The Karnataka Police Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that there appears to be a connection between journalist Gauri Lankesh and rationalist M M Kalburgi murder cases.

The state police also told the apex court that it will file a charge sheet in the Kalburgi murder case in three months.

A bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Navin Sinha is hearing the matter related to the killing of the noted scholar and rationalist at Dharwad in 2015.

The top court on November 26 had pulled up the Karnataka government for "doing nothing and just fooling around" in the investigation and had indicated that it may transfer the case to Bombay High Court.&nbsp;

The Karnataka Police Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that there appears to be a connection between journalist Gauri Lankesh and rationalist M M Kalburgi murder cases.

The Karnataka Police Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that there appears to be a connection between journalist Gauri Lankesh and rationalist M M Kalburgi murder cases. The state police also told the apex court that it will file a charge sheet in the Kalburgi murder case in three months. A bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Navin Sinha is hearing the matter related to the killing of the noted scholar and rationalist at Dharwad in 2015. The top court on November 26 had pulled up the Karnataka government for "doing nothing and just fooling around" in the investigation and had indicated that it may transfer the case to Bombay High Court.

There appears some connection between Gauri Lankesh, M M Kalburgi murder cases: Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard.

Louisiana and Kansas had asked the highest court in the land to intervene after losing their case against leading family planning group Planned Parenthood before federal judges.

The Supreme Court left in place lower court decisions that found that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts for Planned Parenthood. It provides family planning care for low-income women.

"States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider's competence and the quality of the health care it provides," a panel of judges on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in February.

In order for the case to be heard at the Supreme Court, at least four of the nine justices would have had to agree. But only three backed such a hearing -- conservatives Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.

"So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" asked Thomas, speaking for the trio.

"I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.' That makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion."

Abortion remains a hot button in the United States, where the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v&nbsp;Wade decision, with many measures being implemented in recent years to complicate access to services to terminate a pregnancy.

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to name anti-abortion conservatives to the high court, hinting at possibly overturning the landmark ruling.

His nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now sit on the bench.

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard.

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard. Louisiana and Kansas had asked the highest court in the land to intervene after losing their case against leading family planning group Planned Parenthood before federal judges. The Supreme Court left in place lower court decisions that found that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts for Planned Parenthood. It provides family planning care for low-income women. "States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider's competence and the quality of the health care it provides," a panel of judges on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in February. In order for the case to be heard at the Supreme Court, at least four of the nine justices would have had to agree. But only three backed such a hearing -- conservatives Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. "So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" asked Thomas, speaking for the trio. "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.' That makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion." Abortion remains a hot button in the United States, where the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v Wade decision, with many measures being implemented in recent years to complicate access to services to terminate a pregnancy. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to name anti-abortion conservatives to the high court, hinting at possibly overturning the landmark ruling. His nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now sit on the bench.

US Supreme Court rejects state efforts to block abortion funding

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the dissolution of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/i-did-not-act-on-bjps-behest-nobody-gave-me-list-of-mlas-says-jk-governor-satya-pal-malik-after-dissolving-assembly-178721">Jammu and Kashmir Assembly</a> by Governor <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/governor-of-jammu-and-kashmir-satya-pal-malik-speaks-to-sudhir-chaudhary-173379">Satya Pal Malik</a>.

"We are not inclined to interfere (with the decision of the Governor)," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by BJP leader Gagan Bhagat, who was an MLA before the Assembly was dissolved.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/youth-will-take-up-guns-if-they-are-not-given-any-other-alternative-jk-governor-satya-pal-malik-to-wion-173385">Jammu and Kashmir </a>Assembly, which was in suspended animation, was abruptly dissolved by the governor on November 21, hours after the People's Democratic Party (PDP) staked claim to form a government with the backing of rival National Conference and the Congress.

This was followed by another bid from the two-member People's Conference, which claimed the support of the BJP and 18 legislators from other parties.

PDP president Mehbooba Mufti wrote to the governor that her party, which has 29 MLAs, was backed by the National Conference and the Congress with 15 and 12 legislators, respectively.

The dissolution was announced by Malik in a communique released by the Raj Bhavan.

The six-month tenure of governor's rule ends on December 18. This will be followed by the president's rule. The state assembly's tenure was till October 2020.

Governor's rule was clamped in the state on June 19 for a six-month period following the collapse of the Mehbooba Mufti-headed PDP-BJP coalition government after the saffron party withdrew support.

The state assembly was kept in suspended animation so political parties could explore the possibility of forming a new government.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly by Governor Satya Pal Malik. "We are not inclined to interfere (with the decision of the Governor)," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly by Governor Satya Pal Malik. "We are not inclined to interfere (with the decision of the Governor)," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul said. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by BJP leader Gagan Bhagat, who was an MLA before the Assembly was dissolved. The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, which was in suspended animation, was abruptly dissolved by the governor on November 21, hours after the People's Democratic Party (PDP) staked claim to form a government with the backing of rival National Conference and the Congress. This was followed by another bid from the two-member People's Conference, which claimed the support of the BJP and 18 legislators from other parties. PDP president Mehbooba Mufti wrote to the governor that her party, which has 29 MLAs, was backed by the National Conference and the Congress with 15 and 12 legislators, respectively. The dissolution was announced by Malik in a communique released by the Raj Bhavan. The six-month tenure of governor's rule ends on December 18. This will be followed by the president's rule. The state assembly's tenure was till October 2020. Governor's rule was clamped in the state on June 19 for a six-month period following the collapse of the Mehbooba Mufti-headed PDP-BJP coalition government after the saffron party withdrew support. The state assembly was kept in suspended animation so political parties could explore the possibility of forming a new government.

SC dismisses PIL challenging dissolution of J&K Assembly by Governor Satya Pal Malik

BJP national general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya said Friday that the party would move the Supreme Court "if needed" to hold the much-touted 'rath yatras' across West Bengal.

"If needed, we will move the Supreme Court to get justice," he told the media here after the Calcutta High Court modified the single bench order of Thursday and directed the state chief secretary, home secretary and director general of police to sit with three BJP leaders by December 12 and take a decision on the matter by December 14.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rath-yatra-calcutta-high-court-directs-bjp-reps-to-meet-state-chief-secy-dgp-final-move-to-be-taken-by-dec-14-182248">Calcutta High Court</a> also came down heavily on the West Bengal government for not responding to letters of the BJP seeking permission for its processions in the state.

Vijayvargiya stood by the BJP state leadership saying, "There was no lapse on their part and the entire party stands united and we are with the state (party) president" as he blamed the state government and its policy to "throttle the opposition" for putting on hold the 'rath yatras', which was scheduled to be flagged off by BJP president Amit Shah.

Reacting to the HC division bench ruling, BJP state president Dilip Ghosh said, "We thank the court for its verdict. The state government for so many days didn't have time to discuss the matter with us. Now they will sit for discussion".

In Delhi, Shah told a press conference that BJP's growth in West Bengal has "scared" Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

He also accused her of "throttling" democracy in the state by denying permission to the three 'rath yatras' of his party.

"We will definitely carry out all yatras, nobody can stop us. The BJP is committed to change in West Bengal. The yatras have not been cancelled, just postponed," he said.

A party source, however, said on condition of anonymity that the BJP central leadership is unhappy with the party's state leaders as the rath yatra programme had to be put on hold.

A section of the leadership felt that the party had to go back on the programme at "the last moment due to lack of proper strategy and planning" when all preparation for the three 'rath yatras' slated for December 7, 9 and 14 was ready.

The division bench of Justices Biswanath Somadder and A Mukherjee during the day criticised the state government for not responding to BJP's letters for permission to hold three rath yatras in the state.

It modified the single bench order and directed the state chief secretary, home secretary and director general of police to sit with three BJP leaders by December 12 and take a decision on the matter by December 14.

Shah was to kickstart the campaign titled 'Save Democracy Rally' from Coochbehar district in the northern part of the state Friday, from Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas district on December 9, and from Tarapith temple in Birbhum district on December 14.

The 'rath yatra' was scheduled to cover all 42 Lok Sabha constituencies in the state.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

BJP national general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya said Friday that the party would move the Supreme Court "if needed" to hold the much-touted 'rath yatras' across West Bengal.

BJP national general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya said Friday that the party would move the Supreme Court "if needed" to hold the much-touted 'rath yatras' across West Bengal. "If needed, we will move the Supreme Court to get justice," he told the media here after the Calcutta High Court modified the single bench order of Thursday and directed the state chief secretary, home secretary and director general of police to sit with three BJP leaders by December 12 and take a decision on the matter by December 14. The Calcutta High Court also came down heavily on the West Bengal government for not responding to letters of the BJP seeking permission for its processions in the state. Vijayvargiya stood by the BJP state leadership saying, "There was no lapse on their part and the entire party stands united and we are with the state (party) president" as he blamed the state government and its policy to "throttle the opposition" for putting on hold the 'rath yatras', which was scheduled to be flagged off by BJP president Amit Shah. Reacting to the HC division bench ruling, BJP state president Dilip Ghosh said, "We thank the court for its verdict. The state government for so many days didn't have time to discuss the matter with us. Now they will sit for discussion". In Delhi, Shah told a press conference that BJP's growth in West Bengal has "scared" Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. He also accused her of "throttling" democracy in the state by denying permission to the three 'rath yatras' of his party. "We will definitely carry out all yatras, nobody can stop us. The BJP is committed to change in West Bengal. The yatras have not been cancelled, just postponed," he said. A party source, however, said on condition of anonymity that the BJP central leadership is unhappy with the party's state leaders as the rath yatra programme had to be put on hold. A section of the leadership felt that the party had to go back on the programme at "the last moment due to lack of proper strategy and planning" when all preparation for the three 'rath yatras' slated for December 7, 9 and 14 was ready. The division bench of Justices Biswanath Somadder and A Mukherjee during the day criticised the state government for not responding to BJP's letters for permission to hold three rath yatras in the state. It modified the single bench order and directed the state chief secretary, home secretary and director general of police to sit with three BJP leaders by December 12 and take a decision on the matter by December 14. Shah was to kickstart the campaign titled 'Save Democracy Rally' from Coochbehar district in the northern part of the state Friday, from Kakdwip in South 24 Parganas district on December 9, and from Tarapith temple in Birbhum district on December 14. The 'rath yatra' was scheduled to cover all 42 Lok Sabha constituencies in the state.

Will move SC if needed: Vijayvargiya on WB 'rath yatra' issue

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a PIL raising allegations against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley relating to capital reserve of the Reserve Bank of India.

The apex court also imposes a cost of Rs 50,000 on advocate M L Sharma, who had filed the public interest litigation (PIL).&nbsp;

"We find no reason whatsoever to entertain this PIL," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justcie S K Kaul said.

Sharma had accused the Finance Minister of "plundering" the capital reserve of the RBI.

The bench also directed the apex court registry not to allow Sharma to file any PIL till he deposits Rs 50,000.

The top court imposed the cost as the advocate continued with the argument after dismissal of the PIL.

The Chief Justice warned him not to continue with the submissions, saying cost will be imposed if he was unable to satisfy the court.

The apex court expressed displeasure that the advocate made the finance minister as the main party in the PIL.

The bench said, "What is this PIL? You cannot go on with such misadventure. What exactly is this? You are saying the finance minister is plundering the capital reserve of the RBI. You are not bringing honour to this institution. Why do we permit you to go ahead with this PIL."&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a PIL raising allegations against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley relating to capital reserve of the Reserve Bank of India. The apex court also imposes a cost of Rs 50,000 on advocate M L Sharma, who had filed the public interest litigation (PIL).

The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a PIL raising allegations against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley relating to capital reserve of the Reserve Bank of India. The apex court also imposes a cost of Rs 50,000 on advocate M L Sharma, who had filed the public interest litigation (PIL). "We find no reason whatsoever to entertain this PIL," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justcie S K Kaul said. Sharma had accused the Finance Minister of "plundering" the capital reserve of the RBI. The bench also directed the apex court registry not to allow Sharma to file any PIL till he deposits Rs 50,000. The top court imposed the cost as the advocate continued with the argument after dismissal of the PIL. The Chief Justice warned him not to continue with the submissions, saying cost will be imposed if he was unable to satisfy the court. The apex court expressed displeasure that the advocate made the finance minister as the main party in the PIL. The bench said, "What is this PIL? You cannot go on with such misadventure. What exactly is this? You are saying the finance minister is plundering the capital reserve of the RBI. You are not bringing honour to this institution. Why do we permit you to go ahead with this PIL."

Supreme Court dismisses PIL against FM Arun Jaitley

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on the petitions filed by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-officers-were-fighting-like-kilkenny-cats-says-attorney-general-venugopal-181677">CBI Director Alok Verma </a>and NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre’s decision to divest Verma of his charges and send him on leave.

The bench, which heard the arguments, was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

It also heard the petition moved by NGO Common Cause which had sought court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against various CBI officials including Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

Verma and his deputy in the CBI, Rakesh Asthana, have made allegations of corruption against each other.

The apex court&nbsp;came down heavily on the central government on the issue of CBI power struggle and said that difference between the two warring officers did not emerge overnight.&nbsp;

The court also questioned the government's hasty act to divest Verma of his powers.

''Why the government acted hastily to divest the CBI Director Alok Verma of his powers without consulting the Selection Committee?'' the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Vigilance Commission which had passed the order recommending to send him on leave.

CJI Gogoi added, "The government has to be fair, what was the difficulty in consulting the selection committee before divesting Alok Verma of his power? The essence of every government action should be to adopt the best course."

The court had on November 29 said that it would first consider whether the government has the power to divest the CBI director of his duties under whatever circumstances or whether the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister should have been approached before moving against Verma on corruption allegations against him.

The court had taken this stand after making it clear that for now it was not going into the allegations and counter-allegations involving Verma and CBI's No 2 officer Asthana, both of whom have been stripped of their powers and sent on leave following their bitter feud.

Verma's two-year tenure ends on January 31.

(With inputs from&nbsp;PTI)

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on the petitions filed by CBI Director Alok Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre’s decision to divest Verma of his charges and send him on leave.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on the petitions filed by CBI Director Alok Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre’s decision to divest Verma of his charges and send him on leave. The bench, which heard the arguments, was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. It also heard the petition moved by NGO Common Cause which had sought court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against various CBI officials including Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Verma and his deputy in the CBI, Rakesh Asthana, have made allegations of corruption against each other. The apex court came down heavily on the central government on the issue of CBI power struggle and said that difference between the two warring officers did not emerge overnight. The court also questioned the government's hasty act to divest Verma of his powers. ''Why the government acted hastily to divest the CBI Director Alok Verma of his powers without consulting the Selection Committee?'' the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Vigilance Commission which had passed the order recommending to send him on leave. CJI Gogoi added, "The government has to be fair, what was the difficulty in consulting the selection committee before divesting Alok Verma of his power? The essence of every government action should be to adopt the best course." The court had on November 29 said that it would first consider whether the government has the power to divest the CBI director of his duties under whatever circumstances or whether the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister should have been approached before moving against Verma on corruption allegations against him. The court had taken this stand after making it clear that for now it was not going into the allegations and counter-allegations involving Verma and CBI's No 2 officer Asthana, both of whom have been stripped of their powers and sent on leave following their bitter feud. Verma's two-year tenure ends on January 31. (With inputs from PTI)

SC reserves order on Alok Verma's plea, asks Centre 'what was the hurry to send CBI chief on leave?

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/agustawestland-chopper-case-christian-michel-appears-in-delhi-court-security-tightened-181662">AgustaWestland chopper case: Special court sends Christian Michel to five-day CBI custody</a>

The Patiala House court on Wednesday granted the investigating agency five-day custody of Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/live-hockey-world-cup-2018-netherlands-vs-germany-181671">As it happened | Hockey World Cup 2018: Full time! Germany beat Netherlands 4-1</a>

It's an end to Germany's fantastic hockey. They have defeated Netherlands 4-1 after lacking 0-1 in the first quarter.

They scored three late goals in the fourth quarter to put up a challenging game and register a win.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-officers-were-fighting-like-kilkenny-cats-says-attorney-general-venugopal-181677">CBI top officers were fighting like '</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-officers-were-fighting-like-kilkenny-cats-says-attorney-general-venugopal-181677">kilkenny</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-officers-were-fighting-like-kilkenny-cats-says-attorney-general-venugopal-181677"> cats', says attorney general Venugopal</a>

The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the fight between two top officers of the CBI - Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana - in public exposed the premier probe agency to ridicule.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666">Watch: </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666"> gives Russia 60 days to comply with </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666">nuclear</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666"> treaty</a>

The United States warned Russia on Tuesday it will withdraw from a major Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms if Moscow does not dismantle missiles that Washington says breach it within 60 days.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pak-supports-peace-and-reconciliation-in-afghanistan-imran-khan-tells-us-special-envoy-181702">Pak supports peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan: Imran Khan tells US special envoy</a>

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan told America's special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on Wednesday that peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan are in Islamabad's abiding interest and he will continue to support peace efforts in the war-torn neighbouring country.

AgustaWestland chopper case: Special court sends Christian Michel to five-day CBI custody The Patiala House court on Wednesday granted the investigating agency five-day custody of Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal.

AgustaWestland chopper case: Special court sends Christian Michel to five-day CBI custody The Patiala House court on Wednesday granted the investigating agency five-day custody of Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal. As it happened | Hockey World Cup 2018: Full time! Germany beat Netherlands 4-1 It's an end to Germany's fantastic hockey. They have defeated Netherlands 4-1 after lacking 0-1 in the first quarter. They scored three late goals in the fourth quarter to put up a challenging game and register a win. CBI top officers were fighting like 'kilkenny cats', says attorney general Venugopal The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the fight between two top officers of the CBI - Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana - in public exposed the premier probe agency to ridicule. Watch: US gives Russia 60 days to comply with nuclear treaty The United States warned Russia on Tuesday it will withdraw from a major Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms if Moscow does not dismantle missiles that Washington says breach it within 60 days. Pak supports peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan: Imran Khan tells US special envoy Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan told America's special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on Wednesday that peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan are in Islamabad's abiding interest and he will continue to support peace efforts in the war-torn neighbouring country.

News brief: Big stories of the day

Sri Lankan strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was appointed premier in a controversial move by President Maithripala Sirisena, will move the Supreme Court Tuesday against a lower court order, which barred him from acting as prime minister.

The Court of Appeal temporary on Monday halted Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning in their positions in response to a case filed by 122 legislators against the disputed government.

The court set the hearing of the case for December 12 and 13.

"We will not agree with the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal today suspending the cabinet. We will appeal to the Supreme Court tomorrow against it," Rajapaksa said in a press statement.&nbsp;

He said it was the Supreme Court, which has the power to interpret the Constitution.

The interim ruling was a major blow to both President Sirisena and Rajapaksa after the former had appointed his ex-rival as the prime minister on October 26, plunging the country into a major constitutional crisis.

Sirisena later dissolved Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end, and ordered a snap election. The Supreme Court overturned Sirisena's decision to dissolve Parliament and halted the preparations for snap polls.

Both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa claim to be the prime ministers. Wickremesinghe says his dismissal is invalid because he still holds a majority in the 225-member Parliament.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has officially conveyed that the House does not recognise Rajapaksa as the legal prime minister until he proved his majority in the House.

The United National Front led by Wickremesinghe has moved three motions of no trust against Rajapaksa. However, he refused to step down.&nbsp;

The parliamentarians comprising members of the UNF, JVP and TNA ? also filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the former president, challenging him to prove on what authority he is holding office as the prime minister after the Parliament voted twice to defeat him on November 14 and November 16.&nbsp;

Sri Lankan strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was appointed premier in a controversial move by President Maithripala Sirisena, will move the Supreme Court Tuesday against a lower court order, which barred him from acting as prime minister.

Sri Lankan strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was appointed premier in a controversial move by President Maithripala Sirisena, will move the Supreme Court Tuesday against a lower court order, which barred him from acting as prime minister. The Court of Appeal temporary on Monday halted Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning in their positions in response to a case filed by 122 legislators against the disputed government. The court set the hearing of the case for December 12 and 13. "We will not agree with the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal today suspending the cabinet. We will appeal to the Supreme Court tomorrow against it," Rajapaksa said in a press statement. He said it was the Supreme Court, which has the power to interpret the Constitution. The interim ruling was a major blow to both President Sirisena and Rajapaksa after the former had appointed his ex-rival as the prime minister on October 26, plunging the country into a major constitutional crisis. Sirisena later dissolved Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end, and ordered a snap election. The Supreme Court overturned Sirisena's decision to dissolve Parliament and halted the preparations for snap polls. Both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa claim to be the prime ministers. Wickremesinghe says his dismissal is invalid because he still holds a majority in the 225-member Parliament. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has officially conveyed that the House does not recognise Rajapaksa as the legal prime minister until he proved his majority in the House. The United National Front led by Wickremesinghe has moved three motions of no trust against Rajapaksa. However, he refused to step down. The parliamentarians comprising members of the UNF, JVP and TNA ? also filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the former president, challenging him to prove on what authority he is holding office as the prime minister after the Parliament voted twice to defeat him on November 14 and November 16.

Lanka crisis: Rajapaksa to move SC against lower court order of barring him from acting as PM

An appeal was filed Tuesday in Sri Lanka's Supreme Court against a court order that barred <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/lanka-crisis-rajapaksa-to-move-sc-against-lower-court-order-of-barring-him-from-acting-as-pm-181372">Mahinda Rajapaksa</a> from acting as Prime Minister.

The Court of Appeal in an interim order Monday temporary halted Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning in their positions in response to a case filed by 122 legislators against his disputed government. The court set the hearing of the case for December 12 and 13.

MP Gamini Lokuge said the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal, Daily Mirror reported.

Rajapaksa had said on Monday that he would appeal against the Court of Appeal's interim order.

"We will not agree with the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal today suspending the Cabinet. We will appeal to the Supreme Court first thing tomorrow against it," Rajapaksa said in a statement.&nbsp;

He said that it was the Supreme Court which has the power to interpret the Constitution.

As many as 122 parliamentarians of Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Tamil National Alliance last month filed a petition in the Court of Appeal challenging Rajapaksa's authority as the prime minister.

The interim ruling was a major blow to both President Maithripala Sirisena and Rajapaksa after the former had appointed his ex-rival as the prime minister on October 26, plunging the country into a major constitutional crisis.

Sirisena later dissolved Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end, and ordered snap election. The Supreme Court overturned Sirisena's decision to dissolve Parliament and halted the preparations for snap polls.

The political crisis has crippled the government for more than a month.

Ousted prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa both claim to be the prime ministers. Wickremesinghe says his dismissal is invalid because he still holds a majority in the 225-member Parliament.

Prior to the crisis, Wickramasinghe's UNP had the backing of 106 parliamentarians while Rajapaksa and Sirisena combine had 95 seats.

Rajapaksa has, so far, failed to prove his majority in Parliament. 
Wickremesinghe, with the support from the main Tamil party, claims to have the support of more than 113 legislators, required for simple majority.

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has 16 seats in the house and JVP has six legislators.

The UNF has moved three no trust motions against Rajapaksa, who has refused to step down.

The Sri Lankan president has said that due to sharp personal differences with Wickremesinghe he would not reappoint him as the Prime Minister.

However, Wickremesinghe's UNP claims that Sirisena will be left with no choice as he would be the man who will command the confidence in the House.&nbsp;

An appeal was filed Tuesday in Sri Lanka's Supreme Court against a court order that barred Mahinda Rajapaksa from acting as Prime Minister. The Court of Appeal in an interim order Monday temporary halted Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning in their positions in response to a case filed by 122 legislators against his disputed government.

An appeal was filed Tuesday in Sri Lanka's Supreme Court against a court order that barred Mahinda Rajapaksa from acting as Prime Minister. The Court of Appeal in an interim order Monday temporary halted Rajapaksa and his Cabinet from functioning in their positions in response to a case filed by 122 legislators against his disputed government. The court set the hearing of the case for December 12 and 13. MP Gamini Lokuge said the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal, Daily Mirror reported. Rajapaksa had said on Monday that he would appeal against the Court of Appeal's interim order. "We will not agree with the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal today suspending the Cabinet. We will appeal to the Supreme Court first thing tomorrow against it," Rajapaksa said in a statement. He said that it was the Supreme Court which has the power to interpret the Constitution. As many as 122 parliamentarians of Wickremesinghe's United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Tamil National Alliance last month filed a petition in the Court of Appeal challenging Rajapaksa's authority as the prime minister. The interim ruling was a major blow to both President Maithripala Sirisena and Rajapaksa after the former had appointed his ex-rival as the prime minister on October 26, plunging the country into a major constitutional crisis. Sirisena later dissolved Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end, and ordered snap election. The Supreme Court overturned Sirisena's decision to dissolve Parliament and halted the preparations for snap polls. The political crisis has crippled the government for more than a month. Ousted prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa both claim to be the prime ministers. Wickremesinghe says his dismissal is invalid because he still holds a majority in the 225-member Parliament. Prior to the crisis, Wickramasinghe's UNP had the backing of 106 parliamentarians while Rajapaksa and Sirisena combine had 95 seats. Rajapaksa has, so far, failed to prove his majority in Parliament. Wickremesinghe, with the support from the main Tamil party, claims to have the support of more than 113 legislators, required for simple majority. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has 16 seats in the house and JVP has six legislators. The UNF has moved three no trust motions against Rajapaksa, who has refused to step down. The Sri Lankan president has said that due to sharp personal differences with Wickremesinghe he would not reappoint him as the Prime Minister. However, Wickremesinghe's UNP claims that Sirisena will be left with no choice as he would be the man who will command the confidence in the House.

Sri Lanka crisis: Rajapaksa files appeal in Supreme Court against interim court's order

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/national-herald-case-maintain-status-quo-till-the-next-hearing-high-court-to-centre-177497">Supreme Court </a>on Tuesday allowed the Income Tax Department to reopen tax assessment of top Congress leaders Rahul and Sonia Gandhi for 2011-12 in connection with the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/industry/swamy-trying-to-influence-national-herald-case-proceedings-by-tweeting-vora-tells-court-169851">National Herald case</a>.

The apex court, however, restrained the department from implementing its order in the proceedings against Rahul, who is the Congress president, and his mother Sonia till the pendency of the matter before the court.

The court also said that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the pleas filed by Rahul and Sonia Gandhi in the case.

The tax matter is related to the National Herald case in which the Congress leaders are also facing criminal proceedings.

A bench headed by Justice A K Sikri posted the matter for further hearing on January 8.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the I-T department, said the court should not restrain it from implementing the assessment orders against the Gandhis and others.

He said the court should hear the matter and pass appropriate orders.

However, the bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, said that due to the paucity of time, the matter cannot be heard on Tuesday and it is just an interim order which should be equitable to both the parties.

It made it clear that it is not going into the merits of the case for which it requires a detailed hearing.

The Gandhis and senior Congress leader Oscar Fernandes have challenged the Delhi High Court's September 10 verdict that dismissed their plea against the re-opening of their tax assessments for 2011-12.

The apex court on November 13 had said it would hear final arguments on December 4 on the matter which required "consideration".

It had not issued formal notice on the petitions filed by Rahul, Sonia and Fernandes as the I-T Department was represented by its counsel.

They have challenged the judgement of the high court which had given the opportunity to the department to scrutinise their records.

In the last hearing, their lawyers had said the question was whether the reasons given in the notice by the department were right or not.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram and Arvind Datar have been appearing for the Congress leaders.

The income tax probe against the Congress leaders has arisen from the probe into a private criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a trial court here in connection with the National Herald case, in which the trio is out on bail.

Sonia and Rahul were granted bail in the case by the trial court on December 19, 2015.

A tax evasion petition (TEP) was also addressed to the finance minister by Swamy.

In the complaint before the trial court, Sonia, Rahul and others have been accused of conspiring to cheat and misappropriate funds by paying just Rs 50 lakh, through which Young Indian (YI) had obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) owed to the Congress party.

It was alleged that YI, which was incorporated in November 2010 with a capital of Rs 50 lakh, had acquired almost all the shareholding of AJL, which was running the National Herald newspaper.

The I-T department had said the shares Rahul has in YI would lead him to have an income of Rs 154 crore and not about Rs 68 lakh, as was assessed earlier.

It has already issued a demand notice for Rs 249.15 crore to YI for the assessment year 2011-12.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Income Tax Department to reopen tax assessment of top Congress leaders Rahul and Sonia Gandhi for 2011-12 in connection with the National Herald case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Income Tax Department to reopen tax assessment of top Congress leaders Rahul and Sonia Gandhi for 2011-12 in connection with the National Herald case. The apex court, however, restrained the department from implementing its order in the proceedings against Rahul, who is the Congress president, and his mother Sonia till the pendency of the matter before the court. The court also said that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the pleas filed by Rahul and Sonia Gandhi in the case. The tax matter is related to the National Herald case in which the Congress leaders are also facing criminal proceedings. A bench headed by Justice A K Sikri posted the matter for further hearing on January 8. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the I-T department, said the court should not restrain it from implementing the assessment orders against the Gandhis and others. He said the court should hear the matter and pass appropriate orders. However, the bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, said that due to the paucity of time, the matter cannot be heard on Tuesday and it is just an interim order which should be equitable to both the parties. It made it clear that it is not going into the merits of the case for which it requires a detailed hearing. The Gandhis and senior Congress leader Oscar Fernandes have challenged the Delhi High Court's September 10 verdict that dismissed their plea against the re-opening of their tax assessments for 2011-12. The apex court on November 13 had said it would hear final arguments on December 4 on the matter which required "consideration". It had not issued formal notice on the petitions filed by Rahul, Sonia and Fernandes as the I-T Department was represented by its counsel. They have challenged the judgement of the high court which had given the opportunity to the department to scrutinise their records. In the last hearing, their lawyers had said the question was whether the reasons given in the notice by the department were right or not. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram and Arvind Datar have been appearing for the Congress leaders. The income tax probe against the Congress leaders has arisen from the probe into a private criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a trial court here in connection with the National Herald case, in which the trio is out on bail. Sonia and Rahul were granted bail in the case by the trial court on December 19, 2015. A tax evasion petition (TEP) was also addressed to the finance minister by Swamy. In the complaint before the trial court, Sonia, Rahul and others have been accused of conspiring to cheat and misappropriate funds by paying just Rs 50 lakh, through which Young Indian (YI) had obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) owed to the Congress party. It was alleged that YI, which was incorporated in November 2010 with a capital of Rs 50 lakh, had acquired almost all the shareholding of AJL, which was running the National Herald newspaper. The I-T department had said the shares Rahul has in YI would lead him to have an income of Rs 154 crore and not about Rs 68 lakh, as was assessed earlier. It has already issued a demand notice for Rs 249.15 crore to YI for the assessment year 2011-12.

National Herald case: SC allows I-T department to reopen tax case against Rahul, Sonia Gandhi

The Supreme Court of India on Monday deferred hearing on the plea of Zakia Jafri till the third week of January 2019.&nbsp;

According to reports, Jafri's plea challenges the clean chit given by the Special Investigating Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, who was then Gujarat Chief Minister, in connection with the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

Jafri's plea was deferred till November 26 by the apex court previously.&nbsp;

Zakia, the wife of Ehsan Jafri, an ex-Congress lawmaker who was killed in one of the worst incidents during the riots, has challenged the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT's decision, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar said, "The matter will take some time for hearing. The plea will be heard on November 26".

During the previous hearing, Ms Jafri's counsel had said that notice needs to be issued in the plea as it pertains to the aspect of alleged "larger conspiracy" during the period from February 27, 2002 and May 2002 and had also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report in the case before a trial judge, a protest was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits".

On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report, giving the clean chit to PM Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Monday deferred hearing on the plea of Zakia Jafri till the third week of January 2019. According to reports, Jafri's plea challenges the clean chit given by the Special Investigating Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, who was then Gujarat Chief Minister, in connection with the 2002 post-Godhra riots.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday deferred hearing on the plea of Zakia Jafri till the third week of January 2019. According to reports, Jafri's plea challenges the clean chit given by the Special Investigating Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, who was then Gujarat Chief Minister, in connection with the 2002 post-Godhra riots. Jafri's plea was deferred till November 26 by the apex court previously. Zakia, the wife of Ehsan Jafri, an ex-Congress lawmaker who was killed in one of the worst incidents during the riots, has challenged the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT's decision, news agency PTI reported. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar said, "The matter will take some time for hearing. The plea will be heard on November 26". During the previous hearing, Ms Jafri's counsel had said that notice needs to be issued in the plea as it pertains to the aspect of alleged "larger conspiracy" during the period from February 27, 2002 and May 2002 and had also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report in the case before a trial judge, a protest was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits". On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report, giving the clean chit to PM Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court defers hearing Zakia Jafri’s plea in Gujarat riots till January

Justice Kurian Joseph, who retired from the Supreme Court on Thursday, is of the view that the retirement age for all judges in different layers of the judiciary must go up to 70 years for the better utilisation of their experience and expertise.

Talking to ANI exclusively on Saturday, Justice Joseph said, "In this particular discharge of function as a judge, starting from the Civil Judge up to the Supreme Court, the retirement age must go up to 70 years. In certain tribunals such as Human Rights, the government itself has passed a law saying that the judge can continue up to 70 years."

"So why not discharge this function as a judge himself up to 70 years. So in all domains of the judiciary the age must be increased. The reason is that with time, judges gain more experience. That experience can be utilised for better and expeditious disposal of the cases," he added.

Sharing details of his long and eventful career in the echelons of Indian judiciary, he said, "I started in the year 2000 in the High Court of Kerala as a judge almost 10 years I was there. I went to Himachal Pradesh as the Chief Justice for three years. Thereafter, I came to the Supreme Court for five years and eight months. I did dispose of about 66,000 cases in Kerala, over 15,000 in Himachal Pradesh and over 8,000 cases in the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, a long satisfying career."

He also expressed no regrets about the unprecedented press conference on January 12, 2018, in which he along with three other judges of the Supreme Court-Justice Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, now the Chief Justice of India, Justice M B Lokur-had flagged off various other issues pertaining to the functioning of the top court Justice Joseph said, "We pointed that the Supreme Court was not going in right direction. Many aspects we brought in the notice of the then Chief Justice (Dipak Misra) to put things on the proper path. Since there was no result, we thought there was no other option but to bring it to the notice of the nation."

"There was one other reason. My position has always been that there are two watchdogs, one of which is the media. We came out to let there be an awareness that we have done our best. Despite barking the master is in deep slumber. So we decided to bite," he added, asserting that things have improved since then and steps are being taken, which will take time.

"Institutional system and practices need to be put in place. It will take time," said Justice Joseph.

On the other changes that he considers must be a priority of higher judiciary, he talked about public interest litigation (PIL). "I feel the Supreme Court must have a revisit on the type of PILs the top court should be entertaining now. It should also consider as to whether it should spend its time on non-issues which are purely academic or it should give priority to burning issues of the country."

Hailing Constitution and virtues embodied in it, Justice Joseph said, "Our Constitution is a beautiful book and contains good values of all the religions. India is a secular country. Indian secularism has a very special feature which no other country has. That special feature is that it welcomes all religion and gives space to them. It allows a citizen to practice or not to practice any religion. But there is only one restriction that there should not be a violation of any of the fundamental rights."

Talking about the appointment of Judges, Justice Joseph opined, "I have a feeling that there should be secretariat system into practice. Unfortunately, that Secretariat has not yet been formed. Probably sometimes, the Collegium may not get inputs in proper perspective."

On being asked whether he thinks, corruption exists in higher echelons of the judiciary, he said, "I will never agree that there is corruption in the higher level of the judiciary. It has never come to my notice. For the low level, it is for the state concerned to take action."

In reply to a question, Justice Joseph, who was the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, also said that he will not accept any job but will be available for any service towards the nation other than accepting a job under any government.&nbsp;

Justice Kurian Joseph, who retired from the Supreme Court on Thursday, is of the view that the retirement age for all judges in different layers of the judiciary must go up to 70 years for the better utilisation of their experience and expertise.

Justice Kurian Joseph, who retired from the Supreme Court on Thursday, is of the view that the retirement age for all judges in different layers of the judiciary must go up to 70 years for the better utilisation of their experience and expertise. Talking to ANI exclusively on Saturday, Justice Joseph said, "In this particular discharge of function as a judge, starting from the Civil Judge up to the Supreme Court, the retirement age must go up to 70 years. In certain tribunals such as Human Rights, the government itself has passed a law saying that the judge can continue up to 70 years." "So why not discharge this function as a judge himself up to 70 years. So in all domains of the judiciary the age must be increased. The reason is that with time, judges gain more experience. That experience can be utilised for better and expeditious disposal of the cases," he added. Sharing details of his long and eventful career in the echelons of Indian judiciary, he said, "I started in the year 2000 in the High Court of Kerala as a judge almost 10 years I was there. I went to Himachal Pradesh as the Chief Justice for three years. Thereafter, I came to the Supreme Court for five years and eight months. I did dispose of about 66,000 cases in Kerala, over 15,000 in Himachal Pradesh and over 8,000 cases in the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, a long satisfying career." He also expressed no regrets about the unprecedented press conference on January 12, 2018, in which he along with three other judges of the Supreme Court-Justice Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, now the Chief Justice of India, Justice M B Lokur-had flagged off various other issues pertaining to the functioning of the top court Justice Joseph said, "We pointed that the Supreme Court was not going in right direction. Many aspects we brought in the notice of the then Chief Justice (Dipak Misra) to put things on the proper path. Since there was no result, we thought there was no other option but to bring it to the notice of the nation." "There was one other reason. My position has always been that there are two watchdogs, one of which is the media. We came out to let there be an awareness that we have done our best. Despite barking the master is in deep slumber. So we decided to bite," he added, asserting that things have improved since then and steps are being taken, which will take time. "Institutional system and practices need to be put in place. It will take time," said Justice Joseph. On the other changes that he considers must be a priority of higher judiciary, he talked about public interest litigation (PIL). "I feel the Supreme Court must have a revisit on the type of PILs the top court should be entertaining now. It should also consider as to whether it should spend its time on non-issues which are purely academic or it should give priority to burning issues of the country." Hailing Constitution and virtues embodied in it, Justice Joseph said, "Our Constitution is a beautiful book and contains good values of all the religions. India is a secular country. Indian secularism has a very special feature which no other country has. That special feature is that it welcomes all religion and gives space to them. It allows a citizen to practice or not to practice any religion. But there is only one restriction that there should not be a violation of any of the fundamental rights." Talking about the appointment of Judges, Justice Joseph opined, "I have a feeling that there should be secretariat system into practice. Unfortunately, that Secretariat has not yet been formed. Probably sometimes, the Collegium may not get inputs in proper perspective." On being asked whether he thinks, corruption exists in higher echelons of the judiciary, he said, "I will never agree that there is corruption in the higher level of the judiciary. It has never come to my notice. For the low level, it is for the state concerned to take action." In reply to a question, Justice Joseph, who was the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, also said that he will not accept any job but will be available for any service towards the nation other than accepting a job under any government.

Retirement age of judges must be up to 70 years: Justice Kurian Joseph

After demitting office as a Supreme Court judge, Justice Kurian Joseph has said that the apex court was not moving in the right direction under <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-dipak-misra-to-meet-4-supreme-court-judges-to-diffuse-crisis-29918?amp">former chief justice of India Dipak Misra</a>. Therefore, a press conference was held on January 12.&nbsp;It was for the first time in the history of the Indian judiciary that such a step was taken.&nbsp;

Speaking to ANI about the unprecedented step against former CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Joseph, who retired on November 30, said, "We pointed that the Supreme Court was not going in right direction. Many aspects we brought in the notice of the then Chief Justice (Dipak Misra) to put things on the proper path. Since there was no result, we thought there was no other option but to bring it to the notice of the nation."&nbsp;

"There was one other reason. My position has always been that there are two watchdogs, one of which is the media. We came out to let there be an awareness that we have done our best. Despite barking the master is in deep slumber. So we decided to bite," he added, asserting that things have improved since then.&nbsp;

"Institutional system and practices need to be put in place. It will take time," Justice Joseph, who was then the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court said.&nbsp;

He expressed no regrets about conducting the unprecedented press conference where he along with three other judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, now the Chief Justice of India, and Justice MB Lokur, had flagged off various other issues pertaining to the functioning of the top court.&nbsp;

Sharing details of his long and eventful career in the echelons of Indian judiciary, he said, "I started in the year 2000 in the High Court of Kerala as a judge, almost 10 years I was there. I went to Himachal Pradesh as the Chief Justice for three years. Thereafter, I came to the Supreme Court for five years and eight months. I did dispose of about 66,000 cases in Kerala, over 15,000 in Himachal Pradesh and over 8,000 cases in the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, a long satisfying career."&nbsp;

On being asked to react on allegations of corruption in the judiciary, Justice Joseph said the allegations are unfounded.&nbsp;

He said, "I will never really agree that there is corruption in higher judiciary. If it is in the lower judiciary, it is the state`s concern. In the higher judiciary, it has not come to my notice."&nbsp;

After demitting office as a Supreme Court judge, Justice Kurian Joseph has said that the apex court was not moving in the right direction under former chief justice of India Dipak Misra.

After demitting office as a Supreme Court judge, Justice Kurian Joseph has said that the apex court was not moving in the right direction under former chief justice of India Dipak Misra. Therefore, a press conference was held on January 12. It was for the first time in the history of the Indian judiciary that such a step was taken. Speaking to ANI about the unprecedented step against former CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Joseph, who retired on November 30, said, "We pointed that the Supreme Court was not going in right direction. Many aspects we brought in the notice of the then Chief Justice (Dipak Misra) to put things on the proper path. Since there was no result, we thought there was no other option but to bring it to the notice of the nation." "There was one other reason. My position has always been that there are two watchdogs, one of which is the media. We came out to let there be an awareness that we have done our best. Despite barking the master is in deep slumber. So we decided to bite," he added, asserting that things have improved since then. "Institutional system and practices need to be put in place. It will take time," Justice Joseph, who was then the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court said. He expressed no regrets about conducting the unprecedented press conference where he along with three other judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, now the Chief Justice of India, and Justice MB Lokur, had flagged off various other issues pertaining to the functioning of the top court. Sharing details of his long and eventful career in the echelons of Indian judiciary, he said, "I started in the year 2000 in the High Court of Kerala as a judge, almost 10 years I was there. I went to Himachal Pradesh as the Chief Justice for three years. Thereafter, I came to the Supreme Court for five years and eight months. I did dispose of about 66,000 cases in Kerala, over 15,000 in Himachal Pradesh and over 8,000 cases in the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, a long satisfying career." On being asked to react on allegations of corruption in the judiciary, Justice Joseph said the allegations are unfounded. He said, "I will never really agree that there is corruption in higher judiciary. If it is in the lower judiciary, it is the state`s concern. In the higher judiciary, it has not come to my notice."

Supreme Court was not moving in the right direction under CJI Dipak Misra: Justice Kurian Joseph

Former Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he doesn't regret the controversial January 12 press conference by four Supreme Court judges, adding that he did it consciously as there was "no option left."

Joseph's comments came a day after his retirement. He further noted that the judiciary cannot interfere as far as the mandate of the Constitution of India is not violated.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Justice (Retd) K Joseph on press conference by 4 SC Judges on Jan 12: I don't regret it. I did it consciously as no option was left. I can't say that crisis is over. It was an institutional crisis&amp;it takes time for system to change. It's changing&amp;process will continue. (30.11) <a href="https://t.co/UuicqjUVu7">pic.twitter.com/UuicqjUVu7</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1068705984590184453?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 1, 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>

"It was an institutional crisis and it takes time for the system to change. It's changing and the process will continue," he said.&nbsp;

On January 12 this year, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court called <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332">a press conference</a> and said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Justice (Retired) Kurian Joseph: So long as the faith &amp; rituals do not violate the mandate of the Constitution of India as provided under Article 25, no Supreme Court or no court for that matter can interfere. (30.11) <a href="https://t.co/SgRnjVTRWX">pic.twitter.com/SgRnjVTRWX</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1068704352359960576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 1, 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 second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, "... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months".

The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph.

Former Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he doesn't regret the controversial January 12 press conference by four Supreme Court judges, adding that he did it consciously as there was "no option left.

Former Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he doesn't regret the controversial January 12 press conference by four Supreme Court judges, adding that he did it consciously as there was "no option left." Joseph's comments came a day after his retirement. He further noted that the judiciary cannot interfere as far as the mandate of the Constitution of India is not violated. Justice (Retd) K Joseph on press conference by 4 SC Judges on Jan 12: I don't regret it. I did it consciously as no option was left. I can't say that crisis is over. It was an institutional crisis&it takes time for system to change. It's changing&process will continue. (30.11) pic.twitter.com/UuicqjUVu7 — ANI (@ANI) December 1, 2018 × "It was an institutional crisis and it takes time for the system to change. It's changing and the process will continue," he said. On January 12 this year, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court called a press conference and said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. Justice (Retired) Kurian Joseph: So long as the faith & rituals do not violate the mandate of the Constitution of India as provided under Article 25, no Supreme Court or no court for that matter can interfere. (30.11) pic.twitter.com/SgRnjVTRWX — ANI (@ANI) December 1, 2018 × The second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, "... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months". The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph.

Did it consciously, no option was left: Former SC judge Kurian Joseph on January 12 press conference 

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-row-chief-justice-of-india-to-meet-rebel-judges-today-29457">controversial January 12 press conference</a> in which he along with three other judges<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332"> flagged various issues with regard to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332">functioning</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332"> of the top cour</a>t, and noted that things are changing.

Joseph, who was part of the press conference in which the now Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice M B Lokur and former judge J Chelameswar had raised serious questions including over allocation of cases in the top court, said the systems and practices in the apex court would take time to change as they have been there for quite long.

He also asserted that there is no political pressure in exercise of judicial powers by a judge, but added that the manner in which appointments are "selectively delayed" or "withheld" is "in a way interference" in the administration of justice.

Asked whether he regrets being part of the January 12 press conference, he replied, "What a strange question you are asking? I never regretted whatever I did, I did it very consciously for a cause and for a cause for which there was no other way left. That was the stage when we did it".

When asked whether the crisis to which they had referred was now over in the apex court, Joseph said, "You can't say it fully that the crisis is over because it was an institutional crisis, so it takes a long time for the systems and the practices to change. Hopefully, it would change".

Referring to CJI Gogoi, Justice Joseph said, "It's because one who was part of the clamour for change is also now the captain over there so things should change".&nbsp;

He said that the systems and practices have been there in the apex court for quite a long, so it would take time for them to change, "though it is changing".&nbsp;

"The process of change will continue. Even the earlier chief justice made changes after the press conference," he said.&nbsp; 
When Joseph was asked whether the problem of roster is now over in the apex court, he replied, "Probably that is the one mistake. It is not a question of roster.&nbsp;

"It was question of some unhealthy practice and systems which were followed in the Supreme Court but in the matter of business actually. So it was against that although roster was one of the issues but there were other issues along with that," he added.

Elaborating on issues raised in the press conference, Justice Joseph said, "As I told that roster was one of the issue but not the only issue. There were certain systems and practices which we have been asking like instead of individual taking a decision without consulting anybody, let's have some systems and practices to be followed which would be healthy for the institutions".&nbsp;

He said "it does not look nice particularly for institutions like a court to have an individual exclusively or solely taking a decision".&nbsp;

"That's what we have been asking that let's have a consultative process. Some sort of consultative process," he said and added that such kind of process is at least happening now.

He also spoke on why the four judges of the top court chose to address a press conference, raising the problems on a public platform, and why they did not seek a full court meeting to sort out the problem in-house.

"No judge can convene a full court meeting on its own. Only the chief justice can convene a full court meeting. It was for the CJI to convene a full court meeting. There were many such requests made in this regard," he said.

On allegations of government "interference" in judiciary especially in the context of high profile cases like Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri masjid dispute, Justice Joseph said he would not like to answer the questions with regard to issues which are currently pending before the court.

Asked whether at any point of time he felt any government or political pressure, Joseph said, "There is no political pressure in the judicial exercise of a judge. I am very clear about it."

"No political party or a political system or a political authority have ever requested me to decide a particular case in a particular manner. To me, at least it has never happened. I don't know whether it has happened to anyone else but to me it has not happened. I do believe that there is no such interference in as far as judicial powers," he said.

However, he said there is "something connected with the administration of justice. It is not delivery of justice, what is said as Judge hearing the case and deciding the case. No, one has ever tried to influence a judge".&nbsp;

"But in the matter of appointment the manner in which appointment are being delayed and the appointments have been selectively delayed, the appointments have been withheld. All this are in a way interference," he said.&nbsp;

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the controversial January 12 press conference in which he along with three other judges flagged various issues with regard to functioning of the top court, and noted that things are changing.

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the controversial January 12 press conference in which he along with three other judges flagged various issues with regard to functioning of the top court, and noted that things are changing. Joseph, who was part of the press conference in which the now Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice M B Lokur and former judge J Chelameswar had raised serious questions including over allocation of cases in the top court, said the systems and practices in the apex court would take time to change as they have been there for quite long. He also asserted that there is no political pressure in exercise of judicial powers by a judge, but added that the manner in which appointments are "selectively delayed" or "withheld" is "in a way interference" in the administration of justice. Asked whether he regrets being part of the January 12 press conference, he replied, "What a strange question you are asking? I never regretted whatever I did, I did it very consciously for a cause and for a cause for which there was no other way left. That was the stage when we did it". When asked whether the crisis to which they had referred was now over in the apex court, Joseph said, "You can't say it fully that the crisis is over because it was an institutional crisis, so it takes a long time for the systems and the practices to change. Hopefully, it would change". Referring to CJI Gogoi, Justice Joseph said, "It's because one who was part of the clamour for change is also now the captain over there so things should change". He said that the systems and practices have been there in the apex court for quite a long, so it would take time for them to change, "though it is changing". "The process of change will continue. Even the earlier chief justice made changes after the press conference," he said. When Joseph was asked whether the problem of roster is now over in the apex court, he replied, "Probably that is the one mistake. It is not a question of roster. "It was question of some unhealthy practice and systems which were followed in the Supreme Court but in the matter of business actually. So it was against that although roster was one of the issues but there were other issues along with that," he added. Elaborating on issues raised in the press conference, Justice Joseph said, "As I told that roster was one of the issue but not the only issue. There were certain systems and practices which we have been asking like instead of individual taking a decision without consulting anybody, let's have some systems and practices to be followed which would be healthy for the institutions". He said "it does not look nice particularly for institutions like a court to have an individual exclusively or solely taking a decision". "That's what we have been asking that let's have a consultative process. Some sort of consultative process," he said and added that such kind of process is at least happening now. He also spoke on why the four judges of the top court chose to address a press conference, raising the problems on a public platform, and why they did not seek a full court meeting to sort out the problem in-house. "No judge can convene a full court meeting on its own. Only the chief justice can convene a full court meeting. It was for the CJI to convene a full court meeting. There were many such requests made in this regard," he said. On allegations of government "interference" in judiciary especially in the context of high profile cases like Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri masjid dispute, Justice Joseph said he would not like to answer the questions with regard to issues which are currently pending before the court. Asked whether at any point of time he felt any government or political pressure, Joseph said, "There is no political pressure in the judicial exercise of a judge. I am very clear about it." "No political party or a political system or a political authority have ever requested me to decide a particular case in a particular manner. To me, at least it has never happened. I don't know whether it has happened to anyone else but to me it has not happened. I do believe that there is no such interference in as far as judicial powers," he said. However, he said there is "something connected with the administration of justice. It is not delivery of justice, what is said as Judge hearing the case and deciding the case. No, one has ever tried to influence a judge". "But in the matter of appointment the manner in which appointment are being delayed and the appointments have been selectively delayed, the appointments have been withheld. All this are in a way interference," he said.

No regrets about  January 12 press conference: Former SC judge Kurian Joseph

The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-taj-mahal-goes-authorities-will-not-get-a-second-chance-says-supreme-court-162141">government on Thursday</a> that the vision document on the Taj Mahal, being prepared by the Delhi School of Planning and Architecture, should be made public.

"There is nothing secret about it," a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said.&nbsp;

The Delhi School of Planning and Architecture told the court that it is in the process of preparing a vision document for the protection and the preservation of the Taj Mahal in Uttar Pradesh's Agra town and will complete it in a few days.&nbsp;

It said the document would be submitted to the state government.&nbsp;

Additional Solicitor General A N S Nadkarni, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the first draft of the Heritage Plan for Taj Mahal, which is to be submitted to the UNESCO, will be finalised within eight weeks.

In an earlier observation, the Supreme COurt had said there will be no “second chance” to preserve the Taj Mahal. It had asked the authorities to take a larger perspective on issues of pollution and green cover to prepare a vision document on protecting the monument.

The bench had said the authorities would have to look into several issues to protect the Taj Mahal and had sought to know about the green cover, the number of industries operating in the area and the hotels and restaurants there.&nbsp;

Besides looking into issue of protection of Taj Mahal, they were also considering a larger comprehensive plan to deal with all these issues.

The bench, which has been monitoring development in the TTZ area to protect the Taj Mahal had asked the petitioner to give his suggestions to the expert body.

The top court had earlier slammed the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and TTZ authority for their failure to restore the pristine glory of Taj Mahal.

The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday that the vision document on the Taj Mahal, being prepared by the Delhi School of Planning and Architecture, should be made public.

The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday that the vision document on the Taj Mahal, being prepared by the Delhi School of Planning and Architecture, should be made public. "There is nothing secret about it," a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said. The Delhi School of Planning and Architecture told the court that it is in the process of preparing a vision document for the protection and the preservation of the Taj Mahal in Uttar Pradesh's Agra town and will complete it in a few days. It said the document would be submitted to the state government. Additional Solicitor General A N S Nadkarni, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the first draft of the Heritage Plan for Taj Mahal, which is to be submitted to the UNESCO, will be finalised within eight weeks. In an earlier observation, the Supreme COurt had said there will be no “second chance” to preserve the Taj Mahal. It had asked the authorities to take a larger perspective on issues of pollution and green cover to prepare a vision document on protecting the monument. The bench had said the authorities would have to look into several issues to protect the Taj Mahal and had sought to know about the green cover, the number of industries operating in the area and the hotels and restaurants there. Besides looking into issue of protection of Taj Mahal, they were also considering a larger comprehensive plan to deal with all these issues. The bench, which has been monitoring development in the TTZ area to protect the Taj Mahal had asked the petitioner to give his suggestions to the expert body. The top court had earlier slammed the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and TTZ authority for their failure to restore the pristine glory of Taj Mahal.

Nothing secret about vision document on Taj Mahal, Supreme Court tells UP govt

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases. 
Advertising

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said the order that Rao should not take policy decisions was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi but it did not in any way mean that the CBI would not investigate any matter.

A bench headed by the CJI, while hearing a petition by CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, who has challenged the Centre’s decision to divest him of his duties and sending him on leave, had earlier said that the acting CBI Director would not take major policy decisions.

This issue cropped up before the apex court on Wednesday when it was hearing the case of alleged sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in Bihar.

The court had on Tuesday asked the CBI counsel to take instructions as to whether the agency was ready to take over the probe into cases of abuse in 16 shelter homes in Bihar.

On Wednesday, the council told the bench, “The interim director has told me that court number one (of the apex court) has asked him not to take any policy decision. Tomorrow, the CBI case is coming up in court number one.”

To this, the bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, said: “It (order) does say that he (Rao) will not take any policy decision but that does not mean that all investigation will stop.

“Tomorrow’s matter (before the CJI-led bench) has nothing to do with this, absolutely nothing. You find out if the CBI is ready to take up the investigation. Tell us after five minutes.”

Later, the CBI’s counsel said he has taken instructions from the acting director and “in-principle” the CBI was ready to take up all these cases for investigation.

The apex court directed the CBI to conduct a probe into the allegations of physical and sexual abuse of inmates in 16 shelter homes in Bihar which were flagged in a report of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

The report had highlighted rampant sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in the state.

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases.

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases. Advertising A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said the order that Rao should not take policy decisions was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi but it did not in any way mean that the CBI would not investigate any matter. A bench headed by the CJI, while hearing a petition by CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, who has challenged the Centre’s decision to divest him of his duties and sending him on leave, had earlier said that the acting CBI Director would not take major policy decisions. This issue cropped up before the apex court on Wednesday when it was hearing the case of alleged sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in Bihar. The court had on Tuesday asked the CBI counsel to take instructions as to whether the agency was ready to take over the probe into cases of abuse in 16 shelter homes in Bihar. On Wednesday, the council told the bench, “The interim director has told me that court number one (of the apex court) has asked him not to take any policy decision. Tomorrow, the CBI case is coming up in court number one.” To this, the bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, said: “It (order) does say that he (Rao) will not take any policy decision but that does not mean that all investigation will stop. “Tomorrow’s matter (before the CJI-led bench) has nothing to do with this, absolutely nothing. You find out if the CBI is ready to take up the investigation. Tell us after five minutes.” Later, the CBI’s counsel said he has taken instructions from the acting director and “in-principle” the CBI was ready to take up all these cases for investigation. The apex court directed the CBI to conduct a probe into the allegations of physical and sexual abuse of inmates in 16 shelter homes in Bihar which were flagged in a report of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The report had highlighted rampant sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in the state.

CJI’s order on interim CBI chief does not stop agency from probing cases: Supreme Court

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control.

Talking to reporters, Yadav said: "The BJP does not believe in either the Supreme Court or the Constitution. The BJP can go to any extent. The kind of environment there is in Uttar Pradesh, especially in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court should take notice of it and bring Army, if necessary."

The statement comes ahead of a mass gathering by organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and some Hindu activists and saints in Ayodhya over the weekend to build up pressure on the central government for a Ram temple at the site of the razed Babri mosque.

The mega show will coincide with a two-day visit of Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray to Ayodhya.

His statement comes following the increased demand for an early court decision on the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

Certain sections are also pushing for an ordinance to hasten the construction process.

Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut implied that it would not take long to bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya when it took only 17 minutes for the Ram bhakts (devotees) to demolish Babri Masjid.

Even BJP MLA Surendra Singh reportedly stirred up a controversy when he warned that 1992 could be repeated in Ayodhya, if required, during a "Dharam Sabha" to be held November 25.

A big push for the temple construction came on Tuesday when a litigant Mohammad Iqbal Ansari, in the Babri Masjid case, said that he does not have any objection to an ordinance for Ram temple construction.

On October 29, the Supreme Court adjourned the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit till January 2019 to fix the next hearing date in the matter, challenging the Allahabad High Court ruling of 2010.

The Allahabad High Court in its 2010 verdict had suggested a division of the disputed land in Ayodhya - one for each of the parties the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla.

It is believed that the Babri Masjid which was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528 was allegedly demolished by Hindu activists on December 6, 1992, who claimed that the mosque was built after destructing the Ram Temple to the ground.&nbsp;

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control.

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control. Talking to reporters, Yadav said: "The BJP does not believe in either the Supreme Court or the Constitution. The BJP can go to any extent. The kind of environment there is in Uttar Pradesh, especially in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court should take notice of it and bring Army, if necessary." The statement comes ahead of a mass gathering by organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and some Hindu activists and saints in Ayodhya over the weekend to build up pressure on the central government for a Ram temple at the site of the razed Babri mosque. The mega show will coincide with a two-day visit of Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray to Ayodhya. His statement comes following the increased demand for an early court decision on the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. Certain sections are also pushing for an ordinance to hasten the construction process. Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut implied that it would not take long to bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya when it took only 17 minutes for the Ram bhakts (devotees) to demolish Babri Masjid. Even BJP MLA Surendra Singh reportedly stirred up a controversy when he warned that 1992 could be repeated in Ayodhya, if required, during a "Dharam Sabha" to be held November 25. A big push for the temple construction came on Tuesday when a litigant Mohammad Iqbal Ansari, in the Babri Masjid case, said that he does not have any objection to an ordinance for Ram temple construction. On October 29, the Supreme Court adjourned the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit till January 2019 to fix the next hearing date in the matter, challenging the Allahabad High Court ruling of 2010. The Allahabad High Court in its 2010 verdict had suggested a division of the disputed land in Ayodhya - one for each of the parties the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla. It is believed that the Babri Masjid which was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528 was allegedly demolished by Hindu activists on December 6, 1992, who claimed that the mosque was built after destructing the Ram Temple to the ground.

Supreme Court should send Army to Ayodhya if necessary: Akhilesh Yadav

The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed contempt proceedings against Delhi BJP chief and MP Manoj Tiwari for breaking the civic agency’s seal on premises here in September even as it deprecated his action of taking law into his own hands.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur slammed Tiwari, saying the court was “extremely pained” due to his conduct as he is an elected representative and should have behaved responsibly.&nbsp;

The bench said Tiwari levelled frivolous allegations against the court-mandated committee, which shows how “low he can stoop”.&nbsp;

The apex court also said that “misplaced political propaganda has no place” and “such practices should be deprecated”.

The apex court had on September 19 issued contempt notice against Tiwari, an MP from the north-east Delhi constituency, after taking note of a report filed by the monitoring committee which had alleged that the BJP leader had broken the seal of the premises.&nbsp;

An FIR was also lodged against Tiwari by the EDMC for allegedly breaking the seal of the premises in Gokalpuri area in north-east Delhi on September 16.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed contempt proceedings against Delhi BJP chief and MP Manoj Tiwari for breaking the civic agency’s seal on premises here in September even as it deprecated his action of taking law into his own hands.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday closed contempt proceedings against Delhi BJP chief and MP Manoj Tiwari for breaking the civic agency’s seal on premises here in September even as it deprecated his action of taking law into his own hands. A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur slammed Tiwari, saying the court was “extremely pained” due to his conduct as he is an elected representative and should have behaved responsibly. The bench said Tiwari levelled frivolous allegations against the court-mandated committee, which shows how “low he can stoop”. The apex court also said that “misplaced political propaganda has no place” and “such practices should be deprecated”. The apex court had on September 19 issued contempt notice against Tiwari, an MP from the north-east Delhi constituency, after taking note of a report filed by the monitoring committee which had alleged that the BJP leader had broken the seal of the premises. An FIR was also lodged against Tiwari by the EDMC for allegedly breaking the seal of the premises in Gokalpuri area in north-east Delhi on September 16.

Delhi sealing: Supreme Court closes contempt proceedings against BJP chief Manoj Tiwari

"Is there a parallel system running in jails?," the Supreme Court asked Thursday while referring to media reports that LED TV, sofa and other prohibited items were found in a Tihar jail cell where Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay have been lodged.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur asked the Centre as to what action has been taken in the matter.&nbsp;

It said a report by Additional Sessions Judge, who carried out an inspection in the jail on September 4 following complaints from inmates that the Chandra brothers and others were enjoying "luxurious lifestyle", was already available.

"Report of a judge says that Unitech officials are enjoying facilities in Tihar. Is there a parallel system running in jails? Do they have special rights in jails? What have you done about it?," the bench, also comprising justice Deepak Gupta, asked the Centre's counsel.

"These persons are enjoying TV. God knows what all they are enjoying. They are sitting on sofas," the bench observed.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Centre, said that action must be taken in such cases and such instances have to be "tackled seriously".

When the ASG said the top court was dealing with the issue related to a speedy trial for undertrial prisoners, the bench observed, "We are dealing with something which is shocking".

"What is your government planning to do?," the bench asked Lekhi, who said he would get back to the court on this issue.

The court also flagged the issue raised in recent media reports about the use of mobile phones inside jails in several states, including Bihar.

The issue cropped up in the court when it was hearing a matter related to deficiencies in jails as highlighted by two apex court judges (one of them has retired) during their visit to Faridabad jail and an observation home in June this year.

Chandra brothers are presently lodged in Tihar jail for allegedly cheating home buyers.

The Additional Sessions Judge, who had carried out the inspection in Tihar jail, had said in his report submitted to the Delhi High Court that the circumstances indicated "corruption" and "grave misuse of power" on the part of Director General (DG) Prisons and Tihar Jail officials.

The judge has recommended that an FIR be lodged against DG Prisons and officials of Tihar Jail as such activities also pose an "extra burden on the public exchequer".

He had said in his report that apart from household amenities, including mattresses, mustard oil, foot-mats and stools, in their cell, the Chandra brothers also enjoyed a separate "office" room having a computer with internet, a printer as well as eatables and mineral water.

The high court has taken suo motu cognisance of the report and the letter written by the inmates and turned it into a public interest litigation.

A division bench of the high court has also issued notices to the Delhi government, Director General (DG) Prisons and senior officials of Tihar Jail seeking their response in the matter by February 1 next year.

The inmates in their letter to the court had claimed that while those arrested for financial crimes, like the Chandra brothers, were "enjoying an extra luxurious life in Tihar Jail" with a "separate VIP ward" for them, other prisoners were allegedly not getting sufficient food, drinking water, fruits and other necessities, including medical treatment.&nbsp;

"Is there a parallel system running in jails?," the Supreme Court asked Thursday while referring to media reports that LED TV, sofa and other prohibited items were found in a Tihar jail cell where Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay have been lodged.

"Is there a parallel system running in jails?," the Supreme Court asked Thursday while referring to media reports that LED TV, sofa and other prohibited items were found in a Tihar jail cell where Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay have been lodged. A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur asked the Centre as to what action has been taken in the matter. It said a report by Additional Sessions Judge, who carried out an inspection in the jail on September 4 following complaints from inmates that the Chandra brothers and others were enjoying "luxurious lifestyle", was already available. "Report of a judge says that Unitech officials are enjoying facilities in Tihar. Is there a parallel system running in jails? Do they have special rights in jails? What have you done about it?," the bench, also comprising justice Deepak Gupta, asked the Centre's counsel. "These persons are enjoying TV. God knows what all they are enjoying. They are sitting on sofas," the bench observed. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Centre, said that action must be taken in such cases and such instances have to be "tackled seriously". When the ASG said the top court was dealing with the issue related to a speedy trial for undertrial prisoners, the bench observed, "We are dealing with something which is shocking". "What is your government planning to do?," the bench asked Lekhi, who said he would get back to the court on this issue. The court also flagged the issue raised in recent media reports about the use of mobile phones inside jails in several states, including Bihar. The issue cropped up in the court when it was hearing a matter related to deficiencies in jails as highlighted by two apex court judges (one of them has retired) during their visit to Faridabad jail and an observation home in June this year. Chandra brothers are presently lodged in Tihar jail for allegedly cheating home buyers. The Additional Sessions Judge, who had carried out the inspection in Tihar jail, had said in his report submitted to the Delhi High Court that the circumstances indicated "corruption" and "grave misuse of power" on the part of Director General (DG) Prisons and Tihar Jail officials. The judge has recommended that an FIR be lodged against DG Prisons and officials of Tihar Jail as such activities also pose an "extra burden on the public exchequer". He had said in his report that apart from household amenities, including mattresses, mustard oil, foot-mats and stools, in their cell, the Chandra brothers also enjoyed a separate "office" room having a computer with internet, a printer as well as eatables and mineral water. The high court has taken suo motu cognisance of the report and the letter written by the inmates and turned it into a public interest litigation. A division bench of the high court has also issued notices to the Delhi government, Director General (DG) Prisons and senior officials of Tihar Jail seeking their response in the matter by February 1 next year. The inmates in their letter to the court had claimed that while those arrested for financial crimes, like the Chandra brothers, were "enjoying an extra luxurious life in Tihar Jail" with a "separate VIP ward" for them, other prisoners were allegedly not getting sufficient food, drinking water, fruits and other necessities, including medical treatment.

'Is parallel system running in jails?' SC frowns over special treatment to Unitech MD, his brother  

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is “politically motivated”.

The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency’s Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma.

BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is “sub judice”, but took objection to “somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself”.

When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, “The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment.”

Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI’s number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought an urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur.

“The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine,” he said.

“But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself… Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action,” Rao said.

“I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence. But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It’s a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes,” he said.

A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI’s top brass they did not “deserve” a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief’s reply to the CVC’s probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials.

K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is “politically motivated”.

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is “politically motivated”. The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency’s Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma. BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is “sub judice”, but took objection to “somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself”. When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, “The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment.” Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI’s number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought an urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur. “The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine,” he said. “But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself… Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action,” Rao said. “I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence. But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It’s a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes,” he said. A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI’s top brass they did not “deserve” a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief’s reply to the CVC’s probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials. K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.

BJP says Supreme Court to decide if charges against Union minister Haribhai politically motivated

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated".

The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma.

BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is "sub judice", but took objection to "somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself".

When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, "The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment."

Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI's number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur.

"The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine," he said.

"But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself... Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action," Rao said.

"I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence.

But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It's a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes," he said.

A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI's top brass they did not "deserve" a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief's reply to the CVC's probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials.

K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.&nbsp;

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated".

The BJP said on Tuesday the Supreme Court is the right authority to examine whether the sensational charges brought by CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha against a Union minister and top officials has any substantive basis or is "politically motivated". The feud within the CBI turned murkier on Monday with Sinha dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC K V Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against the agency's Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the government along with Director Alok Kumar Verma. BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the matter is "sub judice", but took objection to "somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself". When asked by reporters about the issue, he said, "The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court is hearing the matter on a regular basis. The court apparently itself said there is no urgency to hear this particular complaint. Therefore, it is not proper for me to make a political comment." Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI's number two, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur. "The court itself did not see any merit or emergency in the allegations being made. Therefore, I think the right authority to examine this complaint is the court itself. Whether this statement is politically motivated or has any substantive basis is something that the court will examine," he said. "But, prima facie, I have a strong objection to somebody serving in an organisation twisting the name of that organisation itself... Honestly, in my opinion, that deserves disciplinary action," Rao said. "I think no individual serving in an organisation should have the audacity to really target the organisation. You can always make allegations about individuals, make statements, offer evidence. But, trying to lower the stature of the organisation itself, to my mind, is simply not done. It's a breach of discipline as far as my understanding goes," he said. A furious Supreme Court on Tuesday told all the parties in a case involving the CBI's top brass they did not "deserve" a hearing in the light of the purported leak of the agency chief's reply to the CVC's probe findings against him and making public the allegations by its senior officer Manish Kumar Sinha against top officials. K V Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. The union minister termed the allegations as baseless and malicious.

SC will examine if allegations politically motivated: BJP on CBI row

The hearing on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-bribery-case-supreme-court-adjourned-hearing-till-november-29-expresses-displeasure-over-info-leak-178339">CBI Director Alok Verma's case</a> took an unexpected turn on Tuesday after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi expressed anguish over <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/this-mess-is-an-opportunity-for-supreme-court-to-give-cbi-some-muscle-174676">media reports</a> publishing Verma’s response to CVC inquiry report.&nbsp;

Yesterday Alok Verma had filed his response to CVC’s report.&nbsp;

Alok Verma’s petition was the first listed case in CJI’s court.&nbsp;

However, five minutes into the hearing CJI Ranjan Gogoi was fused not only about media reports publishing Verma’s response but with lawyer Gopal Shankarnarayan who had sought more time for Verma to file his response on Monday.&nbsp;

CJI Ranjan Gogoi slammed senior lawyer Fali Nariman (representing Alok Verma) after court-ordered sealed cover documents were published by a news portal.&nbsp;

In fact, CJI handed over the copy of the website's article containing details of Verma’s response to the CVC report expressing immense displeasure about such a leak. &nbsp;

However, Supreme Court said, “For the reasons, this court is inclined not to record, the case is adjourned till 29 November”.&nbsp;

While adjourning the matter, the angry CJI said, “Our efforts to respect the institution is not being shared by anyone for some strange reason. This court is not a platform for people to come and express what they want here is a place for adjudication of legal rights.”

The hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's case took an unexpected turn on Tuesday after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi expressed anguish over media reports publishing Verma’s response to CVC inquiry report.

The hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's case took an unexpected turn on Tuesday after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi expressed anguish over media reports publishing Verma’s response to CVC inquiry report. Yesterday Alok Verma had filed his response to CVC’s report. Alok Verma’s petition was the first listed case in CJI’s court. However, five minutes into the hearing CJI Ranjan Gogoi was fused not only about media reports publishing Verma’s response but with lawyer Gopal Shankarnarayan who had sought more time for Verma to file his response on Monday. CJI Ranjan Gogoi slammed senior lawyer Fali Nariman (representing Alok Verma) after court-ordered sealed cover documents were published by a news portal. In fact, CJI handed over the copy of the website's article containing details of Verma’s response to the CVC report expressing immense displeasure about such a leak. However, Supreme Court said, “For the reasons, this court is inclined not to record, the case is adjourned till 29 November”. While adjourning the matter, the angry CJI said, “Our efforts to respect the institution is not being shared by anyone for some strange reason. This court is not a platform for people to come and express what they want here is a place for adjudication of legal rights.”

Alok Verma case: Leak of CBI Director’s confidential reply irks Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/cbi-vs-cbi-cleaning-the-rot-within-176144">CBI Director </a>Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave.&nbsp;

"We are not hearing today. We don't think any of you deserve any hearing. <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/this-mess-is-an-opportunity-for-supreme-court-to-give-cbi-some-muscle-174676">Matter adjourned </a>to November 29, " visibly agitated CJI said.&nbsp;

CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressed displeasure over leakage of confidential information.&nbsp;

The Apex Court was miffed over the leak of CBI Director Alok Verma's confidential response filed Monday with its secretary general.

Senior advocate and Alok Verma's counsel F S Nariman expresses shock over the leak of CBI director's response.

CJI also conveyed unhappiness over mentioning made by Gopal Sankaranarayanan seeking additional time for the reply. Nariman replies that the mentioning was unauthorized and he got information from it only from media. 
&nbsp; 
On Monday, CBI director Alok Kumar Verma filed in the Supreme Court his response on findings of the CVC's preliminary probe report on corruption charges against him in a sealed cover. The apex court had earlier in the day asked Verma to file his response "as quickly as possible" during the day" and made it clear that it will not adjourn the scheduled hearing on Tuesday after his lawyer sought more time.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave. "We are not hearing today.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave. "We are not hearing today. We don't think any of you deserve any hearing. Matter adjourned to November 29, " visibly agitated CJI said. CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressed displeasure over leakage of confidential information. The Apex Court was miffed over the leak of CBI Director Alok Verma's confidential response filed Monday with its secretary general. Senior advocate and Alok Verma's counsel F S Nariman expresses shock over the leak of CBI director's response. CJI also conveyed unhappiness over mentioning made by Gopal Sankaranarayanan seeking additional time for the reply. Nariman replies that the mentioning was unauthorized and he got information from it only from media. On Monday, CBI director Alok Kumar Verma filed in the Supreme Court his response on findings of the CVC's preliminary probe report on corruption charges against him in a sealed cover. The apex court had earlier in the day asked Verma to file his response "as quickly as possible" during the day" and made it clear that it will not adjourn the scheduled hearing on Tuesday after his lawyer sought more time.

Alok Verma case: Supreme Court adjourns hearing till November 29

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea claiming that a key witness in the sensational Kathua gang rape-and-murder case was allegedly tortured in custody by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in connection with a separate rape case.

A bench comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and Deepak Gupta rejected the petition filed by a close relative of Talib Hussain, a key witness in the Kathua case, on the ground that the petitioner failed to appear before it despite the court's order.

In January, an eight-year-old girl from a minority nomadic community was allegedly abducted and gang raped in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua district.&nbsp;

Petitioner M A Khan had approached the top court alleging that his relative Hussain was tortured in custody by the state police after being arrested in connection with a separate rape case.

Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing the Jammu and Kashmir Police, had last month denied in the top court the allegations levelled in the petition and had said since Hussain has been granted bail, the plea has become infructuous.

On October 22, the court had asked Khan to appear before it on November 13 to respond to the application filed by his advocate seeking his discharge from the case.

"Despite our order dated October 22, the writ petitioner (Khan) has chosen not to appear before this court to respond to the application for discharge filed by Sunil Fernandes, advocate on record for the petitioner.&nbsp;

"In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution," the bench said in its November 13 order.

In his plea, Khan had alleged that Hussain was kept in illegal detention by police and was subjected to custodial torture.

The apex court had earlier transferred the trial in the Kathua gang rape and murder case from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab.

The state police's crime branch had filed the main charge sheet against seven persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district in the gang rape and murder case.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea claiming that a key witness in the sensational Kathua gang rape-and-murder case was allegedly tortured in custody by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in connection with a separate rape case.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea claiming that a key witness in the sensational Kathua gang rape-and-murder case was allegedly tortured in custody by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in connection with a separate rape case. A bench comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and Deepak Gupta rejected the petition filed by a close relative of Talib Hussain, a key witness in the Kathua case, on the ground that the petitioner failed to appear before it despite the court's order. In January, an eight-year-old girl from a minority nomadic community was allegedly abducted and gang raped in Jammu and Kashmir's Kathua district. Petitioner M A Khan had approached the top court alleging that his relative Hussain was tortured in custody by the state police after being arrested in connection with a separate rape case. Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing the Jammu and Kashmir Police, had last month denied in the top court the allegations levelled in the petition and had said since Hussain has been granted bail, the plea has become infructuous. On October 22, the court had asked Khan to appear before it on November 13 to respond to the application filed by his advocate seeking his discharge from the case. "Despite our order dated October 22, the writ petitioner (Khan) has chosen not to appear before this court to respond to the application for discharge filed by Sunil Fernandes, advocate on record for the petitioner. "In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution," the bench said in its November 13 order. In his plea, Khan had alleged that Hussain was kept in illegal detention by police and was subjected to custodial torture. The apex court had earlier transferred the trial in the Kathua gang rape and murder case from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab. The state police's crime branch had filed the main charge sheet against seven persons and a separate charge sheet against a juvenile in a court in Kathua district in the gang rape and murder case.

Supreme Court dismisses plea alleging custodial torture of key Kathua rape-murder case witness

The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala shrine, would move the Supreme Court on Monday seeking more time to implement its order allowing women of menstrual age to offer prayers at the Lord Ayyappa temple.

The TDB's move comes a day after the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, at an all-party meeting, took a firm stand that it was bound to implement the top court order and rejected suggestions by opposition parties that it seek time from the court.

"We will move the Supreme court on Monday through Advocate Chandra Uday Singh" TDB President A Padmakumar, told PTI.

The board had Friday said it would move the apex court either Saturday or Monday seeking more time to implement the September 28 verdict of the top court allowing women of all age groups to offer prayers at the Sabarimala shrine as it wanted the devotees to have peaceful 'darshan'.

The temple and surrounding areas have come under unprecedented security for the season which draws lakhs of devotees to offer prayers to Lord Ayyappa. 
The Supreme Court is slated to hear petitions seeking review of its September 28 order in January, but has refused to stay it.&nbsp;

The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala shrine, would move the Supreme Court on Monday seeking more time to implement its order allowing women of menstrual age to offer prayers at the Lord Ayyappa temple.

The Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages the Sabarimala shrine, would move the Supreme Court on Monday seeking more time to implement its order allowing women of menstrual age to offer prayers at the Lord Ayyappa temple. The TDB's move comes a day after the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, at an all-party meeting, took a firm stand that it was bound to implement the top court order and rejected suggestions by opposition parties that it seek time from the court. "We will move the Supreme court on Monday through Advocate Chandra Uday Singh" TDB President A Padmakumar, told PTI. The board had Friday said it would move the apex court either Saturday or Monday seeking more time to implement the September 28 verdict of the top court allowing women of all age groups to offer prayers at the Sabarimala shrine as it wanted the devotees to have peaceful 'darshan'. The temple and surrounding areas have come under unprecedented security for the season which draws lakhs of devotees to offer prayers to Lord Ayyappa. The Supreme Court is slated to hear petitions seeking review of its September 28 order in January, but has refused to stay it.

Sabarimala row: Travancore Devaswom Board to move Supreme Court on Monday

Supreme Court today commenced <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-chief-verma-meets-central-vigilance-commissioner-denies-corruption-charges-against-him-176281">hearing on Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) director Alok Verma's </a>plea challenging the government's order relieving him of his duties.&nbsp;

The court refused to give the inquiry report to CBI special director Rakesh Asthana who had requested the document be given to him.

The Supreme Court said the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC) report is "very uncomplimentary" on some charges against Alok Verma and on some of it says further probe is needed.

The top court proposed to provide Alok Verma with preliminary CVC probe report in a sealed cover. He was asked to file his reply in a sealed cover by the court.&nbsp;

India's highest court said the CVC report on Alok Verma will also&nbsp;be given to Attorney General&nbsp;K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.&nbsp;

The Supreme court declared that the confidentiality of CVC report needed to be protected to restore public confidence in the CBI and sanctity of the investigating agency.

Supreme Court has fixed the matter for further hearing on November 20th.

Supreme Court today commenced hearing on Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) director Alok Verma's plea challenging the government's order relieving him of his duties.

Supreme Court today commenced hearing on Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) director Alok Verma's plea challenging the government's order relieving him of his duties. The court refused to give the inquiry report to CBI special director Rakesh Asthana who had requested the document be given to him. The Supreme Court said the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC) report is "very uncomplimentary" on some charges against Alok Verma and on some of it says further probe is needed. The top court proposed to provide Alok Verma with preliminary CVC probe report in a sealed cover. He was asked to file his reply in a sealed cover by the court. India's highest court said the CVC report on Alok Verma will also be given to Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Supreme court declared that the confidentiality of CVC report needed to be protected to restore public confidence in the CBI and sanctity of the investigating agency. Supreme Court has fixed the matter for further hearing on November 20th.

CBI crisis: Supreme Court to give preliminary CVC report to Alok Verma in sealed cover

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Thursday said that he has respect for the feelings of the devotees but is bound to implement Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala &nbsp;Temple issue.

''Supreme Court clearly says that the September 28 verdict stands. It means that the entry of women should be allowed. Government t cannot take any stand against this verdict,'' the Kerala CM said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give an urgent hearing to a petition seeking a stay on the top court`s order allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court clearly says that the September 28 verdict stands. It means that the entry of women should be allowed. Govt cannot take any stand against this verdict. We respect the feelings of the devotees. We are bound to implement court verdict: Kerala CM on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SabarimalaTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SabarimalaTemple</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ud5pfGcviL">pic.twitter.com/Ud5pfGcviL</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1062985460484595712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 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>

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi refused to take up the plea on an urgent basis and stated that the matter would be heard on January 22.&nbsp;

The apex court on Tuesday had agreed to hear review petitions against its September 28 verdict that lifted the age-old ban on entry of women in menstruating ages into the holy shrine of Lord Ayappa.&nbsp;

The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra is scheduled to hear 49 petitions on January 22.

The apex court`s order allowing all women entry into the shrine witnessed a string of protests last month.

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Thursday said that he has respect for the feelings of the devotees but is bound to implement Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala Temple issue.

Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Thursday said that he has respect for the feelings of the devotees but is bound to implement Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala Temple issue. ''Supreme Court clearly says that the September 28 verdict stands. It means that the entry of women should be allowed. Government t cannot take any stand against this verdict,'' the Kerala CM said. The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to give an urgent hearing to a petition seeking a stay on the top court`s order allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. Supreme Court clearly says that the September 28 verdict stands. It means that the entry of women should be allowed. Govt cannot take any stand against this verdict. We respect the feelings of the devotees. We are bound to implement court verdict: Kerala CM on #SabarimalaTemple pic.twitter.com/Ud5pfGcviL — ANI (@ANI) November 15, 2018 × Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi refused to take up the plea on an urgent basis and stated that the matter would be heard on January 22. The apex court on Tuesday had agreed to hear review petitions against its September 28 verdict that lifted the age-old ban on entry of women in menstruating ages into the holy shrine of Lord Ayappa. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra is scheduled to hear 49 petitions on January 22. The apex court`s order allowing all women entry into the shrine witnessed a string of protests last month.

'We are bound to implement Supreme Court verdict': Kerala CM on Sabarimala 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday began examining the documents submitted by the Centre on the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph is holding the crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions.

The initial arguments are being commenced by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who told the court that the Inter Government Agreement was "illegal" and sought an investigation in the matter.

The bench is likely to peruse the pricing details submitted by the government in a sealed cover.

On Monday, the Centre handed over a 14-page document to the Supreme Court came after discussions between Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Attorney General KK Venugopal, reports said.

The court had earlier directed the central government to apprise it of the steps taken in the decision-making process related to the Rafale Deal.

The petitioners are likely to respond to the contents of the documents in which it has been stated by the government that the deal for 36 Rafale jets were negotiated on "better terms" and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 were "completely followed".

(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday began examining the documents submitted by the Centre on the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph is holding the crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday began examining the documents submitted by the Centre on the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph is holding the crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions. The initial arguments are being commenced by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who told the court that the Inter Government Agreement was "illegal" and sought an investigation in the matter. The bench is likely to peruse the pricing details submitted by the government in a sealed cover. On Monday, the Centre handed over a 14-page document to the Supreme Court came after discussions between Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Attorney General KK Venugopal, reports said. The court had earlier directed the central government to apprise it of the steps taken in the decision-making process related to the Rafale Deal. The petitioners are likely to respond to the contents of the documents in which it has been stated by the government that the deal for 36 Rafale jets were negotiated on "better terms" and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 were "completely followed". (With inputs from PTI)

Rafale deal: Supreme Court begins hearing, petitioners to respond to Centre’s documents

The Supreme Court said pricing details of Rafale jets could only be discussed after it decides on whether to make it public, and reserved its order on Wednesday on pleas seeking court-monitored probe in the multi-billion deal amidst the government's vehement opposition to the public disclosure.

The observation by apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, came after the government refused to publicly divulge pricing details of the deal, saying it would give advantage to India's enemies.

Hearing a bunch of pleas alleging criminality in Rafale deal and seeking court-monitored probe into it, the apex court asked wide-ranging questions from the government on issues including lack of sovereign guarantee from the French government, selection of Indian offset partner by the Dassault Aviation and need of entering into Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with France.

The three-judge bench took note of submissions and counter arguments on pricing of the fighter jets with the petitioners alleging that the government has been giving "bogus arguments" and "hiding behind the secrecy clause".

"The decision we need to take is whether to bring the fact on pricing in public domain or not," said the bench, which also comprised justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph.

Vehemently defending non-disclosure of price publicly, Attorney General K K Venugopal said the cost of a bare Rafale jet as per 2016 exchange rate was Rs 670 crore and the disclosure of price of a "fully loaded" aircraft would give an "advantage to the adversaries".

"If cost of a fully loaded aircraft with weaponry and avionics will be disclosed, our adversaries would be able to know what is the nature of avionics and weapons fitted in it," he said, adding, that India cannot renegade on agreement with France to disclose confidential information about specifics on avionics and weaponry.&nbsp;

Countering petitioners' argument that Parliament has been given pricing twice, Venugopal said, "We have been saying that even Parliament has not been told about the complete cost of the jets."

Petitioner lawyer Prashant Bhushan claimed the Union Law Ministry had red-flagged two issues -- absence of sovereign guarantee by France and international arbitration clause in IGA as per which the arbitration seat would be at Geneva -- but the government went ahead with the deal.

Venugopal admitted that there was no sovereign guarantee, but said that France has given a 'letter of comfort' which would be good enough as a governmental guarantee.&nbsp; 
He also said issues like types of aircraft and weapons needed to be bought cannot be adjudicated by a court as these were the matters to be decided by experts.

During the four-hour long hearing, the bench told Venugopal the court would want to interact with the Indian Air Force (IAF) officers instead of the Defence Ministry officials to know about the requirement of the IAF.

"We are dealing with the requirements of the Air Force and would like to ask an Air Force officer about their requirements. We want to hear from an Air force officer and not the official of the Defence Ministry on the issue," the bench said after the AG informed it that Additional Secretary of Defence Ministry was present in the court.

Later, senior IAF official Air Vice Marshall J Chalapati, alongwith other top officers including Air Marshal Anil Khosla and Deputy Chief of Air staff, Air Marshal V R Chaudhari appeared in the court and the CJI interacted with Chalapati over the requirements of the IAF.

During the hearing, Justice Joseph referred to the 2007 Request for Proposal (RFP) for procurement of 126 Rafale jets and observed, "The RFP was scrapped in June 2015. Then how can you (government) claim that the due process laid down earlier was followed?".

The CJI also asked Venugopal, "Is the fresh RFP required in an inter-governmental agreement for the 36 jets?". To this, he said an IGA does not require fresh RFP. 
The court then asked whether the new 36 jets were same as the bare planes which were sought to be procured in 2007. "Yes", said Venugopal and added that "deliverables" are much better this time due to the time gap and improvement in technology.&nbsp;

He also said that even in 2007, pricing of weaponry and avionics were not made public as claimed by the petitioners.

On the issue of offset partner, the bench asked the additional defence secretary, "What happens to the country's interests if the Indian offset partner chosen is not good enough and not able to make good the contract? What was the need to amend offset guidelines with retrospective effect?".

Responding to the query, the official said if selection of offset partner is not valid, then Dassault would run the risk of the government not accepting its decision on the offset partner and a penalty can also be imposed.

Bhushan, appearing on behalf of himself and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, alleged that the government was hiding behind the secrecy clause. Advocates M L Sharma, Vineet Dhanda and Dheeraj Singh, counsel for AAP MP Sanjay Singh, who have also filed petitions in the case, also advanced their arguments.&nbsp; 
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 Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore.

The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court said pricing details of Rafale jets could only be discussed after it decides on whether to make it public, and reserved its order on Wednesday on pleas seeking court-monitored probe in the multi-billion deal amidst the government's vehement opposition to the public disclosure.

The Supreme Court said pricing details of Rafale jets could only be discussed after it decides on whether to make it public, and reserved its order on Wednesday on pleas seeking court-monitored probe in the multi-billion deal amidst the government's vehement opposition to the public disclosure. The observation by apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, came after the government refused to publicly divulge pricing details of the deal, saying it would give advantage to India's enemies. Hearing a bunch of pleas alleging criminality in Rafale deal and seeking court-monitored probe into it, the apex court asked wide-ranging questions from the government on issues including lack of sovereign guarantee from the French government, selection of Indian offset partner by the Dassault Aviation and need of entering into Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with France. The three-judge bench took note of submissions and counter arguments on pricing of the fighter jets with the petitioners alleging that the government has been giving "bogus arguments" and "hiding behind the secrecy clause". "The decision we need to take is whether to bring the fact on pricing in public domain or not," said the bench, which also comprised justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph. Vehemently defending non-disclosure of price publicly, Attorney General K K Venugopal said the cost of a bare Rafale jet as per 2016 exchange rate was Rs 670 crore and the disclosure of price of a "fully loaded" aircraft would give an "advantage to the adversaries". "If cost of a fully loaded aircraft with weaponry and avionics will be disclosed, our adversaries would be able to know what is the nature of avionics and weapons fitted in it," he said, adding, that India cannot renegade on agreement with France to disclose confidential information about specifics on avionics and weaponry. Countering petitioners' argument that Parliament has been given pricing twice, Venugopal said, "We have been saying that even Parliament has not been told about the complete cost of the jets." Petitioner lawyer Prashant Bhushan claimed the Union Law Ministry had red-flagged two issues -- absence of sovereign guarantee by France and international arbitration clause in IGA as per which the arbitration seat would be at Geneva -- but the government went ahead with the deal. Venugopal admitted that there was no sovereign guarantee, but said that France has given a 'letter of comfort' which would be good enough as a governmental guarantee. He also said issues like types of aircraft and weapons needed to be bought cannot be adjudicated by a court as these were the matters to be decided by experts. During the four-hour long hearing, the bench told Venugopal the court would want to interact with the Indian Air Force (IAF) officers instead of the Defence Ministry officials to know about the requirement of the IAF. "We are dealing with the requirements of the Air Force and would like to ask an Air Force officer about their requirements. We want to hear from an Air force officer and not the official of the Defence Ministry on the issue," the bench said after the AG informed it that Additional Secretary of Defence Ministry was present in the court. Later, senior IAF official Air Vice Marshall J Chalapati, alongwith other top officers including Air Marshal Anil Khosla and Deputy Chief of Air staff, Air Marshal V R Chaudhari appeared in the court and the CJI interacted with Chalapati over the requirements of the IAF. During the hearing, Justice Joseph referred to the 2007 Request for Proposal (RFP) for procurement of 126 Rafale jets and observed, "The RFP was scrapped in June 2015. Then how can you (government) claim that the due process laid down earlier was followed?". The CJI also asked Venugopal, "Is the fresh RFP required in an inter-governmental agreement for the 36 jets?". To this, he said an IGA does not require fresh RFP. The court then asked whether the new 36 jets were same as the bare planes which were sought to be procured in 2007. "Yes", said Venugopal and added that "deliverables" are much better this time due to the time gap and improvement in technology. He also said that even in 2007, pricing of weaponry and avionics were not made public as claimed by the petitioners. On the issue of offset partner, the bench asked the additional defence secretary, "What happens to the country's interests if the Indian offset partner chosen is not good enough and not able to make good the contract? What was the need to amend offset guidelines with retrospective effect?". Responding to the query, the official said if selection of offset partner is not valid, then Dassault would run the risk of the government not accepting its decision on the offset partner and a penalty can also be imposed. Bhushan, appearing on behalf of himself and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, alleged that the government was hiding behind the secrecy clause. Advocates M L Sharma, Vineet Dhanda and Dheeraj Singh, counsel for AAP MP Sanjay Singh, who have also filed petitions in the case, also advanced their arguments. 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 Indian Air Force equipment. The estimated cost of the deal is Rs 58,000 crore. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.

Rafale deal: Supreme Court says it needs to decide if pricing details should be made public

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/isro-to-launch-gsat-29-shortly-satellite-to-meet-communication-needs-of-remote-areas-177320">ISRO launches India's heaviest rocket, satellite on board will boost communication in Northeast, J&amp;K</a>

India's heaviest rocket the GSLV-MkIII-D2 blasted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Prades carrying the communication satellite GSAT-29 on board. The satellite will boost communications in remote areas.&nbsp;

According to the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the GSLV-MkIII stands 43.4 metres tall and weighs 640 tonnes.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lanka-rajapaksa-deputies-say-he-will-stay-in-office-177314">Sri Lanka: Rajapaksa deputies say he will stay in office despite losing trust vote</a>

Sri Lanka's parliament passed a no-confidence motion against newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on Wednesday, presenting a standoff with the opposition and throwing the country deeper into turmoil.

Deputies from Rajapaksa's party rejected the voice vote as illegal, saying it wasn't scheduled and that the pro-China former strongman would remain in office.

It wasn't immediately clear what President Maithripala Sirisena, who triggered the crisis by firing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and naming Rajapaksa to the job last month, would do now.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-terror-attacks-finally-lead-back-to-single-source-modi-to-us-vp-mike-pence-177357">All terror attacks finally lead back to 'single source': Modi to US VP Mike Pence</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday told US Vice President Mike Pence that all the traces and all the leads in the global terror attacks ultimately leads to a "single source and single place of origin", in an apparent reference to Pakistan.

Modi, who held talks with Pence on a wide range of bilateral and global issues of mutual interests on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit here, also expressed concern over the participation of terrorists in the elections in Pakistan.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/deepika-padukone-and-ranveer-singh-are-now-officially-married-reports-177328">Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh are now married: Reports</a>

It's finally happened. Bollywood's favourite couple- Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh- are officially married. The couple tied the knot in a traditional Konkani ceremony on Wednesday morning at Lake Como, Italy.&nbsp;

According to media reports, the wedding began at 9 am in the morning. The ceremony was strictly a private one with only close friends and relatives in attendance. No mobile phones were allowed at the venue.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rafale-deal-supreme-court-reserves-judgement-on-petitions-seeking-court-monitored-probe-177339">Rafale deal: SC reserves judgement on petitions seeking court-monitored probe</a>

After a four-hour long hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement Wednesday on the clutch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the Rafale deal.&nbsp;

The government’s response to the Supreme Court — the court had asked for pricing and decision-making details of the deal — met with fiery questions from the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the procurement of the 36 Rafale jets was announced first and negotiations held later, when it should have been the other way round.&nbsp;

Questions about the pricing of the jets dominated the day's discourse with the petitioners quizzing the Centre about having provided the details twice in parliament but not to them.

ISRO launches India's heaviest rocket, satellite on board will boost communication in Northeast, J&K India's heaviest rocket the GSLV-MkIII-D2 blasted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Prades carrying the communication satellite GSAT-29 on board.

ISRO launches India's heaviest rocket, satellite on board will boost communication in Northeast, J&K India's heaviest rocket the GSLV-MkIII-D2 blasted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Prades carrying the communication satellite GSAT-29 on board. The satellite will boost communications in remote areas. According to the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the GSLV-MkIII stands 43.4 metres tall and weighs 640 tonnes. Sri Lanka: Rajapaksa deputies say he will stay in office despite losing trust vote Sri Lanka's parliament passed a no-confidence motion against newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on Wednesday, presenting a standoff with the opposition and throwing the country deeper into turmoil. Deputies from Rajapaksa's party rejected the voice vote as illegal, saying it wasn't scheduled and that the pro-China former strongman would remain in office. It wasn't immediately clear what President Maithripala Sirisena, who triggered the crisis by firing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and naming Rajapaksa to the job last month, would do now. All terror attacks finally lead back to 'single source': Modi to US VP Mike Pence Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday told US Vice President Mike Pence that all the traces and all the leads in the global terror attacks ultimately leads to a "single source and single place of origin", in an apparent reference to Pakistan. Modi, who held talks with Pence on a wide range of bilateral and global issues of mutual interests on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit here, also expressed concern over the participation of terrorists in the elections in Pakistan. Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh are now married: Reports It's finally happened. Bollywood's favourite couple- Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh- are officially married. The couple tied the knot in a traditional Konkani ceremony on Wednesday morning at Lake Como, Italy. According to media reports, the wedding began at 9 am in the morning. The ceremony was strictly a private one with only close friends and relatives in attendance. No mobile phones were allowed at the venue. Rafale deal: SC reserves judgement on petitions seeking court-monitored probe After a four-hour long hearing, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement Wednesday on the clutch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the Rafale deal. The government’s response to the Supreme Court — the court had asked for pricing and decision-making details of the deal — met with fiery questions from the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that the procurement of the 36 Rafale jets was announced first and negotiations held later, when it should have been the other way round. Questions about the pricing of the jets dominated the day's discourse with the petitioners quizzing the Centre about having provided the details twice in parliament but not to them.

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