The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference.

On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief.

DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court.

Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs.

The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs.

It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent.

The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list.

Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms.

The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police.

It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.

However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance.

It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP.

The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years.

The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs).

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the pleas of five states seeking modification of its order issued last year on the selection and appointment of director generals of police (DGPs). The apex court was hearing applications of various state governments, including Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal, Haryana and Bihar, seeking implementation of their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of DGPs. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the earlier directions of the court on selection and appointment of DGPs were issued in larger public interest and to protect the police officials from political interference. On December 12 last year, the apex court extended till January 31 the tenures of the present DGPs of Punjab and Haryana and agreed to hear the states' pleas seeking to implement their local laws regarding the selection and appointment of the police chief. DGPs Suresh Arora (Punjab) and BS Sandhu (Haryana) were due to retire on December 31 last year and will now remain in office till January 31 according to the earlier order of the apex court. Several states were seeking modification of the apex court's earlier order directing all the states to mandatorily take the assistance of the UPSC in short-listing the names for appointing DGPs. The top court, on July 3 last year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs. It said the states will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent. The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate the states, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list. Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal told the court that they have already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms. The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by former DGPs Prakash Singh and N K Singh in 2006, issued several directions, including the setting up of a state security commission to ensure the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police. It said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and superintendents of police (SPs) should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years. However, when states enacted laws providing a mechanism for DGP selection, the apex court on July 3 last year kept the state laws in abeyance. It earlier passed directions on police reforms and restrained all states and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP. The directions had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain states have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them to get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years. The apex court, on September 8, 2017, agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by states and Union territories.

Supreme Court dismisses pleas of 5 states seeking modification of its order on DGPs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear a plea by Zakia Jafri, challenging the SIT's clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Godhra riots, after four weeks.

Zakia, the wife of ex-MP Ehsan Jafri who was one of the 68 killed in Ahmedabad's Gulberg society, has challenged the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT's decision.

The matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi.&nbsp;

"You are asking for four weeks and we are giving you four weeks. List the matter after four weeks," the bench said.&nbsp;

The court previously said it will also look into the application by social activist Teesta Setalvad on becoming a co-petitioner in Zakia's plea ahead of hearing the main case.

Jafri's counsel told the apex court that a notice needs to be issued in the plea as it pertains to alleged "larger conspiracy" during February 27, 2002 and May 2002. It also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, the petitioner filed a protest which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits".

On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report, giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them.

Jafri was among the 68 people killed at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra, triggering riots in Gujarat.

The plea, filed through advocate Aparna Bhat, further said the high court "failed to appreciate" the petitioner's complaint which was independent of the Gulberg case registered at Meghaninagar Police Station.&nbsp;

The high court in its October 5, 2017, order said the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court. However, it partly allowed Zakia's petition as far as its demand of a further investigation was concerned.

It said the petitioner can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate's court, a division bench of the high court or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear a plea by Zakia Jafri, challenging the SIT's clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Godhra riots, after four weeks.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear a plea by Zakia Jafri, challenging the SIT's clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Godhra riots, after four weeks. Zakia, the wife of ex-MP Ehsan Jafri who was one of the 68 killed in Ahmedabad's Gulberg society, has challenged the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT's decision. The matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi. "You are asking for four weeks and we are giving you four weeks. List the matter after four weeks," the bench said. The court previously said it will also look into the application by social activist Teesta Setalvad on becoming a co-petitioner in Zakia's plea ahead of hearing the main case. Jafri's counsel told the apex court that a notice needs to be issued in the plea as it pertains to alleged "larger conspiracy" during February 27, 2002 and May 2002. It also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, the petitioner filed a protest which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits". On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report, giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them. Jafri was among the 68 people killed at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra, triggering riots in Gujarat. The plea, filed through advocate Aparna Bhat, further said the high court "failed to appreciate" the petitioner's complaint which was independent of the Gulberg case registered at Meghaninagar Police Station. The high court in its October 5, 2017, order said the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court. However, it partly allowed Zakia's petition as far as its demand of a further investigation was concerned. It said the petitioner can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate's court, a division bench of the high court or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.

Supreme Court to hear Zakia Jafri's plea in Gujarat riots after four weeks

The Meghalaya government Tuesday ordered implementation of the Supreme Court order banning the transportation of coal with immediate effect, officials said.

Chief Secretary Y Tsering issued the order directing authorities to ensure compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court without fail, they said.

The apex court banned the transportation of coal in the state forthwith until the next hearing on February 19, refusing a plea by the miners to send extracted coal left to transport since the 2014 National Green Tribunal ban on mining.

In pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court in its sitting Tuesday as communicated by the learned advocate general, transportation of coal in the state of Meghalaya is hereby stopped with immediate effect, Tsering said in his order.

The ban comes a week after a citizens forum in Meghalaya, in which RTI activists Agnes Kharshiing was part of, demanded the Supreme Court to issue a complete ban on coal mining/transportation in the state citing that there has been absolute loss in terms of revenue from the industry and that all indices in the mining district are down with 76 per cent of people landless.

The forum alleged collusions between the state government and the illegal coal miners wherein the courts and the NGT were misled on several occasions on the total amount of extracted coal waiting to be transported.

The Supreme Court has also rapped the Meghalaya government for failing to curb illegal mining and has asked it to file an affidavit.

Former chief minister and Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma hit out at the state government and said the leadership do not have the moral rights to continue to be in office.

This (SC order) shows that for the first time, the court no longer trusts the state government and the leadership has to be held responsible. With this exposure, the leadership does not have the moral and legal rights to continue in office, Mukul said.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Indian Navy carried on with the underwater exploration at the main shaft in search of the miners for 15 hours without any results, operation spokesperson R Susngi told PTI.

He said the Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL) pumps did not dewater the main shaft in view of the Navy underwater exploration.

Coal India Ltd and Odisha Fire Services, on the other hand, ran their pumps in nearby abandoned shafts in search of any signs of the miners, Susngi said. 
Scientists from Hyderabad and Chennai are surveying the strata of the coal seams and the rocks formation in the area, he said.

As the operations entered its 32nd day Tuesday, the Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR), which uses sound propagation to navigate, communicate or detect objects underwater, is expected to arrive at the site anytime soon.

The machines will be used to map the rat holes crisscrossing underneath the earth's crust in the area.&nbsp;

The Meghalaya government Tuesday ordered implementation of the Supreme Court order banning the transportation of coal with immediate effect, officials said. Chief Secretary Y Tsering issued the order directing authorities to ensure compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court without fail, they said.

The Meghalaya government Tuesday ordered implementation of the Supreme Court order banning the transportation of coal with immediate effect, officials said. Chief Secretary Y Tsering issued the order directing authorities to ensure compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court without fail, they said. The apex court banned the transportation of coal in the state forthwith until the next hearing on February 19, refusing a plea by the miners to send extracted coal left to transport since the 2014 National Green Tribunal ban on mining. In pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court in its sitting Tuesday as communicated by the learned advocate general, transportation of coal in the state of Meghalaya is hereby stopped with immediate effect, Tsering said in his order. The ban comes a week after a citizens forum in Meghalaya, in which RTI activists Agnes Kharshiing was part of, demanded the Supreme Court to issue a complete ban on coal mining/transportation in the state citing that there has been absolute loss in terms of revenue from the industry and that all indices in the mining district are down with 76 per cent of people landless. The forum alleged collusions between the state government and the illegal coal miners wherein the courts and the NGT were misled on several occasions on the total amount of extracted coal waiting to be transported. The Supreme Court has also rapped the Meghalaya government for failing to curb illegal mining and has asked it to file an affidavit. Former chief minister and Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma hit out at the state government and said the leadership do not have the moral rights to continue to be in office. This (SC order) shows that for the first time, the court no longer trusts the state government and the leadership has to be held responsible. With this exposure, the leadership does not have the moral and legal rights to continue in office, Mukul said. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Indian Navy carried on with the underwater exploration at the main shaft in search of the miners for 15 hours without any results, operation spokesperson R Susngi told PTI. He said the Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL) pumps did not dewater the main shaft in view of the Navy underwater exploration. Coal India Ltd and Odisha Fire Services, on the other hand, ran their pumps in nearby abandoned shafts in search of any signs of the miners, Susngi said. Scientists from Hyderabad and Chennai are surveying the strata of the coal seams and the rocks formation in the area, he said. As the operations entered its 32nd day Tuesday, the Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR), which uses sound propagation to navigate, communicate or detect objects underwater, is expected to arrive at the site anytime soon. The machines will be used to map the rat holes crisscrossing underneath the earth's crust in the area.

Meghalaya government orders implementation of Supreme Court order banning coal transportation

Thailand's highest court on Tuesday ordered compensation be paid to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/extortion-and-abuse-myanmar-workers-arrive-debt-laden-thailand-169336">14 migrant workers from Myanmar</a> whose accusations against a chicken farm of abuses sparked a landmark legal case for migrant labourers.

The workers in 2016 officially complained to Thailand's National Human Rights Commission about forced overtime, being paid less than the minimum wage, confiscation of passports, and limited freedom of movement.

But employer Thammakaset farm, which had supplied meat to Thai food conglomerate Betagro, denied the charges and launched a defamation lawsuit, saying the workers voluntarily worked nights and chose to sleep next to the chicken warehouse.

Betagro, which sells to companies around the globe, later said it had cut ties with the farm.

After a three-year legal battle, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court verdict from 2016 which found in favour of the workers and ruled they must be paid 1.7 million baht ($53,000) in compensation.

"There is no significant legal argument from the company's side," the court said in its order, dismissing the appeal.

A lawyer for the workers said they welcomed the verdict in a country that has been at the centre of a slew of slavery and human trafficking cases, including in its seafood sector.

"Hopefully, they will receive the compensation quickly and put this behind them," said Koreeyor Manuchae at NSP Legal Office.

Last July, a Bangkok court dismissed charges against the workers in the criminal defamation case which accused them of damaging the reputation of Thammakaset farm.&nbsp;

Labour rights activist Sutharee Wannasiri said Tuesday's verdict vindicated the workers.

"It's a very rare victory for labour rights and migrant workers in Thailand, and it will help bolster the rights of migrant workers in the country," she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"The compensation is not a large amount, but it is symbolic, and shows there is a mechanism for securing remedies and accountability when businesses have violated rights."

Campaigners have urged better protection for migrant labourers and activists from civil and criminal lawsuits for exposing abusive working conditions.

In the face of mounting global scrutiny of supply chains, Thailand has strengthened laws to crack down on labour exploitation, but activists said it was still widespread.

Thailand's highest court on Tuesday ordered compensation be paid to 14 migrant workers from Myanmar whose accusations against a chicken farm of abuses sparked a landmark legal case for migrant labourers.

Thailand's highest court on Tuesday ordered compensation be paid to 14 migrant workers from Myanmar whose accusations against a chicken farm of abuses sparked a landmark legal case for migrant labourers. The workers in 2016 officially complained to Thailand's National Human Rights Commission about forced overtime, being paid less than the minimum wage, confiscation of passports, and limited freedom of movement. But employer Thammakaset farm, which had supplied meat to Thai food conglomerate Betagro, denied the charges and launched a defamation lawsuit, saying the workers voluntarily worked nights and chose to sleep next to the chicken warehouse. Betagro, which sells to companies around the globe, later said it had cut ties with the farm. After a three-year legal battle, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court verdict from 2016 which found in favour of the workers and ruled they must be paid 1.7 million baht ($53,000) in compensation. "There is no significant legal argument from the company's side," the court said in its order, dismissing the appeal. A lawyer for the workers said they welcomed the verdict in a country that has been at the centre of a slew of slavery and human trafficking cases, including in its seafood sector. "Hopefully, they will receive the compensation quickly and put this behind them," said Koreeyor Manuchae at NSP Legal Office. Last July, a Bangkok court dismissed charges against the workers in the criminal defamation case which accused them of damaging the reputation of Thammakaset farm. Labour rights activist Sutharee Wannasiri said Tuesday's verdict vindicated the workers. "It's a very rare victory for labour rights and migrant workers in Thailand, and it will help bolster the rights of migrant workers in the country," she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. "The compensation is not a large amount, but it is symbolic, and shows there is a mechanism for securing remedies and accountability when businesses have violated rights." Campaigners have urged better protection for migrant labourers and activists from civil and criminal lawsuits for exposing abusive working conditions. In the face of mounting global scrutiny of supply chains, Thailand has strengthened laws to crack down on labour exploitation, but activists said it was still widespread.

Thailand top court orders compensation for Myanmar workers in landmark case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabarimala-row-un-encourages-all-to-respect-rule-of-law-says-antonio-guterres-spokesperson-188383&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbjNCdre_fAhUiTY8KHaS-Dus4FBAWCAgwAQ&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0WgfWvL7LDftKG4MS7RdIn">Sabarimala</a> verdict from January 22 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said 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 "due to some medical reasons".

The bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S K Kaul, said the hearing, which is scheduled to start from January 22, may not take place.

The observation came after lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara mentioned the petition filed by the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA) and sought live streaming of the hearing on the petitions seeking review of the apex court's verdict on January 22.

NADA asked for live streaming and video recording of the court proceedings during the hearing of the review petitions so "justice is made accessible to common man".

If the proceedings are allowed to be telecast, millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, not merely in Kerala, but all over the world, will have the opportunity to hear and watch what transpired in the court, it said.

"There cannot be an issue of greater importance of public interest or concern than the Sabarimala case. Video recording of the said case would mean the entire proceeding thereof being perpetually available for posterity," the petition said.

On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the&nbsp;then chief justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict paved the way for the entry of women of all ages into the temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

The temple in Kerala has been witnessing violent protests since the verdict.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict from January 22 as one of the judges is on medical leave.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it may not start hearing pleas seeking a review of the Sabarimala verdict from January 22 as one of the judges is on medical leave. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said 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 "due to some medical reasons". The bench, which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S K Kaul, said the hearing, which is scheduled to start from January 22, may not take place. The observation came after lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara mentioned the petition filed by the National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA) and sought live streaming of the hearing on the petitions seeking review of the apex court's verdict on January 22. NADA asked for live streaming and video recording of the court proceedings during the hearing of the review petitions so "justice is made accessible to common man". If the proceedings are allowed to be telecast, millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, not merely in Kerala, but all over the world, will have the opportunity to hear and watch what transpired in the court, it said. "There cannot be an issue of greater importance of public interest or concern than the Sabarimala case. Video recording of the said case would mean the entire proceeding thereof being perpetually available for posterity," the petition said. On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the then chief justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict paved the way for the entry of women of all ages into the temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination. The temple in Kerala has been witnessing violent protests since the verdict.

Judge on medical leave, Supreme Court may not start hearing Sabarimala review pleas from January 22

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system and sought a response within six weeks.

The PIL challenging the government's December 20 notification came up before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

According to the notification, 10 central probe and snoop agencies are empowered under the Information Technology (IT) Act for computer interception and analysis, Home Ministry officials said.&nbsp;

The 10 agencies notified under the new order are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for Income Tax Department), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J-K, North East and Assam) and Delhi Police commissioner.

The plea, filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, termed the notification "illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires to the law".

He also sought to prohibit the agencies from initiating any criminal proceedings, enquiry or investigation against anybody under the provisions of the IT Act based on the notification.

The petition alleged that the notification gives the state the right to access every communication, computer and mobile and "to use it to protect political interest and object of the present executive political party".

The government's move set off a political storm with the opposition accusing the Centre of trying to create a "surveillance state".

However, the Central government said the rules for intercepting and monitoring computer data were framed in 2009 when the Congress-led UPA was in power and its new order only notified the designated authority which can carry out such action.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system and sought a response within six weeks.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the notification authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system and sought a response within six weeks. The PIL challenging the government's December 20 notification came up before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. According to the notification, 10 central probe and snoop agencies are empowered under the Information Technology (IT) Act for computer interception and analysis, Home Ministry officials said. The 10 agencies notified under the new order are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for Income Tax Department), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J-K, North East and Assam) and Delhi Police commissioner. The plea, filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, termed the notification "illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires to the law". He also sought to prohibit the agencies from initiating any criminal proceedings, enquiry or investigation against anybody under the provisions of the IT Act based on the notification. The petition alleged that the notification gives the state the right to access every communication, computer and mobile and "to use it to protect political interest and object of the present executive political party". The government's move set off a political storm with the opposition accusing the Centre of trying to create a "surveillance state". However, the Central government said the rules for intercepting and monitoring computer data were framed in 2009 when the Congress-led UPA was in power and its new order only notified the designated authority which can carry out such action.

Supreme Court gives Centre six weeks to reply to notice on PIL against 'snooping'

In a relief to jailed former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the anti-graft body's appeal against the suspension of his jail sentence and that of his family in one of three corruption cases faced by the embattled leader.

In July 2018, an accountability court here handed Sharif 10 years as jail time for owning assets beyond known income and 1 year for not cooperating with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar upheld the Islamabad High Court's verdict that ordered suspension of prison sentences awarded to Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (retd) Mohammad Safdar in the Avenfield corruption case related to their purchase of four luxury flats in London through corrupt practices.

The apex court, in its ruling, said that the NAB has failed to provide the "ground for cancellation of bail" and that the IHC had not exceeded its authority in granting bail to the convicts of the Avenfield case.

The 69-year-old three-time former prime minister and his family have denied any wrongdoing.&nbsp;

Sharif is currently in jail after an anti-corruption court sentenced him on December 24 to seven years in jail in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills graft case while acquitting him in the Flagship Investments corruption case in the Panama Papers scandal.

The Supreme Court's decision brings a rare relief for the Sharif family, both of whose leaders&nbsp;Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif&nbsp;are currently incarcerated, Dawn newspaper commented.

The NAB, Pakistan's anti-corruption body, approached the apex court after the Islamabad High Court, on September 19, suspended prison sentences of the Sharifs awarded by an accountability court.&nbsp;

The accountability court convicted Maryam and Safdar in the Avenfield properties case and sentenced them to eight years and one year, respectively, in prison.

Upholding the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court bench threw out the NAB's request to revoke the Sharifs' bails, observing that the anti-corruption watchdog had failed to provide the "grounds for cancellation of bail".&nbsp;

The IHC did not exceed its authority in granting bail to the convicts of the Avenfield case, Geo TV quoted the bench as observing.&nbsp;

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who will be sworn in as the country's next chief justice later this month, stated that the IHC decision was temporary and the apex court would not interfere with the decision.&nbsp;

"The person [Nawaz Sharif] is in prison and there is no allegation about the misuse of bail. We have a Constitution to follow and we will make sure justice prevails. There will be a fair trial in every case," Justice Khosa remarked.

Responding to the apex court verdict, Maryam Nawaz, daughter of Sharif, said she was thankful to Allah Almighty.&nbsp;

She, however, said that true relief and happiness would be when her father came back home from jail.

The former premier has been a serving seven-year imprisonment at Kot Lakhpat prison after being declared guilty of corruption in Al-Azizia case.

Sharif has already filed an appeal in the Islamabad High Court against the sentence.

"I am thankful to Allah Almighty for today's decision. The fact is that not for a moment was I concerned about myself. Insha'Allah true relief &amp; happiness would be when my father comes back home. I have faith in Allah and His infinite Mercy. Thank you all for your prayers &amp; support," Maryam tweeted.

Reacting to the top court's decision, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry took to Twitter and hailed the decision saying Sharif is still is in prison and hence the decision will not have any effect on the present state of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader.

Three cases of corruption&nbsp;the Avenfield properties case, Flagship Investment case and Al-Azizia steel mills case - were launched by the NAB on September 8, 2017, following a judgment by the apex court that disqualified Sharif.

The apex court initially set a six-month deadline to conclude the cases but it subsequently increased around eight times on the request of the accountability court.

Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers case in July, 2017.

In a relief to jailed former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the anti-graft body's appeal against the suspension of his jail sentence and that of his family in one of three corruption cases faced by the embattled leader.

In a relief to jailed former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the anti-graft body's appeal against the suspension of his jail sentence and that of his family in one of three corruption cases faced by the embattled leader. In July 2018, an accountability court here handed Sharif 10 years as jail time for owning assets beyond known income and 1 year for not cooperating with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar upheld the Islamabad High Court's verdict that ordered suspension of prison sentences awarded to Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (retd) Mohammad Safdar in the Avenfield corruption case related to their purchase of four luxury flats in London through corrupt practices. The apex court, in its ruling, said that the NAB has failed to provide the "ground for cancellation of bail" and that the IHC had not exceeded its authority in granting bail to the convicts of the Avenfield case. The 69-year-old three-time former prime minister and his family have denied any wrongdoing. Sharif is currently in jail after an anti-corruption court sentenced him on December 24 to seven years in jail in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills graft case while acquitting him in the Flagship Investments corruption case in the Panama Papers scandal. The Supreme Court's decision brings a rare relief for the Sharif family, both of whose leaders Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif are currently incarcerated, Dawn newspaper commented. The NAB, Pakistan's anti-corruption body, approached the apex court after the Islamabad High Court, on September 19, suspended prison sentences of the Sharifs awarded by an accountability court. The accountability court convicted Maryam and Safdar in the Avenfield properties case and sentenced them to eight years and one year, respectively, in prison. Upholding the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court bench threw out the NAB's request to revoke the Sharifs' bails, observing that the anti-corruption watchdog had failed to provide the "grounds for cancellation of bail". The IHC did not exceed its authority in granting bail to the convicts of the Avenfield case, Geo TV quoted the bench as observing. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who will be sworn in as the country's next chief justice later this month, stated that the IHC decision was temporary and the apex court would not interfere with the decision. "The person [Nawaz Sharif] is in prison and there is no allegation about the misuse of bail. We have a Constitution to follow and we will make sure justice prevails. There will be a fair trial in every case," Justice Khosa remarked. Responding to the apex court verdict, Maryam Nawaz, daughter of Sharif, said she was thankful to Allah Almighty. She, however, said that true relief and happiness would be when her father came back home from jail. The former premier has been a serving seven-year imprisonment at Kot Lakhpat prison after being declared guilty of corruption in Al-Azizia case. Sharif has already filed an appeal in the Islamabad High Court against the sentence. "I am thankful to Allah Almighty for today's decision. The fact is that not for a moment was I concerned about myself. Insha'Allah true relief & happiness would be when my father comes back home. I have faith in Allah and His infinite Mercy. Thank you all for your prayers & support," Maryam tweeted. Reacting to the top court's decision, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry took to Twitter and hailed the decision saying Sharif is still is in prison and hence the decision will not have any effect on the present state of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader. Three cases of corruption the Avenfield properties case, Flagship Investment case and Al-Azizia steel mills case - were launched by the NAB on September 8, 2017, following a judgment by the apex court that disqualified Sharif. The apex court initially set a six-month deadline to conclude the cases but it subsequently increased around eight times on the request of the accountability court. Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers case in July, 2017.

Pakistan SC dismisses appeal against suspension of Sharifs' sentences in graft case

Justice A K Sikri of the Supreme Court wants the controversy, over his proposed post-retirement assignment and nomination on the PM-led panel which removed Alok Verma as CBI chief, to "die" even as some senior advocates Monday termed the incident mischievous and aimed at targeting him.

"See I don't want the controversy to be dragged. I want it to die," Justice Sikri told PTI on the sidelines of a private function relating to the release of a book on the life of former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal.

He refrained from making any further comments on the episode.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-sikri-whose-vote-helped-remove-cbi-chief-withdraws-consent-to-government-offer-190072">A controversy broke out on Sunday</a> over Justice Sikri getting a government offer last year for a post-retirement assignment at the London-based Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT), three days after his vote, as a representative of CJI Ranjan Gogoi on the panel, helped decide the removal of Verma as CBI director.

Apparently stung by the controversy, Justice Sikri withdrew his consent to the government offer.

On Monday, Justice Sikri, the senior-most judge after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, maintained a safe distance from scribes but former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said he has been "unfairly targeted" by some political leaders and activist-lawyers.

"There is no connection between the two issues and people who don't know the facts and circumstances under which the two things happened, giving consent for assignment at London-based Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal and his nomination by the CJI in the Prime Minister-led panel on the former CBI chief issue, are instrumental in making allegations which are utterly false and malicious," Rohatgi said.

Criticising some activist-lawyers who had used social media to allegedly "malign" the judge, Rohatgi said "such people only want publicity without knowing the facts about the person whom they are speaking."

"The issue was raised completely with mischievous intent to malign the judge. It is scandalous," he said.

His view was shared by former high court judge Ajit Kumar Sinha and senior advocate Vikas Singh, who said it was "unfortunate" that some persons and activist-lawyers "mischievously" linked the two incidents.

They said Justice Sikri had given oral consent in December 2018 to the government offer to nominate him for president/member of the CSAT and the CJI nominated him in the PM-led panel after judgment in the Verma case in January 2019.

Singh said the lawyers have to make comments sensibly but these activist-lawyers are "loose cannon" and "I think it was mischievous on part of the activist-lawyers to create an unnecessary controversy".

Sinha said creating controversy like this only denigrate an institution from where both the bar and the bench derive privilege.

He also said people who have created the controversy have been earlier praising the CJI but now criticising him for nominating Justice Sikri on the high-level panel.

A senior advocate, who recently resigned as Additional Solicitor General, and knows Justice Sikri for three decades, said,&nbsp;"some people are only trying to malign the judge".

He said it has become a routine for some activist-lawyers to target judges who take a decision contrary to their wishes.

Justice A K Sikri of the Supreme Court wants the controversy, over his proposed post-retirement assignment and nomination on the PM-led panel which removed Alok Verma as CBI chief, to "die" even as some senior advocates Monday termed the incident mischievous and aimed at targeting him.

Justice A K Sikri of the Supreme Court wants the controversy, over his proposed post-retirement assignment and nomination on the PM-led panel which removed Alok Verma as CBI chief, to "die" even as some senior advocates Monday termed the incident mischievous and aimed at targeting him. "See I don't want the controversy to be dragged. I want it to die," Justice Sikri told PTI on the sidelines of a private function relating to the release of a book on the life of former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal. He refrained from making any further comments on the episode. A controversy broke out on Sunday over Justice Sikri getting a government offer last year for a post-retirement assignment at the London-based Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT), three days after his vote, as a representative of CJI Ranjan Gogoi on the panel, helped decide the removal of Verma as CBI director. Apparently stung by the controversy, Justice Sikri withdrew his consent to the government offer. On Monday, Justice Sikri, the senior-most judge after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, maintained a safe distance from scribes but former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said he has been "unfairly targeted" by some political leaders and activist-lawyers. "There is no connection between the two issues and people who don't know the facts and circumstances under which the two things happened, giving consent for assignment at London-based Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal and his nomination by the CJI in the Prime Minister-led panel on the former CBI chief issue, are instrumental in making allegations which are utterly false and malicious," Rohatgi said. Criticising some activist-lawyers who had used social media to allegedly "malign" the judge, Rohatgi said "such people only want publicity without knowing the facts about the person whom they are speaking." "The issue was raised completely with mischievous intent to malign the judge. It is scandalous," he said. His view was shared by former high court judge Ajit Kumar Sinha and senior advocate Vikas Singh, who said it was "unfortunate" that some persons and activist-lawyers "mischievously" linked the two incidents. They said Justice Sikri had given oral consent in December 2018 to the government offer to nominate him for president/member of the CSAT and the CJI nominated him in the PM-led panel after judgment in the Verma case in January 2019. Singh said the lawyers have to make comments sensibly but these activist-lawyers are "loose cannon" and "I think it was mischievous on part of the activist-lawyers to create an unnecessary controversy". Sinha said creating controversy like this only denigrate an institution from where both the bar and the bench derive privilege. He also said people who have created the controversy have been earlier praising the CJI but now criticising him for nominating Justice Sikri on the high-level panel. A senior advocate, who recently resigned as Additional Solicitor General, and knows Justice Sikri for three decades, said, "some people are only trying to malign the judge". He said it has become a routine for some activist-lawyers to target judges who take a decision contrary to their wishes.

Justice Sikri wants controversy to 'die', senior lawyers say unfair to target him

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash Pune Police's FIR against civil rights activist Anand Teltumbde for his alleged role in the Elgar Parishad-Koregaon Bhima violence and for his alleged Maoist links.

The apex court also refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation in the case.

However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Kaul extended by four weeks the interim protection from arrest granted to him by the Bombay High Court.

The apex court said Teltumbde can seek regular bail from the competent trial court in this time.

On December 21, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Teltumbde seeking the quashing of the FIR and granted interim protection from arrest for three weeks.

At the Elgar Parishad event at Shaniwarwada in Pune, held a day before the January 1 caste clashes at Koregaon-Bhima, located near Pune, several activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements that contributed to the violence, police said.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash Pune Police's FIR against civil rights activist Anand Teltumbde for his alleged role in the Elgar Parishad-Koregaon Bhima violence and for his alleged Maoist links.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash Pune Police's FIR against civil rights activist Anand Teltumbde for his alleged role in the Elgar Parishad-Koregaon Bhima violence and for his alleged Maoist links. The apex court also refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation in the case. However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Kaul extended by four weeks the interim protection from arrest granted to him by the Bombay High Court. The apex court said Teltumbde can seek regular bail from the competent trial court in this time. On December 21, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Teltumbde seeking the quashing of the FIR and granted interim protection from arrest for three weeks. At the Elgar Parishad event at Shaniwarwada in Pune, held a day before the January 1 caste clashes at Koregaon-Bhima, located near Pune, several activists allegedly made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements that contributed to the violence, police said.

Koregaon-Bhima case: Supreme Court refuses to quash FIR against activist Anand Teltumbde

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine in detail a plea seeking a court-monitored CBI or SIT probe into incidents of alleged police encounters and killings in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Kaul perused the material on record and said issues raised in the petition by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) required "serious consideration" and fixed the hearing on February 12.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, however, claimed all norms and procedures were followed by the state administration.

Earlier, the apex court had sought a response from the state government on the PIL filed by the NGO, alleging that there were about 1,100 encounters in 2017 in which 49 people were killed and 370 injured.

The NGO, in its plea, referred to news reports quoting Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, his deputy Keshav Prasad Maurya and ADG (law and order) Anand Kumar justifying encounter killings of criminals in the state.

It sought a probe into the encounters by an independent agency -- the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team comprising police officers of "integrity and who have not served in the state of Uttar Pradesh".

Quoting the figure provided by the state to the NHRC, it said 45 persons died between January 1, 2017 till March 31, 2018.

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine in detail a plea seeking a court-monitored CBI or SIT probe into incidents of alleged police encounters and killings in Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine in detail a plea seeking a court-monitored CBI or SIT probe into incidents of alleged police encounters and killings in Uttar Pradesh. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S K Kaul perused the material on record and said issues raised in the petition by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) required "serious consideration" and fixed the hearing on February 12. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, however, claimed all norms and procedures were followed by the state administration. Earlier, the apex court had sought a response from the state government on the PIL filed by the NGO, alleging that there were about 1,100 encounters in 2017 in which 49 people were killed and 370 injured. The NGO, in its plea, referred to news reports quoting Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, his deputy Keshav Prasad Maurya and ADG (law and order) Anand Kumar justifying encounter killings of criminals in the state. It sought a probe into the encounters by an independent agency -- the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team comprising police officers of "integrity and who have not served in the state of Uttar Pradesh". Quoting the figure provided by the state to the NHRC, it said 45 persons died between January 1, 2017 till March 31, 2018.

Supreme Court to examine plea alleging encounter killings in Uttar Pradesh

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court.

The historical press conference was held by four judges Justices (retired) J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi (current CJI). 
The then CJI Justice Dipak Misra has also retired.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took over from Justice Misra, while the three judges-- Justices J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph and Madan B Lokur -- have superannuated from service.

November end last year saw allegations against Justice Misra, with one of the judges again dropping a bombshell saying "someone from outside controlled the then CJI".

The judges had said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges had said in a letter to the then CJI Justice Misra.

The apex court, under the new CJI, has witnessed a spate of appointments to various high courts and the top court as well.

Four new judges joined the top court in November last year, increasing its strength to 28 against the sanctioned 31.

Recently, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, and Justice

Sanjiv Khanna of the Delhi High Court for elevation as judges to the apex court.

The five-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, took the decision at its meeting on January 10.&nbsp;

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court.

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court. The historical press conference was held by four judges Justices (retired) J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi (current CJI). The then CJI Justice Dipak Misra has also retired. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took over from Justice Misra, while the three judges-- Justices J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph and Madan B Lokur -- have superannuated from service. November end last year saw allegations against Justice Misra, with one of the judges again dropping a bombshell saying "someone from outside controlled the then CJI". The judges had said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges had said in a letter to the then CJI Justice Misra. The apex court, under the new CJI, has witnessed a spate of appointments to various high courts and the top court as well. Four new judges joined the top court in November last year, increasing its strength to 28 against the sanctioned 31. Recently, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Delhi High Court for elevation as judges to the apex court. The five-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, took the decision at its meeting on January 10.

Developments in apex court a year after January 12 presser by Supreme Court judges

Pakistan's Supreme Court has directed the federal and provincial governments to compensate within a month all those who suffered losses during the violent protests by radical Islamist parties following the acquittal of Christian woman Asia Bibi in a blasphemy case.

The apex court in October overturned the conviction of the 47-year-old mother of four, who was on death row for eight years for blasphemy, in a landmark verdict that sparked nationwide protests, death threats from hardline groups and cheers from human rights advocates.

A two-judge bench headed by Pakistan's Chief Justice Saqib Nisar issued the order on Saturday while hearing a suo motu case at the apex court's Lahore Registry regarding losses and damages to property during the three-day long nationwide sit-ins staged by religious parties led by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), the Express Tribune newspaper reported.

As the proceedings started, a government official submitted a report pertaining to assessment of losses incurred during protests, the paper said.

The top judge asked the Punjab advocate general to tell the court how compensatory payments would be made to the victims.

The advocate general said the federal cabinet has approved a compensation package amounting to Rs 26.2 crore.&nbsp;

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the other member of the bench, asked if a compensation plan had already been prepared or it was just on paper.

Justice Nisar noted that the government has no plan to compensate the losses.

"Two and half months have passed but the government has not submitted any plan for compensation. It is the court that takes pain. If the court didn't order then this plan would not come either," he added.

A section officer of the Interior Ministry told the court that the government would make compensation payments this month.

Later, the court directed the federal and provincial governments to compensate the victims within a month and submit a compliance report in court, the paper said.

Violent protests erupted in several cities across Pakistan after Asia Bibi's acquittal. She had earlier been sentenced to death on blasphemy charges by the Lahore High Court.

Enraged mobs had blocked several routes across the country for three days, while at some places they had also set fire to vehicles. The demonstrations resulted in countrywide closure of schools, colleges and universities, as well as cancellation of examinations.

After three days, the government and the protesters led by the TLP had reached an agreement. The government, however, later launched a crackdown against the party on November 24 and arrested its top leaders as well as thousands of supporters.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has directed the federal and provincial governments to compensate within a month all those who suffered losses during the violent protests by radical Islamist parties following the acquittal of Christian woman Asia Bibi in a blasphemy case.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has directed the federal and provincial governments to compensate within a month all those who suffered losses during the violent protests by radical Islamist parties following the acquittal of Christian woman Asia Bibi in a blasphemy case. The apex court in October overturned the conviction of the 47-year-old mother of four, who was on death row for eight years for blasphemy, in a landmark verdict that sparked nationwide protests, death threats from hardline groups and cheers from human rights advocates. A two-judge bench headed by Pakistan's Chief Justice Saqib Nisar issued the order on Saturday while hearing a suo motu case at the apex court's Lahore Registry regarding losses and damages to property during the three-day long nationwide sit-ins staged by religious parties led by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), the Express Tribune newspaper reported. As the proceedings started, a government official submitted a report pertaining to assessment of losses incurred during protests, the paper said. The top judge asked the Punjab advocate general to tell the court how compensatory payments would be made to the victims. The advocate general said the federal cabinet has approved a compensation package amounting to Rs 26.2 crore. Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the other member of the bench, asked if a compensation plan had already been prepared or it was just on paper. Justice Nisar noted that the government has no plan to compensate the losses. "Two and half months have passed but the government has not submitted any plan for compensation. It is the court that takes pain. If the court didn't order then this plan would not come either," he added. A section officer of the Interior Ministry told the court that the government would make compensation payments this month. Later, the court directed the federal and provincial governments to compensate the victims within a month and submit a compliance report in court, the paper said. Violent protests erupted in several cities across Pakistan after Asia Bibi's acquittal. She had earlier been sentenced to death on blasphemy charges by the Lahore High Court. Enraged mobs had blocked several routes across the country for three days, while at some places they had also set fire to vehicles. The demonstrations resulted in countrywide closure of schools, colleges and universities, as well as cancellation of examinations. After three days, the government and the protesters led by the TLP had reached an agreement. The government, however, later launched a crackdown against the party on November 24 and arrested its top leaders as well as thousands of supporters.

Pakistan Supreme Court gives govt one month's time to compensate riot victims

Two lawyers have separately urged the Supreme Court to ensure live streaming of its proceedings in the politically sensitive cases of the Ayodhya land dispute and the Sabarimala issue, saying justice should be made "accessible" to common man.&nbsp;

BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay has written to Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and four other judges seeking live streaming of the Ayodhya title dispute case scheduled for hearing on January 29.

The National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), represented by lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, has also sought video recording and live streaming of hearing on the petitions seeking review of the apex court's September 22 verdict allowing all women inside Sabarimala temple, on January 22.

On Thursday, former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya had written a letter to the Centre seeking live streaming of the top court proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case.

He had asked to make arrangements before the next date of hearing in the case to ensure that citizens get the opportunity to witness the proceedings in the "nation's oldest litigation having a lot of confusion and peculiarities".

The petition filed by Upadhyay sought directions to the ministries of law and information and broadcasting to take appropriate steps for live streaming of the Ayodhya case by Doordarshan, which is available on all platforms throughout the country.&nbsp;

Upadhyay's plea also said proceedings are often misquoted by panelists during debates on news channels and since the Ayodhya matter was politically sensitive, a wrong quote may create turbulence in the society.

"Therefore, until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live streaming of the court proceedings is evolved in spirit of the above stated judgment, my Lord may direct the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take appropriate steps for live streaming of the Ayodhya case by Doordarshan, which is free to air and available on all platforms throughout the country," the plea said.

It also sought permission for other news to broadcast the proceedings through Doordarshan.

The other petition filed by NADA asked for live streaming and video recording of court proceedings during the hearing of the review petitions of Sabarimala so that "justice is made accessible to common man".

It said if the proceedings were allowed to be telecast, millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, not merely in Kerala, but all over the world, will have the opportunity to hear and watch what transpired in the court.

"There cannot be an issue of greater importance of public interest or concern than the Sabarimala case. Video recording of the said case would mean the entire proceeding thereof being perpetually available for posterity," the petition said.

On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination.

The temple in Kerala has been witnessing violent protests since the verdict.&nbsp;

Two lawyers have separately urged the Supreme Court to ensure live streaming of its proceedings in the politically sensitive cases of the Ayodhya land dispute and the Sabarimala issue, saying justice should be made "accessible" to common man.

Two lawyers have separately urged the Supreme Court to ensure live streaming of its proceedings in the politically sensitive cases of the Ayodhya land dispute and the Sabarimala issue, saying justice should be made "accessible" to common man. BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay has written to Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and four other judges seeking live streaming of the Ayodhya title dispute case scheduled for hearing on January 29. The National Ayyappa Devotees' Association (NADA), represented by lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, has also sought video recording and live streaming of hearing on the petitions seeking review of the apex court's September 22 verdict allowing all women inside Sabarimala temple, on January 22. On Thursday, former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya had written a letter to the Centre seeking live streaming of the top court proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case. He had asked to make arrangements before the next date of hearing in the case to ensure that citizens get the opportunity to witness the proceedings in the "nation's oldest litigation having a lot of confusion and peculiarities". The petition filed by Upadhyay sought directions to the ministries of law and information and broadcasting to take appropriate steps for live streaming of the Ayodhya case by Doordarshan, which is available on all platforms throughout the country. Upadhyay's plea also said proceedings are often misquoted by panelists during debates on news channels and since the Ayodhya matter was politically sensitive, a wrong quote may create turbulence in the society. "Therefore, until a full-fledged module and mechanism for live streaming of the court proceedings is evolved in spirit of the above stated judgment, my Lord may direct the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take appropriate steps for live streaming of the Ayodhya case by Doordarshan, which is free to air and available on all platforms throughout the country," the plea said. It also sought permission for other news to broadcast the proceedings through Doordarshan. The other petition filed by NADA asked for live streaming and video recording of court proceedings during the hearing of the review petitions of Sabarimala so that "justice is made accessible to common man". It said if the proceedings were allowed to be telecast, millions of devotees of Lord Ayyappa, not merely in Kerala, but all over the world, will have the opportunity to hear and watch what transpired in the court. "There cannot be an issue of greater importance of public interest or concern than the Sabarimala case. Video recording of the said case would mean the entire proceeding thereof being perpetually available for posterity," the petition said. On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into the temple, saying the ban amounted to gender discrimination. The temple in Kerala has been witnessing violent protests since the verdict.

Lawyers move Supreme Court for live streaming of Ayodhya, Sabarimala hearing

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court.

The top court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies.

"This Collegium unanimously resolves to fill up, for the present, two of the five existing vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court. The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court," the top court said.

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.

The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts, said the Apex Court.

"We, therefore, recommend that Mr. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India," the collegium concluded.

Justice Maheshwari was appointed as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on September 2, 2004, and was transferred to the Allahabad High Court on July 19, 2014. He was elevated as the Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court on February 24, 2016, and was thereafter transferred to the Karnataka High Court on February 12, 2018.

Meanwhile, Justice Khanna was appointed as a Judge of the Delhi High Court on June 24, 2005, and since then he has been functioning there.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a judge of Delhi High Court, as judges of the Apex Court. The top court is presently functioning with 26 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 31, leaving five clear vacancies. "This Collegium unanimously resolves to fill up, for the present, two of the five existing vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court. The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court," the top court said. 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. The Collegium has also kept in mind the desirability of giving due representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court, as far as possible, to all the High Courts, said the Apex Court. "We, therefore, recommend that Mr. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India," the collegium concluded. Justice Maheshwari was appointed as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on September 2, 2004, and was transferred to the Allahabad High Court on July 19, 2014. He was elevated as the Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court on February 24, 2016, and was thereafter transferred to the Karnataka High Court on February 12, 2018. Meanwhile, Justice Khanna was appointed as a Judge of the Delhi High Court on June 24, 2005, and since then he has been functioning there.

Collegium recommends Karnataka HC Chief Justice, Delhi Court judge for elevation to SC

The Centre told the Supreme Court Friday that it has to "believe in miracles" and see if the 15 miners, who have been trapped for almost a month inside an illegal rat-hole coal mine filled with water in Meghalaya, come out alive.

It said the authorities were making all efforts to save the lives of these persons and the Indian Navy and planes and helicopters of the Indian Air Force have been deployed in the rescue operation.

"We have to believe in miracles," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer, which observed that it was not known if they were still alive.

"There is no dispute that you are making efforts. Whether they (miners) are alive today, we do not know. Maybe somebody is alive there. You have to take them out," the bench told Mehta, adding, "You have to continue making efforts".

The apex court is hearing public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aditya N Prasad, who sought urgent steps to rescue the 15 miners.

The Centre and the Meghalaya government apprised the bench about the steps taken in the operation to rescue the 15 miners who are trapped there since December 13 last year.

The bench sought to know from the state government as to whether any action has been taken against those indulging in illegal mining activities in Meghalaya.

The state's counsel said the person running the illegal mine where the incident took place has been arrested.

He apprised the bench that the Indian Navy has deployed five remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) in the operation and one crore litres of water had been pumped out from the illegal mine, but seepage from nearby rivers was creating hurdles in the rescue operation.

Senior lawyer Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, said they were happy with the steps taken by the authorities but there was a problem of coordination among the agencies.

He said there was no mapping of the mine as it was illegal but the equipment was available in India which can go deep inside the water and help in ascertaining the topography of the site.

He gave some suggestions to assist in the rescue operation and said the main hurdles were the remote location and difficult terrain, no blueprint of mines, water seeping into the mines from an unknown source and no knowledge of connection with nearby mines.

Grover said the petitioner was in touch with Hyderabad-based National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Roorkee-based National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) and some other private research institutes including Planys Technology, Chennai, which can assist in the rescue operation.

He said these institutes are capable of mapping the mines and through underwater rovers were available, the equipment has to be airlifted and the Air Force can do the needful.

Mehta said the government has already contacted these institutes and requested them for help.

He assured the top court that suggestions given by Grover would be taken into consideration and would be acted upon in whatever manner possible.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on January 18.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

During the hearing, Grover told the court that the Navy has deployed ROVs in the rescue operation but the desired result was not coming out as smaller equipments were required there.

He said smaller ROVs were available in India which can go deep inside the mine and take pictures even in muddy waters.

Regarding Grover's submission that there was a problem of coordination among the authorities, Mehta said additional chief secretary of Meghalaya was coordinating with every agency involved in the rescue operation.

"No stone is left unturned to rescue these persons," Mehta said.

The state's counsel said that though one crore litres of water has been pumped out from the mine, the decrease in water level was only about eight inches as seepage from the nearby river has increased.

Mehta had earlier told the apex court that 71 members of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), 20 from the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), 16 Navy personnel and others, including those from Odisha fire service and Coal India Ltd., were working in the rescue operation.

The Meghalaya government had filed a status report on the rescue operation and said there were problems like difficult terrain and lack of proper infrastructure at the site which was creating hurdles.

It had said that the site was located at Ksan near the river Letein. It was about 3.7 kilometres deep inside a jungle and can be accessed after crossing three streams.

The rat-hole mine, atop a hillock fully covered with trees in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills district, was flooded when water from the nearby Letein river gushed into it, trapping 15 miners.

Rat-hole mining involves digging of narrow tunnels, usually three-four-foot high, for workers to enter and extract coal. The horizontal tunnels are often termed "rat holes" as each just about fits one person.

The apex court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction over the steps taken by the Meghalaya government to rescue the miners trapped in the illegal coal mine and had said "prompt, immediate and effective" operation was needed to rescue them as it was a matter of life and death.

The Centre told the Supreme Court Friday that it has to "believe in miracles" and see if the 15 miners, who have been trapped for almost a month inside an illegal rat-hole coal mine filled with water in Meghalaya, come out alive.

The Centre told the Supreme Court Friday that it has to "believe in miracles" and see if the 15 miners, who have been trapped for almost a month inside an illegal rat-hole coal mine filled with water in Meghalaya, come out alive. It said the authorities were making all efforts to save the lives of these persons and the Indian Navy and planes and helicopters of the Indian Air Force have been deployed in the rescue operation. "We have to believe in miracles," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer, which observed that it was not known if they were still alive. "There is no dispute that you are making efforts. Whether they (miners) are alive today, we do not know. Maybe somebody is alive there. You have to take them out," the bench told Mehta, adding, "You have to continue making efforts". The apex court is hearing public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aditya N Prasad, who sought urgent steps to rescue the 15 miners. The Centre and the Meghalaya government apprised the bench about the steps taken in the operation to rescue the 15 miners who are trapped there since December 13 last year. The bench sought to know from the state government as to whether any action has been taken against those indulging in illegal mining activities in Meghalaya. The state's counsel said the person running the illegal mine where the incident took place has been arrested. He apprised the bench that the Indian Navy has deployed five remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) in the operation and one crore litres of water had been pumped out from the illegal mine, but seepage from nearby rivers was creating hurdles in the rescue operation. Senior lawyer Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioner, said they were happy with the steps taken by the authorities but there was a problem of coordination among the agencies. He said there was no mapping of the mine as it was illegal but the equipment was available in India which can go deep inside the water and help in ascertaining the topography of the site. He gave some suggestions to assist in the rescue operation and said the main hurdles were the remote location and difficult terrain, no blueprint of mines, water seeping into the mines from an unknown source and no knowledge of connection with nearby mines. Grover said the petitioner was in touch with Hyderabad-based National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Roorkee-based National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) and some other private research institutes including Planys Technology, Chennai, which can assist in the rescue operation. He said these institutes are capable of mapping the mines and through underwater rovers were available, the equipment has to be airlifted and the Air Force can do the needful. Mehta said the government has already contacted these institutes and requested them for help. He assured the top court that suggestions given by Grover would be taken into consideration and would be acted upon in whatever manner possible. The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on January 18. During the hearing, Grover told the court that the Navy has deployed ROVs in the rescue operation but the desired result was not coming out as smaller equipments were required there. He said smaller ROVs were available in India which can go deep inside the mine and take pictures even in muddy waters. Regarding Grover's submission that there was a problem of coordination among the authorities, Mehta said additional chief secretary of Meghalaya was coordinating with every agency involved in the rescue operation. "No stone is left unturned to rescue these persons," Mehta said. The state's counsel said that though one crore litres of water has been pumped out from the mine, the decrease in water level was only about eight inches as seepage from the nearby river has increased. Mehta had earlier told the apex court that 71 members of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), 20 from the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), 16 Navy personnel and others, including those from Odisha fire service and Coal India Ltd., were working in the rescue operation. The Meghalaya government had filed a status report on the rescue operation and said there were problems like difficult terrain and lack of proper infrastructure at the site which was creating hurdles. It had said that the site was located at Ksan near the river Letein. It was about 3.7 kilometres deep inside a jungle and can be accessed after crossing three streams. The rat-hole mine, atop a hillock fully covered with trees in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills district, was flooded when water from the nearby Letein river gushed into it, trapping 15 miners. Rat-hole mining involves digging of narrow tunnels, usually three-four-foot high, for workers to enter and extract coal. The horizontal tunnels are often termed "rat holes" as each just about fits one person. The apex court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction over the steps taken by the Meghalaya government to rescue the miners trapped in the illegal coal mine and had said "prompt, immediate and effective" operation was needed to rescue them as it was a matter of life and death.

Meghalaya miners: Have to believe in miracles, Centre to Supreme Court

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya.&nbsp;

The bench will be headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprise of Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud. A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 last year, by 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench for reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. When the matter was last taken up on January 4, there was no indication that the case would be referred to a constitution bench as the apex court had simply said that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”. The newly set up five-judge bench comprises not only the incumbent CJI but the four judges who are in line to be CJI in the future. Justice Gogoi’s successor would be Justice Bobde followed by Justices Ramana, Lalit and Chandrachud.

As many as 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land is partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The apex court on October 29 last year had fixed the matter in the first week of January before the “appropriate bench”. Later, an application was moved for according an urgent hearing by advancing the date, but the top court had refused the plea, saying it had already passed an order on October 29 relating to the hearing of the matter.

The plea for early hearing was moved by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) which is one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case. Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested that any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process.

Modi’s comments had come amidst heightened demands by Hindutva organisations, including the RSS, for an ordinance for early construction of the temple. “Let the judicial process take its own course. Don’t weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as a government, we are ready to make all efforts,” the prime minister had said during an interview, broadcast by several TV channels.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya. The bench will be headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprise of Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud. A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 last year, by 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench for reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. When the matter was last taken up on January 4, there was no indication that the case would be referred to a constitution bench as the apex court had simply said that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”. The newly set up five-judge bench comprises not only the incumbent CJI but the four judges who are in line to be CJI in the future. Justice Gogoi’s successor would be Justice Bobde followed by Justices Ramana, Lalit and Chandrachud. As many as 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land is partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The apex court on October 29 last year had fixed the matter in the first week of January before the “appropriate bench”. Later, an application was moved for according an urgent hearing by advancing the date, but the top court had refused the plea, saying it had already passed an order on October 29 relating to the hearing of the matter. The plea for early hearing was moved by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) which is one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case. Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested that any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process. Modi’s comments had come amidst heightened demands by Hindutva organisations, including the RSS, for an ordinance for early construction of the temple. “Let the judicial process take its own course. Don’t weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as a government, we are ready to make all efforts,” the prime minister had said during an interview, broadcast by several TV channels.

Supreme Court 5-judge Constitution bench to hear Ayodhya case today

A plea challenging the bill to provide 10 per cent reservation to general category poor in jobs and education was on Thursday filed in the Supreme Court.

The petition, filed by Youth For Equality organisation and Kaushal Kant Mishra, sought the quashing of the bill saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation.

The plea said the bill violates the basic feature of the Constitution as a reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general categories and the 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached.

The Rajya Sabha passed it with 165 voting in its favour and 7 against on Wednesday, a day after the Lok Sabha had approved The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019.

The Bill was approved after the House rejected five amendments moved by Opposition members.

The quota will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).&nbsp;

A plea challenging the bill to provide 10 per cent reservation to general category poor in jobs and education was on Thursday filed in the Supreme Court. The petition, filed by Youth For Equality organisation and Kaushal Kant Mishra, sought the quashing of the bill saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation.

A plea challenging the bill to provide 10 per cent reservation to general category poor in jobs and education was on Thursday filed in the Supreme Court. The petition, filed by Youth For Equality organisation and Kaushal Kant Mishra, sought the quashing of the bill saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation. The plea said the bill violates the basic feature of the Constitution as a reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general categories and the 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached. The Rajya Sabha passed it with 165 voting in its favour and 7 against on Wednesday, a day after the Lok Sabha had approved The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019. The Bill was approved after the House rejected five amendments moved by Opposition members. The quota will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

Bill for 10% reservation for poor in general category challenged in Supreme Court

Pakistan's Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a case regarding the constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the grant of fundamental rights to its residents.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar on January 7 took up a set of petitions challenging the 'Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018', 'Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009', as well as the right of the citizens of the area to be governed through their chosen representatives, the Dawn reported.

The Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 was earlier opposed by protesters from the region who demanded that the area should be declared a part of Pakistan instead of being administered through presidential orders.

Pakistan has bifurcated occupied Kashmir into two administrative parts - Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Gilgit-Baltistan was treated as a separate geographical entity by Pakistan till now. Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh are the four provinces of Pakistan.

India has termed as "entirely unacceptable" any possible attempt by Pakistan to declare the Gilgit-Baltistan region as the fifth province. India has also protested to China over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which goes through Gilgit-Baltistan region.

It is believed that China's concerns about the unsettled status of Gilgit-Baltistan prompted Pakistan to change its status.

The federal government's proposed reforms draft states that it intends to grant the region the status of a provisional province, "subject to the decision of the plebiscite to be conducted under the UN resolutions", with all privileges provided by the Constitution.

However, the draft states, the move would require an amendment in the Constitution, which needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament and "would take time". Therefore, as an interim measure, the government plans to give such fundamental rights to GB residents as enjoyed by the people of any other province.

The Attorney General Anwar Mansoor informed the bench that objections have been raised on the proposed draft in the Cabinet and therefore as of now, "it remains only a draft".

He informed the court that the funds allocated for higher courts in the region have been transferred from the territory's government to the GB Council.

The Government of Pakistan can also increase the number of judges in GB, he added.

At this, the chief justice inquired what the procedure of the judges' appointment would be. Mansoor responded that the GB council has been given the authority to legislate in this regard.

Justice Nisar observed that an appeal cannot be filed against a decision of the GB Supreme Appellate Court in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The GB law minister during the hearing stated that the region's government desired the implementation of recommendations made by the Sartaj Aziz-led committee.

"It's (almost) impossible, but we have come very close to it's [fulfilment]," he added.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan — a senior counsel who has also been appointed by the apex court as amicus curiae (friend of the court) — noted that the government has expressed its intention to first declare GB a provisional province, and later grant it the status of a full-fledged province.

He said although Parliament would pass any constitutional amendment brought before it regarding GB, Pakistan's stance on Kashmir would be weakened by making Gilgit-Baltistan a full province.

After hearing all sides, the bench reserved its judgement in the case and ordered the reforms committee to submit additional details after holding consultations regarding fundamental rights, legislation and judicial autonomy in GB.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a case regarding the constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the grant of fundamental rights to its residents.

Pakistan's Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a case regarding the constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the grant of fundamental rights to its residents. A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar on January 7 took up a set of petitions challenging the 'Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018', 'Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009', as well as the right of the citizens of the area to be governed through their chosen representatives, the Dawn reported. The Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 was earlier opposed by protesters from the region who demanded that the area should be declared a part of Pakistan instead of being administered through presidential orders. Pakistan has bifurcated occupied Kashmir into two administrative parts - Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Gilgit-Baltistan was treated as a separate geographical entity by Pakistan till now. Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh are the four provinces of Pakistan. India has termed as "entirely unacceptable" any possible attempt by Pakistan to declare the Gilgit-Baltistan region as the fifth province. India has also protested to China over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which goes through Gilgit-Baltistan region. It is believed that China's concerns about the unsettled status of Gilgit-Baltistan prompted Pakistan to change its status. The federal government's proposed reforms draft states that it intends to grant the region the status of a provisional province, "subject to the decision of the plebiscite to be conducted under the UN resolutions", with all privileges provided by the Constitution. However, the draft states, the move would require an amendment in the Constitution, which needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament and "would take time". Therefore, as an interim measure, the government plans to give such fundamental rights to GB residents as enjoyed by the people of any other province. The Attorney General Anwar Mansoor informed the bench that objections have been raised on the proposed draft in the Cabinet and therefore as of now, "it remains only a draft". He informed the court that the funds allocated for higher courts in the region have been transferred from the territory's government to the GB Council. The Government of Pakistan can also increase the number of judges in GB, he added. At this, the chief justice inquired what the procedure of the judges' appointment would be. Mansoor responded that the GB council has been given the authority to legislate in this regard. Justice Nisar observed that an appeal cannot be filed against a decision of the GB Supreme Appellate Court in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The GB law minister during the hearing stated that the region's government desired the implementation of recommendations made by the Sartaj Aziz-led committee. "It's (almost) impossible, but we have come very close to it's [fulfilment]," he added. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan — a senior counsel who has also been appointed by the apex court as amicus curiae (friend of the court) — noted that the government has expressed its intention to first declare GB a provisional province, and later grant it the status of a full-fledged province. He said although Parliament would pass any constitutional amendment brought before it regarding GB, Pakistan's stance on Kashmir would be weakened by making Gilgit-Baltistan a full province. After hearing all sides, the bench reserved its judgement in the case and ordered the reforms committee to submit additional details after holding consultations regarding fundamental rights, legislation and judicial autonomy in GB.

Pak SC reserves verdict in case concerning constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case.&nbsp;

The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice&nbsp;SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Five-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya case on January 10. <a href="https://t.co/fke7uIiAaS">pic.twitter.com/fke7uIiAaS</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1082599654662029312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Ayodhya dispute is over 2.77 acres of land over which the Babri Masjid used to stand before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. It is also the most divisive in the country.&nbsp;

On Friday, the court had said — in a hearing that lasted all of 60 seconds — that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by "the appropriate bench, as may be constituted".

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board.&nbsp;

The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.&nbsp;

With the general elections fast approaching (they have to be held before May) the dispute, one of the country's oldest, has once again begun to take centre stage.&nbsp;

Right-wing Hindu groups have recently been calling for an ordinance saying that a temple will be built on the disputed site. Prime Minister Narendra Modi however said recently in an interview to ANI that any decision on an ordinance would be taken&nbsp;only after the Supreme Court&nbsp;had finished hearing the matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case. The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud.

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case. The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud. Five-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya case on January 10. pic.twitter.com/fke7uIiAaS — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2019 × The Ayodhya dispute is over 2.77 acres of land over which the Babri Masjid used to stand before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. It is also the most divisive in the country. On Friday, the court had said — in a hearing that lasted all of 60 seconds — that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by "the appropriate bench, as may be constituted". In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011. With the general elections fast approaching (they have to be held before May) the dispute, one of the country's oldest, has once again begun to take centre stage. Right-wing Hindu groups have recently been calling for an ordinance saying that a temple will be built on the disputed site. Prime Minister Narendra Modi however said recently in an interview to ANI that any decision on an ordinance would be taken only after the Supreme Court had finished hearing the matter.

5-judge Supreme Court bench to hear Ayodhya case on January 10

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the green tribunal's order of setting aside the Tamil Nadu government's decision to close Vedanta's Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin.

A bench, headed by Justice R F Nariman, sought response from Vedanta on the state government's appeal against the National Green Tribunal's (NGT's) order to reopen the plant.

The state had moved the top court, saying that the NGT had "erroneously" set aside various orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) last year with regard to the Sterlite plant.

It had said the tribunal had consequentially directed the TNPCB to pass fresh orders of renewal of consent and issue authorisation to handle hazardous substances to the Vedanta Limited.

On December 15, the NGT had set aside the state government's order for closure of the Sterlite copper plant, saying it was "non sustainable" and "unjustified".

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the green tribunal's order of setting aside the Tamil Nadu government's decision to close Vedanta's Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the green tribunal's order of setting aside the Tamil Nadu government's decision to close Vedanta's Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin. A bench, headed by Justice R F Nariman, sought response from Vedanta on the state government's appeal against the National Green Tribunal's (NGT's) order to reopen the plant. The state had moved the top court, saying that the NGT had "erroneously" set aside various orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) last year with regard to the Sterlite plant. It had said the tribunal had consequentially directed the TNPCB to pass fresh orders of renewal of consent and issue authorisation to handle hazardous substances to the Vedanta Limited. On December 15, the NGT had set aside the state government's order for closure of the Sterlite copper plant, saying it was "non sustainable" and "unjustified".

Supreme Court refuses to stay NGT's order to reopen Sterlite plant

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought a response from the West Bengal government on a plea by the BJP seeking permission to take out <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rath-yatra-in-west-bengal-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-bjps-plea-on-january-7-187986">Rath Yatra in the state.</a>

The West Bengal unit of the BJP has challenged the December 21 order of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had set aside the order of a single-judge bench allowing the procession.

An apex court bench headed by Justice S K Kaul also asked the BJP state unit to submit a revised plan for its "Save Democracy Rally" for consideration by the state government.

The bench posted the matter for hearing on January 15.

The BJP's West Bengal unit has approached the apex court seeking permission to take out the rally, which would cover 42 parliamentary constituencies in the state ahead of general elections to be held this year.&nbsp;

In its plea, the BJP has said that their fundamental right to hold a peaceful yatra cannot be withheld.

The party had planned to launch the yatra from three districts of the state.

The high court's division bench had sent the case back to a single-judge bench to hear it afresh and also to consider the intelligence inputs by state agencies.

The order of the division bench had come after hearing an appeal moved by the West Bengal government challenging the order of the single-judge bench.

The rallies, according to the original schedule, were supposed to be flagged off by BJP president Amit Shah from Bengal's Cooch Behar district on December 7, Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas on December 9, and from Tarapith temple in Birbhum on December 14.

In the plea filed in the top court, the BJP's West Bengal unit has contended that authorities cannot abridge their right and they have a duty to facilitate them in exercising their democratic right.

The BJP has alleged in the plea that the state government was repeatedly "attacking" the fundamental right of citizens due to which different petitions have been filed challenging the activities of the state government in denying permission to different organisations.

It has claimed that earlier too, permission was denied several times at the last moment to "harass the BJP" which later moved the high court and that the party "is facing such political vendetta since 2014 in West Bengal".

An apex court bench headed by Justice S K Kaul also asked the BJP state unit to submit a revised plan for its 'Save Democracy Rally' for consideration by the state government.

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought a response from the West Bengal government on a plea by the BJP seeking permission to take out Rath Yatra in the state. The West Bengal unit of the BJP has challenged the December 21 order of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had set aside the order of a single-judge bench allowing the procession. An apex court bench headed by Justice S K Kaul also asked the BJP state unit to submit a revised plan for its "Save Democracy Rally" for consideration by the state government. The bench posted the matter for hearing on January 15. The BJP's West Bengal unit has approached the apex court seeking permission to take out the rally, which would cover 42 parliamentary constituencies in the state ahead of general elections to be held this year. In its plea, the BJP has said that their fundamental right to hold a peaceful yatra cannot be withheld. The party had planned to launch the yatra from three districts of the state. The high court's division bench had sent the case back to a single-judge bench to hear it afresh and also to consider the intelligence inputs by state agencies. The order of the division bench had come after hearing an appeal moved by the West Bengal government challenging the order of the single-judge bench. The rallies, according to the original schedule, were supposed to be flagged off by BJP president Amit Shah from Bengal's Cooch Behar district on December 7, Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas on December 9, and from Tarapith temple in Birbhum on December 14. In the plea filed in the top court, the BJP's West Bengal unit has contended that authorities cannot abridge their right and they have a duty to facilitate them in exercising their democratic right. The BJP has alleged in the plea that the state government was repeatedly "attacking" the fundamental right of citizens due to which different petitions have been filed challenging the activities of the state government in denying permission to different organisations. It has claimed that earlier too, permission was denied several times at the last moment to "harass the BJP" which later moved the high court and that the party "is facing such political vendetta since 2014 in West Bengal".

SC seeks West Bengal government's response on BJP plea seeking permission for Rath Yatra

The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a notice to Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani and others on a contempt petition filed by Ericsson.&nbsp;

According to reports, the contempt petition has been filed because of non-payment of dues.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman sought a response from Ambani and others in four weeks. It is reported that Ericsson India Pvt Ltd has moved a contempt plea against Anil Ambani's RCom for allegedly not complying with the top court's order to clear dues of Rs 550 crore.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SC issues notice seeking a reply within 4 weeks from Reliance Communication Ltd. (RCom),Anil Ambani on a contempt plea filed by Ericsson India Pvt Ltd, for allegedly not complying with SC's order to clear dues of Rs 550 crore. RCom offers to deposit Rs 118 crore with SC registry
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1082158973820710912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Appearing for R Com, senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi asked the court to accept Rs 118 crore towards outstanding dues to Ericsson India to establish its bonafide, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

The counsel appearing for Ericsson, however, refused to accept the amount and said the entire outstanding sum of Rs 550 crore should be deposited.&nbsp;

The bench then directed R Com to deposit a demand draft of Rs 118 crore in the registry.&nbsp;

On Sunday, telecom company Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom) said it remained "fully committed" to settle dues with Swedish telecom gearmaker Ericsson from the proceeds of its sale of wireless assets to Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, news agency Reuters reported.&nbsp;

"RCom has taken all required steps towards enabling the settlement and remains fully committed to making the payment to Ericsson from the proceeds of the spectrum sale," it said in a clarification filed to the exchanges on Sunday.

The transaction was key to the debt-laden telecom operator's restructuring plan, announced in May 2018, which entailed the sale of telecom assets such as towers and airwaves to Jio.

The plan to sell the assets had followed a settlement with telecom gearmaker Ericsson for partial payment of dues owed by RCom to the Swedish company.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a notice to Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani and others on a contempt petition filed by Ericsson. According to reports, the contempt petition has been filed because of non-payment of dues.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a notice to Reliance Communications chairman Anil Ambani and others on a contempt petition filed by Ericsson. According to reports, the contempt petition has been filed because of non-payment of dues. A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman sought a response from Ambani and others in four weeks. It is reported that Ericsson India Pvt Ltd has moved a contempt plea against Anil Ambani's RCom for allegedly not complying with the top court's order to clear dues of Rs 550 crore. SC issues notice seeking a reply within 4 weeks from Reliance Communication Ltd. (RCom),Anil Ambani on a contempt plea filed by Ericsson India Pvt Ltd, for allegedly not complying with SC's order to clear dues of Rs 550 crore. RCom offers to deposit Rs 118 crore with SC registry — ANI (@ANI) January 7, 2019 × Appearing for R Com, senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi asked the court to accept Rs 118 crore towards outstanding dues to Ericsson India to establish its bonafide, news agency PTI reported. The counsel appearing for Ericsson, however, refused to accept the amount and said the entire outstanding sum of Rs 550 crore should be deposited. The bench then directed R Com to deposit a demand draft of Rs 118 crore in the registry. On Sunday, telecom company Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom) said it remained "fully committed" to settle dues with Swedish telecom gearmaker Ericsson from the proceeds of its sale of wireless assets to Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, news agency Reuters reported. "RCom has taken all required steps towards enabling the settlement and remains fully committed to making the payment to Ericsson from the proceeds of the spectrum sale," it said in a clarification filed to the exchanges on Sunday. The transaction was key to the debt-laden telecom operator's restructuring plan, announced in May 2018, which entailed the sale of telecom assets such as towers and airwaves to Jio. The plan to sell the assets had followed a settlement with telecom gearmaker Ericsson for partial payment of dues owed by RCom to the Swedish company. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court issues notice to Anil Ambani's RCom over non-payment of dues

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn.

The court declined to hear an appeal by producers of foie gras, including the Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d`Oies du Quebec, a Canadian nonprofit that represents duck and goose farmers. In doing so, the high court left intact a 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law.

Animal rights groups contend that the force-feeding process is painful, gruesome and inhumane.

California enacted the law in 2004 but it did not go into effect until 2012. The Supreme Court in 2014 rejected an earlier appeal brought by producers and restaurants.

Foie gras means "fatty liver" in French. The product is produced by force-feeding corn to ducks and geese to enlarge their livers, which are harvested to make gourmet dishes.

The law specifically bans any product created by "force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird`s liver beyond a normal size."&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn.

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn. The court declined to hear an appeal by producers of foie gras, including the Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d`Oies du Quebec, a Canadian nonprofit that represents duck and goose farmers. In doing so, the high court left intact a 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law. Animal rights groups contend that the force-feeding process is painful, gruesome and inhumane. California enacted the law in 2004 but it did not go into effect until 2012. The Supreme Court in 2014 rejected an earlier appeal brought by producers and restaurants. Foie gras means "fatty liver" in French. The product is produced by force-feeding corn to ducks and geese to enlarge their livers, which are harvested to make gourmet dishes. The law specifically bans any product created by "force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird`s liver beyond a normal size."

US Supreme Court rejects challenge to California foie gras ban

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

She said punishment must be served to those who demolished the mosque.

"Honourable SC's decision to constitute a bench for Babri Masjid/Mandir issue is a welcome step. There is also need to ensure punishment is meted out to those who demolished the Babri Masjid so that such acts are not repeated in the future," Mehbooba wrote on Twitter.

The PDP president also said the country would not have witnessed "massacres" had the culprits responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots been punished.

"Had the culprits responsible for 84 Sikh riots been punished, the country wouldn't have witnessed the Bombay, Meerut, Gujarat&nbsp;and other infamous massacres," she said.

The Supreme Court Friday said an "appropriate bench" on January 10 will fix the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

"Further orders in the matter will be passed on January 10 by the appropriate Bench, as may be constituted," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul.

A three-member bench is to be set up for hearing the matter on a batch of petitions.

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case. She said punishment must be served to those who demolished the mosque. "Honourable SC's decision to constitute a bench for Babri Masjid/Mandir issue is a welcome step. There is also need to ensure punishment is meted out to those who demolished the Babri Masjid so that such acts are not repeated in the future," Mehbooba wrote on Twitter. The PDP president also said the country would not have witnessed "massacres" had the culprits responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots been punished. "Had the culprits responsible for 84 Sikh riots been punished, the country wouldn't have witnessed the Bombay, Meerut, Gujarat and other infamous massacres," she said. The Supreme Court Friday said an "appropriate bench" on January 10 will fix the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case. "Further orders in the matter will be passed on January 10 by the appropriate Bench, as may be constituted," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul. A three-member bench is to be set up for hearing the matter on a batch of petitions.

Mehbooba hails Supreme Court's decision to constitute 3-member bench for hearing Ayodhya land dispute case

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-a-timeline-188184">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid</a> land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

"Further orders will be passed by an appropriate bench on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing the matter," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said.&nbsp;

An appropriate bench will pass an appropriate order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.&nbsp;

No sooner the matter came up, the CJI said it is the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and went ahead with passing the order.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev DhaVan, appearing for different parties, did not even get the opportunity to make any submission.

The hearing did not even last 30 seconds.&nbsp;

Now, a three-member bench will be set up for taking forward the Ayodhya land dispute case in which as many as 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

The hearing on Friday assumed importance as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday had suggested any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process.

(With PTI inputs)

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

The Supreme Court Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya. "Further orders will be passed by an appropriate bench on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing the matter," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said. An appropriate bench will pass an appropriate order, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said. No sooner the matter came up, the CJI said it is the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and went ahead with passing the order. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev DhaVan, appearing for different parties, did not even get the opportunity to make any submission. The hearing did not even last 30 seconds. Now, a three-member bench will be set up for taking forward the Ayodhya land dispute case in which as many as 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site. The hearing on Friday assumed importance as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday had suggested any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process. (With PTI inputs)

Appropriate bench to fix hearing date in Ayodhya land dispute case on January 10: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will take up the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation (PIL) questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter on Friday.

On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench."

On the same day, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the central government wants the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit to be heard on day to day basis in the court.

In an interview to ANI on earlier this week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that any decision on bringing an ordinance on Ram temple construction can be considered only after the end of the judicial process.

He had also suggested that the judicial process was being slowed down because Congress lawyers were creating "obstacles" in the Supreme Court.

"We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution," the Prime Minister said when asked whether the Ram Mandir issue had been relegated as merely an emotive issue for the BJP.

On November 12, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea seeking an early hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.

Meanwhile, an advocate, Harinath Ram, filed a PIL in the top court, requesting it to hear the matter on an urgent basis and in a time-bound manner.

The petitioner stated that the apex court should understand the sentiments of millions of Hindus in India, as their emotions are "inextricably attached to the identity of Lord Ram."

The advocate further stated that the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid matter has been pending for the last several decades, but has not seen the light of the day "even when the country boasts of having functional and effective justice delivery system."In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench."

The Supreme Court will take up the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation (PIL) questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter on Friday. On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench." On the same day, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the central government wants the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit to be heard on day to day basis in the court. In an interview to ANI on earlier this week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that any decision on bringing an ordinance on Ram temple construction can be considered only after the end of the judicial process. He had also suggested that the judicial process was being slowed down because Congress lawyers were creating "obstacles" in the Supreme Court. "We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution," the Prime Minister said when asked whether the Ram Mandir issue had been relegated as merely an emotive issue for the BJP. On November 12, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea seeking an early hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit. Meanwhile, an advocate, Harinath Ram, filed a PIL in the top court, requesting it to hear the matter on an urgent basis and in a time-bound manner. The petitioner stated that the apex court should understand the sentiments of millions of Hindus in India, as their emotions are "inextricably attached to the identity of Lord Ram." The advocate further stated that the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid matter has been pending for the last several decades, but has not seen the light of the day "even when the country boasts of having functional and effective justice delivery system."In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Supreme Court to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case today

The Supreme Court on Friday asked Centre and the Meghalaya government to file a ''status report'' before it by January 7 on the steps taken and the progress made in the rescue operation of 15 miners trapped in an illegal flooded coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills since December 13 last year.

During the hearing of the case, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the apex court that the ''illegal mine'' was not maintained properly and blueprint was not available.&nbsp;

“I had a detailed meeting with home and defence joint secretaries, functional divers and officer of Coal India. Specialised divers of the Indian Navy were called but the operation is difficult as is there is a river nearby. &nbsp;The divers tried but the water is murky,'' the SG told the Supreme Court.

In its response, the court asked the government to take action against mine owners. "Why should the workers suffer?" the court asked.

In Thailand, there was a blueprint and it being a cave there were air pockets, the SG told the court.&nbsp;

The court also expressed disappointement with the government's effort at the initial stages of the rescue operation.&nbsp;

“We are concerned with the fact that whether efforts are being made or not. Initially there were no serious efforts,” the court said.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked Centre and the Meghalaya government to file a ''status report'' before it by January 7 on the steps taken and the progress made in the rescue operation of 15 miners trapped in an illegal flooded coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills since December 13 last year.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked Centre and the Meghalaya government to file a ''status report'' before it by January 7 on the steps taken and the progress made in the rescue operation of 15 miners trapped in an illegal flooded coal mine in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills since December 13 last year. During the hearing of the case, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the apex court that the ''illegal mine'' was not maintained properly and blueprint was not available. “I had a detailed meeting with home and defence joint secretaries, functional divers and officer of Coal India. Specialised divers of the Indian Navy were called but the operation is difficult as is there is a river nearby. The divers tried but the water is murky,'' the SG told the Supreme Court. In its response, the court asked the government to take action against mine owners. "Why should the workers suffer?" the court asked. In Thailand, there was a blueprint and it being a cave there were air pockets, the SG told the court. The court also expressed disappointement with the government's effort at the initial stages of the rescue operation. “We are concerned with the fact that whether efforts are being made or not. Initially there were no serious efforts,” the court said.

Miners rescue: Supreme Court asks Centre, Meghalaya govt to file status report 

The Supreme Court Friday directed the Centre to place on affidavit steps taken since September last year to set up a search committee for the Lokpal.

The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to file the affidavit on the matter by January 17.

"You have to ensure on affidavit the steps taken on the issue of setting up of a search committee for the Lokpal," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said.

When the attorney general said that since the last order of September 2018, several steps have been taken, the bench asked him "what all have you done till date. So much time is being taken".

When the attorney general reiterated that several steps have been taken, the bench shot back "bring everything on record what you have done since September 2018".

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Common Cause, which has been pursuing the issue of Lokpal, said the government has not even made public the members of the search committee on its website.

The top court had on July 24 last year rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for the Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit" within four weeks.

The direction had followed a submission by the attorney general that the selection committee members comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan and eminent jurist Mukul Rohatgi had met on July 19 last year to deliberate upon names for members of the search committee.

The selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people (including chairperson) with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc, Venugopal had said.

Besides, 50 per cent of the members of the search committee will be from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women, he had said.&nbsp;

The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to file the affidavit on the matter by January 17.

The Supreme Court Friday directed the Centre to place on affidavit steps taken since September last year to set up a search committee for the Lokpal. The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to file the affidavit on the matter by January 17. "You have to ensure on affidavit the steps taken on the issue of setting up of a search committee for the Lokpal," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said. When the attorney general said that since the last order of September 2018, several steps have been taken, the bench asked him "what all have you done till date. So much time is being taken". When the attorney general reiterated that several steps have been taken, the bench shot back "bring everything on record what you have done since September 2018". Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Common Cause, which has been pursuing the issue of Lokpal, said the government has not even made public the members of the search committee on its website. The top court had on July 24 last year rejected as "wholly unsatisfactory" the Centre's submission on the issue of setting up of a search committee for the Lokpal and demanded a "better affidavit" within four weeks. The direction had followed a submission by the attorney general that the selection committee members comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan and eminent jurist Mukul Rohatgi had met on July 19 last year to deliberate upon names for members of the search committee. The selection panel also took note that the search committee is to comprise a minimum of seven people (including chairperson) with experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy making, finance including insurance and banking, law and management, etc, Venugopal had said. Besides, 50 per cent of the members of the search committee will be from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women, he had said.

Lokpal search committee: Supreme Court directs Centre to file affidavit on steps taken since September 2018

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea filed by&nbsp;Bengal BJP against a Calcutta High Court order not allowing its Rath Yatra in the state.&nbsp;

The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and SK Kaul which agreed to hear it on January 7.&nbsp;

The party had approached the apex court seeking permission to hold the campaign 'Save Democracy Rally', which would cover 42 parliamentary constituencies in the state ahead of the 2019 general elections.&nbsp;

It had challenged the December 21 order of a division bench of the high court which had set aside the order of a single judge allowing the yatra.&nbsp;

BJP has identified Bengal as a priority state and party chief Amit Shah has set a target of 22 seats from here in the upcoming elections.

Over the last few years, the party has emerged as the main opposition in the state with a significant show in rural polls and by-elections.&nbsp;

The PM's first rally is expected to be held at the Brigade Parade ground in the heart of city. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee will also hold a rally at the same venue on January 19 and has invited leaders of all opposition parties in the country.

The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and SK Kaul which agreed to hear it on January 7.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea filed by Bengal BJP against a Calcutta High Court order not allowing its Rath Yatra in the state. The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and SK Kaul which agreed to hear it on January 7. The party had approached the apex court seeking permission to hold the campaign 'Save Democracy Rally', which would cover 42 parliamentary constituencies in the state ahead of the 2019 general elections. It had challenged the December 21 order of a division bench of the high court which had set aside the order of a single judge allowing the yatra. BJP has identified Bengal as a priority state and party chief Amit Shah has set a target of 22 seats from here in the upcoming elections. Over the last few years, the party has emerged as the main opposition in the state with a significant show in rural polls and by-elections. The PM's first rally is expected to be held at the Brigade Parade ground in the heart of city. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee will also hold a rally at the same venue on January 19 and has invited leaders of all opposition parties in the country.

Rath Yatra in West Bengal: Supreme Court agrees to hear BJP's plea on January 7

The Supreme Court Thursday revived the government case in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India seeking damages of Rs 640 crore alleging unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements.

The top court had on December 16, 2015, stayed the proceedings before the NCDRC and directed the CFTRI (Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru) to place its test report before it.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta was told by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Nestle India, that tests reports of the Mysuru lab had been submitted and it found that lead content in Maggi noodles was well within the limit.

"Why should we be eating Maggi with lead in it?", Justice Chandrachud asked Singhvi, who replied that lead content in the noodles was well within the permissible limit and there was some amount of lead in various other products.

The bench said the report of CFTRI, where the samples of Maggi noodles were tested following earlier orders of the court, will form the basis for the proceedings before the NCDRC.

"We are of the view that CFTRI report is evaluated by the NCDRC in the complaint before it. It will not be appropriate for this court to pre-empt the jurisdiction of NCDRC... All the rights and contentions of the parties will remain open," the bench said.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for Centre said that in the wake of the Mysuru lab report the matter should go back to NCDRC and stay on the proceedings should be vacated.

Singhvi said the matter has now become infructuous as the report is in my favour and presence of MSG (monosodium glutamate) was not found.

He along with senior advocate Arvind Dattar opposed sending the matter back to NCDRC saying nothing remains to be decided after the lab report.

"Why should we usurp the power of NCDRC. We will send the lab reports to the commission and them ask to dispose of the complaint filed before it," the bench said adding that the appeal against the Bombay High Court order which had in 2015 quashed the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ban order against Nestle's Maggi noodle will be heard at a later stage.

Meanwhile, Nestle in a statement said it welcomes the order passed by the apex court.

"As per SC directives, samples were sent to the CFTRI. The CFTRI analysis showed samples were compliant for lead and other parameters," it said.

"The appeal filed by Nestlé India against the two interim orders passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) &nbsp;came up for hearing today. As per the lawyers who appeared for Nestle, Hon’ble Supreme court in view of reports received from CFTRI has agreed with Nestlé’s contention and has set aside both the interim orders passed by NCDRC which were challenged by Nestle. The Supreme Court has also directed that the reports received from CFTRI will be the basis for proceedings before NCDRC. Full details will be known only after receipt of the order by the Company," the statement reads.

The Consumer Affairs Ministry had in 2015 filed a complaint against Nestle India before the NCDRC using a provision for the first time in the nearly three-decade-old Consumer Protection Act.

It had filed a complaint against Nestle for causing harm to Indian consumers by allegedly indulging in unfair trade practices and false labelling related to the Maggi noodles product.

It was for the first time that the government had taken action under Section 12-1-D of the Consumer Protection Act, under which both the Centre and states have powers to file complaints.

In the petition filed before the NCDRC, the ministry had charged that Nestle India has misled consumers claiming that its Maggi noodle was healthy -- "Taste bhi healthy bhi".

Nestle had to withdraw its instant noodles brand Maggi from the market over allegations of high lead content and presence of MSG.

The food safety regulator FSSAI had banned Maggi noodles after it found excess level of lead in samples, terming it as "unsafe and hazardous" for human consumption.

FSSAI had also said Nestle violated labelling regulations on taste enhancer 'MSG' and ordered the company to submit a compliance report on its orders.

The Supreme Court Thursday revived the government case in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India seeking damages of Rs 640 crore alleging unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements.

The Supreme Court Thursday revived the government case in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India seeking damages of Rs 640 crore alleging unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements. The top court had on December 16, 2015, stayed the proceedings before the NCDRC and directed the CFTRI (Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru) to place its test report before it. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta was told by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Nestle India, that tests reports of the Mysuru lab had been submitted and it found that lead content in Maggi noodles was well within the limit. "Why should we be eating Maggi with lead in it?", Justice Chandrachud asked Singhvi, who replied that lead content in the noodles was well within the permissible limit and there was some amount of lead in various other products. The bench said the report of CFTRI, where the samples of Maggi noodles were tested following earlier orders of the court, will form the basis for the proceedings before the NCDRC. "We are of the view that CFTRI report is evaluated by the NCDRC in the complaint before it. It will not be appropriate for this court to pre-empt the jurisdiction of NCDRC... All the rights and contentions of the parties will remain open," the bench said. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for Centre said that in the wake of the Mysuru lab report the matter should go back to NCDRC and stay on the proceedings should be vacated. Singhvi said the matter has now become infructuous as the report is in my favour and presence of MSG (monosodium glutamate) was not found. He along with senior advocate Arvind Dattar opposed sending the matter back to NCDRC saying nothing remains to be decided after the lab report. "Why should we usurp the power of NCDRC. We will send the lab reports to the commission and them ask to dispose of the complaint filed before it," the bench said adding that the appeal against the Bombay High Court order which had in 2015 quashed the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ban order against Nestle's Maggi noodle will be heard at a later stage. Meanwhile, Nestle in a statement said it welcomes the order passed by the apex court. "As per SC directives, samples were sent to the CFTRI. The CFTRI analysis showed samples were compliant for lead and other parameters," it said. "The appeal filed by Nestlé India against the two interim orders passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) came up for hearing today. As per the lawyers who appeared for Nestle, Hon’ble Supreme court in view of reports received from CFTRI has agreed with Nestlé’s contention and has set aside both the interim orders passed by NCDRC which were challenged by Nestle. The Supreme Court has also directed that the reports received from CFTRI will be the basis for proceedings before NCDRC. Full details will be known only after receipt of the order by the Company," the statement reads. The Consumer Affairs Ministry had in 2015 filed a complaint against Nestle India before the NCDRC using a provision for the first time in the nearly three-decade-old Consumer Protection Act. It had filed a complaint against Nestle for causing harm to Indian consumers by allegedly indulging in unfair trade practices and false labelling related to the Maggi noodles product. It was for the first time that the government had taken action under Section 12-1-D of the Consumer Protection Act, under which both the Centre and states have powers to file complaints. In the petition filed before the NCDRC, the ministry had charged that Nestle India has misled consumers claiming that its Maggi noodle was healthy -- "Taste bhi healthy bhi". Nestle had to withdraw its instant noodles brand Maggi from the market over allegations of high lead content and presence of MSG. The food safety regulator FSSAI had banned Maggi noodles after it found excess level of lead in samples, terming it as "unsafe and hazardous" for human consumption. FSSAI had also said Nestle violated labelling regulations on taste enhancer 'MSG' and ordered the company to submit a compliance report on its orders.

'Why should we be eating Maggi with lead in it?' SC asks, revives case against Nestle India

The Supreme Court of India has expressed dissatisfaction with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/meghalaya-mining-tragedy-no-change-in-water-level-even-after-using-high-pressure-pumps-187811">Meghalaya government's measures</a>&nbsp;to rescue 15 miners stuck in a rat-hole mine in East Jaintia Hills.

The apex court has asked what steps the state government has taken to rescue the miners.

Meghalaya government had submitted before the top court stating, "the state is taking steps to rescue the trapped miners. 72 NDRF personnel, 14 Navy personnel and Coal India personnel are working since December 14," news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court asked "why are they not successful?"&nbsp;in rescuing the trapped miners after all the effort that is being undertaken.&nbsp;

<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/Meghalayaminers?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Meghalayaminers</a>: Meghalaya govt submits before SC, "the state is taking steps to rescue the trapped miners. 72 NDRF personnel, 14 Navy personnel&amp;Coal India personnel are working since Dec 14.". SC asks, “Then, why are they not successful?”, asks SC.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1080711645788282880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 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>

Fifteen miners are trapped inside a 370-foot-deep illegal coal mine in East Jaintia Hills district since December 13 after water from a nearby river gushed in, puncturing the mine wall.&nbsp;

The divers from the Indian Navy and the NDRF on Wednesday could not go down the 370 foot-deep mine, in which 15 miners are trapped for nearly three weeks, even as draining out of a nearby abandoned mine they believe may be connected to it continued, officials said.

<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/Meghalayaminers?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Meghalayaminers</a>: Supreme Court tells Meghalaya government that we are not satisfied with the rescue operations. 15 miners are trapped in an illegal flooded coal mine in East Jaintia Hills since December 13 last year. <a href="https://t.co/DvXuAawxrc">pic.twitter.com/DvXuAawxrc</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1080712795518390272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 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>

A high-powered submersible pump from Coal India Ltd will be put into operation Thursday in the abandoned mine, while more pumps from Odisha Fire and Disaster service are to be pressed into services in more abandoned mines, they said.

The divers from the Indian navy and the NDRF did not go down the main shaft to rescue the trapped miners because 'de-watering' was going on in the nearby mines and there was no significant decrease in water level there, operation spokesperson R Susngi told PTI, giving details of the operation on the 21st day of the disaster.

<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/Meghalayaminers?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Meghalayaminers</a>: Supreme Court says it’s a very serious situation and it’s a question of life and death of 15 coal miners who are trapped. <a href="https://t.co/DKJjSg8j1m">https://t.co/DKJjSg8j1m</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1080719058155302912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 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 spokesperson said the services of the Navy and NDRF divers will be used once the water level at the main shaft decreases to about 100 feet from its current level of over 160 feet.

A high powered submersible pump from Coal India Ltd, which arrived here Tuesday night, is expected to be fully operational and begin pumping Thursday, Susngi said.

Susngi also said the Odisha team is expected to operate more pumps on Thursday in the nearby abandoned mine shafts in East Jaintia Hills district. District Authorities said there are at least 90 such abandoned mine shafts in the area and at present, they are all full of water.

The rescue officials believe that the nearby mines may be connected with the main shaft due to which water level is not going down there.

Five more pumps with similar power and functions from Coal India Ltd are on the way by road from their various centres across the country.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India has expressed dissatisfaction with Meghalaya government's measures to rescue 15 miners stuck in a rat-hole mine in East Jaintia Hills.

The Supreme Court of India has expressed dissatisfaction with Meghalaya government's measures to rescue 15 miners stuck in a rat-hole mine in East Jaintia Hills. The apex court has asked what steps the state government has taken to rescue the miners. Meghalaya government had submitted before the top court stating, "the state is taking steps to rescue the trapped miners. 72 NDRF personnel, 14 Navy personnel and Coal India personnel are working since December 14," news agency ANI reported. The Supreme Court asked "why are they not successful?" in rescuing the trapped miners after all the effort that is being undertaken. #Meghalayaminers: Meghalaya govt submits before SC, "the state is taking steps to rescue the trapped miners. 72 NDRF personnel, 14 Navy personnel&Coal India personnel are working since Dec 14.". SC asks, “Then, why are they not successful?”, asks SC. — ANI (@ANI) January 3, 2019 × Fifteen miners are trapped inside a 370-foot-deep illegal coal mine in East Jaintia Hills district since December 13 after water from a nearby river gushed in, puncturing the mine wall. The divers from the Indian Navy and the NDRF on Wednesday could not go down the 370 foot-deep mine, in which 15 miners are trapped for nearly three weeks, even as draining out of a nearby abandoned mine they believe may be connected to it continued, officials said. #Meghalayaminers: Supreme Court tells Meghalaya government that we are not satisfied with the rescue operations. 15 miners are trapped in an illegal flooded coal mine in East Jaintia Hills since December 13 last year. pic.twitter.com/DvXuAawxrc — ANI (@ANI) January 3, 2019 × A high-powered submersible pump from Coal India Ltd will be put into operation Thursday in the abandoned mine, while more pumps from Odisha Fire and Disaster service are to be pressed into services in more abandoned mines, they said. The divers from the Indian navy and the NDRF did not go down the main shaft to rescue the trapped miners because 'de-watering' was going on in the nearby mines and there was no significant decrease in water level there, operation spokesperson R Susngi told PTI, giving details of the operation on the 21st day of the disaster. #Meghalayaminers: Supreme Court says it’s a very serious situation and it’s a question of life and death of 15 coal miners who are trapped. https://t.co/DKJjSg8j1m — ANI (@ANI) January 3, 2019 × The spokesperson said the services of the Navy and NDRF divers will be used once the water level at the main shaft decreases to about 100 feet from its current level of over 160 feet. A high powered submersible pump from Coal India Ltd, which arrived here Tuesday night, is expected to be fully operational and begin pumping Thursday, Susngi said. Susngi also said the Odisha team is expected to operate more pumps on Thursday in the nearby abandoned mine shafts in East Jaintia Hills district. District Authorities said there are at least 90 such abandoned mine shafts in the area and at present, they are all full of water. The rescue officials believe that the nearby mines may be connected with the main shaft due to which water level is not going down there. Five more pumps with similar power and functions from Coal India Ltd are on the way by road from their various centres across the country. (With inputs from PTI)

Not satisfied with steps taken for Meghalaya miners' rescue: Supreme Court slams state government 

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