegedly withdrawn from single-screen theatres and multiplexes a day after its release. It has now re-released and is playing at selective theatres across Bengal, Mumbai, Delhi-NCR.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has imposed a Rs 20 lakh fine on the West Bengal government for shadow banning Bengali film 'Bhobishyoter Bhoot' which has been directed by Anik Dutta.

The Supreme Court has imposed a Rs 20 lakh fine on the West Bengal government for shadow banning Bengali film 'Bhobishyoter Bhoot' which has been directed by Anik Dutta. The political satire was pulled down from theatres by the state government earlier this year. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said the fine amount of Rs 20 lakh shall be given to producers and cinema hall owners as compensation for violation of their right to freedom of speech and expression. The court was hearing a plea by the film producer which alleged the movie was taken down from a majority of theatres at the behest of the state authorities. On 15th March, the top court directed the Mamata Banerjee government to ensure that no obstruction or restraint of any kind was imposed on the screening of the movie. A communication was received by one of the producers of the movie from the Special Branch of West Bengal Police that the contents of the film may hurt public sentiments, which may lead to political law and order issues. The film was released on 15th February. Its story revolves around a group of ghosts, including a politician, who assemble at a refugee camp and try to be relevant in contemporary times. The film was allegedly withdrawn from single-screen theatres and multiplexes a day after its release. It has now re-released and is playing at selective theatres across Bengal, Mumbai, Delhi-NCR.

Supreme Court imposes Rs 20 lakh fine on West Bengal government for shadow banning film

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases.

The bench rejected Yadav's arguments that he has been in jail for 24 months, saying in comparison to the 14-year sentence awarded to him, 24 months was nothing.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, said there were no recoveries and no demand and the only major offence under which he was convicted was conspiracy.

The bench said merits of the case will be decided by the high court.&nbsp;

"At present, we are only hearing the bail appeal," it said.&nbsp;

The CBI had yesterday vehemently opposed in the apex court the bail plea of Yadav, saying the ailing leader suddenly claimed to be "fully fit" to undertake political activities in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases. The bench rejected Yadav's arguments that he has been in jail for 24 months, saying in comparison to the 14-year sentence awarded to him, 24 months was nothing. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, said there were no recoveries and no demand and the only major offence under which he was convicted was conspiracy. The bench said merits of the case will be decided by the high court. "At present, we are only hearing the bail appeal," it said. The CBI had yesterday vehemently opposed in the apex court the bail plea of Yadav, saying the ailing leader suddenly claimed to be "fully fit" to undertake political activities in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

Fodder scam: Supreme Court dismisses Lalu Prasad Yadav's bail plea

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible.

"We deem it proper to dismiss preliminary objections and hold and affirm the review petitions will be adjudicated on the basis of relevance of the three documents whose admissibility was questioned by the government," the bench said.

On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal.

The Centre had opposed admissibility of the three documents obtained and published by a leading newspaper in its report claiming these documents were stolen from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and violated the Official Secrets Act (OSA), where government - due to national security issue - had kept such crucial information hidden from public domain.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had contended that no one can produce the documents in the court without the permission of the department concerned as these are protected under the OSA and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a).

The Centre had also claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said they cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court had then question as to how important secret documents were stolen from the defence ministry and told the MoD to get its house in order.

Bhushan had, however, contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

Bhushan had said that government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and are in public domain. He further said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents".

While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the OSA.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible. "We deem it proper to dismiss preliminary objections and hold and affirm the review petitions will be adjudicated on the basis of relevance of the three documents whose admissibility was questioned by the government," the bench said. On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal. The Centre had opposed admissibility of the three documents obtained and published by a leading newspaper in its report claiming these documents were stolen from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and violated the Official Secrets Act (OSA), where government - due to national security issue - had kept such crucial information hidden from public domain. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had contended that no one can produce the documents in the court without the permission of the department concerned as these are protected under the OSA and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a). The Centre had also claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said they cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court had then question as to how important secret documents were stolen from the defence ministry and told the MoD to get its house in order. Bhushan had, however, contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments". Bhushan had said that government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and are in public domain. He further said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents". While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the OSA. (With inputs from agencies)

Rafale documents admissible, says Supreme Court dismissing Centre's objection

The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases.

The bench rejected Yadav's arguments that he has been in jail for 24 months, saying in comparison to the 14-year sentence awarded to him 24 months was nothing.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, said there were no recoveries and no demand and the only major offence under which he was convicted was a conspiracy.

The bench said merits of the case will be decided by the high court. "At present, we are only hearing the bail appeal," it said.

The CBI had yesterday vehemently opposed in the apex court the bail plea of Yadav, saying the ailing leader suddenly claimed to be "fully fit" to undertake political activities in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

Yadav, who has been in the hospital instead of jail for last over eight months, had sought bail on medical grounds and for leading his party simultaneously, the CBI had said while arguing that granting of bail to him would set "very wrong precedent" in cases involving "serious corruption in high offices".

Accusing Yadav of undertaking political activities from a hospital in Ranchi, the probe agency had said: "Simultaneous raising of pleas for bail on medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok Sabha election are mutually contradictory and manifests that in the garb of bail on medical ground the petitioner, in essence, wants to pursue his political activities which are impermissible in law."

The agency, in its response filed to Yadav's bail plea, had referred to the high-profile political leaders who have visited him in hospital in last few months including Ahmed Patel, D Raja, Derek O' Brien, Sharad Yadav and Hemant Soren.

The convicted person occupied the constitutional office of the Chief Minister of one of the largest states in the country and has been held guilty of "misappropriation of Rs 75.48 crores in four fodder scam cases" and is still undergoing trial in two cases for misappropriation of Rs 139.45 crore, it had said, adding Yadav may influence the trial in the two pending cases.

The RJD chief, lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, had challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea.

The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over-Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s when Jharkhand was part of Bihar.

The RJD was in power in Bihar with Prasad as the chief minister when the scam had allegedly taken place.

In the high court, the RJD supremo cited old age and poor health for grant of bail. Yadav (71) said he was suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and other ailments and that he had already obtained bail in one of the fodder scam cases.

He has been convicted for fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Deoghar, Dumka and two Chaibasa treasuries situated in Jharkhand.

He is currently facing trial in another fodder scam case pertaining to the Doranda treasury and has been undergoing treatment at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) at Ranchi for the last few months.

The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases.

The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav in multi-crore fodder scam cases. A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi said it is not inclined to enlarge Yadav on bail in the cases. The bench rejected Yadav's arguments that he has been in jail for 24 months, saying in comparison to the 14-year sentence awarded to him 24 months was nothing. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Yadav, said there were no recoveries and no demand and the only major offence under which he was convicted was a conspiracy. The bench said merits of the case will be decided by the high court. "At present, we are only hearing the bail appeal," it said. The CBI had yesterday vehemently opposed in the apex court the bail plea of Yadav, saying the ailing leader suddenly claimed to be "fully fit" to undertake political activities in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls. Yadav, who has been in the hospital instead of jail for last over eight months, had sought bail on medical grounds and for leading his party simultaneously, the CBI had said while arguing that granting of bail to him would set "very wrong precedent" in cases involving "serious corruption in high offices". Accusing Yadav of undertaking political activities from a hospital in Ranchi, the probe agency had said: "Simultaneous raising of pleas for bail on medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok Sabha election are mutually contradictory and manifests that in the garb of bail on medical ground the petitioner, in essence, wants to pursue his political activities which are impermissible in law." The agency, in its response filed to Yadav's bail plea, had referred to the high-profile political leaders who have visited him in hospital in last few months including Ahmed Patel, D Raja, Derek O' Brien, Sharad Yadav and Hemant Soren. The convicted person occupied the constitutional office of the Chief Minister of one of the largest states in the country and has been held guilty of "misappropriation of Rs 75.48 crores in four fodder scam cases" and is still undergoing trial in two cases for misappropriation of Rs 139.45 crore, it had said, adding Yadav may influence the trial in the two pending cases. The RJD chief, lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, had challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea. The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over-Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s when Jharkhand was part of Bihar. The RJD was in power in Bihar with Prasad as the chief minister when the scam had allegedly taken place. In the high court, the RJD supremo cited old age and poor health for grant of bail. Yadav (71) said he was suffering from diabetes, blood pressure and other ailments and that he had already obtained bail in one of the fodder scam cases. He has been convicted for fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Deoghar, Dumka and two Chaibasa treasuries situated in Jharkhand. He is currently facing trial in another fodder scam case pertaining to the Doranda treasury and has been undergoing treatment at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) at Ranchi for the last few months.

Bail plea on medical grounds but fit for politics: SC dismisses appeal of Lalu

The CBI Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, who is serving jail term in connection with fodder scam cases, saying he is likely to indulge in political activities ahead of Lok Sabha polls.

The CBI, which sought nod from a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to file its response to the bail plea of Yadav, said the RJD leader is likely to get involved in political activities and misuse the grant of bail ahead of upcoming Lok Sabha polls.

The probe agency said, in any case, Yadav has been in a hospital ward for over eight months and indulging in political activities.

"During the period in which the petitioner (Lalu Yadav) remained in hospital, he is not only granted a special paying ward with all facilities but he is virtually conducting his political activities from there which would be clear form the list of visitors," the CBI in its reply said.

The agency further said Yadav who claimed to be so unwell that he cannot even remain in jail has now suddenly become physically fit and is seeking bail.

"It is submitted that simultaneous raising of pleas for bails on medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok Sabha elections are mutually contradictory and manifest that in the garb of bail on medical ground the petitioner, in essence, wants to pursue his political activities which is impermissible in law," the CBI said.

The RJD chief, currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, has challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea.

The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s when Jharkhand was part of Bihar.&nbsp;

The CBI Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, who is serving jail term in connection with fodder scam cases, saying he is likely to indulge in political activities ahead of Lok Sabha polls.

The CBI Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, who is serving jail term in connection with fodder scam cases, saying he is likely to indulge in political activities ahead of Lok Sabha polls. The CBI, which sought nod from a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to file its response to the bail plea of Yadav, said the RJD leader is likely to get involved in political activities and misuse the grant of bail ahead of upcoming Lok Sabha polls. The probe agency said, in any case, Yadav has been in a hospital ward for over eight months and indulging in political activities. "During the period in which the petitioner (Lalu Yadav) remained in hospital, he is not only granted a special paying ward with all facilities but he is virtually conducting his political activities from there which would be clear form the list of visitors," the CBI in its reply said. The agency further said Yadav who claimed to be so unwell that he cannot even remain in jail has now suddenly become physically fit and is seeking bail. "It is submitted that simultaneous raising of pleas for bails on medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok Sabha elections are mutually contradictory and manifest that in the garb of bail on medical ground the petitioner, in essence, wants to pursue his political activities which is impermissible in law," the CBI said. The RJD chief, currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, has challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea. The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s when Jharkhand was part of Bihar.

CBI opposes Lalu Yadav's bail plea in Supreme Court, says he is likely to get involved in political activities

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/its-a-serious-responsibility-will-do-my-best-sriram-panchu-on-ayodhya-mediation-202016"> Supreme Court opposing Centre’s </a>request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners.&nbsp;

The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute.

Last month, the Akhara which is one of the original litigants in the&nbsp;Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, had requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place”.

The Supreme Court had appointed three members comprising of ex-Supreme Court judge FM Khaliifulah, spiritual guru Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to mediate to help resolve the contentious Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute issue

The Akahara had earlier requested to the Supreme Court that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

The Akhara had also requested two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel.&nbsp;

In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the Supreme Court opposing Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners. The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute.

Nirmohi Akhara has filed an application in the Supreme Court opposing Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners. The Akhara said the acquisition of land by the government had led to the destruction of many temples managed by the Akhara, therefore it wants the court to decide the title dispute. Last month, the Akhara which is one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, had requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place”. The Supreme Court had appointed three members comprising of ex-Supreme Court judge FM Khaliifulah, spiritual guru Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to mediate to help resolve the contentious Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute issue The Akahara had earlier requested to the Supreme Court that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhara had also requested two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel. In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara moves Supreme Court against Centre’s request to release excess land acquired in Ayodhya to original owners

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered an important judgment with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a place where a married woman can file cases against her estranged husband and in-laws after being subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty.

The bench said besides the place where a woman was living before and after marriage, the place of shelter will also have territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial cases.

The apex court verdict came on a plea filed by one Rupali Devi of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter.

The Supreme Court Tuesday held that a woman driven out of her matrimonial home can file a criminal case against her estranged spouse and in-laws at a place where she has taken shelter. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi delivered an important judgment with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a place where a married woman can file cases against her estranged husband and in-laws after being subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty. The bench said besides the place where a woman was living before and after marriage, the place of shelter will also have territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial cases. The apex court verdict came on a plea filed by one Rupali Devi of Uttar Pradesh.

Woman driven out of matrimonial home can file case at place where she has taken shelter: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the verdict.

On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal.

"Only after we decide the preliminary objection raised by the Centre, we will go into other aspect of the review petitions," the bench said, adding that "only if we overrule the preliminary objection, we will go into other details".

The Centre had claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said those documents cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre had contended that no one can produce them in the court without the permission of the department concerned as those documents are also protected under the Official Secrets Act and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a).

Bhushan had contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

The top court had further noted that according to the AG's submissions "there are three Rafale documents whose publication comes under Official Secrets Act, 1923. These documents were unauthorisedly published. You claim privilege under section 123 of Evidence Act. You want us to adjudicate and strike down the review on this basis".

Bhusahn had submitted a note countering the preliminary objections raised by the centre on maintainability of the review petitions, stating that "preliminary objection are mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

He had said government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and is in public domain.

Bhushan had said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents".

While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act.

It also said that under Section 24 of the RTI Act even security and intelligence establishments are not exempted from disclosing information in relation to corruption and human rights violations.

"The RTI Act brought a revolution. In 2009, your own government said file notings can be made available under the RTI. Let us not go back now," the bench has said.

Bhushan further said that provisions of the RTI Act say public interest outweighs other things and no privilege can be claimed except for documents which pertain to intelligence agencies.

He also said that there is no government-to-government contract in purchasing Rafale jets as there is no sovereign guarantee extended to India by France in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

He had submitted why the government didn't lodge any FIR when these documents started coming out in November 2018.

He had further said that the government has itself filed a detailed CAG report regarding as many as 10 defence purchases and it is untenable on their part to now claim privilege.

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France.

The Supreme Court will Wednesday pronounce verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre that the documents on which it was claiming "privilege" cannot be relied upon to re-examine the verdict in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the verdict. On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal. "Only after we decide the preliminary objection raised by the Centre, we will go into other aspect of the review petitions," the bench said, adding that "only if we overrule the preliminary objection, we will go into other details". The Centre had claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said those documents cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre had contended that no one can produce them in the court without the permission of the department concerned as those documents are also protected under the Official Secrets Act and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a). Bhushan had contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments". The top court had further noted that according to the AG's submissions "there are three Rafale documents whose publication comes under Official Secrets Act, 1923. These documents were unauthorisedly published. You claim privilege under section 123 of Evidence Act. You want us to adjudicate and strike down the review on this basis". Bhusahn had submitted a note countering the preliminary objections raised by the centre on maintainability of the review petitions, stating that "preliminary objection are mala fide and totally untenable arguments". He had said government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and is in public domain. Bhushan had said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents". While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act. It also said that under Section 24 of the RTI Act even security and intelligence establishments are not exempted from disclosing information in relation to corruption and human rights violations. "The RTI Act brought a revolution. In 2009, your own government said file notings can be made available under the RTI. Let us not go back now," the bench has said. Bhushan further said that provisions of the RTI Act say public interest outweighs other things and no privilege can be claimed except for documents which pertain to intelligence agencies. He also said that there is no government-to-government contract in purchasing Rafale jets as there is no sovereign guarantee extended to India by France in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. He had submitted why the government didn't lodge any FIR when these documents started coming out in November 2018. He had further said that the government has itself filed a detailed CAG report regarding as many as 10 defence purchases and it is untenable on their part to now claim privilege.

Supreme Court verdict Wednesday on Centre's preliminary objection in Rafale review pleas

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the plea filed by Chinese company ByteDance, which said there were over billion downloads of the app and the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had, on April 3, directed the Centre to ban mobile application "TikTok" as it voiced concern over the "pornographic and inappropriate contents" being made available through such apps.

It had directed the media not to telecast video clips made with TikTok. The app allows users to create short videos and then share them.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 15 a plea challenging a recent Madras High Court order directing the Centre to ban the "TikTok" app over concerns about access to pornographic content through it. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the plea filed by Chinese company ByteDance, which said there were over billion downloads of the app and the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had passed an ex-parte order. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had, on April 3, directed the Centre to ban mobile application "TikTok" as it voiced concern over the "pornographic and inappropriate contents" being made available through such apps. It had directed the media not to telecast video clips made with TikTok. The app allows users to create short videos and then share them.

Supreme Court to hear on April 15 plea challenging Madras High Court order asking Centre to ban TikTok app

Vivek Oberoi opens up on case against PM Modi's biopic

India Election Watch: Latest election news

New Zealand Prime Minister <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/young-muslim-boy-invites-new-zealand-pm-jacinda-ardern-to-join-islam-205508&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj8wrmt7b_hAhVM73MBHXNMC9MQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0x-t-htNdTYVMCBzS2atSF">Jacinda Ardern </a>on Monday named a Supreme Court judge to lead an inquiry into the massacre last month of 50 worshippers at two <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/49-killed-in-christchurch-mosque-attack-one-person-charged-new-zealand-police-203495&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi5oJXA7b_hAhUUjeYKHcZWCh4QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw109l0ATsijQTZh5Vm-mkgn">Christchurch mosques</a>.

"The government will ensure no stone is left unturned as we examine as quickly as possible how the March 15 attack happened, what could have been done to stop it and how we can keep New Zealanders safe," Ardern said.

The <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealand-enduring-one-of-its-darkest-days-pm-jacinda-ardern-after-mosque-shooting-203429&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi5oJXA7b_hAhUUjeYKHcZWCh4QFggIMAE&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0B6MLotW1d2IppZ3xNmN7y">Royal Commission</a> probe, the most powerful judicial inquiry available under New Zealand law, will be led by Supreme Court Judge William Young and report its findings by December 10, she said.&nbsp;

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, a self-avowed white supremacist, has been charged with 50 counts of murder and 39 of attempted murder over the mosque attacks in the southern city.&nbsp;

Ardern said the probe, due to begin hearing evidence on May 13, would play a critical role in ensuring "such an attack never happens again".

The inquiry will involve consultation with the Muslim community and look into whether New Zealand counter-terror agencies placed an "inappropriate concentration" of resources in tracking Islamist militants while neglecting the threat from far-right extremism.&nbsp;

It will probe Tarrant's activities before the attack, including how he obtained a gun licence, weapons and ammunition, and his use of social media, Ardern said.

Tarrant live-streamed his attack and published a lengthy manifesto online before launching his rampage.

What knowledge intelligence agencies had of his activities and whether any laws impeded the gathering and sharing of information by the agencies will also be part of the inquiry, she said.

Since the attacks, the government has tightened the country's gun laws, is reviewing legislation dealing with hate speech and called for social media giants to do more to combat online extremism.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday named a Supreme Court judge to lead an inquiry into the massacre last month of 50 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday named a Supreme Court judge to lead an inquiry into the massacre last month of 50 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques. "The government will ensure no stone is left unturned as we examine as quickly as possible how the March 15 attack happened, what could have been done to stop it and how we can keep New Zealanders safe," Ardern said. The Royal Commission probe, the most powerful judicial inquiry available under New Zealand law, will be led by Supreme Court Judge William Young and report its findings by December 10, she said. Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, a self-avowed white supremacist, has been charged with 50 counts of murder and 39 of attempted murder over the mosque attacks in the southern city. Ardern said the probe, due to begin hearing evidence on May 13, would play a critical role in ensuring "such an attack never happens again". The inquiry will involve consultation with the Muslim community and look into whether New Zealand counter-terror agencies placed an "inappropriate concentration" of resources in tracking Islamist militants while neglecting the threat from far-right extremism. It will probe Tarrant's activities before the attack, including how he obtained a gun licence, weapons and ammunition, and his use of social media, Ardern said. Tarrant live-streamed his attack and published a lengthy manifesto online before launching his rampage. What knowledge intelligence agencies had of his activities and whether any laws impeded the gathering and sharing of information by the agencies will also be part of the inquiry, she said. Since the attacks, the government has tightened the country's gun laws, is reviewing legislation dealing with hate speech and called for social media giants to do more to combat online extremism.

Supreme Court Judge will report findings of Christchurch massacre inquiry

The Supreme Court of India will hear a plea challenging the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on Tuesday.

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the top court that the release of biopic on Prime Minister Modi right before elections violated the moral code of conduct, while certification award is still awaited from the CBFC. The movie was meant to release on April 5 but the date was pushed back to April 11 due to the case.

The petition has been filed by Congress spokesperson and lawyer Aman Panwar. Appearing for the petitioner, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that, "This movie is a direct assault on our basic structure. The trailer and publicity are being done by the members of BJP. You don't add to the expenses of the film. It will be shown for free for 40 days."

The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked the petitioners what their objection to the film was. Singhvi requested to get a copy of the film in order to make elaborate submissions, but the CJI dismissed the demand.

Speaking about the petition, the film's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/vivek-oberoi-didnt-think-that-a-simple-humble-movie-would-intimidate-powerful-and-important-people-208705">lead actor Vivek Oberoi</a> said that to be labelled, targetted, attacked is painful. "It's a passion project, something that’s taken an entire team to put this together at this scale. But then to meet this resistance, to be labelled, targetted, attacked - its painful. I didn’t think that a simple, humble movie would intimidate powerful and important people that they would go all out to get it to shut down. When the High Court supported us on this, they took it to it the honourable Supreme Court," he told WION.

Meanwhile, the Censor Board has told the top court that it has yet not issued certificate to the film.

Directed by Omung Kumar and on Narendra Modi's life, the film has been co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sunil Ssingh.

The Supreme Court of India will hear a plea challenging the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on Tuesday. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the top court that the release of biopic on Prime Minister Modi right before elections violated the moral code of conduct, while certification award is still awaited from the CBFC.

The Supreme Court of India will hear a plea challenging the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on Tuesday. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the top court that the release of biopic on Prime Minister Modi right before elections violated the moral code of conduct, while certification award is still awaited from the CBFC. The movie was meant to release on April 5 but the date was pushed back to April 11 due to the case. The petition has been filed by Congress spokesperson and lawyer Aman Panwar. Appearing for the petitioner, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that, "This movie is a direct assault on our basic structure. The trailer and publicity are being done by the members of BJP. You don't add to the expenses of the film. It will be shown for free for 40 days." The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked the petitioners what their objection to the film was. Singhvi requested to get a copy of the film in order to make elaborate submissions, but the CJI dismissed the demand. Speaking about the petition, the film's lead actor Vivek Oberoi said that to be labelled, targetted, attacked is painful. "It's a passion project, something that’s taken an entire team to put this together at this scale. But then to meet this resistance, to be labelled, targetted, attacked - its painful. I didn’t think that a simple, humble movie would intimidate powerful and important people that they would go all out to get it to shut down. When the High Court supported us on this, they took it to it the honourable Supreme Court," he told WION. Meanwhile, the Censor Board has told the top court that it has yet not issued certificate to the film. Directed by Omung Kumar and on Narendra Modi's life, the film has been co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sunil Ssingh.

PM Modi biopic: Supreme Court to hear plea against its release on Tuesday

The Supreme Court Monday asked the CBI to apprise it of the status of the ongoing trial in a case involving former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and listed his bail plea for hearing on April 15.

The CBI told a bench of Justices S A Bobde and S A Nazeer that Kumar, who was a sitting MP in 1984, was the "kingpin" of the massacre of Sikhs in the national capital in 1984.

"This is a gruesome offence of massacre of Sikhs. He (Kumar) was the leader and he was the kingpin of this," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the bench.

Mehta also told the bench it would be a "travesty of justice" if Kumar is enlarged on bail as he is facing trial in another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case at Patiala House district court here.

The bench said that it would hear on April 15 bail plea of Kumar, who was convicted and sentenced to life term by the Delhi High Court in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

The case in which Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment's Raj Nagar Part-I area of southwest Delhi on November 1 and 2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II.

Anti-Sikh riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday asked the CBI to apprise it of the status of the ongoing trial in a case involving former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and listed his bail plea for hearing on April 15.

The Supreme Court Monday asked the CBI to apprise it of the status of the ongoing trial in a case involving former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and listed his bail plea for hearing on April 15. The CBI told a bench of Justices S A Bobde and S A Nazeer that Kumar, who was a sitting MP in 1984, was the "kingpin" of the massacre of Sikhs in the national capital in 1984. "This is a gruesome offence of massacre of Sikhs. He (Kumar) was the leader and he was the kingpin of this," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the bench. Mehta also told the bench it would be a "travesty of justice" if Kumar is enlarged on bail as he is facing trial in another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case at Patiala House district court here. The bench said that it would hear on April 15 bail plea of Kumar, who was convicted and sentenced to life term by the Delhi High Court in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The case in which Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment's Raj Nagar Part-I area of southwest Delhi on November 1 and 2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II. Anti-Sikh riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards.

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Supreme Court asks CBI to apprise it of status of ongoing trial of Sajjan Kumar

The CBI has moved the Supreme Court seeking a recall of the court’s February 5 order staying the arrest of former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar to let the agency put him to custodial interrogation in the Saradha and Rose Valley ponzi scam cases.&nbsp;

In its plea to the apex court, the agency said the recall of the order granting Kumar interim protection from the arrest was necessary “to unravel the entire gamut of the larger conspiracy in the ponzi scam cases”.

The CBI also sought the court’s directions to the West Bengal authorities to comply with the court’s earlier orders “in letter and spirit” and not to create any hurdle in the CBI probe or try to “intimidate, harass and scare the agency officials” probing the cases. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is to hear the CBI’s plea on Monday.

“Recall the interim protection granted to Rajeev Kumar for no coercive steps, including arrest, granted by this court by order dated February 5, 2019, to enable the CBI to subject him to interrogation in accordance with the law to unravel the entire gamut of larger conspiracy in these ponzi scam cases and its subsequent investigation,” the CBI’s application said.

The agency said it needs to examine Kumar and other police officials to recover the material evidence and to investigate into the acts of omission and commission on the part of Bidhan Nagar police commissioner and SIT officials in causing concealment of the evidence collected by them during the investigation. It said erstwhile Bidhan Nagar Police Commissioner Kumar besides the then deputy commissioner of police (detective department) and other SIT officials did not cooperate with the CBI in the investigation and did not help in making available to it all the material evidence in the Ponzi scam cases.

The CBI said there were around 270 Ponzi firms operating in West Bengal of which Saradha and Rose Valley groups were the most important ones. It said Saradha group collected around Rs 2,450 crore and even after the scam came to the fore, the Rose Valley group managed to collect around Rs 2,536.80 crore in 2013-14 from the public at large.

The CBI application said former Bidhan Nagar Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar “by his inaction or otherwise facilitated Saradha Group to illegally operate and further collect Rs 805.77 crores during 2012-13 and Rose Valley Group to illegally operate and collect Rs 6865.85 crores during 2012-14”.

On March 29, the apex court had agreed to hear a CBI plea against mobile service providers Vodafone and Airtel that they were not cooperating with the investigation in Saradha chit fund scam cases. The CBI claimed they were not providing it full call detail records (CDRs) of the scam accused despite repeated requests.

The agency had recently filed a status report on Kumar’s interrogation in connection with the scam. The apex court had on March 26 termed as “very very serious” the revelations made by the CBI in its status report relating to Kumar’s interrogation. The top court had said it cannot “close its eyes” if some “very very serious facts” were disclosed to it and directed the agency to file an application seeking appropriate relief against Kumar, who had earlier headed the state SIT probing the chit fund scam. It had refused to drop the contempt proceedings against the West Bengal DGP, the chief secretary and Kumar.

The apex court is hearing a CBI’s plea to initiate contempt of court proceedings against various senior officials of the West Bengal government, accusing them of not cooperating in its probe and tampering with the evidence, including CDRs of key accused and Sardha group CMD Sudipta Sen and Debjani Mukherjee.

The court, which had earlier asked the CBI director to file an affidavit giving details of the alleged acts of contempt committed by the West Bengal police officials and others in the case, had perused the CBI director’s reply and the fresh status report, pertaining to quizzing of Kumar.

The apex court had said the allegations made by the CBI were serious enough and it was an “obligation” on the part of the agency to disclose full details of the alleged contempt committed by the then police commissioner. It had questioned the CBI for the delay in moving the apex court when the agency allegedly noticed the tampering of electronic evidence in June 2018.

The probe agency came out with a contempt petition after the February 3 incident in which the CBI sleuths, who had gone to probe Kumar at his residence, were taken into custody and manhandled by the West Bengal Police. The apex court had taken note of the February 3 incident in which top officers of the state police allegedly sat with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on dharna.

The CBI has moved the Supreme Court seeking a recall of the court’s February 5 order staying the arrest of former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar to let the agency put him to custodial interrogation in the Saradha and Rose Valley ponzi scam cases.

The CBI has moved the Supreme Court seeking a recall of the court’s February 5 order staying the arrest of former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar to let the agency put him to custodial interrogation in the Saradha and Rose Valley ponzi scam cases. In its plea to the apex court, the agency said the recall of the order granting Kumar interim protection from the arrest was necessary “to unravel the entire gamut of the larger conspiracy in the ponzi scam cases”. The CBI also sought the court’s directions to the West Bengal authorities to comply with the court’s earlier orders “in letter and spirit” and not to create any hurdle in the CBI probe or try to “intimidate, harass and scare the agency officials” probing the cases. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is to hear the CBI’s plea on Monday. “Recall the interim protection granted to Rajeev Kumar for no coercive steps, including arrest, granted by this court by order dated February 5, 2019, to enable the CBI to subject him to interrogation in accordance with the law to unravel the entire gamut of larger conspiracy in these ponzi scam cases and its subsequent investigation,” the CBI’s application said. The agency said it needs to examine Kumar and other police officials to recover the material evidence and to investigate into the acts of omission and commission on the part of Bidhan Nagar police commissioner and SIT officials in causing concealment of the evidence collected by them during the investigation. It said erstwhile Bidhan Nagar Police Commissioner Kumar besides the then deputy commissioner of police (detective department) and other SIT officials did not cooperate with the CBI in the investigation and did not help in making available to it all the material evidence in the Ponzi scam cases. The CBI said there were around 270 Ponzi firms operating in West Bengal of which Saradha and Rose Valley groups were the most important ones. It said Saradha group collected around Rs 2,450 crore and even after the scam came to the fore, the Rose Valley group managed to collect around Rs 2,536.80 crore in 2013-14 from the public at large. The CBI application said former Bidhan Nagar Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar “by his inaction or otherwise facilitated Saradha Group to illegally operate and further collect Rs 805.77 crores during 2012-13 and Rose Valley Group to illegally operate and collect Rs 6865.85 crores during 2012-14”. On March 29, the apex court had agreed to hear a CBI plea against mobile service providers Vodafone and Airtel that they were not cooperating with the investigation in Saradha chit fund scam cases. The CBI claimed they were not providing it full call detail records (CDRs) of the scam accused despite repeated requests. The agency had recently filed a status report on Kumar’s interrogation in connection with the scam. The apex court had on March 26 termed as “very very serious” the revelations made by the CBI in its status report relating to Kumar’s interrogation. The top court had said it cannot “close its eyes” if some “very very serious facts” were disclosed to it and directed the agency to file an application seeking appropriate relief against Kumar, who had earlier headed the state SIT probing the chit fund scam. It had refused to drop the contempt proceedings against the West Bengal DGP, the chief secretary and Kumar. The apex court is hearing a CBI’s plea to initiate contempt of court proceedings against various senior officials of the West Bengal government, accusing them of not cooperating in its probe and tampering with the evidence, including CDRs of key accused and Sardha group CMD Sudipta Sen and Debjani Mukherjee. The court, which had earlier asked the CBI director to file an affidavit giving details of the alleged acts of contempt committed by the West Bengal police officials and others in the case, had perused the CBI director’s reply and the fresh status report, pertaining to quizzing of Kumar. The apex court had said the allegations made by the CBI were serious enough and it was an “obligation” on the part of the agency to disclose full details of the alleged contempt committed by the then police commissioner. It had questioned the CBI for the delay in moving the apex court when the agency allegedly noticed the tampering of electronic evidence in June 2018. The probe agency came out with a contempt petition after the February 3 incident in which the CBI sleuths, who had gone to probe Kumar at his residence, were taken into custody and manhandled by the West Bengal Police. The apex court had taken note of the February 3 incident in which top officers of the state police allegedly sat with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on dharna.

Chit fund scam: CBI seeks Supreme Court permission to arrest top cop Rajeev Kumar

Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear the bail plea of RJD chief and former Bihar chief minister Laly Prasad Yadav on April 10 in three cases related to fodder scam.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the CBI to file the reply by April 9 and said Yadav's bail plea will be taken up for hearing next Wednesday.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo, sought urgent listing of the bail plea saying notice has been issued in the matter.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the agency needs to file reply in the matter.

"You (CBI) file the reply by April 9. We will take up the matter (Yadav's bail plea) on April 10, the bench said.

Prasad, currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, has challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea.

The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over-Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s, when Jharkhand was part of Bihar.

The RJD was in power in Bihar with Prasad as the chief minister when the scam had allegedly taken place.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear the bail plea of RJD chief and former Bihar chief minister Laly Prasad Yadav on April 10 in three cases related to fodder scam.

Supreme Court on Friday said that it will hear the bail plea of RJD chief and former Bihar chief minister Laly Prasad Yadav on April 10 in three cases related to fodder scam. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the CBI to file the reply by April 9 and said Yadav's bail plea will be taken up for hearing next Wednesday. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) supremo, sought urgent listing of the bail plea saying notice has been issued in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the agency needs to file reply in the matter. "You (CBI) file the reply by April 9. We will take up the matter (Yadav's bail plea) on April 10, the bench said. Prasad, currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, has challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea. The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over-Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s, when Jharkhand was part of Bihar. The RJD was in power in Bihar with Prasad as the chief minister when the scam had allegedly taken place. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court to hear Lalu Yadav's bail plea on April 10, asks CBI to file reply

The Supreme Court said that BCCI Ombudsman Justice (retd) DK Jain will reconsider within three months the issue of quantum of punishment to be given to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/supreme-court-asks-bcci-to-reconsider-life-ban-on-s-sreesanth-consider-his-plea-within-3-months-203437">former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth</a>.&nbsp;

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph said this while hearing an application filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).&nbsp;

Sreesanth has been accused of his alleged involvement in the 2013 Indian Premier League spot-fixing scandal.&nbsp;

BCCI has said that since its disciplinary committee, which had earlier dealt with Sreesanth's matter is no longer operational, the matter be referred to the ombudsman appointed by the apex court.&nbsp;

Earlier, the apex court observed that the conduct of Sreesanth, facing a life ban, in the entire episode was "not good".

On March 15, the top court had set aside the BCCI disciplinary committee's order imposing a life ban on Sreesanth for his alleged involvement in the matter.&nbsp;

As many as 36 accused in the spot-fixing case, including Sreesanth, Chavan and Chandila, were discharged by a trial court here in July 2015. The BCCI had, however, refused to alter its disciplinary decision of life ban on Sreesanth even after the trial court's verdict.

A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI and had set aside all proceedings against him initiated by the board.

Later, a division bench of the high court had restored the ban on a petition filed by the BCCI against the single-judge bench's order.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said that BCCI Ombudsman Justice (retd) DK Jain will reconsider within three months the issue of quantum of punishment to be given to former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth.

The Supreme Court said that BCCI Ombudsman Justice (retd) DK Jain will reconsider within three months the issue of quantum of punishment to be given to former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph said this while hearing an application filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Sreesanth has been accused of his alleged involvement in the 2013 Indian Premier League spot-fixing scandal. BCCI has said that since its disciplinary committee, which had earlier dealt with Sreesanth's matter is no longer operational, the matter be referred to the ombudsman appointed by the apex court. Earlier, the apex court observed that the conduct of Sreesanth, facing a life ban, in the entire episode was "not good". On March 15, the top court had set aside the BCCI disciplinary committee's order imposing a life ban on Sreesanth for his alleged involvement in the matter. As many as 36 accused in the spot-fixing case, including Sreesanth, Chavan and Chandila, were discharged by a trial court here in July 2015. The BCCI had, however, refused to alter its disciplinary decision of life ban on Sreesanth even after the trial court's verdict. A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI and had set aside all proceedings against him initiated by the board. Later, a division bench of the high court had restored the ban on a petition filed by the BCCI against the single-judge bench's order.

Supreme Court says BCCI Ombudsman to reconsider quantum of punishment for Sreesanth within 3 months

The Supreme Court will hear petition&nbsp;challenging the electoral bond scheme on April 10, a day before Lok Sabha polls begin.&nbsp;

Last week, CPI(M), along with NGO Common Cause, filed a petition in the court calling the electoral bond scheme an ''obscure funding system'' unchecked by authorities.&nbsp;

Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Prashanth Bhushan said, “95 per cent of the electoral bonds sold so far have been for the ruling party and this will have a serious impact on elections.”

The petition further stated that most electoral bonds bought since its introduction by the central government has been in the denominations of 10 lakh to 1 crore Indian rupees, hence would be considered corporate funding.

The scheme grants complete anonymity to the donor (The identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous) and the funds are being used to influence policy decisions, the petitioner added.&nbsp;

Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the finance act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act.&nbsp;

In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme, which is in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India.&nbsp;

These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear petition challenging the electoral bond scheme on April 10, a day before Lok Sabha polls begin. Last week, CPI(M), along with NGO Common Cause, filed a petition in the court calling the electoral bond scheme an ''obscure funding system'' unchecked by authorities.

The Supreme Court will hear petition challenging the electoral bond scheme on April 10, a day before Lok Sabha polls begin. Last week, CPI(M), along with NGO Common Cause, filed a petition in the court calling the electoral bond scheme an ''obscure funding system'' unchecked by authorities. Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Prashanth Bhushan said, “95 per cent of the electoral bonds sold so far have been for the ruling party and this will have a serious impact on elections.” The petition further stated that most electoral bonds bought since its introduction by the central government has been in the denominations of 10 lakh to 1 crore Indian rupees, hence would be considered corporate funding. The scheme grants complete anonymity to the donor (The identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous) and the funds are being used to influence policy decisions, the petitioner added. Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the finance act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme, which is in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days.

Supreme Court to hear petition challenging electoral bond on April 10

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition against the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on April 8. The petition has been filed by Congress spokesperson and lawyer Aman Panwar. 
&nbsp; 
Appearing for the petitioner, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench headed by Justice Bobde that two high courts have refused to interfere with the release of the movie starring Vivek Oberoi. He submitted that the release of the movie may affect free and fair election as mandated in the Constitution. 
&nbsp; 
"Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic violates the model code of conduct. Release of this film which has been produced by people connected to the ruling party would affect free and fair polls," Singhvi said. 
&nbsp; 
The petition also alleged that Censor Board Chairman Prasoon Joshi has acted as a judge in its own cause. "It is also pertinent to mention herein that this petition is not an attempt to censor the movie, but is only an attempt to ensure that the Moral Code of Conduct and other electoral laws are not violated during the General Elections 2019, through this movie," the petition added. 
&nbsp; 
'PM Narendra Modi' featuring Vivek Oberoi was scheduled to release April 5 but its makers have decided to push the release by a week, to April 12. 
&nbsp; 
The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking ban on the release of the movie. 
&nbsp; 
The Bombay High Court had also on Monday disposed of a plea seeking deferment of the release of the biopic, saying the Election Commission will deal with the issue. 
&nbsp; 
Directed by Omung Kumar and on Narendra Modi's life, the film has been co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sunil Ssingh.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition against the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on April 8. The petition has been filed by Congress spokesperson and lawyer Aman Panwar.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition against the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic on April 8. The petition has been filed by Congress spokesperson and lawyer Aman Panwar. Appearing for the petitioner, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench headed by Justice Bobde that two high courts have refused to interfere with the release of the movie starring Vivek Oberoi. He submitted that the release of the movie may affect free and fair election as mandated in the Constitution. "Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biopic violates the model code of conduct. Release of this film which has been produced by people connected to the ruling party would affect free and fair polls," Singhvi said. The petition also alleged that Censor Board Chairman Prasoon Joshi has acted as a judge in its own cause. "It is also pertinent to mention herein that this petition is not an attempt to censor the movie, but is only an attempt to ensure that the Moral Code of Conduct and other electoral laws are not violated during the General Elections 2019, through this movie," the petition added. 'PM Narendra Modi' featuring Vivek Oberoi was scheduled to release April 5 but its makers have decided to push the release by a week, to April 12. The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking ban on the release of the movie. The Bombay High Court had also on Monday disposed of a plea seeking deferment of the release of the biopic, saying the Election Commission will deal with the issue. Directed by Omung Kumar and on Narendra Modi's life, the film has been co-produced by Suresh Oberoi and Sunil Ssingh.

Supreme Court agrees to hear petition seeking stay on release of Modi biopic

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear in July a contempt plea against lawyer <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-lawyer-prashant-bhushan-on-contempt-plea-by-ag-and-centre-195507&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjBmbjvnbbhAhU56nMBHbMtBzcQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0xivmSooHwEGXiWQZcN_lC">Prashant Bhushan </a>for tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted to the apex court fabricated documents of the high-powered selection panel on the appointment of interim CBI chief.

The plea was filed by Attorney General (AG) <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kk-venugopal-appointed-new-attorney-general-of-india-17464&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjh25j6nbbhAhUt7nMBHXzQBhIQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3o6LVbkl1miNunYxh0S0Ix">K K Venugopal</a> against the lawyer-activist for his February 1 tweets.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench of justices<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/i-am-cool-says-lawyer-in-courtroom-exchange-during-prashant-bhushan-case-hearing-201992&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjPrNCWnrbhAhUJ7nMBHQamBuEQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Z96Jte6zn5_nPEIA8HghK"> Arun Mishra</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/prashant-bhushan-admits-in-supreme-court-he-made-genuine-mistake-in-his-tweets-on-fabricated-documents-201734&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjb4d-inrbhAhV98XMBHS93ABsQFggIMAE&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0e6Aw_eWdZ_DlM1A8JLA-s">Navin Sinha</a> and the court said it would hear the case in July since both Venugopal and Bhushan were arguing in another matter before a Constitution bench.

On March 7, Bhushan had admitted in the apex court his “genuine mistake” in his<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-lawyer-prashant-bhushan-on-contempt-plea-by-ag-and-centre-195507&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUybmynrbhAhWD7nMBHSmEC0sQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1wqzis3PoqPXhhzZ1FPB8K"> tweets</a> but had refused to tender an “unconditional apology” for seeking recusal of Justice Mishra from hearing the matter.

Bhushan in his tweets had said that the Centre appeared to have misled the top court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee, headed by the prime minister, in a matter related to the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as then interim CBI director.

Venugopal had earlier told the court that he would like to withdraw his contempt plea since Bhushan has made a statement that it was a “genuine mistake”.

He had also reiterated that he does not want any punishment for Bhushan in the case and the court should deal with the larger issue of whether lawyers and litigants can criticise the court proceedings in a matter, which is sub-judice, to influence public opinion.

However, the bench had told Venugopal, “You may or may not withdraw the petition against him (Bhushan) but you have raised a question and we will decide it”.

The court had said it would also deal with the larger issue of whether a lawyer can make comments about court proceedings in a sub-judice matter.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench on March 7 that he would seek instructions on whether to press the separate contempt plea filed by the Centre against Bhushan in the wake of the AG’s stand that he would like to withdraw his contempt petition.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear in July a contempt plea against lawyer Prashant Bhushan for tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted to the apex court fabricated documents of the high-powered selection panel on the appointment of interim CBI chief.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will hear in July a contempt plea against lawyer Prashant Bhushan for tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted to the apex court fabricated documents of the high-powered selection panel on the appointment of interim CBI chief. The plea was filed by Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal against the lawyer-activist for his February 1 tweets. The matter came up for hearing before a bench of justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha and the court said it would hear the case in July since both Venugopal and Bhushan were arguing in another matter before a Constitution bench. On March 7, Bhushan had admitted in the apex court his “genuine mistake” in his tweets but had refused to tender an “unconditional apology” for seeking recusal of Justice Mishra from hearing the matter. Bhushan in his tweets had said that the Centre appeared to have misled the top court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee, headed by the prime minister, in a matter related to the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as then interim CBI director. Venugopal had earlier told the court that he would like to withdraw his contempt plea since Bhushan has made a statement that it was a “genuine mistake”. He had also reiterated that he does not want any punishment for Bhushan in the case and the court should deal with the larger issue of whether lawyers and litigants can criticise the court proceedings in a matter, which is sub-judice, to influence public opinion. However, the bench had told Venugopal, “You may or may not withdraw the petition against him (Bhushan) but you have raised a question and we will decide it”. The court had said it would also deal with the larger issue of whether a lawyer can make comments about court proceedings in a sub-judice matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench on March 7 that he would seek instructions on whether to press the separate contempt plea filed by the Centre against Bhushan in the wake of the AG’s stand that he would like to withdraw his contempt petition.

Supreme Court to hear contempt plea against Prashant Bhushan in July

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary.

"The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/go-to-shillong-it-is-a-cool-place-cji-ranjan-gogoi-to-cbi-kolkata-police-commissioner-195460">Ranjan Gogoi</a> — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act.&nbsp;

The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets.&nbsp;

"Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said. &nbsp;

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public.

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary. "The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday. The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act. The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets. "Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said.

Does office of CJI come under RTI Act? Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice examines

The Supreme Court Wednesday asked<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bimal-gurung-suspended-from-gorkha-janmukti-morcha-tamang-new-chief-24689"> Gorkha Janmukti Morcha </a>(GJM) leaders<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/darjeeling-violence-kolkata-high-court-tell-west-bengal-government-to-restore-peace-16902/amp"> Roshan Giri and Bimal Gurung</a>, who are seeking protection to participate in campaigning for the Lok Sabha polls, to approach Calcutta High Court within four days for the relief.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M M Shantanagoudar and Navin Sinha said no coercive action be taken against the leaders till then.

The court said the Calcutta High Court will decide the matter expeditiously. Giri had on Tuesday told the apex court that Mamata Banerjee led West Bengal government was “vindictive” towards him and has implicated him in several “bogus cases”.

However, the West Bengal government has strongly opposed his contentions and said Giri was an absconder and there were several incriminating materials against him which allegedly showed his complicity in various cases of heinous nature. Giri and Gurung are among the accused in the 2010 Madan Tamang murder case.

Besides this, several other cases are pending against them in West Bengal. Police have claimed Tamang, who was the All India Gorkha League (AIGL) president, was hacked to death in Darjeeling on May 21, 2010, in broad daylight when he was overseeing preparations for a public meeting. Giri has been charged with alleged “criminal conspiracy for murder”, along with several other sides of him, in the murder case of Tamang.

The Supreme Court Wednesday asked Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leaders Roshan Giri and Bimal Gurung, who are seeking protection to participate in campaigning for the Lok Sabha polls, to approach Calcutta High Court within four days for the relief.

The Supreme Court Wednesday asked Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leaders Roshan Giri and Bimal Gurung, who are seeking protection to participate in campaigning for the Lok Sabha polls, to approach Calcutta High Court within four days for the relief. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M M Shantanagoudar and Navin Sinha said no coercive action be taken against the leaders till then. The court said the Calcutta High Court will decide the matter expeditiously. Giri had on Tuesday told the apex court that Mamata Banerjee led West Bengal government was “vindictive” towards him and has implicated him in several “bogus cases”. However, the West Bengal government has strongly opposed his contentions and said Giri was an absconder and there were several incriminating materials against him which allegedly showed his complicity in various cases of heinous nature. Giri and Gurung are among the accused in the 2010 Madan Tamang murder case. Besides this, several other cases are pending against them in West Bengal. Police have claimed Tamang, who was the All India Gorkha League (AIGL) president, was hacked to death in Darjeeling on May 21, 2010, in broad daylight when he was overseeing preparations for a public meeting. Giri has been charged with alleged “criminal conspiracy for murder”, along with several other sides of him, in the murder case of Tamang.

GJM leaders move SC seeking protection for Lok Sabha campaign, asked to approach Calcutta High Court

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