The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear Tamil Nadu's appeal against the NGT order to reopen Vedanta Ltd's Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin on&nbsp;January 8.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul said the case will be heard next week.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for Vedanta, said Tamil Nadu has filed an appeal against the NGT order so the case be heard on priority as they are facing problems with storage of sulphuric acid in the plant.

On December 15, 2018, the green tribunal had set aside Tamil Nadu government's order for closing Sterlite plant.

The NGT had directed the state government to roll-out fresh orders for the renewal of consent for Vedanta's copper smelter plant within a span of three weeks.

It also directed the firm to spend Rs 100 crore in a period of three long years for the welfare of the people residing in nearby areas.

In May last year, 13 people were killed and several injured in the alleged police firing during the violent protest against Sterlite plant in Tuticorin.

The people were protesting against the construction of the Sterlite copper plant, claiming that it was polluting groundwater, and was hazardous for the environment.

Taking note of the people`s demand, the Tamil Nadu government on May 28 ordered the closure of the plant.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul said the case will be heard next week.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear Tamil Nadu's appeal against the NGT order to reopen Vedanta Ltd's Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin on January 8. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul said the case will be heard next week. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for Vedanta, said Tamil Nadu has filed an appeal against the NGT order so the case be heard on priority as they are facing problems with storage of sulphuric acid in the plant. On December 15, 2018, the green tribunal had set aside Tamil Nadu government's order for closing Sterlite plant. The NGT had directed the state government to roll-out fresh orders for the renewal of consent for Vedanta's copper smelter plant within a span of three weeks. It also directed the firm to spend Rs 100 crore in a period of three long years for the welfare of the people residing in nearby areas. In May last year, 13 people were killed and several injured in the alleged police firing during the violent protest against Sterlite plant in Tuticorin. The people were protesting against the construction of the Sterlite copper plant, claiming that it was polluting groundwater, and was hazardous for the environment. Taking note of the people`s demand, the Tamil Nadu government on May 28 ordered the closure of the plant.

Vedanta Sterlite plant: SC to hear Tamil Nadu's appeal against NGT order on Jan 8

Former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan moved&nbsp;the Supreme Court on Wednesday for review of Rafale judgement.

Bhushan is seeking review of December 14 judgement on Rafale. Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review of Rafale judgment. <a href="https://t.co/SZk2zmwnmd">pic.twitter.com/SZk2zmwnmd</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1080347083733905408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

They are also asking to grant an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea.

The petition stated that the recent judgement contains several errors and also the judgement relies upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of principle of natural justice.

This petition also mentioned that several new facts have come to the light after the judgement was reserved in the matter, which needs to go to the root of the matter.

Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan had expressed their disappointment over the December 14 judgement of the top court on Rafale fighter jet deal.

Reacting to the Rafale verdict by the apex court, the trio, who has sought a court-monitored CBI probe into the 36-aircraft Rafale deal, issued a press statement and said, "The judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing our petition seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal is as shocking as it is disappointing. We had gone to court after making a detailed complaint to the CBI."The three petitioners said, "No Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale has been submitted or examined."

"Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of Defence deal corruption involving high functionaries. Shocked that the judgment is based on completely false information about the CAG report. No CAG report on Rafale has been submitted or examined. Shocked that court accepts Mukesh Ambani`s RIL as 'parent company'&nbsp;of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence. The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the statement read.

In their detailed statement, they also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Airforce Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any Defence procurement.

"The Air Force had in fact been asking for at least 126 fighter jets which had been approved by the DAC, tenders had been issued, 6 companies had applied, two were shortlisted and finally Dassault was selected as the lowest tender. The tender was on the basis that 126 fighters would be procured out of which only 18 would be bought in a ready to fly condition and the remaining would be manufactured in India by HAL with the transfer of technology by HAL," it said.

"All facts were documented in the complaint to the CBI and we sought a court-monitored investigation (when the CBI did not register an FIR on our complaint which is mandatory as per law)," the petitioners had claimed.

Expressing further dismay over the apex court`s verdict on the Defence deal, the petitioners said, "The court's judgement today does not even address the documented facts stated in our petition or even deal with our main prayer seeking an investigation."

It added, "On the contrary, it proceeds on the basis that we were challenging the contract itself and uses the facts stated by the government either in the short open affidavit filed or perhaps facts claimed in the sealed cover handed only to the court which was never shared with us. In fact, some of the facts mentioned in the court judgement are not only not on record but are patently incorrect."

The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress and other opposition parties have been alleging irregularities in the high-profile deal. The fighter jet is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which security analysts believe can be a 'game-changer'&nbsp;for India's defence system.

On December 14, the Supreme Court had dismissed all petitions seeking court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jet deal with France, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal.

The top court said it was not its job to go into the issue of pricing.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, said that there is no need to conduct an investigation into details of Rafale pricing."We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. Joint exercises have taken place and there is no element of financial benefits. Detailed scrutiny of Rafale Deal deal is not required," said CJI Gogoi.

Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal- Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement.

Former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday for review of Rafale judgement. Bhushan is seeking review of December 14 judgement on Rafale. Bhushan along with two other petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Shourie and Sinha are asking for recalling of Rafale judgement. Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review of Rafale judgment. pic.twitter.com/SZk2zmwnmd — ANI (@ANI) January 2, 2019 × They are also asking to grant an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea. The petition stated that the recent judgement contains several errors and also the judgement relies upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of principle of natural justice. This petition also mentioned that several new facts have come to the light after the judgement was reserved in the matter, which needs to go to the root of the matter. Petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal - Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan had expressed their disappointment over the December 14 judgement of the top court on Rafale fighter jet deal. Reacting to the Rafale verdict by the apex court, the trio, who has sought a court-monitored CBI probe into the 36-aircraft Rafale deal, issued a press statement and said, "The judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing our petition seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal is as shocking as it is disappointing. We had gone to court after making a detailed complaint to the CBI."The three petitioners said, "No Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale has been submitted or examined." "Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of Defence deal corruption involving high functionaries. Shocked that the judgment is based on completely false information about the CAG report. No CAG report on Rafale has been submitted or examined. Shocked that court accepts Mukesh Ambani`s RIL as 'parent company' of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence. The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the statement read. In their detailed statement, they also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Airforce Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any Defence procurement. "The Air Force had in fact been asking for at least 126 fighter jets which had been approved by the DAC, tenders had been issued, 6 companies had applied, two were shortlisted and finally Dassault was selected as the lowest tender. The tender was on the basis that 126 fighters would be procured out of which only 18 would be bought in a ready to fly condition and the remaining would be manufactured in India by HAL with the transfer of technology by HAL," it said. "All facts were documented in the complaint to the CBI and we sought a court-monitored investigation (when the CBI did not register an FIR on our complaint which is mandatory as per law)," the petitioners had claimed. Expressing further dismay over the apex court`s verdict on the Defence deal, the petitioners said, "The court's judgement today does not even address the documented facts stated in our petition or even deal with our main prayer seeking an investigation." It added, "On the contrary, it proceeds on the basis that we were challenging the contract itself and uses the facts stated by the government either in the short open affidavit filed or perhaps facts claimed in the sealed cover handed only to the court which was never shared with us. In fact, some of the facts mentioned in the court judgement are not only not on record but are patently incorrect." The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress and other opposition parties have been alleging irregularities in the high-profile deal. The fighter jet is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which security analysts believe can be a 'game-changer' for India's defence system. On December 14, the Supreme Court had dismissed all petitions seeking court-monitored probe into the Rafale fighter jet deal with France, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal. The top court said it was not its job to go into the issue of pricing. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, said that there is no need to conduct an investigation into details of Rafale pricing."We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. Joint exercises have taken place and there is no element of financial benefits. Detailed scrutiny of Rafale Deal deal is not required," said CJI Gogoi.

Rafale verdict: Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan move Supreme Court for review

The consensual physical relationship between live-in partners does not amount to rape in case the man fails to marry the woman due to circumstances beyond his control, the Supreme Court has held.

The top court said this while quashing an FIR lodged by a Maharashtra-based nurse against a doctor, who was in a live-in relationship "for quite some time".

"Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception," a bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer said in a recent verdict.

The bench also said that if "the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix (woman) to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape".

According to the FIR, the woman, a widow, had fallen in love with the doctor and they started living together.

"There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently," the bench said.

It said if the man had any mala fide intention or clandestine motives, then it was a clear case of rape.

"The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under section 376 (rape) of the IPC," the bench said.

Referring to the facts of the case, the court said they were living together for quite some time and when the woman came to know that the man had married someone else, she lodged the complaint.

"We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant (doctor)," the bench said.

The man had approached the top court against the verdict of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed his plea seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him.

The consensual physical relationship between live-in partners does not amount to rape in case the man fails to marry the woman due to circumstances beyond his control, the Supreme Court has held.

The consensual physical relationship between live-in partners does not amount to rape in case the man fails to marry the woman due to circumstances beyond his control, the Supreme Court has held. The top court said this while quashing an FIR lodged by a Maharashtra-based nurse against a doctor, who was in a live-in relationship "for quite some time". "Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception," a bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer said in a recent verdict. The bench also said that if "the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix (woman) to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape". According to the FIR, the woman, a widow, had fallen in love with the doctor and they started living together. "There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently," the bench said. It said if the man had any mala fide intention or clandestine motives, then it was a clear case of rape. "The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under section 376 (rape) of the IPC," the bench said. Referring to the facts of the case, the court said they were living together for quite some time and when the woman came to know that the man had married someone else, she lodged the complaint. "We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant (doctor)," the bench said. The man had approached the top court against the verdict of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed his plea seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him.

Consensual physical relationship between live-in partners, not rape, says Supreme Court

The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order of reopening the Sterlite copper smelter plant at Thoothukudi.

On December 15, 2018, the green tribunal had set aside Tamil Nadu government's order for closing Sterlite plant.

The NGT had directed the state government to roll-out fresh orders for the renewal of consent for Vedanta's copper smelter plant within a span of three weeks.

It also directed the firm to spend Rs 100 crore in a period of three long years for the welfare of the people residing in nearby areas.

In May last year, 13 people were killed and several injured in the alleged police firing during the violent protest against Sterlite plant in Tuticorin.

The people were protesting against the construction of the Sterlite copper plant, claiming that it was polluting groundwater, and was hazardous for the environment.

Taking note of the people`s demand, the Tamil Nadu government on May 28 ordered the closure of the plant.&nbsp;

The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order of reopening the Sterlite copper smelter plant at Thoothukudi.

The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court challenging the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order of reopening the Sterlite copper smelter plant at Thoothukudi. On December 15, 2018, the green tribunal had set aside Tamil Nadu government's order for closing Sterlite plant. The NGT had directed the state government to roll-out fresh orders for the renewal of consent for Vedanta's copper smelter plant within a span of three weeks. It also directed the firm to spend Rs 100 crore in a period of three long years for the welfare of the people residing in nearby areas. In May last year, 13 people were killed and several injured in the alleged police firing during the violent protest against Sterlite plant in Tuticorin. The people were protesting against the construction of the Sterlite copper plant, claiming that it was polluting groundwater, and was hazardous for the environment. Taking note of the people`s demand, the Tamil Nadu government on May 28 ordered the closure of the plant.

Tamil Nadu government approaches Supreme Court challenging NGT order of reopening Sterlite plant

The process for correcting names and other particulars that appeared in the final draft of the National Register of Citizens will begin from January 2, said a notice issued by the office of NRC Assam.

According to the notice issued by NRC state coordinator, Government of Assam, "Name, etc Correction - Services for online correction of names and other particulars appearing in Draft NRC will be started from 10 am of 2/1/19.&nbsp;

"This facility can be availed by visiting NRC Assam's website. Facility for name correction will also be available by submission of correction forms at NRC Seva Kendras (NSKs). These facilities will be available till 31/1/19," the notice stated.

The process has no connection with the submission of claims and objections which got over on December 31, 2018, it said.

The filing of claims and objections to decide the fate of 40 lakh people whose names were excluded from the draft list (released on July 30 last) had begun on September 25, 2018 and ended on December 15 that year.

The Supreme Court had pushed the date to December 31, 2018 after the Assam government sought extension of the last date following demands for it by various local organisations.

Reports appearing in a section of media claimed around 30 lakh people had filed claims for inclusion by Monday evening, when the deadline for the Claims and Objections' round ended.

The claims and objections were earlier scheduled to be filed in August, but the Supreme Court reprimanded the NRC Coordinator and Registrar General of India for announcing the dates without the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) being approved and directed them to refrain from talking to the media.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court.

The second and complete draft of NRC was released on July 30, 2018 that included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total applications of 3.29 crore.

The first draft was published during the intervening nights of December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2018 containing 1.9 crore names.&nbsp;

The process for correcting names and other particulars that appeared in the final draft of the National Register of Citizens will begin from January 2, said a notice issued by the office of NRC Assam.

The process for correcting names and other particulars that appeared in the final draft of the National Register of Citizens will begin from January 2, said a notice issued by the office of NRC Assam. According to the notice issued by NRC state coordinator, Government of Assam, "Name, etc Correction - Services for online correction of names and other particulars appearing in Draft NRC will be started from 10 am of 2/1/19. "This facility can be availed by visiting NRC Assam's website. Facility for name correction will also be available by submission of correction forms at NRC Seva Kendras (NSKs). These facilities will be available till 31/1/19," the notice stated. The process has no connection with the submission of claims and objections which got over on December 31, 2018, it said. The filing of claims and objections to decide the fate of 40 lakh people whose names were excluded from the draft list (released on July 30 last) had begun on September 25, 2018 and ended on December 15 that year. The Supreme Court had pushed the date to December 31, 2018 after the Assam government sought extension of the last date following demands for it by various local organisations. Reports appearing in a section of media claimed around 30 lakh people had filed claims for inclusion by Monday evening, when the deadline for the Claims and Objections' round ended. The claims and objections were earlier scheduled to be filed in August, but the Supreme Court reprimanded the NRC Coordinator and Registrar General of India for announcing the dates without the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) being approved and directed them to refrain from talking to the media. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being updated under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court. The second and complete draft of NRC was released on July 30, 2018 that included the names of 2.9 crore people out of the total applications of 3.29 crore. The first draft was published during the intervening nights of December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2018 containing 1.9 crore names.

Correction of names, particulars in Assam NRC to begin from January 2

A petition has been filed before a Commission of Inquiry probing the death of former <a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/nithya-menen-looks-strikingly-similar-to-young-jayalalitha-in-the-first-poster-of-the-iron-lady-181657">chief minister J Jayalalithaa</a> by its counsel, raising serious medical issues regarding her treatment at the Apollo Hospital.

The hospital has, however, strongly refuted the allegations against it raised in the petition.&nbsp;

Commission sources told that the plea filed by the standing counsel for the commission seeks to implead Tamil Nadu Health Secretary J Radhakrishnan and former chief secretary P Rama Mohana Rao over their statements and depositions.

A statement issued Saturday night by Apollo Hospital said it was served a copy of the petition dated December 27.&nbsp;

"It is surprising that the commission is itself filing this petition against other parties," the hospital said, adding that the proceedings before the inquiry panel cannot be "accusatorial" in nature.

The hospital said the plea before the panel referred to three senior doctors advising an<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ex-tamil-nadu-cm-j-jayalalithaa-death-probe-panel-completes-examining-100-witnesses"> angiogram on Jayalalithaa</a>.

"This is incorrect. It was only a single external doctor who on November 25, 2016, visited the late CM for a few minutes and suggested immediate angiogram without going into all the other co-morbidities, including her compromised respiratory condition, which could have potentially inhibited the desired outcome," it said.

The hospital said its team of doctors and Richard Beale, a UK-based specialist, did not think it was wise to do angiogram based on the medical opinion of that doctor who wanted to "perform the procedure and leave immediately out of the country with no commitment to her follow-up care."

Citing medical evidence in the form of depositions of multiple doctors, and related medical reports including echocardiogram and blood tests, the hospital asked why was the "commission choosing to ignore the material evidence in this regard".&nbsp;

Also, the hospital said the petition wrongly spelt 'sternotomy' as "stenotomy".&nbsp;

Complicated medical terminologies in English have been incorrectly translated into Tamil and the context and meaning of medical facts have been lost in interpretation and translation, the hospital alleged.

"This petition only strengthens our case for the immediate appointment of a medical board who will understand the complexities of the late CM's treatment," he said.

The hospital argued that without a medical board no finding of the panel would be "complete" or based on medical science. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a judge cannot substitute a medical specialist's opinion with his own," it said.&nbsp;

Jayalalitha had died on December 5, 2016.&nbsp;

A petition has been filed before a Commission of Inquiry probing the death of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa by its counsel, raising serious medical issues regarding her treatment at the Apollo Hospital.

A petition has been filed before a Commission of Inquiry probing the death of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa by its counsel, raising serious medical issues regarding her treatment at the Apollo Hospital. The hospital has, however, strongly refuted the allegations against it raised in the petition. Commission sources told that the plea filed by the standing counsel for the commission seeks to implead Tamil Nadu Health Secretary J Radhakrishnan and former chief secretary P Rama Mohana Rao over their statements and depositions. A statement issued Saturday night by Apollo Hospital said it was served a copy of the petition dated December 27. "It is surprising that the commission is itself filing this petition against other parties," the hospital said, adding that the proceedings before the inquiry panel cannot be "accusatorial" in nature. The hospital said the plea before the panel referred to three senior doctors advising an angiogram on Jayalalithaa. "This is incorrect. It was only a single external doctor who on November 25, 2016, visited the late CM for a few minutes and suggested immediate angiogram without going into all the other co-morbidities, including her compromised respiratory condition, which could have potentially inhibited the desired outcome," it said. The hospital said its team of doctors and Richard Beale, a UK-based specialist, did not think it was wise to do angiogram based on the medical opinion of that doctor who wanted to "perform the procedure and leave immediately out of the country with no commitment to her follow-up care." Citing medical evidence in the form of depositions of multiple doctors, and related medical reports including echocardiogram and blood tests, the hospital asked why was the "commission choosing to ignore the material evidence in this regard". Also, the hospital said the petition wrongly spelt 'sternotomy' as "stenotomy". Complicated medical terminologies in English have been incorrectly translated into Tamil and the context and meaning of medical facts have been lost in interpretation and translation, the hospital alleged. "This petition only strengthens our case for the immediate appointment of a medical board who will understand the complexities of the late CM's treatment," he said. The hospital argued that without a medical board no finding of the panel would be "complete" or based on medical science. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a judge cannot substitute a medical specialist's opinion with his own," it said. Jayalalitha had died on December 5, 2016.

Jaya panel counsel files plea flagging serious medical issues in her treatment

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-detains-member-of-british-house-of-lords-at-islamabad-airport-187159">Pakistan's national carrier</a> has terminated the contracts of over 50 employees, including seven pilots after they were found guilty of holding fake degrees. 
&nbsp; 
The directives were issued in view of the proceedings of Pakistan's Supreme Court against pilots and cabin crews with fake degrees and certificates.

"Action has been taken against the PIA employees after the respective educational institutions found their degrees bogus/fake," a statement issued by Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said.

Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) spokesperson Mashood Tajwar said that a probe has been initiated into the cases of all staffers who were hired holding sham degrees.

The CAA said that degree verification of another 400 PIA employees is underway.&nbsp;

Director General of CAA Hassan Baig has also issued directives to suspend the licenses of all those pilots and cabin crews who have not yet submitted their degrees and certificates.

"Their licenses will remain suspended till they submit their referred documents for verification," Baig said.&nbsp;

The CAA had revealed before a Supreme Court bench this week that academic credentials of seven pilots of the PIA had been found to be bogus.

The bench was hearing a matter relating to the verification of degrees of pilots and other staff of the PIA.&nbsp;

The directives were issued in view of the proceedings of Pakistan's Supreme Court against pilots and cabin crews with fake degrees and certificates.

Pakistan's national carrier has terminated the contracts of over 50 employees, including seven pilots after they were found guilty of holding fake degrees. The directives were issued in view of the proceedings of Pakistan's Supreme Court against pilots and cabin crews with fake degrees and certificates. "Action has been taken against the PIA employees after the respective educational institutions found their degrees bogus/fake," a statement issued by Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said. Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) spokesperson Mashood Tajwar said that a probe has been initiated into the cases of all staffers who were hired holding sham degrees. The CAA said that degree verification of another 400 PIA employees is underway. Director General of CAA Hassan Baig has also issued directives to suspend the licenses of all those pilots and cabin crews who have not yet submitted their degrees and certificates. "Their licenses will remain suspended till they submit their referred documents for verification," Baig said. The CAA had revealed before a Supreme Court bench this week that academic credentials of seven pilots of the PIA had been found to be bogus. The bench was hearing a matter relating to the verification of degrees of pilots and other staff of the PIA.

Pakistan's national carrier sacks 50 employees for holding fake degrees

The centre has submitted a letter to the Supreme Court stating that it has initiated to amend the POSCO Act.&nbsp;

In its letter, the centre proposes to ensure a maximum punishment of death penalty in child rape cases between the age group of 0-12.

The&nbsp;Centre&nbsp;submitted its report in response to a PIL.

Earlier the Women and Children Development minister Maneka Gandhi had asked her department to work on amending the POSCO law in order to introduce the provision of death penalty for the rape of a minor below the age of 12 years.

The present POSCO Act does not have the provision for the death penalty with the maximum sentence being life imprisonment.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Union Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad: Cabinet has approved death penalty in aggravated sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. <a href="https://t.co/E1JB8xCOOq">pic.twitter.com/E1JB8xCOOq</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1078600617860378624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</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 union minister's proposal came after the horrific murder of an eight-year-old in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua.

The court will hear the matter on April 27.

In its letter, the centre proposes to ensure a maximum punishment of death penalty in child rape cases between the age group of 0-12

The centre has submitted a letter to the Supreme Court stating that it has initiated to amend the POSCO Act. In its letter, the centre proposes to ensure a maximum punishment of death penalty in child rape cases between the age group of 0-12. The Centre submitted its report in response to a PIL. Earlier the Women and Children Development minister Maneka Gandhi had asked her department to work on amending the POSCO law in order to introduce the provision of death penalty for the rape of a minor below the age of 12 years. The present POSCO Act does not have the provision for the death penalty with the maximum sentence being life imprisonment. Union Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad: Cabinet has approved death penalty in aggravated sexual offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. pic.twitter.com/E1JB8xCOOq — ANI (@ANI) December 28, 2018 × The union minister's proposal came after the horrific murder of an eight-year-old in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua. The court will hear the matter on April 27.

Centre initiates to amend POSCO Act, submits proposal to Supreme Court

Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court to hear case on 4th January

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bengal-bjp-appeals-to-supreme-court-against-hc-order-disallowing-its-3-rath-yatras-186128">Supreme Court</a> is scheduled to take up a batch of petitions for hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case on January 4. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The matter is listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul.

The bench is likely to constitute a three-judge bench for hearing as many as 14 appeals filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The apex court on October 29 had fixed the matter in the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing.

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 on 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.

A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 by a 2:1 majority refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of 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.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up a batch of petitions for hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case on January 4. The matter is listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up a batch of petitions for hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case on January 4. The matter is listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul. The bench is likely to constitute a three-judge bench for hearing as many as 14 appeals filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The apex court on October 29 had fixed the matter in the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing. 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 on 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. A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 by a 2:1 majority refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of 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.

Supreme Court to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case on January 4

The West Bengal BJP has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court order refusing permission to its three planned rath yatras in the state.&nbsp;

A single judge bench of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-major-setback-for-mamata-govt-calcutta-hc-allows-bjp-to-hold-its-3-rath-yatras-in-bengal-185498">the court had on Thursday allowed the BJP to hold the yatras</a> but, after the West Bengal government appealed, a division bench of the court sent the order back to the single judge bench.&nbsp;

The single judge bench, while passing its order, had said the government had not even made an effort to allow the BJP to hold its yatras, and that it was therefore allowed to intervene.&nbsp;

In its appeal, the West Bengal government said the state's intelligence agencies have warned that the yatras may lead to communal strife.&nbsp;

The division judge bench said it was important to take the warning by the intelligence agencies into consideration.&nbsp;

The division bench then asked the single-judge bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty to hear the case again, take the inputs from the intelligence agencies into consideration, and dispose of the matter expeditiously.

The BJP's three yatras had originally been meant to kick off from Cooch Behar district on December 7, Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas on December 9, and Tarapith temple in Birbhum on December 14.&nbsp;

On Thursday, after Justice Chakraborty's order, the BJP said they would kick off on December 22, 24 and 26.&nbsp;

All three rath yatras were to be kicked off by BJP president Amit Shah and were meant to criss-cross the state before the general elections next year.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The West Bengal BJP has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court order refusing permission to its three planned rath yatras in the state.

The West Bengal BJP has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court order refusing permission to its three planned rath yatras in the state. A single judge bench of the court had on Thursday allowed the BJP to hold the yatras but, after the West Bengal government appealed, a division bench of the court sent the order back to the single judge bench. The single judge bench, while passing its order, had said the government had not even made an effort to allow the BJP to hold its yatras, and that it was therefore allowed to intervene. In its appeal, the West Bengal government said the state's intelligence agencies have warned that the yatras may lead to communal strife. The division judge bench said it was important to take the warning by the intelligence agencies into consideration. The division bench then asked the single-judge bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty to hear the case again, take the inputs from the intelligence agencies into consideration, and dispose of the matter expeditiously. The BJP's three yatras had originally been meant to kick off from Cooch Behar district on December 7, Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas on December 9, and Tarapith temple in Birbhum on December 14. On Thursday, after Justice Chakraborty's order, the BJP said they would kick off on December 22, 24 and 26. All three rath yatras were to be kicked off by BJP president Amit Shah and were meant to criss-cross the state before the general elections next year.

Bengal BJP appeals to Supreme Court against HC order disallowing its 3 rath yatras

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

Senior advocate H S Phoolka, who is representing the victims of the riots cases, said he has been conveyed by the apex court registry that Kumar has filed an appeal against the high court's judgement.

He said the victims had already filed a caveat to pre-empt any ex parte hearing in favour of Kumar.

Sajjan Kumar on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-sajjan-kumar-moves-high-court-to-seek-more-time-to-surrender-185458">Thursday approached the Delhi High Court</a> seeking time till January 31 to surrender in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which he was recently sentenced to life imprisonment.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Sajjan Kumar has moved Supreme Court today and filed an appeal against his conviction in recent judgement of Delhi High Court. <a href="https://t.co/Vu1GOEw9zb">pic.twitter.com/Vu1GOEw9zb</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1076401349137379330?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 22, 2018</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>

Kumar, who was directed by the high court on Monday to surrender before authorities by December 31, sought more time saying he has to settle family affairs.

Advocate Anil Sharma, representing Kumar, said they need some more time to file an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the high court's verdict and Kumar has to settle his family matters relating to his children and property.

A Delhi <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-no-ground-for-granting-relief-to-sajjan-kumar-says-high-court-185604">High Court on Friday dismissed Sajjan Kumar's plea</a> seeking more time to surrender which he filed yesterday. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

The court dismissed the plea saying that it sees no ground for granting relief to Sajjan Kumar to surrender, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

Kumar was convicted and sentenced to life for the remainder of his life by the high court on December 17 in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Raj Nagar area.

The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period.

(With inputs from PTI)

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

Former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging the life imprisonment awarded to him by the Delhi High Court in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. Senior advocate H S Phoolka, who is representing the victims of the riots cases, said he has been conveyed by the apex court registry that Kumar has filed an appeal against the high court's judgement. He said the victims had already filed a caveat to pre-empt any ex parte hearing in favour of Kumar. Sajjan Kumar on Thursday approached the Delhi High Court seeking time till January 31 to surrender in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which he was recently sentenced to life imprisonment. 1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Sajjan Kumar has moved Supreme Court today and filed an appeal against his conviction in recent judgement of Delhi High Court. pic.twitter.com/Vu1GOEw9zb — ANI (@ANI) December 22, 2018 × Kumar, who was directed by the high court on Monday to surrender before authorities by December 31, sought more time saying he has to settle family affairs. Advocate Anil Sharma, representing Kumar, said they need some more time to file an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the high court's verdict and Kumar has to settle his family matters relating to his children and property. A Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Sajjan Kumar's plea seeking more time to surrender which he filed yesterday. He is sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The court dismissed the plea saying that it sees no ground for granting relief to Sajjan Kumar to surrender, news agency PTI reported. Kumar was convicted and sentenced to life for the remainder of his life by the high court on December 17 in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Raj Nagar area. The case relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar part-I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on November 1-2, 1984, and burning down a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar part II during that period. (With inputs from PTI)

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: Sajjan Kumar moves SC against conviction 

The Supreme Court dealt President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-government-shuts-down-at-midnight-as-house-adjourns-with-no-deal-185738">Donald Trump</a>'s attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans.

The high court declined to overturn a block placed by the San Francisco federal appeals court on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/hours-ahead-of-midnight-deadline-trump-meets-republican-senators-to-thrash-out-wall-funding-dilemma-185729">Trump</a>'s executive order to automatically reject asylum requests from migrants crossing the US border from Mexico.

The court made no comment in its ruling but noted that four of the nine justices were in favour of lifting the lower court's stay and letting Trump enforce the ban, while lawsuits over it go ahead.

The four backing the president were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

On November 9 Trump signed the order, which aimed at halting the flow of migrants mainly from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador crossing into the United States without authorization.

Many of them request asylum due to pervasive violence and poverty in their home countries.

Trump's order was immediately challenged by rights groups who said it violated international standards and US law on asylum. A lower court placed a stay on enactment, which was then supported by the appeals court.

The loss Friday in the Supreme Court might not make much difference to migrants.&nbsp;

While they can still turn themselves in and request asylum after crossing the border, on Thursday the Trump administration announced that all illegal immigrants will be pushed back into Mexico while their requests are being processed.

The administration hopes the long waiting time for a ruling on asylum applications, and being forced to stay in Mexico, will deter others from making the long trip to the border from their home countries.

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans.

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration a blow Friday when it rejected a White House bid to implement his asylum ban on Central Americans. The high court declined to overturn a block placed by the San Francisco federal appeals court on Trump's executive order to automatically reject asylum requests from migrants crossing the US border from Mexico. The court made no comment in its ruling but noted that four of the nine justices were in favour of lifting the lower court's stay and letting Trump enforce the ban, while lawsuits over it go ahead. The four backing the president were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. On November 9 Trump signed the order, which aimed at halting the flow of migrants mainly from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador crossing into the United States without authorization. Many of them request asylum due to pervasive violence and poverty in their home countries. Trump's order was immediately challenged by rights groups who said it violated international standards and US law on asylum. A lower court placed a stay on enactment, which was then supported by the appeals court. The loss Friday in the Supreme Court might not make much difference to migrants. While they can still turn themselves in and request asylum after crossing the border, on Thursday the Trump administration announced that all illegal immigrants will be pushed back into Mexico while their requests are being processed. The administration hopes the long waiting time for a ruling on asylum applications, and being forced to stay in Mexico, will deter others from making the long trip to the border from their home countries.

Supreme Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban

A day&nbsp;after Air Force Chief, BS Dhanoa hailed <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">Supreme Court verdict </a>on Rafale jet deal, senior Congress leader, P Chidambaram&nbsp;urged Army and Air Force to stay out of the debate.

"We are not questioning the Air Force Chief, we are humbly requesting the Army and Air Force to stay out of this debate as no one is doubting the capability of the aircraft."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Palaniappan Chidambaram: We are not questioning the Air Force Chief, we are humbly requesting the Army and Air Force to stay out of this debate as no one is doubting the capability of the aircraft, questions are being raised on the deal <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a> <a href="https://t.co/puVbEF3LQE">pic.twitter.com/puVbEF3LQE</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1075983746870992896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2018</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>

"Questions are being raised on the deal," Chidambaram added.

Yesterday, Air Force Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Rafale jet deal and said that Indian Air Force needs the fighter jets aircraft badly.

Addressing the media in Jodhpur, Dhanoa said that "the Supreme Court has given a very fine judgment and I am not going to comment on it. It has also said that this plane is badly needed. rafale is always a need for the Air Force. It took a long time to&nbsp;come. Others have upgraded their squadron. Also, very fine comments given by the Finance Minister and our Defence Minister."

The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months.&nbsp;

The Congress has alleged irregularities in the deal for 36 aircraft and claimed that the Narendra Modi government is buying them at a price much higher than the one that was being negotiated by the previous government.

Last week, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a probe into the Rafale deal.

&nbsp;

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

A day after Air Force Chief, BS Dhanoa hailed Supreme Court verdict on Rafale jet deal, senior Congress leader, P Chidambaram urged Army and Air Force to stay out of the debate.

A day after Air Force Chief, BS Dhanoa hailed Supreme Court verdict on Rafale jet deal, senior Congress leader, P Chidambaram urged Army and Air Force to stay out of the debate. "We are not questioning the Air Force Chief, we are humbly requesting the Army and Air Force to stay out of this debate as no one is doubting the capability of the aircraft." Palaniappan Chidambaram: We are not questioning the Air Force Chief, we are humbly requesting the Army and Air Force to stay out of this debate as no one is doubting the capability of the aircraft, questions are being raised on the deal #Rafale pic.twitter.com/puVbEF3LQE — ANI (@ANI) December 21, 2018 × "Questions are being raised on the deal," Chidambaram added. Yesterday, Air Force Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on Rafale jet deal and said that Indian Air Force needs the fighter jets aircraft badly. Addressing the media in Jodhpur, Dhanoa said that "the Supreme Court has given a very fine judgment and I am not going to comment on it. It has also said that this plane is badly needed. rafale is always a need for the Air Force. It took a long time to come. Others have upgraded their squadron. Also, very fine comments given by the Finance Minister and our Defence Minister." The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress has alleged irregularities in the deal for 36 aircraft and claimed that the Narendra Modi government is buying them at a price much higher than the one that was being negotiated by the previous government. Last week, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a probe into the Rafale deal.

Stay out of Rafale deal: Chidambaram to Army, Air force

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come.

Here are the major judgements passed by the judiciary in 2018.

Section 377-&nbsp; 'Sexual orientation is natural, people have no control over it'.

In a major victory to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, the Supreme Court on September 6 struck down the colonial era's Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex.

Ruling in the favor of the 'third recognised gender' the Supreme court said that sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it.&nbsp;

The ruling that permitted consensual adult gay sex also said that the law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times.

After the judgement, engaging in gay sex in private is no more an offense. The court said that consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The judges which called for the right to equality of the LGBT community also added that society's thinking, social morality cannot violate the rights of even one single individual.

Indu Malhotra who was one of the members in the bench said that society owes an apology to the LGBTQ community. While delivering its verdict the apex court laid emphasis on the fact that though sex, as per the order of nature, was seen as intercourse between man and woman for the purpose of procreation, the fact that it had already recognised a third gender needs to be kept in mind.

&nbsp;

Aadhaar- 'Legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society'

On September 26, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act.

The court approved the linking of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the Unique Aadhar number while striking down its linkage with bank accounts and mobile number, pension or school admissions.&nbsp;The apex court's judgement came on the grounds that it "struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual with&nbsp;right&nbsp;to life of the same individual as a beneficiary".

The judges said that the operational structure of the Aadhaar project ensures that the architecture of the Aadhaar does not create surveillance. The judgement further said that the legislation has helped in removing leakages and the benefits were now reaching the downtrodden.

The judges said that the legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society as it gives them a unique identity and helps them to avail the benefits of welfare schemes.

The bench of judges also asked the government to not to allot Aadhaar to illegal immigrants.

&nbsp;

Adultery- 'Wife is not a property of husband'

On September 28, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which made adultery a punishable&nbsp;offense. Terming the section as unconstitutional the apex court said it deprives women of their sexual autonomy and dignity. The court also held that the "wife was not a property of husband" and that the "husband is neither the master of his wife nor does he have legal sovereignty over her".

It added that the colonial-era provision violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

The judgement however clarified that adultery would continue to be a ground for divorce.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code stated that "whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such intercourse not amounting to the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

&nbsp;

Ayodhya-&nbsp;&nbsp;'The court has its own priorities'

In a hearing on Ayodhya, the Supreme Court on September 27 rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP.&nbsp;The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

The hearing in the case has now been adjourned to January after the CJI on&nbsp; October 29 rejected the early hearing in the case by saying that '' the court has its own priorities".

&nbsp;

Sabarimala Temple in Kerala-&nbsp; 'Dualism that persists in religion..in matters of devotion has to be abandoned'

In a historic judgement on September 28, the Supreme Court removed the restrictions imposed on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In its judgement the apex court said, " the attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender... the dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand, in matters of devotion has to be abandoned".

The judgement was passed by 4-1 ruling. Justice Indu Malhotra who disagreed with the lifting of ban on women's entry to the temple said, " the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an 'essential religious practice' and 'notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts'. She further claimed that 'allowing PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices.....the courts should intervene only if there are pernicious, oppressive or social evil like sati".

&nbsp;

Live streaming of court proceedings- 'Will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work'

The Supreme Court in September ordered the live streaming of court proceedings claiming that it will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work. The court further asked to "implement the project" and employ the technology required to provide virtual access to live court proceedings. The court also asked that the live telecast of the proceedings should not interfere with the administration of the justice or the dignity and majesty of the court.

&nbsp;

Passive Euthanasia- 'Individuals have right to die with dignity under strict guidelines'

In March 2018 the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia saying that individuals have the right to die with dignity under strict guidelines. The court in its judgement allowed a person to file a "living will" for the withdrawal of life support in case he/she falls in coma. The draft for "living will" can only be filed when the person is in "normal state of health and mind".

&nbsp;

Anti-Sikh riots- 'Mass killing will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come'

In a historic verdict on the anti-Sikh riots that took place three decades ago and killed over 2700 Sikhs, the High Court on December 17 reversed the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar by the trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges ranging from murder to criminal conspiracy.

Calling the 1984 riots as "crime against humanity" the court said the riots were carried out by people who had "political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency". The judgement added that the mass killing will "continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come".

The court also noted that the accused in the case were brought to justice because of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses.

Questioning the investigation by the police, the court said that the police turned a blind eye to the mob rioting. It further said that the state machinery came to a complete standstill in those two or three days when the rioting mobs took to the streets and indulged in acts of violence.

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come.

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come. Here are the major judgements passed by the judiciary in 2018. Section 377- 'Sexual orientation is natural, people have no control over it'. In a major victory to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, the Supreme Court on September 6 struck down the colonial era's Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex. Ruling in the favor of the 'third recognised gender' the Supreme court said that sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it. The ruling that permitted consensual adult gay sex also said that the law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times. After the judgement, engaging in gay sex in private is no more an offense. The court said that consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The judges which called for the right to equality of the LGBT community also added that society's thinking, social morality cannot violate the rights of even one single individual. Indu Malhotra who was one of the members in the bench said that society owes an apology to the LGBTQ community. While delivering its verdict the apex court laid emphasis on the fact that though sex, as per the order of nature, was seen as intercourse between man and woman for the purpose of procreation, the fact that it had already recognised a third gender needs to be kept in mind. Aadhaar- 'Legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society' On September 26, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. The court approved the linking of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the Unique Aadhar number while striking down its linkage with bank accounts and mobile number, pension or school admissions. The apex court's judgement came on the grounds that it "struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual with right to life of the same individual as a beneficiary". The judges said that the operational structure of the Aadhaar project ensures that the architecture of the Aadhaar does not create surveillance. The judgement further said that the legislation has helped in removing leakages and the benefits were now reaching the downtrodden. The judges said that the legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society as it gives them a unique identity and helps them to avail the benefits of welfare schemes. The bench of judges also asked the government to not to allot Aadhaar to illegal immigrants. Adultery- 'Wife is not a property of husband' On September 28, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which made adultery a punishable offense. Terming the section as unconstitutional the apex court said it deprives women of their sexual autonomy and dignity. The court also held that the "wife was not a property of husband" and that the "husband is neither the master of his wife nor does he have legal sovereignty over her". It added that the colonial-era provision violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). The judgement however clarified that adultery would continue to be a ground for divorce. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code stated that "whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such intercourse not amounting to the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." Ayodhya- 'The court has its own priorities' In a hearing on Ayodhya, the Supreme Court on September 27 rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". The hearing in the case has now been adjourned to January after the CJI on October 29 rejected the early hearing in the case by saying that '' the court has its own priorities". Sabarimala Temple in Kerala- 'Dualism that persists in religion..in matters of devotion has to be abandoned' In a historic judgement on September 28, the Supreme Court removed the restrictions imposed on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In its judgement the apex court said, " the attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender... the dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand, in matters of devotion has to be abandoned". The judgement was passed by 4-1 ruling. Justice Indu Malhotra who disagreed with the lifting of ban on women's entry to the temple said, " the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an 'essential religious practice' and 'notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts'. She further claimed that 'allowing PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices.....the courts should intervene only if there are pernicious, oppressive or social evil like sati". Live streaming of court proceedings- 'Will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work' The Supreme Court in September ordered the live streaming of court proceedings claiming that it will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work. The court further asked to "implement the project" and employ the technology required to provide virtual access to live court proceedings. The court also asked that the live telecast of the proceedings should not interfere with the administration of the justice or the dignity and majesty of the court. Passive Euthanasia- 'Individuals have right to die with dignity under strict guidelines' In March 2018 the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia saying that individuals have the right to die with dignity under strict guidelines. The court in its judgement allowed a person to file a "living will" for the withdrawal of life support in case he/she falls in coma. The draft for "living will" can only be filed when the person is in "normal state of health and mind". Anti-Sikh riots- 'Mass killing will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come' In a historic verdict on the anti-Sikh riots that took place three decades ago and killed over 2700 Sikhs, the High Court on December 17 reversed the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar by the trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges ranging from murder to criminal conspiracy. Calling the 1984 riots as "crime against humanity" the court said the riots were carried out by people who had "political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency". The judgement added that the mass killing will "continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come". The court also noted that the accused in the case were brought to justice because of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses. Questioning the investigation by the police, the court said that the police turned a blind eye to the mob rioting. It further said that the state machinery came to a complete standstill in those two or three days when the rioting mobs took to the streets and indulged in acts of violence.

Major judgements of 2018 by Supreme, High Court

Senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar's lawyer reacted to the Delhi High Court verdict of convicting Kumar in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots stating that it was a "case of no evidence." &nbsp;

Sajjan Kumar's lawyer, Anil Kumar Sharma said that he respects the verdict and that the judgement needs to be interpreted. He added that the only option left is to move the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

"Anil Kumar Sharma, Sajjan Kumar's lawyer on Delhi HC awards him life imprisonment in 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case: This was a case of no evidence. We need time to interpret the judgement. We respect Delhi HC's judgement. Only option left to us is to go to SC against the judgement," Sharma told reporters.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Anil Kumar Sharma, Sajjan Kumar's lawyer on Delhi HC awards him life imprisonment in 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case: This was a case of no evidence. We need time to interpret the judgement. We respect Delhi HC's judgement. Only option left to us is to go to SC against the judgement <a href="https://t.co/zxNU4u5PHq">pic.twitter.com/zxNU4u5PHq</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1074622182351810560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 17, 2018</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 Delhi High Court on Monday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/1984-anti-sikh-riots-congress-leader-sajjan-kumar-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-to-surrender-by-december-31-184695">convicted senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar</a> in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.

Sajjan Kumar has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He has to surrender by December 31, 2018.

The order was passed while reversing the verdict of the trial court which had acquitted Kumar.

"In the summer of 1947, during partition, several people were massacred. 37 years later Delhi was the witness of a similar tragedy. The accused enjoyed political patronage and escaped trial," said Delhi High Court while reading the judgement.

(With inputs from agencies)

Senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar's lawyer reacted to the Delhi High Court verdict of convicting Kumar in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots stating that it was a "case of no evidence.

Senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar's lawyer reacted to the Delhi High Court verdict of convicting Kumar in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots stating that it was a "case of no evidence." Sajjan Kumar's lawyer, Anil Kumar Sharma said that he respects the verdict and that the judgement needs to be interpreted. He added that the only option left is to move the Supreme Court. "Anil Kumar Sharma, Sajjan Kumar's lawyer on Delhi HC awards him life imprisonment in 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case: This was a case of no evidence. We need time to interpret the judgement. We respect Delhi HC's judgement. Only option left to us is to go to SC against the judgement," Sharma told reporters. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sajjan Kumar's lawyer on Delhi HC awards him life imprisonment in 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case: This was a case of no evidence. We need time to interpret the judgement. We respect Delhi HC's judgement. Only option left to us is to go to SC against the judgement pic.twitter.com/zxNU4u5PHq — ANI (@ANI) December 17, 2018 × The Delhi High Court on Monday convicted senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. Sajjan Kumar has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He has to surrender by December 31, 2018. The order was passed while reversing the verdict of the trial court which had acquitted Kumar. "In the summer of 1947, during partition, several people were massacred. 37 years later Delhi was the witness of a similar tragedy. The accused enjoyed political patronage and escaped trial," said Delhi High Court while reading the judgement. (With inputs from agencies)

1984 anti-Sikh riots case: 'Only option left is to move SC,' says convict Sajjan Kumar's lawyer 

The Congress Sunday urged the Supreme Court to recall its Rafale judgment and issue notices to the central government for contempt of court and perjury, alleging the Centre had provided false information to the apex court.

Addressing a press conference at the party headquarters here, senior Congress leader Anand Sharma alleged that the government was guilty of committing breach of privilege of both houses of Parliament by claiming that the CAG report on Rafale aircraft pricing had been presented to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

The Congress leader also took a broad swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, saying "they should seek penance and take a dip in the holy Ganges instead".

"We demand that the Supreme Court immediately recall that judgment which is void. It would be in the interest of the dignity of the Supreme Court to do so because this entire episode has dented the dignity of the highest court which cannot be allowed," he told reporters, adding that what has happened is unacceptable.

"It is important that the Supreme Court issues a notice of perjury to the government and the concerned officials and the law officers. The Supreme Court must also issue contempt notice to the government," he said.

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process" warranting setting aside of the defence contract for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

In its judgment, the court has made a reference to a CAG report on the aircraft deal. It has said the CAG report was examined by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

But the Congress has insisted that the government presented "wrong facts" before the court during the hearing of pleas challenging the aircraft deal with France, which gave the government relief in the cases.

On Saturday, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking correction in the judgment, saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain".

The Centre made it clear that it did not say the CAG report was examined by the PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament. It clarified the note had said the government "has already shared" the price details with CAG, written in past tense and "is factually correct".

On Sunday, Sharma said there is no ground for the apex court to even consider the government's petition seeking to correct the judgment. He said the government's conduct and its credentials are certainly "under dark shadow" as it has in the process of "misleading" the court committed "a grave act of the breach of privilege of the Parliament which is Sovereign".

"The Government, therefore, is guilty of breaching the privileges of all the members of Parliament by having claimed that the CAG has examined and given its report which has been further scrutinized by the PAC, which it has given...All of this is false," he said.

The Congress leader said two processes must follow now and "we have urged the Supreme Court that it has become imperative without any delay to recall and issue the notices to the government. The Parliament is in session and the government surely is in the dock for having committed a grave breach of privilege of not only the PAC but both the houses of the Indian Parliament."

He said the Congress has been of this consistent view that the Supreme Court is not the right forum to investigate the issues related to the Rafale deal, to probe, which it has not done and the court itself has said so.

"The Supreme Court judgment is not only self-contradictory, but we are shocked to find factual inaccuracies and the aversions which were made, submissions of the government were false," he said.

Sharma said the judgment is based on the premise that the government had shared the pricing details with the CAG, which submitted the report through the Public Accounts Committee and portions of that have been shared with Parliament and thus in public domain.

"There has been no CAG report," he said, adding Congress leaders had met the CAG a few months ago demanding a "forensic audit" of the global tender for the Rafale aircraft deal.

The former union minister said it is mandatory for the CAG to give the report to Parliament, but no such report has been received by Parliament.

He said what has happened is "unprecedented" and the government's curative petition filed on Saturday "adds insult to the injury caused".&nbsp;

The Congress Sunday urged the Supreme Court to recall its Rafale judgment and issue notices to the central government for contempt of court and perjury, alleging the Centre had provided false information to the apex court.

The Congress Sunday urged the Supreme Court to recall its Rafale judgment and issue notices to the central government for contempt of court and perjury, alleging the Centre had provided false information to the apex court. Addressing a press conference at the party headquarters here, senior Congress leader Anand Sharma alleged that the government was guilty of committing breach of privilege of both houses of Parliament by claiming that the CAG report on Rafale aircraft pricing had been presented to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. The Congress leader also took a broad swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, saying "they should seek penance and take a dip in the holy Ganges instead". "We demand that the Supreme Court immediately recall that judgment which is void. It would be in the interest of the dignity of the Supreme Court to do so because this entire episode has dented the dignity of the highest court which cannot be allowed," he told reporters, adding that what has happened is unacceptable. "It is important that the Supreme Court issues a notice of perjury to the government and the concerned officials and the law officers. The Supreme Court must also issue contempt notice to the government," he said. The Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision-making process" warranting setting aside of the defence contract for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets. In its judgment, the court has made a reference to a CAG report on the aircraft deal. It has said the CAG report was examined by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. But the Congress has insisted that the government presented "wrong facts" before the court during the hearing of pleas challenging the aircraft deal with France, which gave the government relief in the cases. On Saturday, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking correction in the judgment, saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain". The Centre made it clear that it did not say the CAG report was examined by the PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament. It clarified the note had said the government "has already shared" the price details with CAG, written in past tense and "is factually correct". On Sunday, Sharma said there is no ground for the apex court to even consider the government's petition seeking to correct the judgment. He said the government's conduct and its credentials are certainly "under dark shadow" as it has in the process of "misleading" the court committed "a grave act of the breach of privilege of the Parliament which is Sovereign". "The Government, therefore, is guilty of breaching the privileges of all the members of Parliament by having claimed that the CAG has examined and given its report which has been further scrutinized by the PAC, which it has given...All of this is false," he said. The Congress leader said two processes must follow now and "we have urged the Supreme Court that it has become imperative without any delay to recall and issue the notices to the government. The Parliament is in session and the government surely is in the dock for having committed a grave breach of privilege of not only the PAC but both the houses of the Indian Parliament." He said the Congress has been of this consistent view that the Supreme Court is not the right forum to investigate the issues related to the Rafale deal, to probe, which it has not done and the court itself has said so. "The Supreme Court judgment is not only self-contradictory, but we are shocked to find factual inaccuracies and the aversions which were made, submissions of the government were false," he said. Sharma said the judgment is based on the premise that the government had shared the pricing details with the CAG, which submitted the report through the Public Accounts Committee and portions of that have been shared with Parliament and thus in public domain. "There has been no CAG report," he said, adding Congress leaders had met the CAG a few months ago demanding a "forensic audit" of the global tender for the Rafale aircraft deal. The former union minister said it is mandatory for the CAG to give the report to Parliament, but no such report has been received by Parliament. He said what has happened is "unprecedented" and the government's curative petition filed on Saturday "adds insult to the injury caused".

Congress urges Supreme Court to recall Rafale judgment

The Congress on Saturday alleged that the BJP-led government at the Centre had misled the Supreme Court over the Rafale deal and committed contempt of court and perjury.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for alleged irregularities in the multi-billion dollar deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets.

It said there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

Speaking to media persons here, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the basis of the court ruling was a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) which has not been seen by anyone, nor has it been shared with Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

The apex court said it was ill-equipped to conduct judicial review of issues related to pricing, and this has been the Congress' stand. Hence, the party is demanding a probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), he said.

"The BJP has hoodwinked the nation and cheated the people. Now it has the guts to do the same to mislead the apex court. There is a serious misrepresentation of vital, significant facts to the apex court. This amounts to contempt (of court), (breach of) privilege as well as perjury," he claimed.

'Modi' now stands for 'Misleading Of Democratic Institutions', he quipped. 
The government has now moved an application before the SC, seeking correction of reference to CAG report, the Congress leader said.

"If this is true, it means a clear admission by the government that what is reported in para 25 of the judgement is a misrepresentation of facts...The government is saving its skin. How can the SC imagine a CAG report and its vetting by the Public Accounts Committee on its own?" Singhvi asked.

He also contested a mention in the SC judgement that relations between Dassault, the manufacturer of Rafale, and Reliance dated back to 2012.

"Reliance Defence was set up on March 28, 2015, and Reliance Aerostructure on April 24, 2015. It is during this time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited France on April 10, 2015," he said.

On Finance Minister Arun Jaitley terming the JPC as a divided political body, Singhvi said the BJP, when in opposition, had demanded a JPC probe many times, including in Bofors, 2G and VVIP helicopter scams.

"This is the worst kind of hypocrisy," he said.

The SC judgement said the material placed before it showed that the Centre disclosed pricing details of the jets to the CAG, and the CAG report was examined by the PAC.

However, PAC chairman and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge have said he never received any such report.

The Congress on Saturday alleged that the BJP-led government at the Centre had misled the Supreme Court over the Rafale deal and committed contempt of court and perjury.

The Congress on Saturday alleged that the BJP-led government at the Centre had misled the Supreme Court over the Rafale deal and committed contempt of court and perjury. The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for alleged irregularities in the multi-billion dollar deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets. It said there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract. Speaking to media persons here, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the basis of the court ruling was a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) which has not been seen by anyone, nor has it been shared with Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The apex court said it was ill-equipped to conduct judicial review of issues related to pricing, and this has been the Congress' stand. Hence, the party is demanding a probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), he said. "The BJP has hoodwinked the nation and cheated the people. Now it has the guts to do the same to mislead the apex court. There is a serious misrepresentation of vital, significant facts to the apex court. This amounts to contempt (of court), (breach of) privilege as well as perjury," he claimed. 'Modi' now stands for 'Misleading Of Democratic Institutions', he quipped. The government has now moved an application before the SC, seeking correction of reference to CAG report, the Congress leader said. "If this is true, it means a clear admission by the government that what is reported in para 25 of the judgement is a misrepresentation of facts...The government is saving its skin. How can the SC imagine a CAG report and its vetting by the Public Accounts Committee on its own?" Singhvi asked. He also contested a mention in the SC judgement that relations between Dassault, the manufacturer of Rafale, and Reliance dated back to 2012. "Reliance Defence was set up on March 28, 2015, and Reliance Aerostructure on April 24, 2015. It is during this time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited France on April 10, 2015," he said. On Finance Minister Arun Jaitley terming the JPC as a divided political body, Singhvi said the BJP, when in opposition, had demanded a JPC probe many times, including in Bofors, 2G and VVIP helicopter scams. "This is the worst kind of hypocrisy," he said. The SC judgement said the material placed before it showed that the Centre disclosed pricing details of the jets to the CAG, and the CAG report was examined by the PAC. However, PAC chairman and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge have said he never received any such report.

Government lied to Supreme Court on Rafale; committed contempt of court, perjury: Congress

Prime Minister Narendra <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/on-sonia-gandhis-home-turf-pm-says-cong-upset-there-is-no-quatrocchi-mama-in-bjps-defence-deals-184507">Modi repeated his allegation</a> Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation."&nbsp;

Modi was speaking at Prayagraj (Allahabad).&nbsp;

"Prayagraj is a place which can also be called 'the temple of justice' in Uttar Pradesh. In the recent times, the game of building pressure on the judiciary has started. In such a situation, it's essential to alert the nation and young generation," Modi said.&nbsp;

"Their actions, their conspiracies are proving it again and again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary and public," Modi added. "Two days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert and safe from such people and parties."&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/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a>: PM Modi says in Prayagraj, "their actions &amp; conspiracies are proving it again &amp; again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary &amp; public. 2 days ago, we saw another example of it (<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafale?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafale</a>). Stay alert &amp; safe from such people &amp; parties <a href="https://t.co/I0MdCHSVC3">pic.twitter.com/I0MdCHSVC3</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1074266216519233538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court this week said that the new Rafale deal signed by Prime Minister Modi and the french government <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">did not need to be probed</a>.&nbsp;

Modi has said before this that the Congress has tried to put pressure on judges who had tried to hear the Ayodhya (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi) cases. He was at the time referring to the petition by the opposition to impeach former chief justice of India Dipak Misra. The petition was returned by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu who is also chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.&nbsp;

Modi added on Sunday that the Congress had "destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them".&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
WATCH PM Narendra Modi in Prayagraj: The party that has ruled the nation for the longest duration of time has always considered itself above law, judiciary, every agency &amp; even above the nation. This party destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them. <a href="https://t.co/P1M1YQWYRX">pic.twitter.com/P1M1YQWYRX</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1074264980546052098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 16, 2018</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 charge that the judiciary is being pressured (in the Sabarimala and Ayodhya cases) and that the country's institutions are being undermined (because of recent developments at the RBI and the CBI) has also been made against the BJP in recent times.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeated his allegation Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeated his allegation Sunday that the Congress was putting pressure on the judiciary. "In such a situation," he said, "it's essential to alert the nation and young generation." Modi was speaking at Prayagraj (Allahabad). "Prayagraj is a place which can also be called 'the temple of justice' in Uttar Pradesh. In the recent times, the game of building pressure on the judiciary has started. In such a situation, it's essential to alert the nation and young generation," Modi said. "Their actions, their conspiracies are proving it again and again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary and public," Modi added. "Two days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert and safe from such people and parties." #WATCH: PM Modi says in Prayagraj, "their actions & conspiracies are proving it again & again that they (Congress) consider themselves above country, democracy, judiciary & public. 2 days ago, we saw another example of it (#Rafale). Stay alert & safe from such people & parties pic.twitter.com/I0MdCHSVC3 — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 16, 2018 × The Supreme Court this week said that the new Rafale deal signed by Prime Minister Modi and the french government did not need to be probed. Modi has said before this that the Congress has tried to put pressure on judges who had tried to hear the Ayodhya (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi) cases. He was at the time referring to the petition by the opposition to impeach former chief justice of India Dipak Misra. The petition was returned by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu who is also chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. Modi added on Sunday that the Congress had "destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them". WATCH PM Narendra Modi in Prayagraj: The party that has ruled the nation for the longest duration of time has always considered itself above law, judiciary, every agency & even above the nation. This party destroyed every agency that didn’t work according to them. pic.twitter.com/P1M1YQWYRX — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 16, 2018 × The charge that the judiciary is being pressured (in the Sabarimala and Ayodhya cases) and that the country's institutions are being undermined (because of recent developments at the RBI and the CBI) has also been made against the BJP in recent times.

Game of building pressure on the judiciary has begun: PM Modi

A day after Congress president Rahul Gandhi alleged that Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale pricing never reached Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Centre on Saturday filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking ''correction'' in a paragraph in its judgement on Rafale fighter jet deal in which a reference has been made about the CAG&nbsp;report and PAC, reported news agency PTI.

A law officer said that the application has been filed to convey to the court that there has been some misinterpretation on the issue of the documents placed in a sealed cover relating to the CAG and PAC, the report added.

In the judgement on Friday, the apex court had noted that the pricing details have been shared with CAG, and the report of the CAG has been examined by the PAC.

The issue of CAG and PAC was mentioned in para 25 of the judgement of the top court which had held that there were no irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.

The judgement had said that the material placed before it shows that the Centre did not disclose in Parliament the pricing details of the Rafale fighter jet, but revealed it to the Comptroller and Auditor General.&nbsp;

After the SC verdict on Friday, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who chairs the PAC, had said no such report had come to him.&nbsp;

Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case Prashant Bhushan too&nbsp;expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report.

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).&nbsp;

A day after Congress president Rahul Gandhi alleged that Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale pricing never reached Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Centre on Saturday filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking ''correction'' in a paragraph in its judgement on Rafale fighter jet deal in which a reference has been made about the CAG report and PAC, reported news agency PTI.

A day after Congress president Rahul Gandhi alleged that Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on Rafale pricing never reached Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Centre on Saturday filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking ''correction'' in a paragraph in its judgement on Rafale fighter jet deal in which a reference has been made about the CAG report and PAC, reported news agency PTI. A law officer said that the application has been filed to convey to the court that there has been some misinterpretation on the issue of the documents placed in a sealed cover relating to the CAG and PAC, the report added. In the judgement on Friday, the apex court had noted that the pricing details have been shared with CAG, and the report of the CAG has been examined by the PAC. The issue of CAG and PAC was mentioned in para 25 of the judgement of the top court which had held that there were no irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France. The judgement had said that the material placed before it shows that the Centre did not disclose in Parliament the pricing details of the Rafale fighter jet, but revealed it to the Comptroller and Auditor General. After the SC verdict on Friday, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who chairs the PAC, had said no such report had come to him. Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case Prashant Bhushan too expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report. The Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract. The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).

Government moves SC seeking 'correction' in Rafale judgement

The Congress said Saturday the Supreme Court, which gave the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">government relief in the Rafale jet case</a>, has not gone into the pricing and technical aspects of the aircraft and it is only a joint parliamentary committee that can probe whether there was any irregularity in the deal.

At a press conference, Congress leader Kapil Sibal pointed to a part of Friday's judgment in which the Supreme Court said the material placed before it shows the Centre did not disclose in Parliament the pricing details of the fighter jet but revealed it to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The apex court also said the CAG report was even examined by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

Reacting to this, Sibal said Mallikarjun Kharge, the chairman of PAC, has said he never received any such report on Rafale jet.

"Who is responsible for this? Who said this? It was the government who said this. How did the attorney general pass the affidavit?" he said.

He also rebuked the government for not reading its own affidavits.

"This is a very serious matter and there should be an action in this case because the message among people is that CAG has cleared and Parliament has seen the deal, which is wrong," he said.

Sibal said the court has neither gone into pricing nor into the technical aspects of the deal.

"Then how can they say that the Supreme Court has given a clean chit to the government. If you (the government) have not given the evidence if the cross-examination has not happened then who gave you a clean chit. Only a JPC, which will be formed sooner or later, can probe this," he said.

Earlier Saturday, Kharge said he will request all members of the panel to summon the attorney general and the CAG to ask them when was the public auditor's report tabled in Parliament.

The Congress leader accused the government of "misleading" the court by presenting wrong information about the CAG report on the Rafale deal and demanded that the government should apologise for it.

In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.&nbsp;

The Congress said Saturday the Supreme Court, which gave the government relief in the Rafale jet case, has not gone into the pricing and technical aspects of the aircraft and it is only a joint parliamentary committee that can probe whether there was any irregularity in the deal.

The Congress said Saturday the Supreme Court, which gave the government relief in the Rafale jet case, has not gone into the pricing and technical aspects of the aircraft and it is only a joint parliamentary committee that can probe whether there was any irregularity in the deal. At a press conference, Congress leader Kapil Sibal pointed to a part of Friday's judgment in which the Supreme Court said the material placed before it shows the Centre did not disclose in Parliament the pricing details of the fighter jet but revealed it to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The apex court also said the CAG report was even examined by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. Reacting to this, Sibal said Mallikarjun Kharge, the chairman of PAC, has said he never received any such report on Rafale jet. "Who is responsible for this? Who said this? It was the government who said this. How did the attorney general pass the affidavit?" he said. He also rebuked the government for not reading its own affidavits. "This is a very serious matter and there should be an action in this case because the message among people is that CAG has cleared and Parliament has seen the deal, which is wrong," he said. Sibal said the court has neither gone into pricing nor into the technical aspects of the deal. "Then how can they say that the Supreme Court has given a clean chit to the government. If you (the government) have not given the evidence if the cross-examination has not happened then who gave you a clean chit. Only a JPC, which will be formed sooner or later, can probe this," he said. Earlier Saturday, Kharge said he will request all members of the panel to summon the attorney general and the CAG to ask them when was the public auditor's report tabled in Parliament. The Congress leader accused the government of "misleading" the court by presenting wrong information about the CAG report on the Rafale deal and demanded that the government should apologise for it. In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

Supreme Court didn't go into pricing, technical aspects of Rafale; only JPC can probe deal: Congress

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/matter-was-crystal-clear-from-the-beginning-rajnath-singh-on-rafale-jets-deal-verdict-183966">BJP</a> Friday demanded an apology from the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi for levying allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rafale fighter jet deal, in which the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">Supreme Court has given the government a clean chit</a>.

The apex court dismissed all the petitions seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the multi-billion dollar defense deal.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-judgement-totally-wrong-says-petitioner-prashant-bhushan-on-rafale-verdict-183979">Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict</a>

Welcoming the judgement, BJP spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain said, "Every deal is not Bofors deal."&nbsp;

"It is the culture and tradition of Congress and its top leadership to mint money from such deals on the cost of country's national security," he said.

Rahul Gandhi and the Congress should apologise to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for making false allegations against him and questioning his credibility, he added.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said there is a necessity for fighter aircraft and the country cannot remain without the jets.

The CJI, who read out the judgement for the three-judge bench, said no reasons were found to interfere in the procurement process for the fighter jets.

The verdict was pronounced on a batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored probe into deal.

The BJP Friday demanded an apology from the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi for levying allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rafale fighter jet deal, in which the Supreme Court has given the government a clean chit.

The BJP Friday demanded an apology from the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi for levying allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rafale fighter jet deal, in which the Supreme Court has given the government a clean chit. The apex court dismissed all the petitions seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR for alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the multi-billion dollar defense deal. Also read: Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict Welcoming the judgement, BJP spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain said, "Every deal is not Bofors deal." "It is the culture and tradition of Congress and its top leadership to mint money from such deals on the cost of country's national security," he said. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress should apologise to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for making false allegations against him and questioning his credibility, he added. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said there is a necessity for fighter aircraft and the country cannot remain without the jets. The CJI, who read out the judgement for the three-judge bench, said no reasons were found to interfere in the procurement process for the fighter jets. The verdict was pronounced on a batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored probe into deal.

Rafale deal verdict: BJP demands apology to PM Modi from Congress and Rahul Gandhi

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">verdict</a> "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition.

"In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition," Prashant Bhushan said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Prashant Bhushan: In our opinion the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rafaledeal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rafaledeal</a> <a href="https://t.co/djJheTLAhr">https://t.co/djJheTLAhr</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1073453506584080385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process."

Meanwhile, home minister Rajnath Singh while hailing the court verdict said that "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/matter-was-crystal-clear-from-the-beginning-rajnath-singh-on-rafale-jets-deal-verdict-183966">the matter was crystal clear from the beginning</a>".&nbsp;

"We have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnasth Singh added.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required.

India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore.

The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition.

Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court.

Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court.

The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. 
&nbsp;

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the verdict "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition.

One of the main petitioners of Rafale jet deal petition in Supreme Court, Prashant Bhusan on Friday called the verdict "totally wrong" and told media that they may file a review petition. "In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition," Prashant Bhushan said. Prashant Bhushan: In our opinion the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition #Rafaledeal https://t.co/djJheTLAhr — ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018 × The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process." Meanwhile, home minister Rajnath Singh while hailing the court verdict said that "the matter was crystal clear from the beginning". "We have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnasth Singh added. A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required. India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore. The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition. Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court. Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court. The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter.

He also expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report.

"Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of defence deal corruption involving high functionaries," Bhushan said in a statement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Read statement issued by Yashwant Sinha, Arun shourie &amp; myself on the disappointing and indeed shocking judgement of the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal. Apart from not dealing the issues raised by us, the judgement makes several grotesque factual errors<a href="https://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh">https://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh</a>
— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) <a href="https://twitter.com/pbhushan1/status/1073553815088054272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</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>

He said the "scandal" involving the deal will continue to agitate people in the country.

"The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the activist-lawyer said.

Bhushan was one of the petitioners who had approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal.

In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract.

The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).&nbsp;

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter.

On a day the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging Rafale deal, Swaraj Abhiyan's founder member and one of the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan Friday said he was disappointed over the court's "conservative view" and claimed "new disclosures" were expected soon in the matter. He also expressed shock that the judgement on the deal between India and France was based on "false information" about CAG report. "Disappointed that the court has taken a conservative view of judicial review in cases of defence deal corruption involving high functionaries," Bhushan said in a statement. Read statement issued by Yashwant Sinha, Arun shourie & myself on the disappointing and indeed shocking judgement of the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal. Apart from not dealing the issues raised by us, the judgement makes several grotesque factual errorshttps://t.co/ZH1nLgXcoh — Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) December 14, 2018 × He said the "scandal" involving the deal will continue to agitate people in the country. "The scandal will continue to agitate the public mind - new disclosures are expected soon," the activist-lawyer said. Bhushan was one of the petitioners who had approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal. In a relief to the Modi government, the Supreme Court Friday dismissed the pleas challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making the process" warranting setting aside of the contract. The court rejected the pleas which sought lodging of an FIR and a court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).

Disappointed over SC's 'conservative view': Bhushan on Rafale deal verdict

The Supreme Court on Friday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal</a>. Reacting to the verdict home minister Rajnath Singh said that the "matter was crystal clear from the beginning".

"The matter was crystal clear from the beginning and we have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnath Singh said while speaking to the media.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required.

"There is no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the Rafale deal," the court said while delivering the verdict.

Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court.

The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore.

The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition.

Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal. Reacting to the verdict home minister Rajnath Singh said that the "matter was crystal clear from the beginning".

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed all petitions pertaining to multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jets deal. Reacting to the verdict home minister Rajnath Singh said that the "matter was crystal clear from the beginning". "The matter was crystal clear from the beginning and we have been saying that the allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage," Rajnath Singh said while speaking to the media. A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required. "There is no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the Rafale deal," the court said while delivering the verdict. Last month, the Centre had submitted the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets to the top court. The Centre in its submission had said that the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore. The petitions seeking the probe in the Rafale deal were first filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition. Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan had also filed a joint petition in the apex court.

Matter was crystal clear from the beginning: Rajnath Singh on Rafale deal verdict

Reliance chairman Anil Ambani on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's verdict of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-probe-needed-in-rafale-fighter-jet-deal-rules-supreme-court-183957">dismissing&nbsp;petitions seeking an investigation</a> into&nbsp;multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jet deal. He said that it "establishes the falsity of politically motivated allegations against&nbsp;him and his firm."

"I welcome the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict&nbsp;summarily dismissing PILs filed on Rafale contracts, and conclusively establishing complete falsity of wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations levelled against Reliance Group and me personally,"&nbsp;Anil Ambani said in a statement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Anil Ambani statement: Welcome judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court today summarily dismissing PILs filed on Rafale contracts, and conclusively establishing complete falsity of wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations levelled against Reliance Group and me personally
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1073465444898693120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</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>

"Company committed to India's national security, including implementing offset deal with Dassault," Ambani added.

The Supreme Court today dismissed all petitions pertaining Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process."

A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required.

Dassault Aviation's CEO Eric Trappier in October said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/reliance-has-10-per-cent-of-offset-in-rafael-deal-dassault-ceo-170983">joint venture with Reliance represents around 10 per cent of the offset investments</a> under the Rafale jet deal. After the report, it was alleged that Dassault was forced to choose Reliance by PM Modi, despite it having almost no experience in the aviation sector.

According to the report, Dassault negotiated for years with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the order, with the jets being jointly built in India.

But those talks were cancelled after PM Modi took office when he decided to purchase the jets directly from France.&nbsp;

The Friday's verdict on Rafale jet has been welcomed by BJP party.&nbsp;

Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/matter-was-crystal-clear-from-the-beginning-rajnath-singh-on-rafale-jets-deal-verdict-183966">matter war crystal clear from the beginning</a>.&nbsp;

"The allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage."

Meanwhile, one of the main petitioners, Prashant Bhushan has said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-judgement-totally-wrong-says-petitioner-prashant-bhushan-on-rafale-verdict-183979">campaign certainly won't drop</a> and they may file a review petition.

"In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition."

Reliance chairman Anil Ambani on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's verdict of dismissing petitions seeking an investigation into multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jet deal.

Reliance chairman Anil Ambani on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's verdict of dismissing petitions seeking an investigation into multi-million dollar Rafale fighter jet deal. He said that it "establishes the falsity of politically motivated allegations against him and his firm." "I welcome the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict summarily dismissing PILs filed on Rafale contracts, and conclusively establishing complete falsity of wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations levelled against Reliance Group and me personally," Anil Ambani said in a statement. Anil Ambani statement: Welcome judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court today summarily dismissing PILs filed on Rafale contracts, and conclusively establishing complete falsity of wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations levelled against Reliance Group and me personally — ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018 × "Company committed to India's national security, including implementing offset deal with Dassault," Ambani added. The Supreme Court today dismissed all petitions pertaining Rafale fighter jets deal saying that they are satisfied that "there is no occasion to doubt the process." A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph said that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required. Dassault Aviation's CEO Eric Trappier in October said that the joint venture with Reliance represents around 10 per cent of the offset investments under the Rafale jet deal. After the report, it was alleged that Dassault was forced to choose Reliance by PM Modi, despite it having almost no experience in the aviation sector. According to the report, Dassault negotiated for years with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the order, with the jets being jointly built in India. But those talks were cancelled after PM Modi took office when he decided to purchase the jets directly from France. The Friday's verdict on Rafale jet has been welcomed by BJP party. Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that the matter war crystal clear from the beginning. "The allegations levelled by Congress were baseless and to gain political mileage." Meanwhile, one of the main petitioners, Prashant Bhushan has said that the campaign certainly won't drop and they may file a review petition. "In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition."

Falsity of wild, baseless allegations against Reliance Group established: Anil Ambani on Rafale verdict

Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's order on the Rafale deal saying that the "truth has won". He also slammed Congress party and its chief Rahul Gandhi saying that people were being misled by unfortunately the country's oldest party.

"Its a slap on politics of lies," Shah added.

Supreme Court today dismissed batch of petitions&nbsp;seeking a probe into the multi-million dollar rafale deal. The apex court in its verdict&nbsp;said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter aircraft from France.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-judgement-totally-wrong-says-petitioner-prashant-bhushan-on-rafale-verdict-183979">Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict</a>

Lashing at Gandhi scion, Amit Shah said that Supreme Court judgment exposes the "Rahul's politics of lies". He also asked Gandhi to reveal his&nbsp;source of information on basis of which he made the allegations on Rafale deal.

"Rahul Gandhi should apologise to people of the country and its soldiers," Amit Shah added.

Shah also said that&nbsp;"All thieves gathered to call 'chowkidar'&nbsp;(watchman) a thief, but the country never believed it".

The 54-year-old leader also challenged Congress to debate on&nbsp;Rafale&nbsp;in parliament.&nbsp;

"We are ready for Rafale discussion in Parliament, challenge Congress to come and debate on the issue the on the floor of the house," Shah said.

A three-judge&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/matter-was-crystal-clear-from-the-beginning-rajnath-singh-on-rafale-jets-deal-verdict-183966">Supreme Court bench </a>comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi,&nbsp;Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph today ruled&nbsp;that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required.

Reacting to the verdict, one of the main petitioners, Prashant Bhushan&nbsp;said that the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-judgement-totally-wrong-says-petitioner-prashant-bhushan-on-rafale-verdict-183979">campaign certainly won't drop</a>&nbsp;and they may file a review petition.

"In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition."

Earlier in the day Shah in a series of tweets&nbsp;has also&nbsp;said that the court didn't find anything wrong with the process nor did it find any commercial favouritism in the deal. "On the contrary, the SC held that government had no role in selecting offset partners and found no merit in the demand for a probe based on a mere perception of individuals," he said.&nbsp;

"Truth always triumphs! Court's judgment on the Rafale deal exposes the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by Congress President for political gains," he added on Twitter.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Truth always triumphs! Court’s judgment on the Rafale deal exposes the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by Congress President for political gains. The court didn’t find anything wrong with the process nor did it find any commercial favouritism in the deal. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCNailsRaGaLies?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCNailsRaGaLies</a>
— Amit Shah (@AmitShah) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmitShah/status/1073465860692549633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
On the contrary SC held that govt had no role in selecting offset partners &amp; found no merit in the demand for a probe based on mere perception of individuals. It therefore raises obvious questions on the motive of those working to discredit the deal, which is important for India.
— Amit Shah (@AmitShah) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmitShah/status/1073465885355061248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2018</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 BJP in a statement after the verdict has demanded an apology from the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi for levying false allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 
&nbsp;

Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's order on the Rafale deal saying that the "truth has won". He also slammed Congress party and its chief Rahul Gandhi saying that people were being misled by unfortunately the country's oldest party.

Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah on Friday welcomed Supreme Court's order on the Rafale deal saying that the "truth has won". He also slammed Congress party and its chief Rahul Gandhi saying that people were being misled by unfortunately the country's oldest party. "Its a slap on politics of lies," Shah added. Supreme Court today dismissed batch of petitions seeking a probe into the multi-million dollar rafale deal. The apex court in its verdict said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter aircraft from France. Also read: Our campaign certainly won't drop, says petitioner Prashant Bhushan on Rafale verdict Lashing at Gandhi scion, Amit Shah said that Supreme Court judgment exposes the "Rahul's politics of lies". He also asked Gandhi to reveal his source of information on basis of which he made the allegations on Rafale deal. "Rahul Gandhi should apologise to people of the country and its soldiers," Amit Shah added. Shah also said that "All thieves gathered to call 'chowkidar' (watchman) a thief, but the country never believed it". The 54-year-old leader also challenged Congress to debate on Rafale in parliament. "We are ready for Rafale discussion in Parliament, challenge Congress to come and debate on the issue the on the floor of the house," Shah said. A three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph today ruled that detailed scrutiny of the Rafale fighter jet deal was not required. Reacting to the verdict, one of the main petitioners, Prashant Bhushan said that the campaign certainly won't drop and they may file a review petition. "In our opinion, the Supreme Court judgement is totally wrong, the campaign will certainly not drop and we will decide if we will file a review petition." Earlier in the day Shah in a series of tweets has also said that the court didn't find anything wrong with the process nor did it find any commercial favouritism in the deal. "On the contrary, the SC held that government had no role in selecting offset partners and found no merit in the demand for a probe based on a mere perception of individuals," he said. "Truth always triumphs! Court's judgment on the Rafale deal exposes the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by Congress President for political gains," he added on Twitter. Truth always triumphs! Court’s judgment on the Rafale deal exposes the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by Congress President for political gains. The court didn’t find anything wrong with the process nor did it find any commercial favouritism in the deal. #SCNailsRaGaLies — Amit Shah (@AmitShah) December 14, 2018 × On the contrary SC held that govt had no role in selecting offset partners & found no merit in the demand for a probe based on mere perception of individuals. It therefore raises obvious questions on the motive of those working to discredit the deal, which is important for India. — Amit Shah (@AmitShah) December 14, 2018 × The BJP in a statement after the verdict has demanded an apology from the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi for levying false allegations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Amit Shah slams Rahul Gandhi, says Rafale deal verdict is slap on politics of lies

Top court dismisses Rafale probe demand

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Prime Minister Imran Khan's sister Aleema Khanum to pay a hefty Rs 2,940 crores in taxes and fine within a week in the foreign assets case.

A three-judge bench, while hearing a case against 44 politically exposed individuals who possess properties in the UAE, remarked that failure on Khanum's part to honour the court orders will result in confiscation of her properties.

The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) told the court that a fine and tax worth Rs 2,940 crores has been imposed on Khanum, who has been identified as ostensible owner (benamidar) of a property.

Khanum, who was present with her lawyer in the court, said that she had bought the property in 2008 against US $370,000 and that she had sold it in 2017 .

The FBR in previous hearings submitted properties and tax details of Khanum.

Khanum told the court that she had raised 50 per cent of the amount required by taking a loan.

According to Khanum's written testimony submitted to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), she owned properties in East UAE. The properties were created through the earnings of businesses owned abroad.

"I sold my properties and the FBR was notified about this development in advance," Khanum said in her written testimony.

During the hearing, the FIA submitted a summary regarding foreign properties in court.

According to the summary, 96 more Pakistanis have been identified for having properties abroad. The total number of Pakistanis with properties abroad is now 2,154.

Out of these, 1,208 people own properties in the UAE.

Taking suo motu notice of the matter, the apex court had observed that it appeared the money siphoned off abroad without payment of taxes through illegal channels represented either ill-gotten gains or kickbacks from public contracts.

"Such money creates gross disproportion, inequality and disparity in society, which warps economic activity and growth, and constitutes plunder and theft of national wealth," it had said.

In an earlier order, the court had also observed that it was common knowledge for years that a large number of Pakistani citizens were maintaining their bank accounts in other countries without disclosing these to the authorities competent under the laws of Pakistan or paying taxes on the same in accordance with the law.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Prime Minister Imran Khan's sister Aleema Khanum to pay a hefty Rs 2,940 crores in taxes and fine within a week in the foreign assets case.

Pakistan's Supreme Court on Thursday ordered Prime Minister Imran Khan's sister Aleema Khanum to pay a hefty Rs 2,940 crores in taxes and fine within a week in the foreign assets case. A three-judge bench, while hearing a case against 44 politically exposed individuals who possess properties in the UAE, remarked that failure on Khanum's part to honour the court orders will result in confiscation of her properties. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) told the court that a fine and tax worth Rs 2,940 crores has been imposed on Khanum, who has been identified as ostensible owner (benamidar) of a property. Khanum, who was present with her lawyer in the court, said that she had bought the property in 2008 against US $370,000 and that she had sold it in 2017 . The FBR in previous hearings submitted properties and tax details of Khanum. Khanum told the court that she had raised 50 per cent of the amount required by taking a loan. According to Khanum's written testimony submitted to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), she owned properties in East UAE. The properties were created through the earnings of businesses owned abroad. "I sold my properties and the FBR was notified about this development in advance," Khanum said in her written testimony. During the hearing, the FIA submitted a summary regarding foreign properties in court. According to the summary, 96 more Pakistanis have been identified for having properties abroad. The total number of Pakistanis with properties abroad is now 2,154. Out of these, 1,208 people own properties in the UAE. Taking suo motu notice of the matter, the apex court had observed that it appeared the money siphoned off abroad without payment of taxes through illegal channels represented either ill-gotten gains or kickbacks from public contracts. "Such money creates gross disproportion, inequality and disparity in society, which warps economic activity and growth, and constitutes plunder and theft of national wealth," it had said. In an earlier order, the court had also observed that it was common knowledge for years that a large number of Pakistani citizens were maintaining their bank accounts in other countries without disclosing these to the authorities competent under the laws of Pakistan or paying taxes on the same in accordance with the law.

Pak Supreme Court orders Imran Khan's sister to pay Rs 2,940 crores as fine, tax on foreign properties

The Supreme Court Thursday issued a notice to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on a plea seeking annulment of his election to the state assembly for alleged non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against him in his nomination papers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph sought response of the chief minister on an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court order.

The Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea of one Satish Ukey seeking annulment of Fadanavis's election to the Maharashtra Assembly on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of all pending criminal cases against him.&nbsp;

The apex court was hearing an appeal of Ukey against the high court order.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Thursday issued a notice to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on a plea seeking annulment of his election to the state assembly for alleged non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against him in his nomination papers.

The Supreme Court Thursday issued a notice to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on a plea seeking annulment of his election to the state assembly for alleged non-disclosure of pending criminal cases against him in his nomination papers. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph sought response of the chief minister on an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court order. The Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea of one Satish Ukey seeking annulment of Fadanavis's election to the Maharashtra Assembly on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of all pending criminal cases against him. The apex court was hearing an appeal of Ukey against the high court order.

Maharashtra: Supreme Court issues notice to CM Devendra Fadnavis  on plea against his election

Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the deadline for filing claims and objections on the inclusion of names in the draft National Register of Citizen (NRC) for Assam by those who have been left out in the draft NRC from December 15 to December 31, 2018.

The SC issued the order after NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela told the court that out of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/disenfranchisement-may-be-first-possible-step-after-final-nrc-officials-182670">40 lakh people who were left out of the final draft NRC</a>, 14.8 lakh people have filed claims&nbsp;with the authorities for inclusion in the NRC.

There has been a surge in such applications in last few weeks and hence, the deadline be extended by one more month, he said.

The draft NRC was published on July 30 in which names of 2.89 crore of the 3.29 crore people were included. The names of 40,70,707 people did not figure in the list. Of these, 37,59,630 names have been rejected and the remaining 2,48,077 are on hold.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R F Nariman considered the plea of Assam government that the deadline of December 15, fixed for filing claims and objections by those left out in the draft NRC, be extended by till January 15 next year.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela tells Supreme Court,"Out of 40 lakh people who were left out of the final draft NRC, 14.8 lakh people have filed claims."
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1072781648054444032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2018</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>

In his filing, the NRC coordinator said that it was not possible for semi-literate people to fill up the forms.&nbsp;

The state government in its petition said those panchayat elections is the other reason that they are seeking an extension.&nbsp;

The apex court also told Hajela that the draft should be made available at the local offices to enable those who want to file claims and objections.&nbsp;

(With PTI inputs)

Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the deadline for filing claims and objections on the inclusion of names in the draft National Register of Citizen (NRC) for Assam by those who have been left out in the draft NRC from December 15 to December 31, 2018.

Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the deadline for filing claims and objections on the inclusion of names in the draft National Register of Citizen (NRC) for Assam by those who have been left out in the draft NRC from December 15 to December 31, 2018. The SC issued the order after NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela told the court that out of 40 lakh people who were left out of the final draft NRC, 14.8 lakh people have filed claims with the authorities for inclusion in the NRC. There has been a surge in such applications in last few weeks and hence, the deadline be extended by one more month, he said. The draft NRC was published on July 30 in which names of 2.89 crore of the 3.29 crore people were included. The names of 40,70,707 people did not figure in the list. Of these, 37,59,630 names have been rejected and the remaining 2,48,077 are on hold. A special bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R F Nariman considered the plea of Assam government that the deadline of December 15, fixed for filing claims and objections by those left out in the draft NRC, be extended by till January 15 next year. NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela tells Supreme Court,"Out of 40 lakh people who were left out of the final draft NRC, 14.8 lakh people have filed claims." — ANI (@ANI) December 12, 2018 × In his filing, the NRC coordinator said that it was not possible for semi-literate people to fill up the forms. The state government in its petition said those panchayat elections is the other reason that they are seeking an extension. The apex court also told Hajela that the draft should be made available at the local offices to enable those who want to file claims and objections. (With PTI inputs)

NRC coordinator tells SC semi-literate people cannot fill out objection forms

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