The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce order on Friday on whether to refer Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation for amicable settlement.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday had reserved the order after hearing various contesting parties.

Hindu bodies except Nirmohi Akhara have opposed the suggestion of the apex court to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies have supported it.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce order on Friday on whether to refer Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation for amicable settlement.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce order on Friday on whether to refer Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation for amicable settlement. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday had reserved the order after hearing various contesting parties. Hindu bodies except Nirmohi Akhara have opposed the suggestion of the apex court to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies have supported it.

Supreme Court to pass order on whether to refer Ayodhya land dispute for mediation on Friday

Volkswagen Group India spokesperson on Thursday stated that the automobile giant will challenge the NGT order before the Supreme Court.

The reaction came shortly after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) slapped <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/emission-fiasco-ngt-slaps-rs-500-crore-fine-on-volkswagen-201705">Rs 500 crore fine on Volkswagen</a> for damaging the environment through the use of 'cheat device' in its diesel cars.&nbsp;

Volkswagen is required to deposit the amount with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) within 2 months.

The environmental watchdog enhanced the compensation amount of Rs 171.34 crore, which was recommended by an NGT-appointed committee, as a means of "creating deterrence," news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Volkswagen Group India Spokesperson: The Volkswagen Group will challenge the order of the National Green Tribunal before the Supreme Court.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1103596759182442496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The automaker, however, said that it did not violate the BS-IV norms and that the test results were based on "road testings" for which there were no prescribed standards.

The bench said, "Sustainable development is the main guiding factor... We are unable to accept the manufacturer's objections to the report," PTI reported.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

Volkswagen Group India spokesperson on Thursday stated that the automobile giant will challenge the NGT order before the Supreme Court. The reaction came shortly after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) slapped Rs 500 crore fine on Volkswagen for damaging the environment through the use of 'cheat device' in its diesel cars.

Volkswagen Group India spokesperson on Thursday stated that the automobile giant will challenge the NGT order before the Supreme Court. The reaction came shortly after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) slapped Rs 500 crore fine on Volkswagen for damaging the environment through the use of 'cheat device' in its diesel cars. Volkswagen is required to deposit the amount with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) within 2 months. The environmental watchdog enhanced the compensation amount of Rs 171.34 crore, which was recommended by an NGT-appointed committee, as a means of "creating deterrence," news agency PTI reported. Volkswagen Group India Spokesperson: The Volkswagen Group will challenge the order of the National Green Tribunal before the Supreme Court. — ANI (@ANI) March 7, 2019 × The automaker, however, said that it did not violate the BS-IV norms and that the test results were based on "road testings" for which there were no prescribed standards. The bench said, "Sustainable development is the main guiding factor... We are unable to accept the manufacturer's objections to the report," PTI reported. (With inputs from PTI)

After NGT slaps Rs 500 crore fine on Volkswagen, automobile giant to move Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lokpal-search-committee-supreme-court-directs-centre-to-file-affidavit-on-steps-taken-since-september-2018-188219">meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal</a> and its members.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was informed by Venugopal that the search committee headed by former apex court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai has recommended three panels of names to the selection committee for appointment of chairperson, judicial and non-judicial members.

The AG told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, that he will ask the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training to ensure that the meeting of the prime minister-headed selection committee is convened as early as possible.

The top court also refused to pass directions to disclose names in the three panels.&nbsp;

It had earlier requested the search committee on Lokpal to recommend by February end a panel of names for appointing the country's first anti-graft ombudsman.

The top court had asked the Centre to make available requisite infrastructure, manpower, secretarial assistance and others to enable the committee, headed by Desai, to commence its work immediately and conclude it within the time frame.

It was hearing a contempt petition filed by NGO Common Cause which has raised the issue of non-appointment of Lokpal despite the apex court's judgement of April 27, 2017.

The search committee will forward the names to the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the leader of the largest opposition party and an eminent jurist.

The other members of the search committee are former chief of State Bank of India Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash, Indian Space

Research Organisation head A S Kiran Kumar, former judge of Allahabad High Court Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, former Gujarat Police head Shabbirhusein S Khandwawala, retired IAS officer of Rajasthan cadre Lalit K Panwar, and former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar.

On January 4, the apex court had directed the Centre to place on affidavit the steps for Lokpal's appointment and had expressed its displeasure over the tardy progress made in this regard.

It had asked the attorney general to file an affidavit explaining in detail the various steps, including setting up of a search committee by the competent authority for recommending names for the appointment.

The top court on July 24 last year had rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit".

It was also told that the selection committee had met on July 19 last year to deliberate names for members of the search committee.

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is the leader of the largest opposition party, has been giving a go by to the meetings of the selection panel.

The top court was earlier told that the selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people, including the chairperson, with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc.

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal and its members.

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to inform it within 10 days about a possible date for a meeting of the selection committee for appointment of Lokpal and its members. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was informed by Venugopal that the search committee headed by former apex court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai has recommended three panels of names to the selection committee for appointment of chairperson, judicial and non-judicial members. The AG told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, that he will ask the Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training to ensure that the meeting of the prime minister-headed selection committee is convened as early as possible. The top court also refused to pass directions to disclose names in the three panels. It had earlier requested the search committee on Lokpal to recommend by February end a panel of names for appointing the country's first anti-graft ombudsman. The top court had asked the Centre to make available requisite infrastructure, manpower, secretarial assistance and others to enable the committee, headed by Desai, to commence its work immediately and conclude it within the time frame. It was hearing a contempt petition filed by NGO Common Cause which has raised the issue of non-appointment of Lokpal despite the apex court's judgement of April 27, 2017. The search committee will forward the names to the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the leader of the largest opposition party and an eminent jurist. The other members of the search committee are former chief of State Bank of India Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash, Indian Space Research Organisation head A S Kiran Kumar, former judge of Allahabad High Court Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, former Gujarat Police head Shabbirhusein S Khandwawala, retired IAS officer of Rajasthan cadre Lalit K Panwar, and former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar. On January 4, the apex court had directed the Centre to place on affidavit the steps for Lokpal's appointment and had expressed its displeasure over the tardy progress made in this regard. It had asked the attorney general to file an affidavit explaining in detail the various steps, including setting up of a search committee by the competent authority for recommending names for the appointment. The top court on July 24 last year had rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit". It was also told that the selection committee had met on July 19 last year to deliberate names for members of the search committee. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is the leader of the largest opposition party, has been giving a go by to the meetings of the selection panel. The top court was earlier told that the selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people, including the chairperson, with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc.

Supreme Court asks AG KK Venugopal to inform within 10 days date for meeting of Lokpal selection committee

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-lawyer-prashant-bhushan-on-contempt-plea-by-ag-and-centre-195507">tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting</a> of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha that in view of Bhushan's statement, he would like to withdraw his contempt plea filed against the noted lawyer.

However, Bhushan filed an application in the court seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt petition filed by Venugopal.

Bhushan also refused to tender an unconditional apology before the bench for seeking Justice Mishra's recusal.

Venugopal told the court that he stood by his earlier statement that he did not want any punishment for Bhushan in the matter.

The bench, however, said it would consider the larger issue of whether a person can criticise the court in a sub- judice matter to influence public opinion.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan Thursday admitted before the Supreme Court that he made a "genuine mistake" by tweeting that the government had perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of a meeting of the high-powered selection committee on the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as an interim CBI director. Attorney General KK Venugopal told a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha that in view of Bhushan's statement, he would like to withdraw his contempt plea filed against the noted lawyer. However, Bhushan filed an application in the court seeking recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from hearing the contempt petition filed by Venugopal. Bhushan also refused to tender an unconditional apology before the bench for seeking Justice Mishra's recusal. Venugopal told the court that he stood by his earlier statement that he did not want any punishment for Bhushan in the matter. The bench, however, said it would consider the larger issue of whether a person can criticise the court in a sub- judice matter to influence public opinion. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 3.

Prashant Bhushan admits in Supreme court he made 'genuine mistake' in his tweets on fabricated documents

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard&nbsp;arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-a-timeline-188184">Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute</a> in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/25-years-since-babri-masjid-demolition-security-hiked-in-ayodhya-7188?first_load=no">Ayodhya</a> can be settled through mediation.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the case was not only about the property but also about sentiment and faith.

"It is not only about the property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer said.

"We are not concerned about what Mughal ruler Babur had done and what happened after. We can go into what exists in the present moment," the bench said.

The apex court is considering whether the dispute can be settled through mediation.

Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.”

When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench.&nbsp;

The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator. 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the case was not only about the property but also about sentiment and faith. "It is not only about the property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer said. "We are not concerned about what Mughal ruler Babur had done and what happened after. We can go into what exists in the present moment," the bench said. The apex court is considering whether the dispute can be settled through mediation. Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.” When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench. The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator. (With inputs from PTI)

Ayodhya land dispute case: Not concerned about what Babur did, need to go into what exists at present, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today is<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-what-decides-babri-masjids-fate-on-march-14-33360"> hearing arguments f</a>rom all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799">Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute</a> in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.&nbsp;

“We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute," said Justice SA Bobde during the hearing.

Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.”

When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades-old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in "healing relations".

The other judges of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator.

The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.

The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation. “We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute," said Justice SA Bobde during the hearing. Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.” When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades-old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in "healing relations". The other judges of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer. The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Can't undo past, can only look into present, says Supreme Court

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-warning-to-pakistan-indian-army-says-loc-relatively-calm-201595">Further provocation by Pakistan along LoC will be met with dire consequences: Indian Army</a>

The Indian Army said Wednesday that post its warning to the Pakistani Army “NOT to target civilian areas”, the Line of Control has been "relatively calm".&nbsp;

"In the last 24 hours, the Pakistan Army resorted to intense &amp; unprovoked firing with heavy calibre weapons in selected areas of Krishna Ghati and Sunderbani, targeting Indian posts &amp; civilian areas with Mortar bombs &amp; heavy Arty (artillery) Guns," the Indian Army said in a statement.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-government-what-it-did-after-it-says-rafale-documents-were-stolen-201562">Supreme Court asks </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-government-what-it-did-after-it-says-rafale-documents-were-stolen-201562">government</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-asks-government-what-it-did-after-it-says-rafale-documents-were-stolen-201562"> what it did after it says Rafale documents were stolen</a>

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/eu-says-no-solution-for-now-to-break-brexit-deadlock-201582">EU says 'no solution' for now to break Brexit deadlock</a>

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said Wednesday "no solution" has been found so far to break the deadlock over Brexit, a spokesman reported after the latest negotiations in Brussels.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/school-attended-by-trump-says-it-concealed-his-grades-201574">School Trump went to says it concealed his grades</a>

A military academy that Donald Trump attended as a teenager concealed his academic records in 2011 in response to pressure from Trump allies, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-to-send-envoy-sohail-mahmood-back-to-india-201537">Pakistan says it is sending High Commissioner Sohail Mahmood back to India</a>

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Wednesday said Pakistan is sending its envoy back to India and is ready to engage with New Delhi to reduce tensions which are "de-escalating" due to diplomatic efforts by countries like the US, China and Russia.

Further provocation by Pakistan along LoC will be met with dire consequences: Indian Army The Indian Army said Wednesday that post its warning to the Pakistani Army “NOT to target civilian areas”, the Line of Control has been "relatively calm".

Further provocation by Pakistan along LoC will be met with dire consequences: Indian Army The Indian Army said Wednesday that post its warning to the Pakistani Army “NOT to target civilian areas”, the Line of Control has been "relatively calm". "In the last 24 hours, the Pakistan Army resorted to intense & unprovoked firing with heavy calibre weapons in selected areas of Krishna Ghati and Sunderbani, targeting Indian posts & civilian areas with Mortar bombs & heavy Arty (artillery) Guns," the Indian Army said in a statement. Supreme Court asks government what it did after it says Rafale documents were stolen The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal. EU says 'no solution' for now to break Brexit deadlock EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said Wednesday "no solution" has been found so far to break the deadlock over Brexit, a spokesman reported after the latest negotiations in Brussels. School Trump went to says it concealed his grades A military academy that Donald Trump attended as a teenager concealed his academic records in 2011 in response to pressure from Trump allies, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. Pakistan says it is sending High Commissioner Sohail Mahmood back to India Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Wednesday said Pakistan is sending its envoy back to India and is ready to engage with New Delhi to reduce tensions which are "de-escalating" due to diplomatic efforts by countries like the US, China and Russia.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a review petition of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dassault-aviation-welcomes-supreme-court-judgement-on-rafale-deal-184110">its December 2018 verdict on the Rafale deal</a> which had said the deal did not need to be probed.&nbsp;

The review petition is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. The petitioners include former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and the advocate Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

Bhushan had on Wednesday referred to a newspaper article, when Venugopal said the write-ups were based on stolen documents and that an investigation into the "theft" is ongoing.&nbsp;

Venugopal said the reports were published "to influence the mind of court".&nbsp;

To which Bhushan replied: “Before AG begins, like to bring to your notice that any attempt to intimidate petitioners before the court amounts to criminal contempt. &nbsp;When AG says we are going to prosecute not only newspapers but also petitioners, it amounts to intimidation”&nbsp;

Venugopal then said: “The stolen documents were not supposed to be in public domain. RTI will not apply to security of state and to acts affecting friendly relations with foreign states. Look at the damage this article has done.”

Venugopal then said the acquisition of the Rafales “has taken six and seven years", while referring to the current tensions between India and Pakistan. "F-16 came to bomb us, how are we to be defended? First Rafale was to be delivered by September... 32 pilots sent to France for training.

"This is extent to which we are trying to protect the country. They want this not to be materialised," he added.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph then replied to the attorney general that national security cannot be used to cover up a possible act of commission.&nbsp;

"Suppose a law is broken, should we take shelter under national security?" he asked.&nbsp;

And he added that "stolen documents can be looked into, even if they are acquired illegally.”&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rafale Jet Deal case: CJI says, "Primary question is that should the court not look into the evidence or the document, if there is relevance or corruption?"AG Venugopal says, "It should not be looked into as it deals with defence and secrets."
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1103227525445156864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 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>

Venugopal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the source of the document (on which the write-up&nbsp;in The Hindu was based) should be disclosed to the court by the people who published it.&nbsp;

Bhushan meanwhile reminded the court that "in Coalgate and 2G scam cases, I brought documents from a whistleblower".&nbsp;

The matter was adjourned till March 14.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal.

The Supreme Court asked the government Wednesday what it did after documents related to the Rafale deal were allegedly stolen from the defence ministry. The allegation was made by Attorney General KK Venugopal. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a review petition of its December 2018 verdict on the Rafale deal which had said the deal did not need to be probed. The review petition is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. The petitioners include former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and the advocate Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan had on Wednesday referred to a newspaper article, when Venugopal said the write-ups were based on stolen documents and that an investigation into the "theft" is ongoing. Venugopal said the reports were published "to influence the mind of court". To which Bhushan replied: “Before AG begins, like to bring to your notice that any attempt to intimidate petitioners before the court amounts to criminal contempt. When AG says we are going to prosecute not only newspapers but also petitioners, it amounts to intimidation” Venugopal then said: “The stolen documents were not supposed to be in public domain. RTI will not apply to security of state and to acts affecting friendly relations with foreign states. Look at the damage this article has done.” Venugopal then said the acquisition of the Rafales “has taken six and seven years", while referring to the current tensions between India and Pakistan. "F-16 came to bomb us, how are we to be defended? First Rafale was to be delivered by September... 32 pilots sent to France for training. "This is extent to which we are trying to protect the country. They want this not to be materialised," he added. Justice Joseph then replied to the attorney general that national security cannot be used to cover up a possible act of commission. "Suppose a law is broken, should we take shelter under national security?" he asked. And he added that "stolen documents can be looked into, even if they are acquired illegally.” Rafale Jet Deal case: CJI says, "Primary question is that should the court not look into the evidence or the document, if there is relevance or corruption?"AG Venugopal says, "It should not be looked into as it deals with defence and secrets." — ANI (@ANI) March 6, 2019 × Venugopal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the source of the document (on which the write-up in The Hindu was based) should be disclosed to the court by the people who published it. Bhushan meanwhile reminded the court that "in Coalgate and 2G scam cases, I brought documents from a whistleblower". The matter was adjourned till March 14.

Supreme Court asks government what it did after it says Rafale documents were stolen

Ayodhya land dispute: SC reserves order on court-monitored mediation

The government will bring an Ordinance to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on reservations in higher educational institutions.

The Ordinance will ensure that a University or a college is taken as a unit while calculating the allocation of positions to various categories and not the department.

This will ensure that the SCs, STs and OBCs get their due in recruitment of faculty positions in educational institutions.

By this action, the government has shown its concern towards SCs, STs and OBCs.

The Apex court had earlier rejected a review petition by the Centre, upholding a judgement of the Allahabad High Court which had ruled that a University shall be considered as a unit while giving reservation to SCs, STs and OBCs and departments shall not be considered as a unit.

Due to this judgement, the representation of the reserved category has gone down.

The government will bring an Ordinance to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on reservations in higher educational institutions. The Ordinance will ensure that a University or a college is taken as a unit while calculating the allocation of positions to various categories and not the department.

The government will bring an Ordinance to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on reservations in higher educational institutions. The Ordinance will ensure that a University or a college is taken as a unit while calculating the allocation of positions to various categories and not the department. This will ensure that the SCs, STs and OBCs get their due in recruitment of faculty positions in educational institutions. By this action, the government has shown its concern towards SCs, STs and OBCs. The Apex court had earlier rejected a review petition by the Centre, upholding a judgement of the Allahabad High Court which had ruled that a University shall be considered as a unit while giving reservation to SCs, STs and OBCs and departments shall not be considered as a unit. Due to this judgement, the representation of the reserved category has gone down.

Govt to bring Ordinance to overturn Supreme Court judgement on reservations in higher educational institutions

The Supreme Court has commuted to life term the death penalty awarded to a man for murdering a child, saying he wanted to reform himself and poems written by him in jail indicate that he realised his mistake.

A bench headed by Justice A K Sikri noted that Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar was 22 years old when he committed the crime and while in jail, tried to "join the society" and become a "civilised man".

The bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah, said Borkar was lodged in jail for last 18 years and his conduct showed that he could be reformed and rehabilitated.

"... We are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, capital punishment is not warranted. Striking the balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the opinion that mitigating circumstances are in favour of the accused (Borkar) while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment," the bench said.

It noted several mitigating circumstances which were in favour of the convict, including that "from the poems, written by him in the jail, it appears that he has realised his mistake which was committed by him at the time when he was of young age and that he is reformative".

Borkar had approached the apex court challenging the May 2006 order of the Bombay High Court confirming the death penalty awarded to him by a trial court in Pune for killing a minor child.

His counsel had argued in the apex court that Borkar's conduct was very good in jail and he completed his studies in prison and tried to become a civilised person.

The counsel also told the court that poems written by Borkar in prison reflect that he realised his mistake.

"Though we acknowledge the gravity of the offence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case' warranting the death sentence," the bench said.

The Supreme Court has commuted to life term the death penalty awarded to a man for murdering a child, saying he wanted to reform himself and poems written by him in jail indicate that he realised his mistake.

The Supreme Court has commuted to life term the death penalty awarded to a man for murdering a child, saying he wanted to reform himself and poems written by him in jail indicate that he realised his mistake. A bench headed by Justice A K Sikri noted that Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar was 22 years old when he committed the crime and while in jail, tried to "join the society" and become a "civilised man". The bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah, said Borkar was lodged in jail for last 18 years and his conduct showed that he could be reformed and rehabilitated. "... We are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, capital punishment is not warranted. Striking the balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the opinion that mitigating circumstances are in favour of the accused (Borkar) while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment," the bench said. It noted several mitigating circumstances which were in favour of the convict, including that "from the poems, written by him in the jail, it appears that he has realised his mistake which was committed by him at the time when he was of young age and that he is reformative". Borkar had approached the apex court challenging the May 2006 order of the Bombay High Court confirming the death penalty awarded to him by a trial court in Pune for killing a minor child. His counsel had argued in the apex court that Borkar's conduct was very good in jail and he completed his studies in prison and tried to become a civilised person. The counsel also told the court that poems written by Borkar in prison reflect that he realised his mistake. "Though we acknowledge the gravity of the offence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of 'rarest of rare case' warranting the death sentence," the bench said.

Impressed with 'reformative poems' of convict, Supreme Court commutes death penalty to life term

The Supreme Court will on March 6 hear review petitions over its earlier verdict on the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/photos/day-1-aero-india-2019-198720">Rafale</a> deal.

The court, in its verdict, had refused to order a probe into the deal on the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph will hear the review petitions.

On February 26, in an unusual course of action, the apex court decided to hear the review pleas in open court.

According to the normal course of the court, the review petitions are usually heard in chambers.

In its December 14 order, the Supreme Court had dismissed petitions seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Rafale deal signed two years back, alleging irregularities and corruption in the pact.

The court had said that it does not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Government of India. The deal was announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s visit to France in April 2015 and the deal was concluded in 2016.

On January 2, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/petitioners-arun-shourie-yashwant-sinha-prashant-bhushan-to-move-sc-for-review-of-rafale-judgment-187838">petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal case</a> — Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, both former Union Ministers, and Prashant Bhushan, a noted lawyer — had moved the apex court for review of its Rafale judgment of December 14.

They had asked for recalling of the judgement and had also sought an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea.

Their petition states that the December 14 verdict contained several errors and also it relied upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

They also alleged that Prime Minister Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Air Force Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any defence procurement.

The Supreme Court will on March 6 hear review petitions over its earlier verdict on the Rafale deal. The court, in its verdict, had refused to order a probe into the deal on the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

The Supreme Court will on March 6 hear review petitions over its earlier verdict on the Rafale deal. The court, in its verdict, had refused to order a probe into the deal on the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph will hear the review petitions. On February 26, in an unusual course of action, the apex court decided to hear the review pleas in open court. According to the normal course of the court, the review petitions are usually heard in chambers. In its December 14 order, the Supreme Court had dismissed petitions seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Rafale deal signed two years back, alleging irregularities and corruption in the pact. The court had said that it does not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Government of India. The deal was announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s visit to France in April 2015 and the deal was concluded in 2016. On January 2, petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal case — Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, both former Union Ministers, and Prashant Bhushan, a noted lawyer — had moved the apex court for review of its Rafale judgment of December 14. They had asked for recalling of the judgement and had also sought an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea. Their petition states that the December 14 verdict contained several errors and also it relied upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice. They also alleged that Prime Minister Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Air Force Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any defence procurement.

Supreme Court to hear petitions seeking review of Rafale judgement on March 6

Slamming the Haryana government, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the implementation of a new state law allowing construction work in the Aravalli region.

'It is really shocking. You are destroying the forest. It is not permissible,'&nbsp;a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said.

'Don`t try to overrule the order,'&nbsp;the bench told the Haryana government while giving a warning that it should not try to invite contempt of court proceedings.

The Haryana Assembly had on Wednesday passed an amendment to the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, opening thousands of acres of land under the Aravalli and Shivalik ranges for real estate development and mining.

The apex court in an earlier order had said that there should not be any construction in the Aravalli area.

Slamming the Haryana government, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the implementation of a new state law allowing construction work in the Aravalli region. 'It is really shocking.

Slamming the Haryana government, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the implementation of a new state law allowing construction work in the Aravalli region. 'It is really shocking. You are destroying the forest. It is not permissible,' a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said. 'Don`t try to overrule the order,' the bench told the Haryana government while giving a warning that it should not try to invite contempt of court proceedings. The Haryana Assembly had on Wednesday passed an amendment to the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, opening thousands of acres of land under the Aravalli and Shivalik ranges for real estate development and mining. The apex court in an earlier order had said that there should not be any construction in the Aravalli area.

Supreme Court stays Haryana law allowing construction in Aravalli region

The Indian Navy on Wednesday recovered the second body from the flooded rat-hole mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills district, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

The highly decomposed body was pulled out&nbsp;by a combined team of the Indian Navy and National Disaster Response Force from 370-feet depth.

The body has now been handed over to the Meghalaya Police and is now being taken to local hospital for autopsy.

Fifteen miners were trapped after water gushed into the illegal coal mine located in Ksan village after the miners are believed to have punctured into a wall of another coal mine.

The tragedy came to light after five miners escaped from the coal pit. Since then, a multi-agency rescue operation has been underway to rescue the miners.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The coal pit disaster took place despite an interim ban on rat-hole coal mining in the state by the National Green Tribunal since April 17, 2014.

The Supreme Court, which is monitoring the rescue operations, has told the government that the trapped miners must be taken out of the mine, "dead" or "alive".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Indian Navy on Wednesday recovered the second body from the flooded rat-hole mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills district, news agency ANI reported. The highly decomposed body was pulled out by a combined team of the Indian Navy and National Disaster Response Force from 370-feet depth.

The Indian Navy on Wednesday recovered the second body from the flooded rat-hole mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills district, news agency ANI reported. The highly decomposed body was pulled out by a combined team of the Indian Navy and National Disaster Response Force from 370-feet depth. The body has now been handed over to the Meghalaya Police and is now being taken to local hospital for autopsy. Fifteen miners were trapped after water gushed into the illegal coal mine located in Ksan village after the miners are believed to have punctured into a wall of another coal mine. The tragedy came to light after five miners escaped from the coal pit. Since then, a multi-agency rescue operation has been underway to rescue the miners. The coal pit disaster took place despite an interim ban on rat-hole coal mining in the state by the National Green Tribunal since April 17, 2014. The Supreme Court, which is monitoring the rescue operations, has told the government that the trapped miners must be taken out of the mine, "dead" or "alive". (With inputs from agencies)

Meghalaya mine: Navy recovers second body

In a move that has mounted more trouble on the Amrapali CMD Anil Sharma, the Supreme Court of India allowed the Delhi Police to arrest him along with two other Amrapali associates in a criminal complaint registered against them.

The court further directed the police to seize Sharma's assets which includes his properties in south Delhi.

"We had never stopped any agency from arresting the directors, who are presently housed at a hotel under the detention of UP police," the court said.

It also said that the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of Delhi Police can also arrest Amrapali directors - Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar in the case.

In a massive crackdown the Amrapali Group for "wilful disobedience" of its orders, the Court had earlier attached the company's 100-bed multi-speciality hospital, bank accounts, the building which houses its office, certain firms and a "benami" Villa in Goa.

The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by homebuyers who are seeking possession of around 42,000 flats booked in different Amrapali projects.

On October 31, the apex court had directed the Amrapali Group to disclose the names of all the companies with which it had any kind of transactions after forensic auditors pointed out that there may be a web of more than 200-250 such firms where home-buyers' money was transferred.

In a move that has mounted more trouble on the Amrapali CMD Anil Sharma, the Supreme Court of India allowed the Delhi Police to arrest him along with two other Amrapali associates in a criminal complaint registered against them.

In a move that has mounted more trouble on the Amrapali CMD Anil Sharma, the Supreme Court of India allowed the Delhi Police to arrest him along with two other Amrapali associates in a criminal complaint registered against them. The court further directed the police to seize Sharma's assets which includes his properties in south Delhi. "We had never stopped any agency from arresting the directors, who are presently housed at a hotel under the detention of UP police," the court said. It also said that the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of Delhi Police can also arrest Amrapali directors - Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar in the case. In a massive crackdown the Amrapali Group for "wilful disobedience" of its orders, the Court had earlier attached the company's 100-bed multi-speciality hospital, bank accounts, the building which houses its office, certain firms and a "benami" Villa in Goa. The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by homebuyers who are seeking possession of around 42,000 flats booked in different Amrapali projects. On October 31, the apex court had directed the Amrapali Group to disclose the names of all the companies with which it had any kind of transactions after forensic auditors pointed out that there may be a web of more than 200-250 such firms where home-buyers' money was transferred.

Supreme Court allows Delhi Police to arrest Amrapali CMD, 2 Directors

Individual departments and not universities or colleges will be considered as the unit for implementing reservation for SC/ST or OBC in the appointment of faculties members, the Supreme Court held Wednesday.&nbsp;

The apex court trashed the Centre’s plea seeking review of its earlier verdict by which it had declined to interfere with a decision of the Allahabad High Court on the crucial quota issue.

The top court also dismissed the prayer for an open court hearing of the Centre’s review petition. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Bannerjee dismissed the review petitions filed by Centre, the University Grants Commission (UGC) and several individual petitioners.

“Application for listing Review Petition in open Court is rejected. Grounds in the review petitions were also raised and gone into when the special leave petitions were considered by this Court…We have gone through the review petitions and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference in review jurisdiction. These review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” the bench said.

It said that appeals of the Centre and the UGC were dismissed as the findings in the order of the high court was found to be correct. The apex court had on January 21, dismissed the appeals of the Centre and UGC against the order of Allahabad High Court which had ruled that quota for SC/ST or OBC in posts of faculty will be calculated department-wise and not College or University-wise.

The high court, while deciding a petition challenging the reservation policy for faculties in Banaras Hindu University had on April 7, 2017, struck down a circular of UGC on filling of posts of teachers for SC/ST or OBC categories. “The respondent university will carry out the exercise of applying reservation to the posts under advertisement treating the department/subject as a unit for all levels of teachers rather than treating the university as a unit,” the High Court had said.

The Centre and UGC in their contention had said that process of selection of faculty members from SC/ST or OBC would get delayed due to difficulties in ensuring 15 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 27 per cent quota respectively. Earlier, Universities adopted a system under which every fourth teacher was appointed from OBC category, seventh from SC category and 14th from ST category.

Individual departments and not universities or colleges will be considered as the unit for implementing reservation for SC/ST or OBC in the appointment of faculties members, the Supreme Court held Wednesday.

Individual departments and not universities or colleges will be considered as the unit for implementing reservation for SC/ST or OBC in the appointment of faculties members, the Supreme Court held Wednesday. The apex court trashed the Centre’s plea seeking review of its earlier verdict by which it had declined to interfere with a decision of the Allahabad High Court on the crucial quota issue. The top court also dismissed the prayer for an open court hearing of the Centre’s review petition. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Bannerjee dismissed the review petitions filed by Centre, the University Grants Commission (UGC) and several individual petitioners. “Application for listing Review Petition in open Court is rejected. Grounds in the review petitions were also raised and gone into when the special leave petitions were considered by this Court…We have gone through the review petitions and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference in review jurisdiction. These review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” the bench said. It said that appeals of the Centre and the UGC were dismissed as the findings in the order of the high court was found to be correct. The apex court had on January 21, dismissed the appeals of the Centre and UGC against the order of Allahabad High Court which had ruled that quota for SC/ST or OBC in posts of faculty will be calculated department-wise and not College or University-wise. The high court, while deciding a petition challenging the reservation policy for faculties in Banaras Hindu University had on April 7, 2017, struck down a circular of UGC on filling of posts of teachers for SC/ST or OBC categories. “The respondent university will carry out the exercise of applying reservation to the posts under advertisement treating the department/subject as a unit for all levels of teachers rather than treating the university as a unit,” the High Court had said. The Centre and UGC in their contention had said that process of selection of faculty members from SC/ST or OBC would get delayed due to difficulties in ensuring 15 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 27 per cent quota respectively. Earlier, Universities adopted a system under which every fourth teacher was appointed from OBC category, seventh from SC category and 14th from ST category.

Supreme Court dismisses Centre, UGC review pleas against department-wise quota for faculties

The Supreme Court Wednesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.&nbsp;

The apex court had earlier decided to keep the plea pending saying that it would be taken up “only after the Citizenship Act Amendment Bill, consideration of which is now stated to be pending before the Rajya Sabha, reaches its finality”.&nbsp;

A bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which recently considered the plea for an urgent hearing on the PIL, Wednesday ordered, “Issue notice returnable in six weeks.”

The bench, also comprising Justices LN Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, was hearing the petition filed by the “Nagarikatwa Aain Songsudhan Birodhi Mancha” (Forum Against Citizenship Act Amendment Bill) which has sought to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015 and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order as “discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal”.

The bill has been cleared by the Lok Sabha and it would now be presented in the Upper House of Parliament. The bill, passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8, provides for according Indian citizenship to the Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis who fled religious persecution in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after six years of residence in India, instead of the 12 years currently, even if they do not possess any document.

It also seeks to provide relief to the persecuted migrants who have come through the western borders of the country to states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh etc., the home minister had said. The PIL opposed the bill on the ground that it had introduced religion as a new principle into the citizenship law and termed it as “communally motivated humanitarianism”.

“Never before has religion been specifically identified in the citizenship law as a ground for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. It has introduced religion as a new principle into the citizenship law and can be conveniently branded as ‘communally motivated humanitarianism’. “The illegal immigrants who are to be granted the benefit of this legislation are to qualify for citizenship only on the basis of religion, a requirement that goes against one of the basic tenets of the Indian Constitution, secularism,” it said.

It further claimed that the “direct and inevitable” effect of the bill would be the dilution of the Assam Accord inked in 1985, which presently made anyone entering Assam from Bangladesh after March 24, 1971, an “illegal immigrant”. “The amendment defeats the purpose of the accord and opens the floodgates to more illegal immigration and consequently, increases claims on diminishing resources. The transformation of migrants, hitherto perceived as illegal encroachers, into legitimate citizens cannot be justified,” it said.

The plea further claimed that the bill had the potential to “derail and nullify” the gains made by updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. “Many persons, who could not otherwise establish their claims and were therefore excluded from the draft NRC published recently, can now take shelter under this and subsequently, become legitimate Indian citizens at the cost of the indigenous people of Assam,” it said.

The petition further alleged that Assam had repeatedly witnessed ethnic clashes and violence, which were arising out of existential threat perceptions, fear of being reduced to a minority in one’s own homeland and giving up territories to foreigners and imposition of foreign or alien culture. The PIL sought directions to the Centre, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Assam government to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015 and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order as “discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal”. It further sought directions to the Centre to constitute a National Immigration Commission or any other appropriate body to frame a National Immigration Policy and a National Refugee Policy.

The Supreme Court Wednesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court Wednesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The apex court had earlier decided to keep the plea pending saying that it would be taken up “only after the Citizenship Act Amendment Bill, consideration of which is now stated to be pending before the Rajya Sabha, reaches its finality”. A bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which recently considered the plea for an urgent hearing on the PIL, Wednesday ordered, “Issue notice returnable in six weeks.” The bench, also comprising Justices LN Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, was hearing the petition filed by the “Nagarikatwa Aain Songsudhan Birodhi Mancha” (Forum Against Citizenship Act Amendment Bill) which has sought to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015 and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order as “discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal”. The bill has been cleared by the Lok Sabha and it would now be presented in the Upper House of Parliament. The bill, passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8, provides for according Indian citizenship to the Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis who fled religious persecution in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after six years of residence in India, instead of the 12 years currently, even if they do not possess any document. It also seeks to provide relief to the persecuted migrants who have come through the western borders of the country to states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh etc., the home minister had said. The PIL opposed the bill on the ground that it had introduced religion as a new principle into the citizenship law and termed it as “communally motivated humanitarianism”. “Never before has religion been specifically identified in the citizenship law as a ground for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. It has introduced religion as a new principle into the citizenship law and can be conveniently branded as ‘communally motivated humanitarianism’. “The illegal immigrants who are to be granted the benefit of this legislation are to qualify for citizenship only on the basis of religion, a requirement that goes against one of the basic tenets of the Indian Constitution, secularism,” it said. It further claimed that the “direct and inevitable” effect of the bill would be the dilution of the Assam Accord inked in 1985, which presently made anyone entering Assam from Bangladesh after March 24, 1971, an “illegal immigrant”. “The amendment defeats the purpose of the accord and opens the floodgates to more illegal immigration and consequently, increases claims on diminishing resources. The transformation of migrants, hitherto perceived as illegal encroachers, into legitimate citizens cannot be justified,” it said. The plea further claimed that the bill had the potential to “derail and nullify” the gains made by updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. “Many persons, who could not otherwise establish their claims and were therefore excluded from the draft NRC published recently, can now take shelter under this and subsequently, become legitimate Indian citizens at the cost of the indigenous people of Assam,” it said. The petition further alleged that Assam had repeatedly witnessed ethnic clashes and violence, which were arising out of existential threat perceptions, fear of being reduced to a minority in one’s own homeland and giving up territories to foreigners and imposition of foreign or alien culture. The PIL sought directions to the Centre, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Assam government to declare the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015 and the Foreigners (Amendment) Order as “discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal”. It further sought directions to the Centre to constitute a National Immigration Commission or any other appropriate body to frame a National Immigration Policy and a National Refugee Policy.

Citizenship Bill: Supreme Court seeks reply from Centre

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week. According to reports, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-pleas-challenging-constitutional-validity-of-article-35a-this-week-199582">the apex court will entertain the pleas between February 26 and 28</a>, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

The petition was originally filed by a Delhi-based NGO 'We the citizen', stating that Jammu and Kashmir's autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and seeks deferment of hearing.

Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11."

Article 35A grants special privileges to Jammu &amp; Kashmir. Here's a quick look at what the Article stands for.&nbsp;

Understanding Article 35A

Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir to define "permanent residents" of the state.

Permanent residents of the state are given special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare.

The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land.

The J&amp;K legislature can alter the definition of "permanent resident" only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority.

The history

Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370.

It was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet.

The petition&nbsp;

A Delhi-based NGO, We the Citizens, challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370, arguing that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution.&nbsp;

It contends that Article 370 was only a "temporary provision" to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments - like Article 35A - in the Constitution

The petition states that Article 35A is against the “very spirit of oneness of India” as it creates a “class within a class of Indian citizens”, and that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week. According to reports, the apex court will entertain the pleas between February 26 and 28, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week. According to reports, the apex court will entertain the pleas between February 26 and 28, news agency ANI reported. The petition was originally filed by a Delhi-based NGO 'We the citizen', stating that Jammu and Kashmir's autonomous status granted by Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution discriminates against fellow citizens from the rest of the country. Meanwhile, the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and seeks deferment of hearing. Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11." Article 35A grants special privileges to Jammu & Kashmir. Here's a quick look at what the Article stands for. Understanding Article 35A Article 35A is a provision in the Constitution that empowers the legislature of Jammu and Kashmir to define "permanent residents" of the state. Permanent residents of the state are given special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare. The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land. The J&K legislature can alter the definition of "permanent resident" only through a law passed by a two-thirds majority. The history Article 35A was added through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, issued under Article 370. It was incorporated into the Constitution by an order by then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The petition A Delhi-based NGO, We the Citizens, challenges the validity of both Article 35A and Article 370, arguing that four representatives from Kashmir were part of the Constituent Assembly involved in the drafting of the Constitution and that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was never accorded any special status under the Constitution. It contends that Article 370 was only a "temporary provision" to help bring normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir and strengthen democracy in the state. And that the writers of the Constitution did not intend Article 370 to be a tool to bring about permanent amendments - like Article 35A - in the Constitution The petition states that Article 35A is against the “very spirit of oneness of India” as it creates a “class within a class of Indian citizens”, and that stopping citizens of other states from finding employment or buying property in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Key facts about Article 35A and why Supreme Court will entertain pleas against it this week 

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

Article 35A relates to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir.

The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-change-in-stance-on-article-35a-jk-government-seeks-adjournment-of-hearing-in-supreme-court-199493">seeks deferment of hearing</a>.

Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A (relating to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir) in Supreme Court listed for hearing this week from Feb 26-28. <a href="https://t.co/CiGJoYFpj9">pic.twitter.com/CiGJoYFpj9</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1099901233727303680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state.

Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs.

The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court of India is expected to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A this week from February 26 to 28, news agency ANI reported. Article 35A relates to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday maintained that it is firm on its stand on the Article and seeks deferment of hearing. Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11." The pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Article 35A (relating to the special rights and privileges enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir) in Supreme Court listed for hearing this week from Feb 26-28. pic.twitter.com/CiGJoYFpj9 — ANI (@ANI) February 25, 2019 × The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state. Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state. It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs. The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha.

Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Article 35A this week 

Putting all speculation to rest, the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday said its stance remained unchanged that only an elected government would be able to take a stand on Article 35-A before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging its validity.

Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11."

He was replying to a question on whether there was a change in the stand of the governor's administration on the contentious issue.

Kansal also urged the people of the state not to pay heed to rumours and get panicky on the basis of unsubstantiated and exaggerated pieces of information which were in circulation.

"In the past few days several rumours have been circulated and panic messages disseminated. Most of these have been based on unsubstantiated or exaggerated pieces of information," he said.

The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state.

The apex court is scheduled to hear the petitions challenging Article 35A soon.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was told by lawyer Shoeb Alam, representing the Jammu and Kashmir government, on February 11 that he was seeking its nod to circulate the letter among the parties for getting the scheduled hearing deferred.

"On the day of listing, the undersigned (Alam) shall be requesting for an adjournment in the matter since presently, there is no elected government in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the state is under President's Rule.

"The present matter involves a sensitive issue regarding a challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution of India. A short reply has been filed by the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the lead matter 'We the Citizens' and notices have not been issued on the other petitions. It will, therefore, be requesting that the matter may kindly be heard when an elected government is in place," the state government said in the letter.

Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs. 
The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha.

Several petitions, including those by political parties like the National Conference and the CPI-M, were also filed in the Supreme Court in support of Article 35A that also empowers the state Assembly to define "permanent residents" for bestowing special rights and privileges to them.

The state government, while defending the article, had cited two verdicts of the constitution benches of the Supreme Court in 1961 and 1969, which had upheld the powers of the president under Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution to pass constitutional orders.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Putting all speculation to rest, the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday said its stance remained unchanged that only an elected government would be able to take a stand on Article 35-A before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging its validity.

Putting all speculation to rest, the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sunday said its stance remained unchanged that only an elected government would be able to take a stand on Article 35-A before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging its validity. Addressing a press conference, senior bureaucrat Rohit Kansal, who has been designated as the chief spokesperson of the governor's administration, said, "The stand of the state government on the request of deferment of hearing on Article 35A in the Supreme Court remains the same as requested by them on February 11." He was replying to a question on whether there was a change in the stand of the governor's administration on the contentious issue. Kansal also urged the people of the state not to pay heed to rumours and get panicky on the basis of unsubstantiated and exaggerated pieces of information which were in circulation. "In the past few days several rumours have been circulated and panic messages disseminated. Most of these have been based on unsubstantiated or exaggerated pieces of information," he said. The Jammu and Kashmir government's counsel had sought permission from the Supreme Court for circulating a letter among the contesting parties for adjourning the upcoming hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to the natives of the state, saying there was no "elected government" in the state. The apex court is scheduled to hear the petitions challenging Article 35A soon. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was told by lawyer Shoeb Alam, representing the Jammu and Kashmir government, on February 11 that he was seeking its nod to circulate the letter among the parties for getting the scheduled hearing deferred. "On the day of listing, the undersigned (Alam) shall be requesting for an adjournment in the matter since presently, there is no elected government in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the state is under President's Rule. "The present matter involves a sensitive issue regarding a challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution of India. A short reply has been filed by the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the lead matter 'We the Citizens' and notices have not been issued on the other petitions. It will, therefore, be requesting that the matter may kindly be heard when an elected government is in place," the state government said in the letter. Article 35A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state. It denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to their heirs. The bench is hearing several petitions including the one filed by NGO 'We the Citizens' through lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha. Several petitions, including those by political parties like the National Conference and the CPI-M, were also filed in the Supreme Court in support of Article 35A that also empowers the state Assembly to define "permanent residents" for bestowing special rights and privileges to them. The state government, while defending the article, had cited two verdicts of the constitution benches of the Supreme Court in 1961 and 1969, which had upheld the powers of the president under Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution to pass constitutional orders.

No change in stance on Article 35A: J&K government seeks adjournment of hearing in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also issued notices to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Jammu and Kashmir and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the plea filed by 19-year-old Preeti Kedar Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra.

The petitioners said they are "greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs" pelting stones at soldiers and Army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir.

The plea has sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing duties.

The petitioners said they have approached the apex court as they were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondents in addressing various acts of human right violations of Army personnel, resulting in obstruction in the discharge of their duties, as well as endangers their safety and security at the place of their deployment.

The petitioners are daughters of Army officials -- one serving and another retired.

"The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters, while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment," the plea has said.

Referring to FIRs being lodged against Army personnel, the plea said cases are being lodged if action was taken against the stone pelters in retaliation or self-defence.

"The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any Armed force personnel for any act done by them which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force. However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence," it said.

The petition termed as shocking a former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister's declaration in the legislative assembly that as many as 9,760 FIRs registered against stone pelters would be withdrawn as they were first-time offenders.

"It is pertinent to note that firstly, the state is not entitled to withdraw an FIR, once registered against a person, without following the due process of the law as provided in the CrPC/RPC; secondly, the complainant or the victim of the offence is entitled to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime against him," it said.

The petition added that depriving the armed forces personnel of their right to prosecute a person who has committed an offence against them is a violation of their fundamental right to life and liberty, including the right to legal recourse.

"Further, armed forces personnel are also deprived of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb," it said.

The petition also said that the petitioners had lodged a complaint of human rights violation with the NHRC, citing specific instances, but the commission transferred the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.

The petitioners also sought setting aside of the NHRC order dated January 4 transferring the representation to the SHRC and a direction to complete the probe of human rights violations of armed forces personnel.

"There is no mechanism put in place by the Centre or the state to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas by orders of the respondents to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No 1 (Centre) puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces," the plea added.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties.

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine a plea seeking protection of human rights of security force personnel, who come under attack by mobs while performing their duties. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also issued notices to the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Jammu and Kashmir and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the plea filed by 19-year-old Preeti Kedar Gokhale and 20-year-old Kajal Mishra. The petitioners said they are "greatly disturbed by the incidents of unruly and disruptive mobs" pelting stones at soldiers and Army convoys in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea has sought formulation of a policy to curb human rights violations of security force personnel who come under attack by mobs while performing duties. The petitioners said they have approached the apex court as they were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondents in addressing various acts of human right violations of Army personnel, resulting in obstruction in the discharge of their duties, as well as endangers their safety and security at the place of their deployment. The petitioners are daughters of Army officials -- one serving and another retired. "The petitioners are further disturbed by the troops in the Indian Army having to suffer the ire of stone pelters, while they are discharging their duty of maintaining peace and security in the area of their deployment," the plea has said. Referring to FIRs being lodged against Army personnel, the plea said cases are being lodged if action was taken against the stone pelters in retaliation or self-defence. "The petitioners have no grievance to any complaint/FIR being filed against any Armed force personnel for any act done by them which amounts to any criminal offence under the law for the time being in force. However, they are very much aggrieved by the fact that no similar action is taken against the perpetrators of violence," it said. The petition termed as shocking a former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister's declaration in the legislative assembly that as many as 9,760 FIRs registered against stone pelters would be withdrawn as they were first-time offenders. "It is pertinent to note that firstly, the state is not entitled to withdraw an FIR, once registered against a person, without following the due process of the law as provided in the CrPC/RPC; secondly, the complainant or the victim of the offence is entitled to prosecute the perpetrator of a crime against him," it said. The petition added that depriving the armed forces personnel of their right to prosecute a person who has committed an offence against them is a violation of their fundamental right to life and liberty, including the right to legal recourse. "Further, armed forces personnel are also deprived of their basic human rights of defending themselves against assault and safeguarding their life and limb," it said. The petition also said that the petitioners had lodged a complaint of human rights violation with the NHRC, citing specific instances, but the commission transferred the complaint to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. The petitioners also sought setting aside of the NHRC order dated January 4 transferring the representation to the SHRC and a direction to complete the probe of human rights violations of armed forces personnel. "There is no mechanism put in place by the Centre or the state to deal with such brazen acts of human rights violation of the forces. The armed forces personnel is deployed in these disturbed areas by orders of the respondents to discharge their duties. As such, it is necessary that the respondent No 1 (Centre) puts in place a mechanism to deal with and enforce the security of its forces," the plea added.

Supreme Court agrees to hear plea seeking protection of human rights of security forces

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday.

The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

"Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said.&nbsp;

"There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said.

Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium.

The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks.&nbsp;

"Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order.

Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL.

The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it.

The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government.

It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received.

"An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said.

The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process".

It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement".

Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.&nbsp;

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

The Centre has not been delaying the appointment of judges in higher judiciary and delay, if any, was at the collegium end, the Supreme Court said Friday. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which has alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. "Appointments are happening. As the Chief Justice, I am telling you that whatever is pending is pending before the Supreme Court collegium. Nothing is pending with the government," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. Most of the recommendations with regard to appointment of judges in high courts were pending with the collegium headed by the CJI, it said. "There are about 27 recommendations pending before the government and there are 70 to 80 pending before the Collegium, as the CJI, I am telling you," the CJI said. Bhushan, however, said that as per his knowledge, there were several recommendations pending with the government despite the reiteration by the Collegium. The apex court refused to pass any directions for the time being and ordered listing of the PIL for hearing after six weeks. "Having heard Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the view that the matter should await orders of the court at a later point of time. List the matter after six weeks," the bench said in its order. Earlier, the apex court, on November 2, last year, had said that it would hear after eight weeks the PIL which alleged that the Centre has been "indefinitely sitting" on the names recommended by the apex court collegium for appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. The court had not issued the notice to the Centre on the PIL. The plea said that the government cannot "frustrate" the process of appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts in "an oblique way" by sitting on collegium's recommendations and not responding to names reiterated by it. The petitioner has claimed that "stone-walling" of judicial appointments by the executive for "oblique and vested interests" amounts to interference in the due process of law and the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The plea has sought a direction to the Centre to notify the appointment of judges for the apex court and different high courts whose names have already been unanimously reiterated by the collegium and are pending with the government. It has also sought a direction to the government to notify the recommendations for appointments of judges to various high court that have been sent by the collegium and the Centre has not responded even though six weeks have passed since the recommendations were received. "An independent and transparent system of judicial appointments that is free from political and partisan considerations has an important bearing on the independence and impartiality of the judges," the plea has said. The petitioner has also alleged that important constitutional positions cannot be left vacant merely because of "inaction" of the government and its "politically motivated interference in the judicial appointment process". It has claimed that such an act not only shows "complete disregard" of the law declared by the top court but "also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to appointment in the manner laid down in the judgement". Referring to the July 1 this year official figure available on the website of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the plea has said that strength of judges across high courts is 668 against the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges.

Centre not delaying appointment of judges in higher judiciary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear on February 26 the two petitions seeking review of its December 14 verdict that had dismissed pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

The review petition has been filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

The hearing of the pleas will be conducted in chambers and not in open court.

The trio said the top court had relied upon "patently incorrect" claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover in the court.

Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan have claimed that the judgement was based on "errors apparent on the face of the record" and non-consideration of subsequent information which has come to light would cause a grave miscarriage of justice.

Besides seeking review of the judgement, they have also sought hearing of the plea in an open court.

The top court will also hear the petition filed by AAP's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh through advocate Dheeraj Singh seeking review of the December 14 verdict.

On December 14, 2018, the apex court had dismissed various pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

It had rejected the pleas seeking lodging of an FIR and the court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had dealt with "three broad areas of concern" raised in the petitions -- the decision making process, pricing and the choice of Indian offset partners (IOP) -- and said there was no reason for intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets.

It had said the Indian Air Force (IAF) needs advanced fighter jets as the country cannot afford to be "unprepared" or "underprepared" in a situation where adversaries have acquired fourth and fifth-generation fighter aircraft, "of which, we have none".&nbsp;

The apex court had said Thursday that it would consider hearing pleas seeking review of its December 14 verdict. It had considered the submission of Bhushan that his review plea and a separate application, seeking perjury prosecution of some government officials for "misleading" the court be listed urgently.

"We believe there are four petitions in the matter. One by Union of India... Some petitions (having defects) are lying with the registry," the bench said. 
"The combination (of the judges) of bench will have to be changed. It is very difficult. We will do something for it," the bench had said.

The December verdict was delivered by the bench comprising the CJI and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph. The two Justices are currently part of different bench combinations.

Bhushan had said the review petition filed by Sanjay Singh was defective and the defect has to be cured and so far as other pleas were concerned, they can be listed for the hearing.

A day after the December verdict, the Centre had moved the apex court seeking correction in the judgement where a reference has been made about the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain".

Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan has also filed a separate plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the case.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear on February 26 the two petitions seeking review of its December 14 verdict that had dismissed pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

The Supreme Court will hear on February 26 the two petitions seeking review of its December 14 verdict that had dismissed pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The review petition has been filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The hearing of the pleas will be conducted in chambers and not in open court. The trio said the top court had relied upon "patently incorrect" claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover in the court. Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan have claimed that the judgement was based on "errors apparent on the face of the record" and non-consideration of subsequent information which has come to light would cause a grave miscarriage of justice. Besides seeking review of the judgement, they have also sought hearing of the plea in an open court. The top court will also hear the petition filed by AAP's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh through advocate Dheeraj Singh seeking review of the December 14 verdict. On December 14, 2018, the apex court had dismissed various pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making process" warranting setting aside of the contract. It had rejected the pleas seeking lodging of an FIR and the court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA). A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had dealt with "three broad areas of concern" raised in the petitions -- the decision making process, pricing and the choice of Indian offset partners (IOP) -- and said there was no reason for intervention by the court on the "sensitive issue" of purchase of 36 jets. It had said the Indian Air Force (IAF) needs advanced fighter jets as the country cannot afford to be "unprepared" or "underprepared" in a situation where adversaries have acquired fourth and fifth-generation fighter aircraft, "of which, we have none". The apex court had said Thursday that it would consider hearing pleas seeking review of its December 14 verdict. It had considered the submission of Bhushan that his review plea and a separate application, seeking perjury prosecution of some government officials for "misleading" the court be listed urgently. "We believe there are four petitions in the matter. One by Union of India... Some petitions (having defects) are lying with the registry," the bench said. "The combination (of the judges) of bench will have to be changed. It is very difficult. We will do something for it," the bench had said. The December verdict was delivered by the bench comprising the CJI and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph. The two Justices are currently part of different bench combinations. Bhushan had said the review petition filed by Sanjay Singh was defective and the defect has to be cured and so far as other pleas were concerned, they can be listed for the hearing. A day after the December verdict, the Centre had moved the apex court seeking correction in the judgement where a reference has been made about the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain". Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan has also filed a separate plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the case.

Supreme Court to hear on February 26 pleas seeking review of Rafale verdict

A plea by the Jammu and Kashmir government in the Supreme Court Friday sought transfer of seven Pakistani terrorists from Jammu jail to Tihar in the national capital, alleging they were 'indoctrinating' local prisoners.

The seven terrorists are: Waqas Manzoor alias Qazir, Mohd Abdullah alias Abu Tallah and Zaffar Iqbal of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT); Zubair Talha Zarror alias Talha (LeT) from Multan in Pakistan and arrested in 2013; Mohd Ali Hussain (LeT) arrested in 2014; Hafeez Ahmed Baloch of terrorist group Al-Badr arrested in 2006 and Zia Mustafa accused of killing of 24 Kashmiri pandits at Nadimarg area of Shopian district in South Kashmir in 2003.

A bench of Justices L N Rao and M R Shah sought a response from Centre and the Delhi government on the plea and issue notice.

The bench tagged the pleas along with the earlier petition filed by the state government for shifting of one Pakistani terrorist Zahid Farooq, who was affiliated to LeT, and said it will hear all the petitions together.

The state's standing counsel Shoeb Alam said terrorists belonging to various organisations need to be shifted out of Jammu jail as they were involved in the indoctrination of local prisoners and pose a security threat to the people and security personnel.

The bench asked Alam as how many terrorists needs to be moved out to which he replied that pleas for shifting of seven Pakistani terrorists is listed today.&nbsp;

If not Tihar, they can also be shifted to other high-security prisons in Haryana and Punjab, he said.

To this, the bench said it will hear the matter and asked Alam to ensure that a copy of the notice is served to the seven terrorists also.

A day after the Pulwama attack on February 14 in which 40 CRPF personnel were martyred, the Jammu and Kashmir government had moved the apex court to shift Farooq, out of Jammu jail.

Farooq was arrested by security forces while trying to cross the border security fence on May 19, 2016.

The state government had said intelligence inputs received indicated that militants belonging to terror outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad and LeT are indoctrinating the minds of other inmates lodged in the prison.

It was reliably learnt that the prisoner and other individuals have considerable local support and it cannot be ruled out that they may be receiving information, resources as well as other help to carry out terrorist-related activities, the state government added.

The state also sought shifting of the trial to Delhi saying it apprehends that transporting the militant to court and back to prison poses a threat to escorting policemen and common public.

A plea by the Jammu and Kashmir government in the Supreme Court Friday sought transfer of seven Pakistani terrorists from Jammu jail to Tihar in the national capital, alleging they were 'indoctrinating' local prisoners.

A plea by the Jammu and Kashmir government in the Supreme Court Friday sought transfer of seven Pakistani terrorists from Jammu jail to Tihar in the national capital, alleging they were 'indoctrinating' local prisoners. The seven terrorists are: Waqas Manzoor alias Qazir, Mohd Abdullah alias Abu Tallah and Zaffar Iqbal of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT); Zubair Talha Zarror alias Talha (LeT) from Multan in Pakistan and arrested in 2013; Mohd Ali Hussain (LeT) arrested in 2014; Hafeez Ahmed Baloch of terrorist group Al-Badr arrested in 2006 and Zia Mustafa accused of killing of 24 Kashmiri pandits at Nadimarg area of Shopian district in South Kashmir in 2003. A bench of Justices L N Rao and M R Shah sought a response from Centre and the Delhi government on the plea and issue notice. The bench tagged the pleas along with the earlier petition filed by the state government for shifting of one Pakistani terrorist Zahid Farooq, who was affiliated to LeT, and said it will hear all the petitions together. The state's standing counsel Shoeb Alam said terrorists belonging to various organisations need to be shifted out of Jammu jail as they were involved in the indoctrination of local prisoners and pose a security threat to the people and security personnel. The bench asked Alam as how many terrorists needs to be moved out to which he replied that pleas for shifting of seven Pakistani terrorists is listed today. If not Tihar, they can also be shifted to other high-security prisons in Haryana and Punjab, he said. To this, the bench said it will hear the matter and asked Alam to ensure that a copy of the notice is served to the seven terrorists also. A day after the Pulwama attack on February 14 in which 40 CRPF personnel were martyred, the Jammu and Kashmir government had moved the apex court to shift Farooq, out of Jammu jail. Farooq was arrested by security forces while trying to cross the border security fence on May 19, 2016. The state government had said intelligence inputs received indicated that militants belonging to terror outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad and LeT are indoctrinating the minds of other inmates lodged in the prison. It was reliably learnt that the prisoner and other individuals have considerable local support and it cannot be ruled out that they may be receiving information, resources as well as other help to carry out terrorist-related activities, the state government added. The state also sought shifting of the trial to Delhi saying it apprehends that transporting the militant to court and back to prison poses a threat to escorting policemen and common public.

J&K govt moves SC for transfer of 7 Pakistani terrorists out of Jammu jail

The Supreme Court Friday directed chief secretaries and DGPs of 11 states to take "prompt" and necessary action to prevent incidents of threat, assault and social boycott of Kashmiris in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/members-of-council-condemn-heinous-and-cowardly-suicide-bombing-unsc-on-pulwama-terror-attack-198830">Pulwama terror attack</a>.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also directed that police officers, who were earlier appointed as nodal officers to deal with incidents of mob lynching, would be now responsible to deal with cases of alleged assault on Kashmiris.

The bench asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to give wide publicity to nodal officers so that they can be approached by those facing such incidents.&nbsp;

"The chief secretaries, the DGPs and the Delhi Police Commissioner are directed to take prompt and necessary action to prevent incidents of threat, assault, social boycott etc. Against Kashmiris and other minorities," the bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday directed chief secretaries and DGPs of 11 states to take "prompt" and necessary action to prevent incidents of threat, assault and social boycott of Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack.

The Supreme Court Friday directed chief secretaries and DGPs of 11 states to take "prompt" and necessary action to prevent incidents of threat, assault and social boycott of Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also directed that police officers, who were earlier appointed as nodal officers to deal with incidents of mob lynching, would be now responsible to deal with cases of alleged assault on Kashmiris. The bench asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to give wide publicity to nodal officers so that they can be approached by those facing such incidents. "The chief secretaries, the DGPs and the Delhi Police Commissioner are directed to take prompt and necessary action to prevent incidents of threat, assault, social boycott etc. Against Kashmiris and other minorities," the bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

Supreme Court directs authorities of 11 states to take action against assault on Kashmiris post Pulwama

The Supreme Court Thursday said that it would consider listing of a plea seeking review of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">its verdict in the Rafale case</a>.

The apex court on December 14 last year dismissed a clutch of PILs, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, saying there was "no occasion to doubt" the decision-making process of the Centre in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said four applications or petitions have been filed in the Rafale matter and one of them is still lying with the registry on account of defect.

"The combination (of the judges) of bench will have to be changed. It is very difficult. We will do something for it," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when&nbsp;Bhushan sought urgent listing of the petitions in the Rafale case.&nbsp;

Bhushan said that the review petition filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was defective and other petitions had no defects to be cured.

He also said that besides the review petition, an application seeking perjury prosecution against some central government employees for giving misleading information to the court has also been filed.&nbsp;

Besides Bhushan, Sinha and Shourie had moved the Supreme Court Monday seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the high-profile Rafale case.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Thursday said that it would consider listing of a plea seeking review of its verdict in the Rafale case. The apex court on December 14 last year dismissed a clutch of PILs, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, saying there was "no occasion to doubt" the decision-making process of the Centre in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

The Supreme Court Thursday said that it would consider listing of a plea seeking review of its verdict in the Rafale case. The apex court on December 14 last year dismissed a clutch of PILs, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, saying there was "no occasion to doubt" the decision-making process of the Centre in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said four applications or petitions have been filed in the Rafale matter and one of them is still lying with the registry on account of defect. "The combination (of the judges) of bench will have to be changed. It is very difficult. We will do something for it," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when Bhushan sought urgent listing of the petitions in the Rafale case. Bhushan said that the review petition filed by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was defective and other petitions had no defects to be cured. He also said that besides the review petition, an application seeking perjury prosecution against some central government employees for giving misleading information to the court has also been filed. Besides Bhushan, Sinha and Shourie had moved the Supreme Court Monday seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the high-profile Rafale case.

Rafale verdict: Supreme Court says it may hear plea asking for a review

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear a plea seeking its intervention to prevent attacks on Kashmiri students in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror strike.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and sought its hearing at 2 pm. The top judge, however, posted the plea for hearing tomorrow.

The petition was filed by advocate Tariq Adeeb

According to the plea, Kashmiri students had to lock themselves up in order to remain safe as mob violence erupted in Dehradun in Uttarakhand after the terror attack in Pulwama in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed on February 14.

The petition has sought the court's direction to the authorities, including heads of educational institutions, for immediate steps to prevent attacks against Kashmiris and other minorities, their social boycott, ostracisation, eviction and other coercive acts.

It has said those indulging in hate speech and targeting of Kashmiris should be prosecuted.

The plea has asked for the appointment of a senior officer in every state and Union territory for prevention of such acts and prosecution of those involved.

It has also requested the court for a direction to the authorities concerned to set up a website which would contain details of such incidents besides a single helpline for assistance across the nation.

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear a plea seeking its intervention to prevent attacks on Kashmiri students in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror strike. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and sought its hearing at 2 pm.

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear a plea seeking its intervention to prevent attacks on Kashmiri students in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror strike. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and sought its hearing at 2 pm. The top judge, however, posted the plea for hearing tomorrow. The petition was filed by advocate Tariq Adeeb According to the plea, Kashmiri students had to lock themselves up in order to remain safe as mob violence erupted in Dehradun in Uttarakhand after the terror attack in Pulwama in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed on February 14. The petition has sought the court's direction to the authorities, including heads of educational institutions, for immediate steps to prevent attacks against Kashmiris and other minorities, their social boycott, ostracisation, eviction and other coercive acts. It has said those indulging in hate speech and targeting of Kashmiris should be prosecuted. The plea has asked for the appointment of a senior officer in every state and Union territory for prevention of such acts and prosecution of those involved. It has also requested the court for a direction to the authorities concerned to set up a website which would contain details of such incidents besides a single helpline for assistance across the nation.

Attacks on Kashmiri students: Supreme Court to hear plea on Friday

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani guilty of contempt of court.

The contempt finding came&nbsp;on a plea filed by Ericcson India which has <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-anil-ambanis-rcom-over-contempt-petition-by-ericsson-188738">accused Ambani of not clearing dues of Rs 550 crore</a>.&nbsp;Two Reliance directors were also held guilty of contempt.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, a bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran said Ambani and the two directors would have to pay Rs 435 crore to Ericcson within four weeks. The court added that if they failed to do so, a three-month jail term would follow.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Visuals from Supreme Court, Delhi: Supreme Court holds Reliance Communication Chairman Anil Ambani and two directors guilty of contempt of court on a contempt plea filed by Ericsson India against him over not clearing its dues of Rs 550 crore. <a href="https://t.co/bDS5VoHGRx">pic.twitter.com/bDS5VoHGRx</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1098092447693828096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court also imposed a fine of Rs 1 crore on all three of them, saying again that if they did not pay up — a one-month jail term would be imposed on them.&nbsp;

The two directors were Reliance Telecom chairman Satish Seth and Reliance Infratel chairperson Chhaya Virani.&nbsp;

Ambani had in January this year offered to pay Rs 118 crore to Ericsson but the Swedish company's lawyers turned the offer down. The Supreme Court then told Ambani to deposit the money in the court's registry.&nbsp;

On&nbsp;Wednesday, the&nbsp;court directed that Rs 118 crore already deposited by Reliance Group in the apex court's registry be disbursed to Ericsson within a week.

"From undertakings given by Reliance Group's top brass, it appears they have wilfully not paid the amount to Ericsson despite orders and undertakings given," the court said.&nbsp;

The court specified that any unconditional apology given by Reliance needs to be rejected as they have breached the undertaking and order.&nbsp;

The bench said the three Reliance companies did not adhere to the 120-day deadline and the extra 60 days given by the apex court to pay Rs 550 crore to Ericsson.

It said the undertakings given in the court was false to the knowledge of the court and affected the administration of justice.&nbsp;

Ambani, Seth and Virani were present in the courtroom.

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani guilty of contempt of court. The contempt finding came on a plea filed by Ericcson India which has accused Ambani of not clearing dues of Rs 550 crore.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani guilty of contempt of court. The contempt finding came on a plea filed by Ericcson India which has accused Ambani of not clearing dues of Rs 550 crore. Two Reliance directors were also held guilty of contempt. On Wednesday, a bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran said Ambani and the two directors would have to pay Rs 435 crore to Ericcson within four weeks. The court added that if they failed to do so, a three-month jail term would follow. Visuals from Supreme Court, Delhi: Supreme Court holds Reliance Communication Chairman Anil Ambani and two directors guilty of contempt of court on a contempt plea filed by Ericsson India against him over not clearing its dues of Rs 550 crore. pic.twitter.com/bDS5VoHGRx — ANI (@ANI) February 20, 2019 × The Supreme Court also imposed a fine of Rs 1 crore on all three of them, saying again that if they did not pay up — a one-month jail term would be imposed on them. The two directors were Reliance Telecom chairman Satish Seth and Reliance Infratel chairperson Chhaya Virani. Ambani had in January this year offered to pay Rs 118 crore to Ericsson but the Swedish company's lawyers turned the offer down. The Supreme Court then told Ambani to deposit the money in the court's registry. On Wednesday, the court directed that Rs 118 crore already deposited by Reliance Group in the apex court's registry be disbursed to Ericsson within a week. "From undertakings given by Reliance Group's top brass, it appears they have wilfully not paid the amount to Ericsson despite orders and undertakings given," the court said. The court specified that any unconditional apology given by Reliance needs to be rejected as they have breached the undertaking and order. The bench said the three Reliance companies did not adhere to the 120-day deadline and the extra 60 days given by the apex court to pay Rs 550 crore to Ericsson. It said the undertakings given in the court was false to the knowledge of the court and affected the administration of justice. Ambani, Seth and Virani were present in the courtroom. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court holds Anil Ambani guilty of contempt, tells him to pay up or go to jail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure.

"There have been years of apathy towards judiciary. Suitable conditions are not provided but it is working," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed.

The top court, which has been monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary and filling up the vacancies of judicial officers and supporting staff, on Tuesday examined the progress made by the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand.

The remarks relating to the apathy towards judiciary were made while dealing with the steps taken by the Rajasthan government.

"Have you visited the courts? It is unimaginable under what conditions the judicial work is going on," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when advocate Gaurav Agrawal was assisting it as an amicus curiae.

In its order relating to Rajasthan, the bench said that the state of infrastructure as indicated is grossly unsatisfactory.

The bench asked the Rajasthan government to apprise it within three months further progress made on the issue of appointment of judicial officers and development of infrastructure of the courts.

While dealing with the issue of Uttarakhand the bench was surprised that the state government was hesitant in supplying information about the utilisation of funds from the Centre.

The bench asked the deputy chief secretary, who was present in the court, to submit the utilisation certificate of the central funds to the competent authority so that additional central funds required for the purpose could be disposed.

The top court took on record the information provided by other states on the issue.

The top court on its own had taken note of over 5,000 vacancies for judicial officers across the country and had directed all the 24 high courts and 36 states and UTs to apprise it of remedial measures.

It is also monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary.

The top court had appointed senior advocates Shyam Divan, K V Vishwanathan, Vijay Hansaria and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal as amicus curiae and asked them to assist it in dealing with the case.

Divan would deal with the vacancies and the processes needed to fill them up in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and the Northeast states.

While Vishwanathan would assist the top court in dealing with the vacancies in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Kerala, Hansaria would deal with Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Patna and Punjab and Haryana.

Agrawal would render assistance to the top court in dealing with the issue of vacancies in states of Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said years of apathy by various state governments has resulted in a situation that the subordinate judiciary has to function in a hard-pressed manner with an inadequate number of judges and crumbling infrastructure. "There have been years of apathy towards judiciary. Suitable conditions are not provided but it is working," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed. The top court, which has been monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary and filling up the vacancies of judicial officers and supporting staff, on Tuesday examined the progress made by the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura and Uttarakhand. The remarks relating to the apathy towards judiciary were made while dealing with the steps taken by the Rajasthan government. "Have you visited the courts? It is unimaginable under what conditions the judicial work is going on," the bench, also comprising Justices L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said when advocate Gaurav Agrawal was assisting it as an amicus curiae. In its order relating to Rajasthan, the bench said that the state of infrastructure as indicated is grossly unsatisfactory. The bench asked the Rajasthan government to apprise it within three months further progress made on the issue of appointment of judicial officers and development of infrastructure of the courts. While dealing with the issue of Uttarakhand the bench was surprised that the state government was hesitant in supplying information about the utilisation of funds from the Centre. The bench asked the deputy chief secretary, who was present in the court, to submit the utilisation certificate of the central funds to the competent authority so that additional central funds required for the purpose could be disposed. The top court took on record the information provided by other states on the issue. The top court on its own had taken note of over 5,000 vacancies for judicial officers across the country and had directed all the 24 high courts and 36 states and UTs to apprise it of remedial measures. It is also monitoring the steps taken for developing the infrastructure in subordinate judiciary. The top court had appointed senior advocates Shyam Divan, K V Vishwanathan, Vijay Hansaria and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal as amicus curiae and asked them to assist it in dealing with the case. Divan would deal with the vacancies and the processes needed to fill them up in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and the Northeast states. While Vishwanathan would assist the top court in dealing with the vacancies in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Kerala, Hansaria would deal with Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Patna and Punjab and Haryana. Agrawal would render assistance to the top court in dealing with the issue of vacancies in states of Rajasthan, Sikkim, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand.

Years of apathy resulted in hard-pressed situation of subordinate judiciary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/ayodhya-dispute-laying-a-strong-foundation-190167">Ayodhya</a>'s Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter.

It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The apex court on January 27 had cancelled the scheduled hearing for January 29 as Justice S A Bobde, one of the five judges of the Constitution Bench, was not available that day.

Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, members of the bench are Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The bench will hear the appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive Ayodhya's Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter. It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive Ayodhya's Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter. It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The apex court on January 27 had cancelled the scheduled hearing for January 29 as Justice S A Bobde, one of the five judges of the Constitution Bench, was not available that day. Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, members of the bench are Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer. The bench will hear the appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court to hear on February 26 Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals.

The Centre was responding to the January 28 queries of the apex court which had asked the Centre and the state to provide the details of the functional detention centres in Assam and the foreigners detained there during the last 10 years.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that both the Centre and the state have filed their affidavits giving in details the information sought by the apex

The Centre said Over 27,000 foreigners have pushed back at border points while attempting to enter India illegally.

Solicitor General told the bench, also comprising Justice L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, that the Centre has allotted Rs 47 crores and Assam has provided land for building new detention centre with various facilities that will also cover the issues of human rights.

He said a new detention centre will be ready by August 31.

The hearing will continue after lunch.&nbsp;

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals.

The Centre Tuesday told the Supreme Court that 938 persons are at present detained in six detention centres in Assam out of which 823 have been declared as foreigners by tribunals. The Centre was responding to the January 28 queries of the apex court which had asked the Centre and the state to provide the details of the functional detention centres in Assam and the foreigners detained there during the last 10 years. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that both the Centre and the state have filed their affidavits giving in details the information sought by the apex The Centre said Over 27,000 foreigners have pushed back at border points while attempting to enter India illegally. Solicitor General told the bench, also comprising Justice L N Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, that the Centre has allotted Rs 47 crores and Assam has provided land for building new detention centre with various facilities that will also cover the issues of human rights. He said a new detention centre will be ready by August 31. The hearing will continue after lunch.

938 persons detained in six centres in Assam, 823 declared as foreigners, Centre tells Supreme 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

supreme court