A Pune sessions court has ordered the release of Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde.&nbsp;

Teltumbde had been arrested Saturday, reportedly at 3.30 am, by Mumbai Police at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport.&nbsp;

He was later handed over to the Pune Police.&nbsp;

What was surprising about the arrest was that the Supreme Court had ordered that Teltumbde — a professor at the Goa Institute of Management — was not to be arrested till at least February 11.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bhima Koregaon case: Pune Sessions Court orders to release Anand Teltumbde, an accused in the case.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1091654170287923200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 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>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Dr Anand Teltumbde arrested at 330am at Mumbai airport by Pune Police in Gross violation of SC order giving him protection from arrest till 11th February , this is contempt of the order of the Supreme Court of India <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReleaseDrAnandTeltumbde?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ReleaseDrAnandTeltumbde</a> immediately
— indira jaising (@IJaising) <a href="https://twitter.com/IJaising/status/1091530658445492224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 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>

Teltumbde is an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case.&nbsp;

Violence had broken out there in 2017 as the Dalits celebrated the 1818 victory of a British army over the Peshwas. (The British army had a number of Mahars in it.)&nbsp;

Police have said the Elgar Parishad conclave at Bhima Koregaon had been backed by the Maoists, who had encouraged the violence. They have also said that some Maoist leaders are trying to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi.&nbsp;

The only evidence they have produced so far to back up their claims have been letters written to the accused in the case, allegedly by Maoist leaders. The accused however — they include&nbsp;Sudha Bharadwaj, P Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves — say the letters are clear forgeries.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Anand Teltumbde, an accused in Bhima Koregaon case, after Pune Sessions Court ordered his release: I welcome the decision. But what police has done, the arrest and all the drama, is objectionable. <a href="https://t.co/uT0Su4WUe9">pic.twitter.com/uT0Su4WUe9</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1091676172595929088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 2, 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>

"I welcome the decision," Teltumbde said after his release. "But what police has done, the arrest and all the drama, is objectionable," he added.&nbsp;

A Pune sessions court has ordered the release of Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde. Teltumbde had been arrested Saturday, reportedly at 3.30 am, by Mumbai Police at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport.

A Pune sessions court has ordered the release of Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde. Teltumbde had been arrested Saturday, reportedly at 3.30 am, by Mumbai Police at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. He was later handed over to the Pune Police. What was surprising about the arrest was that the Supreme Court had ordered that Teltumbde — a professor at the Goa Institute of Management — was not to be arrested till at least February 11. Bhima Koregaon case: Pune Sessions Court orders to release Anand Teltumbde, an accused in the case. — ANI (@ANI) February 2, 2019 × Dr Anand Teltumbde arrested at 330am at Mumbai airport by Pune Police in Gross violation of SC order giving him protection from arrest till 11th February , this is contempt of the order of the Supreme Court of India #ReleaseDrAnandTeltumbde immediately — indira jaising (@IJaising) February 2, 2019 × Teltumbde is an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case. Violence had broken out there in 2017 as the Dalits celebrated the 1818 victory of a British army over the Peshwas. (The British army had a number of Mahars in it.) Police have said the Elgar Parishad conclave at Bhima Koregaon had been backed by the Maoists, who had encouraged the violence. They have also said that some Maoist leaders are trying to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The only evidence they have produced so far to back up their claims have been letters written to the accused in the case, allegedly by Maoist leaders. The accused however — they include Sudha Bharadwaj, P Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves — say the letters are clear forgeries. Anand Teltumbde, an accused in Bhima Koregaon case, after Pune Sessions Court ordered his release: I welcome the decision. But what police has done, the arrest and all the drama, is objectionable. pic.twitter.com/uT0Su4WUe9 — ANI (@ANI) February 2, 2019 × "I welcome the decision," Teltumbde said after his release. "But what police has done, the arrest and all the drama, is objectionable," he added.

Bhima Koregaon case: Pune court orders release of Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran issued notice to the RBI on an impleadment application by NGO, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), which has filed a petition in the court claiming that WhatsApp has not fully complied with the central bank's circular which prescribed data localisation norms.

The norms relate to storing of payment related data within India, which has 200 million WhatsApp users.

"Issue notice on the application for impleadment of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as respondent," the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on March 5.

On January 14, the top court had permitted advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, to file an application for impleading RBI as a party in the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had also told the court that RBI was needed to be made a party in the case as issue pertains to data localisation.

In its petition, the NGO has sought direction to restrain the instant messaging platform from proceeding with its payment service unless it fully complied with the provisions of the RBI.

The Centre and WhatsApp had earlier told the court that a grievance officer for India has been appointed by the instant messaging service company.

However, the NGO has claimed that grievance officer has been appointed in the United States of America, which is "preposterous and against the sovereignty of India".

In its plea, the NGO has referred to IT (Intermediary) Rules of 2011 and IT (reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 wherein provision is made for appointment of grievance officer.

It has also said in its affidavit that it would be a paradox if data localisation norms are prescribed in India but companies are allowed to keep data officers in USA.

On August 27 last year, the apex court had agreed to examine the plea which alleged that WhatsApp does not comply with the Indian laws including the provision for appointing a grievance officer.

WhatsApp reportedly has over 200 million users in India and almost one million people are "testing" its payments service. India is one of the largest bases for the Facebook-owned company that has over 1.5 billion users globally.

In its plea, the CASC said that to open a bank account, a customer needs to comply with KYC norms laid down by the RBI and various other formalities.&nbsp;

"WhatsApp is a foreign company with no office or servers in India. To run Payments Service in India, WhatsApp is obligated to have its office and payments in India," it said.

"Moreover, it is also required to have a Grievance Officer for users in India. Yet, it is being allowed to continue with its payments and other services, without any check," the plea claimed.

The petition also alleged that the social media giant does not comply with tax and other laws of India, but its reach was such that it is used by everyone, be it a commoner or even the judges of the apex court.

It said every user has a number on WhatsApp but the messaging platform has no number through which its user can contact it for any grievance redressal.

Pointing to alleged cases of Internet-based crimes, it has claimed that the growth of such incidents was directly proportional to the growth of the user base of messaging services like WhatsApp.

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India.

The Supreme Court Friday asked RBI to respond to an application looking to implead it as a party in a matter seeking directive to US-based WhatsApp to comply with data localisation norms for providing payment service in India. A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran issued notice to the RBI on an impleadment application by NGO, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), which has filed a petition in the court claiming that WhatsApp has not fully complied with the central bank's circular which prescribed data localisation norms. The norms relate to storing of payment related data within India, which has 200 million WhatsApp users. "Issue notice on the application for impleadment of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as respondent," the bench said and posted the matter for hearing on March 5. On January 14, the top court had permitted advocate Virag Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, to file an application for impleading RBI as a party in the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had also told the court that RBI was needed to be made a party in the case as issue pertains to data localisation. In its petition, the NGO has sought direction to restrain the instant messaging platform from proceeding with its payment service unless it fully complied with the provisions of the RBI. The Centre and WhatsApp had earlier told the court that a grievance officer for India has been appointed by the instant messaging service company. However, the NGO has claimed that grievance officer has been appointed in the United States of America, which is "preposterous and against the sovereignty of India". In its plea, the NGO has referred to IT (Intermediary) Rules of 2011 and IT (reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 wherein provision is made for appointment of grievance officer. It has also said in its affidavit that it would be a paradox if data localisation norms are prescribed in India but companies are allowed to keep data officers in USA. On August 27 last year, the apex court had agreed to examine the plea which alleged that WhatsApp does not comply with the Indian laws including the provision for appointing a grievance officer. WhatsApp reportedly has over 200 million users in India and almost one million people are "testing" its payments service. India is one of the largest bases for the Facebook-owned company that has over 1.5 billion users globally. In its plea, the CASC said that to open a bank account, a customer needs to comply with KYC norms laid down by the RBI and various other formalities. "WhatsApp is a foreign company with no office or servers in India. To run Payments Service in India, WhatsApp is obligated to have its office and payments in India," it said. "Moreover, it is also required to have a Grievance Officer for users in India. Yet, it is being allowed to continue with its payments and other services, without any check," the plea claimed. The petition also alleged that the social media giant does not comply with tax and other laws of India, but its reach was such that it is used by everyone, be it a commoner or even the judges of the apex court. It said every user has a number on WhatsApp but the messaging platform has no number through which its user can contact it for any grievance redressal. Pointing to alleged cases of Internet-based crimes, it has claimed that the growth of such incidents was directly proportional to the growth of the user base of messaging services like WhatsApp.

Supreme Court seeks RBI response in data localisation matter of WhatsApp payment service

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from the CBI on a plea of its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-dsp-a-k-bassi-challenges-his-transfer-moves-to-supreme-court-191791">Deputy Superintendent of Police A K Bassi challenging his transfer to Port Blair</a>.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued a notice to the agency and sought its response in six weeks.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bassi, said this is the case which raises the question on the governance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 
&nbsp; 
He said this matter will also affect the purity of investigation.&nbsp;

On January 21, Bassi had moved the apex court challenging his transfer, saying it was vitiated by mala fide and would prejudice the probe against former CBI special director Rakesh Asthana.

He has challenged the transfer order issued on January 11. It is violative of the directions issued by the top court in its judgment on the plea of the former CBI director Alok Kumar Verma, Bassi had said. 
&nbsp; 
Bassi, who was the investigating officer in the corruption case against Asthana, had said he is being "victimised by the present interim CBI Director - M Nageswara Rao, who represents certain elements within the CBI, who did not want the Petitioner herein to conduct a free and fair investigation in the Asthana FIR".

He had said it was Rao, who had passed the order dated October 24, 2018, transferring him to Port Blair and it is the same person at whose behest he is being sent to Andaman and Nicobar Islands again in utter disregard to the judgment of this court in the case of former CBI director Alok Verma.

Verma, however, was diverted from his duties as CBI director by the high powered selection committee and transferred as Director General Fire Service.

Bassi had said there are apprehensions that the transfer order is the first step to implicate him either in a false criminal case or in departmental proceedings for discharging his duties in a fair and impartial manner in the investigation of the FIR pertaining to Asthana.&nbsp;

He said this is not a routine case of a transfer of an officer. In his application in the Verma case, he had submitted that his transfer is pursuant to a deep-rooted conspiracy, aimed at influencing the course of the investigation against Asthana and further to penalise him for discharging his duties in a free and impartial manner in the case.&nbsp;

Subsequent to the January 8 verdict in the Verma case, he had made a representation to the then CBI director (Alok Verma) on January 9, which was allowed and then he was transferred back to Delhi and assigned to his duties of DSP, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi, Bassi had said.

"Once the said representation was accepted and the Petitioner herein was transferred back to Delhi, it was not open for the impugned order to summarily, without application of mind and without any stated reason, simpliciter revoke the said transfer order dated January 9, 2019 by a generic order terming the earlier order as "non-est"," the plea had said.&nbsp;

On January 8, the apex court had asked the CBI officers including Bassi, who were transferred overnight to various places after the Centre's decision to divest the probe agency's Director Alok Verma of his powers, to approach appropriate forum assailing their transfers.&nbsp;

Bassi had said he was never a part of any "group or faction" within the CBI and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged disputes that have erupted within the CBI.&nbsp;

He had said he does not claim or content or seek any vested right to be a part of any investigation team that is investigating into the FIR related to Asthana or any other case investigated by CBI.

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from the CBI on a plea of its Deputy Superintendent of Police A K Bassi challenging his transfer to Port Blair. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued a notice to the agency and sought its response in six weeks.

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from the CBI on a plea of its Deputy Superintendent of Police A K Bassi challenging his transfer to Port Blair. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued a notice to the agency and sought its response in six weeks. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bassi, said this is the case which raises the question on the governance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He said this matter will also affect the purity of investigation. On January 21, Bassi had moved the apex court challenging his transfer, saying it was vitiated by mala fide and would prejudice the probe against former CBI special director Rakesh Asthana. He has challenged the transfer order issued on January 11. It is violative of the directions issued by the top court in its judgment on the plea of the former CBI director Alok Kumar Verma, Bassi had said. Bassi, who was the investigating officer in the corruption case against Asthana, had said he is being "victimised by the present interim CBI Director - M Nageswara Rao, who represents certain elements within the CBI, who did not want the Petitioner herein to conduct a free and fair investigation in the Asthana FIR". He had said it was Rao, who had passed the order dated October 24, 2018, transferring him to Port Blair and it is the same person at whose behest he is being sent to Andaman and Nicobar Islands again in utter disregard to the judgment of this court in the case of former CBI director Alok Verma. Verma, however, was diverted from his duties as CBI director by the high powered selection committee and transferred as Director General Fire Service. Bassi had said there are apprehensions that the transfer order is the first step to implicate him either in a false criminal case or in departmental proceedings for discharging his duties in a fair and impartial manner in the investigation of the FIR pertaining to Asthana. He said this is not a routine case of a transfer of an officer. In his application in the Verma case, he had submitted that his transfer is pursuant to a deep-rooted conspiracy, aimed at influencing the course of the investigation against Asthana and further to penalise him for discharging his duties in a free and impartial manner in the case. Subsequent to the January 8 verdict in the Verma case, he had made a representation to the then CBI director (Alok Verma) on January 9, which was allowed and then he was transferred back to Delhi and assigned to his duties of DSP, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi, Bassi had said. "Once the said representation was accepted and the Petitioner herein was transferred back to Delhi, it was not open for the impugned order to summarily, without application of mind and without any stated reason, simpliciter revoke the said transfer order dated January 9, 2019 by a generic order terming the earlier order as "non-est"," the plea had said. On January 8, the apex court had asked the CBI officers including Bassi, who were transferred overnight to various places after the Centre's decision to divest the probe agency's Director Alok Verma of his powers, to approach appropriate forum assailing their transfers. Bassi had said he was never a part of any "group or faction" within the CBI and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged disputes that have erupted within the CBI. He had said he does not claim or content or seek any vested right to be a part of any investigation team that is investigating into the FIR related to Asthana or any other case investigated by CBI.

Supreme Court seeks CBI's response on DSP Bassi's plea challenging transfer

Banned cricketer S Sreesanth, who was earlier arrested in connection with the 2013 spot-fixing scandal, Wednesday claimed in the Supreme Court that he had made the confession about his involvement in the alleged crime as Delhi Police had threatened that his family members would be implicated and tortured.&nbsp;

Taking into account his submissions made through his lawyer, the apex court questioned him why he had not immediately brought it to the notice of the BCCI that he was being approached for alleged spot-fixing during the Indian Premier League (IPL) in 2013.

The apex court observed that the conduct of Sreesanth, facing a life ban, in the entire episode was "not good".

Sreesanth, who was discharged by a trial court in 2015 in a criminal case related to alleged spot-fixing, told a bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph that life ban imposed on him by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was harsh and there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that he indulged in any illegality.

"The police had threatened me that my family members would be tortured and implicated unless I confess," senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Sreesanth, told the court.

The 35-year-old cricketer has challenged in the apex court the decision of a division bench of the Kerala High Court which restored the ban imposed on him.

Khurshid said it was not established that any spot-fixing was done in the match played between IPL teams Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali in May 2013 and there was no evidence that the cricketer received any payment for doing this. "Why didn''t you (Sreesanth) bring it immediately to the notice of the board (BCCI)," the bench asked Khurshid after he referred to recorded telephonic conversations between alleged bookies.

The senior counsel said Sreesanth had failed to inform the board about him being approached for spot-fixing but even if he did not do this, the maximum ban that could be imposed upon him was five years. 
"All this indicates that conduct of S Sreesanth was not good. There is no doubt about this," the bench said.

Khurshid argued that as per allegations, Sreesanth was supposed to concede 14 runs in an over but he gave away 13 runs in that over which he bowled to "two of the best batsmen" -- Adam Gilchrist and Shaun Marsh. "At the worst, it could be said that I (Sreesanth) had the knowledge that somebody was trying to do fixing and I should have brought it to the notice of the authorities. If that is the case, the total ban could be up to five years," he said.

He said the world over, bans have been imposed on cricketers for indulging in such activities and except former South African captain Hansie Cronje, who later died in 2002 in a plane crash, life ban was not imposed on anyone.

Khurshid referred to the case of former Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin, who was accused for his alleged involvement in a match fixing scandal of 2000, and said that life ban was imposed on him but it was reversed later.

On November 8, 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had termed the life ban imposed by the BCCI on Azharuddin as illegal and said it is unsustainable in law.

"My (Sreesanth) desire is to get back my honour," Khurshid told the bench, adding, "Ultimately, I am wasting my professional career. At least, let me play outside India. Every year, I am getting offers to play.

"I have been given life ban for an offence which is not at all established," he said, adding that there was no evidence of payment of Rs 10 lakh to Sreesanth for the alleged fixing.

Khurshid said recorded telephonic conversations did not show that the match was fixed and evidence produced by Delhi Police was not accepted by the trial court. Senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for Committee of Administrators (CoA) of BCCI, raised the issue of veracity of translation of the telephonic conversations referred to by Sreesanth''s counsel and said he needs to file a reply on this.

Tripathi said he would also respond to the additional documents filed by the petitioner. The bench asked Tripathi to file his response and posted the matter for further hearing on February 20.

The apex court said that Sreesanth''s counsel may also file the certified copy of complete transcripts of telephonic conversations that have been brought on record.

Sreesanth had earlier told the top court that he has offers to play English county matches and life ban imposed on him by the BCCI is "too harsh".

The apex court had last year asked the Delhi High Court to decide expeditiously the appeal filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order discharging several accused, including Sreesanth.

Delhi Police had arrested Sreesanth, along with cricketers Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan, and others on charges of spot fixing.

As many as 36 accused in the spot-fixing case, including Sreesanth, Chavan and Chandila, were discharged by a trial court here in July 2015. The BCCI had, however, refused to alter its disciplinary decision of life ban on Sreesanth even after the trial court''s verdict.

A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI and had set aside all proceedings against him initiated by the board.

Later, a division bench of the high court had restored the ban on a petition filed by the BCCI against the single-judge bench''s order.

Banned cricketer S Sreesanth, who was earlier arrested in connection with the 2013 spot-fixing scandal, Wednesday claimed in the Supreme Court that he had made the confession about his involvement in the alleged crime as Delhi Police had threatened that his family members would be implicated and tortured.

Banned cricketer S Sreesanth, who was earlier arrested in connection with the 2013 spot-fixing scandal, Wednesday claimed in the Supreme Court that he had made the confession about his involvement in the alleged crime as Delhi Police had threatened that his family members would be implicated and tortured. Taking into account his submissions made through his lawyer, the apex court questioned him why he had not immediately brought it to the notice of the BCCI that he was being approached for alleged spot-fixing during the Indian Premier League (IPL) in 2013. The apex court observed that the conduct of Sreesanth, facing a life ban, in the entire episode was "not good". Sreesanth, who was discharged by a trial court in 2015 in a criminal case related to alleged spot-fixing, told a bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph that life ban imposed on him by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was harsh and there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that he indulged in any illegality. "The police had threatened me that my family members would be tortured and implicated unless I confess," senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Sreesanth, told the court. The 35-year-old cricketer has challenged in the apex court the decision of a division bench of the Kerala High Court which restored the ban imposed on him. Khurshid said it was not established that any spot-fixing was done in the match played between IPL teams Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab at Mohali in May 2013 and there was no evidence that the cricketer received any payment for doing this. "Why didn''t you (Sreesanth) bring it immediately to the notice of the board (BCCI)," the bench asked Khurshid after he referred to recorded telephonic conversations between alleged bookies. The senior counsel said Sreesanth had failed to inform the board about him being approached for spot-fixing but even if he did not do this, the maximum ban that could be imposed upon him was five years. "All this indicates that conduct of S Sreesanth was not good. There is no doubt about this," the bench said. Khurshid argued that as per allegations, Sreesanth was supposed to concede 14 runs in an over but he gave away 13 runs in that over which he bowled to "two of the best batsmen" -- Adam Gilchrist and Shaun Marsh. "At the worst, it could be said that I (Sreesanth) had the knowledge that somebody was trying to do fixing and I should have brought it to the notice of the authorities. If that is the case, the total ban could be up to five years," he said. He said the world over, bans have been imposed on cricketers for indulging in such activities and except former South African captain Hansie Cronje, who later died in 2002 in a plane crash, life ban was not imposed on anyone. Khurshid referred to the case of former Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin, who was accused for his alleged involvement in a match fixing scandal of 2000, and said that life ban was imposed on him but it was reversed later. On November 8, 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had termed the life ban imposed by the BCCI on Azharuddin as illegal and said it is unsustainable in law. "My (Sreesanth) desire is to get back my honour," Khurshid told the bench, adding, "Ultimately, I am wasting my professional career. At least, let me play outside India. Every year, I am getting offers to play. "I have been given life ban for an offence which is not at all established," he said, adding that there was no evidence of payment of Rs 10 lakh to Sreesanth for the alleged fixing. Khurshid said recorded telephonic conversations did not show that the match was fixed and evidence produced by Delhi Police was not accepted by the trial court. Senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for Committee of Administrators (CoA) of BCCI, raised the issue of veracity of translation of the telephonic conversations referred to by Sreesanth''s counsel and said he needs to file a reply on this. Tripathi said he would also respond to the additional documents filed by the petitioner. The bench asked Tripathi to file his response and posted the matter for further hearing on February 20. The apex court said that Sreesanth''s counsel may also file the certified copy of complete transcripts of telephonic conversations that have been brought on record. Sreesanth had earlier told the top court that he has offers to play English county matches and life ban imposed on him by the BCCI is "too harsh". The apex court had last year asked the Delhi High Court to decide expeditiously the appeal filed by the Delhi Police challenging a trial court order discharging several accused, including Sreesanth. Delhi Police had arrested Sreesanth, along with cricketers Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan, and others on charges of spot fixing. As many as 36 accused in the spot-fixing case, including Sreesanth, Chavan and Chandila, were discharged by a trial court here in July 2015. The BCCI had, however, refused to alter its disciplinary decision of life ban on Sreesanth even after the trial court''s verdict. A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court had lifted the life ban imposed on Sreesanth by the BCCI and had set aside all proceedings against him initiated by the board. Later, a division bench of the high court had restored the ban on a petition filed by the BCCI against the single-judge bench''s order.

Confessed to crime as Delhi Police threatened to implicate my family: Sreesanth to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Thursday directed Sahara group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on February 28 for failing to deposit Rs 25,700 crore in the SEBI-Sahara case for returning investors' money.

The apex court said six months were given to Sahara by its last order to arrange the amount but what has transpired during the period has not inspired the confidence of the court.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi noted that the group has deposited only Rs 15,000 crore.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court today granted another opportunity to Sahara Group to deposit rest of the money of Rs 9,000 crore approximately with the SEBI Sahara account, else the law will take its own course. SC also sought personal presence of Subrata Roy on the next date of hearing- Feb 28 <a href="https://t.co/vd9ZaLilAG">pic.twitter.com/vd9ZaLilAG</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1090915107591409664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 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 bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri and S K Kaul, declined to give any further chance to Roy and other directors to comply with its previous orders.

It said it had decided to proceed with the matter so that the law takes its own course and directed Roy and other directors to appear before it personally on next date of hearing.

The Supreme Court Thursday directed Sahara group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on February 28 for failing to deposit Rs 25,700 crore in the SEBI-Sahara case for returning investors' money.

The Supreme Court Thursday directed Sahara group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on February 28 for failing to deposit Rs 25,700 crore in the SEBI-Sahara case for returning investors' money. The apex court said six months were given to Sahara by its last order to arrange the amount but what has transpired during the period has not inspired the confidence of the court. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi noted that the group has deposited only Rs 15,000 crore. Supreme Court today granted another opportunity to Sahara Group to deposit rest of the money of Rs 9,000 crore approximately with the SEBI Sahara account, else the law will take its own course. SC also sought personal presence of Subrata Roy on the next date of hearing- Feb 28 pic.twitter.com/vd9ZaLilAG — ANI (@ANI) January 31, 2019 × The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri and S K Kaul, declined to give any further chance to Roy and other directors to comply with its previous orders. It said it had decided to proceed with the matter so that the law takes its own course and directed Roy and other directors to appear before it personally on next date of hearing.

Supreme Court directs Sahara chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on February 28

The Supreme Court Wednesday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel abroad after depositing Rs 10 crore with its registry.

The apex court asked Karti to appear before the Enforcement Directorate on March 5, 6, 7 and 12 for questioning in connection with the INX Media and Aircel Maxis cases, saying "don't play around with the law".

"You go wherever you want to go, between February 10 to 26 but you must cooperate with the investigation," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.&nbsp;

"Please tell your clients that he will have to cooperate. You have not cooperated. We wanted to say a lot of things. We are not saying them right now," the bench said.

Besides asking Karti to deposit Rs 10 crore with the secretary general of the Supreme Court, the bench also asked him to file an undertaking that he would return and cooperate with the investigation.

Karti has sought permission to travel abroad from February 10 to 26 and again from March 23 to 31.

The bench was hearing Karti's plea seeking permission to travel to France, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom for the next few months for international tennis tournaments organised by a company called 'Totus Tennis Ltd' having its registered office in the UK.

The Supreme Court Wednesday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel abroad after depositing Rs 10 crore with its registry.

The Supreme Court Wednesday allowed Karti Chidambaram, son of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, to travel abroad after depositing Rs 10 crore with its registry. The apex court asked Karti to appear before the Enforcement Directorate on March 5, 6, 7 and 12 for questioning in connection with the INX Media and Aircel Maxis cases, saying "don't play around with the law". "You go wherever you want to go, between February 10 to 26 but you must cooperate with the investigation," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said. "Please tell your clients that he will have to cooperate. You have not cooperated. We wanted to say a lot of things. We are not saying them right now," the bench said. Besides asking Karti to deposit Rs 10 crore with the secretary general of the Supreme Court, the bench also asked him to file an undertaking that he would return and cooperate with the investigation. Karti has sought permission to travel abroad from February 10 to 26 and again from March 23 to 31. The bench was hearing Karti's plea seeking permission to travel to France, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom for the next few months for international tennis tournaments organised by a company called 'Totus Tennis Ltd' having its registered office in the UK.

Go wherever you want but don't play around with the law: Supreme Court to Karti Chidambaram

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again refused to stay amendments to the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/scst-act-we-are-not-against-it-says-supreme-court-but-refuses-to-cancel-earlier-order-128083">SC/ST Act</a> that restored the no anticipatory bail provision and said all matters including the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-consider-listing-of-centres-review-petitions-challenging-scst-act-amendments-together-192688">Centre's review petition</a> will be heard on February 19.

A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said the issue requires hearing in detail and it will be appropriate if all matters are heard on February 19.

The bench refused to stay the amendments to the SC/ST Act after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners who had challenged the changes made to the Act, sought an immediate stay on it.

The apex court had on January 25 said it will consider listing the Centre's review and petitions challenging the amendments to the SC/ ST Act 2018, together before an appropriate bench.

The top court had earlier refused to stay the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which restored the provision that no anticipatory bail be granted to the accused.&nbsp;

Parliament on August 9 last year had passed a bill to overturn the apex court order relating to certain safeguards against arrest under the SC and ST law.

On March 20, 2018, the apex court had taken note of the rampant misuse of the stringent SC/ST Act against government servants and private individuals and said there would be no immediate arrest on any complaint filed under the law.

The top court had earlier said that the new amendments to the SC/ST law passed by Parliament cannot be stayed and had sought the Centre's response to pleas challenging the provisions.

The pleas have sought a declaration of the new amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as ultra vires.

The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order.

They provide that no preliminary inquiry will be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval.

The court was hearing the pleas alleging that two Houses of Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again refused to stay amendments to the SC/ST Act that restored the no anticipatory bail provision and said all matters including the Centre's review petition will be heard on February 19.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again refused to stay amendments to the SC/ST Act that restored the no anticipatory bail provision and said all matters including the Centre's review petition will be heard on February 19. A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said the issue requires hearing in detail and it will be appropriate if all matters are heard on February 19. The bench refused to stay the amendments to the SC/ST Act after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners who had challenged the changes made to the Act, sought an immediate stay on it. The apex court had on January 25 said it will consider listing the Centre's review and petitions challenging the amendments to the SC/ ST Act 2018, together before an appropriate bench. The top court had earlier refused to stay the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which restored the provision that no anticipatory bail be granted to the accused. Parliament on August 9 last year had passed a bill to overturn the apex court order relating to certain safeguards against arrest under the SC and ST law. On March 20, 2018, the apex court had taken note of the rampant misuse of the stringent SC/ST Act against government servants and private individuals and said there would be no immediate arrest on any complaint filed under the law. The top court had earlier said that the new amendments to the SC/ST law passed by Parliament cannot be stayed and had sought the Centre's response to pleas challenging the provisions. The pleas have sought a declaration of the new amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as ultra vires. The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, notwithstanding any court order. They provide that no preliminary inquiry will be required for registering a criminal case and an arrest under this law would not be subject to any approval. The court was hearing the pleas alleging that two Houses of Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court again refuses to stay amendments to SC/ST Act

Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice barred self-declared president Juan Guaido from leaving the country and froze his bank accounts Tuesday, as leader Nicolas Maduro seeks to neutralize the American-backed opposition chief.

The 35-year-old head of the National Assembly legislature "is prohibited from leaving the country until the end of the (preliminary) investigation" for having "caused harm to peace in the republic," high court president Maikel Moreno said.

The court is stacked with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-goes-after-venezuelas-oil-to-hit-maduro-193555">Maduro loyalists</a>.

The move came after the State Department revealed that Guaido&nbsp;— the National Assembly head and self-proclaimed interim president — has been handed control of Venezuela's US bank accounts.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the order last week, which was then followed on Monday by US sanctions targeting Venezuela's state oil giant PDVSA, the cash-strapped government's main source of hard currency.

"This certification will help Venezuela's legitimate government safeguard those assets for the benefit of the Venezuelan people," State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said in a statement.

Guaido shrugged off Maduro's efforts to choke his progress as "nothing new."

"I'm not dismissing the threats, the persecution at this time, but we're here, we're continuing to do our jobs," he told reporters as he arrived at the National Assembly.

Guaido, who has been recognized as interim president by US President Donald Trump, sent a message to the country's top court on Twitter warning that "the regime is in its final stage."

"You shouldn't sacrifice yourselves for the usurper and his gang," he added.

'Serious consequences' 
In Washington, Trump's national security advisor warned of "serious consequences" if any harm comes to the Venezuelan opposition leader.

"Let me reiterate -- there will be serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy and harm Guaido," Trump advisor John Bolton tweeted.

The opposition-controlled legislature, meanwhile, named "diplomatic representatives" to a dozen countries that, like the US, have recognized Guaido as the interim president.

At the White House, US Vice President Mike Pence met with Guaido's appointed charge d'affaires in the United States, Carlos Vecchio, to discuss the crisis.&nbsp;

The 35-year-old engineer stormed onto the political stage as a virtual unknown on January 3, when he was sworn in as the president of the National Assembly, a body that had been largely neutralized by the Supreme Court.

On January 23, he declared himself the country's acting president and vowed to lead a transitional government that would hold democratic elections.

To keep up the pressure, he has called two more mass demonstrations against the government this week, and has appealed to the powerful military to change sides, offering amnesty to those who do.

At least 40 people have been killed in clashes with security forces nationwide and at least 850 arrested since January 21 when a brief military rebellion was put down in Caracas, according to the UN human rights office in Geneva.

- 'Blood on his hands' - 
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions against PDVSA would prevent Maduro from diverting resources from the country until power could be transferred to an interim or democratically-elected government.

A furious Maduro, 56, said Trump would have "blood all over his hands" if violence breaks out in Venezuela.

In a tweet, he urged the opposition to "ignore the imperialist calls" and reiterated his offer of dialogue to Guaido. He has previously accused the US of trying to orchestrate a coup d'etat.

Gustavo Tarre, Venezuela's new pro-Guaido representative to the Organization of American States, rejected the coup accusation and cast doubt on the staying power of Maduro's regime, saying no one would defend him to the death.&nbsp;

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the new sanctions "violate all possible international norms" and said the US has "publicly taken a course toward illegal regime change."

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said his country opposes "unilateral sanctions" as they "will only complicate the situation and will not help solve practical problems."

The oil-rich country is already reeling from a deep economic crisis that has pushed millions into poverty and driven 2.3 million more to migrate.

Hyperinflation, shortages of food and medicine and failing public services has spread misery, undermining support for a leftist regime that has held power for two decades.

'All options' 
Trump's national security advisor Bolton called Monday for Venezuela's security forces "to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional transfer of power."

He also reiterated Trump's position that "all options are on the table."

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan did not rule out a US military deployment to Colombia.

But the Lima Group of Latin American countries and Canada is opposed to "military intervention" in the Venezuela, Peru's Foreign Minister Nestor Popolizio said.

Six European nations -- Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain -- have said they would follow suit unless Maduro calls elections by February 3.

Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice barred self-declared president Juan Guaido from leaving the country and froze his bank accounts Tuesday, as leader Nicolas Maduro seeks to neutralize the American-backed opposition chief.

Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice barred self-declared president Juan Guaido from leaving the country and froze his bank accounts Tuesday, as leader Nicolas Maduro seeks to neutralize the American-backed opposition chief. The 35-year-old head of the National Assembly legislature "is prohibited from leaving the country until the end of the (preliminary) investigation" for having "caused harm to peace in the republic," high court president Maikel Moreno said. The court is stacked with Maduro loyalists. The move came after the State Department revealed that Guaido — the National Assembly head and self-proclaimed interim president — has been handed control of Venezuela's US bank accounts. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the order last week, which was then followed on Monday by US sanctions targeting Venezuela's state oil giant PDVSA, the cash-strapped government's main source of hard currency. "This certification will help Venezuela's legitimate government safeguard those assets for the benefit of the Venezuelan people," State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said in a statement. Guaido shrugged off Maduro's efforts to choke his progress as "nothing new." "I'm not dismissing the threats, the persecution at this time, but we're here, we're continuing to do our jobs," he told reporters as he arrived at the National Assembly. Guaido, who has been recognized as interim president by US President Donald Trump, sent a message to the country's top court on Twitter warning that "the regime is in its final stage." "You shouldn't sacrifice yourselves for the usurper and his gang," he added. 'Serious consequences' In Washington, Trump's national security advisor warned of "serious consequences" if any harm comes to the Venezuelan opposition leader. "Let me reiterate -- there will be serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy and harm Guaido," Trump advisor John Bolton tweeted. The opposition-controlled legislature, meanwhile, named "diplomatic representatives" to a dozen countries that, like the US, have recognized Guaido as the interim president. At the White House, US Vice President Mike Pence met with Guaido's appointed charge d'affaires in the United States, Carlos Vecchio, to discuss the crisis. The 35-year-old engineer stormed onto the political stage as a virtual unknown on January 3, when he was sworn in as the president of the National Assembly, a body that had been largely neutralized by the Supreme Court. On January 23, he declared himself the country's acting president and vowed to lead a transitional government that would hold democratic elections. To keep up the pressure, he has called two more mass demonstrations against the government this week, and has appealed to the powerful military to change sides, offering amnesty to those who do. At least 40 people have been killed in clashes with security forces nationwide and at least 850 arrested since January 21 when a brief military rebellion was put down in Caracas, according to the UN human rights office in Geneva. - 'Blood on his hands' - US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions against PDVSA would prevent Maduro from diverting resources from the country until power could be transferred to an interim or democratically-elected government. A furious Maduro, 56, said Trump would have "blood all over his hands" if violence breaks out in Venezuela. In a tweet, he urged the opposition to "ignore the imperialist calls" and reiterated his offer of dialogue to Guaido. He has previously accused the US of trying to orchestrate a coup d'etat. Gustavo Tarre, Venezuela's new pro-Guaido representative to the Organization of American States, rejected the coup accusation and cast doubt on the staying power of Maduro's regime, saying no one would defend him to the death. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the new sanctions "violate all possible international norms" and said the US has "publicly taken a course toward illegal regime change." Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said his country opposes "unilateral sanctions" as they "will only complicate the situation and will not help solve practical problems." The oil-rich country is already reeling from a deep economic crisis that has pushed millions into poverty and driven 2.3 million more to migrate. Hyperinflation, shortages of food and medicine and failing public services has spread misery, undermining support for a leftist regime that has held power for two decades. 'All options' Trump's national security advisor Bolton called Monday for Venezuela's security forces "to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional transfer of power." He also reiterated Trump's position that "all options are on the table." Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan did not rule out a US military deployment to Colombia. But the Lima Group of Latin American countries and Canada is opposed to "military intervention" in the Venezuela, Peru's Foreign Minister Nestor Popolizio said. Six European nations -- Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain -- have said they would follow suit unless Maduro calls elections by February 3.

Venezuela bars Juan Guaido from leaving country, freezes his bank accounts

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-mps-vote-to-renegotiate-brexit-eu-says-its-not-happening-193777">UK MPs vote to renegotiate Brexit, EU says it's not happening</a>

British Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-improves-its-ranking-on-global-corruption-index-in-2018-193790">India less corrupt than China: Transparency International</a>

President Xi Jinping's high profile anti-graft campaign has not made much of an impact as China's ranking on perceived corruption has fallen to 87, below India's 78, according to the annual index by global watchdog Transparency International.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-supreme-court-hits-juan-guaido-with-travel-ban-freezes-his-bank-accounts-193781">Venezuela Supreme Court hits Juan </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-supreme-court-hits-juan-guaido-with-travel-ban-freezes-his-bank-accounts-193781">Guaido</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-supreme-court-hits-juan-guaido-with-travel-ban-freezes-his-bank-accounts-193781"> with </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-supreme-court-hits-juan-guaido-with-travel-ban-freezes-his-bank-accounts-193781">travel</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-supreme-court-hits-juan-guaido-with-travel-ban-freezes-his-bank-accounts-193781"> ban, freezes his bank accounts</a>

Venezuela's government struck back at self-declared interim president Juan Guaido on Tuesday, with the Supreme Court imposing a travel ban and freeze on his bank accounts despite a warning from Washington of "serious consequences" if it did so.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/two-killed-in-grenade-attack-on-mosque-in-philippines-south-security-official-193779">After church bombings, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/two-killed-in-grenade-attack-on-mosque-in-philippines-south-security-official-193779">grenade</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/two-killed-in-grenade-attack-on-mosque-in-philippines-south-security-official-193779"> attack on Philippines mosque leaves 2 dead</a>

Three days after the twin bombings of a church on a nearby island that killed 21 people, a grenade thrown into a mosque in the southern Philippines killed two people and wounded four, Reuters reported security officials as saying on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-using-social-media-to-radicalise-kashmiri-youths-jk-police-chief-193786">Pakistan using social media to 'radicalise' Kashmiri youths: J&amp;K police chief</a>

Jammu and Kashmir Police Chief Dilbag Singh Tuesday said that Pakistan was using social media to radicalise Kashmir youths and running disinformation campaigns against India.

UK MPs vote to renegotiate Brexit, EU says it's not happening British Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change.

UK MPs vote to renegotiate Brexit, EU says it's not happening British Prime Minister Theresa May won parliament's backing on Tuesday to renegotiate her Brexit deal — a major policy reversal that sets up a new standoff with the EU after it ruled out any change. India less corrupt than China: Transparency International President Xi Jinping's high profile anti-graft campaign has not made much of an impact as China's ranking on perceived corruption has fallen to 87, below India's 78, according to the annual index by global watchdog Transparency International. Venezuela Supreme Court hits Juan Guaido with travel ban, freezes his bank accounts Venezuela's government struck back at self-declared interim president Juan Guaido on Tuesday, with the Supreme Court imposing a travel ban and freeze on his bank accounts despite a warning from Washington of "serious consequences" if it did so. After church bombings, grenade attack on Philippines mosque leaves 2 dead Three days after the twin bombings of a church on a nearby island that killed 21 people, a grenade thrown into a mosque in the southern Philippines killed two people and wounded four, Reuters reported security officials as saying on Wednesday. Pakistan using social media to 'radicalise' Kashmiri youths: J&K police chief Jammu and Kashmir Police Chief Dilbag Singh Tuesday said that Pakistan was using social media to radicalise Kashmir youths and running disinformation campaigns against India.

News brief: Big stories of the day

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-should-stop-unreasonable-suppression-of-huawei-china-193706">US should stop unreasonable suppression of Huawei: China</a>

China on Tuesday accused the United States of "political motivations" behind sweeping charges against Chinese telecom giant Huawei in a case that has ratcheted up tensions between the two superpowers.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-centre-moves-to-supreme-court-seeks-excess-land-be-returned-to-ramjanambhoomi-nyas-193587">Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas</a>

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-supreme-court-rejects-petition-against-asia-bibis-acquittal-193662">Pakistan Supreme Court rejects petition against Asia Bibi's acquittal</a>

Pakistan's Supreme Court rejected a review petition challenging the acquittal of Asia Bibi in the blasphemy case.

"Based on merit, this review petition is dismissed," Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said while presiding over the three-judge panel.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/sanctions-against-venezuela-illegal-violates-all-possible-international-norms-russia-193682">Sanctions against Venezuela illegal, violates all possible international norms: Russia</a>

A day after the Trump administration announced sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned oil firm PDVSA, Kremlin said the sanctions were "illegal".

"The legitimate authorities of Venezuela have already labelled these sanctions illegal. We can wholly support this point of view," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/if-us-responds-to-denuclearisation-with-trustworthy-measures-relations-will-develop-fast-north-korea-193678">If US responds to denuclearisation with trustworthy measures, relations will develop fast: North Korea</a>

North Korea said on Tuesday that relations with the United States will develop "wonderfully at a fast pace" if Washington responds to its efforts on denuclearisation with trustworthy measures and practical actions.

US should stop unreasonable suppression of Huawei: China China on Tuesday accused the United States of "political motivations" behind sweeping charges against Chinese telecom giant Huawei in a case that has ratcheted up tensions between the two superpowers.

US should stop unreasonable suppression of Huawei: China China on Tuesday accused the United States of "political motivations" behind sweeping charges against Chinese telecom giant Huawei in a case that has ratcheted up tensions between the two superpowers. Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners. Pakistan Supreme Court rejects petition against Asia Bibi's acquittal Pakistan's Supreme Court rejected a review petition challenging the acquittal of Asia Bibi in the blasphemy case. "Based on merit, this review petition is dismissed," Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said while presiding over the three-judge panel. Sanctions against Venezuela illegal, violates all possible international norms: Russia A day after the Trump administration announced sanctions against Venezuela's state-owned oil firm PDVSA, Kremlin said the sanctions were "illegal". "The legitimate authorities of Venezuela have already labelled these sanctions illegal. We can wholly support this point of view," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. If US responds to denuclearisation with trustworthy measures, relations will develop fast: North Korea North Korea said on Tuesday that relations with the United States will develop "wonderfully at a fast pace" if Washington responds to its efforts on denuclearisation with trustworthy measures and practical actions.

Defending the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-centre-moves-to-supreme-court-seeks-excess-land-be-returned-to-ramjanambhoomi-nyas-193587"> government's plea in the Supreme Court</a> to return excess land acquired by it in Ayodhya to their original owners, the BJP on Tuesday said the Centre is not touching the disputed area.

Union Minister Prakash Javadekar told reporters it would be up to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas what it does with the land returned to it and the government would not interfere in that.

The Centre on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking its permission to return the excess or superfluous land around the disputed Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid site to original owners, including the Nyas.

"Government is not touching the disputed land," news agency PTI quoted Javadakar as saying at a press conference hours after the government filed its plea in the apex court.

Javadekar also said that "PM had clarified that people want temple but the matter is sub-judice and measures will be taken accordingly", adding that today's application is also a legal decision.

"Whatever legal measure is required, BJP will try for that. PM had clarified that people want temple the but matter is sub-judice and measures will be taken accordingly. Today's application is also a legal decision," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
P Javadekar,BJP: BJP always maintained Ram temple be built on Ram janmabhoomi.Whatever legal measure is required,BJP will try for that. PM had clarified that ppl want temple but matter is sub-judice&amp;measures will be taken accordingly. Today's application is also a legal decision. <a href="https://t.co/pCC6fCsluE">pic.twitter.com/pCC6fCsluE</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1090206455855284225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 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>

Javadekar then attacked Congress party saying that it always "tries to block the process" and senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the "matter only after July is evident to that."

"Congress always tries to block the process. Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the matter only after July'19 is evident to that. They don't believe in Ram. Affidavit submitted by the then Congress government on Ram Setu called it imaginary" Javadekar said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
P Javadekar on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RamTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RamTemple</a>: Congress always tries to block the process.Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the matter only after July'19 is evident to that.They don't believe in Ram.Affidavit submitted by the then Congress govt on Ram Setu called it imaginary <a href="https://t.co/yj3PuUqQ2w">pic.twitter.com/yj3PuUqQ2w</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1090208665544605697?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 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>

(With inputs from news agencies)

&nbsp;

Defending the government's plea in the Supreme Court to return excess land acquired by it in Ayodhya to their original owners, the BJP on Tuesday said the Centre is not touching the disputed area.

Defending the government's plea in the Supreme Court to return excess land acquired by it in Ayodhya to their original owners, the BJP on Tuesday said the Centre is not touching the disputed area. Union Minister Prakash Javadekar told reporters it would be up to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas what it does with the land returned to it and the government would not interfere in that. The Centre on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking its permission to return the excess or superfluous land around the disputed Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid site to original owners, including the Nyas. "Government is not touching the disputed land," news agency PTI quoted Javadakar as saying at a press conference hours after the government filed its plea in the apex court. Javadekar also said that "PM had clarified that people want temple but the matter is sub-judice and measures will be taken accordingly", adding that today's application is also a legal decision. "Whatever legal measure is required, BJP will try for that. PM had clarified that people want temple the but matter is sub-judice and measures will be taken accordingly. Today's application is also a legal decision," he said. P Javadekar,BJP: BJP always maintained Ram temple be built on Ram janmabhoomi.Whatever legal measure is required,BJP will try for that. PM had clarified that ppl want temple but matter is sub-judice&measures will be taken accordingly. Today's application is also a legal decision. pic.twitter.com/pCC6fCsluE — ANI (@ANI) January 29, 2019 × Javadekar then attacked Congress party saying that it always "tries to block the process" and senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the "matter only after July is evident to that." "Congress always tries to block the process. Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the matter only after July'19 is evident to that. They don't believe in Ram. Affidavit submitted by the then Congress government on Ram Setu called it imaginary" Javadekar said. P Javadekar on #RamTemple: Congress always tries to block the process.Kapil Sibal's argument of allotting a date for hearing in the matter only after July'19 is evident to that.They don't believe in Ram.Affidavit submitted by the then Congress govt on Ram Setu called it imaginary pic.twitter.com/yj3PuUqQ2w — ANI (@ANI) January 29, 2019 × (With inputs from news agencies)

Government not touching disputed land: BJP on Centre's plea in Supreme Court on Ayodhya

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.&nbsp;

The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp;

With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant.&nbsp;

While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple).&nbsp;

The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties.&nbsp;

According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.”

The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.”&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.&nbsp;

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners. The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992. With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant. While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple). The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties. According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.” The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.” The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.

Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas

Pakistan's Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether to allow an appeal against the acquittal of a Christian woman who was on death row for eight years on charges of blasphemy.

The Supreme Court's decision in October last year to overturn the conviction of Asia Bibi sparked nationwide protests and death threats from hardline groups.

Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa will head the three-member bench that will hear the review petition, filed by the complainant in the case Qari Muhammad Salaam.

Security has been tightened in the capital Islamabad where the court is located.

A security official told PTI that paramilitary Rangers will be deployed in addition to the regular police to deal with any unsavoury situation.&nbsp;

Bibi's lawyer, who fled to the Netherlands after receiving death threats for defending her, has returned home to represent her in the case.

Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of four, who is now in protective custody, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. She always maintained her innocence but spent most of the past eight years in solitary confinement.

She challenged the verdict in October 2014 in the Lahore High Court which upheld the death sentence.&nbsp;

The apex court's decision to acquit her had sparked three-day-long mass protests led by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP).

The protests were called off after the party reached an agreement with the government, the foremost condition of which was the placement of Bibi's name on the Exit Control List.&nbsp;

The government, however, had only agreed to "initiate the legal process" to place her name on the list, while also agreeing that it would not oppose any review petitions being filed against the court judgement.

After her release from Multan's women prison on November 7, Bibi was flown to Islamabad onboard a special aircraft. She was then taken to an undisclosed place amid tight security.&nbsp;

Authorities have remained tight-lipped about her movement and whereabouts for security reasons.

Qari filed the review petition in the case on November 1, 2018, at the Lahore registry of the apex court, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. 
&nbsp; 
In the petition, it has been argued that the Supreme Court's acquittal of Bibi did not meet the standards of jurisprudence as well as Islamic provisions and the "normal principle of justice with reference to application in blasphemy laws".&nbsp;

It has also challenged the Supreme Court's dismissal of the alleged "confession" that Bibi was forced to make by the people of her village and argued that the Supreme Court should have applied the Law of Evidence differently in this case.

Her case has been deeply divisive in Pakistan where there is strong support for the controversial blasphemy laws.

The blasphemy laws were promulgated by former military dictator Ziaul Haq in 1980s. A person convicted under these laws is given a death sentence.

Bibi was accused of committing blasphemy in 2009. She was convicted in 2010 by the trial court and her death sentence was maintained by the Lahore High Court in 2014.

Her case gained prominence when former governor of Pakistan's Punjab province Salman Taseer was killed in 2011 for supporting her and criticising the blasphemy laws.

A month after Taseer was killed, Pakistan's religious minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian who spoke out against the blasphemy law, was shot dead in Islamabad.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether to allow an appeal against the acquittal of a Christian woman who was on death row for eight years on charges of blasphemy.

Pakistan's Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether to allow an appeal against the acquittal of a Christian woman who was on death row for eight years on charges of blasphemy. The Supreme Court's decision in October last year to overturn the conviction of Asia Bibi sparked nationwide protests and death threats from hardline groups. Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa will head the three-member bench that will hear the review petition, filed by the complainant in the case Qari Muhammad Salaam. Security has been tightened in the capital Islamabad where the court is located. A security official told PTI that paramilitary Rangers will be deployed in addition to the regular police to deal with any unsavoury situation. Bibi's lawyer, who fled to the Netherlands after receiving death threats for defending her, has returned home to represent her in the case. Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of four, who is now in protective custody, was convicted in 2010 after being accused of insulting Islam in a row with her neighbours. She always maintained her innocence but spent most of the past eight years in solitary confinement. She challenged the verdict in October 2014 in the Lahore High Court which upheld the death sentence. The apex court's decision to acquit her had sparked three-day-long mass protests led by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP). The protests were called off after the party reached an agreement with the government, the foremost condition of which was the placement of Bibi's name on the Exit Control List. The government, however, had only agreed to "initiate the legal process" to place her name on the list, while also agreeing that it would not oppose any review petitions being filed against the court judgement. After her release from Multan's women prison on November 7, Bibi was flown to Islamabad onboard a special aircraft. She was then taken to an undisclosed place amid tight security. Authorities have remained tight-lipped about her movement and whereabouts for security reasons. Qari filed the review petition in the case on November 1, 2018, at the Lahore registry of the apex court, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. In the petition, it has been argued that the Supreme Court's acquittal of Bibi did not meet the standards of jurisprudence as well as Islamic provisions and the "normal principle of justice with reference to application in blasphemy laws". It has also challenged the Supreme Court's dismissal of the alleged "confession" that Bibi was forced to make by the people of her village and argued that the Supreme Court should have applied the Law of Evidence differently in this case. Her case has been deeply divisive in Pakistan where there is strong support for the controversial blasphemy laws. The blasphemy laws were promulgated by former military dictator Ziaul Haq in 1980s. A person convicted under these laws is given a death sentence. Bibi was accused of committing blasphemy in 2009. She was convicted in 2010 by the trial court and her death sentence was maintained by the Lahore High Court in 2014. Her case gained prominence when former governor of Pakistan's Punjab province Salman Taseer was killed in 2011 for supporting her and criticising the blasphemy laws. A month after Taseer was killed, Pakistan's religious minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian who spoke out against the blasphemy law, was shot dead in Islamabad.

Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Pakistan Supreme Court set to hear review plea

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider listing the Centre's review and petitions challenging the amendments to the SC/ ST Act 2018, together before an appropriate bench.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it will consider and do the needful.

Attorney General K K Venugopal said that a bench headed by Justice A K Sikri had on Thursday passed an order, saying it will be appropriate to hear the Centre's review and writ petitions against the SC/ST Act 2018 together.

The apex court had on Thursday refused to stay the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which restored the provision that no anticipatory bail be granted to the accused.

Parliament on August 9 last year had passed the bill to overturn the apex court order relating to certain safeguards against arrest under the SC and ST law.

The court was hearing the pleas alleging that the two Houses of Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider listing the Centre's review and petitions challenging the amendments to the SC/ ST Act 2018, together before an appropriate bench.

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider listing the Centre's review and petitions challenging the amendments to the SC/ ST Act 2018, together before an appropriate bench. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it will consider and do the needful. Attorney General K K Venugopal said that a bench headed by Justice A K Sikri had on Thursday passed an order, saying it will be appropriate to hear the Centre's review and writ petitions against the SC/ST Act 2018 together. The apex court had on Thursday refused to stay the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which restored the provision that no anticipatory bail be granted to the accused. Parliament on August 9 last year had passed the bill to overturn the apex court order relating to certain safeguards against arrest under the SC and ST law. The court was hearing the pleas alleging that the two Houses of Parliament had "arbitrarily" decided to amend the law and restored the previous provisions in such a manner so that an innocent cannot avail the right of anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court to consider listing of Centre's review, petitions challenging SC/ST Act amendments together

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said it will examine the validity of the 10 per cent quota for the economically weak section of the general category.

The apex court has issued a notice to the Central government on pleas challenging the constitutional amendment that gives 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for economically weaker section of the general category.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court also refuses to stay implementation of 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker section of general category. A bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi says “we will examine the issue.” <a href="https://t.co/nLEnpg2CyG">https://t.co/nLEnpg2CyG</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1088672363116417026?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The top court refused to stay implementation of 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker section of general category and stated that it will examine the issue, news agency ANI reported. The Court will hear the matter in four weeks.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/quota-for-general-category-poor-will-boost-confidence-of-new-india-pm-modi-189891">Prime Minister Narendra Modi</a>, earlier this month, said the bill to give 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education to the general category poor will boost the "self-confidence of new India", asserting that existing quota policy for SCs, STs and OBCs is as strong as it was and will remain so.

"This will further boost the confidence of new India," he said, adding that it will give a new dimension to the aspirations of the general category poor who were not getting equal opportunity.

"The general category poor cannot be neglected," he said.

The number of seats in educational institutions will also be increased by 10 per cent, he said. It is done to ensure that the increased quota does not eat into the share of those from the unreserved category, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

Parliament passed the constitution amendment bill in the Winter Session, with the Modi government meeting a key demand of upper castes.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said it will examine the validity of the 10 per cent quota for the economically weak section of the general category. The apex court has issued a notice to the Central government on pleas challenging the constitutional amendment that gives 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for economically weaker section of the general category.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said it will examine the validity of the 10 per cent quota for the economically weak section of the general category. The apex court has issued a notice to the Central government on pleas challenging the constitutional amendment that gives 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education for economically weaker section of the general category. Supreme Court also refuses to stay implementation of 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker section of general category. A bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi says “we will examine the issue.” https://t.co/nLEnpg2CyG — ANI (@ANI) January 25, 2019 × The top court refused to stay implementation of 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker section of general category and stated that it will examine the issue, news agency ANI reported. The Court will hear the matter in four weeks. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, earlier this month, said the bill to give 10 per cent reservation in jobs and education to the general category poor will boost the "self-confidence of new India", asserting that existing quota policy for SCs, STs and OBCs is as strong as it was and will remain so. "This will further boost the confidence of new India," he said, adding that it will give a new dimension to the aspirations of the general category poor who were not getting equal opportunity. "The general category poor cannot be neglected," he said. The number of seats in educational institutions will also be increased by 10 per cent, he said. It is done to ensure that the increased quota does not eat into the share of those from the unreserved category, news agency PTI reported. Parliament passed the constitution amendment bill in the Winter Session, with the Modi government meeting a key demand of upper castes.

Don't hold 10% quota for economically weak, will examine validity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a CBI probe into the murder of a security guard at former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home at Kodanad Estate in Nilgiris district in 2017.

The PIL had sought an independent investigation into the allegation of involvement of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisamy in the case.

Palaniswamy had denied the charge.

"Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We do not consider the present to be a fit case for admission. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The plea filed K R Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy had also sought directions to the state police to hand over the records relating to the Kodanad Estate's robbery and murder of Om Bahadur, home guard of Jayalalithaa, on April 23, 2017.

Seeking a CBI probe into the incident, the plea cited a video, which was shown in a press conference, in which two accused allegedly referred to the present chief minister.

An impartial and independent investigation will not be possible under the state police as the chief minister was also the home minister of the state, the plea contended.

Samuel Mathew, former Tehelka managing editor had on January 11 released a 16-minute video in which the two accused in the case had allegedly linked Palaniswami to the case, the petition said.

Two days after the presser, Palaniswamy also held his press conference in which he had denied the allegations and said that police action will be taken against those who linked him in the murder case, it said.

On April 23, 2017, the security guard of the Kodanad estate, the late chief minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home in Nilgiris district, was murdered in a robbery attempt by a 10-member gang.

It emerged during the probe that Jayalalithaa's former driver C Kanagaraj and Sayan had allegedly plotted the crime.

A total of 10 people were arrested in the case and a charge sheet was also filed.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a CBI probe into the murder of a security guard at former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home at Kodanad Estate in Nilgiris district in 2017.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking a CBI probe into the murder of a security guard at former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home at Kodanad Estate in Nilgiris district in 2017. The PIL had sought an independent investigation into the allegation of involvement of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisamy in the case. Palaniswamy had denied the charge. "Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We do not consider the present to be a fit case for admission. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. The plea filed K R Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy had also sought directions to the state police to hand over the records relating to the Kodanad Estate's robbery and murder of Om Bahadur, home guard of Jayalalithaa, on April 23, 2017. Seeking a CBI probe into the incident, the plea cited a video, which was shown in a press conference, in which two accused allegedly referred to the present chief minister. An impartial and independent investigation will not be possible under the state police as the chief minister was also the home minister of the state, the plea contended. Samuel Mathew, former Tehelka managing editor had on January 11 released a 16-minute video in which the two accused in the case had allegedly linked Palaniswami to the case, the petition said. Two days after the presser, Palaniswamy also held his press conference in which he had denied the allegations and said that police action will be taken against those who linked him in the murder case, it said. On April 23, 2017, the security guard of the Kodanad estate, the late chief minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home in Nilgiris district, was murdered in a robbery attempt by a 10-member gang. It emerged during the probe that Jayalalithaa's former driver C Kanagaraj and Sayan had allegedly plotted the crime. A total of 10 people were arrested in the case and a charge sheet was also filed.

SC rejects plea seeking CBI probe into murder of guard at Jayalalithaa's home

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday said that it will resume the hearing on Vedanta's plea regarding<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-stay-ngt-order-to-reopen-sterlite-plant-188983"> Sterlite copper plant</a> at Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu on January 29, ANI reported.

According to media reports, the Apex Court on Thursday ordered the Tamil Nadu government to immediately provide power supply to the Sterlite plant in Tuticorin.

The top court had earlier this month refused to stay the green tribunal’s order of setting aside the state government’s decision to close Vedanta’s Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin.

On 15 December, the NGT had set aside the Tamil Nadu government order for closure of mining company Vedanta Ltd’s Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin saying it was “non-sustainable" and “unjustified".

The Tamil Nadu government had, on 28 May, ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently" close the mining group’s copper plant following violent protests over pollution concerns.

At least 13 people were killed and several injured on 22 May last year when police opened fire on a large crowd of people protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the plant.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday said that it will resume the hearing on Vedanta's plea regarding Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu on January 29, ANI reported.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday said that it will resume the hearing on Vedanta's plea regarding Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu on January 29, ANI reported. According to media reports, the Apex Court on Thursday ordered the Tamil Nadu government to immediately provide power supply to the Sterlite plant in Tuticorin. The top court had earlier this month refused to stay the green tribunal’s order of setting aside the state government’s decision to close Vedanta’s Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin. On 15 December, the NGT had set aside the Tamil Nadu government order for closure of mining company Vedanta Ltd’s Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin saying it was “non-sustainable" and “unjustified". The Tamil Nadu government had, on 28 May, ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently" close the mining group’s copper plant following violent protests over pollution concerns. At least 13 people were killed and several injured on 22 May last year when police opened fire on a large crowd of people protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the plant.

Supreme Court defers hearing on Vedanta's Sterlite copper plant plea to January 29

Supreme Court judge Justice A K Sikri on Thursday recused himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi87rTv7YXgAhWLuo8KHR3jBasQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1J6rpIQoeApSYO2oBbRGrd"> M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.&nbsp;</a>

A bench headed by Justice Sikri listed the matter for Friday for hearing before a different bench.&nbsp;

As soon as the matter came up for hearing, Justice Sikri told senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioner NGO Common Cause, that he would not like to hear the matter and was recusing himself.&nbsp;

"You understand my position. I can't hear this matter," Justice Sikri said.

Justice Sikri was part of the high powered panel which had removed CBI Director Alok Verma.

Supreme Court judge Justice A K Sikri on Thursday recused himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

Supreme Court judge Justice A K Sikri on Thursday recused himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director. A bench headed by Justice Sikri listed the matter for Friday for hearing before a different bench. As soon as the matter came up for hearing, Justice Sikri told senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioner NGO Common Cause, that he would not like to hear the matter and was recusing himself. "You understand my position. I can't hear this matter," Justice Sikri said. Justice Sikri was part of the high powered panel which had removed CBI Director Alok Verma.

Justice Sikri recuses himself from hearing plea on interim CBI Director

The Supreme Court has granted bail to four convicts, Umeshbhai Bharwad, Rajkumar, Harshad and Prakashbhai Rathod, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi granted them bail on Tuesday.

At least 97 Muslims were reportedly killed in Ahmedabad's&nbsp; Naroda Patiya area on February 28, 2002, during communal riots.

The Gujarat High Court had convicted the four individuals on account of arson and rioting. They were serving a 10-year jail term.

The Supreme Court has granted bail to four convicts, Umeshbhai Bharwad, Rajkumar, Harshad and Prakashbhai Rathod, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi granted them bail on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court has granted bail to four convicts, Umeshbhai Bharwad, Rajkumar, Harshad and Prakashbhai Rathod, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi granted them bail on Tuesday. At least 97 Muslims were reportedly killed in Ahmedabad's Naroda Patiya area on February 28, 2002, during communal riots. The Gujarat High Court had convicted the four individuals on account of arson and rioting. They were serving a 10-year jail term.

Naroda Patiya riots: Supreme Court grants bail to 4 convicts

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

On September 28 last year, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge of the five-judge constitution bench which delivered the verdict allowing all women inside the Sabarimala temple, is on leave till January 30 "due to some medical reasons".

Justice Malhotra had delivered the dissenting judgement in the case.&nbsp;

Lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), mentioned the matter before the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, and sought an urgent listing for hearing the pleas seeking review of the verdict.

The court said that the next date of hearing would be fixed only after Justice Malhotra rejoins.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution bench comprising the CJI, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Justice Malhotra was scheduled to hear in open court the review petitions from today.&nbsp;

Earlier also, the court had said that it may not start the hearing from January 22 as Justice Malhotra would not be available.&nbsp;

The remarks had come when Nedumpara on January 15 had mentioned the plea and had sought live streaming of the proceedings in the Sabarimala case. 
NADA had sought live streaming of the hearing saying it would ensure that "justice is made accessible to the common man".

Prior to this, the apex court had decided to hear in open court the review petitions against the verdict.&nbsp;

There are around 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were filed following the violent protests in favour and against the verdict.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

The Supreme Court Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict, allowing women of all age groups to enter the temple, till January 30 as one of the judges is on medical leave. On September 28 last year, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge of the five-judge constitution bench which delivered the verdict allowing all women inside the Sabarimala temple, is on leave till January 30 "due to some medical reasons". Justice Malhotra had delivered the dissenting judgement in the case. Lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, appearing for the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), mentioned the matter before the bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, and sought an urgent listing for hearing the pleas seeking review of the verdict. The court said that the next date of hearing would be fixed only after Justice Malhotra rejoins. A five-judge Constitution bench comprising the CJI, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Justice Malhotra was scheduled to hear in open court the review petitions from today. Earlier also, the court had said that it may not start the hearing from January 22 as Justice Malhotra would not be available. The remarks had come when Nedumpara on January 15 had mentioned the plea and had sought live streaming of the proceedings in the Sabarimala case. NADA had sought live streaming of the hearing saying it would ensure that "justice is made accessible to the common man". Prior to this, the apex court had decided to hear in open court the review petitions against the verdict. There are around 48 petitions seeking review of the judgement and they were filed following the violent protests in favour and against the verdict.

May not start hearing Sabarimala case till January 30 as Justice Malhotra on leave: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to consider whether to widen the scope of scrutiny into compliance of all car manufacturers with the emission norms, as German auto major Volkswagen has challenged a punitive action of the tribunal.

A bench, headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said that there was no occasion to take punitive action against the directors of Volkswagen for the delay in depositing of Rs 100 crore fine to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as it had already extended the deadline.

The NGT had on January 17 imposed a penalty of Rs 100 crore on Volkswagen, saying its cars were violating the pollution norms.

A four-member committee constituted by the NGT had recommended a fine of Rs 171.34 crore on Volkswagen for excess nitrogen oxide emissions.

The committee in its report had estimated that Volkswagen cars allegedly released 48.678 tonnes of NO in 2016 in the National Capital Region.

The Volkswagen Group challenged the NGT’s fine, contending that all its cars are "compliant with emission norms in India."Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Volkswagen, told the apex court bench that the company had deposited the amount of Rs 100 crore on January 17 as directed by the NGT.

The tribunal had said that non-compliance can lead to the arrest of the company's India head.

“We would like to clarify that intent and purpose of this court in December extending time for compliance was to ensure that until this court took up the matter on next date, the coercive measure cannot be taken for non-compliance of the order,” said the Supreme Court bench.

It asked the NGT to include Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in a four-member committee appointed by the expert panel.

The NGT had constituted a joint team of representatives of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Ministry of Heavy Industries, the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute.

The tribunal had asked for a report on whether Volkswagen has exceeded the prescribed environmental norms and fair estimate of the damage caused to the environment.

The Supreme Court also noted that the committee had submitted its report and proceedings are now pending before the NGT. The bench said it is now proper for the tribunal to deal with the report on merits.

The tribunal’s order had come on pleas filed by a school teacher, Saloni Ailawadi, and a few others seeking a ban on the sale of Volkswagen vehicles for alleged violation of emission norms.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to consider whether to widen the scope of scrutiny into compliance of all car manufacturers with the emission norms, as German auto major Volkswagen has challenged a punitive action of the tribunal.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to consider whether to widen the scope of scrutiny into compliance of all car manufacturers with the emission norms, as German auto major Volkswagen has challenged a punitive action of the tribunal. A bench, headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, said that there was no occasion to take punitive action against the directors of Volkswagen for the delay in depositing of Rs 100 crore fine to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), as it had already extended the deadline. The NGT had on January 17 imposed a penalty of Rs 100 crore on Volkswagen, saying its cars were violating the pollution norms. A four-member committee constituted by the NGT had recommended a fine of Rs 171.34 crore on Volkswagen for excess nitrogen oxide emissions. The committee in its report had estimated that Volkswagen cars allegedly released 48.678 tonnes of NO in 2016 in the National Capital Region. The Volkswagen Group challenged the NGT’s fine, contending that all its cars are "compliant with emission norms in India."Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Volkswagen, told the apex court bench that the company had deposited the amount of Rs 100 crore on January 17 as directed by the NGT. The tribunal had said that non-compliance can lead to the arrest of the company's India head. “We would like to clarify that intent and purpose of this court in December extending time for compliance was to ensure that until this court took up the matter on next date, the coercive measure cannot be taken for non-compliance of the order,” said the Supreme Court bench. It asked the NGT to include Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in a four-member committee appointed by the expert panel. The NGT had constituted a joint team of representatives of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Ministry of Heavy Industries, the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute. The tribunal had asked for a report on whether Volkswagen has exceeded the prescribed environmental norms and fair estimate of the damage caused to the environment. The Supreme Court also noted that the committee had submitted its report and proceedings are now pending before the NGT. The bench said it is now proper for the tribunal to deal with the report on merits. The tribunal’s order had come on pleas filed by a school teacher, Saloni Ailawadi, and a few others seeking a ban on the sale of Volkswagen vehicles for alleged violation of emission norms.

Supreme Court asks NGT to widen scrutiny into emission violations by car manufacturers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would take an "in-chamber" decision on listing of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35-A, which provides special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

Advocate Bimal Roy had mentioned the matter before the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna.

He sought urgent hearing of the petition, filed by NGO 'We The Citizens', saying the court had earlier ordered listing of the matter in the second week of January.&nbsp;

In August, the apex court adjourned hearing on a batch of petitions challenging Article 35 A till January this year, after taking note of submissions of the Centre and the state government that there was a law and order problem in the state.

Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state.

The apex court had on August 31 deferred till January the hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35 A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir, after the Centre and the state said that polls to local bodies polls there would go on till December.

Article 35 A denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to her heirs.

The Article was incorporated in the Constitution in 1954 by an order of President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the then Cabinet headed by Jawaharlal Nehru.

In the previous hearing, a lawyer had given an illustration and said that if a native woman of the state married an outsider, she loses several rights, including property rights, in the state, but if a man marries a Pakistani woman, he and his spouse get all rights.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had agreed to the contention that Article 35A and certain aspects needed to be debated upon and said, "It can't be denied that there is an aspect of gender discrimination in it (Article 35A).&nbsp;

On August 6, the apex court had said that a three-judge bench would decide whether the pleas challenging Article 35A should be referred to a five-judge constitution bench for examining the larger issue of alleged violation of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.&nbsp;

Several petitions including by political parties like the National Conference and the CPI-M, have also moved the Supreme Court in support of Article 35-A that empowers the state assembly to define "permanent residents" for bestowing special rights and privileges to them.

An NGO, 'Ikkjut Jammu', has also filed a plea seeking quashing of the provision. It has said that Article 35-A furthers the "two-nation theory which is against the theory of secularism".

The state government, while defending the Article, had cited two verdicts of the constitution benches of the Supreme Court in 1961 and 1969, which had upheld the powers of the President under Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution to pass constitutional orders.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would take an "in-chamber" decision on listing of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35-A, which provides special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would take an "in-chamber" decision on listing of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35-A, which provides special rights and privileges to permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir. Advocate Bimal Roy had mentioned the matter before the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna. He sought urgent hearing of the petition, filed by NGO 'We The Citizens', saying the court had earlier ordered listing of the matter in the second week of January. In August, the apex court adjourned hearing on a batch of petitions challenging Article 35 A till January this year, after taking note of submissions of the Centre and the state government that there was a law and order problem in the state. Article 35-A, which was incorporated in the Constitution by a 1954 Presidential Order, accords special rights and privileges to the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and bars people from outside the state from acquiring any immovable property in the state. The apex court had on August 31 deferred till January the hearing on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35 A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir, after the Centre and the state said that polls to local bodies polls there would go on till December. Article 35 A denies property rights to a woman who marries a person from outside the state. The provision, which leads to such women from the state forfeiting their right over property, also applies to her heirs. The Article was incorporated in the Constitution in 1954 by an order of President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the then Cabinet headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. In the previous hearing, a lawyer had given an illustration and said that if a native woman of the state married an outsider, she loses several rights, including property rights, in the state, but if a man marries a Pakistani woman, he and his spouse get all rights. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had agreed to the contention that Article 35A and certain aspects needed to be debated upon and said, "It can't be denied that there is an aspect of gender discrimination in it (Article 35A). On August 6, the apex court had said that a three-judge bench would decide whether the pleas challenging Article 35A should be referred to a five-judge constitution bench for examining the larger issue of alleged violation of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. Several petitions including by political parties like the National Conference and the CPI-M, have also moved the Supreme Court in support of Article 35-A that empowers the state assembly to define "permanent residents" for bestowing special rights and privileges to them. An NGO, 'Ikkjut Jammu', has also filed a plea seeking quashing of the provision. It has said that Article 35-A furthers the "two-nation theory which is against the theory of secularism". The state government, while defending the Article, had cited two verdicts of the constitution benches of the Supreme Court in 1961 and 1969, which had upheld the powers of the President under Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution to pass constitutional orders.

Supreme Court to take 'in-chamber' decision on listing of plea challenging Article 35-A 

CBI DSP A K Bassi Monday moved the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/better-not-to-be-in-delhi-it-is-like-a-gas-chamber-supreme-court-191301&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjo4ram3_7fAhUKtI8KHb6-Bu8QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3s3xTKu7FJmZ9ilkefgVzQ">Supreme Court</a> challenging his transfer to Port Blair saying it was vitiated by "malafides" and would prejudice the probe against former special director Rakesh Asthana.

Bassi, who was the investigating officer in the corruption case against Asthana, said he is being "victimised by the present interim CBI Director - M Nageswara Rao, who represents certain elements within the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-recuses-himself-from-hearing-plea-challenging-nageswara-raos-appointment-as-cbi-director-191755&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjzgrO73_7fAhXDsY8KHTqrD28QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1IUPuBkmcDVRV3iDAe0zfk">CBI</a>, who did not want the Petitioner herein to conduct a free and fair investigation in the Asthana FIR".

He said it was Rao, who had passed the order dated October 24, 2018, transferring him to Port Blair and it is the same person at whose behest he is being sent to Andaman Nicobar again in utter disregard to the judgment of this Court in the case of former CBI director Alok Verma.

In his plea, Bassi has challenged the transfer order issued on January 11 saying it is violative of the directions issued by the top court in its judgment on the plea of Verma who was reinstated.

Verma, however, was diverted from his duties as CBI director by the high powered selection committee and transferred as Director General Fire Service.&nbsp;

"It is passed by an officer/authority not competent to pass such orders. The impugned order intends to victimize the Petitioner herein. The impugned order seeks to unfairly prejudice the investigation against Rakesh Asthana, an FIR...Dated October 15, 2018," Bassi said in the plea.

He said there are apprehensions that the transfer order is the first step to implicate him either in false criminal cases or in departmental proceedings for discharging his duties in a fair and impartial manner in the investigation of the FIR pertaining to Asthana.&nbsp;

"The impugned transfer order is non-speaking and fails to disclose reasons for such an emergent sweeping action," the plea said.

Bassi said this is not a routine case of a transfer of an officer. In his application in the Verma case, he had submitted that his transfer is pursuant to a deep-rooted conspiracy, aimed at influencing the course of the investigation against Asthana and further to penalise him for discharging his duties in a free and impartial manner in the case.&nbsp;

He said that subsequent to the January 8 verdict in the Verma case, he had made a representation to the then CBI Director (Alok Verma) on January 9, which was allowed and then he was transferred back to Delhi and assigned to his duties of DSP, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi.

"Once the said representation was accepted and the Petitioner herein was transferred back to Delhi, it was not open for the impugned order to summarily, without application of mind and without any stated reason, simpliciter revoke the said transfer order dated January 9, 2019 by a generic order terming the earlier order as "non-est"," the plea said.&nbsp;

On January 8, the apex court had asked the CBI officers including Bassi, who were transferred overnight to various places after the Centre's decision to divest the probe agency's Director Alok Kumar Verma of his powers, to approach appropriate forum assailing their transfers.&nbsp;

Bassi said he was never a part of any "group or faction" within the CBI and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged disputes that have erupted within the CBI.&nbsp;

"He was assigned certain tasks, under lawful authority (ie. Investigate the Asthana FIR) and was merely discharging his duties in a free fair and impartial manner," the plea said.

Bassi said that he does not claim or content or seek any vested right to be a part of any investigation team that is investigating into the FIR related to Asthana or any other case investigated by CBI.&nbsp;

"As a law-abiding officer of the CBI, it is his duty to discharge the tasks assigned to him to the best of his capability. Therefore the Petitioner does not pray that he be assigned to the investigation team that is investigating the FIR in the Asthana case," he said in his plea.&nbsp;

CBI DSP A K Bassi Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer to Port Blair saying it was vitiated by "malafides" and would prejudice the probe against former special director Rakesh Asthana.

CBI DSP A K Bassi Monday moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer to Port Blair saying it was vitiated by "malafides" and would prejudice the probe against former special director Rakesh Asthana. Bassi, who was the investigating officer in the corruption case against Asthana, said he is being "victimised by the present interim CBI Director - M Nageswara Rao, who represents certain elements within the CBI, who did not want the Petitioner herein to conduct a free and fair investigation in the Asthana FIR". He said it was Rao, who had passed the order dated October 24, 2018, transferring him to Port Blair and it is the same person at whose behest he is being sent to Andaman Nicobar again in utter disregard to the judgment of this Court in the case of former CBI director Alok Verma. In his plea, Bassi has challenged the transfer order issued on January 11 saying it is violative of the directions issued by the top court in its judgment on the plea of Verma who was reinstated. Verma, however, was diverted from his duties as CBI director by the high powered selection committee and transferred as Director General Fire Service. "It is passed by an officer/authority not competent to pass such orders. The impugned order intends to victimize the Petitioner herein. The impugned order seeks to unfairly prejudice the investigation against Rakesh Asthana, an FIR...Dated October 15, 2018," Bassi said in the plea. He said there are apprehensions that the transfer order is the first step to implicate him either in false criminal cases or in departmental proceedings for discharging his duties in a fair and impartial manner in the investigation of the FIR pertaining to Asthana. "The impugned transfer order is non-speaking and fails to disclose reasons for such an emergent sweeping action," the plea said. Bassi said this is not a routine case of a transfer of an officer. In his application in the Verma case, he had submitted that his transfer is pursuant to a deep-rooted conspiracy, aimed at influencing the course of the investigation against Asthana and further to penalise him for discharging his duties in a free and impartial manner in the case. He said that subsequent to the January 8 verdict in the Verma case, he had made a representation to the then CBI Director (Alok Verma) on January 9, which was allowed and then he was transferred back to Delhi and assigned to his duties of DSP, CBI, AC-III, New Delhi. "Once the said representation was accepted and the Petitioner herein was transferred back to Delhi, it was not open for the impugned order to summarily, without application of mind and without any stated reason, simpliciter revoke the said transfer order dated January 9, 2019 by a generic order terming the earlier order as "non-est"," the plea said. On January 8, the apex court had asked the CBI officers including Bassi, who were transferred overnight to various places after the Centre's decision to divest the probe agency's Director Alok Kumar Verma of his powers, to approach appropriate forum assailing their transfers. Bassi said he was never a part of any "group or faction" within the CBI and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged disputes that have erupted within the CBI. "He was assigned certain tasks, under lawful authority (ie. Investigate the Asthana FIR) and was merely discharging his duties in a free fair and impartial manner," the plea said. Bassi said that he does not claim or content or seek any vested right to be a part of any investigation team that is investigating into the FIR related to Asthana or any other case investigated by CBI. "As a law-abiding officer of the CBI, it is his duty to discharge the tasks assigned to him to the best of his capability. Therefore the Petitioner does not pray that he be assigned to the investigation team that is investigating the FIR in the Asthana case," he said in his plea.

CBI DSP A K Bassi challenges his transfer to Port Blair, moves to Supreme Court

The Indian Navy abandoned all efforts on Sunday to pull out the decomposed body of a miner that it spotted four days ago inside a coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills District, officials said.

The Navy divers had spotted the decomposed body of a trapped miner on Wednesday, using an unmanned, remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) at a depth of around 160 feet inside the mine's main shaft.

At least 15 miners are trapped inside the mine since December 13 last year after one of them accidentally punctured the wall of the mine, leading to its flooding.

"The Navy today suspended the pulling of the remains, which they had been trying since yesterday evening, as too much disintegration (of the body) took place with every pull by the ROV jaw," operation spokesperson R Susngi said.

The families of four of the 15 miners had on Saturday urged the rescuers to retrieve the decomposed body so that they could perform the last rites.

A multi-agency operation, which included de-watering of the main shaft where the miners are trapped, and of the nearby mines, has failed to yield any result as the water level has not gone down.

The Navy divers were awaiting further instructions from the government, Susngi said.

The family members of the victims from Garo Hills have also been summoned to the site to help identify the body from the video shot underwater by the ROV earlier this week.

An ROV operator from Chennai went on with a search operation in the nearby mines and the Coal India continued de-watering in the two nearby abandoned shafts by running their pumps for 23 hours since Saturday evening, Susngi said.

In the last 46 hours, the Coal India had pumped out over 52 lakh litres of water from the nearby abandoned mines, but it was not enough to bring down the water level that was causing hindrances in the rescue work, Susngi said.

The Kirloskar Brothers Limited, which has also joined the rescue efforts, had managed to pump out over 45 lakh litres of water, he said, adding that the Odisha Fire Services had pumped out approximately 4.5 lakh litres.

Meanwhile, the Meghalaya government was likely to apprise the Supreme Court of the problems in continuing with the search-and-rescue operations, an official told PTI.

The apex court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction with the rescue efforts to trace the miners and rapped the Meghalaya government for not seeking the Army's help.

The top court is hearing public interest litigation (PIL), seeking steps to rescue the 15 miners.

"We will put forth our views and reports and will act according to the order of the court," the official said, requesting anonymity.&nbsp;

The Indian Navy abandoned all efforts on Sunday to pull out the decomposed body of a miner that it spotted four days ago inside a coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills District, officials said.

The Indian Navy abandoned all efforts on Sunday to pull out the decomposed body of a miner that it spotted four days ago inside a coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills District, officials said. The Navy divers had spotted the decomposed body of a trapped miner on Wednesday, using an unmanned, remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) at a depth of around 160 feet inside the mine's main shaft. At least 15 miners are trapped inside the mine since December 13 last year after one of them accidentally punctured the wall of the mine, leading to its flooding. "The Navy today suspended the pulling of the remains, which they had been trying since yesterday evening, as too much disintegration (of the body) took place with every pull by the ROV jaw," operation spokesperson R Susngi said. The families of four of the 15 miners had on Saturday urged the rescuers to retrieve the decomposed body so that they could perform the last rites. A multi-agency operation, which included de-watering of the main shaft where the miners are trapped, and of the nearby mines, has failed to yield any result as the water level has not gone down. The Navy divers were awaiting further instructions from the government, Susngi said. The family members of the victims from Garo Hills have also been summoned to the site to help identify the body from the video shot underwater by the ROV earlier this week. An ROV operator from Chennai went on with a search operation in the nearby mines and the Coal India continued de-watering in the two nearby abandoned shafts by running their pumps for 23 hours since Saturday evening, Susngi said. In the last 46 hours, the Coal India had pumped out over 52 lakh litres of water from the nearby abandoned mines, but it was not enough to bring down the water level that was causing hindrances in the rescue work, Susngi said. The Kirloskar Brothers Limited, which has also joined the rescue efforts, had managed to pump out over 45 lakh litres of water, he said, adding that the Odisha Fire Services had pumped out approximately 4.5 lakh litres. Meanwhile, the Meghalaya government was likely to apprise the Supreme Court of the problems in continuing with the search-and-rescue operations, an official told PTI. The apex court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction with the rescue efforts to trace the miners and rapped the Meghalaya government for not seeking the Army's help. The top court is hearing public interest litigation (PIL), seeking steps to rescue the 15 miners. "We will put forth our views and reports and will act according to the order of the court," the official said, requesting anonymity.

Meghalaya mine rescue: Navy abandons efforts to pull out decomposed body of miner

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna were sworn-in as Supreme Court judges on Friday.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi administered the oath of office to justices Maheshwari and Khanna during the swearing-in ceremony held in court number 1 of the apex court.

The sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court is 31. With the swearing-in of justices Maheshwari and Khanna, the strength has now gone up to 28.

While Justice Maheshwari was the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Khanna was a judge in the Delhi High Court.

The government had on Wednesday notified the appointment of justices Maheshwari and Khanna as judges of the apex court.

The five-member Supreme Court Collegium, comprising CJI Gogoi and justices A K Sikri, S A Bobde, N V Ramana and Arun Mishra, had on January 10 recommended the names of justices Maheshwari and Khanna for elevation as apex court judges.

The names of the chief justices of the Rajasthan and Delhi high courts, justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Rajendra Menon respectively, were considered by the collegium on December 12, 2018, for elevation, but the deliberation remained inconclusive and one of the members of the collegium, Justice M B Lokur, retired on December 30, 2018.

His place in the collegium was taken by Justice Arun Mishra.

The new collegium had, on January 10, ignored the prospect of elevation of justices Nandrajog and Menon as apex court judges.&nbsp;

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had, on Wednesday, protested the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Khanna by superseding several other judges and termed the decision as "whimsical and arbitrary".

Before the BCI made a statement protesting the collegium's decision, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court also wrote a note to the CJI and other members of the Collegium for ignoring the seniority of justices Nandrajog and Menon.

Sources said Justice Kaul was of the view that a wrong signal would go out if the two chief justices, who were above Justice Khanna in the seniority list, were not elevated as apex court judges.&nbsp;

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna were sworn-in as Supreme Court judges on Friday. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi administered the oath of office to justices Maheshwari and Khanna during the swearing-in ceremony held in court number 1 of the apex court.

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna were sworn-in as Supreme Court judges on Friday. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi administered the oath of office to justices Maheshwari and Khanna during the swearing-in ceremony held in court number 1 of the apex court. The sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court is 31. With the swearing-in of justices Maheshwari and Khanna, the strength has now gone up to 28. While Justice Maheshwari was the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Khanna was a judge in the Delhi High Court. The government had on Wednesday notified the appointment of justices Maheshwari and Khanna as judges of the apex court. The five-member Supreme Court Collegium, comprising CJI Gogoi and justices A K Sikri, S A Bobde, N V Ramana and Arun Mishra, had on January 10 recommended the names of justices Maheshwari and Khanna for elevation as apex court judges. The names of the chief justices of the Rajasthan and Delhi high courts, justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Rajendra Menon respectively, were considered by the collegium on December 12, 2018, for elevation, but the deliberation remained inconclusive and one of the members of the collegium, Justice M B Lokur, retired on December 30, 2018. His place in the collegium was taken by Justice Arun Mishra. The new collegium had, on January 10, ignored the prospect of elevation of justices Nandrajog and Menon as apex court judges. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had, on Wednesday, protested the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Khanna by superseding several other judges and termed the decision as "whimsical and arbitrary". Before the BCI made a statement protesting the collegium's decision, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court also wrote a note to the CJI and other members of the Collegium for ignoring the seniority of justices Nandrajog and Menon. Sources said Justice Kaul was of the view that a wrong signal would go out if the two chief justices, who were above Justice Khanna in the seniority list, were not elevated as apex court judges.

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjiv Khanna sworn-in as Supreme Court judges

RSS executive head Bhaiyyaji Joshi has expressed confidence that the Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya by the time of next 'Kumbh' in 2025, the Sangh said in a statement on Friday.

In a bid to "contextualise" the comments, the RSS in a statement issued by spokesperson Arun Kumar said Joshi had made these remarks on Thursday at the ongoing Kumbh in Praygraj in Uttar Pradesh.

"When Kumbh is again held after six years in 2025, the construction of Ram temple, which is a symbol of India's national honour, will be completed and the nation will move towards prosperity," the spokesperson quoted Joshi as saying.

Joshi, who is number two in the hierarchy of the Sangh, made these remarks at the time when its allied organisation VHP is demanding the government to enact a law which paves the way for construction of temple in Ayodhya.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute is scheduled for hearing on January 29 in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

In Varanasi, Telecom Minister Manoj Sinha said that not just the BJP but the majority people of this country wants Ram temple to be built in Ayodhya at the earliest.

Sinha said the government will build the temple as per the guidelines laid down in the Constitution.

RSS executive head Bhaiyyaji Joshi has expressed confidence that the Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya by the time of next 'Kumbh' in 2025, the Sangh said in a statement on Friday.

RSS executive head Bhaiyyaji Joshi has expressed confidence that the Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya by the time of next 'Kumbh' in 2025, the Sangh said in a statement on Friday. In a bid to "contextualise" the comments, the RSS in a statement issued by spokesperson Arun Kumar said Joshi had made these remarks on Thursday at the ongoing Kumbh in Praygraj in Uttar Pradesh. "When Kumbh is again held after six years in 2025, the construction of Ram temple, which is a symbol of India's national honour, will be completed and the nation will move towards prosperity," the spokesperson quoted Joshi as saying. Joshi, who is number two in the hierarchy of the Sangh, made these remarks at the time when its allied organisation VHP is demanding the government to enact a law which paves the way for construction of temple in Ayodhya. The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute is scheduled for hearing on January 29 in the Supreme Court. In Varanasi, Telecom Minister Manoj Sinha said that not just the BJP but the majority people of this country wants Ram temple to be built in Ayodhya at the earliest. Sinha said the government will build the temple as per the guidelines laid down in the Constitution.

Ram temple will be constructed by 2025, says RSS

It is better not to be in Delhi, the Supreme Court said on Friday, expressing despair over the lack of implementation of measures to curb <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/dense-fog-at-delhi-airport-affects-over-450-flights-191247">air pollution</a> and traffic congestion in the capital which, it added, has become like a “gas chamber”.

“In the morning and evening, there is so much pollution and traffic congestion,” Justice Arun Mishra said, hearing a matter related to air pollution in the National Capital Region.

“It is better not to be in Delhi. I do not wish to settle in Delhi. It is difficult to live in Delhi,” he said.

A bench of justices Mishra and Deepak Gupta said these problems affect the right to life.

Justice Mishra cited an example to explain the problem of traffic, saying he was stuck in traffic on Friday morning and could have missed the swearing-in of two judges at the apex court.

Advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the court as an amicus curiae, told the bench that Delhi has become a “gas chamber” due to pollution. And Justice Gupta agreed, “Yes, it is like gas chamber.”

Singh told the court that authorities always say they take measures to curb pollution but the reality is different.

“We would like to understand,” the bench said.

“What are the things which are required to be done in actuality? What remains to be done as per the comprehensive action plan? What is required to keep in check environment pollution in Delhi? What more can be done?” it said, adding, “implementation is definitely lacking”.

It said that many polluting vehicles enter Delhi at night and asked authorities how they were allowing these to enter the national capital.

The court asked the Delhi police what action they have taken to remove unclaimed vehicles — that are no longer required in legal cases — from police stations. It also asked the Delhi government why they have not appointed district ‘nazir’ (record keeper of record room).

The Delhi government’s counsel told it they are yet to receive a reply from Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land to build malkhana (record room).

“If you can dispose of the junk vehicles, you will get several acres of land,” the bench said.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on February 1.

It is better not to be in Delhi, the Supreme Court said on Friday, expressing despair over the lack of implementation of measures to curb air pollution and traffic congestion in the capital which, it added, has become like a “gas chamber”.

It is better not to be in Delhi, the Supreme Court said on Friday, expressing despair over the lack of implementation of measures to curb air pollution and traffic congestion in the capital which, it added, has become like a “gas chamber”. “In the morning and evening, there is so much pollution and traffic congestion,” Justice Arun Mishra said, hearing a matter related to air pollution in the National Capital Region. “It is better not to be in Delhi. I do not wish to settle in Delhi. It is difficult to live in Delhi,” he said. A bench of justices Mishra and Deepak Gupta said these problems affect the right to life. Justice Mishra cited an example to explain the problem of traffic, saying he was stuck in traffic on Friday morning and could have missed the swearing-in of two judges at the apex court. Advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the court as an amicus curiae, told the bench that Delhi has become a “gas chamber” due to pollution. And Justice Gupta agreed, “Yes, it is like gas chamber.” Singh told the court that authorities always say they take measures to curb pollution but the reality is different. “We would like to understand,” the bench said. “What are the things which are required to be done in actuality? What remains to be done as per the comprehensive action plan? What is required to keep in check environment pollution in Delhi? What more can be done?” it said, adding, “implementation is definitely lacking”. It said that many polluting vehicles enter Delhi at night and asked authorities how they were allowing these to enter the national capital. The court asked the Delhi police what action they have taken to remove unclaimed vehicles — that are no longer required in legal cases — from police stations. It also asked the Delhi government why they have not appointed district ‘nazir’ (record keeper of record room). The Delhi government’s counsel told it they are yet to receive a reply from Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land to build malkhana (record room). “If you can dispose of the junk vehicles, you will get several acres of land,” the bench said. The court posted the matter for further hearing on February 1.

Better not to be in Delhi, it is like a gas chamber: Supreme Court

Kerala government on Friday informed the Supreme Court that 51 women devotees between the age group&nbsp;of 10 and 50 entered Sabarimala temple.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the Kerala government, said till now 51 female devotees between the age group&nbsp;of 10 and 50 have entered the shrine.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Correction?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Correction</a>: In a note, submitted in SC by the Kerala government, it stated that 51 women between the age groups of 10 and 50 years entered <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SabarimalaTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SabarimalaTemple</a> following SC verdict. (Earlier tweet will be deleted) <a href="https://t.co/DoX2l0HCiT">https://t.co/DoX2l0HCiT</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1086183452087631872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court also directed the Kerala Police to provide round-the-clock security to two women who had entered the Sabarimala temple.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices L N Rao and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing the petitions of 42-year-old Bindu, a college lecturer and CPI(ML) activist from Kozhikode district's Koyilandy, and Kanakadurga, 44, a civil supplies department employee from Angadipuram in Malappuram, who had entered the Sabarimala shrine on January 2, according to PTI.

Sabarimala temple has been in the thick of things since the apex court allowed the women of the menstrual age group to enter the temple and offer prayers thus ending age-old tradition.&nbsp;

Some women who tried to enter the temple faced a huge backlash from the protestors who were opposed to women of menstrual age entering the temple and returned without success while some others between the age group of 10 and 50 managed to enter the temple and offered prayers.

Kerala government on Friday informed the Supreme Court that 51 women devotees between the age group of 10 and 50 entered Sabarimala temple. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the Kerala government, said till now 51 female devotees between the age group of 10 and 50 have entered the shrine.

Kerala government on Friday informed the Supreme Court that 51 women devotees between the age group of 10 and 50 entered Sabarimala temple. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the Kerala government, said till now 51 female devotees between the age group of 10 and 50 have entered the shrine. #Correction: In a note, submitted in SC by the Kerala government, it stated that 51 women between the age groups of 10 and 50 years entered #SabarimalaTemple following SC verdict. (Earlier tweet will be deleted) https://t.co/DoX2l0HCiT — ANI (@ANI) January 18, 2019 × The Supreme Court also directed the Kerala Police to provide round-the-clock security to two women who had entered the Sabarimala temple. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices L N Rao and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing the petitions of 42-year-old Bindu, a college lecturer and CPI(ML) activist from Kozhikode district's Koyilandy, and Kanakadurga, 44, a civil supplies department employee from Angadipuram in Malappuram, who had entered the Sabarimala shrine on January 2, according to PTI. Sabarimala temple has been in the thick of things since the apex court allowed the women of the menstrual age group to enter the temple and offer prayers thus ending age-old tradition. Some women who tried to enter the temple faced a huge backlash from the protestors who were opposed to women of menstrual age entering the temple and returned without success while some others between the age group of 10 and 50 managed to enter the temple and offered prayers.

51 women below 50 have entered Sabarimala temple: Kerala to Supreme Court

Stating that there can be "regulations" but not "total prohibition", the Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/indias-supreme-court-allows-dance-bars-to-function-without-cctv-cameras-6617">the reopening of dance bars in Maharashtra</a> by setting aside some provisions of a 2016 law imposing restrictions on their licensing and functioning.

Clearing the path for licences allowing dance bars to operate, an apex court bench headed by Justice AK Sikri permitted them to be located a kilometre away from religious places and educational institutions.

The court allowed tips to performers but disallowed showering of currency on them.

The apex court quashed the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016, like the mandatory installations of CCTV cameras in the dance bars saying they violated privacy.

The bench, however, upheld the provision restricting the timing of operation of dance bars from 6 pm to 11.30 pm.

"From 2005 till date, not a single person has been given licence (for dance bars). It cannot be done. There can be regulations but it cannot amount to total prohibition," the bench said while pronouncing the judgement.

The apex court said the provision which mandated that dance bars should be located one kilometre away from religious places and educations institutions is "unconstitutional".

It also quashed the provision of the 2016 law which mandated that there must be a partition between barrooms and the dance floor.

In August last year, the court reserved its verdict on the pleas of hotel and restaurant owners challenging the 2016 Maharashtra law.

Earlier, the petitioners told the bench that the state government tried to circumvent a previous order of the apex court by bringing in the new 2016 law on conditions for operation of dance bars.

Hotel and restaurant owners argued that the state government adopted an attitude that it will not permit operations of dance bars irrespective of orders passed by the apex court.

On January 11, 2017, the apex court directed the Maharashtra government to expeditiously decide the pending applications for licences to open dance bars under the old rules and the directions issued by the court from time to time.

The Maharashtra government, in an affidavit filed before the court, defended the operation of a new law meant to regulate licensing and functioning of dance bars in the state.

"It was observed that such dances were derogatory to the dignity of women and were likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality," the state government said.

"It was also brought to the notice of the state government that the places where such dances were staged were used as places for immoral activities and also as a place for solicitation for the purpose of prostitution," it said.

The state government said the prevention of obscenity in public places is a part of public policy in India and was reflected in the provision of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

"Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 gives effect to such Public Policy," it said.&nbsp;

Stating that there can be "regulations" but not "total prohibition", the Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for the reopening of dance bars in Maharashtra by setting aside some provisions of a 2016 law imposing restrictions on their licensing and functioning.

Stating that there can be "regulations" but not "total prohibition", the Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for the reopening of dance bars in Maharashtra by setting aside some provisions of a 2016 law imposing restrictions on their licensing and functioning. Clearing the path for licences allowing dance bars to operate, an apex court bench headed by Justice AK Sikri permitted them to be located a kilometre away from religious places and educational institutions. The court allowed tips to performers but disallowed showering of currency on them. The apex court quashed the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016, like the mandatory installations of CCTV cameras in the dance bars saying they violated privacy. The bench, however, upheld the provision restricting the timing of operation of dance bars from 6 pm to 11.30 pm. "From 2005 till date, not a single person has been given licence (for dance bars). It cannot be done. There can be regulations but it cannot amount to total prohibition," the bench said while pronouncing the judgement. The apex court said the provision which mandated that dance bars should be located one kilometre away from religious places and educations institutions is "unconstitutional". It also quashed the provision of the 2016 law which mandated that there must be a partition between barrooms and the dance floor. In August last year, the court reserved its verdict on the pleas of hotel and restaurant owners challenging the 2016 Maharashtra law. Earlier, the petitioners told the bench that the state government tried to circumvent a previous order of the apex court by bringing in the new 2016 law on conditions for operation of dance bars. Hotel and restaurant owners argued that the state government adopted an attitude that it will not permit operations of dance bars irrespective of orders passed by the apex court. On January 11, 2017, the apex court directed the Maharashtra government to expeditiously decide the pending applications for licences to open dance bars under the old rules and the directions issued by the court from time to time. The Maharashtra government, in an affidavit filed before the court, defended the operation of a new law meant to regulate licensing and functioning of dance bars in the state. "It was observed that such dances were derogatory to the dignity of women and were likely to deprave, corrupt or injure public morality," the state government said. "It was also brought to the notice of the state government that the places where such dances were staged were used as places for immoral activities and also as a place for solicitation for the purpose of prostitution," it said. The state government said the prevention of obscenity in public places is a part of public policy in India and was reflected in the provision of Indian Penal Code (IPC). "Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 gives effect to such Public Policy," it said.

Supreme Court paves way for reopening of Maharashtra's dance bars

Not so long ago the collegium's decision to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court had met with various obstacles from the law ministry. After a constant back and forth between the ministry and the collegium recommendations, his elevation was finally a success. &nbsp;

In August last year, the ministry while returning Justice Joseph's recommendation back to the collegium categorically reasoned that he "lacked" seniority among other chief justices of the High Courts and that his elevation gave more representation to the state of Kerala. In 2019, Supreme Court Collegium is back in the spotlight for elevating Justice Sanjiv Khanna (Delhi High Court judge) and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court) superseding 32 other judges.&nbsp;

In a significant turn of events, there were strong indications that the collegium on December 12&nbsp;had decided to elevate the current Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Justice Menon and Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog but those resolutions didn't see the light of day.&nbsp;

On January 10&nbsp;when the collegium recommended Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Dinesh Maheshwari's elevation to the Supreme Court, objections poured in against the collegium's decision from all corners, raising questions on the issue of transparency and outlining the randomness of the turn of events.&nbsp;

First to hit out at the collegium was former Delhi High Court Judge Kailash Gambhir, who wrote a letter to the President highlighting the issue with the current recommendation and called the decision "Appalling, outrageous and earth-shattering".

"This is appalling and outrageous that such an earth-shattering decision has been taken to supersede as many as 32 judges which include many Chief Justices, casting aspersions on their intellect, merit and integrity," Gambhir said.

While Justice Sanjiv Khanna is 33rd in the combined seniority of High Court judges in the country, Justice Gambhir wrote that his elevation would not only be a "black day in the Indian judiciary" but it would confirm court corridor gossip about paying respect to Justice H R Khanna's legacy (who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna's uncle).&nbsp;

Controversy erupted when Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Kishan Kaul wrote a letter to CJI Ranjan Gogoi raising objections against the elevation of Justice Khanna and Justice Maheshwari. Reports suggest he highlighted the issue of bypassing Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog's elevation and urged the CJI to reconsider his recommendation. According to Justice SK Kaul, Justice Nandrajog is the senior-most judge and not elevating him would send out a wrong signal. Sources have indicated that other judges in the Supreme Court have also raised objections to the current recommendations.&nbsp;

This brings us back to the issue of opaqueness in collegium's decisions, which have come under scrutiny in the past as well. While collegium resolutions and minutes of the meeting are shared on the Supreme Court's website, the transparency level has not gone up. It was in October 2017 when a resolution was passed by five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice R Gogoi, Justice M Lokur, and Justice K Joseph to make collegium's decision public.&nbsp;

Supreme Court collegium - the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts made an effort to be more transparent and sent out the message that the collegium has nothing to hide from its citizens.&nbsp;

However, now with the recent controversy brewing in Supreme Court corridors, many are reiterating what Justice Chelameshwar had said in that unprecedented press conference, "Many things that are less than desirable have happened in the last few months".&nbsp;

Not so long ago the collegium's decision to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court had met with various obstacles from the law ministry. After a constant back and forth between the ministry and the collegium recommendations, his elevation was finally a success.

Not so long ago the collegium's decision to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court had met with various obstacles from the law ministry. After a constant back and forth between the ministry and the collegium recommendations, his elevation was finally a success. In August last year, the ministry while returning Justice Joseph's recommendation back to the collegium categorically reasoned that he "lacked" seniority among other chief justices of the High Courts and that his elevation gave more representation to the state of Kerala. In 2019, Supreme Court Collegium is back in the spotlight for elevating Justice Sanjiv Khanna (Delhi High Court judge) and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court) superseding 32 other judges. In a significant turn of events, there were strong indications that the collegium on December 12 had decided to elevate the current Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Justice Menon and Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog but those resolutions didn't see the light of day. On January 10 when the collegium recommended Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Dinesh Maheshwari's elevation to the Supreme Court, objections poured in against the collegium's decision from all corners, raising questions on the issue of transparency and outlining the randomness of the turn of events. First to hit out at the collegium was former Delhi High Court Judge Kailash Gambhir, who wrote a letter to the President highlighting the issue with the current recommendation and called the decision "Appalling, outrageous and earth-shattering". "This is appalling and outrageous that such an earth-shattering decision has been taken to supersede as many as 32 judges which include many Chief Justices, casting aspersions on their intellect, merit and integrity," Gambhir said. While Justice Sanjiv Khanna is 33rd in the combined seniority of High Court judges in the country, Justice Gambhir wrote that his elevation would not only be a "black day in the Indian judiciary" but it would confirm court corridor gossip about paying respect to Justice H R Khanna's legacy (who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna's uncle). Controversy erupted when Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Kishan Kaul wrote a letter to CJI Ranjan Gogoi raising objections against the elevation of Justice Khanna and Justice Maheshwari. Reports suggest he highlighted the issue of bypassing Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog's elevation and urged the CJI to reconsider his recommendation. According to Justice SK Kaul, Justice Nandrajog is the senior-most judge and not elevating him would send out a wrong signal. Sources have indicated that other judges in the Supreme Court have also raised objections to the current recommendations. This brings us back to the issue of opaqueness in collegium's decisions, which have come under scrutiny in the past as well. While collegium resolutions and minutes of the meeting are shared on the Supreme Court's website, the transparency level has not gone up. It was in October 2017 when a resolution was passed by five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice R Gogoi, Justice M Lokur, and Justice K Joseph to make collegium's decision public. Supreme Court collegium - the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts made an effort to be more transparent and sent out the message that the collegium has nothing to hide from its citizens. However, now with the recent controversy brewing in Supreme Court corridors, many are reiterating what Justice Chelameshwar had said in that unprecedented press conference, "Many things that are less than desirable have happened in the last few months".

Supreme Court collegium in spotlight

President Ram Nath Kovind on Wednesday appointed Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, chief justice of Karnataka High Court and Sanjiv Khanna, judge of Delhi High Court, to be a judge of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the date they assume charge of their office, reported news agency ANI.

The five-member SC Collegium had on January 11 recommended the elevation of the two to the top court.

The apex court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies.

While recommending the names of Justices Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, the Collegium took into consideration the combined seniority on an all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of High Courts, apart from their merit and integrity.

President Ram Nath Kovind on Wednesday appointed Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, chief justice of Karnataka High Court and Sanjiv Khanna, judge of Delhi High Court, to be a judge of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the date they assume charge of their office, reported news agency ANI.

President Ram Nath Kovind on Wednesday appointed Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, chief justice of Karnataka High Court and Sanjiv Khanna, judge of Delhi High Court, to be a judge of the Supreme Court of India with effect from the date they assume charge of their office, reported news agency ANI. The five-member SC Collegium had on January 11 recommended the elevation of the two to the top court. The apex court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies. While recommending the names of Justices Maheshwari and Justice Khanna, the Collegium took into consideration the combined seniority on an all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges of High Courts, apart from their merit and integrity.

President Kovind appoints Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjiv Khanna as Supreme Court judges

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

Bhima Koregaon case: Pune court orders release of Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde

Supreme Court seeks RBI response in data localisation matter of WhatsApp payment service

Supreme Court seeks CBI's response on DSP Bassi's plea challenging transfer

Confessed to crime as Delhi Police threatened to implicate my family: Sreesanth to Supreme Court

Supreme Court directs Sahara chief Subrata Roy to appear before it on February 28

Go wherever you want but don't play around with the law: Supreme Court to Karti Chidambaram

Supreme Court again refuses to stay amendments to SC/ST Act

Venezuela bars Juan Guaido from leaving country, freezes his bank accounts

News brief: Big stories of the day

News brief: Big stories of the day

Government not touching disputed land: BJP on Centre's plea in Supreme Court on Ayodhya

Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas

Asia Bibi blasphemy case: Pakistan Supreme Court set to hear review plea

Supreme Court to consider listing of Centre's review, petitions challenging SC/ST Act amendments together

Don't hold 10% quota for economically weak, will examine validity: Supreme Court

SC rejects plea seeking CBI probe into murder of guard at Jayalalithaa's home

Supreme Court defers hearing on Vedanta's Sterlite copper plant plea to January 29

Justice Sikri recuses himself from hearing plea on interim CBI Director

Naroda Patiya riots: Supreme Court grants bail to 4 convicts

May not start hearing Sabarimala case till January 30 as Justice Malhotra on leave: Supreme Court

Supreme Court asks NGT to widen scrutiny into emission violations by car manufacturers

Supreme Court to take 'in-chamber' decision on listing of plea challenging Article 35-A

CBI DSP A K Bassi challenges his transfer to Port Blair, moves to Supreme Court

Meghalaya mine rescue: Navy abandons efforts to pull out decomposed body of miner

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjiv Khanna sworn-in as Supreme Court judges

Ram temple will be constructed by 2025, says RSS