The Supreme Court Tuesday disposed of a plea challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI Director.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran said no further interference is required as the relief has already been granted with the appointment of a full-time CBI Director.

The verdict came on a plea of NGO, Common Cause, which had challenged the appointment of Rao as interim CBI director.

On February 4, Rishi Kumar Shukla, a 1983-batch IPS officer, took charge of the probe agency as a full-fledged director.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday disposed of a plea challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI Director. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran said no further interference is required as the relief has already been granted with the appointment of a full-time CBI Director.

The Supreme Court Tuesday disposed of a plea challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI Director. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran said no further interference is required as the relief has already been granted with the appointment of a full-time CBI Director. The verdict came on a plea of NGO, Common Cause, which had challenged the appointment of Rao as interim CBI director. On February 4, Rishi Kumar Shukla, a 1983-batch IPS officer, took charge of the probe agency as a full-fledged director.

Supreme Court disposes plea challenging Rao's appointment as interim CBI chief, says no interference required

The Supreme Court Friday decided to hear a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 1993 central law by which 67.703 acre land, including the disputed premises of Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, was acquired.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan tagged the matter with the main petition in which a constitution bench is dealing with the main title dispute.

"List the matter before the bench already seized with the issue," the bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday decided to hear a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 1993 central law by which 67.703 acre land, including the disputed premises of Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, was acquired.

The Supreme Court Friday decided to hear a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 1993 central law by which 67.703 acre land, including the disputed premises of Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, was acquired. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan tagged the matter with the main petition in which a constitution bench is dealing with the main title dispute. "List the matter before the bench already seized with the issue," the bench also comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

SC to hear plea against 1993 central law on land acquisition near disputed site at Ayodhya

Claiming that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-vs-centre-sc-delivers-split-verdict-on-control-of-services-refers-it-to-larger-bench-197305">Supreme Court's split verdict</a> on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies.

At a press conference after the apex court order, he accused the BJP-led government at the centre of creating hurdles in the functioning of the AAP dispensation and appealed to the people to elect AAP candidates in all the seven Lok Sabha seats in the national capital in the upcoming general elections to help the party achieve full-statehood for Delhi.

"The judgment is against constitution and democracy. We will seek legal remedies," Kejriwal said, adding it was an "injustice to the people" of Delhi. 
&nbsp; 
"The people of Delhi helped us win 67 of 70 seats. An elected government doesn't even have the power to transfer officers, but those with three seats (BJP) do. How will the government function if we can't transfer non-performing officials?" he posed.

"The solution to the problem lies with the people of Delhi. I appeal to the residents not to see the polls as only to elect a prime minister. Please give all the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi to the AAP. We will force the government at the Centre to give full statehood to Delhi," the AAP national convener said.

In a jolt to the AAP dispensation, the Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on their views on disputes pertaining to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), setting up of a commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors.

The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government.

Claiming the court order states the elected government has no power to transfer officers, Kejriwal sought to know how the AAP dispensation will work and said the chief minister of Delhi does not have the power to appoint even a peon.

"We have been suffering for the last four years. For every work and forgetting each file cleared, if the Delhi chief minister and his ministers have to hold protests and sit on hunger strike at the L-G house, how will the government work? What sort of democracy is it?" he asked.

On former Delhi chief minister and Congress leader Sheila Dikshit's comments that according to the constitution "Delhi government doesn't have unlimited powers and, the L-G and the MHA also have control over many things", Kejriwal said his predecessor should refrain from making such statements for short-term political gains.

"I respect Sheila Dikshit ji. I appeal to her not to make such comments. We don't even have 10 per cent of the power that her government had. Didn't she have the power to transfer officers? Didn't she have ACB under her? Still, in the last four years we have done more work than her government did in 15 years," he said.

Claiming that the Supreme Court's split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies.

Claiming that the Supreme Court's split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory is against "constitution and democracy", Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Thursday said the AAP government will seek legal remedies. At a press conference after the apex court order, he accused the BJP-led government at the centre of creating hurdles in the functioning of the AAP dispensation and appealed to the people to elect AAP candidates in all the seven Lok Sabha seats in the national capital in the upcoming general elections to help the party achieve full-statehood for Delhi. "The judgment is against constitution and democracy. We will seek legal remedies," Kejriwal said, adding it was an "injustice to the people" of Delhi. "The people of Delhi helped us win 67 of 70 seats. An elected government doesn't even have the power to transfer officers, but those with three seats (BJP) do. How will the government function if we can't transfer non-performing officials?" he posed. "The solution to the problem lies with the people of Delhi. I appeal to the residents not to see the polls as only to elect a prime minister. Please give all the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi to the AAP. We will force the government at the Centre to give full statehood to Delhi," the AAP national convener said. In a jolt to the AAP dispensation, the Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench. A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on their views on disputes pertaining to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), setting up of a commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors. The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government. Claiming the court order states the elected government has no power to transfer officers, Kejriwal sought to know how the AAP dispensation will work and said the chief minister of Delhi does not have the power to appoint even a peon. "We have been suffering for the last four years. For every work and forgetting each file cleared, if the Delhi chief minister and his ministers have to hold protests and sit on hunger strike at the L-G house, how will the government work? What sort of democracy is it?" he asked. On former Delhi chief minister and Congress leader Sheila Dikshit's comments that according to the constitution "Delhi government doesn't have unlimited powers and, the L-G and the MHA also have control over many things", Kejriwal said his predecessor should refrain from making such statements for short-term political gains. "I respect Sheila Dikshit ji. I appeal to her not to make such comments. We don't even have 10 per cent of the power that her government had. Didn't she have the power to transfer officers? Didn't she have ACB under her? Still, in the last four years we have done more work than her government did in 15 years," he said.

Supreme Court's split verdict on control of services against 'constitution and democracy', says Kejriwal

The Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory in the tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on disputes pertaining to the anti-corruption branch, setting up of the commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors.&nbsp;

The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government.

The top court also said that instead of the LG, Delhi government will have the right to appoint public prosecutors or law officers.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory in the tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court Thursday delivered a split verdict on the contentious issue of control of services in the National Capital Territory in the tussle between the Delhi government and the Centre and referred the matter to a larger bench. A two-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, however, agreed on disputes pertaining to the anti-corruption branch, setting up of the commission of inquiry, control over electricity boards, land revenue matters and appointment of public prosecutors. The apex court also upheld the Centre's notification that its employees cannot be probed in corruption cases by ACB of Delhi government. The top court also said that instead of the LG, Delhi government will have the right to appoint public prosecutors or law officers.

Delhi vs Centre: Supreme Court delivers split verdict on control of services, refers it to larger bench

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-curious-case-of-plea-challenging-appointment-of-interim-cbi-chief-m-nageswara-rao-192498">M Nageswara Rao's</a> "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case.

India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh.&nbsp;

The court had issued the notice to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880">Rao for transferring joint director</a> A K Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home case. The top court said additional director Nageswara Rao was aware of apex court directions that CBI officer cannot be transferred without its consent.&nbsp;

"If this is not contempt of court then what is, the top court asked, adding, "his attitude has been, I have done what I had to do."

Supreme Court said Nageswara Rao and CBI legal officer had committed contempt of court.

"Go to one corner of court and sit down till the court rises," Supreme Court told Rao and DoP Dhansu Ram.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In Rao's defence, Attorney General&nbsp;Venugopal said&nbsp;Nageswara Rao has put himself at the mercy of the court and has had an unblemished career as a police officer.

Rao on Monday had admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he had committed a "mistake" in transferring Sharma and apologised to the top court, saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders.

Rao had filed an affidavit in response to the contempt notice issued to him on February 7th.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi had asked for his "unconditional apology" and detailed affidavit after he transferred former joint director AK Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual abuse case.

In the last hearing, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had said: “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with the order of the Supreme Court of India. God help you! Never play with SC’s order”. 
&nbsp; 
“I don’t think any of us have felt the need (talks about fellow judges) to invoke our authority for contempt. I believe that the dignity of the court has to be maintained. This is blatant!”, CJI Gogoi said, adding,"this is suo moto contempt against Nageshwar Rao. The charge against him he did not withstand the orders of this court.”&nbsp;

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief M Nageswara Rao's "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case. India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh.

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief M Nageswara Rao's "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case. India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh. The court had issued the notice to Rao for transferring joint director A K Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home case. The top court said additional director Nageswara Rao was aware of apex court directions that CBI officer cannot be transferred without its consent. "If this is not contempt of court then what is, the top court asked, adding, "his attitude has been, I have done what I had to do." Supreme Court said Nageswara Rao and CBI legal officer had committed contempt of court. "Go to one corner of court and sit down till the court rises," Supreme Court told Rao and DoP Dhansu Ram. In Rao's defence, Attorney General Venugopal said Nageswara Rao has put himself at the mercy of the court and has had an unblemished career as a police officer. Rao on Monday had admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he had committed a "mistake" in transferring Sharma and apologised to the top court, saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. Rao had filed an affidavit in response to the contempt notice issued to him on February 7th. CJI Ranjan Gogoi had asked for his "unconditional apology" and detailed affidavit after he transferred former joint director AK Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual abuse case. In the last hearing, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had said: “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with the order of the Supreme Court of India. God help you! Never play with SC’s order”. “I don’t think any of us have felt the need (talks about fellow judges) to invoke our authority for contempt. I believe that the dignity of the court has to be maintained. This is blatant!”, CJI Gogoi said, adding,"this is suo moto contempt against Nageshwar Rao. The charge against him he did not withstand the orders of this court.”

Supreme Court holds CBI ex-interim director Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt; fines Rs 1 lakh

Twelve former <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/jailed-catalan-leaders-doubt-they-will-get-a-fair-trial-defence-lawyer-196766">Catalan leaders</a> go on trial on Tuesday at Spain's Supreme Court for their role in a failed 2017 bid to break away from Spain.

Here are some key facts about the trial.

The accused&nbsp;

The 12 include former Catalan government officials, civil leaders of pro-independence groups and the former president of Catalonia's regional parliament.

Nine have been held in pre-trial detention for months, including former Catalan vice president and regional economy minister Oriol Junqueras.

Public prosecutors have asked for a jail term of 25 years for Junqueras. He remains in charge of Catalonia's pro-independence party ERC despite being in jail since November 2017.

The former speaker of the Catalan regional parliament who read out the declaration of independence in the assembly, 63-year-old Carme Forcadell, faces a possible jail term of 17 years.

The region's erstwhile president Carles Puigdemont -- who fled to Belgium shortly after the declaration of independence -- is not among the group because Spain does not allow trials in absentia for major offences.

But former ministers in his regional government are in the dock.

The charges&nbsp;

Public prosecutors accuse nine of the 12 defendants -- including Junqueras and Forcadell -- of rebellion, which carries a jail term of 15-25 years.

Under Spain's criminal code, rebellion is defined as "rising up violently and publicly", especially to "declare the independence of a part of the national territory".

This charge is disputed by separatists and many Spanish legal experts. The trial will focus on the alleged use of violence, which the defendants deny.

But public prosecutors point to "violent incidents" during pro-independence protests orchestrated by two grassroots groups in Barcelona on September 20, 2017.

Prosecutors also accuse the separatists of fostering "acts of violence and aggression against police officers" on the day of the referendum.

The October 1, 2017 independence referendum was marred by a violent police crackdown on polling stations.

Six of the defendants accused of rebellion are also accused of misusing public funds to stage the independence bid.

Three other former Catalan government ministers face jail terms of up to seven years for disobedience and misuse of public funds.

The accusers&nbsp;

Spain's legal system allows for three different bodies to file criminal complaints against defendants: public prosecutors, state attorneys and a third party, in this case far-right party Vox.

Public prosecutors are made up of magistrates who are appointed by the government but are supposed to act independently.

The state attorneys, lawyers who represent the government, have taken a more lenient line than the public prosecutors. They are pushing the less serious charge of sedition and are seeking jail terms of up to 12 years.

In Spain third parties can also file criminal complaints and take part in the legal proceedings even if they are not directly involved in the case.

Vox, which is rising in the polls thanks to its hard line against Catalan separatism, is demanding a combined jail sentence of over 700 years for the 12 defendants.

The party will be represented at the court by its secretary-general Javier Ortega Smith.

Twelve former Catalan leaders go on trial on Tuesday at Spain's Supreme Court for their role in a failed 2017 bid to break away from Spain. Here are some key facts about the trial.

Twelve former Catalan leaders go on trial on Tuesday at Spain's Supreme Court for their role in a failed 2017 bid to break away from Spain. Here are some key facts about the trial. The accused The 12 include former Catalan government officials, civil leaders of pro-independence groups and the former president of Catalonia's regional parliament. Nine have been held in pre-trial detention for months, including former Catalan vice president and regional economy minister Oriol Junqueras. Public prosecutors have asked for a jail term of 25 years for Junqueras. He remains in charge of Catalonia's pro-independence party ERC despite being in jail since November 2017. The former speaker of the Catalan regional parliament who read out the declaration of independence in the assembly, 63-year-old Carme Forcadell, faces a possible jail term of 17 years. The region's erstwhile president Carles Puigdemont -- who fled to Belgium shortly after the declaration of independence -- is not among the group because Spain does not allow trials in absentia for major offences. But former ministers in his regional government are in the dock. The charges Public prosecutors accuse nine of the 12 defendants -- including Junqueras and Forcadell -- of rebellion, which carries a jail term of 15-25 years. Under Spain's criminal code, rebellion is defined as "rising up violently and publicly", especially to "declare the independence of a part of the national territory". This charge is disputed by separatists and many Spanish legal experts. The trial will focus on the alleged use of violence, which the defendants deny. But public prosecutors point to "violent incidents" during pro-independence protests orchestrated by two grassroots groups in Barcelona on September 20, 2017. Prosecutors also accuse the separatists of fostering "acts of violence and aggression against police officers" on the day of the referendum. The October 1, 2017 independence referendum was marred by a violent police crackdown on polling stations. Six of the defendants accused of rebellion are also accused of misusing public funds to stage the independence bid. Three other former Catalan government ministers face jail terms of up to seven years for disobedience and misuse of public funds. The accusers Spain's legal system allows for three different bodies to file criminal complaints against defendants: public prosecutors, state attorneys and a third party, in this case far-right party Vox. Public prosecutors are made up of magistrates who are appointed by the government but are supposed to act independently. The state attorneys, lawyers who represent the government, have taken a more lenient line than the public prosecutors. They are pushing the less serious charge of sedition and are seeking jail terms of up to 12 years. In Spain third parties can also file criminal complaints and take part in the legal proceedings even if they are not directly involved in the case. Vox, which is rising in the polls thanks to its hard line against Catalan separatism, is demanding a combined jail sentence of over 700 years for the 12 defendants. The party will be represented at the court by its secretary-general Javier Ortega Smith.

Trial of former Catalan leaders: What you need to know

The Supreme Court adjourned for Wednesday&nbsp;the hearing on a contempt notice issued to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/rcom-to-go-for-insolvency-resolution-process-after-failure-to-repay-debt-194466">Reliance Communication Ltd (RCom)</a> Chairman Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and others on a plea filed by Ericsson India for allegedly not clearing its dues of Rs 550 crore.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-anil-ambanis-rcom-over-contempt-petition-by-ericsson-188738">Ambani</a>, Reliance Telecom Ltd Chairman Satish Seth and Reliance Infratel Ltd Chairperson Chhaya Virani appeared before a bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran in pursuance to the contempt notice issued against them.&nbsp;

The bench said it will continue hearing the contempt plea on Wedbesday due to paucity of time and assembling of a special bench in the post-lunch session.

During the brief hearing, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Ericsson India, said there was gross violation of apex court's two earlier orders and they (RCom) have not paid any outstanding dues.

The bench asked the three alleged contemnors to remain present in court tomorrow.

The Supreme Court adjourned for Wednesday the hearing on a contempt notice issued to Reliance Communication Ltd (RCom) Chairman Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and others on a plea filed by Ericsson India for allegedly not clearing its dues of Rs 550 crore.

The Supreme Court adjourned for Wednesday the hearing on a contempt notice issued to Reliance Communication Ltd (RCom) Chairman Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and others on a plea filed by Ericsson India for allegedly not clearing its dues of Rs 550 crore. Ambani, Reliance Telecom Ltd Chairman Satish Seth and Reliance Infratel Ltd Chairperson Chhaya Virani appeared before a bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran in pursuance to the contempt notice issued against them. The bench said it will continue hearing the contempt plea on Wedbesday due to paucity of time and assembling of a special bench in the post-lunch session. During the brief hearing, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Ericsson India, said there was gross violation of apex court's two earlier orders and they (RCom) have not paid any outstanding dues. The bench asked the three alleged contemnors to remain present in court tomorrow.

Supreme Court adjourns till Wednsesday hearing of contempt notice to Anil Ambani

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Rao, who filed an affidavit in response to a contempt notice issued to him on February 7, said he was praying for an unconditional and unqualified apology by the apex court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"I sincerely realise my mistake and while tendering my unqualified and unconditional apology, I especially state I have not willfully violated the order of this court as I cannot even dream of violating or circumventing order of this court," he wrote in the apology. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The Supreme Court on February 7 came down heavily on the CBI for transferring Sharma, who was probing Bihar's shelter home cases, out of the agency in violation of the court's order and had directed Rao to personally appear before it on February 12. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took serious note of violation of two earlier orders of the apex court and issued contempt notice to Rao for transferring Sharma to the CRPF on January 17 without taking prior permission from the court.

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders.

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. Rao, who filed an affidavit in response to a contempt notice issued to him on February 7, said he was praying for an unconditional and unqualified apology by the apex court. "I sincerely realise my mistake and while tendering my unqualified and unconditional apology, I especially state I have not willfully violated the order of this court as I cannot even dream of violating or circumventing order of this court," he wrote in the apology. The Supreme Court on February 7 came down heavily on the CBI for transferring Sharma, who was probing Bihar's shelter home cases, out of the agency in violation of the court's order and had directed Rao to personally appear before it on February 12. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took serious note of violation of two earlier orders of the apex court and issued contempt notice to Rao for transferring Sharma to the CRPF on January 17 without taking prior permission from the court.

Nageswara Rao offers unconditional apology to Supreme Court for transferring CBI officer against its order

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/anna-hazare-calls-off-indefinite-hunger-strike-after-maharashtra-cm-accepts-his-demand-195426">Lokpal</a> Lokayuktas petition.

Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We want to be harsh but are refraining from saying anything at this stage."The petition was filed by advocate and BJP leader, Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a direction to expeditiously appoint Lokpal at the Centre, Lokayukta in states and provide a citizen charter in every department to ensure time-bound delivery of goods and services.

As per provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, a Lokpal as anti-corruption authority or ombudsman would be set up at the Central level, while a Lokayukta will be set up in each state.

In July last year, the Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over non-appointment of Lokpal by the central government.

In September, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Central government had appointed a Search Committee to nominate the chairperson and members of the Lokpal.&nbsp;

Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai was nominated as chairperson of the committee.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court asked the Lokpal Search Committee to complete its task of short-listing names for a Lokpal by February-end and submit the list for consideration to the Selection Committee. The apex court will hear the plea on March 7.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of Lokpal Lokayuktas petition. Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months.

The Supreme Court on Monday slammed those states which had not appointed state Lokayuktas yet in the appointment of Lokpal Lokayuktas petition. Nagaland government will file an affidavit explaining the delay in appointment of Lokayukta till next hearing while the Tamil Nadu Government was directed to complete the process of Lokayukta appointment within four months. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said, "We want to be harsh but are refraining from saying anything at this stage."The petition was filed by advocate and BJP leader, Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a direction to expeditiously appoint Lokpal at the Centre, Lokayukta in states and provide a citizen charter in every department to ensure time-bound delivery of goods and services. As per provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, a Lokpal as anti-corruption authority or ombudsman would be set up at the Central level, while a Lokayukta will be set up in each state. In July last year, the Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over non-appointment of Lokpal by the central government. In September, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Central government had appointed a Search Committee to nominate the chairperson and members of the Lokpal. Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai was nominated as chairperson of the committee. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court asked the Lokpal Search Committee to complete its task of short-listing names for a Lokpal by February-end and submit the list for consideration to the Selection Committee. The apex court will hear the plea on March 7.

Supreme Court slams states who failed to appoint state Lokayuktas yet

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the owner of a coal mine in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-pil-on-rescue-efforts-for-trapped-miners-in-meghalaya-on-tuesday-195082">Meghalaya</a> where 15 people have been trapped for nearly two months saying he was responsible for the illegal mining due to which the mishap took place.

The top court directed that the owner of the mine be made a party in the pending petition seeking urgent steps for rescuing the miners trapped in the rat-hole mine since December 13 last year.&nbsp;

The illegal mine is located at Ksan in East Jaintia Hills district, about 3.7 km deep inside a forest and can be accessed after crossing three streams. It was flooded when water from the nearby Letein river gushed into it.

"The mishappening has taken place because of illegal mining in the concerned mines for which, obviously, the mine owner is responsible. It is, therefore, directed that notice be issued to the mine owner also, namely, Jrin Chullet @ Krip Chullet, R/O Village Narwan of District Khliehriat, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya," the bench said.

The top court sought the mine owner's reply by February 22 and directed the Meghalaya and Coal India Ltd. To furnish details of other illegal mines operating in the area.

It posted the matter for further hearing on February 22.

Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for petitioner Aditya N Prasad, said that the problem of de-watering the mines still persists.&nbsp;

He said that Kirloskar company has a sufficient number of 100 Horsepower capacity pumps and is even ready to supply the same.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre said that it these pumps would be airlifted to the nearest point of the site and with the help of the Army authorities, they will be installed at the earliest.

Advocate Karan Singh Bhati, appearing for Coal India Ltd. Said he wants to file a status report on behalf of the company.&nbsp;

On January 28, the apex court was informed that the body of a person, among the 15 miners trapped has been retrieved while another body was spotted by the Indian Navy.

The Centre had told the apex court that a body was recovered on January 24 during the rescue operation and on January 26, the Navy personnel spotted the second body at about 280 feet.

The petitioner's counsel had argued that 14 to 15 high-powered water pumps were required to de-water the mines.

The Centre had said that Army personnel were already involved in rescue operation along with officials of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), Indian Navy and other agencies.

Rat-hole mining involves digging of narrow tunnels, usually three-four feet high, for workers to enter and extract coal. The horizontal tunnels are often termed "rat holes" as each just about fits one person.

In its status report filed in the top court, the Centre had said that crores of litres of water have been pumped out from the mine and remotely operated vehicles of the Indian Navy were already working in the rescue operation.

It had said Indian Air Force aircraft were also deployed for the rescue operation.

The status report said that the Meghalaya government is undertaking search and rescue operations and the Centre is supplementing the efforts by providing all necessary logistic support.

On January 16, remotely operated vehicles of Indian Navy detected a body at a depth of 210 feet in the flooded mine and efforts were made to retrieve it but the operation could not be completed as the body parts started disintegrating.

Earlier, the Centre had told the court that it has to "believe in miracles" for the 15 miners to come out alive.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the owner of a coal mine in Meghalaya where 15 people have been trapped for nearly two months saying he was responsible for the illegal mining due to which the mishap took place.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the owner of a coal mine in Meghalaya where 15 people have been trapped for nearly two months saying he was responsible for the illegal mining due to which the mishap took place. The top court directed that the owner of the mine be made a party in the pending petition seeking urgent steps for rescuing the miners trapped in the rat-hole mine since December 13 last year. The illegal mine is located at Ksan in East Jaintia Hills district, about 3.7 km deep inside a forest and can be accessed after crossing three streams. It was flooded when water from the nearby Letein river gushed into it. "The mishappening has taken place because of illegal mining in the concerned mines for which, obviously, the mine owner is responsible. It is, therefore, directed that notice be issued to the mine owner also, namely, Jrin Chullet @ Krip Chullet, R/O Village Narwan of District Khliehriat, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya," the bench said. The top court sought the mine owner's reply by February 22 and directed the Meghalaya and Coal India Ltd. To furnish details of other illegal mines operating in the area. It posted the matter for further hearing on February 22. Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for petitioner Aditya N Prasad, said that the problem of de-watering the mines still persists. He said that Kirloskar company has a sufficient number of 100 Horsepower capacity pumps and is even ready to supply the same. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre said that it these pumps would be airlifted to the nearest point of the site and with the help of the Army authorities, they will be installed at the earliest. Advocate Karan Singh Bhati, appearing for Coal India Ltd. Said he wants to file a status report on behalf of the company. On January 28, the apex court was informed that the body of a person, among the 15 miners trapped has been retrieved while another body was spotted by the Indian Navy. The Centre had told the apex court that a body was recovered on January 24 during the rescue operation and on January 26, the Navy personnel spotted the second body at about 280 feet. The petitioner's counsel had argued that 14 to 15 high-powered water pumps were required to de-water the mines. The Centre had said that Army personnel were already involved in rescue operation along with officials of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), Indian Navy and other agencies. Rat-hole mining involves digging of narrow tunnels, usually three-four feet high, for workers to enter and extract coal. The horizontal tunnels are often termed "rat holes" as each just about fits one person. In its status report filed in the top court, the Centre had said that crores of litres of water have been pumped out from the mine and remotely operated vehicles of the Indian Navy were already working in the rescue operation. It had said Indian Air Force aircraft were also deployed for the rescue operation. The status report said that the Meghalaya government is undertaking search and rescue operations and the Centre is supplementing the efforts by providing all necessary logistic support. On January 16, remotely operated vehicles of Indian Navy detected a body at a depth of 210 feet in the flooded mine and efforts were made to retrieve it but the operation could not be completed as the body parts started disintegrating. Earlier, the Centre had told the court that it has to "believe in miracles" for the 15 miners to come out alive.

Supreme Court notice to owner of Meghalaya coal mine

The Supreme Court Friday said it was of the tentative view that BSP chief Mayawati has to deposit public money used for erecting statues of herself and elephants, the party's symbol, at parks in Lucknow and Noida to the state exchequer.

The remarks were made by a bench hearing a petition filed by an advocate who had contended that public money cannot be utilised for creating own statues and for propagating the political party.

"We are of the tentative view that Mayawati has to deposit the public money spent on her statues and party symbol to the state exchequer," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.

The bench, also comprising justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna, posted the matter for final hearing on April 2.

The bench made it clear the tentative view was expressed by it as the matter would take some time for hearing.

"We will have it for final disposal on April 2," the bench said.&nbsp;

The petition on the issue was filed by advocate Ravi Kant in 2009 and on Friday the matter came after quite a long time.

Earlier, the apex court had passed various interim orders and directions in which the issue of environmental concern was also raised.

Further, there was also a direction to the Election Commission that during the election the elephants built in the park have to be covered.

The petitioner has alleged that crores of rupees was used from the state budget for 2008-09 to glorify Mayawati who was then the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday said it was of the tentative view that BSP chief Mayawati has to deposit public money used for erecting statues of herself and elephants, the party's symbol, at parks in Lucknow and Noida to the state exchequer.

The Supreme Court Friday said it was of the tentative view that BSP chief Mayawati has to deposit public money used for erecting statues of herself and elephants, the party's symbol, at parks in Lucknow and Noida to the state exchequer. The remarks were made by a bench hearing a petition filed by an advocate who had contended that public money cannot be utilised for creating own statues and for propagating the political party. "We are of the tentative view that Mayawati has to deposit the public money spent on her statues and party symbol to the state exchequer," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said. The bench, also comprising justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna, posted the matter for final hearing on April 2. The bench made it clear the tentative view was expressed by it as the matter would take some time for hearing. "We will have it for final disposal on April 2," the bench said. The petition on the issue was filed by advocate Ravi Kant in 2009 and on Friday the matter came after quite a long time. Earlier, the apex court had passed various interim orders and directions in which the issue of environmental concern was also raised. Further, there was also a direction to the Election Commission that during the election the elephants built in the park have to be covered. The petitioner has alleged that crores of rupees was used from the state budget for 2008-09 to glorify Mayawati who was then the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.

Supreme Court tells Mayawati to deposit money used for erecting her statues

A Muslim man was executed in Alabama on Thursday, as originally scheduled, after the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the execution, denying his request for an imam's presence in the execution chamber.

Attorneys for Dominique Ray, 42, had argued that Alabama's execution policy favoured Christian inmates because a chaplain is allowed in the room, often kneeling next to the death row prisoner, and praying with the inmate if requested.

Ray was executed by lethal injection at 10:12 pm, a spokesman of the Department of Corrections told Reuters in an email. No other information was immediately available.

Ray's imam, Yusef Maisonet, watched the execution from an adjoining witness room, multiple media reports said, including the Birmingham News.

Ray's execution was to have been temporarily delayed because he asked his imam to replace the chaplain in the death chamber.

On Wednesday, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to stay the planned execution to weigh Ray's arguments, but the state of Alabama quickly appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Circuit Court.

Ray was sentenced to death in 1999 for the killing of Tiffany Harville, 15, who disappeared from her Selma, Alabama home in July 1995.

A Muslim man was executed in Alabama on Thursday, as originally scheduled, after the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the execution, denying his request for an imam's presence in the execution chamber.

A Muslim man was executed in Alabama on Thursday, as originally scheduled, after the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the execution, denying his request for an imam's presence in the execution chamber. Attorneys for Dominique Ray, 42, had argued that Alabama's execution policy favoured Christian inmates because a chaplain is allowed in the room, often kneeling next to the death row prisoner, and praying with the inmate if requested. Ray was executed by lethal injection at 10:12 pm, a spokesman of the Department of Corrections told Reuters in an email. No other information was immediately available. Ray's imam, Yusef Maisonet, watched the execution from an adjoining witness room, multiple media reports said, including the Birmingham News. Ray's execution was to have been temporarily delayed because he asked his imam to replace the chaplain in the death chamber. On Wednesday, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to stay the planned execution to weigh Ray's arguments, but the state of Alabama quickly appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Circuit Court. Ray was sentenced to death in 1999 for the killing of Tiffany Harville, 15, who disappeared from her Selma, Alabama home in July 1995.

Muslim man executed after US Supreme Court denies request for imam's presence

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister.&nbsp;

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court dismisses a plea of RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. CJI Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Tejashwi Yadav. <a href="https://t.co/vKVZ1i3xNe">pic.twitter.com/vKVZ1i3xNe</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1093746450511605762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 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>

Yadav earlier filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court judgement which had turned down his petition challenging the Bihar government order to vacate his bungalow to make way for Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi.

The premises was allotted to Yadav in 2015 upon his appointment as the deputy chief minister of the then 'Grand Alliance' government headed by Nitish Kumar.

He continues to occupy the sprawling bungalow, situated adjacent to the chief minister's residence, even after the lapse of more than a year since RJD lost power in the state and Kumar now heads an NDA government.

Yadav is currently the leader of the opposition in the state assembly.&nbsp;

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister.

Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him. Supreme Court dismisses a plea of RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. CJI Ranjan Gogoi also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Tejashwi Yadav. pic.twitter.com/vKVZ1i3xNe — ANI (@ANI) February 8, 2019 × Yadav earlier filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court judgement which had turned down his petition challenging the Bihar government order to vacate his bungalow to make way for Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi. The premises was allotted to Yadav in 2015 upon his appointment as the deputy chief minister of the then 'Grand Alliance' government headed by Nitish Kumar. He continues to occupy the sprawling bungalow, situated adjacent to the chief minister's residence, even after the lapse of more than a year since RJD lost power in the state and Kumar now heads an NDA government. Yadav is currently the leader of the opposition in the state assembly.

SC dismisses Tejashwi Yadav's plea challenging decision asking him to vacate govt bungalow 

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Centre on a fresh plea challenging its decision to grant 10 per cent reservation in jobs and admissions to general category poor candidates.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also made it clear that there shall be no stay on the decision to grant quota to general category poor candidates.

The apex court, which had earlier issued notice to the Centre on similar petitions, Friday ordered tagging of the fresh plea of Tehseen Poonawalla with pending ones.&nbsp;

Petitions have been filed by parties, including 'Janhit Abhiyan' and NGO 'Youth For Equality', challenging the Centre's decision.

The petition, filed by Youth For Equality through its president Kaushal Kant Mishra, has sought the quashing of the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation and that the bill violates basic feature of the Constitution as reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general category and the overall 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached.

In the present form, the upper limit of quota goes up to 60 per cent which violated the decisions of the apex court.

Referring to the nine-judge bench decision of the apex court in the landmark 1992 Indira Sawhney case, the petition said the latest amendment completely violated the Constitutional norm that economic criterion cannot be the only basis of reservation.

It also said that the amendments fail to consider that Articles 14 and 16 form the basic feature of equality, and that they have been violated with the doing away of the restraints that were imposed on the reservation policy, i.E. The 50 per cent ceiling limit and the exclusion of economic status as a sole criterion.

Later in a press release, the organisation said in principle it's a welcome step and that deprivation and not caste has been made the basis of protective discrimination.

"However, the limit of total reservation is increased to 60 per cent. This will open a pandora's box. Now more and more political parties/caste groups will claim for increased percentage of reservations, both at the Centre and state level," it said.

The fresh filed by businessman Poonawalla has sought quashing of the bill, saying that backwardness for the purpose of reservation cannot be defined by "economic status alone".&nbsp;

The top court had earlier refused to stay the Modi government's decision to grant the reservation but agreed to examine the validity of the constitutional amendment which paved the way for this quota.

In poll year, the Modi government has come out with the constitutional amendment bill giving quota benefits to the poor among general category candidates.

The quota will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cleared the bill on January 8 and 9 respectively, and has been signed by President Ram Nath Kovind.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Centre on a fresh plea challenging its decision to grant 10 per cent reservation in jobs and admissions to general category poor candidates.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Centre on a fresh plea challenging its decision to grant 10 per cent reservation in jobs and admissions to general category poor candidates. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also made it clear that there shall be no stay on the decision to grant quota to general category poor candidates. The apex court, which had earlier issued notice to the Centre on similar petitions, Friday ordered tagging of the fresh plea of Tehseen Poonawalla with pending ones. Petitions have been filed by parties, including 'Janhit Abhiyan' and NGO 'Youth For Equality', challenging the Centre's decision. The petition, filed by Youth For Equality through its president Kaushal Kant Mishra, has sought the quashing of the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation and that the bill violates basic feature of the Constitution as reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general category and the overall 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached. In the present form, the upper limit of quota goes up to 60 per cent which violated the decisions of the apex court. Referring to the nine-judge bench decision of the apex court in the landmark 1992 Indira Sawhney case, the petition said the latest amendment completely violated the Constitutional norm that economic criterion cannot be the only basis of reservation. It also said that the amendments fail to consider that Articles 14 and 16 form the basic feature of equality, and that they have been violated with the doing away of the restraints that were imposed on the reservation policy, i.E. The 50 per cent ceiling limit and the exclusion of economic status as a sole criterion. Later in a press release, the organisation said in principle it's a welcome step and that deprivation and not caste has been made the basis of protective discrimination. "However, the limit of total reservation is increased to 60 per cent. This will open a pandora's box. Now more and more political parties/caste groups will claim for increased percentage of reservations, both at the Centre and state level," it said. The fresh filed by businessman Poonawalla has sought quashing of the bill, saying that backwardness for the purpose of reservation cannot be defined by "economic status alone". The top court had earlier refused to stay the Modi government's decision to grant the reservation but agreed to examine the validity of the constitutional amendment which paved the way for this quota. In poll year, the Modi government has come out with the constitutional amendment bill giving quota benefits to the poor among general category candidates. The quota will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cleared the bill on January 8 and 9 respectively, and has been signed by President Ram Nath Kovind.

SC declines stay on Centre's 10% quota to general category, seeks response on plea against it

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you."&nbsp;

"Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added.&nbsp;

The court added that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880">then interim</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880"> CBI director M Nageswara Rao was prima facie guilty of contempt of court</a> and ordered him and another official to appear before it on February 12.&nbsp;

The court's fury had been invoked after it was informed by the CBI counsel that Rao and the other official, the agency's director of prosecution, had transferred CBI officer AK Sharma — who had been investigating the Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case — without taking the court's consent.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
“We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you. Never play with SCs order,”Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi says after CBI counsel informed that 2 officials including M Nageswara Rao were involved in transferring Sharma. <a href="https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY">https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1093448752315150336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

“We are going to take it very very seriously," CJI Gogoi added on Thursday.&nbsp;

Rao had been appointed interim CBI director after the government sent former director Alok Verma and his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana on leave.&nbsp;

Verma and Asthana had accused each other of corruption.&nbsp;

Rao was the first inspector general-level officer, ever, to be appointed CBI chief.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you." "Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added.

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you." "Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added. The court added that then interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao was prima facie guilty of contempt of court and ordered him and another official to appear before it on February 12. The court's fury had been invoked after it was informed by the CBI counsel that Rao and the other official, the agency's director of prosecution, had transferred CBI officer AK Sharma — who had been investigating the Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case — without taking the court's consent. “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you. Never play with SCs order,”Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi says after CBI counsel informed that 2 officials including M Nageswara Rao were involved in transferring Sharma. https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY — ANI (@ANI) February 7, 2019 × “We are going to take it very very seriously," CJI Gogoi added on Thursday. Rao had been appointed interim CBI director after the government sent former director Alok Verma and his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana on leave. Verma and Asthana had accused each other of corruption. Rao was the first inspector general-level officer, ever, to be appointed CBI chief.

'You have played with order of Supreme Court... God help you': Chief Justice of India to CBI

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the 'pressure cooker' symbol can be allotted to TTV Dinakaran-led Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) for the upcoming Thiruvar bypolls if Delhi high court doesn't decide on the 'two leaves' symbol case.

The Delhi High Court had on March 9 last year directed the Election Commission (EC) to allot a common symbol, preferably that of a 'pressure cooker', and a name to the then AIADMK (Amma) faction led by Dhinakaran.

A bench of justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi said if the high court does not dispose of the pending case regarding allocation of symbol within four weeks then the EC may proceed as per the March 9, 2018 order.

The top court also vacated its earlier order of abeyance on the high court's order, which was issued after the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E K Palaniswami-led AIADMK faction had moved the apex court.

The high court's order was passed on an application by Dhinakaran in his main petition challenging an EC order of November 23, 2017, which had allotted the 'two leaves' symbol to the group headed by Palaniswami and his deputy O Panneerselvam who opposed the grant of any relief in the matter.

The interim plea had sought the allocation of a name and symbol till the pendency of the main petition, claiming that otherwise the poll panel might declare it as a separate party.

Dhinakaran had asked for the 'pressure cooker' symbol as under it he had in December last year won the Radha Krishnan Nagar Assembly by-election with a margin of over 40,000 votes.

The Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group had opposed Dhinakaran's plea on several grounds, including that his faction has to register itself as a separate party to get a name and symbol and that the appropriate forum for the matter was the Madras High Court.

Rejecting their contentions, the court had said Dhinakaran's faction cannot be compelled to register as a new political party and then apply to the EC for a symbol as then his plea laying claim to the 'two-leaves' symbol would become a fait accompli.

Another reason given by the court to reject the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group's contention was that there had been "no final determination of the question as to which is the splinter group and which group truly/actually represents the AIADMK party".

On the issue of jurisdiction, it had said merely because most of the respondents, who belong to the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group, are situated in Tamil Nadu, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to hear the matter.

It had also noted that the group led by Palaniswami have been entitled to the exclusive use of the AIADMK party name and 'two leaves' symbol and "would not be prejudiced by an order allotting a separate non-identical common symbol to the splinter group".

The EC in March, 2017 had given the 'hat' symbol to the Dhinakaran group after it froze the use of the 'two-leaves' symbol to which the group led by Palaniswami and Panneerselvam had also laid claim.

The Palaniswami-Panneerselvam faction had at the same time been granted the 'electric pole' symbol.

However, on November 23, 2017, the poll panel had ruled in favour of the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam faction by allotting the 'two-leaves' symbol to them.

The symbol issue has been lingering since April last in the aftermath of the announcement of the by-election to Radha Krishnan Nagar Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu following the death of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa in December 2016.

Earlier, rival factions led by Sasikala and Panneerselvam had staked claim over the symbol. Palaniswami was then in the Sasikala camp. Later, a large number of legislators led by Palaniswami revolted against Sasikala.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the 'pressure cooker' symbol can be allotted to TTV Dinakaran-led Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) for the upcoming Thiruvar bypolls if Delhi high court doesn't decide on the 'two leaves' symbol case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the 'pressure cooker' symbol can be allotted to TTV Dinakaran-led Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) for the upcoming Thiruvar bypolls if Delhi high court doesn't decide on the 'two leaves' symbol case. The Delhi High Court had on March 9 last year directed the Election Commission (EC) to allot a common symbol, preferably that of a 'pressure cooker', and a name to the then AIADMK (Amma) faction led by Dhinakaran. A bench of justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi said if the high court does not dispose of the pending case regarding allocation of symbol within four weeks then the EC may proceed as per the March 9, 2018 order. The top court also vacated its earlier order of abeyance on the high court's order, which was issued after the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E K Palaniswami-led AIADMK faction had moved the apex court. The high court's order was passed on an application by Dhinakaran in his main petition challenging an EC order of November 23, 2017, which had allotted the 'two leaves' symbol to the group headed by Palaniswami and his deputy O Panneerselvam who opposed the grant of any relief in the matter. The interim plea had sought the allocation of a name and symbol till the pendency of the main petition, claiming that otherwise the poll panel might declare it as a separate party. Dhinakaran had asked for the 'pressure cooker' symbol as under it he had in December last year won the Radha Krishnan Nagar Assembly by-election with a margin of over 40,000 votes. The Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group had opposed Dhinakaran's plea on several grounds, including that his faction has to register itself as a separate party to get a name and symbol and that the appropriate forum for the matter was the Madras High Court. Rejecting their contentions, the court had said Dhinakaran's faction cannot be compelled to register as a new political party and then apply to the EC for a symbol as then his plea laying claim to the 'two-leaves' symbol would become a fait accompli. Another reason given by the court to reject the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group's contention was that there had been "no final determination of the question as to which is the splinter group and which group truly/actually represents the AIADMK party". On the issue of jurisdiction, it had said merely because most of the respondents, who belong to the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam group, are situated in Tamil Nadu, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to hear the matter. It had also noted that the group led by Palaniswami have been entitled to the exclusive use of the AIADMK party name and 'two leaves' symbol and "would not be prejudiced by an order allotting a separate non-identical common symbol to the splinter group". The EC in March, 2017 had given the 'hat' symbol to the Dhinakaran group after it froze the use of the 'two-leaves' symbol to which the group led by Palaniswami and Panneerselvam had also laid claim. The Palaniswami-Panneerselvam faction had at the same time been granted the 'electric pole' symbol. However, on November 23, 2017, the poll panel had ruled in favour of the Palaniswami-Panneerselvam faction by allotting the 'two-leaves' symbol to them. The symbol issue has been lingering since April last in the aftermath of the announcement of the by-election to Radha Krishnan Nagar Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu following the death of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa in December 2016. Earlier, rival factions led by Sasikala and Panneerselvam had staked claim over the symbol. Palaniswami was then in the Sasikala camp. Later, a large number of legislators led by Palaniswami revolted against Sasikala.

Dhinakaran can have 'pressure cooker' symbol pending Delhi high court decision: Supreme Court

A five-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, began hearing Wednesday review petitions filed against its September 28 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-row-support-supreme-court-verdict-will-lift-ban-on-entry-of-women-says-temple-board-195559">verdict last year that had allowed menstruating women to enter Sabarimala temple</a> in the state of Kerala.&nbsp;

There were 56 review petitions, four new writ petitions, and two special leave petitions listed before the court.&nbsp;

The petitioners argued that their appeal was not against the Supreme Court's Sabarimala judgement but that the case involved fundamental rights guaranteed to every Indian citizen under article 25 of the Indian constitution (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion).&nbsp;

The petitioners told the court that there was an apparent error in its Sabarimala judgment — that Article 15(2) prohibited discrimination in access to public institutions of a secular category and not of a religious category.&nbsp;

Lawyer K Parasaran submitted to the constitution bench that: “The judgement highlights the meaning given to untouchability under article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability: It is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law). This will result in applying to only Hindu religious practices and institutions.”

Justice Rohinton Nariman interrupted him, saying he had referred to article 15(2) in his judgement. “Please don’t be under the notion that it was struck down only on the basis of untouchability,” he told the senior lawyer.&nbsp;

However, the counsel for the head priest of Sabarimala temple told the court that devotees had a fundamental right to worship inside temples in a manner which is in sync with the character of the deity. “Exclusion of women of menstrual age was not based on immorality, but on the essential religious practice that Sabarimala deity is a permanent celibate,” he said.&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the former chairman of the Travancore Dewaswom Board, added that In Hinduism gods are worshipped in various forms and manifestations. “In Sabarimala, the deity is worshipped in this particular manner. Exclusion of menstruating women is not based on caste but the nature of the deity. Only Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent judgment took into consideration the Bhramachari character of the deity being worshipped. The Court assumed that unless there is universality, a practise will not become an essential religious practise. In a diverse religion like Hinduism, one cannot look for universality. This test applied in the judgment is not correct,” he said.&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Shekhar Naphre emphasised that the community did not accept the court's judgement. “The community can decide whether centuries-old belief should be changed or not. Few activists cannot decide that aspect,” he said.&nbsp;

The Kerala government meanwhile told the court that the judgment does not require a review. “Non-consideration of arguments is not a ground for review at all. There is no error apparent in the judgement. The petitioners are confused between essential practice of Sabarimala temple and essential practice of Hindu religion. The exclusion of women is not essential to the Hindu religion as women are allowed in other Ayyappa temples,” the counsel for the state of Kerala said.&nbsp;

He added that the state's social peace has been destroyed. “It is bandied about that courts cannot touch religion. Religious practices can be overruled when they overawe fundamental rights. Custom is subject to fundamental rights. Touchstone of our Constitution is that you will not discriminate or exclude.”&nbsp;

However, the hearing took an interesting turn when the Travancore Dewasom Board, which manages the temple's affairs, told the court that it respects the judgement of the Supreme Court and that it does not seek to file a review petition. It was then that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone dissenting judge in the Sabarimala verdict, quizzed the board since it had earlier opposed the entry of women into the shrine.&nbsp;

A five-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, began hearing Wednesday review petitions filed against its September 28 verdict last year that had allowed menstruating women to enter Sabarimala temple in the state of Kerala.

A five-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, began hearing Wednesday review petitions filed against its September 28 verdict last year that had allowed menstruating women to enter Sabarimala temple in the state of Kerala. There were 56 review petitions, four new writ petitions, and two special leave petitions listed before the court. The petitioners argued that their appeal was not against the Supreme Court's Sabarimala judgement but that the case involved fundamental rights guaranteed to every Indian citizen under article 25 of the Indian constitution (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion). The petitioners told the court that there was an apparent error in its Sabarimala judgment — that Article 15(2) prohibited discrimination in access to public institutions of a secular category and not of a religious category. Lawyer K Parasaran submitted to the constitution bench that: “The judgement highlights the meaning given to untouchability under article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability: It is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law). This will result in applying to only Hindu religious practices and institutions.” Justice Rohinton Nariman interrupted him, saying he had referred to article 15(2) in his judgement. “Please don’t be under the notion that it was struck down only on the basis of untouchability,” he told the senior lawyer. However, the counsel for the head priest of Sabarimala temple told the court that devotees had a fundamental right to worship inside temples in a manner which is in sync with the character of the deity. “Exclusion of women of menstrual age was not based on immorality, but on the essential religious practice that Sabarimala deity is a permanent celibate,” he said. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the former chairman of the Travancore Dewaswom Board, added that In Hinduism gods are worshipped in various forms and manifestations. “In Sabarimala, the deity is worshipped in this particular manner. Exclusion of menstruating women is not based on caste but the nature of the deity. Only Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent judgment took into consideration the Bhramachari character of the deity being worshipped. The Court assumed that unless there is universality, a practise will not become an essential religious practise. In a diverse religion like Hinduism, one cannot look for universality. This test applied in the judgment is not correct,” he said. Senior lawyer Shekhar Naphre emphasised that the community did not accept the court's judgement. “The community can decide whether centuries-old belief should be changed or not. Few activists cannot decide that aspect,” he said. The Kerala government meanwhile told the court that the judgment does not require a review. “Non-consideration of arguments is not a ground for review at all. There is no error apparent in the judgement. The petitioners are confused between essential practice of Sabarimala temple and essential practice of Hindu religion. The exclusion of women is not essential to the Hindu religion as women are allowed in other Ayyappa temples,” the counsel for the state of Kerala said. He added that the state's social peace has been destroyed. “It is bandied about that courts cannot touch religion. Religious practices can be overruled when they overawe fundamental rights. Custom is subject to fundamental rights. Touchstone of our Constitution is that you will not discriminate or exclude.” However, the hearing took an interesting turn when the Travancore Dewasom Board, which manages the temple's affairs, told the court that it respects the judgement of the Supreme Court and that it does not seek to file a review petition. It was then that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone dissenting judge in the Sabarimala verdict, quizzed the board since it had earlier opposed the entry of women into the shrine.

Sabarimala review petitions: Petitioners say appeal not against judgement but case involves fundamental rights

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-top-court-tells-army-to-stay-out-of-politics-media-195566">Pakistan Supreme Court tells </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-top-court-tells-army-to-stay-out-of-politics-media-195566">army</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-top-court-tells-army-to-stay-out-of-politics-media-195566"> to stay out of politics, media</a>

Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/robert-vadra-reaches-ed-office-195573">Money-laundering case: Robert Vadra at ED office, is being questioned by </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/robert-vadra-reaches-ed-office-195573">team</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/robert-vadra-reaches-ed-office-195573"> of 7</a>

Robert Vadra arrived at the Delhi offices of the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday to be questioned in connection with a money-laundering case. the case relates to the alleged possession of illegal foreign assets.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/eu-wont-re-open-brexit-deal-hope-may-will-have-new-proposals-donald-tusk-195619">Will not reopen Brexit deal, hope May has new proposals: European Union</a>

European Council President Donald Tusk said on Wednesday he hoped British Prime Minister Theresa May would come to Brussels on Thursday with "realistic suggestions" on how to break the Brexit impasse as the EU would not re-open the Brexit deal.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/with-eight-batsmen-we-should-be-able-to-chase-big-totals-rohit-sharma-195597">India captain Rohit Sharma blames batsmen for 1st T20I loss to New Zealand</a>

India skipper Rohit Sharma Wednesday said that a line-up with eight specialist batsmen should have chased down the 220-run target set by New Zealand, however steep it might have looked for a T20 match.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-row-support-supreme-court-verdict-will-lift-ban-on-entry-of-women-says-temple-board-195559">Sabarimala Board tells Supreme Court: Support your verdict, will allow entry of women into temple</a>

In a massive U-turn, the Travancore Dewasom Board, which runs Kerala's Sabarimala temple, told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it now supports the court's September 28, 2018 verdict allowing all women into the shrine.

Pakistan Supreme Court tells army to stay out of politics, media Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence.

Pakistan Supreme Court tells army to stay out of politics, media Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence. Money-laundering case: Robert Vadra at ED office, is being questioned by team of 7 Robert Vadra arrived at the Delhi offices of the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday to be questioned in connection with a money-laundering case. the case relates to the alleged possession of illegal foreign assets. Will not reopen Brexit deal, hope May has new proposals: European Union European Council President Donald Tusk said on Wednesday he hoped British Prime Minister Theresa May would come to Brussels on Thursday with "realistic suggestions" on how to break the Brexit impasse as the EU would not re-open the Brexit deal. India captain Rohit Sharma blames batsmen for 1st T20I loss to New Zealand India skipper Rohit Sharma Wednesday said that a line-up with eight specialist batsmen should have chased down the 220-run target set by New Zealand, however steep it might have looked for a T20 match. Sabarimala Board tells Supreme Court: Support your verdict, will allow entry of women into temple In a massive U-turn, the Travancore Dewasom Board, which runs Kerala's Sabarimala temple, told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it now supports the court's September 28, 2018 verdict allowing all women into the shrine.

News brief: Big stories of the day

In a massive U-turn, the Travancore Dewasom Board, which runs Kerala's Sabarimala temple, told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it now supports <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/kanaka-durga-one-of-the-women-who-entered-sabarimala-temple-allegedly-thrashed-by-mother-in-law-190500">the court's September 28, 2018&nbsp;verdict allowing all women into the shrine</a>.

The board, which also has state government nominees on it, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it is high time a particular class not be discriminated on the ground of "biological attributes".&nbsp;

"Article 25 (1) equally entitles all persons to practice religion," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the board, told the court.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court was on Wednesday hearing review&nbsp;petitions against its September 28 verdict.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Travancore Dewasom Board had earlier vehemently opposed the Supreme Court's verdict, saying that the celibate character of Sabarimala's presiding deity Lord Aiyappa, was a unique religious feature protected under the constitution.&nbsp;

Religious mythology says Aiyappa will only look at a woman when he is ready to marry her — which is why women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
TDB President A Padmakumar: Court had asked for Devaswom Board's opinion based on the verdict. Based on the verdict (September 28) we have decided not to file review petition. Devaswom Board accepts the SC verdict, we are of the opinion that there shouldn't be any discrimination. <a href="https://t.co/38gzm6tB0O">pic.twitter.com/38gzm6tB0O</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1093106790642806784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 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>

The Supreme Court's verdict had led to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/supreme-court-verdicts-on-sabarimala-and-rafale-are-blessings-for-bjp-189362">massive political mobilisation in the state by both the BJP and the Congress</a>, with Aiyappa devotees preventing the entry of women. Kerala's Left Front government led by Chief Minister Pinari Vijayan had said the Supreme Court verdict had to be enforced.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, Dwivedi told the court that "women cannot be excluded from any walk of life on biological attributes... Equality is the dominant theme of the Constitution".

Dwivedi added that people should gracefully accept the Supreme Court verdict.

"The board respects the judgement of the court. Article 25 (1) of the Constitution equally entitles all citizens to practice religion," said senior lawyer Rakesh Dvivedi appearing for the Board.

On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the shrine, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.&nbsp;

The court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the review petitions.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

In a massive U-turn, the Travancore Dewasom Board, which runs Kerala's Sabarimala temple, told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it now supports the court's September 28, 2018 verdict allowing all women into the shrine.

In a massive U-turn, the Travancore Dewasom Board, which runs Kerala's Sabarimala temple, told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it now supports the court's September 28, 2018 verdict allowing all women into the shrine. The board, which also has state government nominees on it, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it is high time a particular class not be discriminated on the ground of "biological attributes". "Article 25 (1) equally entitles all persons to practice religion," senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the board, told the court. The Supreme Court was on Wednesday hearing review petitions against its September 28 verdict. The Travancore Dewasom Board had earlier vehemently opposed the Supreme Court's verdict, saying that the celibate character of Sabarimala's presiding deity Lord Aiyappa, was a unique religious feature protected under the constitution. Religious mythology says Aiyappa will only look at a woman when he is ready to marry her — which is why women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple. TDB President A Padmakumar: Court had asked for Devaswom Board's opinion based on the verdict. Based on the verdict (September 28) we have decided not to file review petition. Devaswom Board accepts the SC verdict, we are of the opinion that there shouldn't be any discrimination. pic.twitter.com/38gzm6tB0O — ANI (@ANI) February 6, 2019 × The Supreme Court's verdict had led to massive political mobilisation in the state by both the BJP and the Congress, with Aiyappa devotees preventing the entry of women. Kerala's Left Front government led by Chief Minister Pinari Vijayan had said the Supreme Court verdict had to be enforced. On Wednesday, Dwivedi told the court that "women cannot be excluded from any walk of life on biological attributes... Equality is the dominant theme of the Constitution". Dwivedi added that people should gracefully accept the Supreme Court verdict. "The board respects the judgement of the court. Article 25 (1) of the Constitution equally entitles all citizens to practice religion," said senior lawyer Rakesh Dvivedi appearing for the Board. On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the shrine, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination. The court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the review petitions. (With inputs from PTI)

Sabarimala Board tells Supreme Court: Support your verdict, will allow entry of women into temple

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday.

In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.78 judges per million population.

He said the ratio was 17.48 judges per million population in 2014.

The sanctioned strength of judges of high courts has increased from 906 judges in June 2014 to 1079 judges in December, 2018 and the sanctioned strength of Judges of district/subordinate courts has increased from 20,214 in 2014 to 22,833 in 2018.&nbsp;

However, the working strength of judges in high courts is 673 while for the Supreme Court it is 28 against the sanctioned strength of 31.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday. In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday. In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.78 judges per million population. He said the ratio was 17.48 judges per million population in 2014. The sanctioned strength of judges of high courts has increased from 906 judges in June 2014 to 1079 judges in December, 2018 and the sanctioned strength of Judges of district/subordinate courts has increased from 20,214 in 2014 to 22,833 in 2018. However, the working strength of judges in high courts is 673 while for the Supreme Court it is 28 against the sanctioned strength of 31.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in India: Government

The Kerala government Wednesday vehemently opposed in the Supreme Court a batch of petitions seeking review of the verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine, even as several organisations argued that the judgement is reconsidered.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was told by the counsel for the Kerala government that no ground was made out in any of the petitions seeking review of its September 28, 2018 verdict.

Several organisations including the Nair Service Society (NSS) and the Thantri of the shrine, have advanced arguments before the bench and sought reconsideration of the verdict.

The former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the NSS, assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution throws open for all public the secular institutions of the country but it doesn't deal with religious institutions.

The article "throws open all public institutions of secular character for all classes of citizens but the article conspicuously omits religious institutions", he told the bench.

Seeking reconsideration of the verdict, he said the article which deals with the abolition of untouchability in society was wrongly used by the apex court in its judgment as the exclusion of certain age groups of women was not based on caste.

The advocate also referred to the celibate character of the deity at Sabarimala and said the court should have considered this aspect.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the Kerala government told the bench also comprising justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra that there was a consensus among the four judges who delivered the majority judgment on three aspects, i.E., Article 26, 25 (2) and rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Act.

Gupta said in none of the review petitions questions have been raised regarding these three points and therefore other aspects "raised in the review petition will make no difference".

The arguments by those who have filed the review petition that certain submissions were not considered in the judgment or were not advanced is not a ground for re-examining the verdict, the advocate.

He said many of those who have sought a re-look of the judgment has not come out with valid legal points but have merely analysed the verdict by the way of a review petition and the court should not entertain them.

Another senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, also appearing for the Kerala government said a case cannot be allowed to be reopened by way of the review petition.

The state government said there is a distinction between the essential practice of a temple and the essential practice of the religion. If this essential practice test is applied temple wise then the purpose would be defeated, it said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board's ex-chairperson, favoured submissions seeking review of the judgment.

"There is no exclusion of women. There is no exclusion of men. There is no exclusion of a class of men or women based on religion and caste. There is an exclusion inside a class (women). Hence Article 17 (removal of untouchability) under the Constitution will not apply," Singhvi said.

Dealing with the aspect of constitutional morality, the senior lawyer said that in a pluralistic diverse Hindu society this concept cannot be applied objectively by the court and it has to be subjective keeping in mind different kind of essential religious practices of Hindu religion.

Senior lawyer Shekhar Naphade, also appearing for a party in the case, said in a matter of faith, the court cannot direct a community to practice the religion in a particular manner.

"This is an internal affair of a religious community which worships a particular deity in a particular manner. This has never been in dispute that this practice is being followed for centuries.

"The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against a community to practice its religion in a particular manner," Naphade said adding that this practice was an essential religious practice which cannot be scrutinised by the court.

He said that any religious practice cannot be stopped unless it constituted a criminal offence.

The Kerala government Wednesday vehemently opposed in the Supreme Court a batch of petitions seeking review of the verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine, even as several organisations argued that the judgement is reconsidered.

The Kerala government Wednesday vehemently opposed in the Supreme Court a batch of petitions seeking review of the verdict allowing the entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine, even as several organisations argued that the judgement is reconsidered. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi was told by the counsel for the Kerala government that no ground was made out in any of the petitions seeking review of its September 28, 2018 verdict. Several organisations including the Nair Service Society (NSS) and the Thantri of the shrine, have advanced arguments before the bench and sought reconsideration of the verdict. The former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the NSS, assailed the majority verdict, saying Article 15 of the Constitution throws open for all public the secular institutions of the country but it doesn't deal with religious institutions. The article "throws open all public institutions of secular character for all classes of citizens but the article conspicuously omits religious institutions", he told the bench. Seeking reconsideration of the verdict, he said the article which deals with the abolition of untouchability in society was wrongly used by the apex court in its judgment as the exclusion of certain age groups of women was not based on caste. The advocate also referred to the celibate character of the deity at Sabarimala and said the court should have considered this aspect. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the Kerala government told the bench also comprising justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra that there was a consensus among the four judges who delivered the majority judgment on three aspects, i.E., Article 26, 25 (2) and rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Act. Gupta said in none of the review petitions questions have been raised regarding these three points and therefore other aspects "raised in the review petition will make no difference". The arguments by those who have filed the review petition that certain submissions were not considered in the judgment or were not advanced is not a ground for re-examining the verdict, the advocate. He said many of those who have sought a re-look of the judgment has not come out with valid legal points but have merely analysed the verdict by the way of a review petition and the court should not entertain them. Another senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, also appearing for the Kerala government said a case cannot be allowed to be reopened by way of the review petition. The state government said there is a distinction between the essential practice of a temple and the essential practice of the religion. If this essential practice test is applied temple wise then the purpose would be defeated, it said. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Travancore Devaswom Board's ex-chairperson, favoured submissions seeking review of the judgment. "There is no exclusion of women. There is no exclusion of men. There is no exclusion of a class of men or women based on religion and caste. There is an exclusion inside a class (women). Hence Article 17 (removal of untouchability) under the Constitution will not apply," Singhvi said. Dealing with the aspect of constitutional morality, the senior lawyer said that in a pluralistic diverse Hindu society this concept cannot be applied objectively by the court and it has to be subjective keeping in mind different kind of essential religious practices of Hindu religion. Senior lawyer Shekhar Naphade, also appearing for a party in the case, said in a matter of faith, the court cannot direct a community to practice the religion in a particular manner. "This is an internal affair of a religious community which worships a particular deity in a particular manner. This has never been in dispute that this practice is being followed for centuries. "The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against a community to practice its religion in a particular manner," Naphade said adding that this practice was an essential religious practice which cannot be scrutinised by the court. He said that any religious practice cannot be stopped unless it constituted a criminal offence.

Kerala government opposes pleas seeking review of Supreme Court's Sabarimala verdict 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

Bhushan was given three weeks to reply.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion.

Criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice, the bench added.

"This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued," it said, listing the matter for further hearing on March 7.

Bhushan, in his tweets, alleged that the Centre, represented by Venugopal, misled the apex court on the issue of Rao's appointment.

On Tuesday, the Centre moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making a false statement in a pending case. This was days after Venugopal's contempt petition against Bhushan.

Venugopal, in his contempt plea, referred to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A K Sikri and leader of the largest opposition party Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Centre's plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal's petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea.

Venugopal's petition referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the apex court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee.

Through his tweets, Venugopal said, Bhushan appeared to have deliberately intended to cast aspersions on the "integrity and honesty" of the attorney general who had placed the minutes of the meeting before the apex court during the February 1 hearing.

On February 1, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre's decision to appoint Rao, an IPS officer, as interim CBI director.

Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan's tweets "scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court".

He said during the hearing on February 1, he had handed over to the bench the minutes of the meeting of the high-powered committee held on January 9 and January 10.

According to the petition, signatures of all the three members of the committee — were affixed in the decision taken by the panel.

Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, "I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting."

The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the high-powered committee.

"If the minutes of the meeting were to be fabricated, the members of the high powered committee who constituted the majority would have to be parties to such fabrication as their signatures are contained on the very same page on which the decision is recorded in the minutes," the plea had said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General K K Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director. Bhushan was given three weeks to reply. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion. Criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice, the bench added. "This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued," it said, listing the matter for further hearing on March 7. Bhushan, in his tweets, alleged that the Centre, represented by Venugopal, misled the apex court on the issue of Rao's appointment. On Tuesday, the Centre moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making a false statement in a pending case. This was days after Venugopal's contempt petition against Bhushan. Venugopal, in his contempt plea, referred to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A K Sikri and leader of the largest opposition party Mallikarjun Kharge. The Centre's plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal's petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea. Venugopal's petition referred to Bhushan's February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the apex court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee. Through his tweets, Venugopal said, Bhushan appeared to have deliberately intended to cast aspersions on the "integrity and honesty" of the attorney general who had placed the minutes of the meeting before the apex court during the February 1 hearing. On February 1, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre's decision to appoint Rao, an IPS officer, as interim CBI director. Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan's tweets "scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court". He said during the hearing on February 1, he had handed over to the bench the minutes of the meeting of the high-powered committee held on January 9 and January 10. According to the petition, signatures of all the three members of the committee — were affixed in the decision taken by the panel. Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, "I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting." The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the high-powered committee. "If the minutes of the meeting were to be fabricated, the members of the high powered committee who constituted the majority would have to be parties to such fabrication as their signatures are contained on the very same page on which the decision is recorded in the minutes," the plea had said.

Supreme Court issues notice to lawyer Prashant Bhushan for tweet on appointment of CBI chief

CBI told the Supreme Court Tuesday that its probe into the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/know-all-about-saradha-rose-valley-scams-and-kolkata-police-chief-rajeev-kumars-connection-195288">Saradha scam</a> led to the arrest of "people found close to or connected" to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal.

The submission was made by Attorney General K K Venugopal before a bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna, which was hearing the CBI plea seeking direction against the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-turns-street-fighter-for-cop-she-once-refused-to-trust-195343">Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar</a> who has avoided to join the investigation.

Venugopal narrated the legal proceedings since 2014 and said all cases relating to the Chit Fund scam in West Bengal were transferred to the CBI.

"Before that, the state had itself has appointed a SIT. Between April 2014 and when the judgement was pronounced in 2017, we have collected material and proceeded to make arrests. Some of them were People found close to or connected to the TMC, the ruling party," he told the bench.

He said CBI issued summons to Kumar, who was the functional head of the SIT as the material handed to the agency was not complete.

"So we sent summons and then three notices. When he failed to respond, we wrote to the DGP who is the head of the SIT", the top law officer submitted.

Making a submission on the alleged destruction of evidence and other apprehensions, the attorney general said: "We had serious doubts as to the documentation handed over to us."

He referred to the case of Sudipto Sen, who owned the entire chit fund, saying he was arrested in a place in Jammu and Kashmir.

A laptop and four-five mobile phones that contained data were recovered from him but without retaining any part of the data or sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory to identify and transplant it, the phone was handed back to him, Venugopal said.

"This was a very serious thing. The call data records were shared with us but were not complete. We found discrepancies in the number of calls, which were drastically less.

The details of from whom to whom the calls were made were also deleted. There were four other incidents. We could only take over the FIRs already registered like, in Rose Valley, where the highest revenue was raised and the most cheating had taken place to the tune of 15,000 crores," the attorney general said.

The Saradha and Rose Valley scams had hogged the limelight in West Bengal and other eastern states in 2013.

Since the scam involved investigation into other states, the apex court had transferred the probe to the CBI.&nbsp;

CBI told the Supreme Court Tuesday that its probe into the Saradha scam led to the arrest of "people found close to or connected" to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal.

CBI told the Supreme Court Tuesday that its probe into the Saradha scam led to the arrest of "people found close to or connected" to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal. The submission was made by Attorney General K K Venugopal before a bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna, which was hearing the CBI plea seeking direction against the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar who has avoided to join the investigation. Venugopal narrated the legal proceedings since 2014 and said all cases relating to the Chit Fund scam in West Bengal were transferred to the CBI. "Before that, the state had itself has appointed a SIT. Between April 2014 and when the judgement was pronounced in 2017, we have collected material and proceeded to make arrests. Some of them were People found close to or connected to the TMC, the ruling party," he told the bench. He said CBI issued summons to Kumar, who was the functional head of the SIT as the material handed to the agency was not complete. "So we sent summons and then three notices. When he failed to respond, we wrote to the DGP who is the head of the SIT", the top law officer submitted. Making a submission on the alleged destruction of evidence and other apprehensions, the attorney general said: "We had serious doubts as to the documentation handed over to us." He referred to the case of Sudipto Sen, who owned the entire chit fund, saying he was arrested in a place in Jammu and Kashmir. A laptop and four-five mobile phones that contained data were recovered from him but without retaining any part of the data or sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory to identify and transplant it, the phone was handed back to him, Venugopal said. "This was a very serious thing. The call data records were shared with us but were not complete. We found discrepancies in the number of calls, which were drastically less. The details of from whom to whom the calls were made were also deleted. There were four other incidents. We could only take over the FIRs already registered like, in Rose Valley, where the highest revenue was raised and the most cheating had taken place to the tune of 15,000 crores," the attorney general said. The Saradha and Rose Valley scams had hogged the limelight in West Bengal and other eastern states in 2013. Since the scam involved investigation into other states, the apex court had transferred the probe to the CBI.

CBI probe into Saradha scam led to people close to TMC, Attorney General tells Supreme Court 

Mamata Banerjee ends 3-day long sit-in protest

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Centre Tuesday over Assam's <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/disenfranchisement-may-be-first-possible-step-after-final-nrc-officials-182670">National Register of Citizens</a> (NRC), saying it is hell bent on not allowingwork to continue.

The top court rapped the Ministry of Home Affairs for its plea seeking to stall NRC work for two weeks keeping in mind the role of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) in election duty.

Reiterating that the July 31 deadline for the completion of the NRC exercise will not be extended, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Centre is not cooperating in the NRC process and it seems the entire effort of the MHA is to destroy the process.

The apex court asked the Election Commission to consider exempting certain state officers from election duty to ensure that the&nbsp;NRC process continues.

The top court had said on January 24 that the July 31, 2019 deadline to finalise the NRC for Assam cannot be extended. It had asked the state government, the NRC co-ordinator and the EC to ensure that the upcoming general elections did not slow down the process.

The draft National Register of Citizens for Assam was published on July 30, 2018 in which the names of 2.89 crore of the 3.29 crore people were included. The names of 40,70,707 people did not figure in the list. Of these, 37,59,630 names have been rejected and the remaining 2,48,077 are on hold.

Earlier, the apex court had extended till December 31, 2018 the deadline for filing claims and objections for inclusion of names in the NRC in Assam by those who have been left out in the draft NRC.

It had also made clear that the deadline for verifying the claims for inclusion in the NRC would be February 15, 2019 instead of February 1.

The apex court had allowed the use of five more documents by claimants for the draft Assam NRC, saying the premise "better to exclude genuine person than to include a wrongful person" can't be accepted.

The claimants for draft Assam NRC can now stake claim with the help of total 15 documents provided in List-A of the claim form.

The five new documents allowed by the bench to prove the legacy for the claimants include extract of names in NRC, 1951; extract/certified copy of Electoral Rolls up to the midnight of March 24, 1971 and Citizenship Certificate and refugee certificate issued by competent authority (up to March 24, 1971 midnight).

The other two legacy documents include Certified copies of pre-1971 Electoral Roll, particularly, those issued from Tripura and the ration card.

The court had also accepted the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) prepared by the Centre and had fixed the timeline for various stages in publication of draft final NRC.

The apex court had on September 5 had allowed use any one of the 10 of a total 15 documents provided in List-A of the claim form to be used by the claimants for proving legacy.

The ten legacy documents which were made admissible include land documents like registered sale deed, permanent residential certificate issued from outside the State, passport and LIC insurance policy of the relevant period.

The first draft of the NRC for Assam was published on the intervening night of December 31 and January 1 in accordance with the top court's direction. Names of 1.9 crore people out of the 3.29 crore applicants were incorporated then.

Assam, which had faced influx of people from Bangladesh since the early 20th century, is the only state to have an NRC, first prepared in 1951.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Centre Tuesday over Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying it is hell bent on not allowingwork to continue.

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Centre Tuesday over Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying it is hell bent on not allowingwork to continue. The top court rapped the Ministry of Home Affairs for its plea seeking to stall NRC work for two weeks keeping in mind the role of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) in election duty. Reiterating that the July 31 deadline for the completion of the NRC exercise will not be extended, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Centre is not cooperating in the NRC process and it seems the entire effort of the MHA is to destroy the process. The apex court asked the Election Commission to consider exempting certain state officers from election duty to ensure that the NRC process continues. The top court had said on January 24 that the July 31, 2019 deadline to finalise the NRC for Assam cannot be extended. It had asked the state government, the NRC co-ordinator and the EC to ensure that the upcoming general elections did not slow down the process. The draft National Register of Citizens for Assam was published on July 30, 2018 in which the names of 2.89 crore of the 3.29 crore people were included. The names of 40,70,707 people did not figure in the list. Of these, 37,59,630 names have been rejected and the remaining 2,48,077 are on hold. Earlier, the apex court had extended till December 31, 2018 the deadline for filing claims and objections for inclusion of names in the NRC in Assam by those who have been left out in the draft NRC. It had also made clear that the deadline for verifying the claims for inclusion in the NRC would be February 15, 2019 instead of February 1. The apex court had allowed the use of five more documents by claimants for the draft Assam NRC, saying the premise "better to exclude genuine person than to include a wrongful person" can't be accepted. The claimants for draft Assam NRC can now stake claim with the help of total 15 documents provided in List-A of the claim form. The five new documents allowed by the bench to prove the legacy for the claimants include extract of names in NRC, 1951; extract/certified copy of Electoral Rolls up to the midnight of March 24, 1971 and Citizenship Certificate and refugee certificate issued by competent authority (up to March 24, 1971 midnight). The other two legacy documents include Certified copies of pre-1971 Electoral Roll, particularly, those issued from Tripura and the ration card. The court had also accepted the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) prepared by the Centre and had fixed the timeline for various stages in publication of draft final NRC. The apex court had on September 5 had allowed use any one of the 10 of a total 15 documents provided in List-A of the claim form to be used by the claimants for proving legacy. The ten legacy documents which were made admissible include land documents like registered sale deed, permanent residential certificate issued from outside the State, passport and LIC insurance policy of the relevant period. The first draft of the NRC for Assam was published on the intervening night of December 31 and January 1 in accordance with the top court's direction. Names of 1.9 crore people out of the 3.29 crore applicants were incorporated then. Assam, which had faced influx of people from Bangladesh since the early 20th century, is the only state to have an NRC, first prepared in 1951.

Assam's National Register of Citizens: Supreme Courts slams Centre, says it is hell bent on destroying process

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Tuesday hailed the Supreme Court judgment directing Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to appear before CBI in the Saradha scam as a moral victory for the probe agency. He also stressed that there was no need to politicise the issue.

“This order was given by the Supreme Court to investigate the conspiracy angle and also the money laundering angle. This investigation must be done in a fair manner. Let`s not politicise it. This is a great moral victory for CBI,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad.He also said that Trinamool Congress supremo and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other opposition leaders are silent on the Saradha chit fund scam which was a "huge loot" of the money of small investors.“Today we have to ask larger questions on behalf of the party. Lakhs of small investors were cheated and looted of their money. Is it not our moral obligation for an investigation? Why is Mamata Banerjee silent on this? Why are the other political parties silent on this?” asked Prasad. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge said the BJP-led central government was "settling scores" with the opposition by "misusing" the autonomous bodies.“The government is settling scores with the opposition after interfering in autonomous bodies. We are fighting against those elements. It is not about an individual, an officer or a party. We are fighting against the government`s attempt to discredit autonomous bodies,” said Kharge.The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to appear before the CBI, in investigations related to the Saradha chit fund scam.The bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also ruled that no coercive step should be taken against Kumar.The Supreme Court has also issued a contempt notice to the chief secretary of the West Bengal government, the DGP and the police commissioner on a plea for allegedly detaining the CBI probe team. Rajeev Kumar will now appear before the CBI in Shillong, Meghalaya as a neutral place. The case will now be heard on February 20. On the other hand, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee lauded the Supreme Court verdict as a moral victory. Addressing the media from her dharna site at Kolkata’s Metro Channel, Banerjee said that she and her party TMC have great respect for the judiciary, and today’s verdict will boost the morale of the officers.

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Tuesday hailed the Supreme Court judgment directing Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to appear before CBI in the Saradha scam as a moral victory for the probe agency.

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Tuesday hailed the Supreme Court judgment directing Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to appear before CBI in the Saradha scam as a moral victory for the probe agency. He also stressed that there was no need to politicise the issue. “This order was given by the Supreme Court to investigate the conspiracy angle and also the money laundering angle. This investigation must be done in a fair manner. Let`s not politicise it. This is a great moral victory for CBI,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad.He also said that Trinamool Congress supremo and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other opposition leaders are silent on the Saradha chit fund scam which was a "huge loot" of the money of small investors.“Today we have to ask larger questions on behalf of the party. Lakhs of small investors were cheated and looted of their money. Is it not our moral obligation for an investigation? Why is Mamata Banerjee silent on this? Why are the other political parties silent on this?” asked Prasad. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge said the BJP-led central government was "settling scores" with the opposition by "misusing" the autonomous bodies.“The government is settling scores with the opposition after interfering in autonomous bodies. We are fighting against those elements. It is not about an individual, an officer or a party. We are fighting against the government`s attempt to discredit autonomous bodies,” said Kharge.The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to appear before the CBI, in investigations related to the Saradha chit fund scam.The bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also ruled that no coercive step should be taken against Kumar.The Supreme Court has also issued a contempt notice to the chief secretary of the West Bengal government, the DGP and the police commissioner on a plea for allegedly detaining the CBI probe team. Rajeev Kumar will now appear before the CBI in Shillong, Meghalaya as a neutral place. The case will now be heard on February 20. On the other hand, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee lauded the Supreme Court verdict as a moral victory. Addressing the media from her dharna site at Kolkata’s Metro Channel, Banerjee said that she and her party TMC have great respect for the judiciary, and today’s verdict will boost the morale of the officers.

Supreme Court verdict a moral victory for CBI: Ravi Shankar Prasad

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-to-move-supreme-court-against-detention-of-agency-officials-by-mamata-government-194919">Saradha chit fund scam case</a> by the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, "Extraordinary situation has arrived. The CBI office was under siege. Evidence (electronic) has been destroyed, we've issued four summons to the commissioner. On a daily basis, FIRs are being registered against CBI officers. We are also filing a contempt petition. He should immediately surrender and we have certain things to point out."

The court, however, declined the plea of the Solicitor General to hear the two applications on Monday in the post-lunch session. "We have gone through your application, there's nothing in it," the CJI said posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday.

At the same time, the bench said it is open for the Solicitor General or any other party to lay before the court any material or evidence to show that any West Bengal authority or police official is planning or trying to destroy evidence related to the case.

"If Kolkata Police Commissioner even remotely thinks of destroying evidence, bring the material before this court. We will come down so heavily on him that he will regret," the bench said.

The top court said all material or evidence has to be placed before it by means of affidavit.

An <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/mamata-government-making-mockery-of-democracy-constitutional-propriety-bjp-194895">all-out war</a> broke out between the Centre and the Mamata Banerjee government on Sunday, with the feisty West Bengal leader beginning the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/my-satyagraha-will-continue-till-india-is-saved-says-mamata-continuing-her-sit-in-194947">sit-in protest</a> over CBI's attempt to question the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in connection with chit fund scams.

Some road restrictions have been imposed in the Metro Cinema area in the heart of West Bengal's capital Kolkata where the sit-in is being held.

The Trinamool Congress chief said she would not attend the Assembly, where the state budget would be placed by Finance Minister Amit Mitra, on Monday.

Insisting that it the CBI stifled the spirit of "Constitution and federalism", Banerjee claimed that the investigation agency knocked on the doors of Kumar without a search warrant.

Banerjee, one of the prime movers behind the effort to cobble together an anti-BJP alliance ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah want to impose President's Rule in whatever states the opposition is in power.

Other politicians such as Congress president Rahul Gandhi, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister M Chandrababu Naidu, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav spoke to Banerjee on Sunday night and vowed support to her protest.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the Saradha chit fund scam case by the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Monday turned down central government's plea for hearing on the alleged destruction of electronic evidence related to the Saradha chit fund scam case by the Kolkata Police Commissioner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, told the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, "Extraordinary situation has arrived. The CBI office was under siege. Evidence (electronic) has been destroyed, we've issued four summons to the commissioner. On a daily basis, FIRs are being registered against CBI officers. We are also filing a contempt petition. He should immediately surrender and we have certain things to point out." The court, however, declined the plea of the Solicitor General to hear the two applications on Monday in the post-lunch session. "We have gone through your application, there's nothing in it," the CJI said posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday. At the same time, the bench said it is open for the Solicitor General or any other party to lay before the court any material or evidence to show that any West Bengal authority or police official is planning or trying to destroy evidence related to the case. "If Kolkata Police Commissioner even remotely thinks of destroying evidence, bring the material before this court. We will come down so heavily on him that he will regret," the bench said. The top court said all material or evidence has to be placed before it by means of affidavit. An all-out war broke out between the Centre and the Mamata Banerjee government on Sunday, with the feisty West Bengal leader beginning the sit-in protest over CBI's attempt to question the Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar in connection with chit fund scams. Some road restrictions have been imposed in the Metro Cinema area in the heart of West Bengal's capital Kolkata where the sit-in is being held. The Trinamool Congress chief said she would not attend the Assembly, where the state budget would be placed by Finance Minister Amit Mitra, on Monday. Insisting that it the CBI stifled the spirit of "Constitution and federalism", Banerjee claimed that the investigation agency knocked on the doors of Kumar without a search warrant. Banerjee, one of the prime movers behind the effort to cobble together an anti-BJP alliance ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah want to impose President's Rule in whatever states the opposition is in power. Other politicians such as Congress president Rahul Gandhi, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister M Chandrababu Naidu, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav spoke to Banerjee on Sunday night and vowed support to her protest.

Will come down heavily on Kolkata Police chief if he thinks of destroying evidence, says Supreme Court

The CBI will approach the Supreme Court against the wrongful detention of their officers outside <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-sits-on-dharna-after-cbi-kolkata-police-face-off-194890">Kolkata Commissioner Rajeev Kumar</a>'s residence on Sunday, said the central agency interim chief M Nageswara Rao.

A full-blown face-off between West Bengal's Mamata Banerjee government and the Centre erupted as a CBI team moved to arrest Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar, which in turn were unceremoniously denied entry to Kolkata Police chief`s residence and then detained.

Escalating her confrontation with the Centre, Banerjee also started a sit-in to protest, in what her Trinamool Congress party called a "coup" by the Modi government. She was seen sitting on her `Save the Constitution` dharna at Metro Channel in Kolkata, in Rajeev Kumar was also present.

Rao also alleged that there was proof against that he hampered evidence in the chit fund scam.

"We are contacting our senior law officers about the Kolkata incident. Whatever they suggest will be followed. We are investigating these chit fund cases as per the directions of the Supreme Court. A SIT has been constituted by the West Bengal government prior to Supreme Court's direction under the chairmanship of Rajeev Kumar, who is currently the Kolkata police commissioner," he told ANI.

"They have taken charge of all the evidence, seized all the documents. They have not been cooperating with us in handing over all the documents and a lot of evidence has been destroyed or caused to disappear," Rao added.

All the five CBI officers who were detained by police at Shakespeare Sarani police station in Kolkata have been released.

Rajeev Kumar, a 1989-batch IPS officer of West Bengal cadre was heading a SIT on the Saradha and Rose Valley scams. The CBI wanted the top officer to hand over the seizure list made during his probe, sources said.

Reportedly, the top cop was to be questioned regarding missing documents and files but he is not responding to notices to appear before the agency.

Rajeev Kumar, according to media reports, became apprehensive of his arrest after Bengali film producer Shrikant Mohita was taken into custody.&nbsp;

The CBI will approach the Supreme Court against the wrongful detention of their officers outside Kolkata Commissioner Rajeev Kumar's residence on Sunday, said the central agency interim chief M Nageswara Rao.

The CBI will approach the Supreme Court against the wrongful detention of their officers outside Kolkata Commissioner Rajeev Kumar's residence on Sunday, said the central agency interim chief M Nageswara Rao. A full-blown face-off between West Bengal's Mamata Banerjee government and the Centre erupted as a CBI team moved to arrest Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar, which in turn were unceremoniously denied entry to Kolkata Police chief`s residence and then detained. Escalating her confrontation with the Centre, Banerjee also started a sit-in to protest, in what her Trinamool Congress party called a "coup" by the Modi government. She was seen sitting on her `Save the Constitution` dharna at Metro Channel in Kolkata, in Rajeev Kumar was also present. Rao also alleged that there was proof against that he hampered evidence in the chit fund scam. "We are contacting our senior law officers about the Kolkata incident. Whatever they suggest will be followed. We are investigating these chit fund cases as per the directions of the Supreme Court. A SIT has been constituted by the West Bengal government prior to Supreme Court's direction under the chairmanship of Rajeev Kumar, who is currently the Kolkata police commissioner," he told ANI. "They have taken charge of all the evidence, seized all the documents. They have not been cooperating with us in handing over all the documents and a lot of evidence has been destroyed or caused to disappear," Rao added. All the five CBI officers who were detained by police at Shakespeare Sarani police station in Kolkata have been released. Rajeev Kumar, a 1989-batch IPS officer of West Bengal cadre was heading a SIT on the Saradha and Rose Valley scams. The CBI wanted the top officer to hand over the seizure list made during his probe, sources said. Reportedly, the top cop was to be questioned regarding missing documents and files but he is not responding to notices to appear before the agency. Rajeev Kumar, according to media reports, became apprehensive of his arrest after Bengali film producer Shrikant Mohita was taken into custody.

CBI to move Supreme Court against detention of agency officials by Mamata government

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-cbi-standoff-will-come-down-heavily-on-kolkata-police-if-it-thinks-of-destroying-evidence-says-cji-ranjan-gogoi-to-solicitor-general-tushar-mehta-194966">the CBI plea against the Kolkata Police and the West Bengal government</a> on Tuesday

The bench will be led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, with Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Khanna on it.&nbsp;

The plea by the CBI alleges non-cooperation by the Kolkata Police and the Bengal government in the investigation into the Saradha chit fund scam. The CBI has accused Kolkata Police chief Rajeev Kumar of slow-walking the investigation.&nbsp;

On Sunday evening, a CBI team turned up at Kumar's home — sparking the current political crisis between the Centre and the West Bengal government.&nbsp;

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been sitting on a dharna since Sunday night.&nbsp;

The CBI had asked the Supreme Court to hear the matter on Monday itself, saying Kumar had destroyed evidence in the case.&nbsp;

CJI Gogoi had responded that the court had gone through the CBI's submission, and there was nothing in it to suggest Kumar had actually destroyed evidence.&nbsp;

He added though that the court would come down very heavily on Kumar should the CBI be able to provided evidence that he was actually guilty of destroying evidence.&nbsp;

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the CBI plea against the Kolkata Police and the West Bengal government on Tuesday The bench will be led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, with Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Khanna on it.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the CBI plea against the Kolkata Police and the West Bengal government on Tuesday The bench will be led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, with Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Khanna on it. The plea by the CBI alleges non-cooperation by the Kolkata Police and the Bengal government in the investigation into the Saradha chit fund scam. The CBI has accused Kolkata Police chief Rajeev Kumar of slow-walking the investigation. On Sunday evening, a CBI team turned up at Kumar's home — sparking the current political crisis between the Centre and the West Bengal government. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been sitting on a dharna since Sunday night. The CBI had asked the Supreme Court to hear the matter on Monday itself, saying Kumar had destroyed evidence in the case. CJI Gogoi had responded that the court had gone through the CBI's submission, and there was nothing in it to suggest Kumar had actually destroyed evidence. He added though that the court would come down very heavily on Kumar should the CBI be able to provided evidence that he was actually guilty of destroying evidence.

Three-judge SC bench to hear CBI plea against Kolkata Police, Bengal government Tuesday

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a PIL seeking continuation of the efforts to rescue miners trapped in an illegal coal mine in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills district for the past almost two months.

A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri on Monday said that “it seems to be certain that nobody is alive”.On January 28, the court had asked the Centre and the Meghalaya government to continue their efforts to rescue the miners.

On January 27, Navy divers recovered a second body from the flooded rat-hole coal mine in the state where the miners have been trapped since December 13 last year.

According to the Navy officials, the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/meghalaya-mine-rescue-second-body-detected-by-navy-divers-192930">second body was detected 280 feet inside the mine in East Jaintia Hills</a> by its diving team. The first body was found on January 26.

15 miners were trapped in the illegal mine in Lumthari village when water from the nearby Lytein river flooded the mine. Since then, a multi-agency rescue operation has been underway to evacuate the miners.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a PIL seeking continuation of the efforts to rescue miners trapped in an illegal coal mine in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills district for the past almost two months.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday hear a PIL seeking continuation of the efforts to rescue miners trapped in an illegal coal mine in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills district for the past almost two months. A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri on Monday said that “it seems to be certain that nobody is alive”.On January 28, the court had asked the Centre and the Meghalaya government to continue their efforts to rescue the miners. On January 27, Navy divers recovered a second body from the flooded rat-hole coal mine in the state where the miners have been trapped since December 13 last year. According to the Navy officials, the second body was detected 280 feet inside the mine in East Jaintia Hills by its diving team. The first body was found on January 26. 15 miners were trapped in the illegal mine in Lumthari village when water from the nearby Lytein river flooded the mine. Since then, a multi-agency rescue operation has been underway to evacuate the miners.

Supreme Court to hear PIL on rescue efforts for trapped miners in Meghalaya on Tuesday

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court Monday challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.&nbsp;

The plea contended that Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state.&nbsp;

The plea, filed by seven individuals including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, submitted that state legislature has the exclusive power to make provisions relating to the management of affairs of religious institutions inside its territory.&nbsp;

The petitioners submitted that the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 Act infringes right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

They have sought the court's direction restraining the Centre and the UP government from interfering in "Puja, Darshan and performance of rituals at the places of worship situated within the land admeasuring 67.703 acres acquired under the Act particularly at the land belonging to Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Nyas, Manas Bhavan, Sankat Mochan Mandir, Ram Janmasthan Temple, Janki Mahal and Katha Mandap".

In the petition, it has been contended that in view of the clear provision contained in Article 294 of the Constitution, the land and properties situated within the Uttar Pradesh vested in the state government from the date of the enforcement of the Constitution.&nbsp;

"As such the land and property situated at Ayodhya continued to the property of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Union cannot take over any part of the land of the State of Uttar Pradesh including the land and property situated at Ayodhya," the petition said.

The petition has been filed within a week of the Centre, on January 29, moving an application in the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.

The Centre had said it had acquired 67 acres of land around the 2.77 acres disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

The Centre's plea has said that the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas (a trust to promote construction of Ram Temple) had sought the return of excess land acquired in 1991 to original owners.

The Centre has claimed that only 0.313 acres of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court Monday challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court Monday challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. The plea contended that Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state. The plea, filed by seven individuals including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, submitted that state legislature has the exclusive power to make provisions relating to the management of affairs of religious institutions inside its territory. The petitioners submitted that the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 Act infringes right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. They have sought the court's direction restraining the Centre and the UP government from interfering in "Puja, Darshan and performance of rituals at the places of worship situated within the land admeasuring 67.703 acres acquired under the Act particularly at the land belonging to Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Nyas, Manas Bhavan, Sankat Mochan Mandir, Ram Janmasthan Temple, Janki Mahal and Katha Mandap". In the petition, it has been contended that in view of the clear provision contained in Article 294 of the Constitution, the land and properties situated within the Uttar Pradesh vested in the state government from the date of the enforcement of the Constitution. "As such the land and property situated at Ayodhya continued to the property of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Union cannot take over any part of the land of the State of Uttar Pradesh including the land and property situated at Ayodhya," the petition said. The petition has been filed within a week of the Centre, on January 29, moving an application in the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners. The Centre had said it had acquired 67 acres of land around the 2.77 acres disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site. The Centre's plea has said that the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas (a trust to promote construction of Ram Temple) had sought the return of excess land acquired in 1991 to original owners. The Centre has claimed that only 0.313 acres of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992.

Petition filed in Supreme Court challenging central law on land acquisition near disputed site in Ayodhya

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